Volume 610 Week 32 - Wednesday 6 August 2003 
Volume 610 Week 32 - Wednesday 6 August 2003 
[Volume:610;Page:7633] 
Wednesday 6 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that the Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Points of Order 
Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting that the Privileges Committee report has now been tabled and having had a look at it and being aware of its contents and also being in possession of a fax transmission to you yesterday from Crown Law in which the Solicitor-General has stated as point 15 that his conclusion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not received any fax from anyone. I can tell the member that I have not received a fax. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is in a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a new point of order. Given your statement that you have not received the fax that was sent yesterday to the Clerk of the House are you telling us that the Clerk has not passed it on? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was sent to him on behalf of the Privileges Committee; it was not sent to me. So would the member please restate what he is saying. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The point is that there is now a Privileges Committee report on the Table. We know that in that report there is a reference to the Solicitor-General’s comment—point 15—that states the conclusion is that section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act is unambiguous and that as a result of Mr Duynhoven filing his completed application on 11 June 2003 it meant that his seat became vacant. Section 129(1) of that Act states that the Speaker must declare the seat vacant as soon as he knows that that is the determination by the relevant authorities. It seems clear that that is what has happened here. 
I have looked through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and cannot see a time when any Speaker has ruled that although something is generally known to be a fact by the public the Speaker himself or herself does not yet know it. We get into a rather difficult situation particularly if we look at  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 written by David McGee which states that the House and its members are subject to the law of the land as promulgated by Parliament in the same way as everyone else in the State and that they must comply with any statute that applies to the House’s proceedings notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House to the contrary. 
I think that today we are straying dangerously into the territory of using the practice of the House to circumvent the law. That is a little bit of a concern. It would be unfortunate if the office of the Speaker were to be in any way drawn into the ambit of what a Government wants and prefers. We have seen the device of the Privileges Committee used for consideration of a matter that really in many people’s view should not have gone there in the first place because it was so patently clear-cut that there had been a breach of the law and there was a vacancy in the seat concerned. Our question is this: when do you intend to declare the seat to be vacant now that it must be obvious to all of New Zealand that you know that such advice has been tendered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I ruled on this matter on 23 July I said: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” Following the presentation of a report by the Privileges Committee the report is set down for consideration as general business. This means that the report will be on the Order Paper for debate next sitting day after questions and any urgent debate. I refer members to Standing Order 63. When that debate has been held I will take any action that I consider needs to be taken in accordance with the Electoral Act. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Maybe you can help the House a bit further in this regard. I read from the Privileges Committee report—thanks to Mr Brownlee we know that this is the advice of the Solicitor-General— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are starting to debate the privileges issue. The report has been tabled but this has to be a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The report states that the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s seat became vacant on 11 June 2003 under section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. It seems clear to me that the Privileges Committee has stated that the Hon Harry Duynhoven has gone. My question to you is this: why has he not gone? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance as I said before. I quote what I said on 23 July: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” Committees can make recommendations; the House makes decisions. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You referred to Standing Order 63 which sets out an order for general business. I note Standing Order 63(1)(6) states “Consideration of reports of the Privileges Committee.” and Standing Order 63(2) goes on to state “General business is held at 2 p.m. on each sitting day.” But this report was tabled earlier than 2 p.m. So it seems to me that going by Standing Order 63 you are required to deal with it at 2 p.m. today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member does not know the Standing Orders. It is put down on the Order Paper for the following sitting day. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this matter should be cleared up. There seems to be some confusion as to what has happened in terms of the procedure. As I understand it the matter was referred to the Privileges Committee to hear evidence as to whether the law affects Mr Duynhoven’s right to be here. That is very very clear. The second thing is that the House has to decide what it makes of the evidence presented to it by the Privileges Committee. That process is yet to be entered into. That being the case there is the fact that for a brief moment you will have to make a decision before the legislation is presumably passed to rectify this matter. I think the points of order thus far raised are erroneous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the contribution from Mr Peters the first point I make is that the deliberations of the Privileges Committee on this matter are not particularly relevant. The Solicitor-General has made it clear that there was a breach of the Act on 11 June 2003 and the seat became vacant. Are we now saying that the Privileges Committee is a body that can determine whether or not a ruling from the Solicitor-General is reasonable is fair and should be acted upon? If we are we would like you to reconsider a letter that you received from the Hon Nick Smith. Once again I ask this question: since  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by David McGee makes it very clear that we cannot use the Standing Orders or the practice of Parliament to reach a position that is contrary to the law how can anyone who is watching this process conclude that we are doing anything other than just that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members will have a chance to debate that. The Solicitor-General however eminent does not rule Parliament; the Speaker does. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Speaker. I thank you for that last point and I thank my colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his explication of the process but you are quite right: it is you who decides that a vacancy exists. I am afraid—and I want to put this in as nice a way as I can—that it looks as though the Speaker is waiting for the Government legislation before he decides whether a vacancy exists. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had two interjections from one member. Yesterday I threw members out for doing precisely that. I warn members that there are to be no interjections during points of order at all. I want to hear what Mr Hide has to say; he has a perfect right to be heard. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for that. The situation is that it has been your job—not that of the House—since 2002 to decide whether a vacancy exists. The Solicitor-General has advised that a vacancy has existed since 11 June. The Privileges Committee to which you referred the matter has confirmed that view by a majority. It seems to me that it is not the House’s job but yours to decide that and it seems to us on the Opposition side of the House that you are awaiting legislation before you rule in order to protect a member from the forces of the law. That has to be wrong and I ask you when you will decide a vacancy exists because that is not a matter for the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am waiting for the House to debate the report of the Privileges Committee which is a perfectly reasonable step and one which I announced on 23 July. When the House comes to a decision I will then most certainly act. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise the issue as to why you would wait for the House to decide that. It is clear from the report that was tabled today that the majority of the members of the Privileges Committee believe that a vacancy has occurred. There could be two reasons to wait for the House to discuss that. One would be that the Government may well scrape up the numbers to overturn the Privileges Committee’s determination. If that is the case are you telling us that you would be guided by that vote rather than by the determination of the Privileges Committee? The other reason to wait would be that you—like everybody else here—know the Government will introduce retrospective legislation so that by the time Privileges Committee’s report comes to be discussed it will be redundant. If it is the second reason it starts to look dangerously as though the Speaker is being drawn into the political manoeuvrings of the Cabinet. I think that it is a very bad place for the Speaker and for this Parliament to be. You were not required to refer this case to the Privileges Committee. Having done so and having received its report and made it public it is beyond comprehension that you would wait and risk being seen to be complicit in Government manoeuvrings. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is worthwhile to remind ourselves how this issue actually arose. It arose because the Hon Harry Duynhoven wrote to you Mr Speaker raising a matter of privilege and you ruled that a matter of privilege was involved. This House drawing upon a very long tradition has always been involved when matters of that sort are raised. That dates back at least to the Wilkes cases of the early 1760s in terms of Parliament having a right to have a say in its own membership. That is clear. You stated at the time that a matter of privilege was involved and that you would listen to the advice from the committee and from the House. The committee of course is not determinative of the House’s position; only the House can be determinative of that. You have determined that you will wait for that advice but then the decision is yours and yours alone. 
 I also recall that I was asked by the Hon Richard Prebble whether the Government would give a guarantee that it would not introduce any legislation until after the Privileges Committee had considered this matter and I gave that undertaking. I can conclude from that only that Mr Prebble was seeking an assurance that the Government would not legislate until the Privileges Committee had considered the matter and that it was therefore perfectly appropriate for the Government to do so once the committee had considered the matter even if one opposed the legislation. I make it quite clear that had that not been the case the Government would have legislated last week. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The problem with Mr Prebble’s request to the Government was that he did not ask the Government to give an assurance that it would not legislate before the House had considered the report. I am afraid that that was an omission on his part. But the real issue that concerns me Mr Speaker is the suggestion that you should make up your mind according to the Solicitor-General’s legal opinion. I want to give you two reasons that you should not consider that as a final arbiter of the correct course to take. I will give you references to the cases. They are the wine-box case and the Quality Inn affair in which the Solicitor-General—though he might sit in the Court of Appeal today—was demonstrably wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have got to the point where I think we are going over the same ground again. The Speaker will always give every leeway to a member before taking the drastic step of declaring a seat to be vacant—no matter who the member is. In a doubtful case that will involve consideration by the Privileges Committee and by the House. That is what I did on 23 July. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to the comments made by a number of members with regard to this issue and in particular to the concern that was expressed by the Hon Roger Sowry and others in respect of the interpretation that may be put upon the fact that we are to debate the report on the next sitting day and that you will delay your decision in the meantime until that debate has taken place. Therefore the possible interpretation by some is that you may be waiting until the Government seeks time to pass legislation to suspend the Electoral Act in order to change the law in whatever way the Government wishes to in the bill that it will bring in. We have not seen that bill yet. I wonder whether it is appropriate for us therefore—so that we do not put you in a position where it could be seen that you are perhaps at risk in that regard—to have the debate pretty much immediately so that the House can debate the report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You can seek leave to do that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am just about to do so but I wanted to explain why that is. If we debate the report that would therefore enable you to make your decision without any bias and without the complication of any pending legislation. Accordingly I seek leave for the debate on the Privileges Committee’s report to be held immediately after question time has concluded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I am getting to the point now where I want to move on. The points of order are becoming repetitious. However to be fair to Dr Smith I note that he has not had a point of order. I will allow him one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek an explanation in the light of your comments and ruling on this matter that you will treat all members on the same basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I wrote to you in respect of a question about whether I had broken the law and asked for a Privileges Committee hearing with regard to the actions of the Solicitor-General. You advised that the Privileges Committee could not hear the matter because the issue of whether or not I had broken the law was nothing to do with the Privileges Committee. I seek an explanation of why when it comes to Mr Duynhoven and a suggestion that he has broken the law suddenly there is a Privileges Committee hearing and we are going down a very different course of action. It seems that there are two different standards for members in this House when it comes to the deliberations of the Privileges Committee and to your rulings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there are not. Mr Duynhoven has not broken any law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your indication of exactly what your role will be following the debate that you wish to have. The indication is that you want to have the benefit of and be guided by the report of the committee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The House debate is hardly likely to add anything more than a series of opinions based on the political interests of those in this House. The Privileges Committee is the most neutral body we have and even it is not neutral. It has the advice of the highest law officer. I think the House deserves to know whether if the House did decide one way or another after a debate you would take the House’s decision as binding; if so in what way would that relate to the breach of the law that I believe has been established? It is only sophistry that says there is no breach. How can the standing of the Chair as an apolitical figure be maintained in the face of your apparent indication that you want to wait until the House directs by majority? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that I will be guided by what the House says but in the end I will determine based on the law whether a seat has become vacant. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House heard you very emphatically state that Mr Duynhoven has not broken the law. The question that arises immediately is why then the matter he brought to you was referred to the Privileges Committee if in fact you are telling us that you are not at the moment moved by its decision and yet you are so emphatic that he has not broken the law. It seems incongruous that you would think he had not broken the law but would still send the matter to the Privileges Committee. Secondly do we take it from that that you have determined that Dr Nick Smith has broken the law and is therefore not allowed to have his case heard by the Privileges Committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I said that privilege matters do not necessarily involve a breach of the law. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That point clearly shows why it is important to have some time between the report being tabled and people attempting to debate it because if people had actually read the report and read the evidence that was given from both the Solicitor-General and indeed—talking to their colleagues the members of the committee—the Clerk of the House they would know that the situation is whether a vacancy has occurred through an action. The taking of the action itself is not an illegal action. There is no breach of the law if a vacancy occurs and the member should understand that if he bothers to read the report properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will be brief and I assure you that this will be my last point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Hallelujah! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I remember when I got thrown out for doing that to Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want Mr Peters to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise to Mr Hide. I am very sorry for doing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is an important issue and I want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The member is lucky I am not going to push it—he can stay. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do not push your luck. Carry on with the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
:The situation is this. I cannot say that I have read the whole report—we got it only at 1 o’clock—but I have read the conclusions and the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Duynhoven is in clear breach of the law. The seat became vacant on 11 June. So Mr Duynhoven is outside the law and we understand that the Government is proposing legislation to put him back inside the law retrospectively. We also understand from the law that since 2002 you have had a statutory duty in such circumstances to declare the seat vacant. My question to you is whether you will not exercise that duty until some legislation has been prepared and how come you yourself are not following the law in terms of the Electoral Act? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point is that this is a matter for debate. Consideration of the report is set down for the next sitting day so that members can first read the report. I repeat what I said on 23 July: I will be guided in my actions by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to move on now. We have been discussing this for 20 minutes and I think that is a reasonable go. It must be some new point of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It arises directly out of your statements. You said that Mr Duynhoven has not broken the law. The Privileges Committee has stated in a report which has been tabled today that based on the advice of the Solicitor-General there is a breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act. That is the breach of the law that engages you. The concern is this: your statement gives rise to the view that you do not think that there is a breach of the law—that is a breach of the Electoral Act by Mr Duynhoven—and we on this side of the House then think that you therefore must have prejudged the situation. I would suggest Mr Speaker you need to reassure this side of the House that that has not occurred given the clear finding of the Privileges Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to give the members of this House an absolute assurance that every step I have taken has been after the fullest possible consideration with my adviser whom I regard as the best of any in the world and the most unbiased person whom I could ever get reports from. This reference to the Privileges Committee is not based on a breach of the law; it is about whether a seat is vacant. A seat can become vacant without any breach. 
Questions to Ministers 
Rates—Auckland Regional Council 
1. DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Following her advice yesterday that “Rates are one of the things that affect all of our choices about where we live” and that she regrets the choices that rate hikes have forced some Auckland ratepayers to make what choices was she talking about for the Aucklanders who can’t afford to pay their rates that are due today? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 Aucklanders living in Rodney or North Shore City who believe they cannot afford to pay their rates should contact the Auckland Regional Council today. Their options include arranging to pay their rates in 10 instalments. The Auckland Regional Council also has provision for people in extreme financial hardship to have their rates payments postponed. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: What advice does she have for Mrs Janie Farquharson who is an 88-year-old widow with a blind 63-year-old son now that the rates bill on her home of 64 years has hit $8589 a year up $1400 from last year and who has been told that if she cannot pay it she should move; and where exactly does the Minister think Mrs Farquharson should move to? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The regional council advised me that only 5 percent of Auckland residential ratepayers will pay more than $500 a year for regional council rates including GST. I would suggest that anyone in a very highly priced property—and the estimate I have is that property with the rates quoted would probably be worth over $3 million—should ask family and financial and legal advisers how they can arrange their affairs so that they can pay the rates that are due. 
David Parker 
: Did she suggest that Aucklanders should move out of Auckland? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No I have never proposed that. As a passionate Aucklander born and bred in Auckland I truly believe that Auckland is the best place in the world to live. However one of the things that is causing problems for Aucklanders and for people who want to work there to have businesses there and to live there is the lack of infrastructure and that must be paid for. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would she agree that even though there are no rail tracks to the North Shore 88-year-old Mrs Farquharson and her 63-year-old blind son are subsidising through their Auckland Regional Council rates rail passengers at a rate of $9.30 per passenger movement; and does the Minister stand by her words yesterday that: “the rail network upgrade is affordable sustainable efficient and user-friendly”? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: My words were that that is what we are working towards. We are also working towards a transport system that is integrated. Ratepayers residents and people in business throughout New Zealand will benefit from good transport including rail roads ferries buses and trains. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister tell the House how she sees herself as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues; does she see herself as the Minister who must advocate for imposing rate rises and what have you on Aucklanders or does she see herself as I would see her as the Minister who must fight for Aucklanders on the whole range of issues? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I take that compliment very sincerely. I do believe that Auckland has to have the infrastructure it needs to serve Auckland and New Zealand. The problems of infrastructure in Auckland are seen as a barrier to New Zealand’s present and future prosperity. We must find a way with taxpayers ratepayers and users so that we can afford the infrastructure that every New Zealander needs for the sort of future we are all working for. 
Mike Ward 
: Is the Minister not concerned that the funding of the eminently sensible improvements to Auckland’s public transport system is to be done by the highly questionable shifting of the rates burden from the business sector and the rich to the poorer homeowners via a uniform annual charge and has the Minister got any measures up her sleeve to address that issue? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: That is entirely a matter for political debate in Auckland. That is what the Local Government Act 2002 gives local authorities the power to debate. I understand that over 600 of the 420000-odd ratepayers did make submissions to the Auckland Regional Council. I hope this is an indication that Aucklanders will get involved in what the real issues are. And it is a political debate. 
Paul Adams 
: How can the Minister possibly reconcile her view expressed yesterday that Aucklanders and the rest of the country are now paying to meet the city’s transport needs through petrol tax with the fact that only half of the tax collected actually goes towards roading? Given this is she lobbying Cabinet for the percentage of funding allocated by Transfund for local roads to be increased from the present 27 percent maximum to 80 percent; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Any money taken out of the consolidated account that goes to things like health education and policing has to be made up some other way. Right now we are not actually paying for the roads and the transport services we need. It is not a matter of finding money out of thin air; New Zealanders one way or another are going to have to pay. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister understand that one of the principal causes of infrastructural pressure in Auckland is that every year her Government is imposing upon it the population of Rotorua 
from abroad hence driving up costs and rates; and what reports has she submitted to her Cabinet colleagues on that if any report at all? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I understand that a significant proportion of the people coming to Auckland are in fact from the rest of New Zealand. If we do not provide good infrastructure across the whole of New Zealand that pressure will go on. Excluding anyone is not the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I pointed out to the Minister that she and her colleagues are imposing on Auckland the population of Rotorua every year from abroad in addition to anyone from around the rest of the country. I am talking about immigration which does not include somebody from Invercargill or Kaitaia. Would she please address my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the Minister could just touch on that point. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think there are many reports which Cabinet has seen showing that immigration at worst has an equal effect economically and at best brings prosperity to New Zealand. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister agree with her colleague the Hon Chris Carter that the new Local Government Act 2002 gave ratepayers like Mrs Farquharson and her son “more opportunity to have their say in what their local city district or regional councils do” and that the new Act will “make it harder for councils to increase rates without good reason.”; if so why are Auckland ratepayers in revolt? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes I do agree. I have rung the North Shore Citizens Advice Bureau and it has told me that no one has complained of an inability to pay his or her rates. The bureau has had inquiries from people wanting to join the rates revolt. However that is a matter for Auckland. In the end this has been well advertised. The Auckland regional growth strategy stated that this infrastructure was necessary. The regional land transport strategy has been reviewed every 3 years and indicates that this transport infrastructure is necessary. Business has been calling for it and Auckland has been calling for it. I am sorry that people are upset but in the end this is a democratic decision that Auckland local authorities have made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given the Minister’s answer that business the general population and the whole of the Auckland community have been calling on the Government to do something will she now admit that all that the Government has done is to invest in a rail system that is dilapidated and seriously lacking in its own infrastructure and that the cost is simply being foisted on to ratepayers like Mrs Farquharson and will be so for some years to come? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: We have had some complaints from people around New Zealand who are paying more through petrol tax to maintain transport services around New Zealand and to help Auckland deliver better services. We have to invest in the dilapidated railway system because right now that is all we have got. If we want a better one then we have to pay for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many interjections. I do not want to forbid them all together as I am entitled to do. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give us her opinion on whether she thinks it is fairer and more appropriate for Auckland ratepayers to pay for transport rather than money being used that is collected in petrol tax and goes into the consolidated account? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Government has made a vastly increased contribution to roads and to public transport in Auckland. For the first time we are making sure that Auckland gets its share of the Transfund capital funding. We are now putting nearly three times as much into public transport. We paid $80 million for rail access rights. The Government and the rest of New Zealand have made a huge contribution. Aucklanders have repeatedly said through their leaders that Auckland must help. I do not think it is fair that elderly people are forced to pay vastly more. I think it could have been stepped in in a more progressive way but the regional council democratically arrived at a decision. It is not for Parliament to start to attack that decision. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister given any thought to improving her ability to listen to what Auckland ratepayers are saying given that she has told this House that on the basis of one phone call to the North Shore Citizens Advice Bureau she has concluded that ratepayers do not have a problem with their rates; and has she also given thought to making rates fairer by capping the rate of increase that can occur in any one year? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The member could bring in a member’s bill to suggest that. I understand that Dr Brash ruled that out at a meeting on the North Shore last week so I do not know how much support he would get. But fundamentally the level of rates determines the level of infrastructure. We are saying that that is a local decision that needs to be made democratically and locally. I suggest to the member who was inquiring that if he had been to the number of meetings that I have been to in Auckland and had talked to the number of people whom I have talked to he would be aware— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We didn’t see you in Rodney. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No because I was at a Ministers meeting in Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer was far too long. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am concerned that I was quoted as ruling out last week any change to cap local authority rates. I did not suggest that I was opposed to that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s word will be accepted. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am following this up because the pattern has already been broken by a point of order. I think that was a bit unfortunate; the Minister’s hearing is very bad from that meeting Also I would like to point out that I do have a member’s bill and she will be given the opportunity to vote for some justice for a change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just making a debating point. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does she have any sympathy for the plight of Mrs Farquharson who told me this morning that the only way she would be leaving her family home of 64 years was feet first; and does this Minister stand by her advice which despite her denials was given in this House yesterday that people like Mrs Farquharson should pay up or move out? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: That is not what I said yesterday. I have deep sympathy for Mrs Farquharson. I too have a passion for my garden. Everybody makes decisions about where they live in terms of what they can afford. I feel really sorry for her. I feel sorry for a lot of my elderly neighbours in Ponsonby who are in very very highly priced properties. They need good advice and they need to act on it. I am sorry that there is nothing this Parliament or this Government can do when we are addressing Auckland’s infrastructure needs to deal with that. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In the light of that answer does she agree that one of the rate payment options that Mrs Farquharson has is to mortgage her house to the North Shore City Council which Mrs Farquharson told me this morning the council has advised her to do and what is it about her Government that it expects retired great-grandmothers to remortgage their homes to pay these rates? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The regional council advised me that anyone paying the rates that are being quoted would have a property worth in excess of $3 million. I think that Mrs Farquharson and others like her have many more choices than some other people who live in Auckland have. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table a media statement by the Hon Chris Carter on 30 June 2003 which states that the Local Government Act 2002 will make it harder for councils to increase rates without good reason. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Homeownership—Government Initiatives  
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What pilot initiatives is the Government supporting to assist more families to achieve homeownership? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Last Friday the Government announced a 2-year trial initiative with Kiwibank to make homeownership easier for modest-income households. The $5.3 million trial will assist about 1800 families into homeownership. This is a pilot but it extends good opportunities to families to borrow outside the normal lending criteria. If it is successful we will look at expanding the programme. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Who will be assisted by the mortgage insurance trial? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The programme should attract first-home buyers on a modest income with little or no deposit multiple-income households such as extended-family households second-chance buyers such as those who have suffered a relationship breakdown and State-house tenants paying a market rent who wish to buy a home. Housing New Zealand Corporation will be writing to market-rent tenants next week to gauge their level of interest in the programme. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does the Minister explain the inconsistency of his housing policy which bans State-house tenants from buying their homes but allows families with $100000 of income to be able to get a subsidised or mortgage-guaranteed loan and why would the Minister not allow State tenants to buy their homes recirculate that capital and get the waiting list down? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We do not have many houses left to sell after the National Party sold 13000 of them. But we now want to offer some of those people who are at a market-rate level the opportunity to move out and buy a house and then we can rent to somebody else. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does he think that giving people low-deposit home loans will make much difference to those really in need of housing when in many urban areas where work is likely to be available repayments will be prohibitive because of the high cost of purchase? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do think it will make a difference. What we are doing here is offering the opportunity to buy a house up to $280000. People who come into the programme will have to of course have the ability to repay the loan. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has been the reaction to the mortgage insurance trial? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The reaction has been very very good indeed. For example the mortgage broker Mike Pero has said: “Good on them. It’s a positive move and will certainly help those who couldn’t otherwise get a loan from the bank.” And perhaps another gauge is that 4300 calls were made in one day to Kiwibank when this programme was announced. 
Immigration—Adverse Impacts 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the Government spending on managing any adverse impacts of immigration and has she received any reports from the Minister of Police about the costs of immigration he has to contemplate? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The 2003-04 component of Vote Immigration allocated to managing the adverse impacts of immigration is $21 million—around 15 percent of the total allocation. I have not received any specific reports from the Minister of Police on effects that adverse impacts of immigration may have on Vote Police expenditure although given that we have budgeted for increased removal activity where these are not voluntary departures it will result in the use of police resources as immigration officers do not have the power of arrest; nor do they have the power of strip search as some of our media seem to think. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister has raised the issue of the media why was the report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 5 August reciting that $54 million a year is the figure she gave in respect of managing the adverse effects not $21 million as she just said; and does she not read newspapers such as the  
New Zealand Herald  
“Weekend Herald” which sets out a police suggestion of a migrant back-up force in Auckland because they cannot cope with migrant crime? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I cannot understand why the  
Sunday Star-Times  
contained that particular figure unless and I assume the reporter was referring to last year’s figures which would then show it to be accurate. We have changed the way we allocate expenditure around managing adverse impacts of immigration which would have been quite clear to an individual. However I do note given the rest of the article that as the article was written before I was interviewed I am not surprised. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister advise whether adverse consequences of immigration include the risk of people presenting false documentation and whether the increased budget is intended to improve both verification and enforcement action? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the total budget has been designed to improve the Immigration Service’s ability to verify documents although that is now not in the adverse impact section of the vote and also to make appropriate investigations to ensure enforcement where false documents have been presented. Criminal charges are of course laid by the police and it is not just the Immigration Service that is susceptible to document fraud. An  
Assignment  
programme last year referred to a scam that related to false Inland Revenue Department certificates being obtained for education purposes. I am advised that the police investigation that was already under way has now resulted in four successful prosecutions of the people involved two of whom have already been deported from New Zealand after serving prison sentences. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister capable of doing some simple calculations: a report elicited under the Official Information Act from her department shows that 44 percent of the $124 million of the immigration budget is spent on the consequences of immigration flows on infrastructure laws and policies—and how does $21 million become 44 percent of $124 million which is a global figure which is all in her document; and second why is she paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to detain asylum seekers every week by way of a weekly allowance when poor old Joe Bloggs burglar from New Zealand does not get a cent? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I explained 2002-03 was the first year of outcome-based accounting in Vote Immigration. When the service was allocating activities to sub-outcomes all risk management activities such as application verification within the visa and permits management output class were counted in the activities undertaken to minimise adverse impacts of immigration. That no longer occurs because risk management is now considered an integrated part of interaction with customers. As to the second question—and it was clear from the article that obviously I was interviewed after it was written—the $3 a day allowance is paid for toiletries and for the necessities of life. If that member thinks that we would keep somebody in detention without enabling him or her to buy toothpaste toothbrush and soap for goodness’ sake I do not think that anyone would accept that that was a fair and reasonable situation. That is not a new allowance paid. It was simply allocated from a different budget as is clear from the article. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave of the House to table a simple supermarket account that shows that if one is buying a toothbrush toothpaste and soap it will not cost one anything like $21 a week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Public Access 
4.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What proportion of New Zealand’s foreshore is either in private hands or subject to other restrictions on public access? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Based on initial advice drawn from the work done by Land Information New Zealand so far I can tell the member that there is public access as of right to approximately two-thirds of the New Zealand coast through roads and reserves. Public access over the remaining one-third is potentially restricted due to private ownership or other restrictions. 
