Volume 656 Week 21 - Wednesday 19 August 2009 
Volume 656 Week 21 - Wednesday 19 August 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
Wednesday 19 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subsequent to discussions and decisions at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill following its second reading to be set down for its third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Tabling of Documents 
Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a card signed by dozens of school students in Dunedin and Wellington calling on the Minister of Education Anne Tolley not to cut funding for Enviroschools. 
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. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Confidence 
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. They are all hard-working and competent Ministers who understand the large challenges faced by this country. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he agree with the Minister of Health’s decision to sanitise the report of the independent ministerial review group by removing controversial material from it before he was forced to release it this week and only after the  
Dominion Post 
 reported some of its contents on the front page? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The Minister of Health has set about tidying up the mess left by the previous Government and of course some of it will be controversial. What does the member expect? 
Hon Annette King 
: How can he and the Minister of Health claim to have released an independent report on health when the Minister of Health fiddled with the group’s recommendations and removed some of its independent views from the report in an attempt to hide an emerging National agenda of privatisation and broken promises? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite sure that the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making but that member needs to understand the size of the mess she has left. It will take a big effort to turn it round. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did the Minister of Health remove from the independent report comments that stated that spending health dollars on improving life expectancy will be an investment in growth only if people work longer before they draw taxpayer-funded superannuation; and what does his Government have to hide when everyone knows that is its view? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would agree with the Minister that the line of questions is rubbish—making it up probably. The fact is that to deliver better smarter health services to New Zealanders means we must change the health system that the previous Government left behind because the system that Government left chewed up money without much result. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Prime Minister require the Minister of Health to tell doctors and nurses that he edited out of the independent report comments that wage restraint was needed from them as well as changes to the industrial relations settings and when will the Government announce its real agenda of wage freezes on their salaries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is hardly a secret that the Government considers wage restraint to be quite important. In fact I recall the Minister of Finance making that statement in this House in full view of the public over the last several months. 
Economy—Growth 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will be required to produce balanced growth in the economy over the next few years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A change in policy to correct the economic mismanagement of the last 10 years will be required. Too much growth has been sourced from borrowing and Government spending and too little from exports and productive investment. The Government is implementing a range of policies to tilt the playing field in favour of investment saving working and exporting so that we do not go round the same cycle of excessive borrowing and spending. 
Amy Adams 
: Which parts of the economy have shown the weakest and the strongest growth in recent years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: According to GDP statistics the economy grew by 7 percent in the 5 years to March 2009. The tradable sector—that is exports tourism and anything that competes with overseas production—fell by 10 percent while the non-tradable sector grew by 15 percent. In particular over the last 5 years Government administration grew by 32 percent when the economy grew by 7 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain how cutting research and development tax credits and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes will promote exports and close the external imbalance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member and the previous Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programmes meant to encourage exports yet they dropped by 10 percent through one of the strongest periods of growth that the world economy has ever seen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain why it is a priority to increase GST to 15 percent in order to pay for cuts to the top tax rates as was suggested in the media recently by the Treasury appointee to the tax review? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The tax review has been told to give us its best advice and we expect to get that advice from it towards the end of this year or early next year. Unlike the previous Government we do not stand over our advisers and forbid particular thoughts. 
Amy Adams 
: What measures will the Government take to ensure that future growth is more sustainable? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We need to make sure that the Government does not continue to grow its spending at twice the rate of its revenue. There will be no repeat of the 32 percent increase in real Government administration costs that has occurred over the last 5 years. New Zealand’s productive base will benefit from there being increased skills and innovation better regulation and more productive infrastructure. 
Amy Adams 
: What alternative plans to ensure balanced growth has the Minister seen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The proposed solutions I have heard from the Opposition are somewhat confused. On the one hand we have the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff promising to spend more money on everything; on the other hand David Cunliffe was honest enough to acknowledge that the current account deficit had stayed high savings performance had been poor and productivity growth had been low under the previous Government. We can add that exports actually shrank despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to grow them. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: As the Minister seems to be very keen on budget cuts for Government departments and administration in general can he tell the House how much the budget for Treasury—his own department—was cut this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As it happens I have looked into that. The Treasury baseline will drop from $65 million last year to $60 million in 2 years’ time. 
Health Care—Policy 
3.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the previous Government quietly cut $150 million from Vote Health and left district health boards delivering $160 million of unfunded health services yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: On what date did the Minister first receive a draft copy of the Horn report and what changes did he require the “independent” ministerial group to make to that draft? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I did not receive a draft copy of the independent report nor did I instruct that any recommendations be changed. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will the Minister now release all material associated with the “independent” review of the health sector and allow a transparent and “sooner rather than later” submissions process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This is an independent report that is being carefully considered and I can assure the member that the Government will not agree to anything that increases bureaucracy or does not improve front-line services. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: With regard to better health care for young women what is the Minister’s response to reports from an American Government study released today which apparently raises questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The safety of the Gardasil vaccine is being continuously monitored in New Zealand by Medsafe and the independent centre for adverse reactions monitoring. Up to 14 August 162000 doses of Gardasil were given in New Zealand and there were 166 reported adverse events. That is 0.1 percent. Of these adverse events only one is classified as serious. I am advised that it is considered unlikely this event was caused by the vaccine. Authorities are clear: based on our experience in New Zealand they consider that the benefits of Gardasil in the prevention of cervical cancer clearly outweigh the possible risks of side effects and they consider it safe for New Zealand girls and women. New Zealand authorities continue to monitor international evidence and our experience here at home. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does the Minister now agree that his Government made a tragic mistake in slashing funding for programmes for healthy eating designed to reduce long-term health needs without any evidence that they were not working? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects. What the Government has done is sought more balance in the approach between physical activity and nutrition. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What responses has he seen in relation to the public release of the ministerial group report? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There have been a number of informed responses.  
New Zealand Doctor 
 says that primary care gives the “thumbs up” to the report. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 has said the Government “must move fast on health reform” and the  
Timaru Herald 
 says “the report looks like a good start.” The Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson says that all the recommendations in this report need to be considered. He is backing the key recommendation on quality. He says “We need to do this. There is a strong case for it but we need to do it in a more effective way than we are doing currently under the quality improvement committee with different DHBs taking a lead.” 
Kevin Hague 
: Given that diet is the biggest single influence on lifetime health status what are the Minister’s programmes to reduce diet-related illness in the long run given the ministerial review group’s projections for future unaffordable health needs? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The programmes that were in place under the previous Government continue in that area. This Government has also announced a number of initiatives with a particular initiative around sport for young New Zealanders which will contribute to physical activity. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What discussions did the Minister or any of his staff have with the chair of the Health Committee who today voted against the select committee hearing submissions from the public about the Horn report? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have very regular discussions with the chair of the Health Committee and I must say that in our last discussion we talked about the rather poor state of the questions asked by the member opposite in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister asked a fairly clear question and did not deserve the last part of that answer. Had the Minister sat down a little earlier I might have been less concerned but I invite the member to repeat her question so all the House can hear it and the Minister can answer it again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What discussions did the Minister or any of his staff have with the chair of the Health Committee who today voted against the select committee hearing submissions from the public about the Horn report? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have regular conversations with the chair of the Health Committee. Today’s decision I am sure was a decision of the committee. 
Schools Sports Funding—Kiwisport 
4.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about sport in schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister John Key announced Kiwisport a new initiative that sees $82 million invested in young Kiwis over the next 4 years. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in direct funding to schools over the next 4 years— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s only for private schools. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member does not like it does he! A further $37 million is going to a regional partnership fund— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I say to members opposite that the Minister is right beside me yet I cannot hear her answer. I am sure that the House the question having been asked is interested in hearing the answer. I invite the Minister to go back to the start of her answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Last week the Prime Minister John Key announced Kiwisport a new initiative that sees $82 million invested in young Kiwis over the next 4 years. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in direct funding to schools over the next 4 years with a further $37 million to go to a regional partnership fund for initiatives involving clubs schools and community groups to support sport for school-age children. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen about Kiwisport? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen the reported comments of the College Sport chief executive who welcomed the announcement and said that Kiwisport would give secondary schools much more flexibility in how they use their money. I have also seen a rather misguided report from Labour MP Chris Hipkins who said: “They’ve slashed funding for things like … Stage Challenge …”. If he had done a little bit of homework he would have found that the funding for Stage Challenge does continue. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members should listen. A bit of noise in the House is perfectly acceptable but I ask members to show some courtesy to a member who has done nothing other than seek to ask a supplementary question and does not deserve that kind of reaction. I ask the backbenchers to show a little courtesy. Chris Hipkins. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I meant what I said I say to some of the members at the back of the Chamber. I do not expect to be laughed at like that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why does the Minister believe that the health and well-being of Kiwi kids will be better served by her allocating the limited amount of funding available on a population basis rather than targeting funding based on need particularly given that these changes are likely to take funding away from some of the poorest schools including those in South Auckland where the Prime Minister went to launch the initiative; or is this another example of John Key’s “Sheriff of Nottingham” approach of robbing from the poor to give to the rich? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I suggest that the member does a little bit of maths. Under the previous Labour Government $5.3 million was allocated to schools to fund sports coordinators—all of it to secondary schools and not even all secondary schools. Under KiwiSport a total of $20 million per year will be available to encourage Kiwi kids to play sport and $20 million is a lot more than $5.3 million. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is the Minister concerned that focusing funding exclusively on sport while cancelling funding for other forms of physical activity such as Stage Challenge kapahaka ASB Polyfest and the Pasifika Festival which the Minister for Sport and Recreation has indicated will have fund cuts and cancelling funding for nutritional programmes that get kids eating healthier food could actually mean more health problems for Kiwi kids; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I suggest that the member does his homework. The Stage Challenge funding has not been cut so the entire premise of that question is false. 
Immigration Investigation—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
5.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: On what day was Immigration New Zealand’s investigation file concerning Kanwaljit Bakshi made over to the New Zealand Police? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the case was first referred to the police on 20 July 2009. The file was subsequently handed over on 28 July. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When a copy of the first investigation report was made public why did the Minister then ask his officials at the Department of Labour to investigate why the Official Information Act request had not gone through his office? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: In my office as in yours when you were a Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker may well have been a Minister but right now he is not. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is a common approach in Ministers’ offices under this Government as it was under the previous Government that Ministers operate under a no-surprises policy with regard to their departments. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister accept that the second investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi arose only because officials released information concerning the first investigation to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and that had that information not been released no second investigation would be under way? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The consistent approach right throughout this matter is that if information comes to light that warrants further investigation Immigration New Zealand should proceed in that manner. I have made that very clear to the department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Will any future Official Information Act requests concerning Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi be handled by departmental officials alone or will the Minister continue to require his officials to pass any such requests to his ministerial office for his personal perusal? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: All Official Information Act requests that go to the department apart from those of a very minor statistical nature come to the attention of the Minister’s office under the no-surprises policy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why was a planned interview of Department of Labour officials arranged in June by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 called off by the Minister’s political adviser Mr James Watson? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It was not called off. The department can interview whom it likes when it likes with regard to any investigation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister understand that the more he seeks to vet Official Information Act requests regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and the more he interferes with the free access of the media to his officials regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the more likely it is that he will be viewed as protecting his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The member over there is making an allegation and I invite him to make it outside the House. 
Benefits and Allowances—Access 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can she guarantee that access to benefits and allowances will not be reduced in this term of Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes our commitment is to preserve core benefits. However access to allowances does change as the member knows. We made changes to the training incentive allowance in the last Budget. 
Sue Bradford 
: Which allowances then is the Minister planning to cut and when? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are no plans at this stage to cut any of the allowances but as I say they change all the time. We added the ReStart package in December last year and we made changes to training incentive allowances in the Budget. It is all quite open and upfront. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister in his remarks of a couple of weeks ago that restricting the independent youth benefit is an option despite the fact that this already is a benefit of last resort to help a very small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who need to survive without family support and the only alternatives for them are things like begging crime and prostitution? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: With the independent youth benefit we are looking at making sure there are the restrictions that recipients are in education in work or are upskilling so those changes to the independent youth benefit are around those restrictions. A percentage of recipients are already in employment and education so we are not cutting the benefit from them. We know that it is a benefit they need. The changes are more about insisting that they be in some sort of education employment or upskilling. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What reports has the Minister seen that suggest changes to welfare? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen reports that suggest that the Government ought to provide welfare for pretty much everyone including those who are wealthy and millionaires. The big idea from Labour in the report I saw is to put thousands of middle-class people on benefits which is quite frankly impractical unaffordable and unfair. In yet another case of “Visa-nomics” we saw Opposition member Annette King contemplate extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries at a cost of around $450 million. Quite frankly the Opposition wants people on welfare; we want them in jobs. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why should New Zealanders trust the Minister to uphold promises to leave benefit entitlements alone when she has already broken a number of election promises putting them in the too-hard basket including increasing the abatement level from $80 to $100 which would encourage more beneficiaries into part-time work and not passing a law to adjust benefits by the CPI each year as promised in National’s policy? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We absolutely stand by our promises. We have said we will do it before the next election and that it what we will do. It is called being honest. 
