Volume 655 Week 16 - Wednesday 24 June 2009 
Volume 655 Week 16 - Wednesday 24 June 2009 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Wednesday 24 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill to be set down for second reading as Government order of the day No. 1 on Tuesday 30 June and for its remaining stages to be taken on that day and concluded by 9.50 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Once again following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for Chris Tremain to be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of the Hon Nathan Guy pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Motions 
Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the situation in Iran. I have consulted with all of the whips and they are agreeable to this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to move that motion without debate. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who strive for a free and democratic society asks the Iranian Government not to use force against peaceful demonstrators calls for an end to Government restrictions on the media and supports an impartial examination of the recent Iranian election result in the light of widespread concerns. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Performance Compared with Other Countries 
1. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he seen about New Zealand’s economic performance relative to other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For most people the measure of a recession is whether they have a job as much as it is a measure of changes in GDP. The Government determined in the Budget to persist with spending on public services and infrastructure to ensure that New Zealanders who lose their jobs have the best possible opportunity to find new ones. New Zealand’s unemployment rate is currently 5 percent and is forecast to increase over the coming year. However it compares very favourably with those of other developing countries—the US at 9.4 percent the UK at 7.2 percent the eurozone at 9.2 percent and Australia at 5.7 percent. 
Chris Tremain 
: What economic challenges did the Government inherit after the 2008 election? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government inherited a number of economic challenges that it is certainly capable of dealing with. Unusually New Zealand had been in recession for almost a year and unemployment was already rising quickly. New Zealand had a record current account deficit of 9 percent the trade and export sector had been in recession for 5 years business was being choked by red tape and regulations the Government’s books showed deteriorating fiscal deficits and rising Crown debt and the public sector has been used to years of lots of extra money for no extra output and needed a great deal of change. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain how focusing on the unemployment levels of other countries will help the 60000 New Zealanders forecast to lose their jobs in the next year and when will he present a real jobs plan for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: When National came into office it found an economy in recession with rising unemployment; then the global recession took hold over the following 6 months. In the Budget this Government made balanced decisions where it has continued with orthodox stimulus measures such as tax cuts increased public spending and spending on infrastructure. We will continue with that balanced approach as we move into long-term measures to increase the country’s economic performance. No person will get a new job until a business makes a decision to invest and employ. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the Minister’s positions is the real one: that New Zealand’s unemployment was the second-lowest in the OECD or that it was rapidly rising or that New Zealand was in a very severe recession or that the Government really could afford those tax cuts that the bloke sitting next to him personally pledged? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has instituted a range of policies that are supporting jobs. According to one estimate by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s economic forecasters the Government stimulus package is supporting around 10000 jobs. The rest of New Zealand apart from the Labour Party has a pretty clear understanding that the global recession means that people will lose jobs and they are strongly supporting a Government getting on with the task of creating a business environment where new jobs will be created. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen the analysis by Child Poverty Action Group economist Dr Susan St John that New Zealand has one of the highest levels of income disparity in the OECD and what work is being undertaken to address the hardship faced by many low-income families? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I was surprised to see that analysis. I thought that after 10 years of listening to Labour about how it was going to fix that it was surprising to see that in some respects it has got worse. The best thing this Government can do is to get the economy growing again so we have enough income to deal with child poverty and a strong enough economy to provide jobs. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister accept that genuine economic and social progress will be made only when poverty is eliminated and when will a target date be set to end child poverty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I certainly do accept the first point and that it why it is absolutely vital we sort out the imbalances in this economy bring an end to the reckless fiscal spending of the previous Government and create new jobs so people can have decent incomes. 
Job Summit—Creation of Jobs 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What evidence does he have to support the statement he made in the House yesterday “… the Job Summit has and will create thousands of jobs”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I can give the member one simple example. One of the initiatives proposed at the Job Summit was to accelerate environmental initiatives for employment and productivity improvements. We have done that through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme and I am advised that this will supply about 2000 jobs over the next 4 years. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that that programme was a Labour policy that he abolished on becoming Prime Minister and that he is now implementing a scheme that is one-third the size of it 6 months later? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a start what we know about Labour policies is that Labour promises a lot but does not fund its promises. That is the first thing. The other quite interesting thing is that last week I understand the Minister of Finance challenged the Opposition spokesperson on finance about the billions more going into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund the $3 billion going into the Waterview tunnel and the billions of dollars going into tax cuts and all the other initiatives that this Government is trying to get on top of in order to get our fiscal position in order and according to David Cunliffe they were not policies. No they are not policies. They are just a wish list like everything else that comes from Labour. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it evidence of the failure of “Mark I” and “Mark II” of the 9-day working fortnight programme that I have received this note from the Department of Labour which indicates that given the failure of the first two measures that the Prime Minister implemented the department is now looking at a third measure “Mark III” to try to get that scheme to deliver anything significant at all? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Call me old-fashioned but I say it is a perverse kind of Opposition that thinks it is a good thing when the country goes on to a 9-day fortnight. We are happy to do it to help companies out but why would we want to rush on to it? By the way I remember being in this House just a few months ago when the Opposition was criticising me for doing that programme for Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Well today Fisher and Paykel Appliances has got its balance sheet in order. The private sector has come to a solution. We have saved an iconic New Zealand company. We are acting on this side of the House. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Where does the Job Summit fit into the Government’s overall programme to support jobs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a very good question. The Job Summit is only a small part of the Government’s actions to support jobs during this recession. The most important thing the Government has done for jobs is to maintain its spending on entitlements and public services. This has created a very sizable fiscal stimulus to sustain economic activity in New Zealand and therefore support jobs. We have done a lot of other things as well including bringing forward nearly $500 million of capital spending on roads housing and school buildings introducing a tax assistance package for small and medium sized businesses and avoiding a credit downgrade which a Labour Government would have almost certainly delivered to New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister’s “third time lucky” approach to the 9-day working fortnight just evidence of his Government’s ad hoc approach to the soaring rate of unemployment and evidence of the fact that the Government has no plan at all to keep Kiwis in work? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If we want to see an ad hoc approach to this debate we should look across at the Leader of the Opposition who is rapidly turning into the “Phil-who-cried-wolf”. Let me tell members why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can anticipate what my point of order might be with regard to— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Let’s have a contest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. I might say to the honourable member though that it should not be a quiz time in which to question the Speaker. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You know that members of Parliament have to be referred to by their full name. Yesterday you told us about your desire to protect the dignity of the House. I think you would have to argue that the Prime Minister not by insinuation but directly used a phrase about an honourable member that was not correct. I wanted to make this intervention because I was surprised that you had not corrected him on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but I did not hear the comment. I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it though if he made an unparliamentary comment. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To withdraw it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Prime Minister to withdraw it yes. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Certainly I withdraw it. I should have said the “Philip-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. The reason why I said that is that the Leader of the Opposition has been running around telling people that in fact there have been 2800— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just waiting for it to be quiet so I can have my point of order heard in silence. I do not mind how long it takes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am waiting for the member to make his point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As you know members of Parliament must withdraw and apologise if requested to do so and if they qualify the comment in any way then they must withdraw from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment because I did not hear it. I asked him to withdraw the comment; I did not ask him to apologise. He withdrew his statement and I am satisfied by that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That is not what I was saying. My point of order referred to the fact that once members have withdrawn a comment they are not meant to relitigate or refer to what you have asked them to do. No sooner had the Prime Minister withdrawn his comment than he straight away qualified what he had said by saying “I should have said” and then he repeated the other phrase in a slightly modified form. In fact the member concerned is not known as Philip Goff in the Chamber so the Prime Minister compounded the original transgression. The second point is that previously when members have not withdrawn fully and left it at that you have asked them to leave the Chamber. That was not the case on this occasion—not that I think he should leave the Chamber. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Darren Hughes was quite right on his first point of order and you correctly asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment. But it is getting a bit prissy for this Parliament to suggest that members cannot say “Phil-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. If that is going to be ruled out of order my goodness what can we say and just how sensitive is the Leader of the Opposition? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members. I accept the point from the Hon Darren Hughes and I say to the Prime Minister that the name the honourable Leader of the Opposition goes by is the Hon Phil Goff and that name should be used. Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? The Prime Minister was interrupted by a point of order. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If anyone is guilty of making ad hoc statements it is the Leader of the Opposition. He has been running around saying that in the building sector 2800 apprentices have been laid off. He is right but that was for the 14 months to March this year and for 9 of those 14 months Labour was in Government. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the report  
Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation 
 which shows that for every dollar he spends on new motorways he could create 40 percent more jobs if he spends it on bus infrastructure bus and train services walking and cycling infrastructure and road maintenance and is that not exactly the kind of spending that his Government likes that commuters particularly in Auckland want and that is good spending that our environment needs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Two things seem to be lost on the member: first we are spending $1.6 billion more on public transport including the electrification of trains in Auckland; and second pretty much every day the Opposition bags me for building a cycleway. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the Leader of the Opposition that the creation of thousands of well-paying jobs requires an increase in productivity back to the 3 percent rate of the 1984-99 period instead of the paltry 1 percent rate achieved under Labour? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member makes an excellent point. On the advice I have the 2 percent differential over 15 years would increase the average income by 35 percent. That is why the National and ACT parties have sought through their confidence and supply agreement to try to narrow that gap. We will be working very hard with the members of ACT to try to achieve that outcome. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it crying wolf to point out to the Prime Minister that since his Job Summit 16000 Kiwis have lost their jobs that since his Budget 4000 New Zealanders have lost their jobs and that all the Prime Minister’s department could do yesterday was have officials scramble around to find 32 additional jobs that have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight which is less than 10 percent of the jobs lost each day? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have three very quick points. The first is that we have always argued that in the worst recession since 1930 unemployment would rise and it is rising in every country. Second the only reason we would be going out there to get more information is to put some accuracy into the debate. It may be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition to learn that tomorrow the Tertiary Education Commission will be releasing its latest statistics on apprenticeships. The member may be interested to know that far from shrinking the number of apprenticeships grew by 4 percent in the first quarter. There are now 133000 industry training graduates receiving support from the Government. That is a record level. Third one thing we know for sure is that if we had followed the Phil Goff plan of seeing New Zealand’s credit rating downgraded which would have happened if Labour was running the country thousands and thousands of New Zealanders would have lost their jobs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How does New Zealand’s unemployment rate compare with that of other OECD countries? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: New Zealand has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD despite all countries experiencing the same global recession. The unemployment rate in New Zealand is currently 5 percent; in comparison in Australia it is 5.7 percent in the United Kingdom it is 7.2 percent in the eurozone area as a whole it is 9.2 percent; and in the United States it is 9.4 percent. This shows that we are doing a good job in New Zealand of holding down the growth in unemployment despite this being the worst recession since 1930. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many jobs will the Prime Minister’s cycleway proposal create in the next year over which time according to Treasury and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research 60000 to 70000 extra New Zealanders will lose their jobs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the answer to the number of jobs at this point— 
Hon Members 
: Why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well what I can say is that in years to come New Zealanders will look back at the cycleway and realise what a great addition it was to New Zealand’s tourism. What is more if Opposition members do not believe in the cycleway I challenge them to rip it up if they ever become the Government one day. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of other periods when unemployment was rising? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough I have. I have seen reports that between April 1987 and August 1989 employment as measured by the household labour force survey— 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Leave Roger alone! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Opposition members do not want to hear this but let me repeat that between April 1987 and August 1989 unemployment as measured by the household labour force survey rose from 70000 to 119000. Also between 1987 and 1989 the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit almost doubled rising from 64000 to 124000. That was the exact period when the Minister of Employment in New Zealand was the Hon Phil Goff. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that roads are a form of public transport; if so does he not accept that if commuters who want to leave their cars at home have access to adequate bus and train services their cars will not be on those roads and there will be enough room on the existing roads for those who need to use them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the latter part of the question no I do not accept that there would be enough roads if we did not build any more. Secondly I say if the member goes and has a look at say the busway in Auckland she will see that that road is used as a very effective form of public transport. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Prime Minister been doing nothing while one in five young New Zealanders has gone straight from school to the dole queue—20 percent of all teenage New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from doing nothing we have actually delivered a Budget that saw a credit rating upgrade in New Zealand as opposed to the downgrade that Labour would have delivered. Secondly one of the fastest ways for a bit more infrastructure to be built in New Zealand would be for the Resource Management Act to be reformed. I challenge the Labour Opposition to vote for the reform that is to go through this House in a few weeks. One of the fastest ways to make sure that industry in New Zealand can get a foot up and continue to operate in New Zealand would be to have a balanced emissions trading scheme. I challenge the Opposition to vote for that. One of the fastest ways to see youngsters get an opportunity was the introduction of the 90-day probationary employment period. I am very sorry that the Opposition did not vote for that. I could go on for hours because this has been a very busy Government. 
John Boscawen 
: Far from doing nothing as the Leader of the Opposition just alleged does the Prime Minister agree that crucial to achieving higher paying jobs in New Zealand is higher productivity growth and that this will be provided for by the soon-to-be-announced 2025 commission? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is absolutely right. To quote the Opposition the reason that help is on its way is that over the last decade productivity collapsed under the previous Labour Government to one of the lowest levels that we have seen. That is why we have a new Government; that is why we are focused on raising productivity. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of other employment summits? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough I have. I saw a report on an employment conference organised by a former Minister of Employment Phil Goff in February 1989. This is really interesting reading actually. Mr Goff said at the time that the public should not expect any major new employment schemes to emerge from the conference and that no amount of further education or participation in retraining schemes could guarantee employment for New Zealand’s jobless. The conference was as described by the  
National Business Review 
 “a total flop”. The only concrete thing to come out of Mr Goff’s all-day talkfest on unemployment was the creation of another Cabinet committee. By the time Mr Goff was voted out in 1990 the unemployment rate had risen by 150 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] I know the Leader of the Opposition is negative on these things because he does not know how to run one. But ours was quite good. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the very limited uptake of the 9-day working fortnight why did the Prime Minister decide to sack 1400 decent hard-working public servants instead of making the 9-day working fortnight available to people in the public sector and having one standard for all citizens? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I challenge that number from the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly we know that the Leader of the Opposition shoots first and then asks for a bit more detail later on. We will go away and look at that; it is not the advice that I have had. I know this is lost on the Opposition but this is the worst recession since 1930. The Minister of Finance will have an economy that will produce $50 billion less revenue over the next 3 years. The Government has to tighten its belt and get on top of the issues. We are doing that in a responsible way and I think New Zealanders support us in that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is the Department of Labour’s weekly report to its Ministers indicating that its employers are now working on “Mark III” of the 9-day working fortnight. It is still trying to get it right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document entitled  
Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation 
. It shows how expanding urban highways exacerbates future transport problems and threatens future economic productivity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please indicate what the document is? 
Metiria Turei 
: I am just about to get to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I ask the member to please come to it very quickly. 
Metiria Turei 
: It is a report from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute dated 21 April 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Did I hear objection? I will put it to members again. Is there objection to that document being tabled? [ 
Interruption 
] Did I hear yes again? There is objection. 
New Zealand—Clean Green Image 
3.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House that “I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the clean green image”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I do. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the innovative Enviroschools concept—now 10 years old and a roaring success in New Zealand—is being promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the trade talks for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement with Singapore Brunei and Chile and that it is likely to result in a small but profitable export opportunity as well as a great clean green branding opportunity. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that a decision was made by Cabinet to cease the $19.4 million worth of funding over 4 years to the Enviroschools project. The reason for that is that a higher priority for this Government was the $36 million put into literacy and numeracy. We think that is more important. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that 212870 New Zealand kids attend Enviroschools—one-quarter of all our schools—and that 210 schools and early childhood centres are on the waiting list wanting to join this highly successful and innovative programme? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am. There is nothing stopping teachers continuing to teach in this area. In fact environmental education is still very much a part of the curriculum. The website is still up and running. I expect that the good talented New Zealand teachers will continue to teach New Zealand’s young people about the importance of maintaining the environment. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Prime Minister recall a video statement he made to the Enviroschools YOUth Jam on 11 September 2007 where he said that we can no longer afford to take the environment for granted that the environment is very important for the future of our country that technology and innovation is essential to sustainability and that sharing innovative ideas for sustainability with the rest of the world is crucial to solving global problems and concluded that Enviroschools youth leaders can “play a leadership role in getting that message out there to the community.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do but there is every chance that the member delivered the words more eloquently than I did. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that many parents and teachers around the country who support and voted for National have expressed disbelief at the recent cuts to environmental education and is he prepared to meet with the Green Party to find a solution that is best for the environment best for the economy and best for our children? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We regularly meet with the leadership of the Green Party and we will continue to do so. I make the point again that nothing is stopping schools continuing to teach about the environment—in fact we actively encourage it. In fact it is part of the curriculum and it will continue to happen. But if the member wants to put the issue with her co-leader sitting next to her Metiria Turei we are happy to have a discussion about it next time we meet. 
Economy—Reports 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have this week seen consensus forecasts issued by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that are broadly in line with Treasury forecasts in last month’s Budget. They show that the recession which began under the Labour Government in January 2008 will continue over the rest of this year with unemployment peaking at about 7.5 percent in March 2010. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In relation to that does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s reported quote: “the success of the 9-day fortnight is not judged by the number of people going on it;” if so can he explain why a job-saving scheme should not be judged by the number of jobs it saves? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I agree with the Prime Minister. The best news is that because businesses have confidence that the Government will back them to create jobs there is now evidence that they are holding on to people if they possibly can. That is a huge step forward. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What reports has the Minister received about the impact on jobs of the Government’s fiscal stimulus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research produced an estimate earlier this year that the Government’s fiscal stimulus would support 10000 jobs in the short run. Of course in the longer run sustainable jobs depend on businesses that are willing to invest and save not on the putting out of press releases as Opposition members advocate. That is why we focus on building business confidence and they focus on putting out press releases. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister continue to believe that gimmicks like a 9-day working fortnight scheme that has protected less than 2 days’ worth of job losses a cycleway that has yet to save any and forcing Auckland ratepayers to paint a couple of ugly sheds on Queen’s Wharf amount to a real jobs strategy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I invite the member to go and talk to any of those individuals who are on the 9-day scheme and tell them that that Government scheme which has kept them in work is a gimmick. That member should go and tell the families of those individuals who rely on their income that the scheme that saved the jobs of those individuals is a gimmick. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister remind the House how cancelling the research and development tax cuts and failing to implement the New Zealand Skills Strategy created jobs when both moves were opposed by Treasury the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition seems to be working on the idea that there is some magic scheme out there that will suddenly create tens of thousands of jobs. In fact the Opposition needs to know that rebuilding jobs in this country will be a long hard job—involving building business confidence and investing for the long term—because the economic cycle is a bit longer than the news cycle. 
Accident Compensation—Additional Funding 
5.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has the Government had to provide further funding to ACC this month to assist in meeting the corporation’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes; this week the Government has approved additional funding for accident compensation of $97 million to address underfunding of the non-earners account. We provided $200 million in December to the scheme to address the blowout in that account that was not disclosed in the pre-election fiscal update. The additional $97 million that has been provided this week was flagged then but was subject to a further actuary assessment. This has shown that the shortfall was actually $384 million which means that the solvency in this account will continue to deteriorate despite the injection of over $290 million. 
David Bennett 
: What other reports has he received on impacts on the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The latest Department of Labour commentary on the quarterly report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) shows an ongoing deterioration in the scheme’s rehabilitation rates. The 3-month rate which is the common measure has declined from 69 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2006 to 66 percent in 2007 to 65 percent in 2008 and it is now down to just 63 percent in the year to March 2009. I am advised that that will increase the scheme’s liabilities by a further $700 million. 
David Bennett 
: What steps is ACC taking under the direction of the new board to improve rehabilitation rates and thus reduce the scheme’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: ACC’s new board has endorsed a number of new initiatives to rehabilitate injured New Zealanders and get them back to work. In the first instance ACC’s front-line services have been revamped to provide a stay-at-work philosophy where clients are provided with extra services up front. In Taupo a service has been trialled under the Better at Work banner using general practitioners and other health professionals. It is providing very positive results and we intend to roll out the service throughout New Zealand. Rehabilitating workers to enable them to get back into the workforce more quickly is a key priority of the new board. 
Hon David Parker 
: When will the Minister come clean and say that the reason he is delaying legislation to extend the date for full funding of the earners account which would of itself reduce levies is that he wants to include cuts to accident compensation entitlements in the same legislation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that Labour had 9 years to address the time frame. It had 9 long years to address the issue of the timetable for full funding and it did nothing. I remind members opposite that simply extending the full funding date only adds to the Crown’s liabilities and debt. That is something I know that Labour is not particularly focused on but this Government is focused on it. If we are to secure the sustainability of accident compensation it is absolutely plain that other changes will also be required. 
Families Commission—Appointment of Christine Rankin 
6.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What was the process she followed when appointing Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The process included but was not limited to calling for expressions of interest pre-appointment document checks and submitting papers to the appointments and honours committee. It went to Cabinet it went to caucus pre-appointment checks were completed and the appointment document was sent—just as it was for Bruce Pilbrow. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Did Christine Rankin discuss her  
Investigate 
 interview with the Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor as she was clearly instructed to in the Minister’s letter to her outlining a no-surprises clause; if she did was it done at the earliest opportunity or was Jan Pryor unpleasantly surprised? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is my understanding that she discussed the interview with the Chief Families Commissioner prior to giving it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What would actively campaigning on section 59 look like to the Minister: would it look like a 4-page spread in a magazine campaigning against the law or would it look more like being a trustee of an organisation that advocates views on section 59 that directly contradict the views of the Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I looked up the definition of “campaigning” and it says “a vigorous concerted effort to accomplish a purpose”. I suppose my own interpretation would be that I do not expect her to be holding a megaphone. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What are the important issues facing New Zealand families that the Government would like the Families Commission to focus on? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Let us start with what they are not: reports that parents working long hours report feeling tired and stressed or research I have seen that shows that children value their relationship with their grandparents or—a particular favourite that some colleagues might listen to—research that shows that men are less likely than women to talk about their relationship problems. These were commissioned by the previous Chief Families Commissioner who now sits on the Opposition benches and I do not think they add much value to New Zealand families. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister believe the comments reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday by the Family and Children Trust spokeswoman Bev Adair that one Ms Rankin was the trust’s chief executive and two she would definitely take part in the section 59 referendum campaign; if the comments are accurate would that constitute a conflict of interest and has the Minister determined whether they are accurate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Opposition’s obsession with Ms Rankin’s appointment is curious to say the least. Let us be quite clear: her involvement with the Family and Children Trust was included in the press release we put out announcing her appointment to the job. So there are no secrets and no surprises about her attachment to that particular trust. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question had a specific point which was whether the comments alluded to in the  
New Zealand Herald  
would constitute a conflict of interest if they were accurate and whether the Minister had determined that they were accurate. That question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question did specifically relate to comments made in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I invite the Hon Paula Bennett to respond to that. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the Prime Minister and I have been very clear on what we expect of Ms Rankin as far as her appointment is concerned. We have made that clear. I am not going to make comments about someone else’s comments in the newspaper or be responsible for them. 
Migration—Net Position 
7.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What recent reports has he seen on net migration to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The latest information from Statistics New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to hear the Minister’s answer as I am sure the House would. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The latest information from Statistics New Zealand shows that in May 2009 net annual inflows of permanent and long-term migrants have reached their highest levels in 2 years driven by strong growth in the last 6 months. In the year to May 2009 there were 11200 more permanent and long-term arrivals than departures—a significant increase on the figure of 4900 a year ago. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What is driving the increase in net migration? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Overall arrivals continue to increase up 5 percent while departures are declining down 3 percent. Arrivals of New Zealand citizens from Australia are up 29 percent compared with last year and arrivals of New Zealand citizens from the UK are up 13 percent. We said in our manifesto that we would retain Kiwis and attract overseas Kiwis home and we are doing it. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Are we reversing the trend of Kiwis leaving these shores for Australia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Absolutely! Under the previous Labour Government people were leaving New Zealand in droves. The picture is reversing now with departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia down 34 percent compared with a year ago and departures to the UK down 26 percent. Helen Clark and Phil Goff were waving them off. John Key is welcoming them back. 
Police—Resourcing 
8.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement “it is essential that police have the resources and support they need to keep the public and themselves safe”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The Government’s top priority for policing has been to increase the number of officers on the front line to keep the public safe. That is why Budget 2009 provided $182.5 million of funding over 4 years to fund extra police. This funding included $20 million of capital funding for accommodation and vehicles for extra police. The police also received $10 million in Budget 2009 for Tasers which will assist them to keep themselves and the public safe. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why then is she cutting $21 million out of police resources including cutting the police vehicle fleet by 10 percent when the Commissioner of Police himself admitted today at the police estimates hearing that those cuts will heighten the risk of a decline in police services and a delay in police response times? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I heard the Commissioner of Police say that there would not be any cut in services. In fact the money is being used to make more effective use of the vehicle fleet and for leave management legal expenses administration of travel—which I would have thought was quite good—Police National Headquarters operating expenses and district administration savings to name just a few. The police have come up with their own savings and good on them because we are facing the worst recession that this country has seen since the 1930s. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the police have the resources and the support they need to keep the public and themselves safe? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Apart from the $182.5 million in this year’s Budget as at 30 November 2008 there were 8307 front-line police. By 31 December 2011 there will be 8907 front-line police which is an increase of 600 police officers 300 of whom this Government has allocated to the Counties-Manukau Police District. The Government’s top priorities for policing have been to increase the number of police officers to improve the safety of the public and the provision of Tasers to assist the safety of the police as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is the sense in giving the police funding in the Budget for 43 extra vehicles with one hand while taking away 300-plus vehicles with the other hand or is this another attempt to fudge the numbers as that Minister did with her claim of 600 extra police being funded by this Government when it was confirmed at the select committee today that National is funding only 224 of the new police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not know why the member gets his numbers so wrong. There are 389 extra police and 43 extra cars provided under Budget 2009. I will say it again: there are 389 extra police under just this Budget. I cannot understand why the member cannot count. There will be 600 more police by the end of 2011 than there were at the beginning of December 2008. That is 600 extra police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the $21 million that is being cut from police resources if those cuts result in a decline in service from the police or will she continue to wash her hands of her responsibilities as she did in the select committee today when she claimed that that responsibility will be an operational matter? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I am very happy to take some responsibility for the $182.5 million that this Government has been able to put towards the police—plus by the way the $10.5 million for Tasers which is something that those members over there when they were in Government never ever funded. All they ever did was to have another review. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the police note part of the drive to cut $21 million from their $1.5 billion annual budget. It is a 19 June 2009 report from the  
Southland Times 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a report from the  
Southland Times 
. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the Minister of Police implies that the police provided by the previous Government were underfunded. I do this noting your rulings Mr Speaker; it is an answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just let me clarify: the member is seeking to table the answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009 which is only a few days back. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Why would the House not have that information? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am quite happy to provide that answer. I seek leave to table the answer reluctantly but I do it firstly because under Standing Order 368 I am able to and secondly because the answer highlights an inherent contradiction in what the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I have made the point on many occasions that the important provision in the Standing Orders for members to table documents is to provide the House with information that it otherwise would not have. It is not to enable members to score political points using information that was provided in the House only a few days before. I am bound to put the leave the member is seeking but I note that it is disorderly to abuse the provisions like that. Leave has been sought and I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you are editorialising what the Standing Order states. The Standing Order does not state what its intention is; it states just what we are allowed and not allowed to do. My colleague was perfectly within order to seek leave to table that document. There used to be abuse of the leave provisions in this House when the Hon Phil Heatley would stand up and list 10 different documents separately— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and he will not use the point of order procedure to attack another member in the House. I have made my position as Speaker very clear. The member is certainly entitled to his view; I will respect his view. But he will not take further time of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter that came up last week and it has come up again now and you have indicated that you will refer it to the Standing Orders Committee. Can I suggest that until the Standing Orders are changed it would be appropriate either for the House to use the current Standing Orders or for you to issue a clear Speaker’s ruling that indicates that you will not accept points of order of this sort. If you issued a clear Speaker’s ruling of that type then the House would be obliged to obey it in the interim. While we have editorialising and case by case management of this issue I think it will lead to disorder but it is something that is in your hands. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point. I remind members of the House that the Standing Orders Committee reviewed this matter and reported on it at the end of the last Parliament giving guidance to the Speaker. The Speaker attempts to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee which was very clear that the provision should be used to provide information to the House that it would not otherwise have in its possession. As Speaker I have been trying to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee and I apologise to the House if members feel that I am taking that too far. I am trying to treat both sides of the House evenly. I try to make it clear that it is not a great course of action to try to use the tabling procedure to score political points. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept everything you have said. In addition to the request that my colleague has made I also ask whether you would reflect on this—and I am not scoring political points. If a statement is made in the House on a particular area and the  
Hansard 
 record either latterly or historically shows that a member has taken a different position then members have often sought to table the  
Hansard 
. The only course of action available to highlight that the particular position may be contradictory is to offer up the  
Hansard 
. I think that in practical terms it would be rare for us all to remember things that were said in this place years ago perhaps or even months ago. So that is one reason. It is done reluctantly and not to challenge you Mr Speaker; it is done to highlight—as the only course of action that we on this side of the House have—where a contradiction may have occurred. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further advice on this matter. I respect the point the honourable member has raised but this is precisely why supplementary questions are provided for. If one goes back a few years to my early days in this House there was only one supplementary question to a substantive question. The reason why there are many more supplementary questions today is to enable members to pursue exactly that kind of thing. Where they find that an answer seems inconsistent with information that they have in their possession they can question the Minister further about that discrepancy. The more pointed they make their questioning the more I will be able to support them in obtaining answers to it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a relevant issue here that needs to be teased out. I agree with my friend’s comment. You are quite right to say that one of the ways that inconsistencies can be pointed out is through supplementary questions but the Standing Orders also allow us to do it by tabling an inconsistent document. That was what my friend Mr Cosgrove was trying to do and he is entitled to do that under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points the honourable members have made but the important thing is that members do not actually need to table information especially when it is readily available to the House; they need only to refer to it in their questions. They do not need to actually table it because it is readily available. The issue is use of the point of order procedure and the provision to seek leave to table documents. That is the provision that the Standing Orders Committee advised the Speaker on. I am trying to follow the advice of the Standing Orders Committee. If I have caused members concern I apologise but I will try to apply that recommendation as evenly as possible. 