Metiria Turei 
: What proportion of the remaining one-third of land described by the Minister that is not open to public access but suffers restricted access is held in Maori customary title? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have not received any definitive advice on that issue but I can tell the member that based on the information I have seen thus far it is clear that less than 10 percent of the land in question is held by Maori. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting solutions to that issue and is he planning to adopt or incorporate those ideas into Government policy? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes I have seen a range of ideas and suggestions including suggestions from the Hon Bill English to legislate for public ownership of private property through to suggestions from Dr Wayne Mapp who states that “Obviously pre-existing freehold title must be protected by law like mine.”— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Both Mr Mapp and Mr English are clearly on the public record as saying that it is the public foreshore and seabed for which title should be confirmed by legislation. The member is deliberately misleading the House as to their statements which are clearly on the public record. It is not for a Minister of the Government to say what might be the policy but I would be happy to table the statements from both Mr English and Mr Mapp. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot say that anyone is deliberately misleading the House. He will stand and withdraw that comment. 
Opposition Member 
: Why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand and withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot say that anyone is deliberately misleading the House. That is a suggestion that a person is telling a lie and that has been ruled out as long as I have been in this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still on my feet. Secondly I want the Minister to answer the question that he was asked. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Government has indicated that it will more than likely follow the suggestion made by Dr Wayne Mapp as opposed to the suggestion of his leader. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that: “significant chunks of the foreshore”—not the Queen’s chain the foreshore—have private ownership title and that we are talking thousands and not hundreds of kilometres of private title to the foreshore? If he does stand by that when will he deliver the proof to back up that claim? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Given the preliminary work done and given the fact that it is a hugely complex issue I stand by those statements. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports from his Maori colleagues in the Labour Party caucus namely the Maori colleagues who promised the Maori people the earth before the election—and the seabed and the foreshore—and they will now see themselves losing their riparian rights which they have owned for a thousand years; and what sort of representation is that? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given this Minister’s commitment to upholding the property rights of Maori will he rule out being a member of any Cabinet that moves to legislate away the private property rights of all New Zealanders; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member can rest assured that if any Government can fix this one we will. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that last answer can the Minister indicate what steps he is taking to ensure that all New Zealanders will continue to have access and freedom to go and use the facilities of the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: This is an issue that is deeply felt by Kiwis and we want to get it right. We have already said that the existing rights of Kiwis to take their babies down to have a barbie at the beach will be safeguarded. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does he reconcile his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that Maori could get some type of title to the foreshore with the statement made by Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark 4 weeks ago that the Government would legislate for Crown ownership of the foreshore? Which statement represents Government policy? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As a Government and as a Cabinet we can reconcile these matters. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just been reflecting on that too. Could the Minister expand on that just a little please? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There are work plans and work streams under way and the Government will make announcements in due course. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked how statements could be reconciled. I presume that he addressed that question when he said there were plans under way to do so. That perfectly addressed that question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest that the introduction of a concept of stewardship which is similar to the Maori customary practice of kaitiakitanga could assist with the active protection of the conservation values of the foreshore for the benefit of both the environment and the New Zealand public? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Could the Minister advise the House which statement is correct: his statement yesterday that Maori could get some type of title to the foreshore or the statement made by Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark 4 weeks ago that the Government would legislate to ensure that title remained with the Crown? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: In all matters I would prefer the advice of the Prime Minister. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that highlight the need to deal with public access to the foreshore over both private land and Maori customary land at the same time and equally rather than treating Maori ownership as a lesser right than the rights of private owners? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have not seen any reports that opine in that way. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table two documents one by the leader of the National Party Mr Bill English and one by myself. Both those documents will show an identical position on the issue of Crown ownership— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That raises a very interesting situation. We have a statement made by a Minister which is now on the record that claims that two members of the National Party the Hon Bill English and Dr Wayne Mapp made a statement that appears according to the documentation that Mr Mapp has to be quite inaccurate. Mr Mapp sought leave to table the documents so that it could be corrected and leave has been refused. How do we now get around the situation of correcting those statements? It is very clear that Mr Mapp was talking about exclusive ownership by the Crown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Mapp’s statement to this House must be accepted by every member as must that of anybody else. Any member has the right to reject leave to table but no one has the right to object to what any member said. I clearly heard what Dr Mapp said. He is entitled to say that and I take his word on it. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court Applications 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Courts 
: How many applications for title to the foreshore and seabed are before the Maori Land Court and what is the total length of coastline being sought? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister for Courts 
: I am advised that there are 35 applications for foreshore and seabed before the Maori Land Court. It has not been possible in the time available to determine the total length of the coastline that those applications relate to. I will provide that information to the member as soon as it becomes available. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the number of claims has increased from 19 to 34 in just 4 days will this Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that those claims will not result in the issuing of exclusive title to the foreshore or seabed; if so does he agree that the claimants are wasting their time by claiming such exclusive title? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In response to the three questions I firstly make the point that there is no mystery in the change at all. The original question asked by Dr Nick Smith related to the number of claims that have been lodged by the registry since 19 June 2003. The subsequent question was about all claims which includes claims that had been lodged before that. There is no spooking about this at all. Secondly I am not going to make any comment on the nature of the claims. People have a right to lodge a claim before any court in this country on any matter they deem fit. They do not have a right to get the decision they wish. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is the Minister concerned at the number of applications for foreshore and seabed that are before the Maori Land Court? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No I do not have any concerns about the number of claims. This Government upholds the right of all New Zealanders to have access to justice and have their disputes resolved before the appropriate court. 
Stephen Franks 
: In the light of the answer to the last question when the Prime Minister bluntly told Maori that the Government would not satisfy claims upheld for oil and gas and a month or so later said much the same thing on the seabed and foreshore issue but has since started to fudge on the second issue only why the difference; and will the Minister repeat the Attorney-General’s assurance that there will not be privilege created over seabed and foreshore based on ethnic inheritance? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: On the comments of the Prime Minister I suggest that the member direct those questions to the Prime Minister. I repeat for his information that the Prime Minister answered yesterday that this is a complex issue and the Government’s views will be put out for consultation very shortly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister advise the House as to what there is to stop the Maori Land Court in any one of those 34 claims from issuing exclusive title; if he is not able to advise us as to there being anything to stop that how can the Government continue to guarantee public access to all those areas? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The answer to that is very clear. Yesterday the Prime Minister outlined to Parliament that the Government will be putting forward its proposals very shortly in a comprehensive document and the proposals will be resolved. The member can rest assured about that. I suggest he takes a little time and waits. All will be revealed. 
Employment—Jobs Jolt 
6.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What advice if any has he received which led him to claim that the recently announced Jobs Jolt initiatives will help employers facing skill shortages? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In late 2002 I requested advice from officials on proven initiatives to assist labour and skill shortages identified by employers and industry sectors. The initiatives chosen for Jobs Jolt result from that advice and from information gained in our many discussions with employers industry groups and unions. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister therefore concerned that attempts by recruitment agencies in Wellington to find out the details and extent of skill shortages in this region from Work and Income the Department of Labour and his own ministerial office have been unsuccessful; if so what does that mean for the success of the Jobs Jolt programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member can tell me the name of the firm I will give it the World Wide Web address where it can get all that information. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How will Jobs Jolt assist with the national skills shortage? 
Hon Member 
: The National skills shortage? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Working with a lower-case “n” I say that Jobs Jolt aims to increase the supply of labour including skilled labour and to provide opportunities for job seekers who now face the barriers of getting into the labour market. In the example of mature job seekers who are highly skilled and experienced Jobs Jolt will enable those people to be matched with job opportunities and skill shortages. In addition that will be supported by information for employers to address the areas in which they know they have shortages so they can get workers. 
Katherine Rich 
: With regard to the Minister’s earlier comments about his Jobs Jolt programme can he tell the House which section of his third-way manual contains references to removing a work-test exemption for those nearing retirement and can he explain why if he did want to talk tough on welfare it would not have been more useful to concentrate on the group most worrying to people—the under-25s? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The package does concentrate on the group of under-25s. We are work-testing people over 55 years of age and not over 50 as the member claimed last night. She does not know that people are work-tested from the age of 50 to 55 years at present so we are introducing a test here for those aged 55-plus among a range of things. I think it is chapter 13 of the third-way manual. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister give any assurance to our highly skilled experienced and willing-to-work people in the 55 to 59-year age group that they will not be subject to any further discrimination and humiliation for having to move away from their communities and families because employers in their own areas are not prepared to hire them; and can he give them an assurance that work in other regions will not result in exploitation—like that experienced by the Ukrainian farm workers down south who were supposedly filling skill shortages? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. 
Sue Bradford 
: What consultation if any took place with beneficiary groups or the Mayors Task Force for Jobs on the changes to the work-testing and sanctions regime announced in the Jobs Jolt programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No specific consultation on those two matters has taken place but as I have said before we have beneficiary advocates in twice a year for example to talk about every aspect of the benefit system and no other Government has done that. We talk frequently with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs on all aspects of our policy. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree with the view that the Jobs Jolt initiative comprises a “lurch to the right by the Government on welfare policy”; if so is it not about time? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that the member would be very encouraging if we were to move to the right but on this occasion we are developing a well-balanced package. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister inform the House of what no-go areas for beneficiaries have already been drawn up so that people can make sensible decisions if they are thinking of shifting in the near future; and what impact does he think designating no-go areas will have on business and property prices in those districts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Ministry of Social Development department Work and Income has what is called a remote area policy which is what I think the member is referring to. I am obviously willing to give that to the member or to any other member of the House who would like to have it. Members should remember that what we are talking about here is an attempt to ensure that people who shift from areas where there are jobs to areas where there are no jobs are encouraged to go to areas where they can get jobs. 
Judy Turner 
: In the light of the focus in the Jobs Jolt package on discouraging unemployed people from moving into regions with few available jobs what specific initiatives are being considered to make it easier for those already living in such areas to be made aware of jobs in other regions with labour shortages and if necessary to provide more assistance for their relocation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Job seekers in that situation would simply need to ask their case managers to advise them of job opportunities elsewhere and if there were suitable job opportunities money would be available to help them relocate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: In the light of the fact that 43 percent of businesses are having difficulty in finding skilled staff how specifically does the Government intend to engage and communicate with the business community to find out where its labour needs lie? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We do a number of things. For example on Friday I will be in Auckland talking at a skills and labour shortage forum. We are doing 13 of those large forums around the country. The Department of Labour has a range of survey techniques. The quarterly survey of business opinion is just out with more information and the Ministry of Social Development surveys around regions for skills shortages. I could go on but the time is short. 
Crime—Police Resourcing 
7.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he satisfied that sufficient front-line police staff are available to combat crime in New Zealand? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am generally pleased because we have provided so many more staff under a Labour-led Government. In fact since September 1999 we have achieved a 10 percent increase in staff and we now have more police than ever before. We are paying police more than before and we can contrast that with the fact that on 19 March 1998 police marched on Parliament for fairer pay when the Treasurer was Winston Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of that answer is not acceptable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear what he said or the way he said it. Could he perhaps repeat it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I heard what he said quite clearly. The last part of the answer was not necessary to render the answer acceptable. 
Ron Mark 
: If the Minister is so confident can he tell the House if there are adequate police on the streets at night patrolling in order to deter and/or catch criminals how is it then that a business situated a few metres from his own electorate office was recently ram-raided for the second time in 3 years causing over $20000 worth of damage; and is it simply as the locals are saying because there is no one out there to catch these people? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police use an intelligence-led theory now whereby staff are placed where they think they are needed. Of course crimes do happen and police do investigate them. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Could the Minister emphasise for the benefit of this House what strategies the police are developing to prioritise crime response? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Police districts are implementing intelligence-driven police responses. Priorities are crimes in progress crimes against the person and crimes with wider public implications. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that police currently spend around 300000 hours a year on cannabis offences which is the equivalent of about 150 sworn front-line officers and if he cannot confirm that how many hours do they spend on cannabis offences? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I cannot give the member the exact number but they are spending sufficient time to make sure that those who are breaking the law in using cannabis are caught. 
Ron Mark 
: Given the priorities he has stated and the work that he is doing can the Minister tell the House how many of the 51 burglaries reported between 23 and 29 June in his own electorate have been cleared; if he cannot answer is it simply because of his blatant disregard for the safety and security of the people who live in his own electorate and who put him in this House to do the job he is meant to be doing? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I can tell that member that the Counties-Manukau police are doing very well. They arrested a 33-year-old chap the other day who had committed several burglaries. I think the member will find that the police are now resolving more crime than ever before which is better than the rate of 29 percent from a decade ago. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in him as Minister of Police when police officers up and down the country are saying that he is the worst Minister in living memory and what is his response to suggestions that the best thing he could do for fighting crime in New Zealand is to resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: When people make up things like that they are dissatisfied in the job but I do not know many police like that because they have just got a pay rise which they will get for the next 3 years. This Government has given the police pay rises without the need for them to march on Parliament. They think I am a very good Minister. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a fax from Mr Craig Maxwell a gentleman in Manurewa in which he expresses his concerns about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table an article that specifies the number of burglaries that have been committed in the Manurewa electorate between 23 and 29 June. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I seek leave to table an article from the 
 Evening Post 
 dated 19 March 1998 when police marched on Parliament because they were dissatisfied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the proof of the police training numbers from 1998 which were the biggest in this country’s history when we in New Zealand First were in Government and when I was the Treasurer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
School Curriculum—Initiatives 
8.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he aware of any new initiatives to promote teamwork leadership and hard work as part of the school curriculum; if so what? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. Tomorrow I will be launching “The Hillary Challenge” which is an interactive online social studies programme for students in years 5 to 10. “The Hillary Challenge” retraces Sir Edmund’s quest to Mount Everest and encourages students to learn the skills and values he has demonstrated throughout his life—teamwork leadership hard work altruism and his love of adventure. 
Mark Peck 
: Why is it important to encourage the development of those skills within the school context? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Those skills are vital for unleashing the creative potential of tomorrow’s leaders. 
Immigration Service—Minister's Involvement 
9.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did she tell the House in relation to the New Zealand Immigration Service memorandum stating that there was an agreement to “lie in unison” “I would have had to be a party to such an agreement” and what steps are being taken to have an independent body fully investigate her involvement in this matter? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was simply referring to the fact that the commentary included in the media log stated that “All the others caved in”. I was the only person who spoke publicly about the matter so I made the assumption that I would have had to be included. I am awaiting the outcome of the investigations being undertaken by the Secretary of Labour—which will be publicly released—before considering whether any further steps should be taken. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the “we agreed to lie in unison” memo was apparently circulated to the entire senior management team at the Immigration Service apparently without challenge what does the Minister think that tells us about the culture in that organisation and can she tell us whether any member of her staff received or was aware of that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would say it suggests that not many people in the Immigration Service read the media log and no I am not aware of anyone in my office being on the receiving end of the media log. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has it crossed the Minister’s mind that a department whose spokesperson tells the Ombudsman that a memorandum he wrote does not exist and his general manager could not remember a memo asserting an agreement to “lie in unison” and now cannot remember when he briefed the Minister about giving details of the Tampa refugees to the police who in turn cannot now remember when she was briefed on the matter would seem to be a department that is prone to outbreaks of amnesia in unison and could the Minister tell us how she explains this sad state of affairs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sure that not everybody who received the media log actually read it. Having read the commentary that Mr Ian Smith sent out on 20 December it would suggest to him that not many people in the Immigration Service were interested in reading his throwaway lines. 
Conservation Week—Government Initiatives 
10.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to mark Conservation Week? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Sunday I opened the latest major addition to our public conservation lands—4000 hectares of north Canterbury high country described in the Christchurch  
Press 
 as “a slice of heaven”. The purchase of this area has protected the habitat of threatened native wildlife and opened up this exciting area for public recreation. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What priority if any has been given during this week to the protection of New Zealand’s historic heritage? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Historic heritage is a theme of this year’s Conservation Week. My department and the Historic Places Trust are holding over 170 public events celebrating our historic heritage. The Department of Conservation is the custodian of more than 12000 heritage sites half of which are Maori archaeological sites. Extra funding in this year’s Budget will enable it to protect our heritage better and some of the key sites are being showcased this week. 
Shane Ardern 
: As it is Conservation Week is the Minister celebrating our continual growth in biosecurity by giving New Zealand residency to yet another alien invader such as the scoliid wasp—as was announced by his department today? If the Minister is concerned about that new intrusion what is he going to do about it; if he is not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can assure that member that as Minister of Conservation I am very concerned about biosecurity. The Department of Conservation works actively with the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other agencies to address that question. 
Indonesia—Defence Force Assistance 
11.  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does the composition of the New Zealand Defence Force and their current commitment to deployments allow them to offer assistance to Indonesia in the aftermath of yesterday’s bombing in Jakarta; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. 
Simon Power 
: In light of the bombing yesterday in Jakarta does he agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that New Zealand exists in “an exceptionally benign strategic environment”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The environment in which we exist is clearly one that is ever-changing. That is why this Government has a constant rolling response to that environment. That is why we have committed many millions of dollars to the security of New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: On the issue of deployments by the New Zealand Defence Force what recent reports has he seen? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although our Defence Force is currently engaged at the highest operational tempo for two generations it continues to receive international accolades such as the Australian Meritorious Unit Citation recently received by the RNZAF’s No. 3 Squadron which was also named Helicopter Squadron of the Year for its outstanding achievements in East Timor. It is unfortunate that Opposition members cannot share in celebrating those successes and congratulating our people on a job well done. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister received or does he expect to receive any request for assistance from the Indonesian Government; if so what kind of assistance would he expect that to include? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No and no. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister currently taking any action to ensure that New Zealand’s defence forces are up to scratch for deployment in the event of such threats to the safety of New Zealanders in the Asia-Pacific region or will he simply continue with the Government’s existing policy described by the former Chief of Defence Force Air Marshal Carey Adamson as “penny-pinching” and “conducted on the run”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Time does not permit me to give a fulsome answer but I may do so later. Let me say that unlike that member’s party which was in Government for 9 years this Government has a defence policy framework a force structure framework and a long-term development plan to put in place the acquisitions that for 9 long years—as that member’s own colleague said—it did not do when in Government. 
Television New Zealand—Commercial Sponsorship of News 
12.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he have any concerns about Television New Zealand Limited considering commercial sponsorship of  
One News 
 especially in light of Television New Zealand Limited’s charter obligation to provide independent impartial and in-depth news and current affairs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 No. By law I am prevented from having any involvement in TVNZ’s gathering or presentation of news and current affairs. TVNZ has advised me that there are no plans for commercial sponsorship of  
One News 
. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware of any stories critical of Mitsubishi Motors that have aired on the  
Holmes 
 show since Mitsubishi Motors began to sponsor it and does he agree that conflict of interest issues that call into question the independence and impartiality of news and current affairs programmes are inevitable when corporates sponsor them; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I am not though I would have to confess that I do not watch the  
Holmes 
 show every single night of the week and yes I do agree that corporate sponsorship is inappropriate in news. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is Television New Zealand using any charter funding for news and current affairs programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware that Television New Zealand uses no charter money for news and current affairs. That is something that it fully agrees with itself—it wants to maintain complete impartiality. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the Minister’s statement that he agrees that there are conflict of interest issues and that it is inappropriate for corporates to sponsor news programmes does he agree that that also pertains to current affairs which the charter states must be equally independent and impartial and will he be calling for a review of all sponsorships of current affairs programmes in TVNZ? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not aware of any sponsorships in those areas. I am aware people advertise during that period of time but that is quite different. 
General Debates 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What a mess this Government is in. What an absolute shambles! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will start the member’s speech again. I do not want to have that sort of noise from interjections and I urge members to control themselves. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: What a mess this Government is in. What an absolute shambles! This Government is spinning out of control as it tries to combat the mess that it is making in a wide range of portfolios and tries to cover that up. Let me just run through a few of the issues today. 
I will start with the issue of the Maori claims before the Maori Land Court for ownership of the seabed and foreshore. The Prime Minister on day one came out and promised New Zealanders that she would be a leader of action and that Labour would legislate to ensure that ownership remained with the Crown. What has happened is that every hour of every day since the Prime Minister made that announcement there has been a little shuffle backwards. Every hour the Government has taken another little step backwards and New Zealanders do not trust this Government on the seabed and foreshore issue. That is why in the last 10 days over 63000 New Zealanders—63000—have signed National’s petition that opposes this Government giving away the ownership rights to the seabed. Sixty-three thousand New Zealanders have gone online and signed that petition because they can see this Government shuffling backwards on that particular issue. 
We have seen the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues in the House today. What a shambles she has created up in Auckland! There she is—she is the person who the Government said would fix Auckland’s problems and there she is today saying that because she made a call to the citizens advice bureau in Auckland and it reported that it had had no complaints about Auckland’s rates issue that issue was therefore not a problem. Does she not read the  
New Zealand Herald 
? This is reminiscent of the leaky homes issue which the Government said was a  
New Zealand Herald 
beat-up. Now we have the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues claiming that the Auckland rates issue is just another  
New Zealand Herald  
beat-up. 
And then there is the Minister of Immigration—well we have gone from a collective decision to lie in unison to a bit of collective amnesia in the Immigration Service with the Minister involved in that same programme. That Minister said one day in the House that for there to have been an agreement to “lie in unison” she would have had to be a party to it and then said we should not worry because she had organised an investigation into it by the very same officials who would have been involved in it if it had occurred. That just does not stack up. This Government will have to come clean and get the State Services Commissioner in to look at that issue. 
What was the best that the Government could come up with to try to distract attention from those issues? It wheeled out the Minister for Social Development and Employment who on Friday announced a new scheme: no deposit on home purchases of $100000 and under for people on low incomes. Beneficiaries can buy a house with no deposit so long as the house does not cost more than $100000. He made that announcement on Friday and all over the country unemployed people beneficiaries and people on low incomes were searching for houses under $100000 in the far-flung rural reaches of the country. Then on Monday he came out with a scheme that means that if people go and live in an out-of-the-way area in rural New Zealand where there are no jobs the Government will say that they cannot receive a benefit and they have to get back to the cities. 
So if people take up the Minister’s offer and buy a house for under $100000 in somewhere like Shannon—there are no jobs in Shannon; there is no bus service and no other public transport out of there—he will then trundle into those people and say that they cannot receive a benefit if they live there so they had better hightail it back to the city. How duplicitous is that sort of nonsense? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 The historian Tom Brooking has written a biography of John McKenzie one of my predecessors as MP for Waitaki and the Minister of Lands when the 1892 Land Act was passed—the legislation that put into effect the instruction by Queen Victoria on the public access strips originally given when New Zealand was still part of the colony of New South Wales. Mr Brooking gave his view that: “One of the great misfortunes of New Zealand is that it has been settled by two peoples who are romantic and even sentimental about land and imbue it with magical properties that push past logic into the realms of the supernatural and transcendental. This idealisation and mystification of land raised to quite unrealistic levels expectations concerning its productivity and ability to solve social problems. New Zealand is still wrestling with the consequences of those unfulfilled hopes.” 
That attitude towards land continues today but as our population creeps past the 4 million mark and the pressure on our environment grows it is becoming more difficult to access the outdoor recreation that many New Zealanders consider to be their birthright. The legal situation around the Queen’s Chain is often confusing public understanding of it is incomplete and access over such land is sometimes discouraged. People have the impression that the Queen’s Chain applies to all beaches and rivers but that is simply not true. In significant parts of Banks Peninsula and the Marlborough Sounds for example there is no right of access to the beaches in law. So “beaches for all” is a meaningless phrase. Even in 1892 when the Queen’s Chain was enacted it applied only to Crown land. It did not apply to private land land owned by Maori and land sold to European settlers prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
So in January this year the Government set up the Land Access Reference Group to look at that issue. Chaired by the former Meat Producers Board Chairman John Acland the reference group has reviewed access to the foreshore of lakes and the sea access along rivers access to public land across private land and access into private rural land in order to better facilitate public access to and enjoyment of New Zealand’s natural environment. The reference group has focused on whether there are sufficient certainty information mechanisms and awareness of expected conduct to ensure responsible public access to waterways and rural land while still providing for private land use both now and in the future. That group of 11 wise people drawn from throughout the country and from different walks of life but all with experience in different aspects of land access reported to me on Monday night. The report should be printed and made available for the public next week following consideration by Cabinet. It is an important report and I will need approval for money to take the matter further. 
When the reference group was set up in January it was pooh-poohed by many people. Some people said there was no problem with regard to access; I am quoting from the ACT member Gerrard Eckhoff. Recent times have proved that to be not true. Other members of the Opposition are tying themselves in knots demanding that the Government legislate to extinguish any Maori rights to beaches even while some of their fellow Opposition members demand that there be no disturbance whatever of any Pakeha property rights. 
During my parliamentary career since 1984 one thing I have noted is that too often people leap to entrenched positions on issues without sitting down and listening to what other people have to say. This group’s report is important but it is not the final word on the matter. Rather it is the first step in a long process. There will be consultation every step of the way. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am reminded of a bill that was introduced into this House between 1972 and 1975 by Mike Moore—the coastal moratorium bill. That socialist Labour Government was going to seize the coastline from all New Zealanders regardless of who they were. I gather from the Hon Mr Sutton that this Labour Government is to do that again. In a rather dull speech I could not work out precisely what he would say. However he told us about a report—and we all appreciate a report—and from what I can gather there is to be a report on that report before anything further is to be done. His speech typified for us this Government’s evasion of the main issues that face New Zealand today. The previous National Party speaker raised some of those issues. 
New Zealand First wants to raise the very important and immediate issue of the problem that is being experienced on the North Shore of Auckland in the Rodney District Council area and in Auckland City Manukau City and Franklin District with regard to rates. I had the privilege of being at a meeting with the North Shore City Council on Friday where I made it quite clear to the meeting that it is the view of New Zealand First in so far as road taxes and suchlike are concerned that we intend to phase them down and out—especially the excise tax that goes into the consolidated account—and to provide for more financial resources for roading and other transport areas. That is the firm policy of New Zealand First. 
At the moment for the year ended June 2002 the Government has collected $1.642 billion from roading charges. It spends $940 million. That is a sheer profit of $700 million. In addition the Government has been collecting a figure of $220 million in the tax for roading improvements in Auckland. Do members remember that tax? It was to be on for 12 months but the Government has now extended it again. Where is that money? It is sitting in the bank. The Government has now told us that that money will go into the consolidated account to be used for other purposes. That money should be used immediately for the $27 million—yes only $27 million—that is needed to help out all those workers pensioners domestic purposes beneficiaries and other people in Auckland including the people who rent homes who find that their outgoings will go up as a result of the Auckland Regional Council’s levy. 
We heard the so-called Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues say that improvements to the road transport system to bus transport and to the rail transport system are necessary. If that is necessary what will this Government do about it? New Zealand First is very clear in saying we would make that $27 million available from the roading account. The situation is that the rates to be collected are going up from $75 million to $102 million. That is $27 million more. Next year they will go up by another $18 million on top of that $27 million. Next year pensioners and the like in Auckland will have to find not an additional $27 million but $45 million. Where will that money come from? This Government does not care in the slightest. 
The National Party told us at that meeting with the North Shore City Council that it had no intention of drawing money from the consolidated account. The Labour Party said the same. New Zealand First is here to fix this problem; we intend to fix it. There is only one way it can be fixed immediately. The Government should back up the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues although she seems to think that the answer to this problem is for people to get out of Auckland and go somewhere else even though the Minister for Social Development and Employment tells us that they must not go anywhere else because they will not be assisted by the Government with benefits and suchlike if they do go elsewhere. 
Aucklanders are in a cleft stick. Everyone says we should have the bus and rail transport system but who will pay for it? Will it be the elderly the sick the people who have children whom they are bringing up on benefits the workers and suchlike? This Labour Government does not give a darn about workers any more—the workers of Auckland in west Auckland in Waitakere City and all those Maori people. John Tamihere is laughing now. He is laughing at the Maori people in west Auckland and at all west Auckland people whoever they may be who are struggling to find an extra $200 to $300 a year for rates. They cannot pay the school fees to send their children to the local schools. This minority Labour Government with John Tamihere Lynne Pillay and the like is not prepared to help the workers of west Auckland North Shore or anywhere else. 