Sue Bradford 
: What is the goal of the Minister’s audit of emergency special-needs grants and is she planning to limit or restrict access to special-needs grants? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In all fairness there is no audit of special-needs grants going on. That is what the paper said but that is not what we have said. We have never said that there was an audit of special-needs grants going on. We are constantly reviewing them as the member is aware. We have more people on the special-needs grants than ever before because of the doubling last year of the access to them. There are no plans to cut that access—particularly for food which we know is vitally important to those people who need it. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister be ensuring that the Limited Service Volunteers programme for young people remains voluntary or will Work and Income attempt to force young people on to it as has happened in the past? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It will not be compulsory but we will be suggesting that young people who are on the unemployment benefit look at options that are available to them. Currently there are work testing requirements for them. The Limited Service Volunteers has grown to be just one other element of the options for young people on the benefit. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is an audit of 50 beneficiaries taking place as the Prime Minister said on television this week or whether she is correct in saying there is not an audit; which one is it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member might have liked to listen to my previous answer. It was an audit around special-needs grants that the member Sue Bradford and I were just talking about. We were talking about special-needs grants. The member is now asking whether an audit is going to be happening on the 50 top beneficiaries. I tell the member that we are looking at the top beneficiaries who get the most amount of money and we have been for some months. 
Methamphetamine—Police Reports 
7.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports from the police regarding methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a report from the police that shows an arrested methamphetamine user earns on average $5623 each month from crime. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What are the police doing to address the link between drugs and criminal activity? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The police are actively seeking to reduce the supply of methamphetamine by targeting dealers and dismantling clan-labs. Police national clandestine laboratory response teams are based in Auckland and Wellington and they support all police districts to tackle the problem of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the number of clan-labs dismantled recently? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I have received a report that shows that 13 clan-labs were dismantled in June 2009 alone. That was more than double the number dismantled during the same period in 2008. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does the Minister expect the cuts of $21 million and more than 300 cars from the police fleet to assist police in continuing to battle the methamphetamine problem? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure that the 600 extra police will do a fantastic job which is what we always expect from our New Zealand police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does the Minister expect the raiding of other police districts to put police into the Counties-Manukau Police District will help the police in other districts to continue to battle the P problem? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Frankly I do not know why the member insists on making such silly statements. There will be 600 extra police for the whole of New Zealand and 300 of those police will go to Counties-Manukau. Nobody is being taken out of any other district to police Counties-Manukau. I think it is quite irresponsible of the member to make such silly statements in the House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister been advised by the police of the drug abuse that causes the most criminal behaviour in New Zealand; if so can she confirm that that drug is alcohol not methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly the police advise me that the vast majority of the criminal cases they have to deal with involve the misuse of alcohol. However many people will be aware that unfortunately methamphetamine has taken hold in certain parts of New Zealand and that gangs in particular have been able to become extremely rich off the proceeds. 
Schools Sports Funding—Kiwisport 
8.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Will he guarantee that no schools will be financially worse off as a result of the Government’s Kiwisport initiative; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will he now guarantee that programmes such as Stage Challenge kapahaka the ASB Polyfest and the Pasifika Festival will receive no less funding next year than they did this year as the Minister of Education has just indicated; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I advise the member to direct questions related to the education budget to the Minister of Education. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Emissions Trading Scheme 
9.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: How much lower would New Zealand’s net carbon dioxide equivalent emissions be in 2020 as a result of the emissions trading scheme as currently legislated compared with the business-as-usual case represented by the green line in figure 5 in his ministry’s document  
New Zealand’s 2020 Emissions Target 
? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations))  
on behalf of the 
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: 
 Perhaps I should say that this answer is also on behalf of the previous Labour Government as it is its scheme to which the member is referring. Clearly a number of factors need to be taken into account. There is the issue of the price. Of course the previous Labour Government’s scheme has no cap on the price so it is an extreme market solution—let the price clear at whatever the economic and social cost may be. There are uncertainties about the extent to which the scheme would stimulate planting and uncertainties over the harvesting. But if the price were as the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics study indicates $100 a tonne it has been estimated that it could reduce emissions by 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. It could also possibly put forward a further 50000 hectares of planting which might add a further 10 million tonnes and arguably it might decrease the very rapid deforestation that occurred in the last few years of the previous Labour Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet in case members had not noticed. Before I call the Hon Rodney Hide I want to say that the question that was asked was a perfectly serious question and the House deserved to hear the answer. It was a straightforward question. Obviously the answer was quite complicated. I want the House to be able to hear the answer. I am serious about that. The House deserves to hear the answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Opposition certainly agrees with you that we need to be able to hear the answer but I think the two issues were first the extraordinary length of the answer and second the political content from the beginning when the Minister said he was answering on behalf of the previous Labour Government. We will ignore all the other theatrics that went on but those two points alone meant it was very difficult to maintain order. If the Minister gives a shorter answer without all the political stuff I am sure he will find that he will be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance on the matter. I think the Hon Darren Hughes makes a perfectly good point and I would ask the Minister in responding further to avoid unnecessary political content. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics report that setting the price of carbon at $100 a tonne will still leave emissions 20 percent above 1990 levels but will also cost the average New Zealander 9.7 percent of his or her wages? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: On behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues—and I will stop at that point to avoid introducing ironic humour yet again into Parliament—let me say that the answer to that is very straightforward: yes that is exactly correct but it is of course the result of modelling. Whether you think it is realistic depends on first what you generally think of modelling; second what you think of this particular general equilibrium modelling; and third how realistic you think the assumptions are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I remind the Minister that the Speaker should not be involved in his answer either. Every time he says “what you think about this” or “what you think about that” he is actually referring to the Speaker. It is not helpful to the order of the House either. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What is the projected cost to the Government if the price of carbon under the emissions trading scheme is $100 a tonne? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Logically of course we should defer answering this question until 2022; I am confident that the then Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English will be in a position to answer the question. We do not have an estimate from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research study. It will be driven by a number of issues including most obviously allocation issues. I can assure the member that this Government will take an economy-wide view of that key battle. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his answers in question time yesterday including the one in which he said he would be “flabbergasted” if New Zealand faced trade barriers as a result of being seen not to take climate change seriously? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I can assure the member that the Minister sticks by that comment. It is perfectly obvious that we will not face formal trade barriers because no country currently applies any form of carbon price to agriculture which is the normal issue of concern. However we need to take account of our customers. That is a more subtle and important question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: So does the Minister say that the Prime Minister was wrong to have said in a speech in Gisborne last Wednesday in respect of climate change: “If we do nothing there will be trade barriers.” and “To do nothing could mean the next generation will not have the family farm.”? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Prime Minister is always right and the Prime Minister knows full well that doing nothing is not an option. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a report of the speech given by the Prime Minister at the Gisborne-Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club in Gisborne on 12 August 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the member say it is a report of the speech? 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is a report from the  
Gisborne Herald 
 of the remarks made by the Prime Minister to which I referred in my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems to be a press statement. Leave is being sought— 
Charles Chauvel 
: No it is not a press statement. It is a page from a very well-respected newspaper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the page— 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat while the point of order is being dealt with. Leave is sought to table a page from a newspaper. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Consultation 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he support the right of Aucklanders to decide on the future ownership of publicly owned assets under the super-city? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I believe in local decisions being made at the local level not only in Auckland but also right across New Zealand. The Local Government Act 2002 already requires councils to consult the public on any plans to buy or sell strategic assets. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his proposal that councils undertake referenda on decisions that are significant or irreversible; if so does he believe that the sale of publicly owned assets by the Auckland super-city would be significant or irreversible? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I certainly stand by my statements. That is one of the issues that we have under review and are discussing with Local Government New Zealand councils and other stakeholders now. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that the Prime Minister has ruled out the sale of Auckland’s publicly owned assets? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Taxation—GST Rate 
11.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What policy solutions are being considered to respond to the comments of the Tax Working Group regarding GST that “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households especially in the short run”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Tax Working Group is deliberating and will be until later in the year. The Government will not consider any options it proposes until after it reports back in December. I note however that Budget 2009 ensured that the most vulnerable in our society were protected despite the change in the economic outlook and that should be a good guide to the attitude of the Government. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister consider it socially responsible for the group of experts in the Tax Working Group to deliberately design a scheme that discriminates against low-income and vulnerable households; if so what areas of Government would he expect will need to pick up the discriminatory effects of this scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would refer the member’s concerns to comments made I think by Susan St John who is well-known for her economic work in this area to do with poverty and income equality. She said publicly that she was impressed with the transparent way in which the working group was dealing with issues of equality and income equity and I can assure the member that when the Government considers proposals from this group it will certainly be taking account of equity issues. 
Rahui Katene 
: What are the implications of removing GST from food and of offsetting the tax take by increasing GST on tobacco and alcohol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member clearly has a proposition here and I would welcome the working group looking at it. We can signal that generally the Government prefers having a uniform GST with no exemptions. If issues to do with lack of income are to be dealt with then those can be dealt with by other means and I know that the member’s party is advocating an increase in GST on tobacco and alcohol as a health-related measure. 
Stuart Nash 
: Can the Minister guarantee that he will not introduce any further changes to the tax system that will benefit mainly those on high incomes given that the tax changes he has introduced so far disproportionately benefit those on high incomes as he has repealed the tax cuts Labour legislated for that would have benefited those on lower incomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the member’s analysis at all and that analysis has been disputed in this House before. What I can confirm for the member is that the Government in considering making change or in fact making no change would consider issues of fairness. 
Homeownership—Government Assistance 
12.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is the Government doing to assist people into homeownership? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 A range of initiatives are under way but I will focus on just one. Cabinet has recently agreed to the extension of the loan cap on the Welcome Home Loan product from $280000 to $350000. This means that first-home buyers who want or have to live in higher-value areas such as Auckland and Wellington have a great opportunity. This product will also be available to State house tenants who are very enthusiastic to move out of renting and into homeownership. Those tenants will be eligible to buy their homes and they can use this product to do that. 
Todd McClay 
: How will the extension of this product assist Maori? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have also extended the loan scheme to Maori who want to build on multiple-owned land. This fulfils an election promise in which we committed ourselves to give the banks the confidence to support Maori housing. The banks are reluctant at the moment to give loans because the land cannot be used as security and this change delivers a solution to that. Members of the previous Government wrung their hands over this problem for 9 years and we have delivered a solution to it in 9 months. 
Todd McClay 
: How can this product assist with housing supply? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We gave that a great deal of thought too and changes will allow first-home buyers to borrow in order to build a home if they already own land. On the one hand we want to increase the housing supply and this change will also stimulate the construction sector. If a first-home buyer owns or buys a vacant section he or she can then borrow in order to build a home getting the construction industry going and getting a roof over their young heads. 
Moana Mackey 
: Given that the latest ASB quarterly survey of housing confidence showed the first positive result in 18 months— 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If questions addressed to this side of the House could start with a question word that would be good. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have taken an approach that I believe is a little more intelligent than that as long as the question does come along very quickly. This is not  
W3 
 as I think I said once before. 
Moana Mackey 
: Given that the latest ASB quarterly survey of housing confidence showed the first positive result in 18 months and described it as “similar to that seen when the last housing boom was just getting started” when will we finally see any new ideas on affordable housing from this Minister who in the 10 months since becoming the Minister of Housing has done nothing other than claim Labour initiatives as his own? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The previous Government ignored the problems under the Resource Management Act for builders; we have worked on that. The previous Government ignored the problems under the Building Act; we have worked on that. The previous Government refused to lower taxes; we have worked on that. Interest rates have stabilised—we have done that—and what is more we have solved the problem in Maori housing that the previous Government wrung its hands over for 9 years. And we have solved it in 9 months. 
Questions to Members 
Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill—Status 
1. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill has been introduced in the House and is awaiting its first reading. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Has the member delayed the first reading of the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I have delayed the first reading to give all political parties including National time to consider whether they will support this important bill’s referral to the select committee where the issues of redundancy protection to tide workers over during hard times can be properly debated. 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill—Status 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD (Member in charge of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 My member’s bill is due for its first reading. The bill would require the approval of a majority of Aucklanders in a referendum before the new super-city could sell off publicly owned assets. I look forward to the Minister of Local Government and his ACT colleagues voting for it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked what the status of the bill is. He does not need to go on to that material. 