State Houses—Sales to Tenants Scheme 
9.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What decisions have been made recently regarding opportunities available to tenants of State houses? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am delighted to say that from September tenants will be able to purchase their State house and we will be reinvesting the proceeds into a replacement State house for someone on the waiting list. Most of the State houses will be new builds. This will be a win-win-win situation. Someone goes into home ownership someone comes off the waiting list and into a new State house and a building company gets to build it stimulating the economy. That is great news. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Government given any thought to what assistance tenants could receive throughout this process? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have given a great deal of thought to it and we believe that the Welcome Home Loan package could give loans to those people who want to buy their State house. However the caps on those loans are limited to $280000; we are looking at the possibility of raising those caps. We are also looking at some assistance towards the valuation and the conveyancing fees for the purchaser. We want people to go into home ownership if that is what they want to do. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What effect will that have on the State housing stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Quite simply I have made it clear to Housing New Zealand Corporation that every house sold will be replaced with a new home for another family on the waiting list and the emphasis will be on new builds. But the really good news was in the Budget where we announced that 550 new homes would be built to the end of the current financial year and another 1000 over the next 3 years. That means an increase in the number of State houses State house tenants moving into home ownership more people coming off the waiting list and the building sector stimulated. 
Moana Mackey 
: If the Minister is so concerned about Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting lists why does he not give the OK this afternoon to build 500 State houses in Hobsonville? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have made it clear—and we did before the election—that the Hobsonville land was strategically more useful for other types of development. What we are doing is increasing State houses in areas of need. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How is this different to what has been undertaken previously? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Interestingly properties have always been bought built leased and sold under previous Governments. In fact even though the previous Labour Government increased the numbers of State houses it sold 811 of them in the process and it never offered one to a State house tenant. What a measly disgraceful— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not the Minister’s position to comment. He can report on the policies of a previous Government; it is not his position to comment on them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will the Minister guarantee that a State house sold in an area of high housing need will be replaced by a new State house in an area of high housing need and not a house on the outskirts of town or indeed in a completely different city? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The policy of Housing New Zealand Corporation providing houses in areas of high need will continue. That has always been the case. It will continue under this policy as we increase State house numbers move people into homeownership get people off the waiting list and stimulate the economy through the building and construction sector—and good on the National Government for that. We are doing more for State house tenants than that lot opposite ever did. 
Franchise Sector— 
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
10.  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action is the Government taking in light of the reported statement from Auckland University Business School law lecturer Gehan Gunasekara that the franchise sector is a “wild west” and “… franchisees represent around 30 percent of all claims brought under the Fair Trading Act …”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh Bill English! Bill Birch! 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: At least they have worked out who the shadow Leader of the House is. Earlier this month Cabinet received and considered the  
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
 which was initiated by Lianne Dalziel last year as the previous Minister of Commerce. The review found that there was insufficient evidence of a widespread problem within the franchising sector and that where there were issues they were common to small and medium enterprises generally. Many submitters to the review found the status quo adequate including the Franchise Association of New Zealand. Cabinet agreed with the findings of the review that it was not clear that proposals for regulation would be effective or result in sufficient benefit to outweigh the additional compliance costs that would be imposed on industry. 
The reports that surfaced last year of people being sold non-existent franchises appear to be cases of fraud which are already being dealt with under current laws by the Serious Fraud Office and the courts. I also note that the 30 percent statistic referred to by the member does not relate to all claims brought under the Fair Trading Act but rather to the specific complaint of misleading conduct in relation to the sale of a business. I also note that the same research found that 68 percent of all claims for misleading and deceptive conduct brought to the courts were successful and the overwhelming number were brought by franchisees indicating that the Fair Trading Act is working for those people. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How will the Minister respond to the victims of the next franchise scam when people lose their jobs homes and life-savings and when he is asked why he failed to act when he had the chance to provide protections that other countries take for granted? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I believe and the Government believes that sufficient protections are available at common law including the generic business laws of contract law intellectual property law consumer law and competition law. I can only repeat the member’s own words from her press release where she said: “I agree that the case has not been made out for a specific statutory framework for all franchise operations” and that she personally favours enhanced self-regulation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What specific representation did the Minister receive from the Minister for Ethnic Affairs about offering protection to franchisees in light of her statement that “The franchise business is also attractive to immigrants who can’t find jobs and are desperate to make a living. They will cling on to what little hope [they have] that claims made by the franchiser are true even those they find hard to believe.”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: None specifically but the review found there was no specific reason to single out franchising when it came to potentially unscrupulous behaviour. If we imposed specific regulations on franchises it is likely that those compliance costs would have a disproportionate effect on smaller franchises and pose a potential barrier to entry for migrants or those who have lost their jobs. However the Government has moved to assist all small businesses to resolve disputes the member will be pleased to know by proposing an extension to the threshold for claims to the disputes tribunal in a bill that is currently before the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did the Minister see the statement from the commentator I referred to before Gehan Gunasekara who stated that the many problems which arise with franchises come down to a lack of understanding of what a franchise really is “and sadly that is reflected in the government review which blandly states a franchise is no different from any other commercial arrangement which is not true”; if so why will he not act to protect those who we know will be disadvantaged in the future—particularly new migrants to New Zealand. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I did read the article the member refers to in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 I think on the weekend. I am confident that the current laws in place in general statutes are sufficient to deal with these particular issues. The difficulty is that if a separate set or new regulatory environment was introduced the compliance costs could work against those very people who wish to enter into these arrangements by way of jobs or other arrangements. I am surprised by the member’s passion on this issue when her own press release said that she favoured self-regulation something which does not seem to be quite consistent with the questions I am getting asked today. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the submission to the Ministry of Economic Development on the  
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
 discussion paper from Gehan Gunasekara where he states that a compelling case has been made to increase certainty for all parties involved in franchising and stating that transaction— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Resource Consents—Compliance with Timeliness 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What feedback has he received from key interest groups on the ministry’s report highlighting low levels of compliance with timelines under the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There has been a reaction of relief from many of the key sectors that finally after a decade of results getting worse and worse there is a Government that takes seriously the issue of efficient processing of resource consents. I note particularly the reaction from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which said it had been highlighting the issue for years and is pleased that the cost to businesses and jobs is finally being recognised. I have seen the reactions from Federated Farmers which said the matter had been a concern for it for a very very long time and from Business New Zealand which said that hundreds if not thousands of jobs have been lost by inefficient and slow processing of resource consents. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister acknowledged the good work done by the 25 councils that have achieved an over 90 percent compliance rate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. I have written specifically to those 25 councils which I commend for the work of their staff in efficiently processing consents. It shows that if those 25 councils can do it then so too can the other 60. That is why we should commend those councils that are doing well in this area. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister had any response from the non-compliant councils; if so what has been their response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been encouraged by the response from many of the councils with a poor performance record. Many of them have acknowledged that it is not good enough and that they are taking steps to correct it. A few councils have been in denial. Some have wanted to argue the figures that they themselves provided. But the overwhelming response is one of wanting to work with the Government so that the problem can be fixed. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday 16 June. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What information if any did the Prime Minister’s office seek and receive that led him to the view that he did not have confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said on numerous occasions in this House I am not going to go into those specifics because I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so. But I am satisfied that Dr Richard Worth met the test of no longer enjoyed my confidence. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Prime Minister sought the telephone records of his former Minister of Internal Affairs in order to investigate whether taxpayer-funded telephones were improperly used to arrange meetings for favours or to make harassing calls or texts; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member made some allegations and assumptions in his question. I think he should be careful not to do so. But I can say that yes my office has sought and received a copy of Dr Worth’s mobile phone records. Of course the member will be well aware that phone records do not provide any evidence as to what calls and texts were for or about. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister receive those mobile phone records before or after he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: After. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise the honourable member that his party’s question have all been taken up. 
Question Time 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have deliberately waited to the end of question time to raise this point of order because I think there is an opportunity for a correction in the House. You indicated that at the beginning of our lives as parliamentarians members had only one supplementary question for questions for oral answers. I have gone to the records and on two days 22 and 23 November found examples of up to six supplementary questions on questions for oral answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During the 1980s? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In 1984. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must have changed around then. I thank the honourable member for his advice. There was certainly a period in my time in this House when supplementary questions were very limited. It is a more recent development that many supplementary questions can be asked. 
General Debate 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Violence is not acceptable in any shape or form. It is a plague that haunts our communities and violence against the vulnerable and our children is totally abhorrent. I say that as a mother and as a politician. That is why we have laws that are explicit about violent behaviour and that impose punishments on those in our society who choose to inflict violence on others. The anti-smacking bill the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act was promoted as the solution to the terrible abuse suffered by too many children. Details published around these cases—the Kahui twins “Lillybing” and far too many other children—were so repugnant that I could not read them. 
But the anti-smacking bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse. The debate has relied on emotion rather than reason. The unintended result of the smacking ban has been to criminalise hundreds of thousands of good parents. Those who beat their children to a pulp have never paid attention to the law and never will. The police have been told to use their discretion when complaints are made but that makes a farce of the laws. Laws must be clear enforceable and routinely enforced to be effective and that is not the case we have now. 
What really surprised New Zealanders during the anti-smacking debate was the flip-flop of the National Party. It did a complete U-turn opposing the bill all the way through and then supporting it at the last minute. National MPs did not even support the very excellent amendments of their own MP Chester Borrows. In the first instance it was only the ACT Party that voted in favour of Chester Borrows’ amendments. It is only the ACT Party that believes that intrusion of the State into the homes of good parents is unacceptable. It is left to the ACT Party to reintroduce Chester Borrows’ amendments to this House as a member’s bill in the name of my colleague John Boscawen. This bill will not take us back to when people could beat children with a weapon a tool or an implement without being prosecuted. Under this bill parents can give their child a light smack for the purpose of correction as long as the result is no more than transitory or trifling. More than 300000 people signed a petition to hold a referendum on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. It is a question that has divided the country not 50:50 not even 60:40 and it has split the New Zealand Parliament from the rest of New Zealand; a Parliament that voted 113:8 in support of the anti-smacking bill and ignored polls that showed the public opposed the bill by a ratio of 4:1. 
It is no wonder the people of New Zealand think that politicians do not listen. ACT supports this referendum. We support the people of New Zealand having a say. We support democracy. We do so because this Parliament has refused to listen to the people. Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the referendum as an irrelevance and said that the result will not change his mind. I ask him to reflect on those statements and consider the anguish and the confusion that the anti-smacking bill has caused around the country. Proponents of the law say that it is working because it is reducing child abuse. Thirteen children have been killed in 25 months since this law was passed so I do not think that is a success. This law targets the wrong people. The thugs and bullies the child abusers the real criminals not good parents will continue to assault and murder children. It will not stop the James Whakaruru’s or the Delcelia Witaka’s from being abused or killed. What it does do is frighten confuse and prevent loving parents from parenting. The ACT Party is the only party in this House that opposed the anti-smacking law; we were the only party to publicly support the referendum to allow New Zealanders to have a say; and we remain the only party committed to reforming the law to protect loving New Zealand families. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have found myself worrying in recent days. I have been worrying about the state of the Opposition. I have been worrying about the state of the Opposition because something does not seem to be working over there; something is not quite right. What is going on over there? Is the Hon Trevor Mallard the shadow Leader of the House or is Darren Hughes the shadow Leader of the House? I see that my old friend Darren Hughes has changed his hair to look like Steve Maharey but there is only so much one can do if one is Darren Hughes to look like Steve Maharey. 
I am very concerned about my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. What has happened to Clayton Cosgrove? For a while there he was leading the charge for the Opposition asking questions every day and beavering away on his research. In fact he asked 12 oral questions in the months of February and March but since then there has been a total of only three. What has happened is that Ruth Dyson and Maryan Street have been coming to the fore to ask questions during question time. I have a theory: the left in the Labour Party is striking back and putting the centre-right boys back in their place back where they belong. 
I want to know why it is that the Labour backbenchers always sit on the front bench when they ask questions. What is going on with the stability of the front bench of the Labour Party? Why has Phil Goff stopped asking all the questions about Richard Worth and sent the issue off to Pete Hodgson? What is Labour’s polling telling it about pursuing that particular inquiry and what it is doing for the Hon Phil Goff? Why is it that George Hawkins seems to be the most effective member of the Opposition at asking written questions and making Official Information Act requests? What are the rest of those folks over there doing? 
I am troubled. Where is Grant Robertson? He started with such a hiss and a roar—it was a promising start—then he was dragged down by the old guard which did not like how well he was doing in those early days. I want to know many cars Iain Lees-Galloway has hired without knowing whose name was on the contract. It is those sorts of questions that are troubling me. Is Rajen Prasad’s subzero profile a cunning bid to get reappointed to the Families Commission? What about the rumours about Annette King standing for the mayoralty in Wellington my friend Lianne Dalziel in Christchurch and Rick Barker in Waipukurau? Where are those rumours coming from and are they true or not? These things are worrying me. Is Ross Robertson finally coming into his own after getting only a third of the way through his career? Has Ashraf Choudhary finally made up his mind? These are things that plague members on this side of the House. 
Why is it that I have just asked more questions in this House than most Opposition members have in the last 7 months? I am worried that democracy will suffer from this lack of drive on the other side from its lack of coordination and from its state of confusion. On this side of the House we have a driven Prime Minister a united team in Cabinet and caucus and a raft of legislation and policy on the way. We inherited a bit of a debacle but we have got unions businesses and the Government together. We have delivered $3 billion in boosting health over 4 years. 
Members opposite should spend less time blogging and more time concentrating on their day jobs. They should spend less time twittering and more time concentrating on what is going on in the Chamber and how they can— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hey! 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is exactly my point. The fundamental fact is that democracy in this country is suffering because members opposite cannot make up their own minds about who is leading the charge who is the Leader of the House who is in charge in the Chamber and who will be asking oral questions on a daily basis. 
Trouble is brewing. I can see that the members on the left in the Labour Party are starting to take control. My old nemesis the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has been sidelined for some strange reason. I am backing him to get his own back but members on the left in the Labour Party are after him. The information he used in his question today was a week old. What choice did he have when he has not had the chance to ask an oral question since basically the start of May? I have been troubled about the lack of application by Labour members to the task at hand. It is time they realised that democracy needs them to get their act together. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to use the opportunity of today’s general debate to tell a story about somebody who completely turned his life around. This is a story of a man who as a young person left school the day he turned 15—on his 15th birthday. After drifting from job to job he settled down and started a career working on the New Zealand railways. Ultimately he became a train driver. He saw the writing on the wall in the 1980s—he must have known what Richard Prebble was up to—and he decided that he needed a career change. But he had a problem; he had left school at 15. He enrolled part-time at university to do a certificate in liberal studies. He then enrolled in the school of law at the University of Canterbury as one of 10 quota students. These were students who did not have formal qualifications to take them into law school but based on submissions and supporting documentation they were determined to become qualified and be able to contribute something back to their communities. 
This man completed his law degree. It was not easy; he was educationally disadvantaged. His marriage had broken up and he was caring for his two children on the domestic purposes benefit. But he had two things going for him. Firstly he had preferential entry to a degree course at a university and secondly he could receive the training incentive allowance. He now has his own law practice and he has served on a number of community boards in a voluntary capacity paying back to his community what they had offered to him. His sons have successful lives and he is married again—to me. This is my husband’s story. 
It is a story of considerable hope and it has been repeated in universities and polytechs from one end of New Zealand to the other. The only difference in my husband’s story to those of many people who have similar success stories is that the vast majority of those people who benefit from the training incentive allowance are women and that includes the Minister for Social Development and Employment. So what has the Minister for Social Development and Employment done to the training incentive allowance? She has made sure that no one can use it for a diploma or degree that is level four or above. Why? She has not given a reason other than to blame the recession yet she did her own degree during a recession. Besides I thought that John Key said that National was ambitious for New Zealand. So why would he not invest in people like his own Minister who had an investment made in her and like my husband who had an investment made in him—those who wanted to get ahead? 
The decision to cap the training incentive allowance at level three says that it is OK to use the allowance to do a certificate in aged care but that it is not OK to use it to become a nurse. Does the Minister for Social Development and Employment forget the difference in pay between a residential care worker and a fully qualified nurse? Does she forget the difference for so many women in this country between a job that represents a dead end and a career that has promotional opportunities in abundance? We need nurses in this country now. So many young mothers would make fantastic nurses but they are being denied the opportunity of using the training incentive allowance which the Minister herself used for a step-up and a ladder into the future. I did not think that we would be cutting off an opportunity for jobs real jobs that are needed in this country and that would have been a win-win for the individuals for their families and for the country as a whole. Why on earth would we make this the choice? 
I think that there is a name for people who pull up the ladder behind them. There is a name for people who take advantage of a programme for their own personal benefit and then deny that benefit to those who come in the future. 
Hon Member 
: Say that word then. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well it is not a name that I am allowed to use in this House which is probably a shame because I will certainly be using the name outside the House. There is nothing outside this House that prevents me from using the word “hypocrite”. That is a word that fully describes what has happened here. 
I would like members of the Government to reflect on what has been a very significant decision which was not mentioned during the Budget debate. It was sneaked through by a simple amendment made to the website which said that if people had not had their courses approved before 29 May this year they would be out of luck. I think that is a shame. It is a shame on the Minister herself a shame on the Government and a shame on the Prime Minister who said that he was ambitious for New Zealand to say that people cannot get a qualification such as a degree or a diploma at level four and above simply because they are denied access to the training incentive allowance. That allowance allowed my husband to have a career that he is proud of and he is contributing to his community. I think that everyone should have the opportunities that were made available to him and that were made available to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is not often that I get a round of applause before I start speaking but I very much appreciate getting that applause from the Labour Party. 
To me the Labour members seem depressed really. They are depressed because all I hear from them is constant complaints. They complain and they complain. I remember when John Key floated the idea of a national cycleway and they complained that it would never happen. Then John Key said that he would put $50 million towards it and they complained that the money would never see the light of day. Then we announced that there would be $50 million in the Budget for the national cycleway and they complained that it was not coming soon enough. They complained that the cycleway was not a good idea until the rest of the country—right throughout the provinces and even in the metropolitan areas where people knew it would be good for the provinces—said that it was a great idea to have a national cycleway a series of great rides throughout New Zealand. Everyone in New Zealand except for the Labour members over there who are very depressed thought it was a great idea. Labour complained. 
Labour complained about the upgrade of State houses when I announced that I was upgrading them because they were in a slum condition. I said that I did not want this Government to be a slum landlord and that we would pour a whole bunch of money into State houses across the country and Labour members complained about that. When I said that we would sell State houses to the tenants if they could afford to buy them so that they could go into home ownership Labour complained about that and said that we were just selling down the housing stock. I said that we would use the money for replacement houses so that we would not run down the housing stock. Labour members complained about that and said that the money would not stimulate the economy. I said that we would put the money from the sale of the State houses into building replacement houses and that it will be a new build. It will be a new build so that the construction industry will get work out of it. Labour members complained about that. They said that we would end up building houses in the worst areas of the country. I said that we will build State houses in the areas of high need. Now they are complaining about that. 
We are upgrading State houses and we are selling State houses to tenants. We are getting replacement houses we are making sure that they are new builds and still Labour complains. 
I was delighted when Gerry Brownlee announced the $323 million package to insulate top and bottom private households right throughout this country and also to subsidise home heating. One-third of a billion dollars is being put into upgrading private houses right throughout the country with no income caps. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Don’t tell me Labour whinged again. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Labour complained about it but worse still the Green Party complained about it. Today I announced that we will increase the number of State houses over the next 3 years including this current year and the Green Party is complaining about that too. 
Why are those members so depressed? I think they are depressed because they are taking the wrong drugs. They are simply taking the wrong drugs. No longer is Trevor Mallard taking his anti-anger pills; he is actually taking pills that are depressing him. So they complain complain and complain. 
I will tell members the biggest shock for New Zealand. When National was voted in and it decided and announced to the country that it would fund Herceptin did Labour complain? No. There was a big long silence. Do members know what that silence said? It was Labour members wondering why they did not think of doing that. Women are dying of cancer and families are suffering. Why did Labour members not think about doing that? When National funded Herceptin Labour did not complain; there was a big long silence. Labour members asked themselves why they did not do the right thing. It was because they had lost touch. 
The reality is that every week John Key and the team announce a new step forward a new solution to problems young and old and all Labour members do is complain complain and complain. They whinge. They are the worst of Oppositions. They are not putting up alternatives; they are just complaining about what the National Government is doing. I think those members are philosophically in tatters. How can it be that a National Government can put more into State housing than a Labour Government? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tena koutou. Picture this: a Dunedin 10-year-old develops a cost-benefit analysis of solar power versus wind power as energy sources for his school; a Pukerua Bay school wins the Enviroschools Green-Gold Award for sustainability which includes building a native tree nursery with a local revegetation trust; and a bilingual young student welcomes MPs to his school in te reo and English. Then there are young Libby and Matt who made a butterfly garden a worm farm and a vege garden at their Tauranga school and the little boy who made his own sandwich from a lettuce he had grown himself and pronounced it the best he had ever eaten. How does stifling such a sense of achievement and self-responsibility and an embryonic interest in primary production further this country? There are 212870 children now participating in similar programmes across the country so why—to use a wonderful English expression—are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? A face with the nose cut off is certainly an image of considerable horror and people who deliberately do that to themselves might be considered very bizarre indeed and equally so a country trying to manage an economy during a world recession and ecological meltdown. This is not a time for self-mutilation; it is a time for wise investment. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: When is the time for self-mutilation? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I ask Maurice to answer that. 
Children and the environment sound like motherhood and apple pie. Educating children to value and understand their natural environment and how to work together to value and protect it sounds even more wholesome. It is just the sort of thing the Green Party would consider core to the curriculum. We did and it is. In 2002 the Green Party negotiated $13 million over 4 years for the development of the Education for Sustainability advisers. Their role is to help teachers integrate programmes for sustainability into the curriculum. In 2005 the Green Party secured funds from the Government for the advisers programme the kura kaupapa Maori programme Matauranga Taiao and Enviroschools. Six hundred and eighty schools are active participants in Enviroschools with more than 212870 children learning literacy and numeracy science and innovation planning and social studies and culture and biology through the lenses of sustainability for their future. There is also a waiting list of 210 schools and early childhood centres that want to become part of this great project. 
As John Key said to the Enviroschools students in that video in 2007 to the inaugural Enviroschools YOUth Jam our clean green image is extremely important and we need to share our brand with the world. Enviroschools listened hard to his suggestion and in addition to developing the fabulous programme at home they are exporting their model to the world. Enviroschools is being promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a small but profitable export of educational excellence. Chile in particular has benefited from the relationship with our Enviroschools. People are passing on their expertise to teachers in Chile and exporting their innovation to benefit kids everywhere. However there were Budget cuts to all environmental education initiatives funded by the Ministry of Education including the Enviroschools Foundation; Education for Sustainability advisers; Matauranga Taiao which is professional development for teachers in kura Maori; and the environmental education guidelines review. Together the four programmes constituted less than 1 percent of the education budget but the budget for them is all gone. 
So why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? And why did the Prime Minister tell this House that these programmes can survive on no money whatsoever? Enviroschools meet a range of priorities dear to the current Government’s heart but far more fundamental Enviroschools meet a kaupapa of human survival on planet Earth: the need for all our children to be deeply reconnected to the relationship with natural resources and the Earth. Why would one cut this funding unless one does not actually want children to grow up with an understanding of what it means to be green? Hutia te rito o te harakeke kei whea te komako e ko? If we rip out the heart of the harakeke where will the bellbird sing? That is the question that we put to this House when we talk about Enviroschools which is one of the most powerfully successful programmes by anyone’s definition. It is now cut destroying the hopes of children who are participating in those schools because a Government cannot see that investing in these things will actually provide a future for these children and for this country. It is a sad day when we are being lobbied constantly by the parents teachers and kids. Members will hear more of this because this programme is about a kaupapa that really makes a difference to children. Kia ora. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 This National-led Government is calmly and pragmatically tackling the effects on New Zealand of the global financial strife. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Cowardly? Did she say cowardly? 
JO GOODHEW 
: Aha! They are waking up. Unfortunately here in New Zealand we got a head start on the recession which is surely a sign that New Zealand had not capitalised on the economic golden weather that the previous Labour Government had the benefit of. Members should make no mistake: Labour did not deliver nor did it capitalise on that economic golden weather. Instead it squandered it. But what did National and its support partners inherit on 8 November last year? Here are a couple of examples of exactly what we inherited: falling economic growth rising unemployment high inflation a rising current account deficit and annual productivity growth that was only 1.1 percent between 2000 and 2008. That is stunningly unbelievable given the golden weather experienced by the Labour Government in those 9 long years. Add to the picture deteriorating fiscal deficits a sharply rising Crown debt an economy on a negative credit watch and a promise of unaffordable tax cuts in 2010 and 2011. It is a horrible inheritance is it not? Who would ever want it? It is a will the family would not want to read. 
What did National inherit in health? District health boards with projected deficits of about $160 million over the 2008-09 financial year and with potentially up to $200 million deficits in the 2009-10 financial year. And then there was more than $600 million worth of capital requests from district health boards. Sadly elective surgery was not keeping up with population growth. There is a severe workforce crisis. There were some 54 workforce reports under the previous Government yet the crisis just got deeper. There are shortages of nurses shortages of midwives shortages of doctors and in particular shortages of some specialists. 