New Zealand First would do that immediately. It has been our policy for years and years. It is not something that we have just dreamt up; we have always said that we would do that. It is the only way to solve the problem. There is no point in talking about amending the rating legislation looking at infrastructures and looking at this and that. It needs dollars and cents—cash. The money is there. The Government has a $1 billion surplus. We want some answers from John Tamihere. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 It is always a joy to stand up after one of  
Dad’s Army’s 
 boys who has been prattling on and having a say. The wonderful thing about his leader of course is that he has the ability to go out into mainstream Kiwidom and tell Kiwis how to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to joining the New Zealand First Party. He is a great guided-tour expert! 
I want to take up the challenge issued by the little fella from Levin the member of no fixed abode—the shoe salesman—about rorts and people stepping back from things. Over there we have one of the biggest bunches of bankrupt bozos— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. I refer him to Standing Order 117 “Personal reflections”. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw and apologise. To get back to the well-paid beneficiaries over there they are the best-paid beneficiaries— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will apologise. That was a personal reflection again on other members. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder how much leeway there is. There have been times in the past when this Minister’s speeches have been terminated because he has continually strayed outside the Standing Orders. I wonder how much leniency you will give him this time before you take that action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 leeway is given to respond to the previous speaker. The Minister has had the opportunity to do that now and I ask him to come to the point. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made so many unparliamentary remarks. I ask that he withdraw and apologise also in respect of the unparliamentary remark be made about Mr Dail Jones when he opened his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot ask on behalf of someone else. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The National Party which stands on being the party of great integrity says things on its billboards like: “National will see that the coastline and the beaches of New Zealand remain in the hands of all New Zealanders.” It will expropriate nationalise and socialise. How can a National Party of the great old free-enterprise model stand on that? How can a caucus of National Party members sign off on that and give that mandate to their leader? The National Party leader said in the debate on the Queen’s Chain Protection Bill that “landowners are starting to get interested in the controversy because they are not that impressed by the public access lobbyists who assert to them that members of the public have the right to go anywhere they like within 20 metres of the waterway.” That is simply not the case. 
 The leader of that party knew 7 years ago when he made that speech recorded in  
Hansard 
 Volume 358 at page 18023 that when he went out to tell Kiwis—mislead them—he was going to socialise nationalise and confiscate private property rights it would be OK but: “But only if you’re a Maori. We’ll take Maori rights but not my Pakeha mate’s.” This is where the debate is fair and square. How crass and how low! How can a National 
Party caucus with any backbone—unlike those jellyfish over there—sign off on that? They cannot possibly. They did though. How dare Mr Simon Powers and Mr John Key the new breed sign up to such a shameful policy. These are the politics of divide and rule the politics of envy. How dare they divide a nation! They have a greed and a lust for the Treasury benches and they will do anything to destroy the fabric of a nation going forward. There is only one party one Government that will sort this and fix it and it is the Labour Party in Government. Even the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp has opined absolutely differently and in contradistinction—he is one of the few honest ones—to the so-called leader for no other reason than he actually owns some foreshore. He will own up to that as well. It is all about vested interest when it comes to the National Party boys. It has nothing to do with rights and nothing to do with due process. 
Maori have used the courts. Maori have not stormed over everybody else’s rights. These rights need to be explored and we will uphold the rule of law. We are not going to walk over other people’s land just storming it and taking it. What sort of a leadership is that? It merely cooks up the people in Nelson for all the wrong reasons. We know how to build a nation; they know how to destroy it. They know how to wreck it all for the lust of the Treasury benches all for greed and vested interest. It is absolutely disgraceful politics. We need to continue to bang on about it. We need to continue to point it out because as a nation going forward we have so much potential to unleash and we do not need it stymied and suppressed by those members putting out ugly envious gutter politics. 
This is the worst the lowest that a Tory party has ever stooped to. It is using a race card. The National Party used to talk about rights; it now talks about race. Over on this side of the House we talk about rights. We are the true face of New Zealand. Members opposite are ageing over 50-somethings. We hear about rorts. A good example of a rort in the National Party is the “member for the Casablanca Night Clubs” the “member for the Camel Jockeys” and the “member for Monaco”. The “very part-time member for Remuera” sits over there. What a rort—yet another one! It just goes on and on with those people. It is all about desperate little men and vested interest and greed. We have had enough. Those members need to be identified for their politics of prejudice and race. It has nothing to do with rights. We need to explore it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 About a year ago—in fact on 22 July 2002—a judge sentenced a man who had seized a women from the road taken her in his car to a public car park raped her and tipped her out of his car bound and naked. The judge was troubled because he was having to look at the new sentencing law and work out whether this odious crime was so odious that it was out of the ordinary enough for him to set a non-parole period. As the judge said rape is odious per se. 
The circumstances of this case were not out of the ordinary for rape but the judge had to deal with section 86 of Phil Goff’s new Sentencing Act which told him he could set a non-parole period only if the offence was “out of the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind.” The judge was obviously anguished that if he did try to set a non-parole period he would simply set up a situation for the rapist to appeal. If the rapist could successfully appeal if he was not seen as a clear recidivist—in other words as long as he was not a clear reoffender—he would be out of prison after serving one-third of his sentence and given the normal rape sentence that would mean this fellow would be out of prison in 2 years 8 months. That was repulsive to the judge’s idea of justice. 
The judge told us what was happening on that date in July last year. He said: “I can only apply the legislation which Parliament passes. I hope that once the political rhetoric dies down”—there was an election on at the time—“and a new Parliament convenes urgent consideration will be given to answering the questions I have posed with greater clarity.” 
A year later on 19 July 2003 the Court of Appeal gave a decision in two more rape cases. The Court of Appeal was also struggling with this notion that it could set a non-parole period only when the offence was “outside the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind”. The judges’ view expressed by Justice Tipping puzzled over what “the ordinary range of offending” might be. As the judges said it involved substantial difficulties of interpretation and application. What is an ordinary rape? They are all horrific—or horrific to someone. They cited the Hon Phil Goff in his greasy introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper to the legislation and set out in about 10 lines the language in which he had introduced the intended effect of section 86. They concluded: “The problem is that section 86 as enacted is not either in its language or in its structure fairly susceptible of that interpretation.” That is the delicate language of the court saying: “Minister you were talking crap.” 
There are two more pages. I will read the judges’ statement: “We end this section of our judgment with a respectful plea to Parliament to revisit section 86 of the Sentencing Act and express itself with greater clarity. We have done our best to discern Parliament’s meaning on the point at issue from the language it has used in the light of the section’s purpose as we perceive it. Major problems still remain with the section in particular with the concept of ordinary range of offending when used with the qualifier ‘of the particular kind’. We can foresee this subject being a fertile source of difficulty for some time to come both for sentencing judges and on appeal.” 
What was the reaction of the Hon Phil Goff? First I shall tell members what he said a year ago. He said that the Act was a huge improvement that the judges’ comments showed that the new law would lead to longer sentences that he believed that a review to clarify was not necessary but that if changes became necessary he would not hesitate to make any necessary changes to the legislation. What did he say a year later—many cases later—when faced with the Court of Appeal’s absolutely clear statement? Phil Goff preferred to pour scorn on me for raising the issue. I first raised this issue with him in a letter. He in effect told me that I did not know the law and that I should read the precedents. He then came back and said: “The legislation like any major piece of legislation will be subject to review. We need time to see it settle in.” 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The last time I had an opportunity to contribute to the general debate I did as I am going to do now—dedicate my contribution to the dead wood “Blues Brother” Maurice Williamson. My support of Maurice Williamson’s integrity and honesty clearly did not have an impact on the National Party although I have noticed some wavering on behalf of its future leader Simon Power. In fact I hold out some hope for that young man now. I think he has got a future ahead of him. There is a clear vacancy. I think Simon Power should put aside his natural modesty and humility and say as the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank Don Brash has said: “Move aside Bill; it is time to go.” 
What makes me more convinced than ever that it is time for Bill English to go is the absolute desperation that he has shown in resorting to something that I never thought he would do. I had always thought of Bill English as a “Kiwi Keith” type of person until recently. He is clearly not. Mr English has behaved in a gutter politics way and that is a very civil description of his behaviour; he has behaved in a way that I think totally discredits him and totally discredits the once-great National Party. He will now be remembered if anyone does ever try to remember him as one of the most irresponsible politicians New Zealand has ever had. There is never an excuse to resort to divisive gutter politics in my view. Too many people in New Zealand know politicians for them to be able to get away with that. Even in a large country one should not do it but in New Zealand not only should one not do it but one cannot get away with it. 
When Mr English said that the country should not trust Maori I want to know how Georgina te Heuheu felt about it. How did Georgina te Heuheu feel about being referred to in that way by her current leader? This is an issue that we have to get right. If National members do not want to be part of the solution—and frankly I recommend that they have another bit of a think about that—then the least they can do is not contribute to the problem. This is a grown-up serious big issue and I think some of those members particularly those who played a part in a previous Government should understand that and should give themselves a bit of thinking time so that they can come up with a proper answer that maybe will not fit on a billboard but will fit in New Zealanders’ hearts and minds. 
Bill English has been just extraordinary. Trying to get a fix on his position is like trying to pick up mercury with chopsticks. Every time one gets it in the corner of the bowl it flicks right over the other side. Mr English started off by saying on the website: “The Government must legislate to confirm Crown ownership of beaches foreshore and seabed. This is what National would do.” That was a strong confident statement from the current leader of the National Party. Then in a press release not very long after he said that National was working to ensure that the remaining foreshore and seabed were safeguarded for all regardless of race by means of legislation to preserve exclusive Crown title What is the difference? Quite a lot as my colleague John Tamihere very strongly explained during his contribution to this debate. So it is one standard of citizenship for some not for all and not even for National Party members. 
Simon Power whom I referred to earlier as—I am confident of it now—the future leader of the National Party has been having a bit of a tussle with Mr David Carter. Simon Power said and I think it certainly reflected the views of his constituents from Feilding: “We must all be allowed full and free access to our beaches and lakefronts and to the seabed.” 
His constituents want to be able to go down to Foxton Beach Himatangi Beach or the Manawatu River and get on to the beach and the river. Whereas David Carter said that our public access group which does exactly what Mr Power referred to was just a “stalking horse for this Government to nationalise private land for public access”. Well I think Mr Power should talk to Mr Carter because he is on a different planet from him and I think the oxygen is of better quality on the planet where Mr Power resides. 
Not only did Mr Power disagree with Mr Carter but then Bill English started contradicting himself again. He said that he wanted all the coastline to remain with the Crown then said “as long as it didn’t disturb private landowners’ rights”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 In recent days a number of media have covered the story of Marc and Ivy Powell a wealthy American couple who gained New Zealand residency and purchased the large Waitai Station on D’Urville Island in 1999 with Overseas Investment Commission approval. The way this couple have used and abused our country’s immigration foreign ownership and commercial laws is a disgrace. This case raises questions about how effectively residency and overseas investment conditions are enforced. 
I make no apologies for using the privileges of this House to expose this matter. Those who worked for the Powells were required to sign horrendous confidentiality agreements with $100000 penalty clauses for mentioning any aspect of this couple or their development on D’Urville Island. There is an air of fear about this couple reinforced by writs served against those who dare question them. This secrecy fear and litigiousness are not the New Zealand way. 
My interest in this matter arises from constituents in Nelson having fallen victim to the deep-pocket litigation employed by this couple. There are over one dozen creditors—small honest Kiwi business people—who have been done over by this couple. Let me tell a few of their sad stories. 
Fraemohs Industries a well-known South Island building firm did major building work on D’Urville Island. The firm lost over $320000 in its dealings with the Powells. The company has gone from employing 40 people to fewer than 10. The dispute wrecked the health of the managing director who has had to sell that business. Tilley’s a well-respected plumbing and drainage firm from Nelson has been done for $120000. This is a crippling debt for a small family firm. When the firm attempted legal action to recover the money it was hit by a $300000 counterclaim. A Nelson barging firm Tyco Marine transported materials out to D’Urville Island for the couple’s luxury mansion. It sought payment for just $1300 in the disputes tribunal and was hit with a spurious counterclaim of $30000 from the Powell’s lawyers—no surprise. The firm simply walked away unpaid. The firm of architects and designers involved in the project is trying to recover $45000 but it too has been hit with huge counterclaims totalling over $600000. The consulting engineers involved sought payment of $23000 and got a counterclaim and suit for $200000 for its claims. 
These sums would bankrupt any of these individuals and businesses and they hang over them as dark intimidating clouds. The stories are repeated over and over again. The claims for payment are first diverted off to consultants or other companies. Spurious claims are made about the standard of work. The Fair Trading Act the Consumer Guarantees Act and the confidentiality agreements are quoted at length. Huge counterclaims are lodged as intimidation and most creditors have just walked away. 
What irritates me further is the way our residency requirements have been so blatantly abused. This couple told the Immigration Service that they would reside permanently here. There is strong evidence that they never intended to do so. The facts are that they have spent negligible time in New Zealand and have breached their commitments to the Immigration Service and today I am formally writing to the Minister of Immigration to have their residency revoked. 
Nor have the couple carried out their business plans as stated to the Overseas Investment Commission. This too requires inquiry. I cannot see any benefit for New Zealand in allowing very wealthy absentee landowners to own some of our most precious coastal farmland. We cannot allow our country to be prostituted in this way. I do not care how many millions or billions of dollars people have; we should not put up with this sort of abuse of New Zealand’s sovereign territory. This case highlights how we need to rethink our approach to business migration and overseas land sales to ensure that New Zealand is able to benefit. 
I seek the leave of the House to table a series of documents obtained under the Official Information Act from the Overseas Investment Commission on the matters I have raised. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
I seek the leave of the House to table public documents filed in the courts against the many creditors who have sought payment for their work done on D’Urville Island. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 That was another typical Nick Smith speech—wild reckless allegations under the privilege of this House. It shows one thing: Nick Smith has learnt a lesson about speaking out outside this House. He spoke about the abuse of foreign ownership rules. The House ought to know that the people he referred to applied for ownership of that land in 1999 and— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I said that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No the member did not say that. It was signed off by the Hon Bill Birch; it was signed off under a National Government. That member was a member of the Cabinet in that Government that signed it off. 
The second reckless allegation made by Mr Nick Smith was that there were problems with immigration and immigration issues. The House ought to know because that member will not tell it that permanent residence was granted to the people concerned in May 1999 under a National Party Government. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s two down. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That was another reckless allegation. I am gobsmacked that the people of Nelson would ever go to Nick Smith with any concerns about the judicial system given that that member puts in court cases then does not turn up. Why would people ever trust his opinion on anything? 
That brings us to the parlous state of the National Party and its leadership. Murray McCully has proposed that a new axis be formed after the next Government of National ACT and no doubt New Zealand First because they would not make up the numbers without it. A few friends and I sat around the other night and thought about who would get what jobs. Of course Mr Power jumps up and down and says all these things. Ruth Dyson is right: Simon Power will become Prime Minister one day but the children who will see that happen— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh no he won’t. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Oh yes he will but the children who will watch that happen have not got to primary school yet. We figured Nick Smith would not get anything but we did figure some things. We thought Mr Gerry Eckhoff would make a very good Minister of Conservation given that he wants to commercialise kiwis wants to have kiwi farming so that we can buy kiwi thighs in the supermarket. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Kiwi roast dinners. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. We thought Rodney Hide could have cultural affairs. He has been past a theatre once and he has been hamming it up ever since. I remember Mr Moore saying one time when Rodney was in his presence that Rodney Hide was the perfect example of why an ugly actor should become a politician. In terms of finance Don Brash and Richard Prebble would be the new finance people. One time when Richard Prebble was away from the Labour caucus he sent a telegram from China. Before the text could be read out someone in caucus said: “Dear colleagues I’m in China; so much to sell so little time. Richard.” The public needs to know that Richard would sell the lot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use a member’s full name or his title. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Richard Prebble would sell the lot. Obviously Peter Brown would get senior citizens Craig McNair would get youth affairs and Winston Peters would get ethnic affairs. He has great rapport with the Somalian community. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Urban affairs. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: He could get urban affairs. Obviously social welfare would go to Muriel Newman. She has written a book on how to get by on the smell of an oily rag in which she has advocated stealing and prostitution so she is well equipped to dismantle the social welfare State and bring in the law of the jungle. We thought that senior whip would be a very good position for Maurice Williamson and we thought Richard Worth could be the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade given his relationship with Monaco. He is now a consul for another country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And camels. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member interjects about camels; that is very good. Given Richard Worth’s trip to El Alamein and the advice he got from camel drivers we thought that would bring an interesting twist— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s unfair on camels. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Someone says it is unfair on camels. It would bring an interesting twist to the sort of advice that would be given. We spent lots of hilarious time contemplating the very very unlikely prospect of a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government. It is very unlikely because those parties are trying to scare New Zealanders into changing their alliance and changing their votes. Those parties should see that wonderful commentary  
Bowling for Columbine 
 where it is quite clear that one of the tactics of some people is to frighten the community into doing other things. Those parties will not frighten the public into changing their opinion. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I have one question to ask members of the Labour caucus and the Labour Party today: “Whose side are you on?”. After nearly 4 years of Government boasting about its achievements for ordinary workers and low-income people such as income-related rents the Employment Relations Act and the rest of it it all seems to have come to a screeching halt with Steve Maharey’s “Jobs Jolt” programme announced on Monday. 
Without warning we now find out that 55 to 59-year-olds will be subject to the same sanctions regime as unemployed 20-year-olds and that the “remote areas” conditions abolished in the mid-1980s by a Labour Government—theoretically more right wing than this one—will be reinstated. The Minister justifies the extension of work testing to 55 to 59-year-olds on the grounds that that is the only way they can be provided with the full employment services of Work and Income New Zealand. What a fallacious line of reasoning. If the Minister had chosen he could easily have directed that those workers be proffered the full assistance of the department without their having the psychological pressure of sanctions being heaped upon their unsuspecting heads. 
Mature-aged people are one of the most highly motivated and at the same time one of the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed workers in the country. It is often very difficult to get into the regular workforce both because we still have high unemployment and because of employer prejudice against anyone from around age 40 and up much less age 55 and up. I would go out of my way to commend any Government that increased job placement support and training for mature unemployed. However to extend the whole blaming and sanctioning apparatus of the State on to that age group is callous beyond belief. I do not think that the Minister can begin to comprehend the humiliation involved nor the anxiety of people who are plunged into despair at that attack on their dignity and self-esteem at a stage of their lives when society owes them a lot more than sanctions and punishment for daring to be out of work through no fault of their own. 
I turn to the question of booting people out of so-called “remote areas”. I see in this morning’s  
Dominion 
Post 
 that the Employment Service is already drawing up a list of no-go areas for the unemployed. Does the Minister not realise that one reason so many beneficiaries live in rural and provincial areas where there are fewer jobs is that it is a lot cheaper to raise a family well in such districts than in a big city like Auckland or Wellington? Does he not comprehend that another reason people live in those areas is that people who are unemployed in the big city often choose to move to their papakainga or home rohe because they can survive better with whanau support and in an area where the land and sea can be a source of food? 
Unemployed and beneficiary groups around Aotearoa fought a long hard battle in the early to mid-1980s to get recognition of the injustice shown particularly to Maori people returning to their home districts and being denied the benefit. After a long struggle which included memorably the first occupation of the Kaitaia social welfare department in 1985 the “remote areas” clause was overturned. It is now pitiful that a Labour Minister in a Government supposedly more sympathetic than its 1980s predecessors sees fit to turn back that particular clock. 
I am beginning to ask myself whether Steve Maharey and Darren Hughes are driving Labour’s welfare reforms or whether the real drivers are the ghosts of Jenny Shipley and Christine Rankin as personified in 2003 by Katherine Rich Don Brash and Muriel Newman. It appears that Labour has taken National and ACT’s momentum on welfare reform to heart and is now making a bid to capture all those voters who love anything that beats up on beneficiaries. Does Labour not realise that after all this time we still have literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work and that it is not unemployed people’s fault that the system has failed them? 
There is a further ugly twist in all this. Since Labour has come to power it has made a justifiably big deal about its willingness to consult community groups about the issues that affect them and the people they serve. After 4 years of a non-governmental organisation Government consultation process and regular meetings between the Ministry of Social Development and beneficiary groups and between the Mayors Task Force for Jobs and public officials all that nice talk has been rendered meaningless by Maharey’s latest effort. Ask any of the task force mayors or any of the advocacy group representatives whether they have been consulted about this latest attack on beneficiaries and I am pretty sure that the answer will be that no such consultation took place. In fact the Minister confirmed that in the House this afternoon. I do not know whether all Labour MPs realise it but they are now moving on a fast track back to the era where Government trampled wholesale on its erstwhile allies in the community sector and local government and on unemployed people and beneficiaries. I ask again: “Labour whose side are you on?”. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some brief comments today. Initially I would like to take members’ minds back to the general debate last week. I cannot for a moment imagine a more telling example of the real difficulty the National Party in Opposition faces than the extraordinary performance of its leader discredited and failing as he is taking a speaking opportunity with its first call—namely the fourth call—in the general debate last week. Aside from his sad and pathetic performance in that debate the most telling comment was that five members of his caucus came down to support their leader in a major speech in this Chamber. That is how much support Mr English has in the National Party. Perhaps it is rather a poignant and telling comment to observe that today the largely invisible and certainly ineffective and ineffectual deputy leader Mr Roger Sowry managed to double the leader’s support by having the princely sum of almost one-third of the National Party caucus 10 members in this Chamber to support him. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member will say. I just bring members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 5/2 (Supplement) under which he cannot refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is sort of skating around the rules because he is not referring to the absence of members. However I ask you to rule that it is out of order to refer to the numbers of people; otherwise we would be saying that there are only five Labour people here to listen to this pathetic speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate in the Chamber is robust. It always has been and always will be and it is good that we have passionate and intelligent debate. But in the immortal words of Tana Umaga: “This isn’t tiddlywinks Ref!” However members should be careful and temperate in their language and not bring the House into disrepute impugn members or behave in a way that will incite disorder. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Clearly the one standard of membership that is supposed to apply in our community does not apply to the National Party’s own members including Mr English himself that rather benighted Mr Williamson and now Mr McCully. The only message that voters in this country are getting from National is that a party that struggles to manage its own problems and its own affairs would do more than struggle to manage the country. The community in this country certainly will not be supporting them. 
Also I go back to the extraordinary performance of the National Party last week in relation to the great post-conference suspension where the National Party caucus met behind the normal half-closed door that it has and in 10 seconds suspended Maurice Williamson. He was suspended for saying what people throughout New Zealand have been saying and saying out loud. What happened as a result of that suspension is telling. For 2 days in this Chamber the National Party voted 26 votes one vote down. But by Thursday it was voting 27 again because Maurice Williamson just like others before him had passed a proxy over to the party so it could vote its full vote again—the Clayton’s proxy; the imaginary suspension! Beside that behaviour ACT’s behaviour over Donna Awatere Huata looks almost principled. 
After that little shambles along came Murray McCully saying the same sorts of things about ineffectual performance from the so-called leadership of that party—comments not approved by its leadership. What happened to Mr McCully? Nothing happened. Why did he do it? Was it about the great new National-Act coalition the grand coalition of the right? No it was not. Like everything in the National Party it was about self-interest. We have to take only the briefest look at the electoral results to see why Murray McCully wants no ACT candidate to stand against him. 
Government member 
: Why? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The reason is that Murray McCully is on the slides. Unless he has ACT standing down in his electorate then there will be no Murray McCully in this House. Let me talk about another vulnerability in the form of Richard Worth who is sitting at the back of the Chamber. We know that Richard Worth is extremely worried about this grand new coalition. Richard Worth is the one who will be the sacrificial camel rider for Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide is the one who will be nominated by this great new deal of the right to stand in Epsom. How happy is he? 
I would now like to spend a little bit of time building on what my colleague Rick Barker said about the quality of the membership of this great new “Cabinet” that we have. Clearly we know about the leadership; the leader is Bill English. What portfolio would be given to the poor benighted Bill English? We think it would be Auckland issues. He has put up billboards in the cities while closing offices in his own electorate. Bill English the spokesperson on Auckland issues believes that if Aucklanders want more roading projects then Aucklanders should pay for them. What about Maori Affairs? I think John Carter the party’s current senior whip with a Maori name he is proud of clearly will be the member in charge of Maori Affairs—the one who rings up talkbacks. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will start by saying that if there exists today a reason for this Government to pause and rethink its deployment priorities with regard to security risks that face New Zealand its friends and its allies it has to be page 1 of the  
New Zealand Herald  
today. If there exists and if this Government needs anything more than the briefing papers it has already received from senior defence officials as to the appalling state of the staffing and the problems created by overreach and overstretch then I think possibly the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
might help persuade it that we do have some problems in our defence force that need to be considered and not dismissed as they have been. I ask the Government to rethink its priorities in its deployments the size of our defence force and its initiatives to encourage people to rejoin our defence force and help us meet our security needs. 
I want to talk now about an appalling state of affairs that exists internally in terms of security for private citizens. Have members heard this statement before? “It is a sad day for New Zealand when the police lack the resources to catch a burglar who has knocked off the same six houses in a fortnight.” So said George Hawkins in January 1997. “I am well aware that the police are overworked and understaffed and as of 1 December 1996 the Waitakere police were operating with 13.5 fewer police than they were entitled to.” It is interesting is it not because today nothing really has changed. “A fiend is given a ‘Get out of jail free’ card’ ”—Mr Hawkins once again complaining in April 1997 about offenders getting away scot-free because police neither have the time nor the resources to apprehend them. 
What has changed since that man became the Minister? What has changed since he was making these press releases about the safety and the policing in our streets given that he has had 4 years in the job a big limousine a ministerial house and all the trappings of power? What has changed? Nothing has changed. This is worse than the “Maharey principle” which is saying things during an election that are not said when in Government. This is about things that were said in 9 years of Opposition that were going to be corrected and dealt with and nothing has changed. I had to laugh—but it is quite sad really—when I got a fax from a person in the Minister’s own electorate that stated: “Could you please today in Parliament congratulate the Labour Party in particular George Hawkins our esteemed police Minister for completely failing to provide a safe and secure country to bring up a family and operate a business.” That was from one of his constituents. I sought leave of the House today to table this fax and the Labour Party denied it. 
This man has gone on to describe how for the second time in 3 years a pharmacy has been ram raided only metres down the road from George Hawkins’ own electorate office. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ramrodded or railroaded. 
RON MARK 
: Ram raided. The question people are asking is that if the man cannot provide security to a pharmaceutical business in his own patch then how the heck can he hope to provide security for other people around New Zealand? Then we read an article in his electorate Manurewa—printed 8 July—that thieves had been busy in Manurewa. Between 23 June and 29 June a whopping 51 burglaries were reported. That is 51 burglaries in 6 days. The real ripper is that we have already had information provided to the Government and presented to a select committee that shows clearly that about one-third of actual crimes are being reported. 
 This is reported crime. Therefore there is no motivation for all those low-income families and people who cannot afford to have household and contents insurance and who have no hope at all of getting any compensation to report those crimes to the police. They know what the police will do. The police will turn up 24 hours or 17 hours or 7 hours later and simply issue them a little ticket that enables them to go and make an insurance claim because both they and the police officers concerned know that these guys will never be caught. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I get to the main part of my speech I acknowledge the comments of Mr Mark in respect of the tragedy in Indonesia but I remind him of one small fact which is that while he was in a coalition Government with the National Party it enacted the most savage and the deepest cut in the history of this nation in respect of the defence budget. Since we came in we have increased the defence budget by hundreds of millions of dollars. I acknowledge the intent of his speech and I respect his views but I say to Simon Power the defence spokesperson that it was his Government that cut the defence vote in a huge way. 
I want to reflect for a moment on Mr Sowry’s speech. Mr Sowry talked about a mess. It just shows since Mr Sowry was bowled demolished and wiped out from his seat in Otaki just how out of touch that deputy leader is and how lazy he and his party are. I am told that it is said of Roger Sowry that he is so lazy that he does not walk in his sleep but that he hitch-hikes. That is how lazy he is. That party on the opposite side of the House is coming apart at the seams. 