David Shearer 
: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I sincerely hope that the bill will be referred to a select committee this afternoon and it will be if ACT or National vote for it. ACT members are very keen on referenda and it would seem that this bill is an obvious candidate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has answered the question. That is sufficient. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decision to commit to an emissions reduction target range of 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Yesterday I considered a similar application from Charles Chauvel. It was declined in favour of another application of more immediate significance—the decision to commit SAS personnel to Afghanistan. 
An application for an urgent debate that is set aside under Standing Order 382 may be submitted on the following day. However there is no guarantee that it will be accepted for debate on that day. The target is a conditional one. Yesterday there were two questions for oral answer on the matter. There is a select committee inquiry under way. As I said yesterday there will be further opportunities to debate the matter. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined. 
General Debate 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. How does one know the Labour Party is about to change its leader? It is simple: its members start to talk about having barbecues. Do members remember 1999? Phil Goff got 12 of his mates around to his place to have a barbecue to talk about chopping Helen Clark out and replacing her as Labour leader. Helen Clark was on 23 percent when Phil Goff thought that was a good idea; this week Phil Goff is on 6.5 percent. How did the Labour members react? They have put on their website a massive series of barbecues from one end of the country to the other over Labour weekend—not just one but a series of barbecues—where they will discuss whether Mr Goff should go or stay. I want to make a plea for Mr Goff to stay. I point out to the Labour Party that in the recent poll he made a bit of progress and at that rate of progress he will overtake John Key in the year 2024. So Labour should stick with him. 
When they have those barbecues one person I can guarantee will not be on the invitation list is Dover Samuels. He might have turned up with a bit of snapper but it would not have been fresh and there would have been a bit more lip. He said to Phil Goff and Annette King that it is time to step aside as the retreads have gone past their use-by date. He said they have a fundamental problem: right now the leadership does not resonate with ordinary people. He is not alone in thinking that. Mr Hipkins has put a piece of opinion on the blog site. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who? Master Hipkins? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Some people might want to call him Master Hipkins but he is a member of this House. His name is Chris Hipkins. He is C Hipkins and the C of course stands for “Chippy”. Anyway he has put on his website that he expects that the high poll ratings for the National Party will continue for some time right throughout this parliamentary term. He said: “I would be very surprised if we make much of a dent in the poll gap before election year.” He has given up. He has bailed out. He is gone. 
So perhaps we have to take it seriously. Labour members have called for the nationwide barbecues. They are going to change the leader so where do they turn? Well there is Annette King. I want to say what a competent person Annette King is. She is perfectly capable of doing the job. Any old time they want to replace Phil Goff with Annette King that would be brilliant. Then of course there are the up-and-comers. We know David Cunliffe is not ready yet. He has to wait a little bit but I tell members that right across the blog sites they are confirming that David Cunliffe has one vote in the Labour caucus. We have spoken of Annette King. Then there is the extraordinary range of other people whom they are talking about. There is of course David Shearer the new man in the team. He has now asked one question in Parliament and has given one speech in Parliament and he has the same poll rating as Phil Goff. I say congratulations to David Shearer on doing a brilliant job. 
The other thing of course is that Laila Harré is out there as a potential leader. She is not even part of the Labour Party. She is one of the Alliance people who almost brought Labour down in 2002 but now Labour wants her back as leader. Then there is Andrew Little. He is not in Parliament yet. The sad thing is that Clayton Cosgrove is not there. I ask what is wrong with Clayton Cosgrove. But I have to say that I am not the first person to ask what is wrong with Clayton Cosgrove. He has said that the great thing now is that there is no factionalism in the Labour Party these days. He would know. In fact he is so committed to this “no factionalism in the Labour Party” that he has insisted the barbecues have a vegetarian option so that the lefties do not feel left out. 
This party is completely failing to get under the skin of the Government and to represent the people of New Zealand who would like a little bit of opposition to their Government. It is clinging to the idea that Phil Goff will somehow lift himself out of the fire he is currently in. I look forward to the barbecue season. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 In April this year a journalist sought a copy of the report into the first investigation into allegations against Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. This request was granted without reference to Minister Coleman and I am told that an official is in trouble for that. The subsequent story printed on 15 May did not add up for me. I therefore began a series of meetings with Baljinder Singh of Tauranga and Mr Darshan Singh Saran usually of the Punjab. I have a sworn document from the latter that tells precisely why the first investigation failed. The reason is that the original complainant Kuldip Singh was silenced. So was Baljinder Singh. They are no longer silent. 
Darshan Singh Saran swears as follows: “In November 2008 my friend Baljinder Singh telephoned me from New Zealand. He told me that Superintendent of Police in Jagwaran Punjab Mr Pritam Singh [was] harassing and threatening Kuldip Singh of his village. Superintendent Pritam Singh had asked Kuldip Singh to come to the Police Station. 
… Kuldip … told me that in 2003 he paid for a job offer for his wife from Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. Payment was made through an agent Mr Darshan Singh Bains. The job offer was not genuine so the residence application was declined. 
Over the next two years Kuldip Singh advised me that Mr Darshan Singh Bains kept promising to return the money … Then suddenly he could not contact [him]. He seemed to have gone underground. 
During this time Kuldip spoke twice with Mr Bakshi and told him about the money he had paid for the job. Mr Bakshi told Kuldip not to worry about the money as he would solve the problem … 
However as time passed and nothing happened Kuldip became annoyed with Mr Bakshi as well. … 
Kuldip then told me that … he spoke with his friend Baljinder Singh by telephone in New Zealand … he … asked Baljinder if he could not get help from them. … 
When Kuldip’s story was published many political people started to contact him. At first they asked very politely to stop what he was saying. When he refused to do that they started to threaten him. … 
In order to help Kuldip Singh I took him to meet Superintendent of Police Pritam Singh at Jagwaran. 
Superintendent Pritam Singh told Kuldip and me that he had had a great deal of pressure from the highest authorities. When we explained Kuldip’s story in depth to him Superintendent Pritam Singh telephoned Mr Rajinder Singh in Chandigarh. … 
Mr Rajinder Singh asked me to ask Kuldip Singh not to speak against Mr Bakshi because he was going to be the first Sikh MP in New Zealand. Mr Rajinder Singh also assured me that he would try to resolve Kuldip’s matter with Mr Bakshi … 
A few days later I received a call from Bhavdeep Singh Dhillon. … He made quite a few calls … Every time he would say that I should ask Kuldip to speak in favour of Mr Bakshi otherwise he should be ready to pay the price. He also threatened to harm Baljinder Singh in New Zealand as we doubted that this was only happening because of Baljinder. … 
After this I was in hospital and a number of people who are politically influential pressurised Kuldip to get his signature on a blank piece of paper. Baljinder Singh in New Zealand also advised me that a few people had threatened him and told him that they were friends of Mr Bakshi. 
I am very worried about what has happened with Kuldip Singh. I want the authorities to go into this case. Those who are willing to come forward need an assurance that nothing will happen to them or against them. They need protection.” 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Anyone watching question time today would wonder why the Opposition asks questions about things that people are not concerned about. What they are concerned about is a Government that is actually delivering on things that matter to people. For instance the other day my colleague Gerry Brownlee announced the huge uptake in the number of people opting for the home insulation package. For 9 years we heard from the previous Labour Government that it purported to represent the people of New Zealand who needed a fair deal. Did it deliver that deal in terms of home insulation? No it did not. This Government in working with the Green Party has delivered on time and more than we ever thought we would in terms of the number of people adopting the home insulation measures. 
With my colleague Paula Bennett we have been able to do something about creating job and youth opportunities for the people who are most at risk in the very tough economic times we inherited. We have also seen jobs created by the increased infrastructure spending on roading and State houses. After years of talking about roads and public transport the previous Labour Government never quite worked out that buses run on roads and that we just cannot have a public transport system without roads because they go together. 
Here we see an Opposition that is so worried about leadership. I think it is just amazing that David Shearer who has been in Parliament for a matter of weeks already has a poll rating that is at least the same as Phil Goff’s who has been in Parliament “since Adam was a cowboy” to quote the Prime Minister. That tells us that even those people who will always vote Labour because their parents and grandparents did and they have not worked out that they do not need to want to see some fresh faces in Labour. Of course we like to see Phil Goff and Annette King over there in the Opposition benches. They are very nice people and they should be given a fair go. They have been in Parliament for only about 30 years so it is really too soon to tell! 
We find that the Labour Party is all at sixes and sevens. Its members are running around trying to find out who will be the next leader when they should be backing Phil Goff who we heard from Claire Curran is “a real man” whatever that means in the Labour Party. I thought that was quite an interesting comment. We also heard from Clayton Cosgrove that there is no factional infighting in the Labour Party. I have another suggestion to add to my colleague Mr Brownlee’s comments: maybe Clayton Cosgrove is not part of any faction and no one has told him yet. Perhaps he has not been put in touch with the barbecue— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Me too! I’m on the outside as well! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Mallard says that he is not part of any faction too; we can understand that he would not want to be part of any faction because no faction would want him. We heard from Phil Twyford Labour’s Auckland spokesperson that Labour was punished in Auckland because “The city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems crappy infrastructure”—“crappy” is not a word we would normally use in the National Party—“and a downtown that looks like a bomb site.” He concludes: “I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” Well I say to Mr Twyford that never a truer word has been spoken. 
Labour wasted 9 years of some of the best overseas economic conditions we have seen. One of the awful things about being in the National Opposition was watching the previous Labour Government spend money hand over fist. We watched it pay out money buy off groups and get people happy for a few dollars and for that entire time the economy was tanking. Labour knew it but refused to do anything about it. All we heard time and time again was “No no we’ll just pay out more money. Let’s tax the rich.” Labour said all those sorts of things. Yet under the previous Labour Government any ordinary Kiwi earning $60000 per year was considered to be rich. That shows the extent of its meanness and its absolute politics of envy that it wanted to promote. Many ordinary Kiwis the working people ended up having to take the Working for Families package because the tax system was so rorted against them. Unfortunately the Labour Government never quite understood that people—the very people Labour wanted to keep dependent on the Government—would eventually realise what was going on because they simply could not get ahead. 
Under this National Government despite the tough economic times we are seeing action. That is what people like. They voted National in to do things and boy we really are doing things. We have a Prime Minister who is relentlessly positive and is the best we have ever seen. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address the decision of the Government last week to commit the SAS to Afghanistan. The decision to commit our armed forces has both a political and a legal dimension. The Government’s political explanation is that if Afghanistan remains a haven for terrorists the US-led operation is essential to contain the spread and we must play our part. In respect of the legal dimension the Government is coy. We are told that New Zealand always makes decisions consistent with international law so we must trust in that. Such bland patronisation of members of this House conveys a contempt that I am sure is not intended. 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs tells us the decision is in the national interest. But in formulating its policy the Government accords undue importance to political considerations and insufficient weight to the legal basis on which it rests. It therefore sees through a glass darkly unable to draw the subtle distinctions required in contemporary national security policy. The difference in approach is clear. The Government first formulates its political case and then dresses it in loose legal garb as a fashion statement. The Green Party judges the legal basis as a necessary condition and if that is met it considers the political wisdom of deployment. The difference reflects contrasting world views. We believe ours to be relevant to the 21st century. 
Afghanistan generates special confusion because it involves the vexed relationship between terrorism and armed conflict. In the 20th century terrorism was correctly perceived as a matter of criminality. But following 9/11 the world has been led to agree that it is matter of international security. Terrorism and security thus conflate into a single composite issue causing a loss of clarity and strategic vision by the superpower and therefore by the rest of us. 
The distinction still needs to be drawn between the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. For reasons I set out on 17 June we judge the International Security Assistance Force which is a peace-building mission authorised by the United Nations Security Council to be legal in international law; Operation Enduring Freedom which is a counter-terrorism campaign is not. The UN has never explicitly authorised Operation Enduring Freedom. The Minister of Defence cited Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373. But once the question of restoring peace to Afghanistan came under the operational purview of the Security Council as it did in December 2001 the right to continue military action in self-defence lapsed. Yet Operation Enduring Freedom continues to be prosecuted today by NATO beyond the strategic direction of the UN increasingly veiled in the twilight world between law and power. 