Let us then talk about the Immigration Service. It is so dysfunctional. It has a failing computer system. It has a Pacific division with serious deficiencies. In education we now understand that there were schools in desperate need of repair. They had leaks and mould and National has certainly addressed that. Stack up that dismal record against the record of this National-led Government. We have not rested on our laurels. We have not basked in the glory of winning the election on 8 November—no! It was really important that we did not allow New Zealand to drift depressingly downwards. Right now business confidence will take New Zealand out of this recession. 
Let us contrast what we inherited from Labour with the future under National. It is a stark contrast. What has National done so far? Well actually it has done heaps. We moved to ensure that interest rates do not rise because of a credit downgrade. Many New Zealanders underestimate how important that move was and in particular the Opposition seems to have no conception of how important it was. Higher interest rates would remove money from the pockets of every New Zealander who has a mortgage who pays rent or who has an overdraft or a credit card. What is it that the Opposition cannot understand about this? This Government is focused on what matters. Certainly the polls should be telling Opposition members that fact but maybe they are not watching or listening. 
We have delivered a job support scheme to soften the blow for those who lose their jobs. We have introduced a package to make life easier for small and medium sized enterprises. We have got the Government unions and businesses all on the same page working to take New Zealand out of this recession. We have delivered a boost of $3 billion for health over 4 years. I tell members that that is not easy to do at a time like this in this recession. We are focusing on the front line and we will ask the hard questions about what that front-line service will deliver. Who are those front-line people and how do we get more people into the health sector? How do we get more health practitioners into the front line? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 We cannot blame the member Jo Goodhew for the speech she has just delivered; it was written by the National research unit and it is the standard old line that unfortunately is about as far from the truth as one can possibly get. 
Simon Power got up and told us that we had a driven Prime Minister; he did not tell us who drives the Prime Minister. That is a question we will continue to ask. Which of his rich mates which of the people on the Business Roundtable drive the Prime Minister? We have been told that we are facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. We have also been told that this Government—the National-led Government—cares about what happens to people and that it cares about jobs. It called the Job Summit in the hope that it would solve everything. Well what has that Job Summit done? Since that Job Summit we have lost 16000 jobs in this economy and 16000 New Zealanders have gone on to the scrap heap of unemployment. But the Job Summit saved 345 jobs. That is the total number of jobs saved through the initiatives from that massive Job Summit and I believe on top of that 32 jobs have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight. It is an absolute disgrace. The cycleway which is the other big initiative to come from the Job Summit has created one job that I know of and another one has been advertised for the next 6 months. That is how pathetic it gets. 
But I have to say that some jobs have been created. Whom have those jobs been created for? Firstly a job has been created for Christine Rankin who is a well-known National Party supporter. She has received a job. A job has been created in the Lotteries Commission for Judy Kirk the president of the National Party. That is another job that has been created. Another job has been created for Jim McLay as the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Seven jobs have been created in ministerial offices for the likes of Graham Scott who is an ex - ACT candidate; for Doug Martin; and for Kevin Jenkins to tell Ministers what should happen. Those are the kinds of jobs that have been created under this Tory Government. Stephen Franks a well-known ACT member also had a job created for him. 
What about the poor New Zealanders the more than 1000 people every week who are losing their jobs? Well the reality is that this Government simply does not care although I have to say that one of the smartest initiatives has come up for welders. There are new opportunities for welders moving forward because they will put together the containers that will make up the new prisons under the new Minister of Corrections. But the word “container” is an oxymoron because I can tell members that it will not contain the prisoners who will be put in them. Other jobs will be created for people training police dogs which will be needed to run round after those prisoners who will escape from the containers. 
This Government has no vision and no idea about what it should do for New Zealand or New Zealanders in the face of 1000 job losses every single week. It is a disgrace! When National members stood up on the hustings they said that there would be less of everything and that there would be more of everything. Well what we got or what they promised was less of everything. There would be less of the Resource Management Act. There would be less Government bureaucracy except this Government then said it would cap the numbers of Government officials not cut 1400 of them as has happened—1400 Government officials have gone since this Government came into office. Members opposite said there would be less tax except that that applies only if someone earns over $40000 per year. For the rest of us there has been no less tax. They said that there would be research and development money. Well they said there would be less of it in fact because they called Fast Forward an absolute hoax. 
But what happened? While promising less of everything in those areas National came into office and delivered more of nothing. What has it done? It has cut the money in the crucial area of adult and community education. The Government has cut jobs in the Public Service as I have said and it has cut tax but only for those earning over $40000 per year. 
I questioned the Minister of Fisheries the other day about what he considered was a responsibility in the new 2030 strategy. He said that jobs for New Zealanders were not part of the objective for the fisheries strategy moving forward. That is it is it not I ask the Minister. He said that jobs— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said no such thing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That Minister clearly stated that New Zealand jobs were not a key objective of the new fisheries strategy to 2030. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to disturb the member’s speech but I point out that during the term of this Government that member got a job. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is trifling with the Chair. Points of order are not debating points; they are about a process of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to come in especially in the circumstances of the last couple of days— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is not going to transgress too is he? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —but members generally when they have made out-of-order comments like that have been required to withdraw and apologise. There was no requirement placed on the member Phil Heatley then. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is up to the Speaker to exercise his judgment about that and I have severely admonished the member. He is on a warning. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Every New Zealand Government that fails and is thrown out of office by the people carries with it a millstone round its neck. Probably the greatest millstone in New Zealand political history is the one carried by the 1957-60 Labour Government: the moniker of the Black Budget. The previous Labour Government defeated on that great and glorious night in November 2008 will also carry a moniker. It will be that it was a Government that had lost its moral compass. 
It is worth reflecting on a couple of things. Firstly I ask what the 1957-60 period told us. It told us that whenever a Labour Government is in trouble its only answer is taxation taxation taxation. Members of this House might like to reflect on what the 2009 Budget would have looked like had it been written—heaven forbid—by a Labour Minister of Finance. We would have suffered a credit downgrade and Treasury has advised us that a downgrade would have resulted in a 1.5 percent interest rate increase. That means that a New Zealand family—an honest hard-working family—with a $175000 mortgage would be paying an extra $30 a week on their mortgage payments. That is what a Labour Government had it survived would have done to ordinary New Zealanders. We can only imagine how much more New Zealanders would have been paying when Labour dealt with the recession by driving up taxes which is what a Labour Government does. 
Let us think about the first 6 years of the previous Labour Government: 1999-2005 which were some of the most sustained prosperous times in our history. What did that Government do? It squandered those times; it took from New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that New Zealanders did not need to pay to meet the core expectations of Government. Some like myself believe that any dollar more than the Government absolutely needs is theft and although I cannot in this House accuse that Government of theft I can certainly make the statement that taking more than is required from the taxpayer amounts to theft. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What’s a deficit then? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What did it do with that money? It bought the 2005 election. The member who was interjecting before might like to recall what it cost for his narrow majority—the majority that he lost in the 2008 election. Sometimes I think members opposite need to think a little more carefully before they put their mouths into action and interject across the floor. 
We need to think about this: not only did that Government build up a holding of the taxpayers’ money that taxpayers need not have paid and not only did they buy an election but also they corrupted the New Zealand political system— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a robust debate—being the Wednesday general debate most things go—but to accuse any party in New Zealand of corruption is way over the top. I think that is just not helpful to what otherwise is a free-flowing debate. One cannot say “corruption”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Certainly one cannot accuse a member of corruption. I have to confess I was not applying as much scrutiny to exactly how the member phrased that as I perhaps should have. I ask the member that he does not bring us into this kind of debate by the way in which he uses that word. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The Electoral Finance Act denied everyday New Zealanders opportunities to participate in our system of democracy. That is what happened. When I talk of the moniker that the 1999-2008 Labour Government will carry I am talking about the loss of a moral compass. For years to come they will be remembered for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have had time to reflect on the point of order and it is probably timely for the House to look at Speaker’s ruling 51/3 which says that it is unparliamentary to accuse a party in the same way as it is an individual. The House needs to note that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to Allan Peachey. He seemed to me to be like a palaeontologist scraping over the dry bones of Governments long gone—back to the 1950s and 1960s he went—and I think he did not really have much to contribute. 
I welcome Cam Calder to the House and I hope Dr Calder has a good time in this Parliament. He stood against me at the last election and he worked every day; from March to election day he was up there knocking on doors. He increased the National vote by a few hundred which I think is better than any of his colleagues have ever done. But he is an interesting guy. I listened to  
Morning Report 
 the other day and I saw him on TV where he said that he had never seen a saint or an angel. That is because he is in the National Party; that is the reason why. If he wants to redeem himself he should stop going to so many Tory meetings and meet decent people. 
It is sad the way he came here. Richard Worth was a person whom I used to sit at the airport with perhaps waiting to go to Auckland and talk to. I am sure that this is a very cruel place and it is very easy to forget the contributions that various people make. Richard Worth was not like Cam Calder; he was not a door knocker which provided an opportunity for Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide was able to get the Epsom seat almost by default. Can I tell Rodney Hide that if Cam Calder decides to stand in Epsom he will be knocking on the doors and he will be reminding people that Rodney and John Key stole Auckland and took Auckland away from them. Of course I would be able to back up Cam Calder if he gets out there and wants someone to help knock on a few doors to help get rid of Rodney. I am sure I can find a team of people who will help; not National people though Labour people because I think if Cam Calder cuts the vote from the ACT Party it could become a Labour seat. We are already starting to look at the seats we can get. We are looking around to see who has a majority of less than a couple of thousand. Those Tories are gone; they are history. All they will have to do is sit around collect their cheques for a couple of years and then they will be on the dole queue. They should remember that unemployment is getting worse and worse and they are going to join the queue. 
In my electorate I see very many poor people. They are losing their jobs; even worse a lot of them have lost overtime. Where they used to do 10 hours’ overtime a week for $20 an hour it has gone. That means their kids are going to school hungry. Their kids do not have lunches. As I go around the schools in my electorate the principals are telling me that the situation has got really bad. You know it is always the socially deprived areas that feel these things worse. These people are really hurting quite a lot. It is all right for the Prime Minister to get up and say how many jobs the Government has created and how many have not been lost and it is all very well for Labour members to take a swing at the jobs lost but the reality is that these are families these are families who are hurting these are young kids who do not have any say and who hope that dad has a job and will bring home the money. That is not happening. South Auckland I believe is bearing the brunt of this more than anywhere else. What is happening and where are these people getting help? The queue outside Work and Income has got larger. People come to my electorate office seeking help and of course they want jobs. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 There spoke a true Labour battler. Much of what George Hawkins said I agree with because I see it in my own electorate where 60-odd people lost their jobs in Greytown a couple of weeks ago. I reflect on why those jobs were lost. They were lost because of the profligate incompetent management of the previous Government for the last 9 years. Why are we having such a significant problem and having to pay high interest rates? It is because the Labour administration over the last 9 years spent far more money than it owned and it took from our pockets. We see this in areas like accident compensation which I pointed out to the House yesterday—a $2 billion black hole. We see it in the energy area where that Government had promised but unfunded home insulation in rising electricity prices and in a transmission network that was in need of significant repair. We see it in the district health boards including the Wairarapa District Health Board where there is a combined debt of $160 million for the 2008-09 year. The previous Government was an incompetent bunch of managers. We see $2 billion worth of deferred maintenance in State houses and we see a totally dysfunctional immigration service. I point the bone in the direction of Lianne Dalziel who for a period took responsibility as Minister of Immigration. What problems did she solve? None. 
Given that this is a general debate I would like to record the passing last week of a significant New Zealander Ron Crocombe. His memorial service was held in Auckland yesterday and his funeral will be held in Rarotonga later this week. Ron was a great New Zealander and a significant Pacific scholar. One of the things he pointed out was China’s ravenous appetite for resources. He notes in his research work that China’s arable land is being converted into factories and urban sites so China has gone into outsourcing for example to the Philippines where Chinese minorities run most of the economy in that country. If we think about China’s extension into Indonesia where it is becoming a Chinese reef then if Indonesia is becoming a Chinese reef certainly the Philippines is becoming China’s rice paddy. 
Ron Crocombe pointed out that Oceania is the second ring in Chinese strategy: its strategic desire to acquire resources and ultimately to support the activities of its blue-water navy. China does not have to conquer the small island countries in the Pacific; it just buys them. We are seeing that happening every day. Evading investment restrictions is no problem for Chinese State agencies. They just buy up the means of production and distribution through for example financing mines financing infrastructure and developing railways. In Papua New Guinea I think it is fair to argue China has accelerated the deforestation of virgin jungles and it is doing exactly the same in the Solomon Islands. Where is that timber ending up? It is all ending up in China and by 2030 all of the virgin forests in the Solomons and Papua New Guinea the tropical rainforests will have been depleted. 
It is interesting to reflect on Crocombe’s thesis that China is exactly targeting the same parts of the Pacific that Japan did in the Second World War: Papua New Guinea Polynesia and Micronesia. For example it has just built a satellite tracking station in Kiribati to monitor its State space programme. I think we need more Ron Crocombe’s. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 On Budget day when the House was sitting under urgency I participated in the debate on the Budget. I enjoyed that speech. To a large extent I enjoyed the way that members opposite interjected interrupted or otherwise tried in whatever manner to make it more robust and more interesting for me to deliver the messages I wished to deliver. 
One important message was in relation to jobs and it is worth reiterating that the biggest challenge facing New Zealand’s economy is worsening unemployment. In the week before the Budget more than 1250 Kiwis joined the dole queues. National’s Budget does not set out a coherent plan to keep Kiwis in work. It fails to take action for vulnerable New Zealanders who are on the brink of losing their jobs. It fails to adequately invest in skills training and investment to create new jobs. It fails to set out a clear path that will lift New Zealand out of the current economic downturn. Prime Minister John Key said this week that about 1000 people a week are losing their jobs and finance Minister Bill English said yesterday that he thought the number was higher than that. As recently as this morning the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett told the Social Services Committee that there was “no escaping” the effects of the recession on the economy. The Government is well aware of the situation—that the number of New Zealanders receiving a benefit has risen to 302000 the highest level since 2005. 
What has the Government done then? Since the Budget Prime Minister John Key has made 13 statements and speeches but only one of them has been related to jobs. The speech was on the home insulation fund which was not even his idea. Minister of Finance Bill English has made two public statements since the Budget. One attacked Labour’s stance on superannuation and the second one defended his tax cuts to adult and community education. Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made three public statements none of which have related to job creation. 
Since the Budget nearly 4000 people have lost their jobs—that is 1000 people a week are going on the dole. We have heard today from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that another 60000 Kiwis are expected to lose their jobs. The  
Press 
 reported that the Government had denied it had a new plan to deal with the surge in unemployment so let us have a look at its plans. 
The Job Summit—yes the Job Summit—was hailed by the Government as its flagship. The 9-day working fortnight headed the Government’s top 20 list for keeping people in work but it has saved just 345 jobs so far with 25 firms applying to join up. When pressed by the  
Dominion Post  
earlier this week Prime Minister John Key was unable to say how many jobs the 9-day working fortnight had saved. However Mr Key could confirm and indeed did confirm that another Job Summit proposal of a Government-subsidised “grab a seat” style promotion to lure long-haul airline travellers to New Zealand had “largely been rejected” because evidence from other countries showed that it did not work. The 9-day working fortnight had been pitched as an opportunity to upskill New Zealanders with training on the 10th day but the training component has been dropped. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Disappeared. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: It has disappeared. Meanwhile as reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 2800 apprentices have been laid off. Nothing has been done since John Key’s Job Summit in February. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 We are in the midst of the worst global recession since the 1930s and as the Hon George Hawkins correctly pointed out New Zealanders are hurting. They are worried and they are concerned. Of more concern is what this Opposition does. All it seems to do is scoff at mock and scaremonger about all the good things we are trying to do to help all New Zealanders get through these tough times. The job of any Opposition is certainly to hold the Government to account but it also has a responsibility. It has a responsibility to act in the best interests of New Zealanders and this Opposition is not doing that. It is failing. It is not in the country’s best interests to incorrectly scaremonger to scoff and to mock the good things happening on which we are trying to work together in order to get all New Zealanders through this recession with the least possible pain. Admittedly we have heard that Labour is trying to sort out its own internal conflicts but it should put those internal conflicts aside and concentrate on the bigger picture. It should concentrate on the issues that matter and focus on what is in the best interests of New Zealand. 
I mention something said by the honourable member who has come back to Parliament Damien O’Connor. He talked about new appointments made. If he were suggesting that those appointments have been made based not on competence but on politics then I think that that suggestion is a bit rich. He should look at Labour’s appointment of Dianne Yates to the board of Food Standards Australia New Zealand when her only interest in food is that she eats it. The Labour Government insisted last year that the vacancy on the board be filled by a member of the Labour caucus so it was filled by a person whose interest in food seems to be only that she does indeed eat it. 
We have heard of Labour messes of Labour’s legacies and of squandered opportunities. Those members have left a pretty notable legacy. Productivity collapsed under the Labour legacy the economy was put on a negative credit watch under the Labour legacy and we had rising unemployment in the midst of great economic times under the Labour legacy. We had falling economic growth under the Labour legacy we had high inflation under the Labour legacy we had a rising current account deficit under the Labour legacy and we had sharply rising Crown debt under the Labour legacy. I think that is a mess. We know that we are in the worst global recession yet despite that the National Government has maintained benefits. Despite the mess that Labour left us in we have maintained benefits. We have maintained student support we have maintained Working for Families and we have locked in national superannuation at 66 percent of the after-tax average wage despite Labour’s scaremongering and despite the mess and the legacy that Labour left us last year. 
It is interesting that members opposite mock the fact that our credit rating was not downgraded; they mock that. I am disappointed because I thought that they would have been more responsible than that. I thought they might have had the economic nous to realise what that meant to all hard-working New Zealanders who have a mortgage and who are paying interest on that mortgage. The fact that that credit rating was not downgraded means that New Zealanders have more money in their back pockets. That is a good thing; that is not something to be mocked. It is something concrete and tangible that this Government has managed to achieve and it has had an impact on every New Zealander. But those members have mocked it. They still mock it and they scaremonger and they scoff. 
We have managed to get unions businesses and the Government working together talking together and conversing together but those members do not like that either. They do not like the fact that we are prepared to listen to have a conversation and to work together to achieve something that is in the best interests of all New Zealanders in order to help them through the recession. National has been successful despite the messes we have been left with by Labour. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time 
. I thank members and officials for their work on this bill. It has been given a thorough examination and the amendments have made a good bill better. 
This bill deals with three quite separate but in their own way important land transport matters. They concern new powers to deal with the problem of drug-impaired drivers on our roads; a comprehensive rewrite of vehicle registration and licensing laws including a new system for managing the release of vehicle owners’ names and addresses; and the continuation in force pending further reforms of legislation that amongst other things empowers local authorities to undertake parking and bus-lane enforcement and to make traffic by-laws. 
People who drive while their judgment and reactions are impaired by drugs—and by that I mean both controlled drugs and prescription medicines—are a danger to themselves and to others. This bill aims to reduce this risk by creating an offence of driving while impaired and with evidence in the bloodstream of a controlled drug or a prescription medicine and by empowering police to determine whether a driver is impaired by means of a compulsory impairment test. If this test shows that the driver is impaired it will be followed by a blood test to determine whether drugs are present. 
Only recently drug researchers at Massey University announced the findings of the latest in a series of illicit drug monitoring reports. It was found that 90 percent of P users 62 percent of Ecstasy users and 90 percent of injecting - drug users surveyed had driven under the influence of a drug other than alcohol in the past 6 months. Many reported driving too fast losing concentration losing their temper at another driver driving through a red light and nearly hitting something while driving under the influence of a drug. An Institute of Environmental Science and Research deceased driver survey conducted between 2004 and 2008 found that 257 of the 826 deceased drivers or nearly a third had cannabis in their system. Those people may have survived if they had not mixed cannabis use with driving. These are very disturbing statistics. This bill will provide police with additional tools to get drivers impaired by drugs off the roads before they add to the death toll and the injury toll on our roads. 
This bill was introduced by the previous Government back in 2007 and I give it due credit for that. I am proud to bring this bill through for its Committee stage and third reading within 6 months of the new Government being sworn in. 
I acknowledge the spirit of bipartisanship in which the House dealt with the bill during the Committee stage last week. Discussions with the Hon Trevor Mallard led to the bill being amended to strengthen its anti-drugs message. The amendment deals with the issue of drugged drivers who are injured or otherwise incapacitated and who cannot undertake the impairment test and thus who could not be charged with the new drug-impaired driving offence. The amendment enables drugged drivers to be charged with another new offence—that of driving with class A drugs such as P in the bloodstream—without the need for an impairment test when injury prevents it. 
I can assure members that we are well aware that this bill is just the first step in dealing with the drug-driving problem. When a practical affordable drug-testing device that can produce results that can stand up in court becomes available then I will be very happy to bring legislation to the House to enable it to be used as an enforcement tool. 
I would like to respond to media articles on Monday that queried why the bill does not cover Valium and related drugs known collectively as benzodiazepines. Given that the bill has been in the public domain for the best part of 2 years I am only sorry that this issue was raised after the Committee stage was completed last week. I am advised that when the previous Government had the bill drafted in 2007 the professional medical advice was that these drugs should not be included. That advice had not been challenged until the weekend. I am not a pharmacist but based on the evidence I have seen in the past 24 hours I believe that these drugs should be considered for inclusion in this legislation. I have officials working on this matter now as a matter of priority. If their advice supports the inclusion of benzodiazepines I will write to all political parties and ask for their support for a special amendment to that effect before the legislation comes into force which is currently scheduled for 1 December. I know that the Green Party in particular is keen on including benzodiazepines in the legislation and I thank Metiria Turei for her work and support since this matter was brought to light over the weekend and on Monday. 
I stress again and I think that this point was made by members on both sides of the House during the Committee stage that this bill is a first step towards tackling the problem of drugged drivers on our roads. No doubt more issues will come to light as time passes and we will deal with them in a measured way as they arise. 
I turn now to the motor vehicles register. Currently any person may obtain the name and address of a vehicle owner simply by quoting a plate number. A person who complained to the New Zealand Transport Agency about this said: “I might as well have my name and address stencilled on the back of my car.” Some disturbing evidence of harassment was reported to the select committee and mass-marketing campaigns using names and addresses have been sourced from the motor vehicles register. This bill will not ban the release of names and addresses from the motor vehicles register; instead it will enable the public interest to be balanced against privacy concerns. Other reforms implemented in this bill are powers to deal with vehicles where the owner’s identity is unknown free competition in the marketing of personalised plates and empowering the registrar to require that mopeds are inspected prior to registration in order to deal with concerns about the current law which allows unsafe machines sold by unscrupulous traders to be used without any safety inspection. 
Finally the Transport Act 1962 which contains the traffic enforcement and management powers of local authorities expires at the end of this month. New legislation is not yet ready and the Transport Act needs to be extended in the meantime. Once it is passed this legislation will achieve that. 
This bill will make a significant contribution to road safety by getting drug-impaired drivers off the roads. It will contribute to vehicle owners’ peace of mind by reducing the opportunity for harassment or worse through the uncontrolled release of name and address details to anybody who asks for them. Finally the bill maintains in place various local authority traffic powers pending a wider reform. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to reinforce what the Minister of Transport said in his opening comments on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The bill was dealt with on a multipartisan basis in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I commend both the chair David Bennett and Tau Henare for the work they did. A comment was made coming out of the committee that it was pretty hard to tell who was from what party as we were working through the particular issues which I think was healthy. For most members of the committee it was a late experience. We came to the committee after the evidence had been heard and we had officials back to explain things to some of us quite a few times to make sure we got our heads around the bill because the effect of drugs is not simple. The point we got to at the end was that a lot of our intuition is correct and the evidence is very clear that people who drive with drugs in their system and especially those who drive with both alcohol and drugs in their system are much more likely to have accidents and they are more likely to be serious accidents. 
From the time of the work Harry Duynhoven and Annette King did on the legislation—and I think David Parker; there may have been another Minister on the way—going through to the current Minister there has been a positive approach to the legislation. The passage of time has meant that it was improved in the select committee and again there was a lot of openness to that. The one issue I would have preferred more work to be done on was that of a non-primary legislative arrangement for the introduction of devices for random testing for drugs at the street level as the machines came in and for machines that would have avoided the need for a blood test later on. It is not beyond our wits to design something in primary legislation that allows for that to come in by way of Order in Council the way that breath-testing devices are currently certified by the Minister at the moment. If it can be done for breath-testing devices for alcohol it should be able to be done for breath or saliva-testing devices for drugs. My view is that our Regulations Review Committee arrangements in New Zealand are sufficient protection against the executive because any of those regulations would go to that committee and if any one member of that committee wished it would be referred to the House and the House would have a vote on it. So that is a way that I think Parliament reserves its position against Ministers who abuse the regulatory process and it is a pity we did not use it. 
The Minister is correct that there were a couple of amendments that I am very pleased he agreed to promote and certainly improve in their drafting. The ideas worked their way through the Labour Party caucus and through quite a lot of positive discussion—not always supportive I must say—on the Red Alert blog site. It was interesting to use modern technology to consult on issues like this and to get an instant response. Some were gut responses some were intuitive responses and some were very well-researched responses to the way that Red Alert is beginning to work. 
Another issue the Minister referred to was the group of drugs known as—and I will not attempt to pronounce the long name—Valium and the effects on people who drive with excess amounts of Valium in their systems. I tell the Minister that my understanding of the legislation is that if someone is involved in an accident and is clearly showing the effects of drug use of some sort—and I am told people who use Valium in a way beyond the way it is prescribed end up pretty dopey tired and slow—the impairment test could be applied to them. If they fail that impairment test then they can have a drug test and their only defence would be that they were using it within the prescription regulations. That is roughly what we aimed to get and if we have a person who is very anxious about that and obviously our hearts go out to people whose relatives have been killed in such a situation I am not sure that this detail of law change is exactly what is needed. 
I think there is room going forward. I know that this will not be a unanimous view amongst all members of the House but some of those issues should be in the review of in the Misuse of Drugs Act. One of those issues is whether the class A category is the only category that can be tested for or where the results are positive without an impairment test there can be a conviction. As has been pointed out to me there is still room for careless driving reckless driving or a number of other charges to be brought against people for careless or reckless driving causing death. People should not get off scot-free but we need to look at for example people who use amphetamines as opposed to methamphetamines or people who use some of the more serious of the cannabis family and whether drugs that are not currently in the class A group could be there. 
In the end the suggestion I promoted was something that will get a relatively broad consensus it will not be too controversial around Parliament and it will take care of the worst drugs especially methamphetamines which appear to be the most commonly used drugs in conjunction with alcohol and cause some of the most serious overconfidence and reckless behaviour. If we can get the worst of them now and work on the rest of the drugs going forward then that will be something positive. I commend the bill to the House. Like most work in this House it is a progress report. If people say “We’ve finally got this issue nailed.” they are fooling themselves. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I reiterate what the Hon Trevor Mallard just said. I thought that was a pretty good summary of the situation we have and it followed on from what the Minister of Transport said about how the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is really just a starting point. When we look at the idea of drug-impaired driving we know that sensible citizens would expect that it would be illegal anyway. They would not expect a Government in 2009 to have to pass legislation prohibiting it but the reality is that it is not illegal. The other reality is that if we look at the statistics that came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we see that there were a large number of potential cases where drug-impaired driving had had a very detrimental effect on road safety and where many people had lost their lives. It is long overdue that something is done about the issue and this legislation is the starting point in trying to address it. In no way is it the final solution in making sure we cover off all the angles but it is a very good starting point. 
I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done in promoting this bill through the House. He has made it a personal endeavour to make sure we get this legislation through the House in a timely way and that has met with public opinion and also with the need to get some runs on the board in regard to having the prohibition of drug-impaired driving delayed no longer. I also thank members of the select committee from both sides of the House. I think Trevor Mallard should be singled out for his contribution to this legislation. He was the most senior member in respect of experience on the committee. That showed and we were grateful for his experience so I say thank you to Trevor for his work in regard to that committee and the legislation. That was good stuff. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s a beautiful thing. Well done! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We actually gave him a letter of thanks so it was good. 