Stephen Franks 
: Oh! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Do we have a doctor in the House? I think somebody in the ACT party is in pain. The National Party is coming apart at the seams. They are a lazy pack of whingers and they have no base or constituency. 
Members should look at the fiasco over Maurice Williamson. There are as colleagues have said two standards of citizenship in the National Party. Maurice Williamson tells the truth. For instance he stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 13 July: “‘I haven’t criticised Bill ... I’ve talked about the fact that we need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” That is a fair comment yet he gets bowled for telling the truth. 
And now we have Mr McCully whom I would have thought if I were a member of the National Party had committed the ultimate sin by suggesting that the best Opposition performer was not his leader his deputy leader or anybody on that side but Richard Prebble and that the best “demolition expert”—or however the  
New Zealand Herald  
put it—was not one of the National Party members but old Rodney Hide. That shows the division within that particular party. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Pathetic! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: They are pathetic as my colleague said. They are totally pathetic. 
Then we have the great idea of a grand coalition between ACT and National but the geniuses over there have not realised that if one takes the total centre-right vote and does a deal between ACT and National it does not get any bigger. If the ACT vote is combined with the National vote the total centre-right vote does not get any bigger. We have the “brains trust” opposite. 
Then we have the debacle with Nick Smith. I am told that Nick Smith will go down in history as the most sued member of Parliament. 
Simon Power 
: Careful. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member should wait for this. I am told that Nick Smith is currently defending five to six lawsuits against him. I am told that by a member of his own party. He is the most sued member of Parliament in history. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Big mouth. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He has a big mouth but he cannot back it up as my colleague Mr Tamihere says. Then we come to the seabed and foreshore issue. Here was a chance for the National Party to show some leadership and some consistency. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And that’s the point. We have done precisely that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member for Bayswater Mr Mapp who has a flash pad an estate—he is a member of the landed gentry—on the foreshore of Auckland has a vested interest so I invite him to keep very very quiet. Members should look at the inconsistency in the National Party. Wayne Mapp says one thing and Bill English says another. There was a chance in that whole debate to show some leadership for Kiwis. This is a tough and complex issue. It is one that is very worrying for New Zealanders but it will be sorted and it will be sorted only by this Government. It will not be sorted by race-based remarks and policies or by members of this Parliament acting in a gross and irresponsible way by scratching at every ugly scab that may exist in a very very small proportion of red-necked New Zealanders. 
Those members of Parliament opposite do this place no service at all. They provide nothing by being in this place when they act in the manner that they do. What New Zealanders want is some leadership. They want this issue sorted. It will take time and negotiation but as John Tamihere has said every New Zealander knows that under this Government all New Zealanders will be able to take their kids to the beach. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a second time 
. This marks the final stage of the Budget process for 2003-04 in terms of the first round of the Budget—that is the Budget itself—and of course the standard Imprest Supply Bill presented at this stage of the year. At the time when the Budget was presented in the middle to the latter part of May the fiscal position outlook was strong. We were expecting for the year just ended a fiscal surplus on an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes basis of just over $4 billion per year and a final operating balance of roughly $1.4 billion per year. We were also expecting a forecast operating surplus for the year that we are now in of roughly $3.7 billion. We were expecting both gross debt and net debt figures to be falling as a percentage of gross domestic product. 
The economic outlook at the time of the Budget was for a slow-down in the economy with economic growth slowing to round about 2 percent per annum or just over for the 2003-04 March year— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What about next year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dr Mapp should never lead me a straight line like that when the next line is a good one: growth should be picking up in 2004-05 but with very significant downside risks. At that stage we were still terribly uncertain about the outcome of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic. We were still facing the prospect of a very dry winter and the impact that the electricity shortages were going to have the outlook for the American economy was still extremely uncertain and so on and so forth. 
A number of things have changed since then. The main change is that the downside risks in the economy have abated. The Sars epidemic is now by and large under control and we have seen a rather more limited impact on tourist numbers in New Zealand than was perhaps first feared. The numbers have already started to pick up from the point to which they had dropped by April and May when they bottomed out. 
Secondly in one of those little examples of fate that are a lesson to all of us about the point at which the Government finalised its plans for reserve capacity it started raining which perhaps is God’s commentary upon our political processes in New Zealand and elsewhere. We are now back on track for an average year in terms of lake storage—thanks very largely to the savings made voluntarily by New Zealanders otherwise we would still be below the average lake level. Rain has continued to come at reasonably frequent intervals in the key catchment areas in the South Island and the central North Island and we will now certainly get through winter with no disruption at all but there are still long-term questions surrounding security of supply and the necessity of ensuring a greater margin than the market has left us with by the middle of this year. 
That has not affected the central economic forecast at all. Of course Treasury would not at this stage be updating economic forecasts unless there had been signs of some very dramatic changes which have not occurred. Certainly the advice I have is that there is no reason at this point for those central forecasts to be changed in any case. So we are still expecting the slow-down which obviously we have been seeing over the last few months—that is bottoming out at about the 2 percent or so level—but with the downside risk now very very much less. So it is not the central pattern that has changed; it is the risk that we might have been coming out well below that 2 percent level. 
The key feature that has emerged more clearly although it was already emerging by May is the contrast between the domestic and external sectors. The domestic economy is remaining very strong. In May it looked as though the number of dwelling approvals was starting to fall away in a reasonably significant and classic cyclical pattern. Since then the numbers have tended to flatten out again at a high level. The construction sector and the building sector remain very strong. The domestic economy in general remains very strong but because of the appreciation of the New Zealand dollar or more accurately the depreciation of the United States dollar the tradable sector and exporting sector are under significant pressure at the present time. We are seeing that reflected in the closures of some firms and also in the generally reduced returns in New Zealand dollars to the New Zealand exporting sector. That is reflected in the figures today when in New Zealand dollar terms exports have continued to fall as a reflection of the rising New Zealand dollar. 
The reality is that New Zealand cannot do much to affect the level of the United States dollar. However effective monetary policy may be in New Zealand it has absolutely no impact in Washington at all. A United States dollar fall is a product of the US current account deficit and the ongoing US federal deficits. The present United States Government which is following policies very similar to those advocated by the National Party has seen a turnaround in the operating surplus since it took office of $1.2 trillion New Zealand dollars a year—moving from a substantial surplus to a substantial deficit. It also believed in this strange theory that if taxes are cut the economy will grow fast and become self-funding. What used to be called the Laffer curve is now more commonly known as the “laughable curve” amongst most sensible economists and results in exactly the same product that President Reagan produced by following exactly the same policies of very substantial deficits that are forecast to continue into the long-distance future. It is likely to place continued downwards pressure on the US dollar. Equally it is clear that the US economy is probably starting to recover but the numbers continue to be somewhat contradictory almost from day to day and certainly from week to week. 
The likely fiscal out-turn for the year just finished will not be very far different from the Budget forecast. I do not have the final numbers yet—only a preliminary estimate. The figure for the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting charges is likely to be somewhat higher than the $4 billion forecast on Budget night; it will probably be more in the region of $4.5 billion. But the final operating balance is likely to be about the $1.4 billion mark. It could be somewhat lower because further reductions in interest rates have led to significant further revaluations on the Government Superannuation Fund and the Accident Compensation Corporation which are offset by gains on the equity markets in bodies such as the Government Superannuation Fund. So in general terms the final operating balance will be the same order of size as that forecast at Budget-time. 
The problem that the Government faces in this respect is explained to people by saying that a surplus of $4 billion - plus in the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting charges is not a cash surplus at all. It does not reflect cash in the pocket which can be spent on other items of Government spending. Out of that come the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and a great deal of Government capital spending in a whole range of areas. So if we look at it in terms of the Government’s cash surplus it is modest but by no means large for the 2002-03 year. 
Moreover Government revenue continues to run well ahead of Government receipts. What that means to people who do not understand accruals accounting is that what we think we ought to be getting in is running well ahead of what we are actually getting in in terms of cash which means there is some reason for caution. [ 
Interruption 
] No receipts—actual cash—are lower than revenue. So that means we need some degree of caution about what will actually happen to actual receipts as we move on through over the next year. As I have said many times in the House over the last 6 months or so because receipts ran ahead of forecasts for much of the last 2 years there is a desirability of being somewhat cautious. What may happen is that the economy will slow down and there is a possibility that Government receipts will run under forecast during that period. It is a bit late if the money has been spent already. 
Finally it is worth noting that the Government has a strong record in a range of areas. In health for example the district health board deficits will come in under plan and the number of people in primary health organisations is running at some six times the level forecast when the programme was first set up. We are seeing a strong fiscal position and an economy that is going through a small downturn by international standards. If we manage a 2 percent growth rate in the current year that will be much better than that of the great majority of our trading partners who are looking at rates of between 0 and 1 percent or so growth in the great majority of cases. Only Australia is likely to outstrip us to any significant margin at all in the current year and its forecasts have kept coming back in fact over recent times. 
Against this we have policies that simply give the tired old message of: “Cut taxes for the rich flog off the State enterprises cut pensions cut health spending and hope that somehow or other this will result in a golden age for the New Zealand economy.” Well the last time we tried all of that I think it is fair to say that it rogered the New Zealand economy to a fairly substantial extent and many people are still taking a long time to recover from the pain that that inflicted. We do not need to go through another cycle of self-inflicted pain for no real purpose. The task now in front of us is to decide how to build upon the success so far particularly in the area of skills in the areas of investment in the areas of infrastructure and in a number of related areas that the Government is addressing at great speed with great intelligence and great vigour. Opposite us we see a party that is lacking in vigour almost entirely. Indeed it is a party in which its key strategist Mr Murray McCully now describes a member of another party as “the most effective Opposition parliamentarian” and another member of another party as “the most effective member of the Opposition”. With friends like that who needs enemies? 
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
: 
 We have heard a recital from the Minister suggesting that everything in the garden is rosy and going fine but I want to put the situation in some context. Let me quote a few numbers. Over the last 30 years the New Zealand economy has delivered an increase in per capita income of three-quarters of 1 percent. In the last decade growth has been three times that at 2¼ percent per capita—three times the trend rate of the last 30 years. Why have we achieved that? It is basically because of the reforms that—yes—the previous Labour Government of the 1980s put in place and of those that the National Government of the early 1990s put in place. That delivered a growth rate of three times the trend growth-rate of the last 30 years. 
Now let us look ahead. Two Treasury economists have calculated that for New Zealand to achieve a place in the top half of the OECD in living standards within 10 years it would require a per capita income growth of between 4½ and 7½ percent per annum depending on what assumption one makes about other countries’ growth rates. In other words it will take at least double the growth rate we achieved in the last decade and six times the growth rate we achieved on average over the last 30 years. Even to get to the top half of the OECD in 20 years would require per capita incomes to rise by more than 3 percent—again that is a lot faster than we achieved in the last decade. 
What do we have? We have Treasury projecting that productivity per person will go up at roughly 1½ percent per annum for the next decade. That would deliver an increase in living standards at a significantly slower rate than we had over the last decade and nothing remotely like enough to achieve a place in the top half of the OECD in 10 years 20 years or 30 years. Is it any wonder that this Government has abandoned its objective of getting us into the top half of the OECD in 10 years? It simply cannot be done and on present projections it will not be done in 20 or 30 years either. 
So how does the Government respond to that situation? Let me quote a few things that this Government has done in recent times. First of all it has sanctioned a rather extraordinary attack on high net-worth individuals asking them to supply answers to an extraordinary list of questions about what they have earned what they have given what they have done and what companies they have set up—no matter that many of those have recently been through a clean tax audit. The Government has just sanctioned this extraordinary inquisition into some of our most successful entrepreneurs. 
 There has been almost no media attention given to that except in the business press. Can members imagine the outcry that would have occurred if the Inland Revenue Department had sent a similar request to all those earning below $10000 because it had a suspicion that some of those people might have been evading tax? If the Inland Revenue Department had done that there would have been an absolute outcry; yet when the Government sanctions the Inland Revenue Department doing that to the most successful business people in the country there is not a squeak. How does that measure encourage this country to grow faster? How does it encourage people who can invest to do so? 
Secondly the Government has totally failed to fix Auckland’s traffic problems. The Government has itself acknowledged that traffic congestion in Auckland is costing the economy something like a billion dollars a year. So what has the Government done? Well first of all it has encouraged Auckland to invest in a dopey rail project. At the moment rail carries 0.2 percent of the passenger trips in the Auckland metropolitan area per year. If we spend a billion and a half dollars on upgrading the rail system and provide a hundred million dollars of subsidy annually— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: At least. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: —at least we might get that figure to between 2 and 3 percent of total passenger trips in the Auckland region. There is no way that that project can be remotely economically viable. The Government has failed to fix the Resource Management Act problems. The last National Government tried to do that just before the 1999 election and its bill was gutted. We have seen that bill go through the House in the last month or two. What happens? The North Shore busway has taken almost a decade to get the required approvals through and just as the approval process was finished the Government said: “Any project involving the transport sector involving more than $20 million must be subject to central Government review.” 
So not only do we force Auckland into a dopey rail project but we also fail to fix the obstacles that might enable things like the North Shore busway to get on its way. The Government has a Land Transport Management Bill in the works which looks likely to be totally inadequate in dealing with the road problems in Auckland so we will have more obstacles to the economy’s growth. We are not just failing to fix the obstacles that are there; we are erecting more obstacles at almost every turn. 
Let me also talk about the review of the Employment Relations Act that is under way. We have a giant leap backwards in industrial relations law coming down the pike. In the last few months there have been two independent studies done—one by the OECD in Paris and one by the International Monetary Fund in Washington—relating the level of unemployment in an economy to the state of labour market legislation. What did those studies discover? Surprise surprise they discovered that the more rigid and inflexible the labour market laws affecting an economy are the higher the level of unemployment will be. That is totally consistent with the textbooks with our views and with New Zealand’s own experience. 
Those two studies found that labour market reform can drop unemployment by about three percentage points of the workforce—a huge improvement. Is it any wonder that after the Employment Contracts Act was passed in 1991 New Zealand had the highest growth rate of employment in any developed country in the world? What we have now is a steady retreat from that. In the 1990s we saw the Employment Court moving gradually backwards and imposing its own interpretation of the law making it more and more difficult for employers to deal with employment situations. Then in 2000 we had the Employment Relations Act and now we see the prospect of further major changes which employers and employees—and I suspect everybody in this House—know will make it more difficult for employees and potential employees to get or stay in employment. 
We know that because we know that if one makes it more difficult for an employer to dismiss a staff member who is not working an employer simply will not hire anybody whom he or she perceives as risky—which could be anybody whose English is not too good who has a criminal record who is a bit too young or a bit too old. That is what we face if we retreat further from the kind of Employment Relations Act we have got. 
Thanks to the reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s we have had better growth in the last 10 years than we have had for the previous two or three decades. The sad thing is that what we are looking at now is a gradual slowing-down of that growth to New Zealand’s huge cost and we will all pay for that. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 A few moments ago Dr Cullen laughed at the theory that cutting taxes would advance the economy. I do not subscribe to that theory but I can recall the day when Dr Cullen did and I can recall the day when the Labour Party sitting over there committed everything to reducing taxation to advance the economy. Dr Cullen now thinks it is a joke and says that it is laughable. There is some merit in reduced taxation. For a start I will go on record as saying that I would like to see taxation reduced for the low paid in particular. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not catch the Minister’s point. I will go on record as saying I believe that we should encourage exporters by giving them a favourable tax regime. 
Dr Cullen went on to say that he now realises that the asset sales problems were nothing more than a failure. When Labour was in Government between 1984 and 1990 it sold just about everything it could get its hands on. Labour members point across to Richard Prebble but Richard Prebble was not alone there. He cannot take total responsibility. He was in there up to his neck selling whatever he could but the Labour Party was the Government and it wanted to sell everything. As I recall it sold $11 billion worth of assets and now Dr Cullen can make a joke of it. We have had to buy back Air New Zealand and we are now in the throes of trying to solve the Tranz Rail problems. 
This country is now getting by on its immigration policy. We are living on the backs of immigrants. The time will come—if it has not come already—when members will realise that that policy is just as flawed as the asset sales programme that Labour embarked on a few years back. [ 
Interruption 
] I travel on a New Zealand passport. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am very pleased to hear it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am very pleased and very proud to travel on it and I have absolutely no intention of getting anything else. 
Immigration policy is basically population policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Who is meant to be giving this speech? That member over there who never speaks or me? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to a fair go. There is too much cross-interjection. 
PETER BROWN 
: Immigration policy is population policy. I understand that United Future is on record as saying that it wants to see 5 million people in this country within the next 10 years. That is a net gain of 100000 per year. If United Future is the common-sense party then that is the equivalent of 2½ Rotorua’s every year in terms of poll population. If United Future is the common-sense party then I have to say that its members should start thinking a bit more sensibly. 
We should be addressing the immigration question ourselves. I think the Minister of Immigration—and I want to be a little bit charitable here—has somewhat suddenly got the message probably under the influence of my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters. She has probably taken something on board of some of the statements he has been making. We should be talking about how many people to allow into this country when we want to achieve this level of population—and not ridiculously so as United Future apparently is advocating—where they should live and whether the population should be more evenly distributed. They are reasonable questions. Who should we allow in? Should we be selective; if so whom should we restrict? They are reasonable questions. [ 
Interruption 
] It is too late for me. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Never too late. 
PETER BROWN 
: I got through the net but the net was pretty darn tight when I came here. 
Let me be quite clear. New Zealand First advocates that we should reduce the annual number of immigrants into this country and keep it at a controllable reasonable level. We should be careful about who we allow in. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the member is making references to myself but I want to be honest. There would be no great advantage to this country if 100000 of me came in at one time. Over a prolonged period there might be some merit but I would not want to see 100000 of me in one input coming into this country. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: I agree with the member on that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am trying to be a little bit charitable here but the member over there keeps heckling. 
I believe that the Minister of Immigration has suddenly taken things on board. We believe that everybody coming here should have a job. She has moved from a points-based system to a job skills-based system. That is in the immigration legislation that is coming in right now and there is merit in it. We believe that everybody coming here should be able to speak English. That seems to be common sense. English is the language of this country— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What sort of accent? 
PETER BROWN 
: We are quite relaxed about the accent but we want people to be able to string words together. My accent is no worse than the member’s. We believe that everybody coming into this country should have good health. Let the member tell me that he does not believe in that. We believe that everybody coming in here should have a clean criminal record. We believe that we should have an incentive for immigrants to live outside of Auckland. 
The Minister has recognised many of those points in her bill and she is moving in the right direction but she has no control whatsoever over the numbers. In fact I think she is advocating 45000-plus and we think that is far too many. We believe that there should be a probationary period for anybody coming into this country on a permanent basis. If they offend or are involved in crime within that stipulated time frame then out they go. We must never allow immigration to remove us from the responsibility to train and educate our own people. 
We must also remember that mass immigration as we have been experiencing in the past few years leads to inflation and can put a drain on our health education and welfare and our physical infrastructure such as the roads as it has in places like Auckland. We cannot afford to live on the backs of immigrants for ever. We must recognise that this country does benefit from a positive immigration policy but the one we have right now is too wide—it opens the door far too wide. 
In my last few moments I would like to talk about tax for exporters. If we do not start recognising shortly that exporters are the key to a sound economy it might well be too late. We should be using our tax system to encourage exporters to export more. We should be using our tax system to encourage exporters and manufacturers to set up residence in regional areas rather than all congregating in Auckland. This country will be faced with some tough questions in the not too distant future. We should think about them long and hard in order to do the best for all New Zealanders. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Richard Prebble 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. A decision was made yesterday at the Business Committee about the speaking order for this debate. A roster was tabled by the senior Government whip at the Business Committee meeting specifically because of the problems we had in the last time-limited debate. In that debate the ACT party took an extra call and took up an extra 9 minutes of speaking time that it was not allocated plus a lot of points of order which cost our party and other parties dearly. We lost 12 minutes of debating time in that debate. So yesterday a roster was tabled and an agreement was reached by the Business Committee. We expect that agreement to be honoured which means that this call should be a Green Party call. We reinforce that request on the basis that we consistently cast nine votes in this House and the ACT party casts eight votes and therefore we should be speaking before the ACT party. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I realise that Mr Donald is still riled about the fact that the Green Party did very badly in the last election did not meet any of his predictions and got fewer votes than the ACT party. I realise also that his party is about to vote for a measure to have Parliament decide who gets elected but we have not yet done that. We are now required to follow Standing Orders. Standing Order 103 which Mr Donald no doubt has not got around to reading states that in deciding the order of debate: “(b) overall participation in a debate should be approximately proportional to party membership in the House:”. I say to Mr Donald that the ACT party had more MPs elected; it had a greater vote at the last election than the Green Party. The member can do little silly deals with the Government whip as much as he likes but those are the Standing Orders. 
I also strongly object to any suggestion from that member that I have not kept to the correct speaking time. I most certainly have and the remarks made by him I find grossly offensive. The other matter I draw attention to is that once the call has been made it cannot be challenged so the member is wasting the time of the House as usual. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 If I could address the last point first. The reference was not to Mr Prebble the leader of the ACT party but to the member of the party who broke the agreement made on the previous occasion his deputy Ken Shirley. 
If I could speak about the particulars of this matter. What is relevant is the fact that after the dispute and the behaviour of the ACT member on the previous occasion which my colleague Mr Donald referred to there was a request made at the Business Committee 2 weeks ago for me to bring to the committee a proposed roster for the speeches in this debate. I prepared this roster using the normal proportional allocation and distributed it at the committee meeting yesterday. With one change made at the request of the ACT party that roster is the one you see before you. The request made at that meeting by the ACT representative Dr Newman was to move speech No. 20 which you will see is a Labour 5-minute call into that position and shift the other call so that the ACT member who had previously been in the No. 20 position got call No. 17 of 5-minutes duration and was therefore in no danger of losing speaking time because of exactly the slippage that is now occurring. There was no disagreement about any other matter of the roster. It was agreed unanimously by all whips present and others furthermore so that we would not have the sort of dispute that has now occurred for the second consecutive time on a matter like this. I find it totally unacceptable. The consequences are quite obvious. If we cannot have an agreement that is made unanimously—where ACT has indeed been accommodated at the Business Committee the day before—held to then that is an entirely unacceptable position. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: In ruling on the point of order I can only go by the Standing Orders. I know that the Business Committee did discuss the matter and I know that there was an agreement between parties. However the Standing Orders do stand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We have just listened to the New Zealand First MP— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What a dishonest party! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The chief Government whip who put up a silly list to put through the Business Committee to try to make some silly point with the Greens is now calling out “dishonest”. He says the ACT party is delaying this House but that is exactly what he is doing. He is trying to cut out other members from speaking—with the help of Rod Donald. A couple of junior MPs are holding up the House. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise for his claim against me in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise please for the remark of “dishonest”. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I did not refer to any member as being dishonest. I said the party was dishonest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry it is the same thing. Please stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Before the interruptions I was rising to speak to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill. But after listening to Mr Peter Brown speaking—and I do not know whether his accent is a north of England accent—about immigration I have to comment that I always find it extraordinary. The gall of that party is just simply amazing though perhaps he regards himself as a personal example of the fact that immigration is a bit of a mixed blessing. 
I want to debate the matter in front of us—and I know that is not usual in these debates. I want to discuss the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill and to look at the very interesting question of exactly how much money the Government is receiving and how much it is spending. At the time of the Budget the Government said it was going to have a $4 billion surplus. That is a huge surplus. A surplus of $4 billion dollars is not as the ACT party has commented a matter for praise. It means we are being overtaxed $4 billion. There are approximately 1.6 million workers in New Zealand and that works out at $2500 too much tax each. Well the situation has got worse. In the latest figures I have from Treasury for the year ending 31 May Treasury now estimates from the operating balance before revaluations and accounting changes that the surplus has now become $5.6 billion. For those MPs who have done the mental arithmetic that is $3500 of overtaxation per worker in New Zealand. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Dreadful! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is dreadful. Three thousand five hundred dollars is a lot of money and every worker in New Zealand on average is paying $3500 too much tax so that Dr Cullen can put together a huge fund. And what does he want to do that for? Well this is not election year is it. He will wait until election year then spray it around in order to win votes. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Tax and bribe. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes—tax and bribe. The ACT party says that what we need to do is have a tax cut and $5.6 billion is enough to actually go to a flat rate of tax immediately. We could cut the rate of income tax for every worker in New Zealand substantially. 
 I would like to hear from members opposite: do they not believe that if the average New Zealand family was getting another $3500—and if both parents are working it would be $7000—it could do something with that money? Imagine what people could do for their children if they had another $7000 a year of their own money coming back instead of having the Government boasting that it has money to spend on Maori television on sponsoring the America’s Cup on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on Kiwibank and on all the other nonsense that a Labour Government engages in and still has a massive surplus. 
I say to the Government that it should send back the money. There is also another reason that it should do so. It might enable ordinary New Zealanders to be able to pay their rates. The solution of this Government and of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues Judith Tizard to the rates problem is to say: “Let them eat cake; let them move house.” That is the Labour Party solution to the rates problem. If people’s rates are too great they should just shift house or mortgage themselves to the council. I want the next Government speaker to tell us why the Government should not express some concern about the fact that the survey the ACT party has done shows that although inflation last year was 1.5 percent—so if councils were just moving rates in line with inflation they should have been 1.5 percent—the average increase is 4.5 percent. The Auckland Regional Council rates increase is 34 percent and the increase for Banks Peninsula is 16.64 percent. I do not know why that is. Did it not just win a case against one of its employees? But despite that the increase is 16.64 percent. The Franklin District Council increase is 16 percent. The Marlborough District Council increase is 11 percent. Ashburton’s increase is 10 percent—no doubt that is the effect of Jenny Shipley moving away and not keeping a supervisory note on it. 
When we look at those councils we can see that they are putting in huge rates rises. That is a matter of concern especially when the councils say with a great deal of truth that the reason they are putting up rates is that a Labour Government has increased the responsibilities that they must go through. We now have a nonsense at local body level whereby there is consultation upon consultation—paralysis by analysis. We have planners to burn all of whom cost money and push up the cost of rates to the ordinary New Zealander. But of course the Labour Government’s solution to rates rises is to say that people should move. Judith Tizard said that she had contacted the local citizens advice bureau and it had not had anyone complain to it! I did not realise that people paid their rates to the citizens advice bureau but then the sort of world that Judith Tizard lives in is a very strange one. She of course lives in a State house and the taxpayer pays all the charges for her. She has no real idea of the sorts of costs being met by ordinary New Zealanders. The ACT party has a solution to that. I would like to think that this House will support Rodney Hide’s bill. Let us put in a provision whereby if a council wants to increase rates greater than the rate of inflation a poll is held. We used to have polls if councils wanted to borrow money. If the regional council carried out a poll of ratepayers in Auckland who believes that the ratepayers of Auckland would vote for a 34 percent increase? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s right. No way. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Especially those on the North Shore as the member for North Shore is calling out. Of course people on the North Shore are paying extra rates for a rail system. I do not think that the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues actually knows that the rail does not go over to the North Shore. I do not think she ever visits the North Shore. 
Shane Ardern 
: She’s never been over there. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She has never been over and would not have a clue. She has never been on the train of course. She has an LTD. 
Paul Adams 
: We’ll get rail soon. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well it will cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and it will be paid for by ratepayers the vast majority of whom will not be using it. This Labour Government says that it is a matter for the local people—and we agree with that. Therefore a Labour Government should support our bill which states that any council that wants to increase rates greater than the rate of inflation must hold a poll. Let the local people decide. There are massive rates increases in the central Hawke’s Bay in central New Zealand and in the South Island. The average is 4.5 percent—that is four times the rate of inflation. So far in this debate the only party to speak out on that matter has been the ACT party. That is consistent. We have always been the party in favour of lower taxes and less costs. We say that the things councils are being asked to do are things that the local people would never have asked for. One of them is to do extensive consultation with iwi. Why do iwi need to be consulted more than any other ratepayer? It is just this Government’s political correctness. 