The trend of the last decade away from multilateral to hegemonic control of global security is evidenced in the fact that this latest request to New Zealand came not from the UN Secretary-General but the US Secretary of State. Yet New Zealand obediently responds to this 19th century call to arms. So where is the legal validation from the United Nations of this latest New Zealand deployment? Is an American request to deploy anywhere on the planet sufficient? Operation Enduring Freedom has recently been brought under the single hat of the US commander in Afghanistan along with the International Security Assistance Force. So in the name of peace-building we are now engaging in counter-insurgency and sliding into what is now a civil war retaining counter-terrorism to justify it. It is no wonder this Government is confused. 
I advance these comments more in sorrow than anger. I wish our SAS well and may they return home safely. The decision has been made. But let us draw a lesson for the future. The executive is obliged to show greater respect to this House. I therefore request the Government to confirm that henceforth all decisions of this kind will be prefaced with a legal advisory opinion that is tabled in this House. The executive no matter which party is in power owes the legislature this much. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Here we are in the worst global recession since the 1930s with a Government working hard to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers’ money and what do Opposition members do? They hop on a bus and just like the polls head south. All 30-plus members headed out to the masses for a series of “love-ins”. If the  
Otago Daily Times 
 is anything to go by the “love-ins” were essentially with themselves because barely anybody turned up. One has only to look at the article where it states that a community forum in the evening in Wanganui ended up being largely dominated by Labour Party members. One of the Labour Party stalwarts said: “I did hope to hear more definite decisions from the Labour Party” but it couldn’t do it in Government so it is hardly going to do it in Opposition. In fact the Labour Party even had a bit of an identity crisis because the colour of the bus was green. Oh my goodness me the bus was green! 
The Opposition leader Goff says how conscious Labour is of cost at this time. What a pity Labour did not think about that while it was in Government. What else did Goff say? He said: “The great thing about New Zealand politics is it can be intimate you can get to talk to your elected representatives in a way that’s not possible in many other countries.” No wonder he said that; he had to go on a bus trip with 30-plus colleagues just so he could have a conversation with them. Nobody else was turning up to the meetings. What did the blog say? Danyl McLauchlan a left-wing blogger I might add has made some criticisms of “some half-witted re-branding exercise with pictures of Goff riding around on horseback and a bus trip to Whanganui.” And of course the bus was green. Mr Martin Kay says about Mr Goff: “The normal boyish chatty style is replaced with a grave monotone that would make a promise of free icecream and lollies sound like a robot reading a telephone book.” The bloggers were also saying that the wheels had actually fallen off the bus before it had even left Auckland. That is what the bloggers are saying. 
Meanwhile back in the engine room Ministers continue to work for efficient and effective outcomes for all New Zealanders. We have had a huge uptake for our voluntary bonding scheme which will see more health professionals working in our rural and provincial communities. A number of jobs have been created through increased infrastructure spending on roading and State houses. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Except in Wanganui. You can’t get doctors in Wanganui. And why not? Ask Chester. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Members should listen to that member. She is raving on about Wanganui. Clearly it did not happen for her on the bus. Even more jobs have been created through the youth opportunities package and the assistance being given through the Restart package. There is also the huge uptake in people taking advantage of our home insulation package. Of all the initiatives the home insulation package was a huge winner. I have to say we were swamped with young professional doctors wanting to take advantage of the voluntary bonding scheme. One has only to read today’s  
Dominion Post  
editorial to see an excellent example of the leadership of the Ministers of this National Government. One has only to read  
New Zealand Herald  
articles to see that it is quite clear that there is leadership throughout this Government. There certainly was not leadership in the previous Labour Government for 9 long years. We just cannot get over the duration of that period under the nanny State. Old Mother Hubbard emptied the cupboard. There was nothing left in the coffers. I would not put those people in charge of a piggy bank. 
The Hon Judith Collins is a fine example of outstanding leadership engendering confidence and support from people throughout New Zealand. I exhort those members of Parliament opposite to read those editorials and they actually might learn something. They need to listen to the Minister of Education who said they need some literacy and numeracy training. By crikey! They could not manage a piggy bank. If there is one thing the Opposition members are in desperate need of it is some expertise. They need to go back to school. They need to learn how to do their sums. They need to know what they are doing in terms of what they are reading. In actual fact they need to start listening and start doing some homework. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I will continue on the theme of what is happening on the blog sites. The name Bob Buckle rarely featured in the bloggers’ forums until a mere 3 months ago when the Minister of Finance Bill English and the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne named him as the chair of the Tax Working Group charged with the simple task of guiding the fiscal outlook over the medium term. This week Bob Buckle is the name on every website as the debate intensifies about the relationship between GST and the drive to increase the efficiency of the economy. 
The figures all look pretty seductive. Lifting GST to 15 percent would raise an extra $2.1 billion a year. If the tax was set at 20 percent the figure would jump to $6.2 billion. That sure looks fine until we see the fine print. Bob Buckle’s panel of 14 private sector and academic experts noted that there may be fairness issues: “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households especially in the short run”. Those are probably the same lower-income or vulnerable households who featured in the Ministry of Social Development households report that reported in 2008 that one in six New Zealand children still lived in a household below the very lowest poverty levels. They are probably the same lower-income or vulnerable households who have caused the cost of emergency food grants to jump by a massive 75 percent since the maximum limits were doubled a year ago. They will be the same households that the Salvation Army has seen reporting in greater numbers than before for food parcels. In the 3 months to June there was a colossal jump in the supply of food parcels—a 40 percent leap to an average of over 4000 parcels a month. Within that group will be the beneficiary families with children who missed out on the in-work tax credit. 
It was fascinating to read the reflections of former Minister Annette King about the policy crisis that emerged in the previous Government regarding Working for Families. In a  
Listener 
 article she said “We’ve got another group of kids who haven’t benefited from that at all. And that’s people who are on benefits. We’ve got to rethink our policy in terms of how do we have an element of universality for our children in the way we give it to our old people. It’s unfinished business.” That is a very important concession by the former Minister and I think we must pay attention to it. I want to commend Mrs King for taking note of the policy priorities we have been promoting within the Maori Party including the proposal of universal tax cuts for very low-income families and a universal benefit for parents who are raising children. The question is one of how we look after our lower-income or vulnerable households not when we should do so. The urgency is surely obvious to all in this House; we must do it now. The issue is about meeting the basic needs of New Zealand families: food on the table a roof over their head warm clothes security stability and hopefully even happiness. 
One solution I have been considering is to put before the House a bill to remove the GST on food. We know that such a move would mean cost savings on food at a time when food costs have increased exponentially and are continuing to do so. Although all consumers would benefit from lower food costs people on lower incomes tend to spend a greater share of their income on food so they would reap a greater benefit as a portion of their income. In putting this bill forward the Maori Party is conscious that neither Australia nor the United Kingdom charges GST on food. The approach of those countries has been to exempt most foods from GST except for restaurant and take-out foods in Australia and lollies chips ice cream and chocolate biscuits in the UK. There is another agenda: although we are saving the pennies we are also saving lives by promoting healthy eating with food choices such as fresh fruit and vegetables. 
Finally I acknowledge the efforts of the people’s procession to Parliament that resulted in a 23000-strong petition being presented to my colleague Hone Harawira and me last October. The Maori Party has taken up the call of those people and we will do our utmost to remind everyone in this House that a responsible Parliament is also a caring Parliament. The taking of GST off food would provide us with a golden opportunity to make the difference. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Before the last election John Key and Tony Ryall paraded around the country listening to what people said they wanted in their health system and then telling people what they wanted to hear—the Steven Joyce model of connecting with the public. They said they would give New Zealanders better sooner more convenient health care. They promised no restructuring and they promised reduced bureaucracy—I beg your pardon; their exact term was “less bureaucrats”. Let us leave aside the grammatical error but note that they promised there would be no restructuring and they categorically promised there would be no cuts to front-line health services. Yet now on an almost daily basis we see those promises being broken. In town after town and in city after city all across our country we see Tony Ryall’s and John Key’s broken promises. 
There is now proposed a massive restructuring the biggest restructuring in health in fact since Crown health enterprises were introduced by the then National Government. Under National we used to have a huge bureaucratic structure with 23 Crown health enterprises. I remember that when we went into the 1999 election we said we did not want to keep the 23 Crown health enterprises which by then had been renamed hospital and health services. We wanted to devolve decision making and funding to district health boards; Tony Ryall said it was an outrage that we were threatening to gut the then health and hospital services. Now he is doing exactly what he railed against. He is threatening to gut the Ministry of Health to set up a new very strong bureaucracy called the National Health Board and to take all local decision-making and innovation away from district health boards. We will see more bureaucracy rather than less we will see massive restructuring and we are already seeing cuts to front-line health services. The core promises that John Key and Tony Ryall made to the New Zealand public have been shown to be lies. Their promises are broken and their reputations are in tatters. 
What is worse though is that revealed to us now is the documentation behind the Horn report that Tony Ryall refuses to release. He would not even answer a question in the House today about what information he has received what instructions he has given to doctor that information and what he will allow to be released as the draft report. The documentation that accompanies the Horn report talks about wage freezes for doctors and nurses and we know that in the current economic climate a wage freeze is a wage cut. That is from the party that promised to narrow the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia and promised to support our front-line health workers. That party is now hiding documentation that says we will have wage freezes for nurses and doctors. 
The report says that in order to make more money out of our health system we should import a few foreign people put them in our beds in public hospitals and charge them big money. How will that give New Zealanders better sooner more convenient health services? How will that help the people in my electorate who have been told that their home support services are being cut? What will happen when an elderly woman from my electorate wants to go to Christchurch Hospital for an urgently needed surgical procedure and finds that someone from Holland is paying very good money for the bed she wants? Unless that woman is prepared to top and tail she will miss out. Low-income people and New Zealanders who have worked hard all their lives paying taxes and raising their families will have to wait while somebody from overseas who has never done a day’s work in our country but who has a lot of money can buy our public health services. That is a disgrace. 
And the big secret—and I am not at all surprised that Bill English wanted to hide this—is the increase in the age of superannuation. That is on the secret agenda. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Talk about parading around the countryside! We had the spectacle of Labour members taking a bus trip. They flew into Wellington from all around the country and then climbed on a bus so that they would look as though they were trying to conserve carbon. What happened? They headed west. From the time they left they were going downhill. What was their first port of call on this big reconnect with their electorate? Their first point of a call was with a business. When has a business been Labour’s traditional electorate? In fact when National came back into Government business confidence went up! So Labour did not even start by reconnecting with its own electorate. When we look at that business and at what it was— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What was it? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
:—we see that it was a family business of one of the Labour members. It was the business of Darren Hughes’ uncle. It was not any random business; no one else would have them. There was some strange sort of business with stuffed animals on the wall which had remarkably similar smiles to Labour leader Phil Goff. But that is another question. This first stop tells us that Labour members are so offside with the public of New Zealand that they have to convince their own family members to host them on their tour to reconnect with the electorate. Quite frankly by the looks of Darren Hughes’ uncle he was not too pleased about it either—so there we go. 
I say to Labour members sitting over there on the Opposition benches that the days are getting longer. Have they not noticed it? The days are getting longer and the nights are getting shorter. That tells us that spring is coming. What happens in spring? Well there is Labour weekend. Guess what! This Labour weekend the Labour Party is hosting a variety of BBQs I hear. It cannot use taxpayers’ money to fund its pledge cards any more so its members have had to dip into their own pockets and try to convince family members probably to host parties to raise funds for the Labour Party. Apparently if they hold one of these BBQs Labour will send them a party pack. In the party pack there will be pre-printed invitations and envelopes— 
Hon Member 
: That’s exciting! 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is exciting! Also in the party pack there will be menu ideas for BBQ sausages and probably a few chops. There will also be Labour Day fridge magnets. I suggest to Labour members that there are probably a few “Wassup!” badges lying around schools that they could go round and gather up to wear instead of giving out fridge magnets—it could save a bit of money. There will also be balloons serviettes etc. The pièce de résistance is a DVD of Phil Goff. I can tell members that recent reviews suggest that the DVD is best described as a C-grade horror and Phil Goff is killing off support faster than “Norman Bates”. 
I want to talk about why it is that Labour has to reconnect. Why is it? Let us remind ourselves. Why did Labour members lose touch? When we talk about KiwiSport what do these guys say? I ask that member with the red hair who is sitting up there in the front seat: what did he say about giving money to schools so that they would help kids into sport? He said “You can’t trust schools. How do you know they will spend the money on the right things?”. Well members on this side of the House understand these people are professionals. We trust schools because we know that they will use the money wisely to get more kids into schools. 
What else did the previous Government do? It regulated school tuck shops. It was absolutely oblivious to the fact that dairies across the road from schools were ordering in hundreds of pies a day for the kids who were eating more pies than if they had been able to have them as a Friday treat. That is why Labour lost touch with its electorate. Labour had expensive advertising campaigns telling parents to make sure their children eat vegetables among other things. That is how Labour addressed obesity. 