When we look at the legislation people have to understand that technology is not where we want it to be— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No more praise David thank you. It’s causing trouble. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No I say to Mr Mallard that his political career is over anyway. The politics of this debate will be lost on some. 
In regard to the nature of the legislation we found that the technology was not quite at the level of the political will. If the technology had been at the level it is in relation to drink-driving—where we can easily test on the side of the road and within a quick and cost-effective testing regime pick whether someone is under the influence—we would have taken on board a much stricter approach. This legislation really does reflect the level of technology out there which is not at the level we would expect for drink-driving technology. 
A case that has been highlighted this week is another example of the other point the bill shows which is that in relation to drugs it is very difficult to cover off all the bases. It is probably a lot easier to detect the place of alcohol in the system of the human body and at a relevant point in time whereas drugs have the potential to be tested and seen in the body for a long time after they have been consumed. There is also a range of drugs ranging from those that are prescribed to those that are illegal. There will be a huge market for drugs in the future and although there will no doubt be drugs that will be very beneficial to people’s lives we may not want to have people driving high under the influence of those drugs. So there needs to be a bit of flexibility in this legislation because it is dealing with a pretty fluid area. There is constant change in the number and use of drugs in our community but this bill is primarily aimed at those drugs that are basically controlled or illegal. Any genuine citizen out there would expect that anyone caught in a car accident under the influence of those drugs would face a conviction. That has not been the case up to now but will be changed under this legislation. 
In relation to drug-impaired driving a two-part test has been introduced in the bill. The first part is quite a simple impairment test which goes back to the good old days of the drink-driving test before that technology advanced. Following that test is a much more expensive blood test. In effect we are creating a situation where the number of cases that will go through that full testing regime is reduced to those cases that are most likely to have a success rate for conviction. In doing so we reduce costs and the workload on our police in undertaking those testing regimes. The impairment test seems to be a test that the police will need some help in enforcing in the sense that they will need to be trained and given some idea of what potentially could be seen as part of that test in the future. A lot of work has to be done in implementing this legislation to make sure it is a reality not only in regard to the police but also in regard to any blood-testing arrangements. There will be development issues as we go forward in implementing the legislation. 
Another thing we probably need to look at in this legislation and which became much more of a subsidiary issue is the issue of the motor vehicles register. This issue has been sitting there for a while in the sense that a lot of people have felt their privacy has been compromised and that they need to have a situation where they can protect some of their personal information. This bill attempts to do that in a way that protects the legitimate interests and uses of motor vehicles register information but at the same time provides personal protection for individuals. All in all I think there is a good balance in regard to the motor vehicles register. The issue was much simpler in the sense that we could suggest stringent rules that would apply and know that those rules would be seen to be effective in the areas sought for them. 
The drug-impaired driving part is still a work in progress and will be so for many years as technology develops as changes come in drug use and as Parliament looks at all the options available—through not only the Misuse of Drugs Act but also the drug-impaired driving legislation. 
All in all I thank members of the committee the officials and all those who submitted on this legislation. The bill was introduced in the previous Parliament and has been carried through. I think that it is a good start in that process; it is not the final solution but certainly it is the good start we need. It will give us a very strong base to work from as we work towards making sure that drug-impaired driving is not legal on our roads any more. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). In doing so I note that today we are voting on an improved bill thanks to the efforts of the Hon Trevor Mallard and the agreement of the National Government last week to adopt his amendments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And the very hard work in the select committee. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I tell the honourable member that I will get to that. The previous Labour Government introduced this bill in 2007. In late 2007 the previous Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered 49 submissions from a range of groups and heard 21 of those submissions. The committee reported back before the last election and the bill has made its way into the legislative programme of the new Government. Much of the first part of this bill has had most of the attention and I suppose that is rightly so. That first function enhances the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers by creating a new offence for when the driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in the driver’s blood. 
As we have heard through the debate on this bill Parliament supports the bill. We have heard many passionate speeches from members about drug-driving. There is no doubt that everybody agrees that getting into a vehicle and putting any life at risk by driving with drugs in one’s system is not acceptable. We inevitably turn to thinking about our family members and friends when this kind of debate takes place. We think about our children many of them just embarking on their lives as drivers and we worry about the awful things that can and do happen. Therefore I am pleased that the passing of this bill today will provide another means of getting dangerous drivers off the road. It is not the taking of drugs that is the focus of the bill but the driving while using such drugs; this bill is about transport safety. 
This week we have heard some criticism of the bill in the media because benzodiazepines are allegedly not covered by the bill. Having followed the bill from start to finish I believe that it is not as straightforward as that. It is true that the Hon Trevor Mallard’s amendment that enables the prosecution of injured drivers who are unable to carry out an impairment test is confined to class A drugs but without that amendment being subsequently adopted by the Government there would be no prosecution of such injured drivers. However it is not totally true to say that benzodiazepines are not covered by the bill and have been overlooked. New clause 4(3)(a) in Part 1 of the bill describes what controlled drugs are and new clause 4(3)(c) describes what prescription medicines are. In our advice to the committee way back when we were first sitting we were advised that the controlled drugs that would be tested for were cannabis benzodiazepines opiates amphetamines and so on. That was the advice given to the select committee at the time. 
Clauses 5 and 6 describe the offence under the bill that a “person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while (a) impaired; and (b) that person’s blood contains evidence of the use of—(i) a controlled drug; or (ii) any prescription medicine.” I emphasis that last point: “any prescription medicine”. That includes benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines are prescription drugs which means they must be prescribed by a doctor. To obtain them in any other way is illegal. This bill states that anyone who is impaired and who is identified through a blood test as having a prescription medicine such as a benzodiazepine in his or her system and who has ignored the instructions of the prescription and/or their medical professional is just as liable as any other drug-driver for prosecution. 
The issue is a little more complicated than it seems at first appearance. I was a little bit disturbed that the Minister could not give answers to the media when asked about the claims that benzodiazepines were not included in the bill. His response was to blame Labour. He said that the bill was the way Labour drafted it and the way it came back from the select committee. Well I am sorry but I call that a cop out. I call that a failure of responsibility. This is an issue for National not Labour because National is the Government. I thought it was a job of the Minister. I thought he got paid lots of money to check such things. After all was it not the Minister who was telling the country not that long ago that this legislation was a priority for the Government and that it failed to get through the select committee which is rubbish? The bill did not get through in the last Parliament because we did not have time. It is one thing to pick up a bill drafted by Labour and with amendments pushed by Labour members but it is quite another to try to blame them and the select committee—and I take offence on its behalf—including his own National members for the omission that at best is questionable. 
However I agree with the Greens that we need to get this bill right. I agree that drugs such as benzodiazepines need to be covered perhaps beyond the requirements of prescription medicines. Perhaps the bill does not cover the issues to the extent that at least one submitter would like to see but the select committee had to consider all submissions all advice and all issues and make the decisions that are being reported back today. When considering this bill as I have from its inception and through all stages in the House I wanted to ensure that the purpose of the bill which is a transport safety measure was paramount. 
I noted the Green’s first reading speech in which Metiria Turei commented on the assurance that the then Labour Government had given that the bill was not a Trojan horse for blood testing under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I also note the comments of my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. My view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is being reviewed by the Law Commission and that is the place for that debate to happen. The debate around the extension of testing procedures for that Act should take place in Parliament with extensive consultation and involvement of the public. Maybe we will get there but let us do it properly. This bill is about getting drug-drivers off the road. It is about adding another protection to the armoury of the police to ensure that that happens. It is about being able to take the next step in prosecuting such drivers so that there is a clear message to anyone who thinks it is OK to get into a car in an unsafe state of drug influence. 
The second part of this bill which has not had a lot of attention is about protecting the vehicle register from abuse. New Part 17 came about in the original bill because of complaints about the misuse of private information. Vehicle owners have no option but to register their information. They are required by law to do so. Thus the Government has a responsibility to protect that information. The bill deals with this issue but it does not deal with the other major series of complaints received from the public which are about the misuse of vehicle registry information from direct marketers. Direct-marketing is the sending of unsolicited mail to prospective customers. As one man said in his complaint about direct-marketing “I will give you a false address in future. My car was written off but I am still getting junk mail about my warrant of fitness. My details should only be released for law enforcement. My name has been given to a marketing company who has given it to someone else. I am forced to give my details but disagree that this information should be given to anyone else.” The select committee was advised that the best way of managing this was through a process called opting in—in other words those who registered their cars have a choice about whether they receive information from marketing companies. That seemed pretty fair to me and the Labour members but unfortunately the National Government disagreed with it and has gone for an opt-out process which means that vehicle owners will continue to be pestered with unwanted and intrusive junk solicitation. Let us wait for the complaints to continue. 
Having said that Labour believes that the good in this bill is stronger than the problems which is why we are supporting it along with the changes made with the advocacy of Trevor Mallard and supported by the Government. I will take a moment to thank the advisers and officials. The select committee tested them considerably particularly with a new committee that started in this Parliament. Having the work go over two Parliaments made the process more difficult. The advisers and officials had to go over much of the work that was previously done and explain the whole thing from the beginning. I assure those listening today that Labour is serious about cracking down on drug-driving. Labour started the process. It has worked with National since the election. This bill that we are passing today will make a real difference in the road safety concerns around drug-driving. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I am happy to rise to address the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The Green Party supports this legislation. We do so with some unease as the bill does not do quite what it was intended to do and it does not meet all of our objectives. We want to encourage the creation of deterrents and the use of enforcement against drivers who drive while they are impaired. We do not want legislation though that appears to address the problems but simply complicates the issue with what could be well-intentioned but otherwise ineffective provisions. 
The Greens are always after the best possible law—law that is effective and just. Although it is not always the case with legislation in New Zealand we have worked hard to make sure that the bill goes some way towards meeting those objectives. 
In the first reading my colleague Metiria Turei noted our great concern that impaired drivers are on our roads causing harm to property and most important causing harm to our communities and people. The primary culprit for this harm is of course the use of the drug alcohol while driving. Alcohol remains the No. 1 problem drug for road safety and we believe that further measures could be taken to reduce that harm. 
Although acknowledging that fact it is true that other drugs can cause impairment. It is important to have legislation that is concerned with drug-impaired driving overall whether alcohol lawful drugs or unlawful drugs. Thanks to the Green Party this bill has been extended to include legal drugs and prescription medicines. 
We have retained this legislation’s focus on impaired drivers and we have not allowed it to become a back-door way of prosecuting drug offences. Legal prescription drugs that are used in such a way as to cause impairment will also be captured by the new offence provisions in this legislation. This is a consistent and cohesive approach to removing dangerous drivers from our roads irrespective of the cause of their impairment. The victim of a crash does not really care why the driver was impaired; the fact that the driver was impaired should be sufficient reason for getting the driver off the road. 
However we are extremely concerned—this is one reason for the unease about this bill as I said earlier—that this bill excludes a major class of drug benzodiazepines. I note the comment made by my colleague Darien Fenton. I can only be guided by my colleague Metiria Turei who has worked intensively on this bill whereas I have not. Benzodiazepines are commonly known as sedatives and are a widely used prescription medicine. They have been implicated in a number of road accidents and deaths. They are exactly the kinds of drugs the Greens were worried about when the negotiations on this bill began. They are the kinds of drugs that the Greens expressly wanted to be included in the bill because they have been implicated in road accidents and deaths. 
Metiria Turei our spokesperson has talked with the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce about this issue. Her understanding is that he recognised this was an oversight and he has called for a scientific report into whether these drugs could be included in the legislation. She said that the Green Party will support any parliamentary measures to ensure that this legislative gap is filled as soon as possible—and it must be filled. We look forward to seeing the Minister progress this issue to make our roads safer. 
Although we have argued that the impairment test should remain so that the new law is not used as a back door to prosecuting under the Misuse of Drugs Act we none the less remain concerned about the misuse of the impairment test by enforcement officers. The physical impairment test referred to in the bill will be administered by the police. We are concerned about the test’s subjective nature particularly as it leads immediately to a blood test. 
One concern relates to the discriminatory filters in the police force that lead to unjustified targeting of Maori and in particular Maori men when it comes to drug offences. Research in 2002 from the Christchurch Health and Development Study—the work of Professor David Fergusson who has done very good work in this area—clearly shows that one of the primary risks for being targeted by the police for drug offences is being a Maori man. The research concluded that the administration of current cannabis laws was inequitable and biased against Maori and males and that the current cannabis laws were discriminatory. The difficulty is that the choice to target one particular person for a search or to stop that person’s car is strictly a matter of individual police decisions. Such discriminatory filters have been recognised in the areas of policing and health. Of course similar discriminatory practices have been known to affect younger people and those who are already known to the police. Although many police officers are well aware of these practices and operate fairly it is not the case for all officers who exercise considerable power in the community particularly over young people. Professor Fergusson has produced further research suggesting that young people are simply not aware that driving under the influence of cannabis or other drugs can cause impairment. In large part that is because of the legal status of the drug. It creates considerable barriers to getting across to young people truthful and trusted information about the harm cannabis can cause. Again I hope that some time in the near future we may take a much more mature approach to this issue. 
A blood test is used for detecting alcohol-impaired driving. If a person goes over the limit that person is in breach of the law. That limit is established through proven scientific methods that show definitively that at that specified level of blood alcohol a person is impaired and should not drive. But for the evidence-based legal blood-alcohol limit a blood test would otherwise be an unreasonable search and seizure. 
The same principle should apply in relation to other drugs particularly cannabis. The law should establish using quality science a level of drug use for specified drugs that definitively shows that a person is impaired by the specified drug at that time and that limit should be set out in law. That is more difficult to show for most drugs than it is for alcohol. Our laws though should be evidence-based and scientifically sound. The subjective view of a police officer is not a robust test nor is the simple presence of a drug with no scientifically based assessment of the level of impairment that that drug can cause. 
This bill is a very blunt tool for dealing with the issue of impaired driving. In this respect science and technology will eventually provide us with much better guidance to enable us to have good-quality law that is based on science that is based on evidence and that does not abuse the fundamental rights of our citizens. Until then we have some way to go but the Greens support this bill as a first step. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 A kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. Ka nui te mihi ki a tatou otira ki a koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I read a statistic today that confirmed even more for me the importance of doing what we can to reduce injury and death on the roads. Fifty-one percent of Maori people who died due to injury died on the street or highway in road deaths. Forty-six percent of these deaths were due to motor vehicle crashes. That is one hell of a waste of Maori potential that is just being ripped away from us because of hazardous driving and reckless drivers. 
It is not just the loss of life that we are talking about here which is a tragedy in itself but also the estimated social cost of road crashes which includes loss of life or life quality medical and rehabilitation costs legal and court costs property damage and loss of output due to injuries. In 2005 that was heading well beyond a $100 million amount. That is a huge amount to spend on all of those particular aspects that occur from death by road accident. 
I stated in my second reading speech that in my electorate alone in the Eastern Bay of Plenty there were some 62 injury crashes on local roads and another 47 injury crashes on State highways in just one year in 2006. Some of these injuries were due to drivers not having gone through all the requirements to be on the road in the first place. Of the at-fault drivers and crashes in the Eastern Bay of Plenty 14 percent were driving on a restricted licence 3 percent were disqualified drivers and 10.7 percent held a learner licence. But by far the most significant factor in doing something about road safety is actually in what this bill is trying to do. It is introducing a new duty of not driving while impaired by drugs. 
In 2006 driver alcohol and drugs were a contributing factor in 99 fatal traffic crashes 409 serious injury crashes and 1128 minor injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 109 deaths 556 serious injuries and 1768 minor injuries. These numbers are based on crashes where alcohol or dugs were proven or suspected to be a contributing factor in a crash: 100 hundred people who did not need to die; over 2000 people who will never ever forget the idiot in charge of the wheel for what he or she did to impair their loss of enjoyment of life. I am told that at the select committee submissions were received from people who claimed that cannabis does not impair driving. In fact some even testified that it made a person drive even better; that it made that person become a better driver. Well as this House knows research to date confirms that cannabis and its active ingredient THC impairs driving and has a considerable effect when consumed at high levels. So let us not dream on that this is not the case. I have been to too many tangi courthouses and hospitals not to see the effect of drug-driving as being a serious issue that must be considered. 
Some people may say that those people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs should cop whatever damage comes to them. But it is not about just them. For every 100 drunk or drugged drivers or riders killed in road crashes 56 of their passengers as well as 39 sober road users die with them. This Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is for those people. It is to preserve our people power to protect our whakapapa and to invest in the lives of all of our whanau. 
The current threshold for the offence of drug-impaired driving is being “incapable” which means being incapable of having proper control of a vehicle. This bill lowers the threshold to being “impaired”. Where there is evidence of controlled drugs or prescription medicines in the driver’s blood it is determined by a robust test. We support the move to penalise drug-driving and the introduction of a testing and penalty regime that mirrors alcohol testing. But we do have two important concerns. These were concerns that I raised during the Committee stage debate. I had two specific amendments. The first concern related to informed consent and the second one concerned the prohibition on storage and analysis of blood samples. 
Firstly there are a number of widely accepted and established ethical protocols in the field of research and arguably the most important of these is the principle of informed consent. Informed consent means that the people being subjected to research are properly informed of the research to be undertaken what it entails and its implications and that they give their consent to it without interference. New section 209A compromises this fundamental principle and it was on this basis that we put forward an amendment to address it. We hope that having raised these issues consistently around the bill the Minister will ensure that the ethical considerations are given due respect so that we can seem focused going into protocols around research. 
The other amendment that I put up responds to a number of concerns about the storage and re-analysis of blood specimens for research purposes. The blood specimens that are taken from drivers who fail drug or driving-impairment tests give rise to a whole host of concerns about who has the right to such samples and in particular our anxiety that the information should not be tampered with. We are concerned about the wide implications of the State having legal rights to use blood samples for further research such as what kind of research by whom for what purposes and for whose benefit. Although this might sound like a conspiracy plot there have been such examples in our recent history and indeed examples concerning indigenous people around the world. It has been discovered that highly questionable genetic research has been conducted on body parts and on tissue and blood samples without permission without ethics approval and without the opportunity for public debate. 
In a desire to understand why so many of their own developed stomach cancer one whanau underwent genetic blood-testing and unbeknownst to them these blood samples were passed on to international genetic companies for further analysis and commercial exploitation. This was done without their consent and for some time without their knowledge even. If members are interested I refer them to a paper entitled  
Hands off our genes: A case study on the theft of whakapapa 
 written by Donna Gardiner. The research done by a whakapapa on its blood is not for exploitation or for profit; it is not up for grabs. 
The Minister of Transport gave me an assurance following that debate that the issues have been resolved and that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research had some pretty tough criteria around how any research is conducted. The samples are not allowed out of the facility for security and biohazard reasons and therefore the officials have assured us that the samples will be kept for only 12 months. We will leave that issue there. Suffice to say these are very important issues to the Maori Party that we have signalled. We must ensure that we do the right thing. 
The Maori Party has previously stated in the House that it is fully supportive of the need to put in place a testing regime for drug-driving. We accept that current limits on saliva-testing technology mean that the taking of blood is the best way to do so at this time. We also accept that the very best of intentions may lie behind the idea of storing the blood samples for further research specific to drug-driving. However we cannot accept the very real risk that unwittingly this might create a situation where whakapapa is able to be compromised. We do support this bill in its final reading and we will always support any interventions concerning the protection and preservation of life. We will be watching as one would understand to see that the protocols are adhered to and that the proper protections are in place. In closing I offer thanks and congratulations to the Minister of Transport for working with the Maori Party on our concerns. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the third reading debate of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The bill has three main purposes. They are to provide for more comprehensive anti - drug-driving laws to provide more privacy provisions regarding access to the register of motor vehicles and to preserve certain provisions in various transport Acts that are due to expire on 1 July this year. It is the first purpose that most New Zealanders will relate to. This bill is about getting unsafe drivers off the road in order to make the roads safer for us—that is the prime purpose of this bill for me. We already have an established mechanism in relation to drink-driving; that has been well accepted and well publicised. Drink-driving is simply not acceptable. There is a very easy screening test that can be done at random and it takes just a few seconds. But that is not the case at all for people who take drugs and drive. 
This bill establishes a regime for prosecuting drug-impaired drivers who have consumed a controlled drug or a prescription medicine. The penalties are aligned to those that apply for drink-driving. The police will have similar powers in such circumstances to those that are in the drink-driving legislation. There will be defences for people who have consumed prescription medicines in accordance with a prescription or in accordance with instructions from the manufacturer of the drug or a health practitioner. The screening test for a person who has taken drugs and driven is a compulsory impairment test that tests coordination physiological reactions and markers for drug impairments such as pupil dilation and a blood test. It takes some 10 minutes or so to complete the compulsory impairment test. Police officers will be trained in the technique. 
The compulsory impairment test will not be used as a screening test but it will be used as the breath test can be used with regard to alcohol. It will be used in a targeted way—namely if an officer notes that a car is being driven dangerously or erratically the officer will stop the driver and if the driver passes the alcohol breath test the officer can then proceed with the drug impairment test. Provision is made for the impairment test to be done away from where the driver and the car have been stopped. That takes into account the fact that the terrain where the car has been stopped may not be conducive for the test to be undertaken there or the roadside may be poorly lit. That provision is there to ensure that the test is done in the safest possible situation. 
There have been a couple of changes since submissions on the bill were heard by members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The first change concerns situations where a person has been injured in a road traffic accident and is unable to do the impairment test. In the original bill if the driver was hospitalised and unable to perform the impairment test the driver could not be prosecuted. A Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Hon Trevor Mallard in the Committee stage will ensure that hospitalised drivers can be prosecuted for a new offence of driving with class A drugs in their blood. That is the same process that occurs already when injured drivers are proved by way of a blood test to be over the alcohol limit. 
The second change is to clarify the situation whereby the police can advance both an alcohol test and a drug impairment test at the same time on the roadside. The change makes it quite clear in the law that if a person marginally fails the alcohol breath test and the officer is concerned that the person exhibits signs that he or she is more impaired than the level of blood alcohol suggests such as having slurred speech then the officer can proceed to do a drug impairment test. If the person fails the impairment test then he or she will have a blood test to check for drugs. 
The select committee heard very concerning interim evidence from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. It presented reports that really made the point that drinking and taking drugs and driving cause death. I will quote from a couple of studies that the institute gave the select committee. One study which was carried out over 4 years from June 2004 to July 2008 was of 826 drivers who had died as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Samples were taken from deceased drivers whose deaths were deemed not to be due to medical problems that occurred prior to the accident or due to intentional harm such as suicide. The study found that 80 percent of the drivers were culpable for their own accident and that that was particularly true for those aged under 20 and over 80. Those drivers were all analysed for drug and alcohol use and the interesting statistics are that 48 percent had no alcohol or drugs in their system but that over 52 percent had used alcohol and/or drugs. That is over half of those drivers. 
The select committee asked the institute how many innocent people had died as a result of drivers taking drugs. The institute provided a further evaluation of the data for the 5 years from 2003 to 2007 and looked at 90 people who had died in crashes where drugs were cited as a contributing factor. Of those people 53 were drug-affected drivers who had died as a result of their own driving having taken drugs but 28 were the passengers of those drivers and a further nine were other road users. So out of the 90 deaths 37 of them were innocent victims—that is over 40 percent. That was quite a horrifying statistic to me when I heard it and that is why it is so important to pass this legislation. It will ensure that drivers can be tested for drugs through the impairment method that has already been described. 
The second purpose of this bill relates to the motor vehicles register. The bill improves the protection of personal information held on the register. Applications for the name and address of a vehicle owner will be dealt with under the Official Information Act which applies a public interest test and there will be special provision for approved bulk users. This bill also implements new measures to deal with vehicles where the name or current address of the owner is unknown. It also provides for much of the detail that is currently contained in the statute to be dealt with in regulations where it can be easily updated. 
In summary this bill is timely and necessary and it will save lives. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I thought as a starter I would talk a little bit about the principle that I hold with regard to this issue. I have not been involved in the select committee process so I probably do not have the level of detailed knowledge on the bill that members who were involved in hearing submissions may have. 
When I go out into the electorate and talk to people about the issue of driving whilst impaired I find that people do not necessarily make a distinction between somebody who is driving whilst impaired as a result of drugs and somebody who is driving whilst impaired as a result of alcohol. I think the fact that this bill deals with some anomalies around driving whilst impaired by drugs is very important. 
The bill has two main functions. The first is that it enhances the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers. It creates a new offence for when a driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in the driver’s blood. The second function is to make changes regarding the registration and licensing of motor vehicles and I will talk a bit more about that function in a few minutes. 
The Labour Government introduced this bill back in 2007 and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee further improved it over 2 years. We acknowledge the good work done by the select committee. I was particularly interested in the approach taken by my colleague Trevor Mallard who has taken a very active involvement in this bill to seeking public feedback and public opinion on this issue. He put several blog posts on the Labour MPs’ blog Red Alert and I am told that over the totality of the two posts he had 46 comments; some of those were from him replying to other people’s comments. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: 23! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Probably not quite that many. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We know Anne Tolley reads it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We know Anne Tolley read it because she has mentioned it in the House. 
I think it is a novel approach because it is a very accessible way for members of the public to have a direct say on a particularly technical piece of legislation before the House. Some of the matters Trevor Mallard raised in his blog post were technical but he was also seeking feedback in a fairly immediate way. People can give feedback without having to come to Parliament or write a submission; they can simply post a comment on the blog and the comment goes directly to MPs. Other Labour MPs have read it and we know that Anne Tolley has read it. So members of the House are able to get immediate feedback from members of the public. I think that is particularly good and we can see the value of that approach in the amendments that Trevor Mallard has put forward and that the Government has indicated it will support. 
I acknowledge the work done by National when it accepted Labour’s amendments. They are sensible amendments and we are very pleased that National will be supporting them. They will give police the ability to test for class A drugs when people are hospitalised which is common after car crashes and they will allow the police to carry out drug tests after a driver has failed a test for alcohol where that is considered to be appropriate. So I think we agree that those things are very sensible. We recognise the dangers of drug-driving particularly with the growth of the P menace which I think many in this House acknowledge is increasingly becoming a problem. So we are pleased that National has picked up this legislation and is working to have it implemented. 
However I will depart from the bipartisan approach slightly at this particular point in time—just for a change—and say that it is kind of strange to be talking about a bill that will enhance the powers of police to crack down on drug-driving when the Government has just pulled $49 million out of the road-policing budget. Presumably the police will hitchhike to catch drug-drivers. I am not entirely sure how many cars were to be taken away from the police but they will presumably have to hitchhike. Maybe they will be given bicycles to catch drug-drivers. It is a bit strange really to see this bill come before the House while at the same time there is publicity around the reduction in the budget for police cars. 
One of the other things I guess that has been interesting about this debate is that we have seen a reasonable amount of common agreement across the House that this bill is necessary and should be supported and pushed through. But we also saw through the course of this particular debate this afternoon—I have not seen all of it but I saw part of it—an acknowledgment that this is not an absolute solution to the problem and that there is more work to be done. It is quite unusual that both sides of the House—or all sides of the House really—admit that there is still more work to be done. We certainly welcome that work. 
The roadside impairment test will become compulsory under this bill. When an officer at the roadside has reason to suspect that a driver is impaired the driver will be required to carry out a series of tests. If the driver cannot satisfactorily complete this series of tests he or she will be required to provide a blood specimen. If an illegal drug is detected in the blood specimen an offence will have been committed. In the Land Transport Act there is already the offence of driving while incapable of proper control due to alcohol or drugs so together these two offences will send a clear message that people must not drive whilst under the influence of drugs. 