I come back to the point I made earlier and I ask the House this: how can we support giving the Government $5.6 billion more than it says it needs? As I have said and I say it again that is enough money to give $3500 back to every working person in New Zealand and if both partners in a family work that is $7000. I want to know from the Labour Government why we should not give back $7000 to ordinary working people. The ACT party thinks that ordinary working people will spend that $7000 far better than this Cullen-Clark Government with its proposed Maori television and all the other nonsense like the foreshore claims and all the other things that the Government intends to spend people’s money on. Let us have some faith in ordinary New Zealanders. Let us realise that it is morally wrong for this Parliament to take more taxes than it needs. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not ask you to rule here and now on this matter but I would like you to consider it and come back to the House with a ruling. I refer to the decision that has been made to alter the speaking order in the House today. My point is that it is quite clear that at yesterday’s Business Committee the designated representative of the ACT party entered into an agreement—and I stress it was an agreement—with all the other parties in this House. If it is acceptable for the leader of that party to come here today and set that agreement aside then it seems to me it is an inevitable conclusion that that will affect the orderly conduct of this House. I would like you to reflect on that and give us a ruling in due course. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
:  
I ask you not to reflect on that request because it is grossly out of order. A member should raise a point of order at the time and not later. However since the member has raised a point of order he should set the facts out correctly. Sure a form was put around whereby the chief Government whip thought it would be a funny trick to change the speaking order without drawing it to the attention of the people at the committee. He thinks that it is a sort of agreement when the order is changed from how it normally is and regards that as binding. When the ACT member Muriel Newman realised the silly game that the Labour chief whip was getting into with the Greens and now I understand with the help of United Future—which came to Parliament to lift the standards—she immediately went to see the Speaker Jonathan Hunt. He immediately agreed that of course the speaking order ought to be as it is set out in the Standing Orders. I say to United Future that that sort of silly game is one of the reasons that it is at 0.8 percent in the polls. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Prebble on one thing: if he is to set out the facts they should be correct. Certainly what he just said is not correct. An agreement—no silly games or tricks—was made at the Business Committee meeting which Mr Prebble seldom if ever attends. He is not the member who does that and I do not criticise him. He was not at the committee yesterday so it is difficult for him to speak with such great confidence about the events that took place there. The fact is that a sensible agreement was reached in the manner that is required constantly for this House to work in an MMP environment. It is very very difficult for the House to function on a day-to-day basis if members do not stick to good-faith agreements. That is the beginning and end of it. 
Finally Mr Copeland raised the matter at the first opportunity he had—that is straight after Mr Prebble had taken a call. This is a matter of some serious concern to those of us from all parties who are involved in the day-to-day management of the House. I say to Mr Prebble that it is absolutely essential for every party to be prepared to stick to good-faith agreements when they are made. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I start by saying that we are a party that does not usually take points of order but our level of frustration has reached the point where we feel obliged to make an issue of this. We invite you to take Gordon Copeland’s advice and reflect on this matter. In particular you need to look at the minutes of the Business Committee meeting which clearly state that the speaking order would be as agreed at that committee. It is in writing. No stunt was pulled by anybody. There was quite some debate at the Business Committee about the order of speaking today as a result of the chaos that was created by ACT in the 8-hour estimates debate. I request that you reflect on the minutes of that meeting. Otherwise the whole integrity of any decision taken at the Business Committee is undermined if we are to relitigate every decision in this House that the committee has made. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I suggest that you do not waste your time by doing any of the things that have been suggested to you by the members who have contributed to this discussion. This seems to me to be a very simple matter. The Standing Order is the Standing Order. Your role Madam Speaker along with the other presiding officers is to apply the Standing Order and I suggest you do that on this occasion. What the Business Committee does is its business but it is a relatively informal arrangement. I am frequently surprised by some of the outcomes that come from that committee but the Standing Orders are there for presiding officers to interpret and apply. It seems to me that the requests that are being made by some of those who have spoken to this point of order are quite superfluous and you should ignore them. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Business Committee can discuss the matter again but the situation is exactly as the Hon Murray McCully has said. It is a matter that is in the Standing Orders now. If the Standing Orders are to change then that is another decision that needs to be taken. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is with considerable sadness that the Green Party cannot support the third reading of this legislation. Contrary to the views of National ACT and New Zealand First we do not see this Budget as being all bad. It contains some good initiatives and it continues some Green Party initiatives from previous years that have now become baselined. However that is all overridden by this Government’s refusal to listen to the people in their demand that we maintain the opportunity to grow and eat food that is free of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that we protect our environment from the unpredictable harm they could cause and that we protect our economic advantage in producing clean green healthy produce. 
We made it very clear at the last election that genetic engineering was an issue of confidence for us and it remains so. The 35 percent increase in our vote at that election despite the untruths that were told about us at the time was an endorsement of our position and we will keep our promise. That is why I move an amendment to the motion—namely:  
“to omit all the words after the word ‘That’ and substitute the following words: ‘this House cannot express confidence in this Labour-Progressive Government and their United supporters because they are determined to promote the release into our farms fields and environment of unpredictable genetically engineered organisms despite strong opposition from consumers growers food manufacturers exporters economists environmentalists health workers local authorities churches and ordinary people with common sense.’ ” 
It is a pity things have come to this pass because as I said there are some good initiatives in this Budget. This Government is the first to have grasped the nettle of climate change and put in place at least some measures to help us to observe the Kyoto Protocol. Energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy now have a statutory role under the national strategy. Research is under way on agricultural emissions. Two wind electricity projects are planned with the help of Kyoto credits and although that is little and late it is far more than any previous Government has done. 
Sales of public assets have stopped and there is a commitment to returning the rail track to public ownership investing in it and restoring it to a useful state. The Government even though we are not supporting it on confidence and supply has listened to the Greens’ proposals repeated for 2 years now to regain the tracks and it is taking our advice. We have a new land transport strategy that prepares for the 21st century by recognising sustainability as a vital goal and widening the vision to include all modes of land transport. Under our cooperation agreement with the Government we have contributed to that strategy and to the legislation that flows from it. 
We have supported legislation to improve health and safety in the workplace fairer employment rights and the comprehensive re-write of the Local Government Act. With Nandor Tanczos’ Clean Slate Bill we prompted the Government to introduce its own bill on that topic and we have worked with the Government to incorporate much of our position. We welcomed the decision to stay out of the United States’ invasion of Iraq and to support the UN though we are less happy with the decision to send army engineers into a war zone where they are not particularly welcome by the locals. 
There have been negatives too. The global assault on civil liberties that followed September 11 has been one of the more disturbing aspects of the last couple of years. Unfortunately the New Zealand Government has not been immune to the international hysteria and has joined in on the war against freedom. No fewer than four bills have been introduced or passed in the last year that undermine our rights as citizens to speak our minds and to carry out our lives free from the secret intervention of the State security services. The Greens were the only party to oppose those restrictions and to stand up for freedom. Then there was this week’s slap in the face for beneficiaries which seems to have been driven more by focus groups than by any attempt at economic justice. 
My co-leader Rod Donald said in the first reading debate: “The Budget surplus is a fraud. It is built on the backs of Kiwi kids living in poverty hardworking low-income families who need a tax break and young people who are shut out of affordable tertiary education.” I endorse those comments. We are disappointed at the continued refusal to recognise the poverty that restricts opportunity for so many of our people especially when Dr Cullen crows about his Budget surplus. 
But the defining point for us is the intransigence of the Government on genetic engineering and that is why we cannot vote for this Budget. As the only nine parliamentary representatives of the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who do not want GE released into their food or their environment we promised those people our vote would be conditional on preserving New Zealand’s GE-free status except for the many beneficial uses of GE in a contained laboratory. Let us remember that the polls tell us we are not representing a minority here. The most recent poll asked about preserving GE-free food production in New Zealand at least until our markets will accept it and an overwhelming 80 percent of New Zealanders supported that policy. Once one gets outside this building with its blinkered views its half-baked science and its political slogans and one engages with the real world of common sense one finds that ours is the majority view. 
Since the Government made its decision to promote the release of GE a lot of evidence has accumulated. There would be no loss of face if the Government were to engage with that evidence and change its mind. There is no shame in allowing the new facts to get in the way of old prejudices. The GE-free movement would congratulate the Government not scoff at it. Let us look at some of what has happened since the royal commission reported and the Government rejected its advice of caution and accepted its advice to proceed—things that no one could have known at the time. 
According to the panel of independent scientists which includes a number of household names GE crops have failed to deliver their promised benefits. They have not significantly increased yields or reduced herbicide or pesticide use. The scientists call to put this technology on hold until we know a lot more is based on the finding that there can be no co-existence of GE and non-GE crops and that contamination is unavoidable. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report recommended by the royal commission found that co-existence can occur only if all non-GE crops accept a contamination level of 1 percent which growers consumers and overseas markets do not want. That independent panel of scientists points to growing problems on the farm with herbicide-resistant weeds and safety concerns that have never been investigated. 
The European Union has adopted labelling rules that will require all New Zealand’s food exports to the European Union to be labelled as containing GE material if we adopt that 1 percent threshold for allowable contamination and the supermarkets there have said that they simply will not buy anything labelled as GE because their consumers do not want it. Although the gene technology regulator in Australia has approved GE canola for growing there none will be grown because all the states where it could be grown have imposed their own bans of one kind or another. They see a market advantage in doing that and if we persist in the foolish plan to release GE food crops we will be at a marketing disadvantage compared with Australia. 
The science has also moved on. Two years ago scientists thought there were some 150000 genes in the human genome; now they have reduced that to just 30000. The point of that is not just that we know so little or we keep finding out we were wrong but rather that the whole basis of genetic engineering the belief that genes alone control inheritance and that each gene codes for only one characteristic is wrong. Thirty thousand genes are not enough to control human inheritance and other factors must be involved. When we transfer genes what else are we transferring without having any idea of its function? 
The Government is not even pretending to implement many of the recommendations of the royal commission such as not using food animals or plants to produce pharmaceuticals allowing councils to establish after consultation with their communities GE-exclusion zones to protect local production and having a strategy to protect bees. The only strategy to protect bees announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry after months of research is that beekeepers will be responsible for finding out on the Internet where the GE crops are grown and for moving their hives 6 kilometres away from them—great! The period of constraint as the Government likes to call it is supposed to allow research to be done on a key concern of the royal commission the “significant gaps in our knowledge about the effects on soils on native species and on horizontal gene transfer”. A contract has been let to examine those things. When will they be reported on? The report will be years away. What does the Government plan to do if that report comes back with a list of dos and don’ts to prevent the horizontal gene transfer of dangerous genetic material and pollen from GE corn is already blowing all over our farms? 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 During my contribution to an earlier of Appropriation and Imprest Supply bills for 2003-04 I was subject to an unrelenting stream of interjections and interruptions from the honourable member Rodney Hide. As far as I could work out his concern was that when I pointed out a number of ways in which I believed this year’s Budget could have been improved he was quizzing me continually about why in those circumstances I and United Future would be voting in favour of the bills. I think I owe him an answer to that and it is simply this: we have signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-Progressive Government. 
Should Rodney Hide then ask me why we entered into such agreement again my answer is very straightforward: that is precisely the mandate we sought and received from the voters of this country. During the election campaign we clearly signalled that we would be prepared to work with the largest party elected by the voters in the interests of creating certainty and stability for New Zealand society and the economy. Let me tell members that United Future has no intention of welshing either on the mandate it has been given by the voters of New Zealand or on our confidence and supply agreement with the Government. Accordingly we will continue to support the Government on those issues right through until the 2005 election. It is about time that MMP was made to work properly. 
 The honourable Rodney Hide’s barrage of comment and interjection while I was speaking brought to mind the picture of a bull terrier that when confronted with 119 large trees decided to dedicate 3 years of its life to barking up every single one of them in the hope that somewhere up amongst the branches there may be a Dr Michael Cullen a Clayton Cosgrove a David Parker or a Janet Mackey who could become unnerved enough to lose his or her grip and fall out of the tree. Well I tell Mr Hide that I have not seen anyone fall out yet nor do I expect that to happen before 2005. But far be it from me to discourage him. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that the member in his speech is being extremely unparliamentary with regard to one of our colleagues and I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There was nothing unparliamentary there. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I hope that spurious point of order does not reduce my speaking time. I really do not want to discourage or to pour scorn on Mr Hide’s hopes in that regard. 
I want now to go back to the appropriations and imprest supply bills. I have already signalled that I believe Dr Cullen would have been wise to adjust the tax brackets for inflation. That would have moved the upper limit for the 19.5 percent rate of taxation from $38000 to $42000 and the threshold for the start of the 39 percent rate from $60000 to $65000. It would have yielded all taxpayers a gain in take-home pay of between $1.16 and $16.50 a week. It would have given the economy a $400 million fiscal stimulus at precisely the point where growth is on the way down having fallen significantly from last year’s 4.4 percent to a forecast of just 2.2 percent for this year. 
In the absence of any fiscal stimulus we are left to rely solely on monetary policy for growth. I do not believe that on its own it will get the job done. Daily now in our newspapers we see people from many sectors of the economy from manufacturers to farmers asking the Reserve Bank governor to fix the dramatic slow-down in value resulting from the high exchange rate of the Kiwi dollar via monetary policy. But the reality is that monetary policy on its own cannot do that. For that reason in my opinion we need both monetary and fiscal policy to kick in at this time and to work in tandem so as to stimulate the New Zealand economy in the interests of both minimising the downturn and turning the growth curve upwards again as quickly as possible. Once again I remind Dr Cullen that it is not too late to take that action. Were he to bring a short bill to the House to increase the tax brackets in the way that has been proposed by United Future I am sure he would have the immediate support of all parties and enormous support from New Zealand taxpayers. 
United Future would also like to see the company taxation rate reduced to 30c in the dollar. By my calculations that would cost about $500 million. Again it would give a much-needed boost to the business sector stimulate the economy and increase economic growth. 
I would like to say too that I agree with Peter Brown when he talks about doing something to boost our exports. I have in mind here particularly exports that add value—for example processed wood as compared with exported logs. I have already put a suggestion to Dr Cullen that he looks for example at maybe making exported logs subject to GST and processed timber not subject to GST as it is at the moment in order to put us on to the path towards adding the value that we so desperately need to have if we are to see our economy grow. 
I would like to comment a little on some of the items that are included in the imprest supply bill. I note that it seeks authority in relation to Air New Zealand’s equity for $150 million—although perhaps a decision in that regard will be delayed until the Commerce Commission has made its final ruling in relation to the Air New Zealand - Qantas alliance. I think though that the Government should also give careful consideration to whether it may be a better strategy to reduce its shareholding stake in Air New Zealand via a rights issue available to members of the New Zealand public. Mum and dad investors would I am sure appreciate the opportunity to take up a stake in our national airline. As far as I know there is no good reason in terms of international or bilateral agreements or otherwise for the Government itself to maintain an 82.5 percent shareholding in the airline. Why not reduce that in tranches if necessary to say 51 percent? 
I would also like to refer to the question of investment in what the new No. 2 bill describes as a capital allowance—an injection of capital for rail. When the first imprest supply bill was in the House we were talking about a deal with Tranz Rail. Of course since that has happened the deal has now shifted to one between the Government and Toll Holdings. That in turn is now somewhat up in the air and it is unclear whether Toll Holdings will be successful in gaining control of Tranz Rail. In any event one way or another the Government looks set to re-acquire ownership of the rail track throughout New Zealand and is accepting responsibility for its ongoing maintenance. 
My information is that the rail track has a long tail of deferred and expensive maintenance. I think it is clear that from the date of its privatisation—and probably before then—until now little has been put back into the maintenance of both the track itself and the associated infrastructure in terms of bridges tunnels stations and the like. It has all been pitifully run down pretty much to Third World standards by a group of shareholders who were intent on stripping every available cent out of the company to put into their own pockets. I spent the earlier part of my career working for large corporations and I support wholeheartedly private enterprise in every way. However it must be admitted that asset stripping represents the ugly and in my view the unethical face of capitalism. 
In any event I urge the Government now to proceed with caution. If I were in the shoes of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport before committing the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to replace bridges rail tracks etc. I would do my sums carefully so as to establish whether rail will remain a cost-effective means of transportation on a line by line and on an area by area basis. I suspect that in a number of areas of both the North and South Islands rail may not be the best and most economical mode of transport over the medium and longer term. If that is the case I believe the Government needs to discipline itself and if necessary to make the hard decisions that would be involved in closing down uneconomic or redundant railway lines. I think that work must be done. I believe that the Government has to rely on much more than simply the ideology of Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party in basically saying that rail is a good thing. The situation is not as simple as that. We should not invest any taxpayers’ money without competent analysis and a commercial justification. 
I want also to touch on another important area that I believe needs to be addressed during this debate. I refer here to the question of skilled labour shortages in the New Zealand labour force which are now a major restraint on our growth. Many of those shortages appear to relate to what may be called the manually skilled section of the workforce. The Government needs immediately through the Department of Labour to undertake an in-depth study of New Zealand firms to establish precisely the extent of those skill shortages by category and by the ages of the people who are needed to undertake the work. I mention age because the chief executive officer of Positively Business Wellington tells me that shortages in a number of areas are occurring as people retire and there is no one available to take their place. A comprehensive well-researched database would therefore assist the Government both in terms of retaining older workers and the like and also of endeavouring to fill those shortages and to fill them quickly through immigration. 
Diesel mechanics are a case in point. Apparently we are short of them but there is a cohort of South African diesel mechanics who would be very keen to migrate to New Zealand. In that regard the Government’s new immigration bill is a welcome step forward. As Minister Lianne Dalziel has said it is a step away from bringing people with academic qualifications into the country simply to drive taxis in Auckland. It is much better to bring in suitably qualified immigrants to plug the gaps in Wellington Southland Taranaki etc. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is very good to follow a speaker from a responsible party in this Parliament that differs often with the Government but supports the Government on matters of confidence and supply. It is in stark contrast to the raggedy old National Party and the right-wing upstart on the block ACT to whom Mr McCully has recently had to go as a Greek bearing gifts. He should beware see the end of that tale and see what happens. But that is OK because in this Parliament we have a working relationship around principle and issues and United Future should be commended. It is also good to commend it for standing up to the silly taunts of the permanent Opposition who want to make sure that the Government does not have the support of the parties in this House who actually want to get things done. 
When we campaign for votes we do so with a commitment that if we are elected we will do our best to deliver the policies and programmes we campaigned on to improve lives and to make our community safer more prosperous and more harmonious. That is why the Progressive party supports this bill. The Labour-Progressive coalition a minority in this House regularly comes to Parliament to seek approval to raise the money it needs in order to invest in New Zealand’s future. Non-Government parties have to consider carefully whether to approve or not to approve that request for the funds we need to invest in our communities. At various times in the past 4 years we have relied on the support and cooperation alternatively of United Future New Zealand First and the Greens on matters of confidence and supply. A key political challenge to our centre-left coalition is to continue to hold the confidence of parliamentary majorities for many years to come. 
I believe that we have experienced the confidence of Parliament in these past 4 years not only because we have a coalition that is not afraid to tackle challenging issues head-on but because we put those particularly challenging issues to the test of what is the best for the people of New Zealand. We have a coalition that is tackling the social and capital investment deficit of the past 15 years or so. That is a deficit that ACT by its selfish policies wants to continue with and to go back to—in particular by pushing programmes that say if one is rich one does not have to pay for any of the social investment in New Zealand. 
In recent days we have heard of Kiwibank’s pilot programme to offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for low and modest-income earners to have their own homes. The response to Kiwibank’s initiative has been overwhelmingly positive. Also in recent days the coalition has unveiled a $105 million jobs package to assist more New Zealanders into employment. The coalition has showed that it is prepared to face up to its responsibilities to address household and business concerns about the lack of security of supply in electricity provision. 
I believe that a political factor that will assist the Labour-Progressive coalition to continue to maintain the support of a majority in Parliament for many years to come is the decision by the National Party earlier this year to adopt all of ACT’s key values and policies. For that we heartily thank them. Those two parties have settled on ACT’s policy prescription—a prescription that has ensured that the ACT party has been an Opposition party since its inception. For half a century until Jim Bolger’s departure from National’s leadership the National Party dominated New Zealand’s parliamentary politics. Under the first-past-the-post system that was often easy to do. A party did not need a majority of votes at all but it could have enough seats to have a majority in Parliament. 
Since the coup against Mr Bolger National and ACT have turned further inward looking. They are now stuck in the rut of all ideologically motivated parties. They are big on philosophical purity and grand theories but out of touch with the vast majority of the community and unable to participate in implementing practical solutions to real challenges. Everyone agrees that the challenge to all parties is to get good things done for people. The question of confidence that needs to be decided is this: would a National-ACT administration do a better job than the Labour-Progressive coalition? That is the question that confronted New Zealand First and the Greens in the 1999-2002 Parliament and that confronts those parties as well as United Future in this Parliament. 
The people of New Zealand have resoundingly answered “No” to the question I posed. [ 
Interruption 
] It seems that in this Parliament there are two members of Parliament for the fading and failing Opposition parties who say “Yes”. Those three parties—that is New Zealand First the Greens and United Future—constantly have to weigh up whether what the Labour-Progressive administration is doing is better for people than what would be happening if we had that National-ACT Government. The political challenge to the Labour-Progressive coalition over this and coming years is to continue to hold the confidence of a majority in Parliament and to continue to inspire the kind of support and respect that I believe the National-ACT bloc is so many many years away from achieving. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 We heard interjections from the “agent for Monaco”. Who was responsible for Monaco’s commercial spy ring in New Zealand? It was that member over there. I do not see how he can sit in this House when he runs the commercial spies the industrial agents and so on. Someone on the other side of the House called Mr Worth is the agent for Monaco in New Zealand and he has the cheek to sit in this Parliament at the same time. What an embarrassment he is to his party! [ 
Interruption 
] He invited it—he interjected the very minute I stood up. I ask members what contribution he has made to New Zealand. He was the agent for Alinghi. That member ran the trust fund for Alinghi and has progressed since that time to running spy rings in New Zealand for the principality of Monaco. I do not know how that member manages to live with his conscience. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He doesn’t have one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I suppose so; he is an old Tory. It is no great surprise. One of the things I contemplate when we come to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill is that I look at the alternatives— 
Richard Worth 
: Do you know about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did a helluva lot of work on it. To be fair I probably did not do it in quite the way my ministerial colleagues would have preferred—but we shall leave it at that point because we work together. I look over to the other side of the House and ask whether anyone there could possibly put a Budget together. 
John Key 
: Yes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I just about believe that. We do feel sorry for John Key do we not? He agreed to Michelle Boag coming in to be the rising star and spokesperson on finance for the National Party. Then what happened? Bill English asked Don Brash to do the job as well. That was absolutely unfair. When that member was invited in to Parliament as the member was—I mean of course Mr Key the member for somewhere in west Auckland—by the president of the party to be a rising star in the finance area who went in front of him? It was Don Brash. I feel sorry for Mr Key. I think we all feel sorry for him. 
Jill Pettis 
: No! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: People do not feel sorry for him? Who on the opposite side of the House would if in Government be trying to put together a Budget? We all know of course that it would be Richard Prebble. He is the only person. He is the person who Murray McCully says has more political skills than anyone on the front bench of the National Party. Also he actually said that Rodney Hide is better than anyone on the front bench of the National Party. I tell members that we do not run that tight a caucus discipline on our side but I would be looking for the Prime Minister’s ruck marks if I made a comment like that about my leader. 
Of course we are lucky that we have a great leader who deals daily to National to the point where today National members are too scared to ask the Prime Minister a question. In Opposition we used to itch for it when Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger were Prime Minister. We thought: “What questions can we ask the Prime Minister today?” We wondered how we could hold him or her to account. But what do we have here? We have a National Party whose members do not even have the spine to ask the Prime Minister a question. Not one of them was prepared to front up today. 
We could go along National’s front bench and point out people like Gerry Brownlee—[ 
Interruption 
] Well he has stretched buttons at the moment. There is a lot of hot air over there. They do not ask me questions either and that is not fair because I quite like questions. As Minister of Education I think I should have my fair share of questions but unfortunately no one in the National Party— 
Richard Worth 
: There should be a question mark over you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like there to be a question mark as a result of a bit of pressure from Parliament. But it needs an Opposition. As for Nick Smith I would like him to ask me a question. This is a relatively sad Opposition. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I left the House we were contemplating who other than John Key with 10 15 or 20 years’ experience could possibly put a Budget together. It is quite clear that the sad wrung-out dish mop Dr Brash could not possibly do it. He has given up already. He has been here a year and he has given up. Now he almost says he is sorry before he asks questions. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He is a sort of Mary Batchelor of the National Party. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that is bit rough on Mary Batchelor and Danny Kaye for that matter as well. There is a little bit of talent left on the National Party side. There is Mr Power who is sort of threatening but I do not think he will ever make it in the financial area because it requires a bit more work than the gentleman rural member is prepared to do. Therefore what is obvious and sort of delightful and what people who are being polled this very night by UMR Insight will be saying is: “We really know that if the very very weak Leader of the Opposition was ever involved in Government again with ACT as the coalition partner Richard Prebble would be Treasurer.” Everyone knows that there is no way that someone as weak as Bill English would ever be able to stand up to someone like Richard Prebble. I wonder now how much longer anyone with any self-respect would stay in the job in the position Bill English is in. Every now and again—and it is very hard because he is a Tory—I start feeling sorry for him. Clearly he is someone who was promoted before his time. He is someone who had a whole pile of potential and never delivered and now he has a mutinous bunch around him and there is no sign at all of any policy direction. 
I ask members to look at the issue of the beaches. What a fundamental mistake he has made. He has ended up attacking his rich mates and their private beaches because he said there should be one rule for everybody—access to those beaches even if it has not been there in the past. I happen to agree with him. There are matters of property rights and things like that to work through but I never thought I would hear from a National Party leader about confiscating the rights of people who have private beaches. But he said it and I congratulate him— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We had this debate earlier on and Minister Tamihere made the same claim. It is just not correct. The member Wayne Mapp has given his word and the Leader of the Opposition would if he were here. Members are honourable members and their words are to be accepted. The Leader of the Opposition has never said that. The Minister should not be allowed to repeat it because it is not correct. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I think you know and I know that Bill English may be able to come to the House and make such a claim but someone else cannot make it on his behalf. It is a matter for debate. 
John Carter 
: The fact is that the member cannot come into the House and make misleading statements. That is against the Standing Orders as well and the fact is that if he continues he could be before the Privileges Committee. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is debatable. The member would have to come to the House himself to make a statement. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us just make it clear. We have someone who says there should be one standard for everybody and the absolute consistent point flowing from that is that his mates’ beaches have to be confiscated. We all know that. What we have is a sad little man running around looking for some policy thinking he can scratch a few itches. [ 
Interruption 
] I think it is disgraceful too. Bill English of all people is deciding that it is about time to kick a few brown people. I think it is outrageous. He thinks he can make progress on something that comes right up to the edge of being racist. 
John Carter 
: Oh! He’s worried about it if he’s talking about it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I am—and do members know what? I thought he was better than that. I thought he had a conscience and I thought he cared. What is clear is that we now have a leader of the National Party who is a very sad case. He is now like a poor old wrung-out tea towel about to be cast aside as a wet little thing in the kitchen by the National Party. I say that it would be a much better thing for the country if those members just got on with it and did not keep him there. I do not really care whether it is Mr Power who goes or who holds on and loses the next election and whether John Key then comes in whether they go in as a team or whether they do the logical thing and go straight to John Key and cut out those who are sitting in the middle. I do not think it is that relevant for politics in New Zealand for the next 4 or 5 years but it is a very sad thing to watch. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 What a pitiful speech that was from a member we used to hear a lot from! We used to hear a lot from him but he has gone all quiet under Helen Clark’s thumb. He is laughing but that was one of the saddest slowest speeches I have heard with the least amount of content. What we are supposed to be talking about of course is the Budget. When like many members I got to read the Budget I had great expectations that we would see something in the welfare area. But no I thumbed through the Budget and did not see any expenditure that will make a difference to people at the front line. I think the Government realised it did not have enough in its Budget for the welfare area so it quickly moved to make the announcement that next year would be welfare’s chance to get some expenditure. 