The previous Prime Minister launched the Mission-On website that was supposed to get kids active. It had a game called  
Cool Moves 
. Do members remember that? Six keys moved a character around the screen through a series of hip-hop moves while the kids sat in their chairs. That is why Labour lost touch with the electorate. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before the election National pledged to look after the most vulnerable people. It is a great pleasure to follow that Minister Anne Tolley who talked about nothing to do with her education portfolio. Last week the Government spent $2.5 million reinstating conductive education funding—why? It was not because it thought it had done the wrong thing; it was done to get it off the front page of the newspapers. 
I want to talk about—as the Minister of Education scuttles somewhere within this Chamber—Julie Baker and Brittany Graham. I know there are some members over there who do not like us talking about them but a very interesting thing happened last week. A few minutes before the funding was reinstated Julie Baker got a phone call. She received the call a few minutes before the announcement was made publicly. It was from a person whom she had never met whom she had never spoken to and who up until that time had never bothered to get in touch with her to try to help her or plead her case with the Minister even though it was in most newspapers around the country and in the local news. It was from a person called Kate Wilkinson—a Cabinet Minister who occasionally resides in my electorate. In the ultimate act of political cynicism Ms Wilkinson rang up Julie Baker and said “Good news!” in a self-congratulatory tone as if she had done it herself. She told Julie Baker that the Government had done a U-turn and reinstated $2.5 million of funding that it was going to steal from her daughter and other kids who have intensive special needs. She did not apologise for putting Julie Baker through hell over the last few months or stressing out her daughter as she worried she might not get the therapy. She did not apologise because she was like a scared possum scared of the electorate in which she occasionally resides—my electorate. When she was challenged last week— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member knows very well that he is not allowed to accuse another member of a lack of courage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I was listening quite carefully to the member and I did not pick that up. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: “Scared possum” Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be a little careful in making such accusations. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask if my time was stopped for that interjection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was stopped for that point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Let me put it this way. She ran like a brave possum with huge courage the courage of her convictions! She had the courage not to ring Julie Baker; she had the courage not to do anything for her! She had the courage not to make one representation to the Minister! She put that woman through hell. Yet she stands up at every election and says that she wants to be the member for Waimakariri because she wants to help people. I say to that Minister that she ran like a brave possum. But she never said to Julie Baker that she would explain what her Government was not going to do. She never said to Julie Baker that if her child moves to another school—because perhaps the family have to move for employment reasons or whatever—Brittany Graham loses her funding. If her parents have to take her out of Addington School—her family might be transferred to do a job somewhere else—she loses the funding. Is her cerebral palsy cured? No. Is it cured because she moves schools? I doubt it. The brave Cabinet Minister never said that to Julie Baker. 
She also never said to Julie Baker that a letter that Anne Tolley never referred to in her speech to Trudy Heath the principal of Addington School stated that if there is a 4-year-old in Waimakariri who has cerebral palsy or intensive special needs and he or she is about to enter school that child will get nothing. Oh no that brave member never explained that! Yet in the ultimate act of political cynicism Ms Wilkinson rang Julie Baker just before the public announcement. I know that because I rang Julie after the public announcement to tell her the so-called good news. 
I say to Kate Wilkinson she should get off her chuff and do her job. She purports to be a Cabinet Minister so she should front up and show that courage and that intense bravery that she says she has and maybe try to help the most vulnerable people. These kids will keep coming. To quote from Trudy Heath the principal of Addington School: “These children are still coming. There are lots at preschool on our site and their parents are saying ‘What happens when they arrive at school?’ With all the medical technology available these children are being saved at birth. They will keep coming.” Oh no! Did she say that? In response to the great U-turn which Kate Wilkinson takes credit for I have here an article that quotes Julie Baker: “Ms Baker said that her heart went out to parents of children who had not been guaranteed funding”—members opposite laugh—“but they had time to fight it and they should keep the issue on the public agenda.” I say to Paul Quinn and other members opposite who laughed—we have it in  
Hansard— 
at my colleague Ruth Dyson when she was explaining the stress that Brittany Graham has been under that they can laugh but the laugh is on them. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to follow the previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who clearly has been to the “Trevor Mallard School of Anger Management”. It is very good indeed. I want to say how good it is— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I need to ask an unusual question and I would be indebted if you would provide the answer. Is it possible to ask a member to send his  
Hansard 
 to Julie Baker given he belittled her in that way? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: How good is it to be part of a National Government that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member has the Gerry Brownlee collar attached. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I do; I am missing the wing-collar I am sorry. I tried to find some at lunchtime and could not. 
I wanted to say how good it is to be part of the National Government which is incredibly popular. It has a fantastic Prime Minister in John Key a great Deputy Prime Minister in Bill English and from tomorrow at 4 p.m. it will have a wonderful Acting Prime Minister from Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty—the Hon Tony Ryall. He is a safe pair of hands and I say to Mr Darren Hughes could he be the best-dressed Acting Prime Minister we have ever had. It is just possible. 
Of course in Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty we do have some safe pairs of hands and we are lucky to have popular members of Parliament who are incredibly liked by the people. So things are going well for National in the provinces but how many seats did Labour get at the last election between the area of Auckland and Wellington? Could we hazard a guess? Labour won one seat. It won Palmerston North by the thinnest of majorities and because of that Labour members put down their lattes—in the case of Chris Hipkins I think it was a Pepsi Max or something; he likes his Pepsi Max—and went out into the provinces. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A fluffy! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is a good point; he had a fluffy. His mum paid. Actually it was free because she bought a coffee and a slice of cake—it was ginger crunch I hear. 
Labour members put down their lattes and their Pepsi Max and they went out into the provinces because as we know they hold one seat in the provinces. Annette King commented on the ginger crunch and they went to Wanganui and New Plymouth. I want to know why they did not come to Tauranga. We would have loved to have them in Tauranga. You see by my count at election time I had a majority of something like 11700 and I reckon the bus tour will make it 12700. So I ask Labour members to please come to Tauranga. It will be the impetus I need. It would remind the good people of the provinces just what they were voting against. Perhaps they did not realise at that time but they will this time. 
The people of Wanganui said they thought Pete Hodgson had gone. They thought they had got rid of him. People also thought they had got rid of Trevor Mallard but those members are still here. People have been asking what those members are doing still here. So I am very confident that the bus tour if it continues will remind people of just what they left behind. Of course there will be some good things about the bus tour. It will mean that the Labour Party members will not have to meet in a phone box. That was Darren Hughes and his uncle in the phone box but they have the bus now. 
National by way of distinction has the health reviews and we have just put out an excellent and comprehensive transport discussion document. But there is something that the transport document should have had but did not have and I will take up this point with Steven Joyce. It is quite clear that he should have made the practice of singing in buses illegal. I do not know why that was not on the list. Singing in buses should have been made illegal. What were those Labour members singing? They were singing: “Take me home to the place I belong.” Well it is quite clear that they do not belong in the provinces. It is quite clear they do not belong in Wanganui or New Plymouth and it is certainly clear that they do not belong in Tauranga. 
As I said it is good to be in the National Party. It is good to be in a party that is popular a party that people like and a party that was voted for by people in the provinces. They voted for us and will continue to vote for us and from Thursday at 4 p.m. the party will be in the safe hands of Tony Ryall. Labour members’ bus-singing is interesting because they could have sung other songs. “Slip Sliding Away” would have been a good one as the words include: “Slip out the back Jack; make a new plan Stan”. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the modest member from Tauranga Simon Bridges. Members on this side of the House have heard that when he goes home each night the song that he sings on the bus is: “You’re So Vain” by Carly Simon. We have seen him playing squash and we know that he greatly enjoys being in Tauranga. After he had been thinking about Christine Rankin he said: “I know the place I want to run in—it’s Tauranga.” Tauranga is populated by older women; that is where Simon Bridges wants to be. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Cougar territory! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes it is cougar territory in Tauranga. The other member from the Bay of Plenty who has already been mentioned today is Tony Ryall and on 12 May 2009 to some fanfare and a blaze of tangerine shirts and orange ties he announced a redeployment pool for jobless public servants. He said that this redeployment pool would be “established to retain and redistribute talent. … It will also look after the taxpayers’ interests by reducing the cost of redundancy payments.” Well we have seen a large number of job losses in the Public Service. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There have been 1500 and up to 2000 in the wider State sector. Forty-five thousand public servants—a lot of people—need to be redeployed so Tony Ryall has put in place a redeployment scheme and has set the Public Service in motion clear in his instruction that there will be redeployment. But I ask my colleagues how many people they think have been redeployed under Tony Ryall’s scheme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 500? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Ruth Dyson says “500?”. Do we have any others? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 1000? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: A thousand from Darren Hughes— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: 1500? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There is 1500 from Lianne Dalziel but—sadly—no my colleagues are wrong. Two people have been redeployed through Tony Ryall’s public servant redeployment pool. 
Hon Members 
: What! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No only two public servants across the entire Public Service have been redeployed as a result of Tony Ryall’s redeployment scheme and it has to be said that Tony Ryall in his tangerine shirt is not a happy camper. He is very upset that only two public servants across the whole of the Public Service have been redeployed as a result of his scheme. That is a sad indictment on a Government that said that jobs was its priority and that that was where it would be but only two public servants across the whole Public Service have been redeployed. 
Sadly we have seen time and time again from this Government the wrong choices and the wrong priorities. We have seen it with tax cuts where 3 percent of income earners received 30 percent of the benefit of tax cuts. We have seen that happen time and time again and now we hear of it with the GST proposals coming through. Those are the wrong choices and the wrong priorities. 
But the place where we have seen it the most is in education. I was appalled to be in the House today and hear Anne Tolley deliver a speech but not mention once her portfolio of education. Not once did she mention the number of people who have contacted her to say: “Turn around those cuts to night classes.” How many postcards has Anne Tolley received? How many members of her own caucus have come to her and said: “Turn around these cuts.”? Night classes are part of the fabric of our education system; they are part of lifelong learning. Dozens of constituents in my electorate have come to me to tell me how night classes have changed their lives. People have been able to set up small businesses as a result of getting back into learning. People have been able to improve their life skills. For example when they have lost a partner and have not known how to cook they have gone to night school to learn and that has given them social interaction. There are also the new migrants to New Zealand who have been looking to learn English meet people and have social interaction. But those opportunities have been taken away by Anne Tolley. That was a choice. It was a priority for National; National had an option. Thirty five million dollars has gone into private schools. That has been a choice by the National Government. It has chosen not to fund adult and community education. Mrs Tolley must now listen to the people of New Zealand; she must now turn round those cuts. We have seen a partial turn-round on the cuts to funding for people with physical disabilities such as cerebral palsy and so on. We now need a full turn-round on adult and community education. 
It is time for this Government to start listening. We have had a lot of bullying behaviour and put-downs from this Government. Now is the time to get rid of the wrong choices and wrong priorities in adult and community education and to turn round and start listening to the people of New Zealand. We have seen broken promises a lack of listening and cuts throughout the education sector. Today primary school students from my electorate came to the forecourt of Parliament to say “We don’t want Enviroschools cut.” The Enviroschools programme the Artists in Schools programme and professional development for teachers have all been cut by this Government. It is time the Government started listening and changed its priorities. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take this call from the whips’ office. I want to reflect on what we have heard during the adjournment and that is that the highlight for Labour members was their magical mystery bus tour to nowhere. I take this opportunity to share with members my highlight during the adjournment. 
My highlight was when I was invited by the Mayor of Hutt City Mayor Ogden to attend a meeting of local community leaders in his office to talk about local issues on Friday afternoon at 4 o’clock. I duly turned up in response to his very polite invitation. Everyone else was there but we had to wait for the last two stragglers to turn up—namely Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins. What happened? The Hon Trevor Mallard walked in and went straight up to Mayor Ogden and asked what I was doing there. Mayor Ogden said it was because he had invited me. What did the Hon Trevor Mallard say to Mayor Ogden? He said that if I was at the next meeting he would not be coming as that meeting was not for me. That member is so self-indulgent that he puts his own self-importance ahead of the interests of the community. I was asked to attend the meeting to discuss progressing the interests of the community but Trevor Mallard got his nose out of joint. 
He does not realise of course that Labour is no longer in Government and that if the community is to make progress it needs to speak to the Government. That is why Mayor Ogden wants Government members to attend these meetings. But it has not got through to Trevor Mallard that he is no longer in Government. We can now see why as a retread he will not be the next leader of the Labour Party. It is simply because he is interested only in himself and not in the wider interests of the community. 