The new impairment offence will enable an officer to make a well-informed decision about a person’s ability to drive safely and if that person is not safe he or she will not be able to continue. I think that will provide a significant level of reassurance to the public. It should however be noted that any evidence of drug use that is gathered as evidence of a driving offence will not be able by law to be used as evidence of any other offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act because this measure is particularly a transport measure. 
I want to talk about the second part of this bill which deals with the motor vehicles register. The bill implements measures to improve protection of personal information held in the motor vehicles register. I think everyone in this day and age is becoming more and more aware of issues around privacy and the protection of personal information. 
It is interesting to note that under the current law any person can obtain the names and addresses of the present and previous owners of a motor vehicle simply by quoting its registration plate number. That is quite interesting because motor vehicles change hands frequently. It is interesting to note that my name and address may be available in relation to a vehicle that I may not have owned for 4 or 5 years. That obviously creates some interesting privacy issues and this part of the bill helps to deal with that. The information is available over the counter at present at post shops and other registration agencies and there are no safeguards on how this information can be used. 
The system is clearly open to abuse. There are examples where angry motorists in the aftermath of a road-rage incident have used the register to trace a person and then harass that person. I think that is something we would all be very concerned about. Professional car thieves can also use that information to target high-value vehicles. They can use the register to find out where the person who owns that car lives and then they can effectively go and steal the car. I think that is an issue. Looking very closely at the requirements around making that information a little bit less accessible is I think very valuable. 
The names and addresses of vehicle owners began being made available over the Internet in bulk during the 1990s and of course that has probably exacerbated the problem. The Internet has created a whole range of new problems with making information available. I think we would all agree that making information available over the Internet is a good thing but when that information is personal information new moral and ethical issues are created. The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) helps to address that situation. 
It is interesting to note that 2.3 million people are on the register of names and address for vehicle ownership so this will impact on a significant number of people. The information on the register of drivers’ licences is well protected so I ask members why motor vehicle owners should be treated any differently. This bill addresses that very concern. It removes the current obligation on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to release information to anyone who asks for it. Instead requests for information will be dealt with under the Official Information Act in the same way that any other request to a Government department or Crown entity is dealt with. To assist with the consideration of Official Information Act requests the bill clarifies that the principal purposes of the motor vehicles register—and this is very important for those familiar with the use of the Official Information Act—are law enforcement and the collection of revenue. 
The bill recognises that on occasions the individual’s privacy interests may be balanced against the wider public good. Therefore the bill will empower the Minister to authorise information to be released for certain purposes at the discretion of the Minister. Prior to issuing such an authorisation the Minister will need to seek the views of the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner and that authorisation may be a one-off or it may be a standing authorisation that is valid for up to 5 years. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is great to rise and take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that I am very supportive of. I need to acknowledge from the outset the work on the bill that was done by the Labour Opposition. The Hon Trevor Mallard proposed some amendments that we were able to incorporate with the Government’s thoughts during the Committee of the whole House stage. Now we have a very robust bill that will endeavour I believe to make motorists safer in their communities. It will stamp down on drivers who are drugged and it will give the police more powers to act on those drugged drivers. 
I will make a few introductory comments about this bill and then I will conclude by making a few comments around the motor vehicles register which the previous speaker Chris Hipkins alluded to. This bill aims to reduce the road safety risk created by persons who commit the offence of driving while impaired with the evidence of drugs in their bloodstream. It will give the police the ability to perform the impairment test. I need to talk a little bit about the impairment test because it will be made compulsory under this regime. It will involve instances when a police officer stops a driver and suspects that he or she is driving under the influence of drugs. Drivers will have to walk and turn—this is outside the vehicle—they will have to be able to stand on one leg and they will have to undergo a test that determines the size of their pupils as well as their reaction to light. That measure is very important. It will enable police to have greater powers to crack down on drivers who choose to drive under the influence of drugs. 
The other important thing that this bill does is determine that from time to time some people are on drugs that have been administered by a specialist or a general practitioner. This bill allows those people some relief from prosecution. If they have medicine in accordance with a current prescription from the manufacturer they will be allowed to have that medicine. One example could be someone in hospital who needs morphine. The schedule covers all drugs; this point is very important. I have had a briefing from the police and if we think about it we see that we have a long established history of how we can test for alcohol but we do not have such a test for drugs because drugs in today’s society are always evolving. Whether it is cocaine heroin cannabis or LSD all of those particular drugs are ongoing and evolving. That is an important thing to note. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t think cocaine and heroin are evolving. They evolved a long time ago. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: They evolved a long time ago but as Mr Mallard knows from getting around his electorate new drugs are coming into society. I think we need to be aware of that. 
The other important point I make in wrapping up is to make some comments around the motor vehicles register. From time to time an incident might occur on the road where a vehicle cuts someone off the driver of the vehicle that was hit jots down the registration plate number of the vehicle that hit it and then that driver looks up the owner of that vehicle. For a small fee anyone can do that by going into a post shop. We need to ensure that that information is protected. It is my understanding that the information relates to over 2 million vehicles. Of course there are people who choose to use the register as a marketing ploy. They get out there and bombard through direct-marketing all those people who have a vehicle licensed through this mechanism. We need to be very very mindful of that. 
The other significant point is that from time to time a part of a vehicle might need to be recalled. That happened to my vehicle recently. I got a note from the Ford motor company saying that I had to go in and have something taken off the vehicle and replaced. Under this bill motor vehicle companies will still be allowed to send mail directly to people who purchased a vehicle from them. It will also allow the police the Ministry of Justice the Customs Service the Ministry of Fisheries and the like—agencies that are involved in law enforcement—to access the register. 
In summary this is a good bill. There is a great deal of support across the House for it. I need to acknowledge the work done by the officials and the good work done in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by the chair David Bennett and his good team. I commend this bill to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). Every party in the House has acknowledged that this bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government and it has enjoyed good support throughout the House as a result of its being well-drafted legislation. 
Before I come back to the detail of the bill and its very good intentions I will speak to the very serious issue of the way in which the changes in this bill will be resourced given that as my colleague Chris Hipkins pointed out the funding for road policing has been reduced in Budget 2009. It has been cut by $49 million. Yet here we are debating in the House today this bill which is about to pass its third reading—this bill is about to become an Act—and this will put even more pressure on those road policing resources because of the additional issues that the police will now have the ability and powers to deal with. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Get your facts straight. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well the facts were actually in the Budget and also in the media today—$49 million has been cut out of road policing. 
On top of that as we discovered at question time today an additional $21 million is being cut from police resources and this will have an impact on the fleet of vehicles available to the police. The involvement of vehicles in road safety policing is quite fundamental. If members on the Government side of the House are really stuck I can probably offer them my family horse which won the Melbourne Cup in 2000 and on retirement became a police horse in the Melbourne police force. I could probably bring Brew home if they get stuck for police vehicles! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He was a good horse! 
SUE MORONEY 
: He was a good horse but I have to alert the Government to the fact that he was owned by my family and sometimes he had to be chucked out of the police academy for bad behaviour. So perhaps he would not be terribly reliable but maybe he would be more reliable than having no transport at all. All joking aside—of course that was not a serious offer—and to come back to the bill itself I am concerned about the level of resourcing that will be put into road policing as a result of this legislation. 
This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 and it has two main functions. Its first function is to enhance the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers. That is a new power and new powers require resourcing and always have some teething problems. That is the reason why I raised the concern about the funding cut to road policing in the Budget that has just gone through the House. This bill creates a new offence for a situation when a driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in his or her blood. 
The second thing that this bill does is make changes to the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. I think that is probably the least contentious part of this bill because it is about people’s ability to maintain their privacy. Many members have made great contributions on this part of the bill and talked about how it will stop the abuse of people’s private information by marketing companies. 
Chris Hipkins gave a very detailed explanation of some of the criminal activity that can be associated with this information being freely available but I would like to draw the House’s attention to another area of great concern. That issue is about access to information via the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. This is a concern for women and families who live in fear of previous violent partners or of other violence associated with their lives. There were instances outlined to the select committee where women who had protection orders against former loved ones had found that the access to this information had worked to their disadvantage. When they had tried to move in order to not be easily located by people whom they had protection orders against they found out that their previous partner had been able to track them down by using the registration and licensing information from the motor vehicles register. The openness of this register and the way in which its information has been used are very serious issues that have many consequences. Sadly we now live in a society where the openness and the freedom of that information have worked to undermine the protection of individuals within our society. It is a sad thing that we have needed to do but across the House everyone agrees and understands the rationale for why the changes must be made. 
I want to acknowledge the good work that was done across the parties in the select committee; select committee processes do not always work in this way. One of the very important things about the type of democracy that we have here in New Zealand is that our select committee process—and many people come from overseas to observe this process—has the ability to do exactly what we have seen happen in respect of this bill and its development. It is a very fine feature of our democracy that parties can get together and work on a very detailed issue. I can see from the work that has been done in the select committee that there was a great deal of detail for the officials to impart to members of Parliament. Members were then able to work through not only all of that detail but all of the very tricky issues that come with the detail. 
Of course issues involving people’s access to and use of drugs are very contentious and difficult to deal with. However the select committee has been able to deal with this issue in a way that has accepted all members’ perspectives. Many members who have spoken about the select committee process have praised the Hon Trevor Mallard’s participation—and I am loathe to join in with them in doing that! Obviously they recognise that many good ideas have come from this side of the House. In fact some of us would say that any of the good ideas that the Government has had have been based on Labour policy or previous bills put forward by the previous Labour Government—and this bill is just another example of exactly that. 
In summary I commend the bill. I thank the select committee members for their very hard and detailed work on this issue; obviously they had a great deal of support from the officials. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was going to just go through a summary of where I think the bill is but the previous speaker Sue Moroney brought up the issue of horses. I say that that member not so long ago spoke publicly against the very tax break for horses that she agreed with when Winston Peters was the Minister for Racing. That is the sort of thing we get from the Opposition. The debate on this bill started really really nicely with everyone was patting each other on the back but the last two Labour speakers the one before Sue Moroney— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Who was it? Hipkins? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes. Chris Hipkins suggested all sorts of things about there not being any money in the kitty. Let us be serious about this. This bill was introduced in 2007. It is now midway through 2009 and the only reason this bill is where it is today is because of the good work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and because of the efficiency of a National Government that wants to do things. It is about good chairpersonship it is about a good Minister and it is about a Government that wants to get ahead and stop dilly-dallying and playing politics like the last member was doing. 
The bill is about three things. Let us concentrate on the small administrative matter: the continuation of the Land Transport Act 1998 and other little bits and pieces that have to happen. That is the administrative part. The next part is about protection; it is about protecting the privacy of individuals in this country so that private citizens know that their information will not be bandied about by stalkers by all sorts of miscreants and even by some of those people who get into telemarketing. 
The big stuff I want to talk about in the third part of the bill is the drug issue. I think that is the key issue to this bill. The Greens have called it a blunt tool some have mentioned that it is a discriminatory practice and some have called it other things. The key here is about saving lives. The key here is about making sure that if you drink and drive and if you take drugs and drive—yes I am speaking absolutely to you Mr Deputy Speaker and that is why I am using the word “you”—then you are pinged for it. We can go through all sorts of reasons why people drink and drive and take drugs and drive and we can blame it on this that and the other thing. But drink-driving and drug-driving would not happen if people did not get behind the wheel of a vehicle. It is as simple as that. This is one time when I think the psychologists the researchers and the analysts of all kinds who dream up reasons why people do things have got it wrong. The clear message is that this community does not put up with and will never put up with people getting behind the wheel of a vehicle in a drug-impaired state. The message is quite simple: people should not smoke and drive needle and drive or swallow drugs that they should not be using and drive. It is quite clear that this bill is about the protection of the innocent. 
I finish by mentioning something that came up in the select committee about research and what happens to the blood samples after they have been tested in a hospital. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned this issue in the Committee stage and I raised the issue also at the select committee. I am satisfied that the further research that the bill talks about is only about the drug issue. The blood samples will not be used for any research purposes other than that. I want to put that on the record and assure my colleague that I think the issues he raised and that I raised in the select committee have been worked out in a manner that assures us that those samples will not be used for some sort of Frankenstein research along the way. 
I commend this bill to the House but we should be mindful that it is only a small step. As some of my colleagues have said previously different drugs come on to the market—it seems like an everyday occurrence—and we have to be up with the play. We also have to be up with the play in terms of the technology that we have at our disposal to grab these people who do not like themselves and do not like anybody else. Why else would they be drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired behind the wheel of a vehicle? Kia ora. 
Bill read a third time. 
Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time 
. For the reasons that have been outlined in speeches previously it is essential that this bill is passed before 1 July 2009. 
This is a short bill that provides an interim definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purposes of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service. The bill provides a very similar interim definition to that set out in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 which expires on 1 July 2009. Generally speaking the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since that legislation was passed in 2006 and preserves the conventions observed by members before that time which was that the parliamentary publicity entitlement should not be used for electioneering. As I have said this has been a convention for many years; it was provided for formally in the 2006 legislation. 
The bill also enables the Parliamentary Service to do its job and avoids creating an environment of uncertainty for officials where the review of electoral finance law is in progress. I think it is worthwhile to remind the House of the history of the interim definition. The Auditor-General made some comments that were publicly discussed post the 2005 general election. Parliament itself has largely accepted the Auditor-General’s position and reached the conclusion that the definition provided in the previous Act was a good one. The definition may not survive through the review that is in progress at the moment but Mr Deputy Speaker you will be aware that all parliamentarians are very very conscious of how the public purse is spent in the pursuit of their particular responsibilities as representatives. This bill largely protects those who are supporting parliamentarians and puts some bounds around that expenditure. 
I look forward to the passing of this legislation today. National will be supporting it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I think there is no choice but to do that. It is the third time we have done this. We had interim legislation in October 2006 which expired in 2007. Late in 2007 the expiry date was extended and the legislation will expire on 30 June this year. This bill again pushes that date out while another review occurs. 
I note the strong support of the Leader of the House now for the legislation. It reminds me somewhat of the comments of my former colleague Steve Maharey. He made some comments while in Opposition as I remember it. He said: “That’s one of the things you say in Opposition.” I note that Anne Tolley when in Opposition said this legislation was a rort and was an absolute disgrace to democracy in New Zealand. Now she is voting for it. The Leader of the House said it was Mugabe-style legislation and it was utterly disgraceful. Now he is not only voting for it—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh it is all right now because the National Government is promoting it not the Labour Party. I can understand from the comments I made earlier that sometimes people’s perspectives change when they go from one side of the House to the other. But I think the National Government now understands the necessity for this legislation although I am not sure whether it needed to continue it for this period of time. If Government members had got on with the job in the way they said they would do had the reviews done and had the proper legislation introduced this bill would not be necessary. 
But I can accept that the National members have had one or two more important things than this bill on their minds over recent months. Hopefully now that that time has passed they will be able to focus on this issue and get it sorted out. 
Bill read a third time. 
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 June. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill and it seems like members opposite are looking forward to hearing my speech as much as I am looking forward to delivering it. I will start by saying that I support this free-trade agreement because I believe free trade has been important for New Zealand in the past. It has allowed our businesses and industries to grow and prosper to the size that they are today and it will offer great opportunities to us in the future. I believe that this free-trade agreement will offer those opportunities to many businesses and industries throughout New Zealand. A number of those businesses and industries are present in my electorate of Rotorua and I will talk about a few of those in greater detail in a moment. 
I have said that this is an important agreement and I think it is one that others in the world are taking notice of. Of course it is one of the first agreements if not the first that the bloc of Asian countries that is collectively known as ASEAN has signed with any other country. Others are taking notice and particularly I mention the United States administration. Our Government has great ambition to establish a free-trade agreement with the United States market—as did the previous Government—because I think it will do important things for much of the primary sector in New Zealand as well as other sectors. But we know that discussions in this area are not always as straightforward as we sitting here in New Zealand might hope. Why is America perhaps taking greater notice of us now? It is because of the growth and the potential for growth in many of the consumer markets in the ASEAN countries. Of course collectively with these countries through freer trade New Zealand is becoming more appealing to the Americans. It would be great if we were a larger country; perhaps we would more easily negotiate a trade agreement with America by ourselves. But the fact is that the world’s economy is coming closer together and through this trade agreement and other free-trade agreements that have been negotiated or signed including the one with China I believe that America is starting to take a bit more notice. Indeed the new administration has suggested that it would be happy to move forward and have discussions with New Zealand in partnership with a number of other Asian countries. That is very much what we must focus on—how as a Government we can support more manufacturers farmers those involved with horticulture and other producers in New Zealand so that they have better fairer and freer access to important and more lucrative markets overseas. 
I will give a little bit of background about why I think that this is an important agreement. The ASEAN countries are our third-largest trading partner and they are also our third-largest export market for merchandise goods. I have said that this is the first comprehensive agreement the ASEAN countries have negotiated for goods and services. That includes investment policy intellectual policy and some competition policy around the agreement so that in future as trade grows we do not have disagreements over what is competitive trade and what is anti-competitive. I think that provides a broader approach to regional trade integration—something that those countries in ASEAN have themselves promoted. We know there is a lot of trade—and growing trade—amongst them—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes very good; I am very happy to keep going until my dinner is ready. But as I was saying— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re not meant to repeat the words on the note though; you’re meant to carry on with your speech. 
TODD McCLAY 
: No no—listen to the man others in this House call their friend. Of course I put that down in my debate notes because I knew that it would be a message to those who are making my dinner at the moment. They are listening intently and the dinner will be ready. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hey I’d be worried. Gerry has just left the House; he’s probably going to eat it. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Ha ha! The note that was passed to me said: “Don’t take any notice of the member opposite. He hardly ever says anything of interest.” I agree with that. 
Where I was before I was thinking of my dinner—and I apologise if the member took any offence to that; it was meant in jest as many things in this House are—was to say that our New Zealand exports to ASEAN countries have increased by 121 percent since the year 2000—a 121 percent increase of our exports to that group of countries since the year 2000. Imports have increased dramatically by 244 percent in that same time period. There are 566 million people in those countries in the ASEAN markets. They are responsible for about NZ$2.2 billion of global trade. What have we achieved with this negotiation and this agreement? In effect there will be no tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand exports to Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Viet Nam by 2020 at the latest. That means that in relation to that increase of 121 percent of exports to these countries over the last 9 years 99 percent of the products we export will face no tariff barriers over the next 12 years between now and 2020. That will be a saving of $50 million on duty at today’s rates and based on today’s trade for our exports to these countries. That is a direct saving for the New Zealand producer and that makes our goods more competitive when they reach these markets. By 2010 tariffs will be eliminated on $429 million worth of New Zealand exports at current levels. 
I mentioned earlier a number of the areas that will be covered by this agreement and I want to focus on the area of dairy for a moment. The select committee received a submission from Fonterra on behalf of the dairy industry and it is interesting to look at what it had to say. Of course it will be no surprise to those who are involved in dairying in New Zealand that Fonterra strongly supported this free-trade agreement and supported it being implemented as quickly as possible. Fonterra recognises that dairy tariffs in key ASEAN markets typically range up to 10 percent and that our exports incur about $50 million in tariffs per annum. Over that period of time in respect of those countries with a reduction of tariff rates and the removal of barriers those in the dairy industry—and the farmers in my electorate of Rotorua—stand to gain. In 2010 there will be an elimination of dairy products from tariffs as I said. That will include milk powder casein butter ice cream and cheese. In Reporoa in my electorate there is the Fonterra dairy factory which employs many people and supports many many farmers indirectly through the processing of their milk. This agreement will mean a greater resource there. I think there will be more employment in my region because of this agreement. 
Meat and wool are also very important in many parts of my electorate. We received a submission from Meat and Wool New Zealand that also covered the Meat Industry Association. That too supports the agreement strongly. Those entities said that the red meat and wool industries are export-focused sectors of the economy and that they accounted for about 17 percent of New Zealand’s total merchandise export receipts to the year ended September 2008. The industries employed about 40000 people either directly or indirectly and they have said that during the same period their sectors exported $330 million worth of their goods to the 10 ASEAN countries concerned. Again the agreement means that tariff barriers will be reduced. The tariffs on beef exports will be reduced for beef to enter these markets between 2012 and 2020 with sheep meats and wool by 2010 to 2016. Those amongst us who have meat and wool producers in our electorates know that the last few years have been difficult times for them. The prices they have been receiving particularly for sheep meat have been down. The good news is that prices have increased this year and a number of farmers tell me they believe that the future is brighter. However this agreement will go a long way towards helping them and making sure that in the future their access to those markets is sustainable. 
Let us get to forestry. Members opposite like talking about forestry; I know that. Forestry is very important in Rotorua the forestry capital of New Zealand. We are proud of that. Tariffs will be eliminated on key forestry products again between 2010 and 2020. Again that is not just about logs—and in my electorate we do export a lot of logs—because this agreement reduces tariffs on processed products in many cases like paper. The mills in Kawerau produce a lot of paper; they employ a lot of people there to produce fibre plyboard. One of the problems we have in this country which we certainly have found over the last 9 years is that there is not enough focus on the forestry sector. There is absolutely not enough focus on the forestry sector or support for the many people who are employed or gain income from forestry in my electorate which is one of the reasons probably that the people of the Rotorua electorate decided they would like a change along with the rest of New Zealand last year. We should be investing more in forestry in our country to add value to forestry in our country and to add value for jobs so that we can export goods to other countries where we will get a greater return. Through that the forestry industry will be supported and will gain much much more. 
In respect of horticulture kiwifruit and apples will have the same conditions. Between 2010 and 2011 their tariffs will be reduced. I am glad that tariffs are coming off onions. I do not like onions so I tell the person making my dinner not to put onions in it. I am about to finish here— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry the member’s time has expired. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I was quite interested to hear the member over there Todd McClay talk about what a wonderful industry forestry is. I know it is because I have worked in forestry for Fletcher Challenge Forests and Carter Holt Harvey. But I say to my mate over there that National has made no friends whatsoever in the forestry industry with the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which we were debating last night. In fact a lot of foresters have called me up and asked what the hell is going on. The emissions trading scheme was in place they were all geared up for it and now the Government has taken another year out of it. National has made no friends whatsoever. 
I move on to this bill the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. I rise in strong support of it for a number of reasons. First and foremost this bill implements a major agreement achieved by the last Labour Government. 
Todd McClay 
: Ha ha! 
STUART NASH 
: Well let us give credit where credit is due: Helen Clark and especially Phil Goff took years of work to arrive at such an important agreement. It is a fantastic result for New Zealand and I think that we should give credit where credit is due. I congratulate Minister Groser for being in the right position at the right time— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
STUART NASH 
: Well is that his name? I have not seen him but he does exist. If we listened to him we would think that he had negotiated the vast majority of contracts that we have ever had. In fact did he not sign the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He climbed Mount Everest. 
STUART NASH 
: He did everything! 
Sue Moroney 
: No that was Aaron Gilmore. 
STUART NASH 
: Oh was that Aaron Gilmore? At least Mr Groser was there to pick up this free-trade agreement and sign it on behalf of New Zealand. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STUART NASH 
: I was cut down in full flight while talking about the wonderful things that Minister Groser had done but they were not as good as the wonderful things that the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Helen Clark did in getting the deal under way and signed. 
What tends to happen is that Labour and National attack these things in a bipartisan and cooperative way when it comes to international trade but not sadly when it comes to policy. I will deal with that a little bit later but now I will talk about some of the work that Phil Goff has done on this agreement. Organisations like Federated Farmers have applauded the Hon Phil Goff for his work on this free-trade agreement. That organisation has said: “Despite all the doom and gloom in the other sectors it strategically sets New Zealand up for the long haul and farmers appreciate that”. Farmers appreciate what Phil Goff did for them. The Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce chief executive has commented: “I would like to congratulate Phil Goff and his officials for their hard work and successful outcome.” Alisdair Thompson from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) said: “Overseas Trade Minister Phil Goff is to be congratulated for his work in expediting the ASEAN/CER FTA for New Zealand”. 
All of us in this House at the moment would agree that Phil Goff was an extremely hard-working Minister of Trade and the previous quotes this bill and the free-trade agreement with China are testament to the fact that New Zealanders especially those engaged in any form of international trade are eternally grateful to the Hon Phil Goff and to the officials who did the groundwork on these very important and seminal free-trade agreements. 
The passing of this bill will be the conversion to law of a Labour vision for greater international engagement for New Zealand companies. It will be a great victory for New Zealand businesses with export aspirations. But I must admit that those businesses have been severely let down by the current Budget. I support this bill because it opens up enormous potential opportunities for New Zealand businesses that either are currently engaged in exporting or want to become engaged in the export arena. As mentioned by I think every single speaker in this debate the ASEAN market has over half a billion people and accounts for approximately $1.4 billion in global trade. That is a lot of people and a lot of those people are for the first time entering the age of consumerism. It is absolutely fantastic. 
We all agree that increasing the number of free-trade agreements is very much in the best interests of all New Zealanders going forward for a whole number of reasons. Sustainable economic growth will be achieved only with a much greater degree of international engagement. Of that I have absolutely no doubt. Export growth is the only way forward for New Zealand. We are a market of 4 million people and therefore the ability to grow a significant company in this market is slight if not close to impossible. I cannot think of one large company that has made significant profits without some form of international growth. 
Let me pose a question: how will we get maximum benefit out of this agreement? Let me tell members. Ninety-seven percent of New Zealand businesses are small to medium sized enterprises which means they employ fewer than 20 people. The vast majority of those companies simply cannot afford international marketing or an international market development manager. They cannot afford to relocate sales reps offshore into a market they have no understanding of or control over. Let us remember that we are talking about doing business in countries that have different languages different legal systems different business cultures different mind-sets and different attitudes to business as a whole. This is especially so in the ASEAN countries—I am talking about Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar the Philippines Singapore Thailand and Viet Nam. The languages are different their legal systems are different their business cultures are different the channels to market are different—members will get the picture. Doing business in Saigon is not the same as doing business in Tauranga. Gone are the days when New Zealand business people could turn up with All Black jerseys and hope to clinch a deal. 
One of the major problems with our economy at the moment is the lack of people with international business experience. So what do companies do in a time of recession? 
Todd McClay 
: They change the Government. 
STUART NASH 
: No they do not. That is the wrong answer. I am talking about companies. The best ones increase their marketing budget. That is Marketing 101 but those members would not know that. 
Simon Bridges 
: This member earns too much—look at his ties. 
STUART NASH 
: Actually I remember that member saying that he won Tauranga because he had two ears and one mouth so he listened and did not speak. I suggest that he practise that as he might learn something. 
New Zealand’s eyes and ears—our international marketing managers and market development gurus—work for a Government department called New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. That organisation was set up by Mike Moore. I think that members on both sides of the House would agree that Mike Moore knew a little bit about trade. After all he became the head of the WTO—I tell the characters opposite that that is the World Trade Organization. Gerry Brownlee is now in charge of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and what happened to it in the last Budget? It lost $10 million of funding. What? Mr English stripped $10 million from the budget of the country’s international marketing arm. New Zealand will never reach its full international potential—it will never reach full sustainable growth—unless it understands its international competitive advantage and can market it offshore. 
Where was Mr Groser when the gods were handing out the dollars for 2009? Was his ego such that he could not get down on bended knee for an organisation that has a mandate to implement his vision? Why did Mr Groser not tell Mr English that he needed more staff with experience on the ground? He needed people who in this time of recession could help businesses to internationalise through providing opportunities so that when things take off we would fly. Where was Mr Groser? I have no idea. 
New Zealand’s SMEs—for members opposite who have no business experience I say that that means small to medium sized enterprises—are the backbone of New Zealand companies. Opposite I see a doctor and a lawyer but no business people. What is going on? Labour is the party of business—we all know that. In fact the only gentleman with business experience is Mr Tremain and he is keeping quiet because he knows I am right. If we are to develop our vision for international competitiveness—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Coleman is a medical doctor who could not manage his way out of a paper bag let alone Mt Albert—then these people will need the money and expertise to take it offshore. Yet Mr Brownlee cut $10 million from our international marketing development managers. In these times of uncertainty it is even more important to open up global trade routes. We absolutely need people on the ground who know how to open up channels for market so that our small to medium sized enterprises can get over there and make it happen. You cut $10 million from that budget. That is shameful; it makes me cry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not include the Speaker in his speech. 