But as we know Labour—through its polling I imagine—then realised that it was on the wrong side of the welfare debate and we have seen an about-face this week. We have seen a rush to announce a number of new policies with great fanfare. The Government has presented them all as new. The policy is called the Jobs Jolt renamed the “Jobs Joke”. The Government reannounced a whole set of things that were already in place. Some of them had been in place for the last 10 years—no one had told the Minister. The Government dressed up existing programmes and tried to sell them as new ways of trying to get people into work—and so it should try to get them into work. One of the questions Government members have failed to answer is why the number of people on welfare has gone up not down even though the Government has had the best economic conditions in a very long time. If we look at total figures in this country we see that the number of people on welfare dependent on the State has increased not decreased. That is something the Government should be very very embarrassed about. 
This is a Government that was going to make huge changes to the welfare area. What it did was to take a backward step by undoing a number of things that had been done by National in the last 5 years. We have seen a large increase in certain benefits. The number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has skyrocketed in the last few years. No one can explain that yet. The numbers on both those benefits have increased at rates that cannot be explained by levels of disability within the community and they certainly cannot be explained just by saying we have an aging population or that it is due to population growth. 
 The culture within Work and Income has changed all right but it has changed for the worse. Some of the initiatives that have been reintroduced as new were there already. They are some changes within Work and Income to do what it should have been doing in the first place. The Minister announced a new initiative for intensive new services in isolated areas. Case managers have always had the right to call people in for interviews and they have always had the ability to provide one-on-one advice and support to individuals. That was the whole theory of that case-management approach. In terms of special assistance for sole parents the Minister has often said that no assistance was provided to help women in particular to get back into the workforce but that is absolute rubbish. Each year there were interviews training programmes and all sorts of support such as the Compass programme which was brought in by Jenny Shipley. Once again what is being proposed is not new. 
My personal favourite looking at the Jobs Jolt is the information technology training something called “cyber communities” which will help 140 long-term unemployed people back into work through information and communication technology. That is a fat lot of use for the 6000 New Zealanders who have been on some form of welfare for the last 10 years. The amounts of money we are talking about are pitiful: $2.5 million over 3 years. That department spends $3.5 million a day so $2.5 million over 3 years is not a drop in the bucket. It is not even one drip and it will make little difference. There is an idea that suddenly there will be greater support for the Mayors Task Force for Jobs. For the last couple of years Work and Income New Zealand has provided staff members for that task force so what has been announced in the last couple of days is not new. 
The next thing the Minister has introduced as new is the idea that people could potentially have their benefits cut if they move to remote locations. Once again Work and Income New Zealand had the ability to do that. What was new yesterday was that when Sue Bradford asked a question about whether Maori would be asked to relocate from papakainga or ancestral lands the Minister confirmed that they would not be included. It seems that everybody else will be asked to move from remote areas to look for work except Maori. Once again we are seeing two standards of citizenship develop in this country and Steve Maharey agrees with that. 
Finally it is rather ironic that when the Minister tries to talk tough on welfare he does not focus on the under-25s which is the group on the welfare register that is of most concern to New Zealanders but picks on the 55-59-year-old New Zealanders—those who are nearing retirement. When he talks tough on welfare the first thing he does is to try to kick those who are about to retire in the shins. I ask the Minister where it states in the third-way manual that the first people one picks on are people aged 55-59. Most of us know that those people are the sector of the welfare register who are very motivated to get work but face a wide range of barriers into employment that should be recognised. So that is kind of funny—he talks tough on welfare but the first thing he does is talk tough in respect of those who are close to retirement. That is really kind! I am sure Tony Blair would be very proud of Steve Maharey and that announcement. The thing is that someone forgot to tell the Minister that people in the 55-59 age group are already work tested. Yesterday he seemed to think that that was something new. I say to the Minister that what was removed was the ability to apply for an exemption. People apply for those exemptions not usually because they want to but because their bodies may have worn out from a lifetime of hard work and they are unable to work. 
I can see that members on the other side of the House are getting really uptight about this because they know we have seen through this plan—a plan they announced as being some sort of cunning plan. I remember the story of the emperor’s new clothes. I say to the House that Steve Maharey has no clothes. What he announced yesterday amounts to absolutely nothing. It is a rehash and a reheat of policies already in place not just in the last couple years but in some cases in the last 10 years. Some policies were in place when we had the New Zealand Employment Service. Somebody forgot to tell the Minister that many of those things were already being done. 
Tonight we heard about welfare fraud. We heard about a staff member who after 2½ years has managed to extract $1.9 million out of Work and Income New Zealand. It comes as no surprise. Benefit fraud on both sides of the ledger is something that has been truly neglected under this Government. That Minister can shrug his shoulders as he did tonight and say that that was an operational issue but if National were in Government we would not think it was just an operational issue. We would think the Minister would have to get involved in an issue of $1.9 million. We are talking big dollars. We have an expectation of those on welfare that they will not defraud the system. 
The Minister poor thing puts out his press release and has to ring around because nobody has followed up on it. I can see why he is feeling under a bit of pressure with his “Jobs Joke”. Everybody knows that it is a joke and that it is not designed to make one iota of difference to those who are unemployed or to bringing down welfare numbers—numbers that Treasury have projected to increase over the next few years. We have the best economic conditions in a generation and welfare numbers will be going up. That is because that Government has undone many of the things that were being done in Work and Income New Zealand to bring numbers down. It was working. The Government has a problem. Its polling is telling it that it has a problem and that it had better make some decisions. That is why Steve Maharey has had to swallow a dead rat and start to bring in some things that he feels deeply uncomfortable about. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I was going to say as the beginning of my comments on the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill that that speech was like listening to someone on Mogadon and that it was “Kath without the Kim” but the problem is that I quite like Katherine Rich. On this side of the House we regard Katherine Rich as being one of the better members of the National Party and it is easy to see why because that was 10 minutes of inspiring insightful stuff that really went to the heart of this debate. Katherine Rich is someone whom I regard as being in the wrong party. She is intelligent and she does not believe the stuff she is required to say as a member of the National Party which largely consists of warmed-over policies from the 1990s. I do not think Katherine Rich was born then—I am not really sure whether she was—as she is such a young person. 
Mr Carter remembers all those horrendous policies of the 1990s which even he did not believe in finally. Even he cracked under the pressure of the kinds of policies that the National Party tried to introduce. Even he knew that they were wrong and that they were on the wrong track. But Katherine Rich comes from an intelligent legal background and from the very very forward-looking town of Dunedin in the Otago region. She has come to Parliament and been given the job as spokesperson on social security. The National Party has asked her to do all sorts of things—to beat up on beneficiaries; to carry on with that 1990s way of doing things—and one can tell when one sees her here tonight talking quietly into the microphone to herself that she does not have her heart in it. She does not believe it and therefore it leaves us on this side of the House once again to map out what will be happening around these issues. Sue Bradford I am sure will either viciously attack me later in the debate or has already done so. I am not sure whether she has got to it yet. 
Budgets are normally a time when members get up in the House and talk about what they would like to do. At present there is a real litmus test going on in the House of potential Governments because the only two parties in the House that have really presented a Budget are the Labour Party and the Progressive Coalition. When the Labour Party was in Opposition with people like Mike Moore who went off to the World Trade Organization—we have so much talent in the Labour Party we can afford to send people off to run the World Trade Organization—followed by Helen Clark what did we do when the Budget came around? We put out vision statements and policies— 
Darren Hughes 
: Alternative Budgets. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —we wrote alternative Budgets we came to the House and talked about them and we went around the country and held meetings about them. What people got was a strong impression that there was an alternative Government. 
 But when we come into the House and have this kind of debate what do we get? We get all the Opposition parties coming down and whingeing and whining about what the Government is doing. They never once put the discipline on themselves and rather than talking about all those little wild schemes they have say that if they had this amount of money how they would bring it down to hit between the pages of a Budget. That is what people vote for at election time. They may enjoy Rodney Hide getting up and going on about some little issue. They may really like the fact that Mr Carter gets up and talks about some case in Northland. They may like to hear criticisms of various people in this House but in the end what will they vote for? They want somebody to get up and actually run the country. They want somebody who can run the country. [ 
Interruption 
] I can hear Mr McNair saying that people vote for New Zealand First. Well a few of them do. The New Zealand First Party has only three policies so it gets about only three votes. That is the problem. People do not want the New Zealand First Party in Government because it does not have a plan for the country. It has only three constant whingers who go on and on about what we are doing about immigration crime and whatever else they are worried about which is on New Zealand First’s big posters. But New Zealand First cannot run the country. 
That is why the only party that is polling well—the only big party in this Parliament any more—is the Labour Party. We are the only group that actually looks like a Government. I have said before that what has happened in this party is that what one might call the Scandinavian approach to life is starting to emerge in New Zealand. From now on there will be one big party which will be called the Labour Party— 
Darren Hughes 
: Very good name. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think it is a very good name as my neighbour from Horowhenua says. It is such a good name and it will be the Government’s name before long. It will be a little like the way in which a fridge became known as a Kelvinator. People forgot about the notion of fridges and just started to call them Kelvinators. In the future we will find that people will say “the Labour”; they will not even bother with “the Government”. They will say “the Labour” because our party will be synonymous with the Government. 
I say to people that this is no criticism of Helen Clark but if members cast their eyes around the House tonight they are probably looking at a future Prime Minister. He is in this House now. I am talking about the young man back there. We are grooming him for 25 or so years’ time when he will come into his prime and “the Labour”—in other words the Government–will move smoothly to its fourth or fifth Prime Minister while in office. That is what we are looking at simply because the small parties on the other side of the House along with the shrinking National Party are held together by the fact that they won some votes last time. If there were an election today National members would fit even further down the other part of the Opposition benches to squeeze into a little bit of foreshore over on the side there which would give them customary access only as part of that. We would not give them any title or right to it because of course they are being squeezed off but they could get a bit of Queen’s chain access to it. Then we might give them a little bit of customary use of the seats because of their long history since 1936 in opposing Labour. So they would have a customary right to those few seats over on the side there. 
So that is what it is coming to. We are the only people who bother to put up a Budget. We are the only people who actually say how to run the country. We are the only people who have policies on everything. Everybody else now is going into his or her wee niche and as time goes on we will find that Labour members will move further and further around the Chamber. The Opposition parties will then fit into nice little niches on the other side as they pick out their little issues to argue with us about—but they will never be the Government because they do not bother to write Budgets. 
Mr Hide over there who pretends he is an economist could at least spend some time on what is supposed to be his core discipline instead of chasing ambulances all the time. He looks a bit like one of those people off the old shroud-waving kinds of American crime shows chasing one little ambulance after another. Why does he not do some serious work on saying exactly how the ACT party would run a full Budget to give people some choice? Well I do not think that party will and therefore we are looking tonight at the only game in town. 
I was proud to sit in the Chamber and listen to the fourth Budget presented by Dr Michael Cullen who I think personally—and this is not just because he is close to me in the Chamber and all the rest of it—has now presented four Budgets that have given him total credibility in this area. That has reflected extraordinarily well on the Government so that people know as the old saying used to go that the chequebook is safe with the Labour Party. The chequebook is safe with this Government because we have a person in Dr Cullen who has earned the respect of all parts of our community. Whether one is a welfare beneficiary a business person or somebody who teaches in a school wherever one may be one is able to look at Dr Cullen and say: “That person knows what he is doing with the chequebook. He will spend it responsibly. We ought to keep him there Budget after Budget to make sure that what he is doing is spending the money wisely.” 
I was proud to be part of that and I say that as a person who is trying to spend more and more in the social area because there are so many things to do in this country. I have to go along with Dr Cullen I have to fit in with the kind of plan that he is putting forward for this country and I am able to understand what he is doing. I am able to see how welfare budgets education budgets and housing budgets are fitting together into the broad plan that he is putting forward. As someone who wants to spend this amount of money on people in this country I have been able to work with Dr Cullen knowing that our budgets are in the safe hands of someone like him with his expertise. I have been proud of that. I know that I am surrounded in the Chamber because I can feel the warm glow by comrades amongst the Labour Party who feel exactly the same about Dr Cullen. They have that warm suffused beam of pride that comes from knowing that the country’s Budget is very well managed. 
I want to finish on that note. It is hard to debate in the Chamber this evening with a series of parties that are not really serious about running the country. This is just a little whinge session for them on their own little issues that they want to get on with. The country knows that. People hear them chipping away at their little issues but they know that however entertaining that might be or however that might scratch a little itch it does not constitute a sound visionary policy and Budget which means they can get up each day and know that their lives are taking place in the context of a Government that knows how to run this country. That is what Labour can do. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As our leader has already pointed out earlier today the Green Party will not be able to support the third reading of this bill because this Government which projects itself as seemingly cautious sensible and pragmatic is defying common sense simple logic and the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders by lifting the moratorium on genetic engineering (GE) so that New Zealand can climb on the GE bandwagon and grow GE foods that no one wants to buy or eat. 
I have just come from listening to a Labour Minister the Rt Hon Michael Meacher who was the Minister for the Environment in the Blair Labour Government until he was recently tossed out because he questioned genetic engineering. No doubt if he had been here in New Zealand he would have suffered a similar fate. The Rt Hon Michael Meacher said that he was genuinely puzzled about why an export-oriented nation like New Zealand—arguably the world’s leading producer of agricultural products which has an outstanding branded image of being clean and green—would put at risk our brand and our world export markets to grow food for which there are no markets no consumer benefits and no economic benefits and for which even the claimed producer benefits have failed to come to pass. 
Michael Meacher confirmed to a very very large audience across the road—I have just been there—that the attitudes in Europe to GE food and let us remember that Europe is our largest single premium market show no sign of shifting and if anything are strengthening in their rejection deep suspicion and distrust of GE food. He predicted that that situation would continue for the foreseeable future. He pointed out that the new GE labelling and traceability laws of the European Union which will require every single GE ingredient in food to be labelled will require first of all guaranteed GE-free food supplies. The European Union will require any New Zealand exporter who is exporting to Europe to segregate food containing GE from GE-free food and to provide the Europeans with full traceability all the way through the process to prove that the food we are exporting is GE-free. 
 So why would we want to imperil our premium market? We have already had a warning with the latest GE corn contamination the Sunrise corn fiasco that even a tiny amount of contamination can imperil our markets—in this case the Japanese market—which want nothing less than guaranteed GE-free food supplies. 
Michael Meacher spent last week in Canada. I think it would be a wonderful idea if our Minister of Agriculture took a little visit to Canada to see just what the experience of the Canadian farmers has been with GE. They wholeheartedly embraced GE when it was introduced there. They believed the hype that it was going to introduce higher yields herbicide-resistant crops and so on and so forth. Now all of them from the major Canadian Farmers Union down are totally opposed to GE. Indeed the head of the Canadian Farmers Union went to England to say to the farmers there: “Don’t touch GE.” The contamination has spread throughout Canada yields have not increased and farmers in Canada are being sued by GE seed companies. They are now taking out full-page advertisements in the newspapers and waging a major campaign against Monsanto which is trying to introduce GE wheat there. The National Farmers Union GE Agribusiness and the Canadian Wheat Board are all implacably opposed to it. A court case has even been taken out saying: “Please we beg of you don’t grow genetically engineered wheat. What has happened in Canada has been a fiasco and we do not want any further disasters.” 
Why will our Government not listen to the former Environment Minister of the United Kingdom when he says that it will be a disaster for New Zealand and that there is no market for GE foods? He cannot understand what on earth this Government is doing. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I just want to say it is a pleasure to join this debate and to acknowledge that the foundations for a secure long-term future for New Zealand have now been well bedded in over the last three Budgets by Dr Michael Cullen. I think now is a time for ensuring that we stay the course and work our way through. There are periods of uncertainty and we are in one now but I think we have a coherent and highly credible programme for 2003-04. The foundations are there and we have to build on them. 
I will take the time I have in this debate to talk about defence because over the last few days in what was once a credible national newspaper and more recently in comments made in this House by one or two members we have had what has passed for some sort of critique of defence policy. It is a critique that is appalling in its lack of quality substance and indeed accuracy. So I think it is about time we put the record straight a little. 
Before getting into the real detail of it I have to say that yesterday I was stunned to hear Dr Wayne Mapp claim that this Labour Government had cancelled the third frigate which I think is a good example of the complete lack of memory on the part of the National Party. That might have been a good decision but I think Dr Mapp must be suffering from severe amnesia. In 1998 the decision to axe the frigate was made by the National Party and it was well covered in the media. I can only assume that Dr Mapp was doing something else that month. I will quote him a little bit of his own party’s defence policy from 1999: “National will not be proceeding with the replacement of our last Leander-class frigate with a third Anzac frigate.” I think the member’s comment about the frigate is therefore about as credible as the National Party’s comments about it caring about personnel and pay rates. 
We need go no further than those in the National Party who do at least have some memory and I refer Dr Mapp to his colleague Simon Power the defence spokesperson for National. Mr Power said in a recent speech made only in the last few weeks— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not much firepower there. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No but at least he got this right: “A National-led Government did not allow defence spending to keep pace in the 1990s.” That is from a recent speech made by National’s current defence spokesperson. Perhaps if Dr Mapp is not satisfied with that if he wants an older wiser head he could go to Richard Worth—that well-known doyen of the legal profession and camel rider. He is a wise man and he spoke recently on National’s time. He said 9 years of neglect had left New Zealand’s Defence Force “perilously low in capability and short of the funds to correct this.” Clearly neither Mr Worth nor Mr Power suffers from amnesia. 
Anyway let me move on. As I said earlier in recent days accusations and assertions have been published in a once-credible newspaper. There has been a series of big articles based on selected bits of recycled questions. The newspaper calls it an investigation which I think is a grandiose term for a bit of recycled question material and self-interviewing. Let us have a few facts in this ill-informed debate. 
In 1999 this Government inherited a Defence Force that was by National’s own admission—and I have given quotes from Mr Worth and Mr Power—suffering from 9 years of neglect. It was Mr Worth said “perilously low in capability and short of the funds to correct this.” and he was right. As I said before Mr Power in his comments made recently in a well-publicised speech reinforced that. So by 1999 we had the Army Navy and Air Force actively competing against each other for the crumbs of what was left after 9 long years of neglect—neglect that dated back to the 1960s. Pay rates had lagged behind and there was a seemingly bleak future all-round. 
When we took office in 1999 we said the time had come for a new way to run defence issues in this country. Contrary to the sorts of nonsense that we have seen published for the first time a Government did what it said it would do. It was based on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. There had been plenty of opportunity for discussion and debate about setting a course. We said we would build a policy on that and we did. Within 6 months the defence policy framework had been published and released. Within a year we had a force structure document in place. It said: “Here’s the policy. This is the force structure that logically you need to implement that policy.” Last year before the election we released the long-term development plan which is the plan that will put into practice the equipment resources materials and tools for our men and women in the Defence Force to do the job we ask of them which is clearly laid out in that policy framework. We have committed $3 billion over the next decade. That plan was updated just last month. It is a continuing rolling-out document and there will be $3 billion over the next decade to put that plan into effect. In other words we defined the need we laid out the policy we looked at how it can be achieved and we are doing it which is the rarest thing of all. Unlike the National Government we are actually getting on and doing it. 
National has the gall to say that it is policy made on the run. It has been frustrating for me to have to take the time to do it but we have done it right and now we are rolling out the policy and Mr Power tries to call that running around with a shopping list. We have built an acquisition programme based on a clear policy framework and if that is running around with a shopping list then I am guilty because frankly what National is asking for is another white paper. Do National members know what another white paper will actually mean? It will mean a stop to the acquisitions a stop to the replacement of that old equipment which those members criticise daily just as they daily insult and offend the good men and women of our Defence Force. Do National members know why a lot of our equipment requires work on a regular basis? It is because of the pace of the work that our people are involved in. They are working hard. They are doing a lot of things with that equipment. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Unlike them. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Exactly. They do not get it; they just do not understand. On Monday I had the great privilege of getting out and greeting the men and women on  
Te Mana 
 as they arrived back in New Zealand. They came back second to none. They have the accolades of the international community. The Canadian commander who had command of that interdiction force said that they are second to none. They had the highest rate of operation of any ship in that force. Of course when operating in 45-degree heat they will have some maintenance issues that are quite unusual. Should we attack and criticise them or their equipment? No we should admire them. They have shown ingenuity and initiative of the sort that New Zealanders are famous for. 
 The thing that saddens me is to have a once-great newspaper wheeling out that claptrap for a whole week. It is absolute nonsense. It does not insult me and it does not affect me; it insults the men and women who are our Defence Force. It is an absolute affront. I get out and about and I talk to the NCOs people who have spent 25 or 27 years training some of the finest personnel in the world. They are now being told their training is useless. Well it is not; it is fine. They are the best people anywhere; they are second to none. When they go out they deserve to be properly equipped and that is what this Government is doing across all three services. 
We have committed $1 billion to upgrading the Air Force’s capabilities. I see Dr Cullen breaking out into a sweat even as I mention it. We have $120 million worth of new radio and communications equipment for the Army and Air Force. Why? Because I am not prepared to send out young people with 60lbs on their back with three radios because they cannot trust the old clapped-out radios in their packs to work when they need them. That is why we have made that commitment. That is why we are spending $600 million on up to date 21st century equipment to move them around. The old Vietnam War equipment served us well but its day is done. That is why Project Protector will provide a fleet of modern and appropriate vessels to complement what we already have so that our Navy can do the roles alongside many other agencies that we require of it. That is why we are engaged in numerous other projects in the long-term development plan: so that the young men and women who are the current and future Defence Force of New Zealand are properly equipped and are properly supported to do the job that they are doing for us. 
I challenge the Opposition just once to stop whingeing to stop whining and to stop attacking those young men and women. When you do that when you slag them off when you attack the Government’s defence policy you are not hurting me and you are not hurting us; you are insulting them and they deserve better. They deserve better from this Parliament. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Do I need to explain this point of order? I do not think it is acceptable that the Minister of Defence spends his speech attacking the Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If I inadvertently used the second person I unreservedly apologise. My comments were directed entirely at the sort of nit-picking that member just engaged in which was a great example of not actually engaging the real issues. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I suppose this is a debating tag team in one respect. Rodney Hide would know about that being a big-time wrestler from way back. I want to pick up where the Minister of Defence left off. Mr Hide’s contribution showed exactly how bereft of any spirit he is. This is the man who we should never forget attacked— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order was ruled on and it was ruled in my favour. It is not acceptable that this member—I forget his name—then gets up and uses his speech to discuss my point of order. That is outside Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is a very good point and it is one that I think we should follow on every occasion. Once a point of order has been ruled upon a member should not be commenting on that ruling in a subsequent speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is quite correct. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My apologies; I will not transgress your ruling. Let me say this in respect of Vote Defence. Mr Hide’s career is littered with attacks as our Minister of Defence said on our defence personnel. He is known in this House to wear a Returned Services Association associate’s badge and to parade about as though he were a friend of our armed services. Yet this is the man who got stuck into the Private Leonard Manning affair to the point where the dead soldier’s family told the Minister to get him to back off. Mr Hide is the man who attacked the Air Force because it had decided to pick up—I forget from which island; was it Samoa—a person in distress after a request by a responsible Opposition member who I think was Katherine Rich. The old blunderbuss Mr Hide never gets up to back our armed services. 
There used to be a protocol in this Parliament that when our men and women were overseas peacekeeping fighting protecting others and protecting our country we backed them in unison. I believe that most National Party members generally observe this protocol but not the grubby Mr Hide; if he can smell a bit of a scab to pick off he will be in there. One has to say—no I would breach Standing Orders if I did say it but words like “patriotism” come to mind—that those members who do not engage in his sort of activity are the patriotic ones. 
I turn to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill. We now look at the state of New Zealand in the light of the positive economic statistics that we have in this country in an environment of international uncertainty. If we look at the good economic news—and I know that certain members opposite hate it—we see that a household labour force survey shows an unemployment rate that is one of the lowest in the OECD. That is undisputed. Our gross domestic product growth rate is one of the highest in the OECD; in the last quarter there was an increase of 0.6 percent and there was an annual increase of 4.3 percent. Those are solid economic platforms from which we can build. The  
ANZ Job Ads  
series increased in June by 5.6 percent. We have the lowest unemployment I believe for 15 to 20 years. Those are all solid achievements that are good for our people and good for our country. From those we can provide further opportunities for New Zealanders. 
I remind members of Parliament that the last Government raised the white flag on regional development. The last Government sold out the regions sold out places like the West Coast and the Bay of Plenty. It got rid of the business development agencies. I think the Minister at the time— 
Georgina Beyer 
: That’s right. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says that is right. It was Max Bradford. It is interesting that we are the first Government to have a Minister for Small Business. We know that small business provides 85 to 90 percent of the jobs. We have a Minister for Small Business but what did the last crowd do? How did those members advocate around the Cabinet table for small business? Let us look at the regional growth rates around the country. I am proud to say that my own province of Canterbury leads the South Island at 4.9 percent and is second only to the Bay of Plenty which is at 5.1 percent. I think they are solid achievements. I think they are the things that people listening here tonight and people around the country want to hear about and want to talk about rather than the sort of flummery and posturing we have from people like Mr Hide. How do I know that people want to talk about development and growth in this country? I say just look at the polls. The polls are a reflection of the support this Government has and I do not say that arrogantly; I say that with a high degree of respect for our people. 
Georgina Beyer 
: It is a matter of fact. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a matter of fact as my colleague says. Let us look at some of the key achievements. Let us look at our progress in health. There are now 1.7 million New Zealanders enrolled in primary health organisations. There were 157000 elective operations in 2001-02 up from 151000. There has been progress in education. We said we would put more teachers into schools and we have created an extra 774 teacher positions for next year. We have invested $78 million in information and communication technology in schools. In the tertiary area we are widening eligibility for student allowances so that we can make tertiary institutions and universities more accessible and more affordable for our young people. Why? Because we value education. What do we get from education? More skilled New Zealanders. What do you get from more skilled New Zealanders? Jobs and tax revenue that we can then redistribute and redeploy to those who need help within our economy. In terms of the progress in law and order we hear a lot of bleating from the ACT party and from—I think his name is Ryall; he reminds me of a jug of beer with big handles. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will refer to the member by his proper name. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My apologies. Mr Ryall bleats on again about police numbers. Here is a fact that members should have etched in their memories: there are more police in New Zealand than in any other time in the history of this country and this is the biggest police budget in the history of this country. 
John Carter 
: Not true. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to the member that I remember that just before the last election Bill English—and my colleague will refresh my memory—put up a paper before Cabinet to cut it by $120 million. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: 540 police jobs. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague tells me the proposal was to cut 540 police jobs. Had the country not put the sword into Mr English and that Government we would be 540 police down today. National’s biggest contribution to the police was chewing up hundreds of millions of dollars of the police budget not on batons pepper spray cars and those sorts of things and not on personnel but on INCIS a silly computer system that never worked. That was its contribution. [ 
Interruption 
] I invite that member to get off his chuff take a call and justify that. 
Let us take a look at social development which is important within our country. The sum of $153 million will be spent over 4 years to help people move off welfare and into work. I would have thought that was something even Rodney Hide—the tsar of the zany in the ACT party—would support but no those Opposition members will not talk about opportunities for New Zealand; they put the boot in because that is their specialty. 