Who else might we consider as an alternative leader? Perhaps we could have Shane Jones. He is a chap who purports to represent good decent hard-working New Zealanders and to champion workers as the backbone of the economy. The only problem with Shane Jones is that he does not know what hard work is. His other problem is that he is fighting with David Cunliffe for the right-hand side of the scrum and at the moment they cannot select between them who gets to go forward. Unfortunately they could not sort that out on the bus. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If this member was 2 inches taller he would have been an All Black. 
PAUL QUINN 
: We are now hearing from someone who is an expert on the All Blacks. As a result of his inferiority complex he never got anywhere in rugby past liniment rubbing in the changing sheds. Unfortunately he has never been good enough at sport. He sits there and pontificates on everything. The best he ever did was go around and pick the gear up off the floor and put it into the laundry bags. That is the closest he ever got to anything. 
Let us look at Darren Hughes. I have always thought that Darren Hughes shows good leadership potential. He is reasonably bright. He lost his constituency so there may be a bit of a problem because the next time round he may not be high enough on the list to get back into Parliament. The problem with Darren Hughes is that he is such a good talker that not only does he talk himself into the job but also he talks himself back out of the job. Of course he has had an opportunity in the publicly announced position of shadow Leader of the House but unfortunately one would never know it because Trevor Mallard keeps overriding him. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I move  
That the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about this bill which stands in my name. It is a private bill promoted by the Eden Park Trust Board. I say at the outset that I am grateful for the support of members on both sides of the House in ensuring that this bill has had a speedy passage so far and for the assistance of members in ensuring that we should be able to bring these proceedings to a smooth conclusion hopefully today. 
The redevelopment of Eden Park into a world-class venue was one of the core commitments in New Zealand’s bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The previous Government was of course the key player in making that commitment and investing $190 million in an underwrite for the development project. I and the then Opposition were pleased to support that project and those undertakings. The current trustees representatives of the Auckland Cricket Association and Auckland Rugby Football Union recognised the significant financial contribution that was being made through the Government’s underwrite and they agreed to changes to the governance arrangements that recognise the public contribution being made by New Zealand taxpayers. The bill makes amendments accordingly to the Eden Park Trust Act 1955 to implement those new governance arrangements and to ensure that there is indeed recognition of the public ownership interest in the park. 
This bill will allow for a transition from the current rather cumbersome governance arrangements with a trust board and a separate redevelopment board to a new Eden Park Trust Board and I know that the various stakeholders will be keen for that transition to occur quickly. I will explain briefly to the House that currently we have the ultimate owners the Eden Park Trust Board sitting in a governance arrangement whilst the redevelopment board undertakes the redevelopment work alongside it. I think it is agreed by both those parties that the sooner we can move to a single governance structure which is what this bill will permit the better it will suffice in meeting the interests of all concerned. I know that all of the stakeholders are quite keen to see us make those changes quickly. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the redevelopment of Eden Park is on schedule to be completed by October 2010. It makes sense for the new trust board to be in place as early as possible so that the appropriate governance and management operations can be put in place before the completion of the redevelopment. 
The Government Administration Committee has proposed that the bill should come into force 30 days after it receives the Royal assent. That is an amendment that I support and an amendment that will proceed hopefully as a consequence of this discussion today. 
Finally I thank a number of parties who have rendered service in the past and in relation to these proceedings today. I pay tribute to the current trustees of the Eden Park Trust Board and to the members of both Auckland cricket and Auckland rugby who over nearly a century have given their time unselfishly and have been responsible for the development of the park to the asset that it was prior to this redevelopment programme being undertaken. Through their endeavours and commitment Auckland has a sporting stadium that is internationally recognised. I look forward to seeing the redeveloped park play a critical role in the hosting of an outstanding tournament in 2011. In relation to this particular bill I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard who was the Minister who initiated the redevelopment process for his ongoing assistance in relation to the passing of this legislation. I acknowledge the work of his colleague the Hon David Parker who chaired the select committee in an expeditious fashion and in I might say a very constructive fashion which has seen the bill emerge from the committee in this form. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 When speaking on the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill there is still a degree of bitter-sweetness as far as I am concerned whenever the question of Eden Park comes up. When I hear the numbers I think back to a particular misjudgment on the part of my former colleague Dr Cullen who while Acting Prime Minister made an equal commitment to Eden Park and to the waterfront stadium. He said that we would back them both on the same basis. At that point the major leverage for economic development in central Auckland disappeared and history won. 
The side I was on in that debate is clear but the conservatism of the Auckland Regional Council in particular—the fact that it likes to get $30 a week for having cars parked on their wharf the site where the stadium would have been—is something that won on the day and I might say won in a way that I thought was fair. I have said on a number of occasions to Rob Fisher that I thought he did brilliantly in employing Linda Clark to convince the Auckland Regional Council that black was white and white was black because they were convinced. I would be very careful about using expressions to describe public relations people. I used a particular expression about Crosby/Textor that resulted in a wonderful legal letter. They do not like being called paid liars—that is for sure. I must say that in this particular case Linda Clark led a very good campaign that resulted in the decision to retain Eden Park as a centre for rugby and to a certain extent cricket in Auckland. 
That being the case the previous Government’s commitment was honoured and it is continuing to be honoured by the member Murray McCully and his team. I might say that probably as with members on this side of the House there was division during the debate. I welcomed the private support from John Key for the waterfront stadium. I was a little unhappy that the decision was in the same week that the National leader coup was occurring. He decided it was better to keep quiet publicly about that support in order to get the numbers to become the leader of the National Opposition. It was an interesting approach but that is politics I suppose; that is the way it breaks. 
Over many many years a lot of people originally from cricket but in more recent years from rugby as well in a more leading way have been involved in the development of the park. It has been and will continue to be a massive community asset for the people in Auckland. The ASB has put a lot of money into it over many many years. I am not absolutely certain that it has put enough into this redevelopment yet but I understand that some naming rights are still around. It would be good if the trust and the bank were able to line up because they are logical long-term sponsors. I think one can accept that the naming rights for the period of the Rugby World Cup might be a little bit rich for the ASB although if the economic recovery that the Minister of Finance is promising actually takes off then that could just well be pocket money for the ASB as it goes forward. 
I also thank colleagues who have been involved in the Government Administration Committee; David Parker has consulted with me on a couple of occasions. I chose not to sit on the select committee. I had confidence that it could do its work and it has. Sometimes it is better to have people with too much history and intimate knowledge a little bit further away from the actual discussion and I thought that that was the case. My successor as spokesperson on sport Chris Hipkins also made a contribution and did a couple of checks although I think it is fair to say that there was absolute unanimity around the changes. I thought one was pretty pedantic but we accept that and will keep on moving forward. 
I am looking forward to other members of the select committee contributing. I see that Nikki Kaye who was a member of the committee from 24 June is champing at the bit to have a go in the debate. I notice that a person even higher on the list of select committee members than her is Mr Bakshi and I am very much looking forward to his contribution in this debate this afternoon. In fact seeing that I think from the National Party’s perspective and certainly on an alphabetical basis of those in the House he is the senior member of that committee I am sure that he will take precedence in this discussion this afternoon. I will try to keep my discussion going in order for that to happen as I am sure he is on his way to the House. I will work hard to ensure that he can fulfil the opportunity that has been presented to him to join in these discussions today. 
This bill is of quite an unusual shape in that it is pretty rare for the schedules of a bill to be so long. In this case the bill itself goes to only five pages in length but the schedules then run through for another 26 pages. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It’s got to get better. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well not to write the actual trustee right in there is an interesting approach to legislation but that is something I accept; it is over a period of time. I think it is also fair to say that a number of us have seen much more of the work going on at Eden Park than we wanted to over the last 6 months or so. The retirement of the previous member for Mt Albert caused one or two visits. Whenever we are coming or going through Auckland we seemed to go pretty close to Eden Park on the way. For that reason I am also looking forward to the contribution of Melissa Lee to this debate. She is someone who has spent much more time—much more time than she wanted in the end—in the vicinity of Eden Park. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And what was the score there? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am happy to remind the member of the score. It started in sixes did it not and it was more like cricket than rugby. It was the sort of score we have in a 20/20 match when the bowlers are dominating and I think that at that stage the maiden was certainly bowled over. I will be interested in David Shearer’s contribution to this debate as well. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank goodness I have only 2 more minutes! 
It is interesting to see Parliament working in a cooperative way. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The great unifier! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that Mr McCully and I have a history of working together on issues dating back to 1995. It has been great to have another one where Mr McCully and I can have discussions now that I have long retired from the Parliamentary Rugby Team. I can have a discussion on an issue that might have nothing to do with this bill and no one knows the difference. It is very good. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two old boozers together. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would not describe Mr McCully as an old boozer. There are one or two other words that could possibly be used but that would be a matter of bringing up things that should stay on tour. Was Georgetown the place? I am trying to remember the place just up the road from Cape Town that the member and Mr O’Connor had quite an acquaintance with. I think that at this point I should sit down. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be supporting this private bill the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. In fact I have been champing at the bit to get up and speak on it. The Rugby World Cup will be the largest sporting event ever held in New Zealand. The estimated contribution is I think about $500 million in additional GDP to the New Zealand economy including $240 million to the Auckland economy. 
I start by acknowledging a few people. The Hon Murray McCully has already acknowledged Mr Mallard’s contribution over a number of years to debate about the stadium and I also acknowledge his contribution. I acknowledge the contributions from a number of entities such as the New Zealand Rugby Union and the ASB Community Trust to this redevelopment. The redevelopment is about having a world-class venue for Auckland. The venue has a capacity of 60000 and I think it is important to acknowledge that it is not about just the Rugby World Cup. This stadium will be around for many generations of New Zealanders so we will have a world-class venue for other cultural events. So I am very pleased to support this legislation. It is good legislation. The select committee recommended a change to the commencement date so that the Act will come into force 30 days after it receives the Royal assent. The real purpose of that change was to ensure that as early as possible we allow appropriate governance and management operations to be sorted out prior to the completion of the redevelopment. 
I do not intend to give a very large contribution but I want to acknowledge that the development is about more than just the Rugby World Cup although a huge benefit to the New Zealand economy will come from the Rugby World Cup. The bill is good legislation that is supported across the House. The benefits are massive not only to Auckland but also to New Zealand. I am very pleased to support this bill not only for the people of Auckland Central who will have the benefit of many rugby fans walking the streets of Ponsonby down to party central which I know members opposite are so supportive of but also for the local community of Mount Eden. I know that there will be improved integration for the local community through enhancements in transport landscaping urban design and other park amenities. 
So I commend this bill to the House and I congratulate the Hon Murray McCully on this private bill. I congratulate all other members who have been involved in this. I look forward to the Rugby World Cup and I look forward to the massive contribution it will make to the New Zealand economy and I look forward to the contribution the new stadium will make for generations to come. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is nice to have an opportunity to speak on a bill that is receiving more or less unanimous support around the House. Peace and love appear to have broken out and I am happy to contribute my 10 minutes to that effort. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s because you want to be on the sidelines. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well actually I am not sure I will be able to afford the tickets so I might be more likely to be on the sidelines. 
I recall very fondly the trip that Helen Clark the former Prime Minister made with Tana Umaga Colin Meads and various others to Dublin in order to help secure the rights to host the Rugby World Cup in 2011. I watched from home the progress of that. I was told a few moments ago by my colleague Darren Hughes that he was consulted extensively on Helen Clark’s speaking notes when she went to the International Rugby Board and he wanted to claim a little bit of credit for New Zealand winning the hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup in 2011. I suspect however that my colleague Trevor Mallard would argue that he had a little bit more to do with New Zealand winning the rights to host the cup. So I congratulate him on the considerable efforts he put in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right. They left me at home to make sure we won! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am told by him that he was left at home to ensure that the bid would be successful and that nothing would go wrong on the trip. I suspect that showed exceptionally good judgment on the part of those who organised the trip. 
As we talk about the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill which of course primarily has come into being because of the hosting of the 2011 Rugby World Cup I thought it might be useful to talk a little about the history. In 1912 the Auckland Cricket Association purchased land comprising most of Eden Park from the Eden Cricket Club through the support of a number of cricket enthusiasts who acted as guarantors for the necessary loan and became trustees of Eden Park. The land was then leased to the Auckland Rugby Union for the winter period from 1 January 1914 and the Auckland Rugby Union financed the grandstand that was built in 1913. The Auckland Cricket Association financed the members’ stand which was built in 1914. 