STUART NASH 
: But Mr Assistant Speaker Roy even you understand that this is shameful. I apologise. 
The Budget said to me that Mr English simply does not understand the dynamics of this country’s economy nor does he understand what needs to happen to achieve sustainable economic growth. Cutting $10 million from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise when we are debating a significant free-trade agreement is akin to stealing the future— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The National Government understands very very well the importance of free-trade agreements and the importance of opening up trade in particular around the ASEAN region. That is why I am very pleased to speak to the second reading of this ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. It is the National Government that understands trade. It is the National Government that is in constant dialogue with groups such as Federated Farmers. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: So is Labour; don’t be silly. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I do not know whether there is a farmer amongst the Labour ranks. I remember that the Minister of Agriculture in the previous Labour Government had not been anywhere near a farm. I fail to see how the previous Labour Government could have had any sense of the importance of agriculture—it certainly did not show any signs of it in its policy. But this National Government does and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill is an excellent opportunity for New Zealand. Interestingly it was recommended by majority that the bill be passed without amendment. It was supported through the select committee process by all parties except the Greens. 
Simon Bridges 
: Did Labour understand it? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Labour members worked very hard in the select committee process to understand the provisions in the bill. Given that Labour members do not represent the agricultural community where the main benefits of this bill are— 
Simon Bridges 
: Whom do they represent? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well the previous Labour Government and current members struggle with representing city folk whereas in the main National MPs and I am one of those proud members—and I am surrounded by them as a matter of fact—have their roots in rural and provincial New Zealand. We will be the beneficiaries of the provisions in this bill. 
I address this bill because it is important and significant for us in New Zealand. Just briefly the Association of South-east Asian Nations or ASEAN includes Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar the Philippines Singapore Thailand and Viet Nam. These are good strong emerging markets for New Zealand exporters and this bill puts in place the provisions where New Zealand exporters can take advantage of the provisions that will go into this bill. The agreement was concluded on 27 February 2009 and this Government is wasting no time in bringing this legislation before the House so that New Zealand exporters and importers can take advantage of its provisions. 
Addressing the bill itself Part 1 makes amendments to the Tariff Act creating provisions to designate preferential tariffs for goods that are produced or manufactured by the parties to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. Under those amendments to the Tariff Act New Zealand can then set different tariff rates for specified parties. This is quite a technical bill so I will take the time to go through the provisions. For the benefit of members opposite I am dealing with Part 1— 
Todd McClay 
: The ones who represent the list. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes the list members on the other side of the House. Part 1 addresses the issues in the Tariff Act. Secondly this bill amends the definition of “free trade agreement” in section 15A of the Tariff Act to provide for transitional safeguard measures for this agreement. Of course there must be transitional provisions and this is the part of the bill where those come into play. 
Part 2 amends the Customs and Excise Act to allow the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies that are authorised to issue a New Zealand certificate of origin to goods that are to be exported to ASEAN agreement parties. There was a lot of discussion within the select committee on how we must endeavour through the process of considering this bill and in fact through any activity of this Government to make commerce easier and to make exporting and importing of products easier more streamlined and more efficient in order to encourage trade between these ASEAN partners. The amendments to the Customs and Excise Act are designed to facilitate that. The certificate of origin will identify the goods and certify that they are of New Zealand origin. 
Part 2 and the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act will create the criteria that the chief executive of the Customs Service must measure applications against before the service can certify a body to issue certificates. In the bill the criteria to certify that goods are of a New Zealand origin are described so that goods can be measured against them before certification can take place. This provision also enables the creation of regulations that will set prescribed terms and conditions for certification. This is very important for our exporters who need certainty. It also sets the criteria application forms and fees. As members can see this bill is quite technical. There was a lot of discussion around it and it was designed to make the process easier for our exporters in New Zealand. 
Moving to the key outcomes of the ASEAN agreement there will be no tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the four key markets within the 12 years to 2020. These four key markets for New Zealand are Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Viet Nam. Those of us who have an interest in agricultural matters will understand very clearly that those four markets are very important emerging markets for our exporters. 
Todd McClay 
: The farmers will be pleased about that. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I can happily inform my colleague from Rotorua that the farmers are pleased about that. On full implementation by 2020 the bill will provide a total duty saving to New Zealand of $50 million based on current trade levels. In 2010 tariffs will be eliminated on $429 million of current New Zealand exports to Indonesia Malaysia and the Philippines. 
At this point I will acknowledge that this has been a bipartisan agreement and the approach in the select committee has been generally cooperative and constructive and I thank my select committee colleagues for that. We were not always in total agreement but generally we moved in a bipartisan way. It is important to note that tariffs are progressively being eliminated on exports to our very important export markets including Indonesia Malaysia and the Philippines but in some of those markets only on milk-powder butter wool products such as kiwifruit and some manufactured products. This bill brings good news to the New Zealand agricultural sector. From 2011 to 2020 tariffs will be removed on a further $435 million worth of exports to Indonesia Malaysia Viet Nam and the Philippines. We have looked at New Zealand exports but for ASEAN exports to New Zealand there will be improved access to New Zealand markets through the gradual elimination of tariffs and that is the nature of this bill. That is what this bill is all about. By 2010 goods from ASEAN countries that are within the 85 percent of tariff lines will be able to enter New Zealand duty-free. There are some good practical measures in this bill. 
I finish my speech this evening by noting that—and I did say this before but I will say it again—this bill is hugely beneficial to New Zealand trade. It was very encouraging to note Minister Groser saying that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be directed into having a focus on our exporters. That is also good news because it is all very well putting into place a free-trade agreement and I have described some of those measures in the bill but in order for that to take effect and for New Zealand farmers exporters and producers to take advantage of it New Zealand Trade and Enterprise must have its focus on exports and productivity. That is one of the key messages of the National Government through its Budget. I think this bill is a very clear example of this National Government’s desire. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I will pick up from where my colleague Jacqui Dean left off in terms of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. My colleague Jacqui Dean has a strong background in business and I know that her electorate down in the south will benefit extremely strongly from the bill. I will start with a point that Jacqui made which was about New Zealand exports and the key benefits from this bill. The benefits are encapsulated in the statement that there will be no tariffs—that is zero tariffs—on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to four key markets within 12 years by 2020. Those four key markets are Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Viet Nam. 
I will put that statement into the context of what impact that will have on real businesses out there in the New Zealand community. I will talk about a couple of instances that I have experienced in the last couple of days. The first one was when I had the fortunate opportunity to be invited up to the Tauranga electorate Simon Bridges’ territory and to a number of businesses in his community. We specifically asked to talk to businesses involved in the export community that are driving New Zealand’s growth and that will benefit from the bill.  
One of the key guys we first met was from Oasis Engineering. Oasis Engineering is a wonderful business in Tauranga that is developing valve technology for the compressed natural gas (CNG) industry. It is quite a specialised business but it is looking for opportunities to put its technology into garages and petrol stations all around the globe. It is quite phenomenal what Oasis is doing and the investment it is making into its product in order to stay 18 months ahead of the world with its product. Oasis takes out patents but the interesting thing is that on a global scale taking out a patent is a pretty difficult thing to fight for from down here in New Zealand. But this company is out there doing amazing things. About 70 percent of its market is now exports. It believes there is a huge industry in CNG. In fact many of the Asian markets including the ones we are talking about with this ASEAN bill will have benefits for Oasis. That is absolutely fantastic. Taking the tariffs off its exports to those countries means that it can compete on an even keel. With the technology that this particular business provides it is absolutely wonderful. This bill will help Oasis Engineering incredibly.  
Another business we went to in Tauranga was a company called Trimax Mowing Systems. What a wonderful company. When I stand here and listen to Opposition members talking about employers and how terrible they are to employees I think they should go right now to see this business. Its export market which is the majority of its market has gone through the floor. It would be easy for that business to be sitting there saying that it will have to cut the workforce because these are tough times. But what is Trimax doing? It has its guys on ladders painting the roof doing all the cleaning and getting the factory shipshape so that once the export market starts to grow again it will be in good shape. It has the skills it is looking after its employees and it is making sure that when the market picks up again it is ready for business. That is absolutely fantastic. It is a great company. Although its bigger markets are in America and the UK it too will potentially benefit significantly from the bill. It is absolutely wonderful.  
I will highlight another thing that happened in the House last night. I had the absolute pleasure of hosting in Parliament The Icehouse group. It was able to bring along to Parliament a number of key exporters that are doing absolutely awesome things in the New Zealand market. It is absolutely amazing. I am talking about the Sutton Group. I am talking about two amazing gentlemen from a couple of companies from my own electorate of Napier and from Hawke’s Bay: Robert Darroch from Future Products Group and Hamish Whyte from Furnware. I will talk about Robert Darroch. In 1990 he started out with one other man in his operation. Future Products Group now has 150 employees. It exports products all around the globe. It specialises in the fit-outs of supermarkets garages and BP petrol stations. It is an amazing business dealing with international brands like IKEA. It is a fantastic example. The company is now a $50 million company and is keen to grow further.  
This shows how important groups like The Icehouse are in helping people in business like Robert Darroch from Future Products Group and Hamish Whyte from Furnware. These groups encourage and engender the passion in those businesses to get out of places like Hawke’s Bay and give them the confidence to go up to Auckland to go north of the Bombay Hills to first start taking on markets there then to put their toe in the ocean and into Australia and then up into Asia. These guys are absolutely wonderful. Companies like Furnware and Future Products Group are the future of New Zealand. They are doing a wonderful job.  
This ASEAN agreement will help firms like Future Products Group Furnware Trimax and Oasis. They are the businesses that will improve our balance of payments grow this nation take us forward and grow us out of this recession. I am really pleased to have been able to be involved with those companies in the last week. This bill will help take those companies forward and will help take New Zealand forward. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I move  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. Its purpose is to update Radio New Zealand’s charter following the second 5-yearly parliamentary review required by section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. The enactment of this legislation will conclude that review which was not completed during the term of the previous Government. 
Radio New Zealand’s charter is a statement of its statutory functions. The charter outlines the purposes for which the Government owns and funds Radio New Zealand. The second parliamentary review of Radio New Zealand’s charter was completed in 2006. In preparation for the review Radio New Zealand conducted its own preliminary review of the charter in 2005. This was followed by an extensive public consultation process which led to the drafting of a revised charter. The charter’s second review gave Radio New Zealand the opportunity to consult its listeners and stakeholders. The revised version of the charter was amended after Radio New Zealand considered the feedback contained in 165 submissions. 
The Commerce Committee was then invited to undertake the second review of the charter on behalf of the House of Representatives. In December 2005 Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft of its charter as amended following public consultation was forwarded to the committee for its information and consideration. The select committee tabled its report on 22 March 2006. In the report the committee stated that it was satisfied with the drafting of Radio New Zealand’s proposed revision. The new charter was unanimously supported by the committee. 
As a result of this comprehensive review the revised charter makes a stronger statement than its predecessor about Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster. The revised text also streamlines and clarifies the charter but will not materially alter Radio New Zealand’s functions or its operations. 
Clause 5 inserts new section 8 which contains the charter. The charter is divided into two parts: purpose and delivery. The first part the purpose makes a strong statement concerning Radio New Zealand’s purpose as being to serve the public interest and it describes how this will be achieved through Public Service broadcasting principles of independence freedom of thought and expression reliability and accessibility. 
The second part delivery expands on how the charter’s purposes must be delivered and requires Radio New Zealand to endeavour to provide services of the highest quality according to key delivery measures. Amongst other things those measures require Radio New Zealand to provide services that are predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand; that inform entertain and enlighten the people of New Zealand; that are challenging innovative and engaging; and that foster critical thought and informed and wide-ranging debate. The language in the charter has been simplified and the intent is more clearly expressed. This should allow the public to better understand the charter’s objectives. 
The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill also sets out the principles of operation for Radio New Zealand. These are designed to support the introduction of the new charter and reflect Radio New Zealand’s non-commercial public service nature. New section 8A in clause 5 includes a stronger definition of “commercial-free” and recasts financial viability requirements so that they now remove any potential for requiring that Radio New Zealand provide a dividend. This is consistent both with this Government’s expectations of Radio New Zealand and with longstanding practice. 
The bill also updates the requirement for a 5-yearly charter review. Under the current legislation the implementation of a revised charter is delayed as in the current case and the life of the new charter before the next review is required can be significantly shorter than the intended 5 years. New section 8B also in clause 5 removes this potential and provides that the clock does not start ticking on any future review until the charter then in force has been in place for 5 years. 
It has now been almost 3 years since the completion of Radio New Zealand’s second charter review. This bill languished under the last administration whereas this Government is committed to fulfilling its legislative responsibilities. This should have been done but the previous Government just never got around to doing it. This is an unfair situation for Radio New Zealand and it shows that the previous Minister of Broadcasting had other priorities. It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible to ensure that Radio New Zealand can operate to an up-to-date and clear public service mandate. 
The adoption into legislation of the revised charter supports this Government’s manifesto commitment to provide certainty in relation to the operations of public service broadcasters. There is a remarkably high level of public support for the concept of public service radio broadcasting in New Zealand. This is illustrated by the results of recent research. As well as using the Nielsen company to carry out an ongoing listener survey Radio New Zealand contracts the company to carry out Radio New Zealand value indices research. The results of Radio New Zealand’s latest annual survey of its listeners are the best that Radio New Zealand has achieved since the broadcaster commenced specific charter research in 2000. 
One of this Government’s broadcasting commitments was to have more transparency around public funding for broadcasting. We want to make ratings and research data such as this research by Radio New Zealand available in one place so that it is easy for people to find and use. We want to aggregate all this information on a central Ministry of Culture and Heritage website and we intend to have this up and running by the first quarter of the new financial year. The research shows that Radio New Zealand is doing a really good job but we want to make sure that people know where to go to find out this kind of information about all our public broadcasters. 
Radio New Zealand and its staff won an outstanding 13 awards for excellence at the 2009 New Zealand Radio Awards. These awards recognise the very best work from commercial and public service radio broadcasters throughout the country. The awards won by Radio New Zealand included metropolitan station of the year best radio website individual journalist of the year best documentary or feature programme for its tribute to Sir Edmund Hillary two awards for best daily or weekly series best dramatic production and best music feature. 
Radio New Zealand has adapted well to new technologies in the changing media environment. Radio New Zealand National and Radio New Zealand Concert are both available on the FreeView platform. Online broadcasting activities have been a major focus for Radio New Zealand in recent years. Radio New Zealand has a growing web presence as far as online listening is concerned. Its website offers live streaming a high-quality text-based news service podcasting audio on demand and an extensive programme archive. 
In January of this year Radio New Zealand advised that more than 6 million programmes or programme segments were replayed via its website in the 12 months to the end of December 2008. The volume of online listening which included audio on demand and podcasting was more than double the level recorded in 2007. Many of the people who are now downloading programme content through the Radio New Zealand website are new to its audience. These people include younger listeners and a growing number of New Zealanders who are living overseas. Radio New Zealand’s online broadcasts have increased every month since the service was first launched in 2005 and that growth is expected to continue. 
Radio New Zealand is leading the world’s media with its coverage of events in Fiji with many major international news organisations quoting Radio New Zealand in their own reports. With heavy censorship of local Fijian media Radio New Zealand International’s website and direct shortwave broadcasts have been among the few reliable sources of news and information for those living in Fiji. With the continuing political and social instability across the Pacific Radio New Zealand International is now clearly regarded as the authoritative voice of the Pacific. 
Radio New Zealand Concert plays a vital role in the health and well-being of many of New Zealand’s premier cultural institutions including the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra Chamber Music New Zealand the New Zealand String Quartet the Royal New Zealand Ballet the National Opera of New Zealand and performing orchestras in Christchurch and Dunedin. 
Radio New Zealand’s services and programmes are non-commercial pure examples of public service broadcasting. They reflect and respond to the needs and interests of particular sections of the national audience without consideration for the interests of advertisers. The enactment of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill will deliver certainty and clarity to Radio New Zealand as a public service broadcaster. It reflects changes proposed and accepted as part of the second statutory review of the Radio New Zealand charter and it concludes that review. I move that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be considered— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member may move that motion at the end of the first reading. At this stage he must indicate which select committee the bill will be referred to. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is going to the Commerce Committee. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of the introduction tonight of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and to speak fulsomely about Radio New Zealand as an organisation. 
I acknowledge that there is a lot of flu going around. Maybe the Minister of Broadcasting has a touch of that flu because he did not seem to speak too passionately about Radio New Zealand. In fact he was about as flat as the Mt Albert headquarters for National on the night of the by-election. In my view Radio New Zealand is a national taonga. It is a treasure and I am very pleased to see this renewed charter for Radio New Zealand. I shudder to think what life would be like without it. What would we have done last month? How would we have known that National was conceding the Mt Albert by-election without the interview on Radio New Zealand to tell us that a month before the election? 
Radio New Zealand has survived against the odds. National members have not always been great fans of Radio New Zealand. At times they have looked at cutting the guts out of Radio New Zealand so I acknowledge that the Minister of Broadcasting has brought this bill forward. It has been long in gestation. In fact I acknowledge that there were coalition partners within the last Government that dragged their heels somewhat on this bill as they were perhaps not quite so enthusiastic about Radio New Zealand. But the bill is here in the House tonight and that is a very welcome development. 
As the Minister has mentioned Radio New Zealand is constantly acknowledged for its contribution to New Zealand life. Internationally it wins many awards and last month it won the New Zealand Radio Awards radio station of the year award and 13 other awards including all of the journalism radio awards. It won an award for being the metropolitan station of the year which is an acknowledgment from the commercial radio industry that it is a leading radio station on an international basis. 
I would like to talk for a moment about some of the background to the bill. It began under Labour; we will support it. I also acknowledge at this point the contribution made by the former Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey. It was Steve Maharey who in a member’s bill in 1993 first suggested the idea of a Radio New Zealand charter which came through embodied in legislation passed in 1995 by the then National Government. 
One of the things I would like to touch on is that the Minister has spoken in support of Radio New Zealand yet the fact is that Radio New Zealand’s funding has been frozen for the next 4 years. It got a lift of about $2 million under the previous Government but it has now been frozen for the next 4 years. It is easy to praise Radio New Zealand as an organisation; it deserves that sort of praise. The Minister in a speech last month talked about its playing an important role in public life both in New Zealand and in the wider Pacific region. It is a very important tool in foreign policy because Radio New Zealand International is the voice of New Zealand in our South Pacific region. But if Radio New Zealand is to continue to contribute grow and develop then it certainly needs more financial support than it will get over the next 4 years. 
Be that as it may we have the bill here tonight and it is about the Radio New Zealand charter. I acknowledge that the charter is extraordinarily positive. It reinforces Radio New Zealand’s capacity to do its job. It will reinforce the ability of Radio New Zealand to continue to operate and to provide its leading voice in terms of New Zealand’s cultural identity and its contribution to public life. Many MPs have been interviewed by Radio New Zealand. The programme  
Morning Report  
is part of the lifeblood of the nation as is  
Checkpoint 
 and other programmes. I think it is fundamental to New Zealand life for many many New Zealanders. So we are very pleased to see this bill back before the House. 
I would like to look back through the history of Radio New Zealand. In the 1970s and 1980s Radio New Zealand and the other State broadcaster Television New Zealand faced a tough time. The National Government of the time froze the license fee which caused great difficulties. It is almost a miracle that Radio New Zealand has survived. That funding gap also caused Television New Zealand to become much more commercially focused and in some respects to move away from the public service objectives that were expected of it. Through the charter Radio New Zealand upholds those public service broadcasting objectives. They are a fundamental requirement for Radio New Zealand and it is to be applauded that they uphold them. Amongst the requirements that this charter embodies its purpose is to foster “a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding reflecting and promoting ethnic cultural and artistic diversity”. The charter requires Radio New Zealand “to inform entertain and enlighten the people of New Zealand:”. It will provide programmes that “are challenging innovative and engaging:”. It will “foster critical thought and informed and wide-ranging debate:”. It will “stimulate support and reflect the diversity of cultural expression”. It will “provide comprehensive independent accurate impartial and balanced regional national and international news and current affairs:”. If members think of the range of hosts from  
Morning Report  
through the  
Nine to Noon  
programme—hosts such as Kim Hill on Saturday mornings and Chris Laidlaw on Sunday mornings—and the host of other programmes across Radio New Zealand National and its sister programme Radio New Zealand Concert they will see that it absolutely delivers on the objectives reflected in this charter. 
I comment on the history of Radio New Zealand going back to the period before this charter was first suggested by Steve Maharey in 1993. There has not always been unanimity of support for Radio New Zealand. When Steve Maharey introduced his bill back in 1993 Tony Ryall—who was at that point I think a Minister with responsibilities in that area—said that it was costing taxpayers $20 million a year to provide the two networks National Radio and Concert FM. His view was that those services could be provided to an equivalent if not better standard by an alternative provider. I have spoken to commercial broadcasters since I took on the Opposition portfolio for broadcasting and I have not yet met a person who does not uphold the fact that Radio New Zealand is an important component of the broadcasting scene. Even commercial broadcasters say that they uphold the idea of contributing taxes towards Radio New Zealand because of the job it performs and the functions it carries out to a very very high level as those awards obviously recognise. As I have mentioned that has not always been the case. There have been times through the period of the 1980s and the 1990s when it was not just Tony Ryall who was questioning the value of Radio New Zealand. Maurice Williamson who was the Minister of Broadcasting at one point did not believe that the Government needed to provide some of the services that Radio New Zealand was providing. He was in two minds at one point in the mid-1990s about issuing the directive that the funding for Radio New Zealand be continued. 
I hope that members opposite have moved on. I think that we require a bipartisan commitment to Radio New Zealand and the contribution it makes to New Zealand life identity and culture. It is recognised time and time again as an important and integral component of New Zealand life and this bill really embodies that recognition. We have seen not only the industry but also media commentators recognise Radio New Zealand. I again note the issue of funding for Radio New Zealand. John Drinnan in the  
New Zealand Herald  
quite recently talked about a somewhat miserly approach to Radio New Zealand. This is a newspaper media commentator acknowledging the contribution that Radio New Zealand makes and saying to the Minister of Broadcasting that we really need to look at the funding models for Radio New Zealand. 
One of the things reflected in the charter is how Radio New Zealand has been a leader in embracing technology. There were 6 million downloads from Radio New Zealand in the calendar year of 2008. Life gets busy and not everybody is simply able to listen to Radio New Zealand on the spot. Radio New Zealand has leading-edge technology which is a wonderful resource but the technology costs money. I implore the Minister to consider the future of Radio New Zealand in a cash-straitened environment. There is also a report that looks at Radio New Zealand’s funding which I understand the Minister has declined to release. I say to him to put it into the public domain. Let us have the debate; let us see what the organisation that reviewed Radio New Zealand’s funding had to say. Let us hear the argument and let us see if there is a strong case for Radio New Zealand to have improved funding. 
I am supportive of this measure. The charter is integral to Radio New Zealand. Radio New Zealand is an absolutely vital component to New Zealand public life. I am very pleased to see this bill come through into the House. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 and it contains a new Radio New Zealand charter as the two previous speakers have alluded to. 
I will start by acknowledging the Minister of Broadcasting the Hon Jonathan Coleman for his courage to take action— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Leadership! 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
:—and leadership; that is quite correct— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Competence! 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
:—and more than competence. He has leadership written all over him. I commend Mr Coleman. Once again this bill is an example of the Labour Party resting on its laurels and not getting legislation through this House. It is a brave move to take on this legislation and move it quickly through the House. 
As we all know Radio New Zealand is a Crown entity established under the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. As both the previous speakers have already alluded to it provides listeners with exciting and independent radio coverage that one will not find from other private broadcasters. It broadcasts over three nationwide networks namely Radio New Zealand National Radio New Zealand Concert and the AM network which relays our proceedings even tonight. 
Public radio broadcasting did not start with Mr Maharey. It had its beginning in 1925 when under a 5-year contract the Government granted the Radio Broadcasting Co. substantial income from the radio dealer’s licence and 25 shillings from each receiving licence on the condition that the company expanded four existing stations in the main centres in order to establish a national non-commercial broadcasting system. Company income was insufficient to meet those demands for expansion so in 1931 legislation was passed to establish the Government-appointed New Zealand Broadcasting Board which was also dependent on that licensing fee income. After the war this system became the New Zealand Broadcasting Service. In 1962 Government department status ended with the establishment of the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. Then we came to the 1995 Act where Radio New Zealand was established as a stand-alone Crown-owned entity with the major responsibilities that I have already spoken of. 
Under the Act 5-yearly parliamentary reviews of Radio New Zealand’s charter are required. In 2005 Radio New Zealand undertook its own review and in consultation with interested parties—listeners and stakeholders—it developed a revised version of that charter. As we have already heard the parliamentary review of that charter was undertaken by the Commerce Committee which will later review this bill and oversee its progression through Parliament. 
The previous Government did not really get to the point of introducing this bill. As I have already said it has been a bit lax a little bit—well it was occupied with things that do not matter. We know that; we have heard that. We now have a Government in place that will take action on matters such as this one. As we have already stated the bill is really about the charter. The charter is a particularly important document that sets out operating principles. It defines what Radio New Zealand does from the staff to listeners and stakeholders and it is easily understandable with objectives that are quite precise. 
Let us go through the bill. As the honourable Minister has already stated new section 8(1) inserted by clause 5 of the bill looks at the purpose: “As an independent and commercial-free public service broadcaster the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest.” In that respect it is particularly important to recognise that we have a wide public interest. It is not necessarily about niche programming; it is about what the public will demand. What I like personally about Radio New Zealand and what it delivers is that it does not deliver what we get on other private broadcasting networks. We do not get a deluge of sport or talkback; we get coverage of art culture and politics that is unsurpassed in other broadcasting packages. 
The bill also in new section 8(5) addresses service delivery: “In achieving its purpose the public radio company must endeavour to provide services of the highest quality”—of the highest quality. It is not about just throwing money at programmes which the last Government was good at; it is about throwing money at high-quality programmes and high-quality outputs that are—and here is the crux—predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand content. That is really important. I have heard nothing from across the Chamber about what Radio New Zealand represents which is New Zealand culture. I move down to new section 8(5)(g) which says the services must “reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity including Maori language and culture:”. Again that is particularly important. I allude to my Maori Party friends as well as to all the Maori out there who understand the need for this type of programming. 
New section 8(5)(l) refers to including “an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. As someone who has spent a bit of time in the South Pacific and who has heard the programming in the South Pacific I know that this is a particularly critical part of showing New Zealand and its culture and language to our Pacific Island brothers and sisters. Again it is very critical to this legislation to describe the importance of our culture our language our customs and the values that make us New Zealanders. 
I also refer to new section 8A(1) also inserted by clause 5. It says “The public radio company must in fulfilling its Charter exhibit a sense of social responsibility”. That is right: social responsibility. It is really critical to balance that requirement for social responsibility with the provisions of new section 8A(3)(b)(i) and (ii) which talk about financial responsibility. The issue is about finding the balance between social responsibility and financial responsibility which is something my colleagues from across the Chamber have no idea about. They are tax-and-spend liberals who would just raise taxes and spend them on programmes that are not effective. 