I want to contrast that with some of the geniuses in the National Party. I ask the House to look at some of the contributions that have been made by National Party members. I want to conclude briefly with Bill English and the National Party on the foreshore and seabed issue. I made a general debate speech this afternoon and I said that their politics of scaremongering is one of the lowest points I have seen in this Parliament. This is an issue that has perplexed and worried a lot of New Zealanders. For some that is through a lack of understanding and I pay no disrespect to people who do not understand the issue. They get most of their information through the media and it is often skewed by members opposite. But the National Party had a chance on this issue to show some leadership. Instead what we got was grubby politics from a grubby party and grubby members opposite. Where has the leadership of that party been on this issue? Instead of scaremongering what it could have done was to say to New Zealanders: “This is an issue that transcends politics. This is an issue where we need to join together and get it sorted out.” 
Well I say to the House tonight that we will sort it out. It is a tough issue it is complex and it will take some time but this Government will sort it out. Why? Because this Government is the only one that can sort it out. It is the only one with the guts to confront the issue head-on and deal to it. The only thing we get from Opposition members is: “You are not moving fast enough. Where is the plan where is the strategy?”. Well unlike the slogans the billboards and all the rubbish that they come up with we are going to get this right. We are going to get the framework up and get the consultation done then we are going to put the issue to bed. All New Zealanders will know thanks to us that they will be able to take the kids to the beach and as John Tamihere said have a barbecue play cricket volleyball or whatever take some fish and have a good time. They will have access as they have today. I finally call on the Opposition to make a decent contribution. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 What an absolutely pathetic speech from Clayton Cosgrove! Members can tell that the seabed and foreshore issue is absolutely hurting this Government and it is not going to sort it out; it is just going to do deals. The issue is a very easy one. I come from Marlborough and the line in the sand is the Marlborough foreshore and seabed. That is the line in the sand and New Zealanders know it. It is not a complicated issue. It is not complicated at all. The Maori Land Court should apply to land—not foreshore not seabed; just land. All the Government has to do is define “land” as land. If the Government did that then when it wanted to talk about it title would remain in Crown ownership. It is very easy to solve that problem. Government members talk about other issues but the problem of title is easy to solve. Yet this Government cannot do it. Helen Clark came out and said she would but she has backed off every day since because they cannot sort out a deal with the Maori caucus. The Government can spin this all it likes but people throughout New Zealand know that this is a line in the sand and they are not going to tolerate it. 
 But actually I came down to the House tonight to talk about health. I am going to talk about primary health organisations because $165 million is being allocated in the 2003-04 year to that experiment. Every superannuitant out there who cannot get a hip replacement cannot get a cataract done and has been bumped off the waiting list—every one of the 25000 people in the 2003-04 year alone; every one of the 10000 in Christchurch—has to wonder where the money is going. Why have the points—the hurdle that people have to get over to get an operation—been put up? It is because a lot of the money is going to primary health organisations. The Government is also pouring money into district health boards which is like pouring money down a black hole because the governance structure and the management structure are failing New Zealand. That is why we had the highest ever deficits last year and it is why they will be higher this year. 
But I come back to the issue of primary health organisations. The Minister of Health has actually stated that she wants to be remembered for primary health organisations. What are they? They are untrialled they are rushed they are uncoordinated they will not deliver on expectation they are expensive they are heavily bureaucratic they are hated by general practitioners and they are race-based. That sounds a bit like the Minister of Health actually. A problem list as long as that takes a major increase in the number of health officials to sort it out. We have to wonder why the Government decided not to build on the independent practice associations that were developed by doctors who thought they were doing a good job for New Zealand. All the things that the Ministry of Health says it wants to achieve with primary health organisations—better diabetes treatment better access for Maori better screening programmes more immunisation better management of pharmacies and laboratories—were being done by independent practice associations. 
So why destroy a system that was working just to create a race-based system of targeted funding on location? How can it possibly make sense to put $165 million into funding based on location? Ten main issues have been raised regarding the establishment of primary health organisations. Funding is based on location not on need. A primary health organisation needs 50 percent of Maori Pacific Island or low deprivation but the fact is that the other 50 percent do not have to have high health needs or be Maori Pacific Island or low decile. In the South Island there is nobody on cheap health-care whereas other areas get cheaper care. It does not make sense and when we ask the ministry it says that over 10 years it will roll it out to everybody. But what will happen during those 10 years? People in the wrong location will not get cheaper access to care whereas wealthier people in the right location do get that access. It is ridiculous. 
The Government did not build on the independent practice association model. Instead a whole new system was set up. The public has to enrol but nobody actually knows about enrolment. People have not been told that they are supposed to enrol with just one general practitioner practice. So what happens? People move—they live in one area and they work somewhere else and if they get sick they go to the local doctor down the road. What happens to the funding? The funding does not stay with the general practitioner they normally see; it gets moved. Capitation funding is causing massive funding flows for general practitioners and it is affecting their ability to practise. So with capitation the cross - primary health organisation flows are really detrimental and people are finding it very difficult. 
The fluctuations that are occurring in the incomes of primary health organisations is huge. The ministry has allowed small primary health organisations of 5000 to 7000 patients to develop. 
 They know that they will not survive. They know that they cannot continue on the funding that they have. They know they will fail. Why were they allowed to be set up in the first place when the management and administration costs are so high? Every primary health organisation has to have a board and there is concern from the ministry that there is not enough Maori involvement in the governance. That is what this is about. It is more about getting Maori and Pacific Islanders involved in governance structures than about delivering care on objective measures. We have to look at how much it will actually cost to have the bureaucracy and the administration of these primary health organisations. It will be huge. In the past we have had deficits in hospital-level care. We have never heard about deficits in primary care but that is what we will get. 
The Government is pouring $165 million in $20 million of it for primary health organisation establishment funding and a whole lot of that will disappear and primary health organisations will be back to the Government with their hands out asking for more money. That has not happened in the past. The general practitioners have worn the cost and they have delivered because they have done it on a public and private system. One gets public money plus private money. That pays for primary care. Funding can be an issue. No one denies that funding can be an issue for people when they need to see their doctor but why not target it on need? In relation to the independent practice associations the doctors all got together and said that there should be a care-plus system where those with high health needs and low incomes get better access. The Ministry of Health agrees with that but how much money is it putting into them? It is putting in $2 million as opposed to $165 million into primary health organisations. No one disagrees with more money going into primary health care but the way it is being done is confusing to the public. It will not deliver on its aims and unfortunately it will be waste a huge amount of money. 
Today I talked to a consumer of mental health services. Mental health services have continued to be a problem in this country. The lady I am talking about lives north of Auckland in the Waitemata area. Waitemata looks after all the forensic services for Auckland. She said that the doctor who was to discharge her brother was not signing his discharge letter but was instead signing his death certificate because there were no acute beds for her brother to stay in. This man had tried twice to kill himself but out he was going that day because there are not enough mental health beds. If the Government wants to do some good it should put more money into mental health beds. We have gone too far with our lack of beds for those who are acutely unwell. The police have had enough. They were trying to help. People were being kept in police cells—illegally actually—and the police have now been told that they have to stop doing that and that 6 hours is enough. However there are no acute beds for those patients. That means that they are a risk to their family and to themselves. We need more mental health beds. The situation is so stressful that the staff leave because they are under so much pressure. We are nowhere as near to the blueprint funding as we should be. This is one area where we could be looking at putting more money. Also if we look at how much funding Phamac has been allocated we see that its funding has reduced. That means lack of access to new medications. Primary health organisations get all the money and they will not deliver. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. As a proud member of this Labour-led Government I have much pleasure in standing to participate in this debate. The strong foundations for long-term sustainable social and economic development have been laid in the last three Budgets. This bill continues that good work. The fine leadership and economic stewardship of our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen is to be applauded. He continues to be a safe pair of hands and our country can feel reassured by his leadership and commitment. 
I want to give the House some examples of Labour’s ongoing commitments in the Mana electorate with a strong focus on achievement and positive outcomes. I will talk about progress and jobs in the economy and progress in education health law and order conservation and environment and social development. 
Economic growth in the Wellington region has improved. As of July 2003 Porirua City currently enjoys an economic growth rate of 5 percent and the Kapiti Coast district a respectable 3.1 percent. Unemployment continues at its lowest levels and that is complemented by the significant reduction of unemployment in the Mana electorate. Porirua out-performed the region with an unemployment level of 4.6 percent. There are now 16200 more people in paid work since Labour formed the Government in 1999. The partnership of the various stakeholders including Positively Wellington Business—formerly the Wellington Regional Economic Development Trust—Business Porirua the Porirua City Council and the Kapiti Coast District Council together with central government agencies is a good working model of partnership collaboration and consultation. It ensures that resources are utilised for good planning so that we can maximise the outcomes and benefits for the people of the Mana electorate and of course for the people of New Zealand. We all know that we need dollars to make it happen. Innovation Greenhouse Porirua has been awarded a business incubator grant of $80000. Innovation Greenhouse Porirua will be assisting start-up businesses in the area to grow without making some of the mistakes that businesses normally make within the first 3 years. 
We are committing an extra $23.6 million to expand the Gateway programme which is currently being piloted in 63 schools to reach all decile 1 to 5 secondary schools by 2007. Mana College in Porirua is a current Gateway school. In our electorate there are an estimated 12 extra teaching positions in 2003 and there will be a further 15 extra positions in 2004. Schools in that area will also get an extra $298000 for operations funding in 2004. 
With the boost from the number of businesses and workers involved in industry training we will get an extra 7000 trainees in the Wellington region including those in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. The Government has also given the go-ahead for a major redevelopment of health services in the Wellington region including the construction of our new regional hospital in Newtown the remodernisation of Kenepuru Hospital and the provision of more health facilities for Kapiti. Primary health organisations were set up to target populations with the greatest health needs. In our area these include the Porirua Plus primary health organisation which enrolled 11768 people Tumai mo te tangata which enrolled 48497 people and the Kapiti PHO which enrolled 33189 people. 
In February this year we were involved in the opening of the new Kapiti police station which has become a striking addition to buildings on the Kapiti Coast. Senior Sergeant Mike Coleman who heads the 38 sworn police officers and four civilian staff based at the Kapiti police station says that his staff members are delighted with the new building. There has been a significant drop in reported crime in Mana which parallels the drop in unemployment and shows the clear link between the improved economic situation and social indicators such as crime statistics. 
Mana Island and Kapiti Island are two beautiful jewels of the Kapiti Coast. The Department of Conservation manages those two major assets of New Zealand’s conservation estate. I have visited both of those islands and have seen at first hand the tremendous work of the Department of Conservation. Native birds plants and other aspects of New Zealand’s heritage have been preserved and restored to those islands. In relation to some of the money that has gone into projects for example $26000 has gone to the Pauatahanui Inlet Community Trust to guide rural landowners on restoring biodiversity. It is important that this Government continues to manage sustainably both the conservation estate and the financial resources of New Zealand in order to provide for future generations. 
The Labour Government has also achieved a good balance between prudent financial management and sound social development. Partners Porirua is to run one of two new pilot programmes focusing on improving employment prospects for 15 to 24-year-olds funded by the Ministry of Economic Development. The pilots to be run in Porirua and Waitakere are a part of a whole-of-Government drive to improve the transition of young people from school into quality employment. 
In Mana State-house tenants are receiving income-related rents with average weekly savings of $30 per week which is $1560 per year. Porirua is also one of the pilot areas for our Government’s new Stronger Community Action Funds which help local communities to meet local needs. 
In conclusion I say that this bill continues to build on the strong foundation established by this Government’s prudent financial management. I have listed some of the fine outcomes achieved in the Mana electorate. These outcomes have been repeated throughout New Zealand. The Labour-led Government is committed to managing New Zealand’s economic performance so that we can all provide a good quality of life for all of our citizens. Most Saturday mornings from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. I spend time at the Porirua market. Many people have come to me over the last few weeks and told me how well this Government is managing the economy. The word from the grassroots is that things are going well. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise unfortunately to pour a little bit of cold water on top of that speech. It is wonderful I have to say to have a member who is so dedicated so loyal and so devoted to the leadership of her party that she is prepared to put on blinkers read out a speech such as that and ignore the realities. All I say to that fine member is that I know she will one day become a Cabinet Minister; she just has to keep making speeches like that. She will be rewarded for her loyalty in some way. 
The reality is that things are not going well. We could talk statistics all day we could talk numbers all day and we could have words words and more words but at the end of the day it is the reality on the street that determines whether a Government is achieving the goals it set out to achieve. 
I remind this Government of the many many things it has said in the past. It had 9 years in Opposition and had plenty of time to make it very clear to the nation what it would do. I have here a George Hawkins press release which states: “ ‘Known offenders are getting away scot-free because police neither have the time nor the resources to apprehend them’ says Labour’s police spokesman George Hawkins.” That was in 1997. We had press releases coming out from Mike Moore saying: “Of all the crazy justification for legalising decriminalising cannabis the idea this would remove a profit centre for gangs is bizarre. Why would it?”. He is going on here about gangs and what a scourge they are on society. 
Edwin Perry 
: Who said that? 
RON MARK 
: It was Mike Moore in 1997 giving us a good flavour of what this Government would deliver. “New Zealand can destroy gangs and organised crime within 5 years if we have the will.” Who said that? It was the Rt Hon Mike Moore in 1997 working hand in hand with the honourable George Hawkins on a campaign to bust gangs. Do members remember that campaign? I do; I attended the select committee hearing in Christchurch and made a submission to it. There they all were— 
Rodney Hide 
: The member was a Mike Moore supporter in that electorate. 
RON MARK 
: I was absolutely. And George Hawkins and Phil Goff who now sit here as Ministers were total supporters of those views. One could not say what those guys were not going to do to gangs. 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh you’re making it up! 
RON MARK 
: I have it here in writing. This is the party that was going to destroy gangs and organised crime within 5 years if Parliament had the will. Well I am sorry but this Government has been on those benches for about 4 ½ years—it will not be quite 6 years because it did not go the full term. According to its own press releases in 1997 we should not be dealing with the nonsense that we are seeing in Taneatua that we are hearing of in Whakatane and that we have been witnessing in Palmerston North. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who went there? 
RON MARK 
: I did not see one Labour Party member at the meeting in Taneatua. I saw three New Zealand First people but I did not see any Labour Party people. All this about statement of intent having the will and everything that is espoused by this party means nothing. Mr Hawkins and Mr Goff who espoused the view that we could see the destruction of organised crime in 5 years have been in Government for coming up to 5 years yet we are dealing with exactly the same problems they were criticising back then. 
The only thing to get rid of gangs that we have seen in the expenditure of this Government is that it has given gang members State houses. Good law-abiding Kiwis thousands of them with families—some of them as we now know living in garages—are queuing up for State houses and the Government is giving them to Mongrel Mob and Black Power members. State houses? I ask you! Where is United Future’s head? How could United Future members possibly vote for this Government to appropriate money when that is the way it is spent? I am looking forward to the election because I have no doubt that United Future has some good explanations for that. 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and I am sorry but none of this Government’s Budget none of its past Budgets and none of its actions match up to its own words in its own piles of press releases on law and order for the 9 years those members were in Opposition. On the contrary while I was sitting up in my office listening to the radio I heard criticism about parties that do not have any alternative. Well I say to the member who made that speech and to Labour that there is a party that has alternatives and that has more I say to Mr Maharey than three issues on its plate. But they are the three big ones. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Those members over there should take their pills and calm down. I know it is hurting. They should just pinch their noses and swallow the medicine because they need to. I refer to deferred sentencing and all the money that this Government has spent on ramming through legislation about sentencing and parole. What happened here? New Zealand First raised the issue originally through the  
New Zealand Herald 
 highlighting the plight of a Christchurch couple who saw a person given 18 months’ jail out roaming free the next day. Labour denied it and then eventually Mr Goff came out and said: “New Zealand First is right. We have to amend the legislation on sentencing and parole.” So I say to Mr Maharey that there are things we do here proactively. We are fixing it from the Opposition benches. Imagine how much more effective New Zealand First could be if its members got the salaries that many of those members are getting for doing nothing.  
We exposed the fact that 470-odd people got deferred sentences but that there are hundreds of people who should not be on home detention. It is our job to expose the weaknesses in this Government’s plans and what it is doing. Home detention is proving to be a disaster.  
I refer now to Mr Paul Swain. I have to take my hat off to that Minister. He gives a nine-page speech on corrections and actually admits to some of the faults that New Zealand First has found and he admits he will have to make some corrections. But the accolades this man must get for mentioning victims in only two paragraphs out of the 120 paragraphs in his nine-page speech! He talks a lot about Maori focus groups. He talks a lot about the offenders and their repatriation. He talks a lot about horrible people who want to punish offenders. He talks a lot about the wonderful initiatives. But he mentions victims only twice in the 120 paragraphs of his nine-page speech. The joke is that he gets a headline out of it. He gets a headline in the press stating: “Victims may be consulted”.  
 Well I have news for this Government. Victims should be consulted. Victims must be consulted. In the situation we had in Auckland under this Government where a little girl of 4 years old was killed by an Asian driving a car that he should not have been driving because he did not have a licence that driver had his sentenced reduced by half through the payment of blood money without any consultation with the victim’s mother her father her grandparents or her family. That is absolutely appalling. And what does Mr Swain say? “Victims may be consulted.”! Here are 120 paragraphs and nine pages on corrections recruitment and what Mr Swain is doing in the prisons. It is a load of rubbish actually. We know the problems that exist inside the prisons because we have visited them. New Zealand First I would say is probably the only party in this House that has taken half of its caucus up to meet people in Paremoremo prison and been up to the remand prison. I have personally gone through the Christchurch Prison. I tell this Government and Mr Swain that if he thinks this rubbish in this press release is taken on board by the majority of the prison staff his feet are not on the ground—he is not in touch. The big joke is that when one talks to the offenders they know it is rubbish too. They will actually tell people to their face that they know that this is rubbish. 
This Government has a long way to go if it is to live up to the aspirations that it gave people be they Maori non-Maori victims of crime or whoever. The statistics speak for themselves. The headlines such as those appearing in the Minister’s own electorate are there to be read by everybody. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to follow Ron Mark in that very fine speech. He is a man who does do the work and knows what is going on in the prisons out in the communities of New Zealand in the police force and in our military. I think it says much about this Government that on this side of the House we have Ron Mark who was a serving officer in the New Zealand military up against a Minister of Defence whose claim to fame is that he was a peace activist in Taupo. That summarises this Government and the Opposition—the next Government. Of course Ron Mark is also up against George Hawkins. Here we have on this side of the House a man who has carried a gun and used it up against a man trying to run the police force who was an art teacher in a secondary school. Again that shows the difference. 
But I want to talk about Dr Cullen’s economic policy. What is it? Well Jim Anderton announced it. It is hands-on economic management. That is Mr Anderton’s hands in everyone’s pocket grabbing all the cash that he can and spraying it around supposedly for the good of New Zealand. Well the jury is in. We have heard the result: Sovereign Yachts! Remember Mr Anderton and Helen Clark trumpeting Sovereign Yachts? When I questioned that I was a naughty boy! How many people are working in Sovereign Yachts now? How many boats have been built? [ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick is yelling out and saying something unparliamentary. I think she is saying “not very many”! 
Remember The Warehouse? The poor hard-working taxpayers who pay their taxes are unable to get a cop when they call for help unable to get their varicose veins fixed and unable to get any attention from this Government and The Warehouse says it needs $75000. The Government wrote a cheque with taxpayers’ money. 
Ron Mark 
: Everyone gets a bargain! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes everyone gets a bargain! I came down to this House and said “This is wrong.” and Ron Mark and Michael Cullen will back me up. The Government members came along to the select committee and said: “No it meets all our funding criteria.” Oh yes Jim Anderton told this House that it met all the Government’s funding criteria and that Mr Hide was bad-mouthing business. 
Hon Member 
: New Zealand - made! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh New Zealand - made! [ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick now says that she agrees with me. Well I am pleased to hear about that because at the time they gave me a hard time. The Auditor-General’s report came out. 
Ron Mark 
: What did he say? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He said that that funding was outside the Cabinet criteria and that is a nice way of saying “outside the law”—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes outside the rules. So then the Government had to go to The Warehouse and say “We are very embarrassed could you pay the money back please?”. 
Hon Member 
: That’s a bargain! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes The Warehouse where everyone gets a bargain; but has anyone got a bargain out of this Labour Government yet? Have Auckland ratepayers got a bargain out of Judith Tizard? Have hard-working middle-income New Zealanders in business got a bargain out of Helen Clark? Did the art market get a bargain out of the Prime Minister when it bought the painting? No siree no bargains out of the Labour Government; it is pay pay pay. I heard Clayton Cosgrove give a speech. 
Pita Paraone 
: Did he? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes the media paid attention to him once and then they realised that what he was saying was not true. Then they wanted to interview him about his secretary and it is the last time he has been seen on television—it was his backside running up the stairs and running away from the public of New Zealand. Does that not summarise this Government? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh then we come to this one. We will give $40 million to the Hollywood big film producers. Yes $40 million. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Tell me about the Fiji scam. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well if Damien O’Connor sits still I will tell him about this scam—$40 million. I have the Treasury reports the Inland Revenue Department reports and the Ministry of Economic Development reports. Damien O’Connor has not been given them and they are shocking. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Listeners can turn their radios up again now after being shouted at with that diatribe. I expect most of them turned their radios down. I would like to speak to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill that we are considering tonight which is the mechanism through which Parliament authorises the Government to spend the money needed to meet the governmental programmes. Firstly I would like to thank both the Progressive party and the United Future party for their support in the passing of this legislation. We are reliant upon them and without that support the legislation would not pass. The Labour Party—and I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues—is grateful for that support. 
The appropriations that are met by this bill include some important additions to the funding of the areas that are at the heart of the concerns of most taxpayers: health and education. Health gets $737 million which is a 9 percent increase in funding—well above the rate of inflation. Education too does well with $481 million of additional funding which represents a 6 percent increase—again well ahead of the rate of inflation. This is being done in a context of a Government that is managing the Budget very well. Dr Cullen deserves to be congratulated on managing to report a $4 billion surplus before capital obligations. Those capital obligations include $1.8 billion being pre-funded into the Superannuation Fund in order to more sustainably fund it into the future leaving a surplus of about $1.4 billion after those adjustments. 
Against that background growth is running at about 4 percent—amongst the highest in the OECD—and probably coming off that high but still very healthy in comparison with other countries. Our gross debt which at the time when the Labour Government took over was about 36.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is dropping. In the next year or two that will drop to 23 percent of GDP which is a vast improvement—a substantial decrease. Net debt drops even further to 14 percent of GDP so one would wonder against that background what Dr Brash and the National Party would be saying. 
It is interesting to look at Dr Brash’s comments reported in the  
Dominion Post  
on Thursday 15 May 2003 around the time of the Budget. He was talking about the rate of growth in New Zealand and comparing the projected New Zealand growth rate with Australia’s. He said: “This is too slow a rate to narrow the large gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia that emerged during the 1970s and 1980s.” I thought to myself when I read that on 15 May 2003: “What happened to the 1990s the years of the National Government?”. 
So I thought I would go and have a look at the statistics. Those statistics make interesting reading. I am referring to the OECD GDP per capita rankings. Those OECD figures compare the relative performance of Australia New Zealand and the rest of the OECD countries. If one looks at 1980 and the time between 1980 and 1990—which was by and large the period of the Labour administration when our Labour predecessors were responsible for our economy—during that period Australia started at No 10 in the OECD rankings and ended six places back at No 16. During that same period New Zealand went back one place from 18 to 19. So in comparison with Australia under the stewardship of the then Labour Government New Zealand did far better. 
Members should look at the 1990s. One would expect from Dr Brash’s comments that the National period of stewardship had been an improvement on what had passed before. Curiously the 1990s the period that Dr Brash ignores in his article of May this year had Australia going forward from position 16 to 12 while New Zealand went backwards from 19 to 20. So in the 1980s under a Labour administration New Zealand went forward compared with Australia or at least not backwards as fast as Australia was going backwards; whereas in the 1990s New Zealand went backwards while Australia went forward. It is no wonder that Dr Brash ignored the 1990s when he presented his views on the Budget of Dr Cullen. 
What then do Dr Brash the National Party and ACT for that matter have to offer us for the future? What they offer is a return to the past. They offer a return to the neoclassical fundamentalist policies that failed during the 1990s as is clear from the OECD statistics that show that New Zealand performed badly when compared with Australia which had more moderate economic policies similar to those the Labour-led Government is now running in New Zealand. 
But will they admit that wrong? No they will not. They still cling to the purity of their neoclassical fundamentalism. It does not matter to the National Party and ACT that there are great big disparities in wealth and income. They do not think that the gap between the haves and the have-nots was growing. They say that it does not matter. They think the economy performs just as well with those disparities. We disagree. Our philosophy is that social cohesiveness and equality of opportunity are important to economic prosperity and to personal security. We think the failed neoclassical policies that widened the gap in wealth and income in New Zealand undermined our security and threatened our economy. 
That is evidenced by the fact that during the 1990s under the stewardship of the then National Government New Zealand went back one place in the OECD rankings per capita while Australia went forward four places. The lost decade—the decade that not only Dr Brash lost but New Zealand lost and can never catch up with—is the decade when New Zealand charged backwards from 19 to 20 when Australia was forging forward from position 16 to position 12 in the OECD rankings. 
I am pleased to say that so long as the Labour Government remains in power we will not see a return to those failed neoclassical economic policies or the stringency and the austerity that strangled the economies in provincial parts of New Zealand. I am pleased that we will have a continuation of the sound stewardship that members see under the control of the purse strings by Dr Cullen which puts us in the happy position of having a $4 billion surplus before capital obligations and being able to fund $1.8 billion into the Superannuation Fund and to audit it and more sustainably fund it in future leaving a surplus of $1.4 billion. As I said before that is after contributing to the areas that taxpayers wish to see properly funded by the State—namely an additional $737 million to health an increase of 9 percent well ahead of inflation; an increase of $481 million to education a 6 percent increase: again well ahead of the rate of inflation. 
Another area being funded is an increase of $76 million to enterprise and industry development. That increase is quite substantial in proportionate terms albeit $76 million is a smaller amount compared with the likes of health and education as it should be; but it is an important part of the increased focus that the Government has on industry and regional development. This supports the growth and innovation framework that is assisting New Zealand to develop higher-value exports to increase the value of our exports overseas and therefore improve the wealth of our country. 
It is one of the reasons New Zealand’s unemployment rate has been decreasing remarkably with unemployment now at a very low 5 percent against a background where labour force participation is at an all-time high. Again that 5 percent unemployment rate compares very well with most of those in the OECD and reflects the same confidence that people can have in the Crown accounts with low debt both gross and net debt and a substantial Budget surplus. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to omit all the words after the word “That” and substitute the following words: “this House cannot express confidence in this Labour Progressive Government and their United supporters because they are determined to promote the release into our farms fields and environment of unpredictable genetically engineered organisms despite strong opposition from consumers growers food manufacturers exporters economists environmentalists health workers local authorities churches and ordinary people with common sense.” be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill read a third time and Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill read a second time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a third time. 
Bill read a third time. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill 
. Urgency is sought because for the bill to be effective it has to be passed before the next sitting day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Because of the urgency accorded to this bill it is the Government’s intention that the bill be passed through all its stages without referral to a select committee. However for reasons that I will explain I will be writing to the Justice and Electoral Committee inviting it to inquire into the scope and application of section 55 of the Electoral Act for future Parliaments. 
The purpose of this bill is simple. It is to ensure that no members of this forty-seventh Parliament lose their seats merely because they swear allegiance to or obtain the citizenship of another country as long as they do not renounce their New Zealand citizenship. Section 55(1)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that the seat of a member is vacant if he or she swears allegiance to a foreign power or prince. Section 55(1)(c) provides that a member’s seat is vacated if that member takes out citizenship of another country or takes other action such as renewing a passport which may cause the same result. The bill provides that these provisions will not apply to any member of this Parliament as though the bill had been in force on 14 August 2002. That was the day that the writ for the election of members of Parliament was returned. The bill applies only to this Parliament and will expire at the close of polling at the next general election. 