In 1926 a deed of agreement vested control of Eden Park in a board of control comprising three members each from the trustees of Eden Park the Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Union. In 1955 the Eden Park Trust Act was enacted. It set down the legal ownership of Eden Park and the rules by which it was to be administered. In 2007 an agreement was made between the Crown the Eden Park Trust Board and the Eden Park Board of Control whereby the Crown undertook to underwrite an amount not exceeding $190 million for the redevelopment of Eden Park with the proviso that the redevelopment be under the control of a redevelopment board and that new governance arrangements be agreed. 
Now we have to keep the agreement that was made in 2007 in mind when we consider this bill. It was one of the things that the Government Administration Committee had to give considerable thought to because some of the suggestions that came forward for amendments potentially could have undermined the discussions that took place between those parties. We were very mindful of that and I will talk a little bit about some of the technical issues that were raised during the select committee process in particular issues raised by the Attorney-General and by the Regulations Review Committee. In this particular instance the select committee chose not to follow the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee. That is actually quite an unusual thing I think for a select committee to do so it is probably quite important that I spend a considerable amount of time outlining the reasons that we did not follow its recommendations. 
But first I will talk about the need for the bill. Due to the redevelopment of Eden Park for the Rugby World Cup 2011 it is necessary to vary the terms set out and to set out new terms upon which the Eden Park Trust Board will hold this property on trust. The bill considerably simplifies the statutory regime relating to the trust. It repeals several definitions in the Act and it repeals at least 10 sections. The import of the bill-repealed sections is transferred to the new trustee which forms part of the bill. 
The issue that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the select committee was to do with the trust deed being incorporated in the legislation and the legislation then giving the Governor-General power to amend the trust deed in the legislation without having to come back to Parliament for any subsequent amendment to be ratified. It is known I believe as a “Henry VIII” clause; it empowers the Governor-General to make changes to primary legislation without it coming before Parliament. That of course is very unusual and a very big no-no. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: A constitutional outrage is what it is. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is a constitutional outrage as my colleague Lianne Dalziel is saying. We considered that matter very carefully and I am just looking through my notes to find the piece of paper where I noted what we talked about. The Government Administration Committee actually went to the degree of writing back to the Regulations Review Committee setting out the reasons why we did not want to follow that. 
I thought it would probably be quite useful for me to share with the House what we said to the Regulations Review Committee in regard to that particular “Henry VIII” clause. We said: “The trust deed is a legal document which is separate from the bill.” I think we need to keep in mind that important point. Although it is in the bill the trust deed itself is separate from the bill. “The words of the trust deed are repeated in the Schedule solely to make the terms of the trust deed accessible to the public in the most robust manner possible.” This is reflected in the wording of paragraph (a) of the definition of “trust deed” in clause 4(2) of the bill. “The trustees can amend the trust deed regardless of whether or not it is set out in the bill. Doing so would change the terms upon which the trust operates” but would not change the substantive provisions of the enabling legislation. The ability to amend the schedule by Order in Council has been provided for simply to ensure that the copy of the text of the trust deed set out in the schedule of the Act continues to accurately reflect the wording of the actual trust deed if the trust deed is amended in the future. 
To put that in plain English basically it means that if the Eden Park Trust Board amends its trust deed it would actually effectively amend the legislation. Unless the Governor-General has the power by Order in Council to reflect that change in the legislation the trust deed contained in the legislation would not reflect the actual trust deed as in existence. So we decided as a committee that it would be ludicrous to remove the ability of the Governor-General simply to make sure that the trust deed contained in the legislation actually reflected the trust deed that was in force. It was the subject of quite a bit of backwards and forwards discussion around the committee because as my colleague Lianne Dalziel said the Regulations Review Committee has written entire reports on the “Henry VIII” clause. The decision of the Government Administration Committee not to take note of the concerns raised by the Regulations Review Committee was not taken lightly but as Lianne Dalziel said I think given the deliberation and the thought it put into it it probably reached the right decision in deciding not to follow its recommendation. 
A number of issues were raised by the Attorney-General but in particular he raised some issues regarding potential incapacitation of trustees and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations around that. We addressed those considerations in the bill and we were very pleased to be able to do that. So I think the bill is reported back to the House with the Attorney-General’s concerns dealt with. Concerns were also raised during the process about the ability for the bill to be enacted by Order in Council rather than a specific date being put in the bill. That is another issue that the Regulations Review Committee has been particularly sceptical about: the idea that the Governor-General by Order in Council can have the power to enact legislation at a certain point in time. Parliament could pass a bill that may not ever come into force or it could be done completely randomly several years down the track. 
The Regulations Review Committee was very unsupportive of that so we amended it in the actual bill. Members will see that now in clause 2 of the bill there is a specific date: “This Act comes into force on the 30th day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We did not determine that date completely randomly; we determined that 30 days was probably about the right amount of time that the trustees and others would need to deal with the routine implementation and the administrative process of putting everything in place after the bill was passed. They will have the surety of knowing what the law is going to be and they then get 30 days in which to get everything all together so that they can put the law in place. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. The Green Party is supportive of the redevelopment of Eden Park and is looking forward to a very successful 2011 Rugby World Cup. 
Perhaps the Government could give some reassurance to Labour or at least to Labour in the form of Trevor Mallard. He seemed to be concerned before that the waterfront stadium did not go ahead. He wanted a better use of that waterfront area other than for parking a lot of cars on certain wharves in the vicinity of the planned stadium. 
The Government has given support to the development of Queen’s Wharf. It is called party central but hopefully it will be much more than that. Hopefully the Government will reassure Trevor Mallard by giving some indication of assistance to further development east of Queen’s Wharf so that we really have something a bit more like the Wellington waterfront which is a pleasure to walk along each morning on the way to Parliament. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What? Are you going to walk around the Auckland waterfront on the way to Parliament? I am confused. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes that is right; perhaps we will move Parliament up to Auckland once we have a good waterfront there! 
I raise three points about the way we could help the Eden Park Trust Board financially. One of those points—I think it has been touched on a little bit previously by Nikki Kaye—is public transport. We are concerned that the Government is not moving ahead quickly enough with Auckland public transport particularly rail. One of the things that inhibit people going to Eden Park and helping its receipts is that if people go to Eden Park they are often forced by the lack of public transport to go by car and for a big event they have to park a long way away. I live a fair way away from Eden Park but people park outside my place on the day of a big game. Once the stadium is expanded to 60000 seats people will be parking a very long way away and perhaps not even bothering to go to the game if there is no decent public transport. So we are trying to give a push to the Government to move ahead particularly with the electrification project. 
The second point is that perhaps there could be some little suggestion to the Rugby Union to not keep extending the rugby season. We are getting viewer fatigue; audiences have been declining. That decline reflects on the receipts of the New Zealand Rugby Union and its payments to the Auckland Rugby Football Union and Eden Park Trust Board. There will not be fewer games at Eden Park because the extension is really putting extra games in Dunedin and places like that. Making that suggestion is one thing that can be done. 
Another thing comes out of some of the discussion of late around the game between Kelston Boys High School and Auckland Grammar School. I take the point of Richard Boock the leading sports columnist in New Zealand who was on the radio this morning talking about how we have to get back to the way we thought about sport traditionally as being a game and think in terms of how in every game of cricket or rugby there has to be a winner and there has to be a loser and not to bank everything on the winner and nothing on the loser. I think that view is reflected in audiences. If audiences say they will not go to the game because their team is losing—and Auckland has been losing a bit recently—then it is not good for the receipts of the Eden Park Trust Board. If we can get back to the more traditional concept—hopefully reflected in amateur sport although it was not reflected in the game between Auckland Grammar School and Kelston Boys High School the other day—that winning is not the be-all and end-all but playing one’s best is what counts then I think that will mean that people will come to the game regardless of whether their team is likely to win or lose and they will respect the achievements of the other side if it happens to beat the home team. The receipts of Eden Park would go up. 
Those are just a few little suggestions to help the new trust board on its merry way. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It made for great food for the soul today to learn about the gardening initiative at Manurewa Marae. It will teach locals how to grow their own vegetable gardens while gaining a nationally recognised qualification. It is an initiative being pioneered by Let’s Beat Diabetes programme director Chad Paraone and it does a whole lot of things at once. The marae gardening programme is about creating self-sufficiency good eating and exercise while at the same time—wait for it—fostering education and nurturing workforce development. It is community development at its very best. It is an initiative with the full support of those involved with the marae who have a vision of their marae being a hub within the community. That is what I call a good news story. 
What is happening at Manurewa could just as easily have happened at Eden Park. The evidence from Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board is that Eden Park was traditionally a wetland used for the harvesting of kai. Rather than having goalposts and spectator stands the whenua could have been turned to a different end creating produce for healthy family meals building community unity and developing tertiary training skills. Instead we are now considering a venue that has an internationally recognised name and brand as a major sports stadium. 
The Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill is of course associated with the urgent imperative to till the soil for the Rugby World Cup 2011 but before the World Cup took over Eden Park already had a distinguished heritage history as a significant rugby and cricketing venue. This is the place where the All Blacks achieved victory in the 1987 Rugby World Cup final—they won at least one final anyway. It was the site of the 1950 British Empire Games. It has also hosted international rugby league international soccer international hockey gymnastics and athletics. The Queen Mother paid a visit in 1966 the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1983 and the Dalai Lama in 2002. 
It is evident that significant events and personalities will for ever be linked with Eden Park but we wonder how frequently people would also associate this land with the volcano Maungawhau the Waikato warrior Kawharu Ngati Paoa of the Hauraki tribes the Waiohua chief Kiwi Tamaki or indeed Ngati Whatua as mana whenua. There is a rich history associated with Eden Park and that history is also a history laden with the legacy of tangata whenua. 
We are pleased that Ngati Whatua support this bill and we are also interested in the proposal they have mooted that Eden Park should be developed as a venue for Maori events such as Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Festival. I am sure that my colleague Dr Pita Sharples would be extremely enthusiastic about taking Manutuke on to the stage at Eden Park as the local member for Tamaki Makaurau. 
There is just one issue that I hope the Minister will clarify and that is the recommendation from the Government Administration Committee that the bill should be amended to allow people with disabilities to serve as trustees. We absolutely support the intent of this recommendation and we hope to see it actioned to ensure that disabled persons have every right to participate in decision making. 
The committee also noted in its report that a significant responsibility of trustees will be to hire the facilities at a fair and reasonable rate to community groups whose events generate little revenue. Again this is an excellent suggestion which we fully support in order to respect the obligation upon local bodies to support the wider community. 
Finally I come back to the proud cultural heritage of Eden Park. The Maori Party recommends to the Eden Park Trust Board that it gives strong consideration to the relationship with mana whenua as the Treaty partner. We hope that the Eden Park Trust Board will work with iwi and to this end the Maori Party has promoted the opportunity for the Minister of Local Government to ensure that when selecting the five Crown trustees to the board a seat is specifically reserved for tangata whenua. This would seem a pretty good model for other Ministers to follow. Kia ora. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to support the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. Although I was not involved in the first reading in May or the select committee process it is nice for me to note the multiparty support across the House for this bill’s introduction and second reading today. This member’s bill—introduced by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the Hon Murray McCully who is a fantastic Minister—amends the 1955 Eden Park Trust Act to provide new governance agreements and flexibility to make the 2011 Rugby World Cup at Eden Park a reality. 
I have driven past Eden Park on many occasions—some members alluded to the fact that I have probably done so more than other members in this House—and I have noticed huge changes already. Those changes are part of what this bill intends to facilitate which is the creation of a redeveloped stadium with a capacity of 60000 people. Obviously this stadium is earmarked for the Rugby World Cup but the flow-on effects of the redeveloped stadium will be huge and they will benefit the people of Auckland and ultimately the people of New Zealand. 
One of the things that used to fascinate and frustrate me having lived only a few minutes from Eden Park for more than a decade was the sheer number of people who used to park in my street to walk to the park whenever there was a game. I used to laugh at the colourfully painted faces the team jerseys and all the rugby paraphernalia. On occasion I joined them to watch either rugby or cricket as a good Kiwi girl should. As a resident of Mount Eden I used to avoid Sandringham Road and Dominion Road on game days simply because of the sheer number of cars. The traffic jams that used to frustrate even the most patient drivers will hopefully get better as a result of this bill; it is a catalyst for investment in regional transport and infrastructure. I know that already the Auckland City Council is investing in the widening of roads and fixing of walkways to facilitate the movement of the large numbers of spectators who will turn out for the Rugby World Cup. The improvement of pedestrian access to and from the park is essential and so is the establishment of transport centres for public transport. 