We are talking about highly effective quality programmes that represent our culture and our customs. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Heritage. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: And our heritage—I thank the member. This bill really is about supporting an institution in this country called Radio New Zealand. It is an institution that as the honourable Minister has already said cleaned up at the New Zealand Radio Awards this year. Its website as my honourable colleague from across the Chamber has said has over 6 million hits a year and the quality and make-up of that website—its look and feel—are of particularly high quality. So I commend this bill to the House for its certainty its clarity and its support of New Zealand culture. Thank you very much. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill because it is a Labour bill. When we brought in this bill the then Opposition members on these benches were railing against publicly funded broadcasting and they were railing against the charter saying that nanny State was invading our lives. Yet here National members are tonight congratulating the Minister of Broadcasting who had nothing to do with this bill; he was on the Opposition benches and its spokesperson on broadcasting when we worked on this bill. I acknowledge Sue Kedgley who I am sure will later take a call on this bill because the Greens and Labour fought to maintain the integrity of and funding for Radio New Zealand. 
Let us go back a little in history and look at what Tony Ryall from the Bay of Plenty said about Radio New Zealand. He said: “I believe that we should be putting up for tender the provision of a concert programme network and the provision of a national radio network.” That is really what they all wanted to do right through the 9 years we were in Government. What about Maurice Williamson? He said: “I have said regularly and publicly that for a company that is both the public radio company and that runs the commercial operation of radio it is a little like a temperance league running a brewery. They have conflicting interests conflicting reasons for being and conflicting funding streams with the potential to subsidise from one to the other.” 
When National was in Opposition it hated the Radio New Zealand Bill. This amendment bill was started after a review of the charter by this House in 2006. Good on Minister Coleman for getting this bill into the House because it is ours. Of course we will support it. The Minister of Broadcasting talks about wanting quality publicly funded broadcasting. That is rubbish. If he had his way he would love to get his hooks in here and flick off Radio New Zealand too. He talked to Auckland University of Technology students about it and went very quiet. His introductory speech was also incredibly quiet and incredibly non-committal. He just said that we should get this bill through the House. He does not like it; he never has. He went to Auckland University of Technology and talked about his top priorities for broadcasting. He was more focused on what we will do with Television New Zealand than what we will do with Radio New Zealand. 
Although he says how wonderful Radio New Zealand is and how it is a great watchdog for democracy—and he compares us with countries like Fiji in that respect—what has he done with the funding? Let us look at the funding for Radio New Zealand over the next 4 years. We cannot have publicly funded public broadcasting with frozen funds and the funding has been frozen at $34.1 million—only $34.1 million and no more—over the next 4 years. But he wants a robust quality publicly funded broadcaster. Well we cannot have quality for that amount. How do we keep up with technology? How do we keep up with inflation? How do we employ talented staff who are essential in keeping publicly funded broadcast robust which is what the previous Government supported? Words are very cheap I say to Minister Coleman. He praises a broadcaster on one hand then starves it on the other hand. We are used to that. Robert Muldoon starved radio and Television of the public broadcasting fee. We are used to hearing that from National Governments which say they are absolutely fantastic with business. 
This Government forgets that a well-funded public broadcasting system funds the scriptwriters and the musicians who put the content into the charter. That is what Steve Maharey set out to do with the charter. Over Labour’s 9 years we had a brand. We were proud of New Zealand and talked about telling our stories; it was called the New Zealand identity. Artisans musicians poets and storytellers were excited about having their stories told on national radio. It was absolutely fantastic for us. 
I will go back a little bit in history to say that it was in 1999 when the Labour Government—again—started to reclaim public broadcasting values from what was a deregulated free-market wilderness. It was a shambles. It was all predicated on a commercial rate of return and the broadcasting fee in order to subsidise public broadcasting. We restructured Television New Zealand. We encouraged the development of voluntary codes for local content on radio and on television. It was great stuff. We established Maori Television and I acknowledge Pita Sharples who went to Maori Television’s. first birthday. I thank Minister Sharples for acknowledging the Labour Government and the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia for their commitment with the support of Steve Maharey and Helen Clark to getting Maori Television under way. These are great histories of what Labour Governments have done for broadcasting in New Zealand. 
I say to Minister Coleman that not only did we say that broadcasting was fantastic but also we put money into funding New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho that has been the real generator of getting New Zealand content and te reo on Maori radio on the airwaves. It is a fantastic story. I know that in Rotorua—I am sure that Todd McClay goes along and does regular broadcasts on Maori radio; they would be difficult to understand—the listenership is simply phenomenal. My husband used to have a regular weekly broadcast session. You know old people in Rotorua came into the radio station to listen to live broadcast because they loved to hear those stories being told. That was very vulnerable and I congratulate Minister Coleman on not changing the charter too much. It would have been quite sinister to see a new Minister of Broadcasting in a new Government strip the charter of all the values that we care about. 
I want to talk about another aspect of the charter the way the charter will be delivered. Section 8(5)(e) to be inserted in the Radio New Zealand Act by clause 5 of the bill states that the charter will “stimulate support and reflect the diversity of cultural expression including drama comedy literature and the performing arts:”. I heard a fantastic programme on  
The Arts on Sunday 
 on Radio New Zealand National last week. I ask members to guess what it was focused on. It was focused on the cuts to Artists in Schools in this Budget. The discussion was not shut down which was great. It was there for us all to hear. People talked about the value of these programmes to develop scriptwriters and artisans in our community. What has happened? Funding to Artists in Schools has been completely cut by the National Government. Those programmes with a mere $8000 investment had multiplier benefits to communities of up to $500000. This Government has cut the Artists in Schools programme. 
It is pretty rich when we have a charter and we have a Minister of Broadcasting who supports the charter which has some great aspects in it but other Ministers around him are cutting budgets that would have provided us with the ability for artisans and broadcasters to teach kids in school about the value of broadcasting so that those children can come into the industry. They would have learnt how to write the stories that will be used on Radio New Zealand. The initiative has been cut. I think that is appalling. It was not mentioned in the Budget but like the cuts to everything else like community education we are starting to see now how deep these cuts are. The Government thought the cuts would go unnoticed. It thought that cutting the arts did not matter that they were a bit of fluff on the side. But we cannot have a good public broadcaster and we cannot have a charter that can be maintained that tells the stories of New Zealand and that tells all the aspects of delivery that are in this charter if we do not support the artisans the scriptwriters and children learning how to do broadcasting. I think that is very sad. It is very short-sighted. 
But I must congratulate the Minister on one thing. Section 8A(3) to be inserted by clause 5 states: “The public radio company must in fulfilling its Charter ensure that it operates in a financially responsible manner …”. Thank God! The Minister of Broadcasting does not expect any return on funds. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is delighted to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. We are immensely relieved to know that there is still one broadcaster left in New Zealand that still has a public service charter that commits its organisation to serving the public interest—not commercial interests but the public interest—and to providing independent impartial balanced news and current affairs. Radio New Zealand is the only independent commercial-free public service broadcaster left in New Zealand whose sole purpose is to serve the public interest. Is it not fantastic to listen to the radio when it is not interrupted every few minutes by commercials? We are relieved too that the Government has not yet seen fit to scrap Radio New Zealand’s charter as it has scrapped Television New Zealand’s charter. Of course we applaud the charter. Who would not applaud a charter with the lofty goals of committing Radio New Zealand to providing independent commercial-free broadcasting and so on? 
The Green Party strongly supports Radio New Zealand because we believe it is critical to the health of our democracy that we have broadcasters whose sole purpose is to serve the public interest; not to maximise the profits of shareholders or to chase ratings and to schedule programmes according to how much advertising they will attract but simply to serve the public interest. It is extraordinary that we have such a broadcaster because we in New Zealand have the most unregulated broadcasting environment in the Western World. 
It is a time where an increasing concentration of media ownership is going into fewer and fewer hands and virtually all of our media are in foreign ownership. We are seeing an ever-greater convergence of newspapers television and radio operations less and less diversity of opinion and fewer and fewer independent sources of news and information. But Radio New Zealand stands out as a veritable beacon as the only truly independent commercial-free public service broadcaster in New Zealand. Thank heavens for that! Although Radio New Zealand has a charter with these lofty and admirable goals the Green Party is concerned that successive Governments have not provided Radio New Zealand with the funding that it desperately needs to implement the charter. This is the critical issue that we need to debate. What is the purpose of giving Radio New Zealand this lofty charter if the organisation is so cash-strapped that it cannot deliver on the charter goals? 
In the 2007 or 2008 financial year the then Minister of Broadcasting commissioned an independent review to determine the level of funding required for Radio New Zealand to maintain its services at its current levels—that is just to keep the organisation going. This review was carried out by independent consultants. It was agreed that the results of the review would form the basis for all future discussions with shareholding Ministers about the level of funding that was needed to maintain Radio New Zealand and its core services. So this is a critically important document that will allow the public to know whether and by how much Radio New Zealand is underfunded. The Green Party has been trying to get hold of this critically important document but the Government—the Minister—is refusing to release it under the Official Information Act claiming that it is commercially sensitive. What utter nonsense! 
Radio New Zealand is a public service broadcaster so how can an assessment of its funding possibly be commercially sensitive? We have gone to the Ombudsman asking for this document to be released as we think it is scandalous that this independent funding review is being kept secret. We suspect that the real reason for keeping it secret—indeed we know—is that this Government and the previous Government do not want the public to know that the independent review concluded that Radio New Zealand was underfunded by $7 million a year which we are informed of by reliable sources. 
The latest Radio New Zealand statement of corporate intent acknowledges that the independent review found that Radio New Zealand was underfunded in its ability to sustain its current services. It found that this was contributing to its relative financial instability and that it would limit future investment in necessary key strategic infrastructure investments. These are obviously diplomatic words but they are code for saying that Radio New Zealand is financially squeezed and substantially underfunded. Last year acknowledging this underfunding the Labour Government finally increased Radio New Zealand’s budget by $2.6 million—which is way less than what the chairman of Radio New Zealand said was needed to maintain Radio New Zealand services at current levels. In fact the chairman said that he was disappointed that the amount allocated by the Labour Government was well below the recommendations of the recent funding review. It was $4.5 million below the recommendations. 
Radio New Zealand was hoping for a further increase to meet this $4.5 million a year shortfall in the funding that was recommended by that independent secret review. Unfortunately as previous speakers have pointed out Radio New Zealand’s funding has been frozen by the National Government for the next 4 years. So that means that—never mind inflation—staff wages are frozen. That means that Radio New Zealand will continue to be substantially underfunded even for carrying out its core activities and to retain its current services. This underfunding will inevitably undermine its ability to meet its charter obligations to deliver its core services and maintain let alone improve its present services. We are told that already the staff have been told that their wages will be frozen this year; the only thing they will be offered is job security and Radio New Zealand is projecting a deficit of $1.1 million this year. 
I ask members to think about the implications of this underfunding. If Radio New Zealand is constantly cash-strapped if it cannot invest in new fresh innovative programmes and if wages are frozen so that it becomes increasingly difficult to attract and retain staff to keep the organisation going then inevitably the quality of Radio New Zealand will deteriorate and so too will its ratings. This will become a vicious circle. If the quality of programming deteriorates through lack of funding if ratings then deteriorate we are fearful that we will start to hear calls not just from ACT—and I am sure Roger Douglas will make these calls soon—but also from the National Government to sell this gem which is the last and the only independent public service broadcaster left in New Zealand. 
Increased funding is at the heart of this debate; it is absolutely critical. The supporters of Radio New Zealand the huge numbers of people who listen loyally to Radio New Zealand who are as delighted as I am to be able to listen to an informed interesting impartial radio organisation that is not constantly interrupted by commercials need to campaign for an increase in funding. Otherwise we will find that even though Radio New Zealand has a charter it will not be able to deliver it and its programmes will deteriorate. We will be in a vicious circle. Before we know it the National Government will be talking of selling off not just Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) but also Radio New Zealand. We know it will try to sell off TVNZ if it gets the next term of Government. We know that because it has already removed its charter and its funding base. We are worried even though the Government has agreed to this charter that it really has the same game plan for Radio New Zealand. Therefore every New Zealander who is concerned about Radio New Zealand needs to be fighting for increased funding for it. Thank you. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 It has been over 35 years since I was Minister of Broadcasting and I was very pleased to give it a bit of a shake up at that time. I only regret that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill does not do the same. I suspect I take a slightly or maybe a substantially different stance on this bill from anyone else in the House. 
The Radio New Zealand charter tells us that the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest. The fact is that every radio station in New Zealand serves the public interest; if they do not they simply do not survive. The flaw in Radio New Zealand National is not the inadequacy or otherwise of the charter; it is its structure as Radio New Zealand National is a monopoly. It is not a monopoly in that consumers do not have choices over the radio station they want to listen to; rather it has a monopoly of Government funding for radio. Despite the fact that Radio New Zealand National is able to transmit without ads it still does not rank alongside other market participants. This suggests one of two things about the money it receives. First there is a large element of waste; it is very hard to charge for services that the Government is giving away free yet others run commercial operations successfully. This suggests that a lot of money the Government ploughs into Radio New Zealand National is wasted; perhaps it is the thinly veiled leftism that turns so many New Zealanders off. Second there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Consumer sovereignty results in resources being moved to the highest-value users. If consumers buy more TVs than cars then capital will move from car production to TV production. But when a Government pours money into Radio New Zealand National at the exclusion of all others consumer sovereignty fails to align the capital resources and other resources correctly. 
Although ACT will vote for this legislation the bill fails to do one thing that will deal with these problems; that is make the funds contestable and I believe that should happen. If other radio stations or for example community groups were able to bid for the right to Government funding by demonstrating the kinds of programmes they sought to offer and the nature of the public interest they would serve then the money could achieve a lot more than it does at the moment. But if we continue to funnel it into one organisation then we will see the waste continue and increase. Only competition enables consumers to choose and provide a disincentive for waste. Until the Government begins to move in this direction the monopolies whether they be health education welfare or radio will continue to fail. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has emerged as a result of a parliamentary review. In coming to this review I have been thinking about some of the history before us that has helped to shape the modern-day Radio New Zealand. I think of the legendary Wiremu Parker of Ngati Porou who was the first appointed Maori reader and who maintained a strict vow to himself that he would never use a Pakeha word in his bulletins. I think of Ngati Kahungunu man Ted Nepia who during the 1950s broadcast a weekly 20-minute Maori current affairs programme Te Reo o te Maori from a Napier radio station. Then there was Bill Kerekere and Leo Fowler who took the large mobile broadcasting studio around New Zealand. Maori broadcasters who joined the section included Selwyn Muru Haare Williams Whai Ngata Hamuera Mitchell John Ropata Derek Fox Purewa Biddle Te Pere Curtis John Turei and Henare Te Ua. Radio New Zealand is all the better for the expertise of people such as Ana Tapiata and Eru Rerekura to name just a few. 
If a picture painted a thousand words the art gallery of Maori broadcast talent that has shaped Radio New Zealand would be full to overflowing. Taken together this history is a proud one that has carved out the broadcasting highway that we travel on. But the reality is that although the history of Maori broadcasting as a collective force can be recounted at any one time it was generally one or two individuals at best doing what they could to ensure that Maori programming was included as a key feature of a distinctive New Zealand radio voice. 
Even today in terms of current content Radio New Zealand has only about 5 or 6 percent of on-air time dedicated to Maori programming. We are proud of iwi radio stations and all the incredible achievements that the 22 Maori radio stations have demonstrated throughout Aotearoa. But Radio New Zealand has an independent and commercial-free public service broadcast for New Zealand and must firstly serve public interests. The Maori Party supports the view that Radio New Zealand should remain in public ownership but show a greater responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of all peoples of Aotearoa. Public interest includes the interests of our Treaty partners the 15 percent of the population who are iwi Maori. 
The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to provide for a new charter which resulted from a 5-yearly parliamentary review as required under section 7(4) of the Act. Neither the existing nor the proposed charter makes any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi although both contain provisions to reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity “including Maori language and culture”. It is the Maori Party’s view that signalling the Treaty of Waitangi in the charter might help Radio New Zealand to understand its statutory obligation better. It is the Crown’s duty as a Treaty partner to assist and support iwi and hapu to fulfil their responsibilities as guardians of their respective reo. 
Having consideration for the impact of Te Tiriti is not just about te reo but about Maori stories Maori shows Maori current affairs and Maori events. The Maori Party will therefore be putting forward a Treaty of Waitangi clause to be inserted in the charter to ensure that overarching decisions on Maori language and culture lie with Maori and that broadcast content upholds and promotes the Treaty relationship. The Treaty clause will ensure that overarching decisions on Maori language and culture lie with the Maori partner that future charter reviews require consultation with the Maori partner and that broadcasting services uphold and promote the Treaty relationship. However it is not just about introducing a Treaty clause; it is also about the participation and involvement of Maori in helping to ensure that the highway to the future for Radio New Zealand truly does reflect tangata whenua interests as the indigenous peoples of this great country. 
We were initially concerned that any statutory review of the Radio New Zealand charter could be conducted without being required to undertake any formal consultation with Maori. In getting to this stage Radio New Zealand conducted a preliminary review of the charter followed by public consultation on the reviewed charter. The new draft was considered by the select committee and is reflected in the bill. 
We believe that future reviews of the charter need to include consultation with Maori including Te Whakaruruhau. We appreciate that section 50 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 assesses the extent to which as an entity Radio New Zealand fulfils the charter expectations of its performance on an annual basis. We therefore recommend that annual assessments of performance against the charter should take Maori views into account. Future assessments should take into account the views of Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Maori the national federation of Maori radio stations; Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori the Maori Language Commission; and Te Mangai Paho. 
Finally although much of the new charter is a tidy-up of wording and grouping of the provisions there seems to be only one notable deletion which is the programming of interests for minority audiences. We believe that we should reinstate a provision to provide programming of interest to minority audiences. 
We support the bill at its first reading but we want to make it quite clear that we require consultation to be undertaken with Maori separate to the select committee process. The Crown’s duty to protect and promote te tino rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu in respect of their taonga is also to be carried out by State-run cultural institutions such as Radio New Zealand. To ensure that that does take place we recommend in the strongest way that before the bill proceeds further specific and genuine consultation is undertaken with Te Puni Kokiri Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Maori Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and Te Mangai Paho. We will then look forward to seeing the considered views of Maori about the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill when it comes before the select committee. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill tonight. The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act of 1995 and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter that has resulted from a parliamentary review required by the Act. This charter is reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals to ensure that the charter stays current in the changing environment that we live in. Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft is considered as part of the Commerce Committee’s review and is reflected in this bill. No other review was performed apart from the select committee review when it was taken into consideration. Formulating a charter is considered to be best practice for public broadcasters. 
Radio New Zealand began its charter review process by examining the charters of various comparable public broadcasters including those of the United Kingdom Australia and Canada. The review sought to ensure that the revised draft was expressed as a set of aspirations in simple and accessible language. It was also to be technology neutral and to differentiate Radio New Zealand clearly from commercial broadcasters. It is very important that we maintain that difference and that gap so it is unique in its own right. The draft of the revised charter was approved for public discussion by Radio New Zealand’s board of governors and the Minister of Broadcasting. Radio New Zealand then initiated an extensive consultation process. On-air promotions broadcast 37 times on Radio New Zealand National and 17 times on Radio New Zealand Concert between 18 October and 2 November 2005. The deadline for public responses was pretty rapid on 4 November and Radio New Zealand estimated that the on-air promotions reached 16 percent of all New Zealanders aged 15 and over. And 16 percent is not a bad hit for the people it wanted to touch in order for them to put in a submission or a view on how the charter would affect them in their lives. 
It is important that we ensure that we protect this charter and the integrity of the programmes that are made under it. More important Radio New Zealand estimates that 460000 of its listeners heard the charter review information at least once. That number of 460000 is a big touch. Not many people can provide that number when we ask for submissions on a normal inquiry. It is an approach that we should maybe have for all submissions if we can get a touch like that at 460000. Some 118 individuals and organisations that had made submissions on the previous charter review in 2000 were invited directly to make submissions as were those who had commented on issues relating to Radio New Zealand in the intervening 5 years. In addition there were approximately 3000 hits on the charter review section of the Radio New Zealand website during the public consultation process. So the public had a wonderful chance to be informed to understand exactly how the charter would impact on them and to have an input into that process. 
The Commerce Committee chose a great democratic process. A total of 165 submissions were received and analysed for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. As a result eight minor amendments were made to the draft charter. A copy of this charter was provided to the Ministers and it was appended and presented to the House. The public consultation process was considered to be of a satisfactory standard so it was unnecessary to conduct a public submission to go through the matter and to get people’s opinions. It was interesting though that the select committee went on to say that it wanted to ensure and strongly recommend the retention of the word “spiritual” in the charter. That desire came through very clearly in submissions and it was good to see that this stayed in and appears in the context of the requirement that Radio New Zealand endeavour to “contribute towards intellectual and spiritual development:”. So that element which had come very strongly from submitters was maintained. The interaction between religion and international politics has become one of the most significant issues in many parts of the world; therefore it was good to see that that will be well-covered in Radio New Zealand’s programming. 
The charter states that the purpose of Radio New Zealand is to be a public broadcaster which is followed by provisions stating how it achieves that purpose through delivery of its services. The adoption of the revised charter supports the Government’s manifesto commitment that provides certainty to the operations of public broadcasters. And that is very important. If we want to keep our high standard of public broadcasters we have to ensure a certainty of the operations—that they will be going from year to year and even for much longer. This charter is for a 5-year period so it is important we have a vision in place and some aspirations and a framework in which our top-class public broadcasters will stay with Radio New Zealand. The revised wording streamlines and clarifies the charter especially by defining “commercial-free” but does not materially alter the role and expectations of Radio New Zealand. 
The amendment charter is divided into two key parts: purpose and delivery. The first makes an explicit statement on Radio New Zealand’s purpose as being “to serve the public interest.” and how this can be achieved through public broadcasting principles. The part about serving the public interest is interesting in itself because many people have a different definition of what a public interest actually is. It is good that this charter has kept that wide so that we can have a broad range of programmes running through Radio New Zealand and a broad range of ideas coming forward as to what programmes there should be in the future as our society changes and the needs of listeners change as well—as do the demographics to a certain extent. The second part expands on delivery: the way that Radio New Zealand can deliver the charter. The bill is consistent with the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the bill clarifies that the clock will not start ticking on the next 5-yearly review until the bill comes into law. That takes into account the fact that there may be a significant time lag between the start of a review and a new charter coming into force. So it will not necessarily be 5 years exactly but it will be around the 5-year period. 
The previous Government had proposed to disestablish Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company and to establish it as an autonomous Crown entity. This will not go ahead because there is no compelling reason for that change. An appropriate balance of independence operational flexibility and well-understood transparency and accountability measures are best served by maintaining Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company. The corporate form provides a flexible operational framework backed up by a well-established and transparent set of Government responsibilities. It can accommodate both commercial and non-commercial entities. Examples of not-for-profit companies include primary health organisations and Catholic school health boards. Crown research institutes are an example of Crown entity companies that like Radio New Zealand have a significant public service character and are constituted as companies. It is my pleasure to support this bill here tonight. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 For anybody who is still awake after that last member’s speech I tell them that that was Katrina Shanks from the National Party showing the true degree of enthusiasm that National has for the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. Commitment and passion for public radio dripped from every word we just heard from Katrina Shanks! 
The Labour Party supports this bill because it confirms the important role of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster. Labour believes in public broadcasting and has invested in it over a long period of time. We believe that it is important that New Zealanders hear their own voices and their own stories. In a time when we have a plethora of choices in the media market we still have a public broadcaster that we know will reflect who we are. The charter is a very important part of that and this bill is an important part of that too. 
I will reflect briefly on some of the history around Radio New Zealand; we have already heard a bit of it in the debate tonight. I particularly want to talk about the period after 1988 when Radio New Zealand was a State-owned enterprise and eventually became a Crown-owned company in the 1990s. It was a very difficult time for Radio New Zealand. Year upon year in the 1990s we saw budget cuts for Radio New Zealand’s budget: $10 million a year was taken out of Radio New Zealand in the 1990s. That was a perilous state for our public broadcaster to be in. I see that Tony Ryall is with us tonight and is making some interjections. In 1993 at the time that money was being taken out of Radio New Zealand this is what Tony Ryall had to say about the broadcaster: “I believe that we should be putting up for tender the provision of a concert programme network and the provision of a national radio network. At present it costs taxpayers some $20 million to provide those networks but those services could be provided to an equivalent if not better standard by an alternative provider.” A translation of that is: “Flick it off sell it and privatise it.” I am quite sure that Tony Ryall has not changed his view about Radio New Zealand one iota. In fact it would be interesting to hear from Mr Ryall to see whether he has. I do not believe that National is truly committed to Radio New Zealand. It is a good thing that this bill has come forward. It is a Labour bill and it ensures that the charter will now be able to be implemented in a proper way. But I do not believe that National’s commitment to public broadcasting is anything more than skin deep. 
My colleague Sue Kedgley has already spoken tonight about National’s attitude towards Television New Zealand and the other charter we had in place to govern public broadcasting. That has gone and we have not really heard from Jonathan Coleman how Television New Zealand will continue to fulfil its important role as a public broadcaster over the next few years. We know that in the past the National Party has not been very keen on the notion of social responsibility in public broadcasting but tonight all of a sudden social responsibility is back on the agenda. Ms Kedgley is a more charitable person than I am and she has been congratulating National on that. I am not convinced and one of the reasons I am not convinced is that as we have already heard tonight the funding for Radio New Zealand has been frozen at $34 million a year. Over the next 4 years no new money will be coming in for Radio New Zealand so how will it be able to fulfil its obligations under the charter to be a public broadcaster that all New Zealanders can be proud of? It is not just the Labour Party that is raising these concerns. An editorial in the 
 Otago Daily Times 
 recently said: “Frozen funding means no pay rises no money to meet inevitable rising costs no money for infrastructural development and no money to meet new trends and developments in the medium. That does not augur well for such an admired and critical part of our broadcasting services.” That is what the editorial in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 said. The paper could see through National’s rhetoric on this bill. 
In 1995 when the charter was brought in Sharon Crosbie said that the charter was a document to be “waved at the Treasury NZ On Air Rotary groups staff and the board. The Ministry might reinterpret the charter each year but it is now nailed to the door … to … protect public radio”. That is what a charter can do for public broadcasting. No matter what is slung at the charter and no matter what ridiculous political accusations such as those we heard from Sir Roger Douglas tonight are flung at it it is a charter in law that protects and provides for New Zealanders a public radio service that can reflect them and their values. That is an essential thing. Sharon Crosbie was alluding to the fact that there were people in Treasury and other places in our system who would like to see Radio New Zealand flicked off. There still are. As I said before I think that Tony Ryall is one of those people and I am sure that others in the National caucus also believe that. 
Public broadcasting in the digital age is more important than ever. We hear a lot from National about the importance of choice. In the media world we have so much choice. We can have programmes and content delivered through the Internet television and radio—a huge variety of sources. Some may ask why we need public broadcasting in that environment. It is all out there; we can all go and get it. We need it because it is important to our identity. It is important to our sense of who we are. 
I was reflecting on this the other day when I was watching the programme on Sunday morning that follows  
Q+A  
on Television One. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mr Garrett would know about that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes Mr Garrett has been on the  
Q+A 
 programme.  
Attitude 
 is the programme that follows  
Q+A 
 and it is about New Zealand’s disability sector. It is one of the most amazing incredible and insightful programmes. Radio New Zealand also has a programme on the disability sector called  
One in Five 
. Again this is incredibly important programming that in the fully commercial environment would not see the light of day. We need public broadcasting to bring forward the stories of New Zealanders that we simply would not hear in a commercial environment. 
We need to be able to do this in different ways. Radio New Zealand’s website is something that it can justifiably be very proud of. The website allows an incredible amount of access to sound archives and is listened to around the world by expatriate New Zealanders. Radio New Zealand staff are developing their craft in terms of the new media of delivery of broadcasting. That is something that needs to be supported and invested in but is not being supported and invested in because funds have been frozen by this Government. 