The bill has been introduced on the advice and recommendation of a majority of the Privileges Committee. It has been triggered by the situation of the member of Parliament for New Plymouth a very popular member with a majority of 14930 votes. Mr Duynhoven a Dutch citizen by birth a New Zealand citizen by birth and first elected to this House in 1987 lost his Dutch citizenship by operation of a Dutch law in 1995. He took the opportunity to reinstate his Dutch citizenship this year following the repeal of the 1995 law. By doing so he inadvertently brought section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act into operation. This provides that the seat of a member is vacated if the member obtains the citizenship of another country. 
Did Mr Duynhoven dupe his constituents in reinstating his Dutch citizenship? No. Mr Duynhoven—his name is a good clue as to his origin—is rightly proud of his Dutch heritage and the electors of New Plymouth were well aware of it when he was elected in 1987. He was a Dutch citizen then and when he was re-elected in 1993. He has taken no oath of allegiance to any power other than to Her Majesty the Queen of New Zealand. In completing the documentation to reinstate his Dutch citizenship he was simply recovering an entitlement he was born with as a consequence of his father’s nationality. 
A member in Mr Duynhoven’s situation should not lose his seat. Dual citizenship is not unusual in New Zealand. We have a very relaxed approach to our citizens adopting the citizenship of other countries. No person who knows Mr Duynhoven doubts his loyalty and commitment to this country. Nor for that matter should anyone reasonably question the commitment to New Zealand of other members of this House. There is no reason to believe that members of Parliament with dual citizenship cannot put New Zealand’s interests foremost. 
Section 55 and in particular subsection (1)(b) and (c) needs a thorough review. The provision was first introduced into New Zealand through the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 an Act of the Parliament in Britain. Its terms have been largely unchanged since then. Under the close examination provoked by Mr Duynhoven’s situation it has become apparent that this situation does not meet the needs of modern New Zealand and its Parliament and indeed its operation gives rise to some inappropriate and surprising consequences. 
The constitutional and legal context today is completely different from that of 1852. In 1852 there was no concept of New Zealand citizenship. We were all British subjects. It was not until 1948 with the British Nationality and Citizenship Act that provision for New Zealand citizenship was introduced. It was not until 1975 that the Electoral Act caught up with our sense of nationhood and we made New Zealand citizenship a requirement of candidacy for Parliament. In 1975 an electoral amendment also provided an exception for British subjects registered as electors; it provided that they could contest parliamentary elections. It is clear from the report of the select committee considering the amendment that this exception was intended to be a short-lived opportunity designed to allow those people to obtain citizenship. As it happened Parliament did not get round to removing that exception until last year. 
Section 55 as it is currently drafted appears to have some odd effects. A New Zealand citizen who is a dual citizen can as is quite proper be a candidate and be elected. However a New Zealand citizen who obtains dual citizenship after the election loses his or her seat. But get this: members who renounce their New Zealand citizenship do not lose their seats. That is quite extraordinary. 
It has been suggested that the object of the provision might be to require members who obtain dual citizenship after their election to re-test their support with the electorate. It is not at all clear that this was the objective but if it was the rationale it does not work in an MMP Parliament. List members do not have the opportunity to contest a by-election. They are simply replaced by the next person on the list. 
Clearly section 55 needs to be looked at. This bill suspends its operation for this Parliament and addresses Mr Duynhoven’s situation and that of any other members in a similar situation. This will allow the Justice and Electoral Committee the opportunity to inquire into the scope and application of section 55 and consider and report on what the law should be for future Parliaments. 
I want to touch on the retrospective aspect of this bill. It provides that in determining whether the seat of a member has been vacated by operation of section 55(1)(b) and (c) the bill must be taken to have been in force on 14 August 2002. This was the day that the writ for the election of members of this Parliament was returned. Retrospective legislation is wrong where it takes away rights. However it is perfectly acceptable constitutionally and not uncommon in this Parliament to confer a benefit or remedy a defect or an inadvertent detriment through retrospective legislation. For example the 1997 Parliament enacted the Fisheries (Quota Operations Validation) Act to validate retrospectively allocations and entitlements under the fisheries quota system. In 1998 the Oaths and Declarations (Validation) Amendment Act was passed retrospectively to validate oaths and declarations improperly taken by employees of New Zealand Post. There are many other examples of retrospective legislation that has been very agreeable. 
This bill before the House suspends the operation of provisions that have to say the least inappropriate surprising and unexpected consequences. It confers a benefit on all members of this forty-seventh Parliament. Its application is limited to this Parliament and expires with the next general election. It provides an opportunity for a thorough review of the law by the Justice and Electoral Committee so that section 55 can be tidied up for the benefit of future Parliaments. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Let me make it quite clear that the National Party totally opposes this bill. This bill is a cynical manipulation of Parliament by the Labour Government supported obviously by the Progressives and United Future. It is a cynical attempt to allow a member of Parliament who has broken the law to get off that breaking of the law. I start by saying that not only is this a cynical move—in fact the most cynical move that I have ever seen this Parliament take part in—but I do not believe for one moment that people who watch this from the outside think anything other than that this is a carefully planned move. 
The danger is that Mr Speaker himself is in danger of being seen to be part of the planning because of his inaction under section 129(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 whereby he is required in circumstances such as these to declare a seat vacant. He is required to do so without delay. So we find ourselves here tonight to try to avoid his having to do that on the next sitting day. Certainly the Opposition believes that he should have done that today at 2 o’clock when it was clear to every New Zealander that Mr Duynhoven was no longer eligible to sit in Parliament. Rather than Mr Speaker making that decision today we have seen him for his own reasons decide not to make that decision until the next sitting day thereby providing the Government with a window of opportunity in which to change the law in a retrospective way. 
We are being asked to believe that that is just pure good luck for the Government—that it is coincidence that the cards happened to fall the Government’s way. I do not think New Zealanders believe that. New Zealanders believe that this Government micromanages. That is what the Government spin has been about for years. I believe that it has micromanaged this and I believe that it is in danger of looking as if it is micromanaging the Speakership of Parliament. That causes me a great deal of concern and pain quite frankly because I for one believe in the integrity of this place. That is undermined by this bill. 
The bill states that a member of the Labour Party who breaks the law can get a law change retrospectively and that is OK. We have seen a whole range of spin from the Government as to why that is OK. First of all we were told that it is a silly law. I say to members of the Labour Party that I get all the time people who were picked up for driving less than 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit and got a ticket and they think that is a silly law. But they do not have the privilege of having the law changed retrospectively for them. Only Labour members have that opportunity. Then we were told by Dr Cullen that the reason was the cost. It would cost $350000 to have a by-election New Zealanders would not like that so the Government would change the law to avoid it. Well it will cost taxpayers $3.5 million in taxpayer-funded time to change the law so the cost argument does not stack up either. Then we were told—this was the doozy—that Mr Duynhoven would win his seat anyway. We even heard Michael Cullen saying tonight: “Well he’s got the largest majority in the country. He’s going to win anyway so let’s not have a by-election.” 
Simon Power 
: Let’s not have a general election then. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: What a weak pathetic excuse! Does that mean that if Mr Duynhoven had been a list MP he would be gone? There is no cost in bringing in the next list MP. 
Simon Power 
: A marginal seat. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: If his seat was a marginal seat and he did not have that huge majority would we be having a by-election? If it was a marginal National seat perhaps we would be having a by-election but as it is a safe Labour seat we do not. Perhaps that is the reason. I have never heard such cynical reasons given—and reported on—for legislation that we are being asked to support. This is arrogance. This shows that the Labour Party will go to any length at all to keep one of its members in Parliament. If a member has broken the law that party gets out there puts the spin around tries to discredit the law then changes it for that member. Those are the reasons that we are opposing this bill. 
I say again that I regard it as a tragedy for the Speakership of this Parliament that the Speaker is now being seen by some to be complicit in that approach. That is a tragedy for the Speakership of this Parliament. Speakers come and go. Speakers are judged on their independence their integrity their standing up for Independents and for smaller parties in Parliament and their standing up for the parliamentary process. 
Simon Power 
: Parliament’s man. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Speaker is Parliament’s person and the only thing any of us including the Speaker walk away with from this place is the respect of other parliamentarians. When I see law as clear as this law is and I see a process that can only look like the Government taking advantage of an opportunity that has come its way because the Speaker decided to postpone making a decision when he did not have to postpone it—in fact when the law states that he should not have postponed it—I have to say that is a sad day for the Speakership. 
What about the bill itself? Is this a bill that states that the law is so wrong that it will be fixed? No. It is a bill that fixes it for this Parliament; after the next election it will be gone. 
Simon Power 
: It’s not a matter of principle. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: There is no great principle. This is not a change for all time. This is a retrospective change for members of this Parliament. Presumably in the next Parliament if a Labour member goes and does this we will have another piece of retrospective legislation. Mr Barker is shaking his head; it will not. The member might have a marginal seat or be a list member so Labour might want to have a by-election. 
This is a nonsense and the Labour Party knows it. Why not decide to change the law for all time? Why do it just for this Parliament if the principle is so big and if this law is so archaic—even though Parliament addressed it just a few short years ago; last year in fact? This shows how cynical the Labour Party has become. This shows a degree of arrogance: “We’re here and we’ll break every rule to stay here.” The public will see through that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Peter Dunne. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this matter relates to the declaration of the results of the election in August last year. If you have a careful look at the E9 for 2002 you will see it shows that New Zealand First came third. That means we are third in this House on a matter like this. This convenient arrangement whereby sometimes they let us speak and sometime they do not is simply wrong. I do not think any fair-minded New Zealander—or fair-minded parliamentarian for that matter—thinks that the priority you have just given is fair and right. We are the third-biggest party in this Parliament—we will soon be the second and not long after that the first—but in the meantime we are happy to go third but we are not happy to go fourth or fifth. It is just not right. I want a ruling on this. We have put up with it and frankly we have had enough of it because it is not fair and it is not right. We always understood from the day MMP began in this House in 1996 that that was the way the order of speakers would go. We cannot have Mr Dunne sometimes taking priority and sometimes not. If the Labour Party does not want to use its numbers it cannot do a deal and circumvent the electoral results of 2002. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am somewhat sympathetic to the points made by the right honourable gentleman because Standing Order 103 on the issue of deciding who to call states that the “overall participation in a debate should be approximately proportional to party membership in the House:” and under that ruling the right honourable gentleman from New Zealand First should have been called next. However Mr Assistant Speaker if you are upholding a Speaker’s ruling that basically says United Future is really part of this Labour-led Government then I say make our day. I actually think you are correct. I regard the United Future party as a 100-percent reliable doormat for this Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank both members for raising that issue. They are not wrong but a certain order is followed to maintain order. I have called the Hon Peter Dunne. If he wishes to cede to the member whose party is obviously the third largest I would accept that but I have called the Hon Peter Dunne. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This bill is probably one of the more significant measures to come before this Parliament in recent years. It is significant because it is unique and it is significant because of the circumstances that surround it. I want to say at the beginning that United Future will be giving conditional support to this bill. We will be voting for its introduction but I will be indicating some amendments to be moved at the Committee stage and there are a number of matters in the bill itself that are of concern and arise out of the discussion at the Privileges Committee over the last week or so. This is a serious matter and I think the House ought to deal with it in a serious tone. The speaker who preceded me at least attempted to do that and I acknowledge that contribution. 
The issue that this matter turns on is essentially related to the particular circumstances surrounding Mr Duynhoven. The argument will be raised by many particularly those outside this place about preferential treatment for members of Parliament over ordinary citizens. I think that is an argument that needs to be taken very carefully at face value because the circumstances that the previous speaker described—of being a few kilometres over the speeding limit or I could imagine others would say of being just over the blood/alcohol limit—are not akin to the circumstances in this matter either in their severity or in their relative impact. In both those examples there is a degree of knowledge involved. People know what the speed limit is and they know what the blood/alcohol limits are. 
The issue here relates to the particular provisions of section 55 of the Electoral Act. It is clear by all accounts to everyone who was present at the Privileges Committee that there was no fault intended by Mr Duynhoven’s actions and that there was no deliberate effort on his part to deceive or to circumvent the law. He is certainly a victim and he is certainly caught by it but he is not someone who set out deliberately to deceive or to break the law. That is the first point I want to make in respect of this charge. 
The second point that needs to be made concerns what this legislation is seeking to do. I think that as it is drafted it is too broad because it goes beyond the circumstances of Mr Duynhoven. If we look at the provisions of Part 2 in particular following on from the expiry clause we see that a potentially absurd situation is created whereby Mr Duynhoven is excused for his actions in the period prior to the passage of the bill but every other member of Parliament who might seek to take out dual nationality or dual citizenship or to renew a passport in the period subsequent to the passage of this bill and prior to the next election is protected. That is clearly absurd because Mr Duynhoven is being held to account for actions that he took yet we are in effect by the breadth of this bill conferring a grace on other people to carry out with impunity precisely the same action. 
Ron Mark 
: Who are they? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am glad the member made that interjection because I think that is a very relevant point. There have been accusations throughout this whole saga of other people being in this situation and I am very concerned that there may well be other people who have sat quietly and tightly throughout this debate and who have been quite happy to let Mr Duynhoven be the fall guy. Mr Duynhoven will be validated by this legislation; those people will continue to remain silent and relieved. Yet in the way that the bill is crafted it potentially gives them an out in terms of prospective action. I think that was a very relevant interjection from the member and I thank him for it. There is an element of unfairness here. [ 
Interruption 
] We do not know who they are. The allegations have been made and the one thing that is certain is that people keep saying there are people in this category yet Mr Duynhoven is the only one who in one sense has had the courage to come forward and cause this action to be initiated. So I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to limit the application of this bill to the period of time that ends on 6 August 2003. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What if the Government doesn’t accept that amendment—will you still vote for it? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I tell the member that we are simply commencing the debate now and he will have to wait and see how the debate transpires. He will get his answer in due course. 
The reality of this measure is that one has to go back and look at the intention of the clauses that were passed—going right back to 1852. It is absolutely clear that the circumstances at the time of the passage of those clauses and their subsequent carry-through related to a far different world. At the time of their passage there was essentially the British Empire hostile Europe and not much else. It is also clear that had these—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble that my history is accurate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: 1852—a hostile Europe? There was no war between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh come! There were the Franco-Prussian War and the war of Schleswig-Holstein in 1866. I tell Mr Prebble that there were a whole lot of wars. He should not display his ignorance. This is an important issue. We can even take it right through to the outbreak of World War II and argue with some validity that these provisions were relevant then—certainly in the way in which we detained people deemed to be hostile aliens. But I do not think that anyone could mount a reasonable argument today to suggest that relations with the Netherlands have so deteriorated that any member who takes an action in respect of that country is breaching the intent of the provisions set out in the original bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is not the point. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is actually highly relevant to this bill in terms of what the intent is. I think that members of the Privileges Committee to a person were surprised to learn of the scope of the coverage. They may well have claimed prior knowledge but I think there was genuine surprise. 
The issues that now have to be addressed are firstly the relevance of the provision in today’s environment and secondly what changes ought to be made either to toughen the law in respect of people holding dual nationality or other arrangements in the future or simply to recognise that it should no longer apply. In this case the bill is a simple device to validate the position in so far as Mr Duynhoven is concerned to clear the decks in that regard and then to allow the Justice and Electoral Committee as has already been foreshadowed to carry out a wider inquiry. My concern remains the breadth of the bill as drafted because as Mr Mark rightly pointed out there will be others who benefit very substantially from it through their silence. 
It is easy to make all sorts of accusations about intent and motivation in this measure. I want to make this point very clear because I know it has been said although not by the previous speaker that there is a parallel situation at the moment whereby another member of Parliament faces criminal action initiated by the Solicitor-General in respect of comments he made. I actually think Parliament should afford him the same protection that is being afforded Mr Duynhoven. I believe that in the case of Dr Smith—and I have said this to him directly—his ability to represent his constituents is severely constrained by the threat of a contempt action being mounted against him. Every single member who comes to this Parliament comes here to advocate for constituents. If members say this measure is being done for Mr Duynhoven but people would not act in a similar way for Dr Smith then I want to say that United Future would support a measure in respect of Dr Smith because his action impinges upon the actions of all members of Parliament. It is not relevant to this bill but I wanted to say that in terms of people talking about special interest I think it does cut both ways. 
So we will be supporting the introduction of the bill and we will wait to see what happens to the amendments we move at the Committee stage before we further determine our position. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Peters again for his point of order. The member was absolutely right. I apologise for not calling him first.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That should not be allowed to happen again because if it does I will hit the roof in this House. I have put up with it for a whole year and that sort of thing should not casually happen in this Parliament. 
There is something sinister about this bill but before I get to that I want to say this in respect of Dr Smith’s case which has been raised by Mr Dunne. The trouble is that this Parliament has so many parliamentarians with a rather scurrilous record of consistency on these matters. I can recall on going to the Privileges Committee and asking it to defend my rights being told to suck it and see. I had every right to ask the committee to do so and I then went to the High Court and proved that. Yet the committee rushed off to London to defend Mr Prebble even though he was not in Parliament. Do members see what I mean? The National Party can laugh but it now wants us to support Dr Smith when in my case it would not move a muscle—and worse than that it tried to bankrupt me and failed. Even today National does not apologise for that but now when somebody has said the words outside the House and is therefore incapable of getting sanctuary under parliamentary privilege National wants us to somehow support it. It is unusual for its members to be so—well I cannot use the word but it starts with “h”—on these matters. 
Members will recall that the Speaker needed to look at the evidence regarding Mr Duynhoven before he could make a decision. It would be most unusual for the Speaker to make a decision based on for example the Solicitor-General’s testimony evidence or opinion and I can tell members why he would not do that based on past examples. I do not want to bore the House with them now but there have been past examples of the Solicitor-General’s opinion being not worth the paper it was written on. However my point was that the Speaker said on 23 July that he wanted the matter to be referred to the Privileges Committee and that he would hear the House’s conclusion on it thereafter. I think that is a proper procedure. 
On seeing the evidence that Mr Duynhoven gave to us we as a political party gave the preliminary view that we would support the rectifying or validation of his position. But what has happened here is that the Labour Party has taken my party’s bona fides given in good faith and flung that back in our face. As a consequence we cannot support this bill. I say to my colleague Harry Duynhoven that we apologise for that but he should look around amongst his own colleagues if he wants to know why that is. We in New Zealand First were happy to support Mr Duynhoven’s particular or special and unusual position being corrected because his situation is not within the usual ambit that the original legislation and the amending legislation sought to cover by way of providing for a member of Parliament’s actions. From day one we said that if the evidence stood up we would be prepared to pass retrospective legislation to support Mr Duynhoven’s position. But sadly this bill flings that commitment back in our face. 
This bill will suspend the rules and the law for the whole of this current parliamentary term from the day that the results were declared until the next election. The question is why Labour would do that. I want to know which of the Labour MPs is secretly an offender against this legislation in a much more demonstrable palpable and obvious way than Mr Duynhoven. Who is Labour trying to protect—or is there more than one person? There is no reason for Labour to take the commitment that other parties have made to rectify Mr Duynhoven’s peculiar and special circumstances and then to do away with the law for the whole of this Parliament by way of a blanket provision. Who is the secret member—or members—in Labour’s ranks who has offended against the provision in section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act? Who is the Labour member who is covertly hiding behind the skirts of his or her colleagues and the aprons of his or her other colleagues and hoping to gain sanctuary under this provision without ever declaring himself or herself or his or her actions? Who is that person? 
I ask that person to own up today or to be seen in time to have abused the processes of Parliament to have improperly used the Speaker the Solicitor-General and the select committee proceedings and above all to have improperly used the name of Mr Duynhoven. Those are the facts. Who is this person—or persons—in Labour’s ranks who has sold his or her soul to a foreign power and does not want to tell us? That is what that person has done and is doing. 
This is not a laughing matter. Mr Duynhoven went to the Privileges Committee for his particular case. Yet the whole of Parliament—119 of us—are to be covered by this legislation as well. We in New Zealand First do not want that provision because we are all above board and kosher. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You’ve checked too? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I have checked. It was an unnecessary check because we are patriots. We do not call this party New Zealand First for nothing. We put New Zealand first—not second or third like Labour with its secret membership that obviously has dual citizenship and nationality from other parts of the world. The only reason Labour is doing this is that it has other members who are caught by this provision but who do not have what it takes to table that before Parliament. 
We intend to move an amendment to the bill to confine its application to Harry Duynhoven MP and to no one else. We will see whether the Greens are prepared to support that. 
Rod Donald 
: No way! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Why am I not surprised? I am not surprised that he said “No way!” because this issue concerns a principle and principle is not what the Green Party is about. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Stop talking double Dutch. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me tell the member for Rotorua to talk to her legally educated husband and he will tell her what the issues are about. I know she is having difficulty in grasping the issues. She should have a chat to her husband and he will tell her what they are all about. He will tell her that the use of retrospectivity is thoroughly bad unless there are no offended parties as a consequence. The consequence here is that we do not know now how many other offended parties there will be as a result of the covert secrecy and the behind-doors activities that the Labour Party in these years of Government before it goes in 2005 is becoming notorious for. 
Dail Jones 
: Nandor. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is it Nandor Tanczos? Is it my friend Mr Choudhary? Has Nandor Tanczos got a Hungarian passport? Is our colleague Mr Robson clinging to his “Ned Kelly” passport? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Keith Locke is Cambodian. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: And Keith Locke has a Cambodian passport given to him by Pol Pot. That is why the Greens are voting for this provision. 
I say again that Mr Duynhoven came to us and asked whether we would support him. We said that if the evidence stacked up and he was right yes we would. However that is not the case now. The Labour Party is now saying that having got that out of us it will now make this a blanket provision. It is abusing the principle of retrospective legislation and the principle of disclosure in this case but intends to pass this measure to suspend the law for the whole of this term of Parliament. That will not do. 
Mr Palmer a former Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party—temporarily of course—came along and talked about the  
de minimis 
 rule.  
De minimis non curat lex 
 means that the law is not mindful of small things or trivial things. But this is not a trivial matter. In all the Western democracies the election and continuance of an MP or of a country’s Government are matters of grave and great moment. That is why that defence put up by Professor Palmer was bound to fail. I have one last question. Who over there on the Government benches are the secret members who owe allegiance—or who is the secret member who owes allegiance—to some other foreign power? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is a very serious bill. It will amend the Electoral Act and I remember being told in law school that the Electoral Act is part of the constitution of New Zealand. It is a constitutional document; it is not an ordinary piece of legislation. We have to remember we do not have a written constitution in this country and we do not have a second Chamber. The guardians of our constitution of our Westminster system and of our rule of law are the members of Parliament in this House. There is no doubt that legally we could declare this Parliament—all of us—to be re-elected for ever and there would be nothing that the courts or the public could do about it. 
Rod Donald 
: I so move. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I have already heard the Greens say they think that is a good idea. 
I say to the House—[ 
Interruption 
]—and to the member who is interjecting that we as a Parliament should be very very reluctant to make a change to the constitution without having full public participation in it. Can anyone say that putting in a change in the law—a retrospective change—under urgency constitutes public consultation or proper discussion? I say that the process we are following will be a very dangerous precedent. I have attempted to find out whether there is any Commonwealth Parliament or a Parliament that we would like to associate ourselves with where a similar situation has arisen and the Parliament has decided to pass under urgency a retrospective piece of legislation. I cannot find one. There have been Australian members of Parliament who have lost their seats under a similar provision but there was no attempt by any Australian Parliament to do what we are doing. 
So I say again to Government members that to change the constitution without having the consensus support of this House is a very dangerous thing to do. Yes technically we could change it with a majority of one but is that the right thing to do? I say it is clearly the wrong thing to do. 
I also need to say that the Privileges Committee which is made up of senior members of this House listened to evidence from the country’s chief law officer the Solicitor-General. Was his advice ambiguous? No it was not. He said that section 55 of the Act is unambiguous that its meaning is clear and that its purpose is beneficial. Its purpose is to ensure that no member while sitting in this House gives allegiance to a foreign country. He said that that section had been reviewed by Parliament frequently and he pointed out that there had been an amendment to it within the last decade. So we cannot say it is a section that we have not looked at. Then we have the Clerk of the House who the Speaker told us today is the best Clerk in the Commonwealth. What was Mr McGee’s advice to us? He said that the section was quite clear and that Mr Duynhoven by his actions had made the seat vacant. There was no doubt about that at all from both those officials. 
Members should realise that the MPs on the committee came to a different view. But by the time we had finished we had the situation of the Green MP who had come to the committee feeling sympathetic to Mr Duynhoven but who said no that was the law. We had Mr Dunne whose opinions I do not often have much time for but he said that after he had listened to those opinions to Mr Duynhoven and to Geoffrey Palmer he was in no doubt that Mr Duynhoven had offended against that section of the Act. The Rt Hon Winston Peters had also reached that opinion. I had reached that view too and so had the National members. 
So given that we have already looked at the bulk of the committee who said that section 55 of the Act was ambiguous? This should worry us. The Attorney-General who should be the guardian of the constitution and should be our senior lawyer basically said to the committee that she had no faith in the Clerk of this House or in the Solicitor-General and that she thought—Waikato law school—that this section of the Act was ambiguous. The Leader of the House who likes to tell us how clever he is told us that he had difficulty in understanding it. The Minister of Immigration who is supposed to be in charge of deciding who should come to this country then tried to tell us that she could not understand that section either. 
Two interpretations of that are possible. One is that those three senior Ministers may really have difficulty in understanding the law—and is that not a worry? Or alternatively they were playing politics with a matter of the constitution and with the integrity of this House. I say to those three Ministers that if that is what they were doing then they owe a far greater duty to this Parliament and the country than any duty that they owe to their party. 
The view of the Solicitor-General and the Clerk was quite clear. It was that the seat was vacated that the law should take its course and that it was for the electors of New Plymouth to decide whether they wanted to re-elect Mr Duynhoven—not the MPs in this House. The electors may or may not elect him. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: They would! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is the member saying to us that the Government would not have introduced this bill if Mr Duynhoven was an unpopular member? Is it all just because he is popular? Is there a different law for popular and unpopular members? It appears that we are being told that. I say the people of New Plymouth can decide whether Mr Duynhoven is popular. 
But since the member has interjected I ask whether he can deny that the Labour Party has a deep and abiding fear of by-elections. No Labour member of the House who was in Government when the Timaru by-election happened has ever forgotten that. I thought the Labour Party could not lose Timaru. I did not know there were any National Party voters in Timaru. [ 
Interruption 
] I might have helped but by God we found some National voters and those Labour members have never forgotten it. 
Do Labour members want to have a by-election on the foreshore issue? I believe that that is the real issue here. We have a Government that does not want to have the inconvenience of a by-election. It cannot be a question of the cost. The National Party said it will cost $3 million to put this bill through. According to my maths it comes to $1.9 million. That is what it costs to put Parliament into urgency. In contrast a by-election is very very cheap. 
Who are the other members who will be affected by this legislation? I want to know that. Is it Mr Barnett Mr Choudhary Dr Cullen—he told us that it was not him—Mr Field Mr Gosche Luamanuvao Winnie Laban or Mr Sutton? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Is it Mr Prebble? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I give the House an assurance that it is not a single member of the ACT party. We asked Labour Party members in the Privileges Committee to give us that assurance and they would not. 
I believe we are doing something that is absolutely despicable. Harry Duynhoven has at least owned up. When he said he did not have a clue about the matter I believed him. He said that he had not given the matter any thought and in his case I believe him. However there are dishonourable members of Parliament—and I use the word “dishonourable”—who have given the matter some thought and who have asked the Government to pass a general blanket exemption from section 55 of the Act. Maybe it is to allow Mr Keith Locke instead of just being an advocate of the Taliban to actually go and join it because under this provision he will be legally allowed to do that. What we are doing is wrong and it is a disgrace for this Government to violate our constitution in this way. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)