I will speak about something that has not been talked about in the debate tonight that comes under new section 8(5)(l) of the charter inserted by clause 5. It states that Radio New Zealand should: “include an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. We generally know that service as Radio New Zealand International. The Radio New Zealand International service is highly regarded and appreciated across the Pacific. It keeps people in far-flung islands in the Pacific in touch with world events through a range of programming relevant to them. It is an incredibly important part of New Zealand’s relationship with the Pacific. I do not think that it has always been appreciated as well as it could be by Governments of all sides in terms of the role it plays in New Zealand’s being a positive influence in the Pacific. I have a grave concern that over a number of years it has not received the funding it needs to ensure that New Zealand continues to be an important part of the lives of people in the Pacific. So although it is good to see the service reflected in the charter the fact that funding has been frozen supports the notion that Radio New Zealand International will not be developed by Radio New Zealand. The service has the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and NZAID which are also under attack from this Government. I am concerned that Radio New Zealand International will not be able to fulfil the charter requirements we see today. 
The bill does some very important and significant things. It puts in place principles of operation to allow the charter to work. It is worth reading these out because they actually show the value of having a 5-yearly review process such as we have for this charter. The review showed that Radio New Zealand needs something to back up its principles of operation. Now we have a public radio company that must: “in fulfilling its Charter exhibit a sense of social responsibility by—(a) having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates; and (b) endeavouring to accommodate or encourage those interests when able to do so.” It sets up Radio New Zealand as an institution that will be socially responsible and promote New Zealand’s identity. 
This is a good bill; it is a Labour bill. I am very pleased that the National Government has picked it up but we need a greater commitment from the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman to public broadcasting that all New Zealanders can be proud of. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It seems like a lifetime ago when I last spoke in this House. It is a pleasure to be standing here tonight to speak in this Whare. Kia ora tatou. Before I talk about the bill I will go through some things Mr Robertson mentioned. The Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter has disappeared according to him. It has not disappeared. I tell Mr Robertson that it has not gone anywhere. Perhaps he should study it a little bit more. The TVNZ charter did not disappear; it is being managed by New Zealand On Air so that it can provide transparency. TVNZ did nothing with the charter money—absolutely nothing. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
:  
Willy Nilly 
 got funded. 
MELISSA LEE 
:  
Willy Nilly 
 got funded apparently. Mr Robertson also talked about the wonderful programme called  
Attitude 
. I agree with him that it is absolutely fantastic. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the claim that the TVNZ charter did nothing. It funded a programme the MP was involved in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That was not a point of order. Order is about order. That was a debatable point and the member was being discourteous by interrupting the member’s speech. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I will correct Mr Burns. The charter money did not fund  
Asia Down Under 
—I will get to that subject. Mr Robertson talked about the  
Attitude 
 programme and he was right—Robyn Scott-Vincent and the production team do a wonderful job. But that funding does not come directly from the charter fund.  
Asia Down Under 
 is not funded from charter money either. It is so typical of members opposite to mislead people—so very typical. Jacinda Ardern mentioned that I parked apparently in a disabled car park. I remind people that I took a cab and left my car at home—so what was that about being misleading? 
The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter that has come about as a result of a parliamentary review that was completed in 2006 as required by the Act. Although it is a small bill it speaks volumes beyond its few pages. Do members know why? The Radio New Zealand Act 1995 requires that the charter be reviewed at 5-yearly intervals. After the last review of Radio New Zealand was completed in 2006—after a preliminary review that was followed by a public consultation process on the revised charter—the previous Labour Government should have done what this Government is proposing to do tonight. The select committee of the day recommended the charter. The previous Labour Government never finished the job. That is how committed the Labour Party is to public broadcasting! Well are we not lucky that the John Key - led National Government cares about public broadcasting and that the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman is making sure we get on with the programme? That is unlike the previous Government which never finished the job—it never did it right. 
The amended charter is divided into two parts: purpose and delivery. Before I get on to the purpose and delivery of the charter as reflected in the bill I will take a moment to talk a little about the vibrancy of radio and the important role it plays in our daily lives. The sheer speed at which it happens is absolutely incredible. I have never worked in radio but as someone who once worked in television I found that compared with television radio has speed simplicity and connectivity with the public. I used to get rather jealous of my colleagues who worked in radio. 
I am an avid listener to the radio. Instead of the latest single that my son would rather I listen to while I am driving I like to listen to talkback radio when I get the time. Often talkback is one way of gauging what people around New Zealand are concerned incensed or even passionate about. Perhaps some of those members opposite should ring up talkback radio stations and get their anger out and sorted. Radio—in particular Radio New Zealand—provides a raft of programming that commercial radio does not cater for such as children’s drama the Radio New Zealand Concert programme and poetry reading to name just a few things that do not happen on commercially driven radio stations. Radio New Zealand’s radio drama is incredibly engaging and even without pictures and special effects by using just sound it can inspire and trigger great imagination which I believe is incredibly powerful. 
The purpose of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster is to “serve the public interest”. That purpose supports the National Government’s commitment to providing certainty to the operations of public broadcasters and that is a good thing. The revised wording suggested by the bill streamlines and clarifies the Radio New Zealand charter. For example clause 4 amends section 2 of the Radio New Zealand Act by defining “commercial-free” to mean “without advertising or sponsorship; but (b) to avoid doubt does not include announcements by Radio New Zealand of its own services”. 
Grant Robertson 
: Say “I don’t know.” 
MELISSA LEE 
: What this means I say to Mr Robertson is that although Radio New Zealand is commercial-free it can run its own station advertising as is common in television and radio to promote its own brand or programmes. Perhaps the Labour Party should try that. 
Proposed new section 8(5) deals with the delivery of service—which the previous Labour Government was very lax in doing never even completing the process during its term—in Radio New Zealand’s endeavour to serve the public interest. That is the bit I really care and am pleased about. In my maiden speech I spoke about my concern for New Zealand’s youth as they become exposed to more and more overseas content than our very own New Zealand content. The revised charter puts in plain language what is expected of Radio New Zealand in that regard stating that in its endeavour to provide the highest quality it must provide content that is “predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand”. To me that is absolutely wonderful because I have a 10-year-old child who can now listen to the radio and hear about New Zealand. 
The delivery provisions further state that Radio New Zealand’s services must “inform entertain and enlighten the people of New Zealand” and that the content must be “challenging innovative and engaging” unlike some members opposite. It also demands that services must reflect the diversity that exists in culture drama comedy literature and the performing arts. They must also reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity including Maori language te reo and Maori culture. This one I really like: services must “provide comprehensive independent accurate impartial and balanced regional national and international news and current affairs:” which I have to say are lacking in our media sometimes. 
Stuart Nash 
: Is this another speech Jonathan wrote for you? 
Chris Hipkins 
: “The Maestro” wrote it. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Ha ha! Oh dear! It is so good to be back in the House. The amazing thing about radio is that it has the function of reliving some of the most historic moments in our history. I remember Sir Edmund Hillary climbing Mount Everest. 
Stuart Nash 
: You remember that? 
MELISSA LEE 
: I do not remember it because I had not been born then but the thing is that when I heard the story on the radio I could picture it. Radio has an amazing function. 
This amendment bill clarifies the uncertainty Radio New Zealand had previously over its status. The previous Government proposed to disestablish Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company and establish it as an autonomous entity. But in Minister Coleman’s wisdom—and I am sure Radio New Zealand will breathe a sigh of relief—that will not go ahead. Radio New Zealand can go about its business of producing good local New Zealand content. 
It is lovely to be back in this New Zealand Parliament as a member of Parliament. Regardless of what Labour members might say this bill is a National Government bill and the Minister is finishing what the previous Government should have done but which it never did for years and years. I commend this bill to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter. That new charter results from a parliamentary review which was required by the Act. This bill began under the previous Labour Government so we support it. Over the past decade New Zealand has undergone a quantum shift in terms of how we view ourselves. Our public broadcasters have had an important role to play in that process and Labour was a leader in making that happen. This bill has been delayed for 2 or 3 years. We acknowledge that and there were reasons for that delay. But let us not forget that it was Labour that initiated the review of the Radio New Zealand charter. 
Under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 Radio New Zealand’s charter is required to be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The second parliamentary review was completed in 2006. In preparation for that review Radio New Zealand conducted a preliminary review followed by public consultation on a revised charter. Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft was considered as part of the Commerce Committee’s review and is reflected in this bill. The charter in new section 8 inserted by clause 5 of the bill states that the purpose of Radio New Zealand is to be a public broadcaster followed by provisions stating how it achieves that purpose through the delivery of its services. Radio New Zealand began its charter review process by examining the charters of various comparable public broadcasters including those of the United Kingdom Australia and Canada. The review sought to ensure that the revised draft charter was expressed as a set of aspirations in simple and accessible language. It was also meant to be technology neutral and to differentiate Radio New Zealand clearly from commercial broadcasters. 
The changes in the charter are positive. It is updated it is given a clearer focus on the technological changes that are taking place and it acknowledges the increasing use of podcasts and web technology. It upholds that Radio New Zealand is a State-owned entity that should not be influenced by commercial interests which is not the case with other public broadcasters particularly Australia’s multicultural Special Broadcasting Service or “SBS” which has recently started to run advertisements. So I tell members not to presume that because we have an excellent Radio New Zealand National that will always be the case and that it will not be subject to pressure to partially fund itself with advertising. The charter does away with any requirement for a return on funds and we understand that Radio New Zealand is pleased with this bill. It is pleased the bill has passed through all the hoops and is now back before Parliament for a final conclusion. So we are very pleased that this bill is before the House and that the National Government is supporting it. 
It is all very well though for the Government to bring in this legislation and say it is committed to Radio New Zealand being a “great watchdog for democracy” as the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathon Coleman has done while at the same time freezing the funding for that great watchdog and having very little policy in place to build on it. It is one thing to praise an organisation; that is easy. But it is quite another thing to starve that organisation of funding. The previous Labour Government was committed to providing strong baseline funding for Radio New Zealand. We were committed to a strong broadcasting system and we do not believe that the National Government is. Frozen funding means no pay rises no money to meet the inevitable rising costs no money for infrastructural development and no money to meet new trends and developments in the medium. As the  
Otago Daily Times  
assistant editor Simon Cunliffe wrote in an opinion piece in that newspaper this morning “that does not augur well for such an admired and critical part of our broadcasting services.” 
I am a former journalist—a print journalist not in radio—but I have a passion and a commitment to the craft of journalism the ethics that underpin it and the importance of the fourth estate in contributing to a strong and vibrant democracy. I am also the Opposition spokesperson on communications and information technology and I understand the importance of what is called “convergence” which is the inevitable converging of information and communications technology and broadcasting. That is happening right now and it is resulting in new ways of delivering and receiving traditional media and information. So I will talk about the differences between Labour’s and National’s policies in this area. 
Despite the National Government’s support for this legislation the Government has virtually no policy on broadcasting and no policy on the convergence of the media and information and communication technology. Instead National has frozen the funding for Radio New Zealand National and Concert FM for the next 4 years. National’s broadcasting policy is a joke. With regard to radio in essence the policy states that there will be continued funding for Radio New Zealand National the National Pacific Radio Trust Board and Access Radio but it does not state anything about freezing that funding. That is all the stated policy about radio. 
In comparison Labour’s policy was far more comprehensive and visionary. It states: “The radio broadcasting sector in New Zealand is one of the most successful and competitive in the world. The mix of commercial and non-commercial radio broadcasting provides a wide range of choices for New Zealanders. But changing technology is providing both challenges and opportunities for the radio industry. Labour is committed to ensuring that diversity in our radio broadcasting continues to provide New Zealanders with programming across interest groups and technologies. … Labour will ensure the availability of diverse programming on radio through both national and local radio broadcasters.” 
Labour’s policy goes on to state: “Ten years ago … New Zealand music airplay was at 7.5 percent. Radio New Zealand was under-funded and largely available only on the AM frequency. Today … New Zealand music airplay is between 19 percent and 20 percent. Radio New Zealand is available on AM and FM as well as streaming online and by podcast.” Radio New Zealand’s website which is a pretty incredible website really has something like 6 million hits a year. That website was developed under the Labour Government and there was more to come in that area. I would be very interested to know what National’s policy is in this area. Labour’s policy also points out: “Access Radio has more funding available as well as funding for specific projects. National Pacific Radio Trust is broadcasting programmes by and for Pacific peoples throughout New Zealand.” We would like to know a bit more about National’s policy in that area too. 
Labour’s policy vision is: “Ten years from now … New Zealand radio should be available in digital form to New Zealanders around the world on any technology that they choose. This will include radio by and for the diverse range of ethnicities and interest groups that make up New Zealand society.” The pro-competitive policies that Labour introduced during the telecommunications stocktake are driving the convergence of many technologies. We are seeing that convergence in every aspect of our lives. Digital media and content now impact on the lives of all New Zealanders in some way. Labour believes that all New Zealanders benefit from the convergence of information and communications technology and the broadcasting industries. I have not heard a word out of National members about any of these matters.  
In the last decade the Internet and other forms of communication such as cellphones have increasingly become vehicles for broadcasting and traditional broadcasting receivers such as television have become more interactive. This will continue to be the case in the future. It is important therefore that we ensure that the regulatory environment keeps pace with technological changes to ensure that New Zealanders receive safe competitive and high-quality services regardless of the medium through which they are accessing those services. Labour wants New Zealanders to have the best possible access to digital content especially content that is produced locally. We would have encouraged more innovative ventures such as the New Zealand On Screen and New Zealand On Air projects which are making much of our rich cultural heritage available online and free of charge. We will keep working to develop policies that ensure that New Zealanders have better access to important local content. Labour recognises the importance to New Zealand of digital content. Labour’s digital content strategy sought to recognise and leverage content to our advantage. That content strategy shares the same vision as the National Digital Strategy for New Zealand to be a world leader in using information and technology in order to realise its economic social environmental and cultural goals for the benefit of all its people.  
We believe that public broadcasting plays a vital role in nation building. We have a conviction that public broadcasting should not be left to the market. The Government needs to be looking comprehensively at whether the needs of all New Zealanders are being met. Public broadcasting needs to be properly funded. I commend the bill to the House. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I thank the member from the other side Clare Curran for her speech. She said there would have been “more to come” from the previous Labour Government. I am sure New Zealanders would be interested to know how that would have been paid for and what sort of increase in expenditure would have been necessary to deliver the “more to come” the member mentioned. 
In New Zealand a thousand voices are all talking their talk saying different things creating a very interesting soundscape of New Zealand life. What is unique about the Radio New Zealand charter is that Radio New Zealand seeks to be an impartial voice. It seeks to operate in the public interest and though it needs to be commercially viable it does not cede to commercial pressure. 
The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. It presents a revised charter that states the purpose of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster followed by provisions stating how it is to achieve that purpose through delivery of its services. This bill which presents the updated charter though not necessarily controversial or dramatic or something that will attract heated debate across the House quietly contains some very pertinent reflections on a nation of people who are diverse blended and engaged together in the expression of democracy. 
The Radio New Zealand annual report states that “Every day Radio New Zealand captures and reflects the thoughts opinions and information we want to share as a nation in programmes that contribute towards our broader collective understanding help us follow what is going on in our own country and stay in touch with developments in the world around us.” 
As a kid I could never ever understand why my parents used to enjoy watching the news. I was much more interested in cartoons. Perhaps some of the older members of the House may remember some of the programmes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gerry likes cartoons too. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Well I must admit that certain warm feelings come to me if I ever see  
Captain Pugwash 
  
Clutch Cargo 
  
Gigantor 
 or  
Huckleberry Hound 
. I can tell that some members in the House tonight felt warm fuzzy feelings as I mentioned those names. What I discovered was that the older I became the more interesting Radio New Zealand became. My son would say that the older I became the more boring I became. I would say that one of the interesting things about Radio New Zealand is that it captures and reflects the thoughts opinions and information we want to share as a nation. It captures our culture and reflects it back to us. It causes New Zealanders to think. There are many programmes on Radio New Zealand that I enjoy every week and I learn many things. It is reality radio. The charter is not just legislation; it is a living guide. 
The amended charter is divided into two parts: firstly its purpose and secondly its delivery. The first part explicitly states that Radio New Zealand’s purpose is to serve the public interest and that this is to be achieved through public broadcasting principles. The second part expands on delivery. As an independent and commercial-free public service broadcaster Radio New Zealand National seeks to serve the public interest. An independent broadcaster is free from political influence or preference. Being commercial free it is free from commercial influence or preference. It is owned by the public to act in the public’s best interests. 
Independence is a critical key in ensuring that our public broadcaster has the confidence of New Zealanders that its content is unbiased and factually correct—that it is true—and that without bias it serves the best interests of the public without fear or favour without political persuasion but based on merit. Of course this charter not only speaks to the necessity of those with political or commercial interests not exerting their influence in inappropriate ways but also just as important places on broadcasters the serious responsibility to maintain their editorial independence and integrity in the execution of their responsibilities and duties. It is a reflection of the true professionalism of the media which New Zealanders greatly appreciate. 
When we stand strong on those principles we serve democracy well in ensuring that Radio New Zealand does not make the news but reports it; does not create opinions but accurately reflects the views and opinions of New Zealanders in a legitimate and appropriate way. In this regard the public broadcasting service of Radio New Zealand is a contributor to how democracy is reported protected and promoted in New Zealand life. It offers a mouthpiece to the voices of this nation. Once again protecting this voice rests very strongly on the board of Radio New Zealand and the principle ensconced in the charter of serving the public interest of New Zealanders. 
When we use the term “broadcasting” it lends itself to two definitions. Firstly it speaks of transmission over a broad area and secondly it speaks of the content appealing to a broad range of people—having a wide appeal to a wide audience and acting in such a way as to serve the public interest. So there is a responsibility in the charter for our public service broadcaster to bridge different communities providing that which is of value not only to single sectors of our society but also to the community at large. It supports the people of New Zealand. Every culture has its values a mixture of traditions of the past and aspirations for the future. Section 8A(1) in clause 5 states that Radio New Zealand “must in fulfilling its Charter exhibit a sense of”—and we have heard this term—“social responsibility by—(a) having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates; and (b) endeavouring to accommodate or encourage those interests when able to do so.” Although we are many and diverse we are all New Zealanders. 
Radio New Zealand is charged with the responsibility of reflecting expression that is distinctly and predominantly New Zealand but how that is defined is an abstract and organic process because our culture is constantly changing shape. In seeking to fulfil such an obligation the charter states—section 8(5) in clause 5—that Radio New Zealand is to “ (d) foster critical thought and informed and wide-ranging debate: (e) stimulate support and reflect the diversity of cultural expression including drama comedy literature and the performing arts: (f) stimulate support and reflect a wide range of music including New Zealand composition and performance: (g) reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity including Maori language and culture: (h) provide awareness of the world and of New Zealand’s place in it: (i) provide comprehensive independent accurate impartial and balanced regional national and international news and current affairs: (j) provide programmes which balance special interest with those of wide appeal recognising the interests of all age groups: (k) contribute towards intellectual and spiritual development: (l) include an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. I believe that if we have a radio service such as this we have something that we can all be justly proud of in New Zealand. 
It is my pleasure to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act requires the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to conduct a review of the Act after 2 years of its operation. This bill is the result of a proactive assessment of the Act which looked at whether the operation of the legislation is meeting the intended policy goals. The bill makes a number of amendments to improve the legislation’s workability and operation. 
As an ACT Party Minister in the National-led Government I am very supportive of such proactive assessments of the relevance and effectiveness of legislation. Legislation should achieve its stated intention without imposing unnecessary and unforeseen side effects. The principal Act came into force in December 2003. It introduced a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders. This regime served to make traders more accountable but it also offered people more flexibility to participate in the industry. New information disclosure requirements for used motor vehicles were introduced and the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal was established to offer consumers a forum for the hearing of complaints against traders. 
The policy that underpins the principal Act has several core elements: a requirement for motor vehicle traders to be registered requirements for information disclosure concerning used motor vehicles and a provision for consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The review of the Act by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs considered how those elements were operating. The review identified areas where the Act’s operation would benefit from amendment. The review report which was tabled in the House in March 2008 was followed by further consultation on the review’s recommendations and that has led to the amendments set out in this bill. 
The bill makes amendments to the renewal of annual registration by motor vehicle traders. At present an individual who is applying to become a director of a motor vehicle trading company must supply a statutory declaration with his or her initial application. That person is then required to provide an annual statutory declaration as part of the registration renewal process. The requirement is onerous costly and serves no purpose if the person’s details have not changed. The bill amends the renewal procedure to allow a company secretary to confirm to the registrar that the information held on the registry about the company is correct. In particular companies with directors who are based overseas will benefit from reduced compliance costs as a result of a small legislative change. 
Acceptance or refusal of a renewal application by the registrar will remain essentially the same as it is currently. However at present people can be appointed as directors between annual registrations without any check on their suitability. Accordingly it is proposed that the Act be amended to require that notification of a new director or of the appointment of an individual who is involved in the company’s management be accompanied by a statutory declaration as to the person’s suitability for registration. Again this is just a small legislative change but it is one that brings added protections to consumers that unsuitable persons are not legally able to become motor vehicle traders. 
There is a further loophole in the current legislation that allows unregistered traders or those whose registration has lapsed at the time of their conviction for certain offences or at the time of their going into bankruptcy to not be automatically banned from trading as a motor vehicle dealer in the future. Such traders can currently continue to sell motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to ban them. That process can take some months and incurs costs to the Government. This bill closes that loophole and proposes that such a person can be automatically banned without being registered under the Act if he or she met specific criteria such as convictions for crimes of dishonesty or going into a second bankruptcy within 10 years of the first. 
The Act currently requires private sellers to display a consumer information notice or window card containing information on the trader cost vehicle registration warrant of fitness and other important details when selling through a car market. In all other circumstances private sellers do not have to display a consumer information notice. These notices are prescribed by regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 must be completed and displayed by traders when selling used motor vehicles and must list the consumer’s rights when purchasing from a trader. The current requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice is confusing for private sellers and for consumers who are often under the impression that they have more rights than they actually do. The requirement also creates compliance costs for car market traders who spend much time ensuring that private sellers complete the forms and it diverts much of the Commerce Commission’s enforcement time. 
Under this bill traders who use car markets will still need to display the notices and car market operators will have a specific obligation to ensure that this happens. The bill also removes the requirement to display a consumer information notice for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers. This is an unnecessary compliance cost on such traders as it provides no value to either party. 
The bill provides for costs to be awarded against a trader who does not attend a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal hearing without good cause. Although the existing legislation already provides for the awarding of costs against a complainant for non-attendance this provision does not extend to non-attendance by a trader even though many hearings are held near the trader’s premises. That creates a perverse incentive for traders to be absent from the hearing as they know that costs cannot be awarded against them and it causes inconvenience and cost to consumers. This amendment should lead to consumers having more timely access to redress. 
Changes are also made in order to improve transparency through amendments to the tribunal’s reporting requirements set out in the Act. The changes will allow all decisions of the tribunal to be made public. Through publication of the tribunal’s decisions both motor vehicle traders and consumers will benefit by learning about what they can expect under the law. Consumer advocacy groups will also be better informed and better able to pass their knowledge on to their clients. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and enforcement agencies will be better positioned to assess the effectiveness of the tribunal and to monitor for any systemic issues within the industry. 
Lastly I bring it to the attention of the House that the bill increases the financial limit for the operation of the tribunal from $50000 to $100000. This change in the limit reflects consultation with the tribunal industry and consumer organisations. It also recognises that motor vehicles both new and used may cost in excess of $50000. This change future-proofs the financial limit and it provides protection to consumers who purchase high-end vehicles. Regardless of consumers’ financial means they can still have difficulty in gaining redress from a motor vehicle trader. The change in the limit allows consumers to have their issues heard in the appropriate forum. 
The changes I have outlined will strengthen the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. They are designed both to reduce unnecessary compliance costs to the industry and to improve consumer protections and give consumers better access to dispute resolution through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal in relation to vehicle purchases. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be supporting the first reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. It is somewhat ironic and it may be symbolic that we are discussing this particular bill—which in essence reduces the compliance costs for used-car dealers—today rather than focusing on in the words of the Government the issues that matter. At a time when 1100 people are losing their jobs on a weekly basis— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: A total of 1100 people are losing their jobs on a weekly basis yet the most important legislation this Government wants to bring before the House is a bill that reduces the compliance costs for used-car dealers. 
Government members think that reducing the compliance cost for used-car dealers is more important than creating jobs. They think that reducing the compliance cost for used-car dealers is more important than making sure that people can pay their mortgages. They think that it is more important than closing the wage gap with Australia. Was that not one of their key manifesto commitments at the last election? They were going to close the wage gap with Australia yet nothing has come before this House that will do anything to close the wage gap with Australia. 
This is a lazy do-nothing Government that is interested just in passing legislation most of which was developed by the previous Labour Government rather than coming up with anything original. It is not focused on the issues that matter and that is why we are debating the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill rather than legislation to get the economy moving and to create some jobs in the economy. 
It is symbolic that we are discussing used-car dealers. I ask members whether there are similarities between the approach of a used-car dealer and the approach of a lot of National members. They will tell voters anything that they want to hear so that they can make the deal even if they have absolutely no intention of sticking to their promises. They are a lot like some of the dodgy used-car dealers that the legislation passed in December 2003 was designed to target. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I’m getting a warm glow. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is dead right. The used-car dealers are more important to the National Government than people in New Zealand who are losing their jobs. 
What does this bill do? The bill amends an Act that is designed to protect consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. Although the bill is important and I reiterate that the bill is important it is certainly not addressing the most important issue facing New Zealanders at the moment. 
New Zealanders are concerned about their jobs. In fact people in the motor vehicle industry are also concerned about their jobs. A survey in January carried out by the Motor Trade Association showed that over 200 people have lost their jobs in the motor vehicle industry. A press release from the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association highlighted that a fifth of New Zealand’s 2000-plus used-car dealers have closed down in the past 6 months as the recession bites. As fewer and fewer people are employed in this industry the National Government thinks it is more and more important to deal with this industry’s concerns rather than deal with the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who on a weekly and monthly basis are losing their jobs. The National Government thinks this is the most important legislation to bring before the House. Industry groups say the closures and cut-backs at surviving dealerships have wiped out at least 10000 of the 50000 jobs in the used-car business. That is another example of jobs being lost under this National Government yet it has no real plan to do anything about it. It has absolutely no solutions. 
Recent statistics have also shown that the trend in motor vehicle retailing continues downwards. Once again we are focusing not on an issue that matters but on something that the National Government wants to put through the House just to make it look like it is doing something. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Spurious. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It spuriously looks like it is doing something rather than actually putting any legislation or any proposals before the House to create jobs. New Zealanders are looking to this Government to show some leadership and there is none. The Government is showing absolutely no leadership. 
One thing that this bill does is to remove the requirement that when people sell their car privately but use a sales lot to sell it they put a bill of sale in the window explaining what it is that someone is buying. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s compliance. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right; it is deemed to be a compliance cost. People will not have to do that any more. 
But if National was selling the car we know that the bill of sale in the window would not mean anything anyway. National members would just write down whatever they thought they had to write down in order to get someone to buy it regardless of whether they were intending to deliver what they had been promising. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Like the tax cuts. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is a lot like the tax cuts. The No. 1 promise on the bill of sale from National at the last election was the tax cuts. It passed them straight away then within 6 months it took them away again. The bill of sale from National was completely worthless. It is ironic that we are removing the requirement to put a bill of sale in a used car when someone is selling it privately on a lot but we know that if National was selling the car the bill of sale would not mean a damn thing anyway. Frankly National members like a lot of used-car dealers say whatever they like. The silver tongues over in the National Government— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s David Garrett. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —it is David Garrett who has the silver tongue—would say whatever they need to say in order to get people to buy whatever it is they want to sell regardless of whether they intend to deliver on their promises. 
This bill is symbolic of National because it thinks that reducing compliance costs for used-car dealers is more important than coming up with any kind of plan to create jobs for New Zealanders at a time when 1100 people are losing their jobs on a weekly basis. In fact it could be 1101 if Sam Lotu-Iiga would give up one of his jobs. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.