Already the shopping precinct in Kingsland has changed tremendously. Over the years the sad-looking Kingsland shops have improved out of sight and now are home to many wonderful cafes and bars and some of my favourite restaurants and dress shops. The Kingsland Train Station is tops too. I remember when it used to look very run down and a bit of a shack. Now it is clean and modern and it will be a great asset for those wanting to get to the game without the worry of having to drive or find a park. 
I have just returned from Korea having been invited there as a keynote speaker for a conference. I had an opportunity to have a quick look at Seoul and I was very impressed. They have beautified their city to make it people-friendly. I saw families having picnics along the stream that runs through the city and I saw children run through a water fountain specially made for them to play in. Eden Park may not quite match up in those people-friendly stakes but the recognition it will gain overseas through the Rugby World Cup and its promotion will benefit New Zealand as a whole. Auckland City will get world recognition and as the world moves in a more global network with cities competing against other cities around the world it can only add value to Auckland. That value is not just for rugby. It will be great not only for sporting events but also for other recreational musical and cultural events that will benefit the people of Mt Albert the region and the nation as a whole. 
To do all this the bill gives the trustees the teeth to do their job and meet their objectives. There will be a minimum of five and a maximum of nine trustees five of whom will be appointed by the Crown and they will hold at least six meetings each financial year. The Rugby World Cup is one of the world’s premier sports events second to the Olympic Games and the international football events. It will be the largest sporting event ever held in New Zealand and it comes at no small cost but the benefits will outweigh the cost. As the mother of a 10-year-old boy who cannot wait for the Rugby World Cup—and more important for the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup—I can only support this bill. Go the All Blacks! I commend this bill to the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a privilege to follow such a comprehensive and well-thought-through speech from the former next MP for Mt Albert Melissa Lee. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh you’re funny. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you. Perhaps if she had made more speeches like that and if she had had a little bit more time in the by-election campaign she would have garnered a few more votes. But that is all in the past now so we will move on. 
The aim of the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill is to amend the governance arrangements so that the Eden Park Trust Board will have greater independence from Parliament. It gives the board considerably more flexibility to act independently of Parliament so that it can prepare for the upcoming Rugby World Cup in 2011. I had the privilege of visiting Mount Albert a couple of times earlier this year and it was quite clear that the— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why was the member in Mount Albert? 
Grant Robertson 
: Important meetings! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: There was a caucus meeting at Eden Park in fact so that was my opportunity to go to Eden Park. It was fantastic to see the rate at which the development is happening there now. It is quite clear that the board does need that independence so that it can respond to any problems that might arise as the development continues without continually having to come back and seek approval from a higher authority. 
It was interesting to hear Nikki Kaye talk about what a great community asset Eden Park will be once all the developments are complete. Nikki Kaye the MP for Auckland Central might have—had Trevor Mallard had his way—had a stadium in her electorate. Perhaps she is a bit disappointed that she will not get such a valuable community asset. But she will get party central—a bit of flat earth at the bottom of Queen Street in Auckland Central. The Government is investing something in the order of $18 million—I stand to be corrected if someone knows better—in party central which will not be anything like the asset Eden Park will be or the waterfront stadium would have been. 
When we really start thinking about the priorities of this Government we realise that maybe the $18 million might have been better spent in other ways. It would have cost just $16 million to maintain the adult and community education that has been slashed by this Government. It would have cost just $10 million to maintain the current services at Palmerston North Hospital in the MidCentral District Health Board area. It may have been wiser to spend the money on that rather than a return to the 1980s with party central at the bottom of Queen Street in Auckland Central. Sadly party central will not be the kind of community asset that Eden Park is. 
But we do have Eden Park and it is very very important that we get it right. We have only one shot at the Rugby World Cup. We are a small country of just 4 million people. To have the opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup shows that as usual New Zealand has punched above its weight. I say thank you very much to the previous Prime Minister Helen Clark amongst other people because she headed over to Dublin to help New Zealand in its bid. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We never won the world cup under a Labour Government! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It was in fact under a Labour Government that New Zealand won the Rugby World Cup for the one and only time in 1987. The member is slightly confused on that one. He is rewriting history but that is OK. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I apologise. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is all right. The member apologised and that is fine. We have just one shot to make sure that our one opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup goes absolutely right for us and that we get the maximum economic benefit out of it. It has been estimated that the economic benefit to New Zealand could be in the order of $1.15 billion so it is absolutely imperative we get it right. That figure breaks down to $476 million in total direct additional expenditure within New Zealand. Of that figure $262 million is expected to be spent within Auckland. It is expected that there will be $507 million in additional gross domestic product for the New Zealand economy of which $240 million is additional GDP for the Auckland economy. 
It is very very important that we get this vital community asset right and also that the tourism spin-offs from the Rugby World Cup are felt outside of Auckland as well and maybe felt even in my own electorate. We have been lucky enough in Palmerston North to be offered a couple of games. I think we have Europe 1 versus a qualifier of some description so that will be a great game to go along to. Maybe a few people might head up the road from the Wellington games to watch some of the Palmerston North games so that my city can get some of the economic benefit. 
Hone Harawira 
: Where’s Palmerston North? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is a very good question. Palmerston North is about 2 hours north. Unlike some National members I know my north from my south. If we start in Wellington and head north for about 2 hours we get to Palmerston North. If we head a little bit further north we get to Wanganui and up to Taranaki and New Plymouth as well. That is not heading south; that is heading north. That is a little bit of geography for the Government; I am sure it will help it out. Just like the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games which are more relevant for New Zealand getting Eden Park right is absolutely right because— 
Hone Harawira 
: You go west to Wanganui not north. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is sort of west and north; it is definitely north from Palmerston North. But I agree with the member that it is mostly west and a little north. When the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games are done right they have a lasting impression on the city where they are hosted. In the same way the Rugby World Cup can have a lasting impression on New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. It is absolutely right that we not only get Eden Park right but also get the trust structured correctly. It is also important that the tourism strategy is absolutely right and that we make the most of this opportunity. 
In getting the trust deed right there are a number of specifics that are probably worth going into. The trust deed specifies the trusts under which the trust property must be held and the governance arrangements for the trust property. The trust deed reflects the arrangements made between the parties. There is a declaration of trust in relation to the trust assets. The objectives of the trust are stated as follows: “To promote operate and develop Eden Park as a high quality multi-purpose stadium for the use and benefit of rugby and cricket … as well as other sporting codes and other recreational musical and cultural events for the benefit of the public of the Region.” That might even include a Labour Party caucus meeting. A further objective is “To administer Eden Park and the Trust Assets on a prudent commercial basis so that Eden Park is a successful financially autonomous community asset.” The trust will have “due regard to the needs of and the contributions made by and historical interests of the Auckland Rugby Union and the Auckland Cricket Association and the contributions of the Crown …”. 
It is interesting to note that the trustees are not personally liable. The bill extends protection to all trustees past and future by providing that “No trustee of the Trust Board … is or may be personally liable for any act or omission of the Trust Board or any other trustee of the Trust Board …”. It covers any event beyond the control of the trustees that could potentially jeopardise the solvency of Eden Park. However it specifically does not include any event or circumstance that could have been avoided by the trustees exercising a reasonable standard of care. If the board members invited David Beckham over to play a football game and it all went belly up they would be liable for that debt. 
This bill is vitally important for making the most of the Rugby World Cup. The board must have greater independence from Parliament so that amendments can be made quickly and signed off by the Governor-General through Order in Council and for that reason Labour wholeheartedly supports this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate having served on the Government Administration Committee which considered the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. The committee was ably chaired by my colleague David Parker and we certainly worked in a collegial atmosphere to bring this bill back to the House. It is an honour to talk about Eden Park; despite being a Wellingtonian I can understand the importance and significance of Eden Park to all New Zealanders. It was the site of our first ever cricket test win against the West Indies in the 1950s which was a remarkable occasion. It has been the site of other great sporting achievements and we have already heard about the 1987 Rugby World Cup final. For Mr Henare’s benefit it was indeed under a Labour Government that New Zealand won its only Rugby World Cup title. 
It has also been the scene of part of our social and cultural history. No one will forget the third test of the Springbok Tour in 1981 and what went on in the area around Eden Park. I ask Mr Henare whether he was there. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I didn’t go. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Those flour bombs missed their target then clearly. I remember as a young person watching the news footage of the event and being quite disturbed by what I saw there. Clearly Eden Park was the centre of that. When they demolished the grandstand they found the trapdoor that was used to get the Springbok rugby team in and out of Eden Park so that they did not have to run the gauntlet of the protest. It was certainly a time of huge social upheaval in New Zealand. As a 10-year-old I was well aware of where I stood on the Springbok Tour; some other members of this House are not so sure. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: As a 10-year-old? Come on! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I was 10 years old during the 1981 Springbok Tour. I certainly knew where I stood on the Springbok Tour at the time. Unfortunately some other members of the House are not so clear on that. Mr Key in particular was not clear at all on his position on the Springbok Tour which is remarkable for somebody at university at the time. 
I also know we have already heard quite an interesting contribution from Mr Locke about the different uses of Eden Park today particularly the split between cricket and rugby. I will return to the issue of the different responsibilities of the Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Football Union. It is true that a lot less cricket is now played on the Eden Park main ground. This trust deed now clarifies the use of the No. 2 ground for the Auckland Cricket Association and I know the association is happy about that. It is a ground it wants to develop. In recent years it has hosted first-class cricket finals and also the finals of the one-day cricket competition and the Twenty20 competition. I know they are looking at potentially developing it as a test venue rather than the No. 1 ground. I certainly share Mr Locke’s view that the expansion of the rugby season has seen a sense of cricket almost being forced out of venues like Eden Park. Personally I think we can find a good and better balance in that regard. 
My colleague Chris Hipkins has already talked about what the committee debated in terms of the position around the so-called “Henry VIII” clause. I will not go back over that again except to say that the committee understood and had a good dialogue with the Regulations Review Committee about the importance of being careful about such clauses. But we think this is the best outcome for the bill. It is a different arrangement here. We have a situation whereby a partnership has been created between the Auckland Cricket Association the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Government to ensure that Eden Park is the facility we want it to be for Rugby World Cup 2011 and beyond. The special arrangements we have here are the right ones to get us through. We are certainly aware that the Regulations Review Committee had its views. We have taken them into account and ensured that we have a bill that we think will work. 
Mr Hipkins also mentioned the discussion we had around the appointment and removal of trustees. We have made some amendments to the bill in order to ensure that the concerns of the Attorney-General around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been taken into account. I will refer to something that is in the commentary of the bill around the responsibilities of the trustees. We had quite long conversations in the select committee about how the trustees would be able to enact their responsibilities. This comes back to the partnership I have mentioned before. The Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Football Union have a long history and a long association with Eden Park. The Government is now a partner as well. It is important that as we move forward a balance is set between the responsibilities of the trustees to hold an asset and look after an asset that is for all New Zealanders given the financial contribution by the Government so that they are managing Eden Park for the broader community. 
The broader community now has a stake in Eden Park and the trustees need to be aware of that and manage it. Equally we also know that the associations are looking to maximise revenue from the ground. The revenue that is generated from Eden Park is extraordinarily significant to the wider Auckland cricket region. It is also significant to Auckland rugby. The committee has noted in its commentary: “we expect that the trust will move towards a more commercial model when other sporting codes hire the facilities which should meet the objectives of the trust as outlined in clause 4.1(b) of the trust deed. Clause 4.1(b) states that one of the objects for which the trust is continued is ‘to administer Eden Park and the Trust Assets on a prudent commercial basis so that Eden Park is a successful financially autonomous community asset’.” It is quite a difficult balance to be able to run Eden Park so that it is a community asset in the broadest sense but also so that it is commercially viable. That is the challenge that is now in front of the new trustees of Eden Park which are appointed by the Auckland Cricket Association the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Government. The committee wanted to put that in the commentary to ensure that that balance was recognised as the bill passes through the House this evening. 
I will refer to the objects of the trust which will become part of law. It is important that we look at them in some detail so that we can see the balance the trustees have to look at. The objects of the trust are “To promote operate and develop Eden Park as a high quality multi-purpose stadium for the use and benefit of rugby and cricket … as well as other sporting codes and other recreational musical and cultural events for the benefit of the public of the Region;”. That is quite a wide-ranging object. The Auckland Rugby Football Union and Auckland Cricket Association are there primarily. Eden Park is their ground. They have developed it over the years. They continue to be the key stakeholders. The Government is now involved as well. The people of New Zealand are stakeholders through the Government. But we also want to see—and I think all members in the House want to see—Eden Park used for the widest possible range of events. We already heard this evening from a number of speakers the different events that have been held at Eden Park and we want to continue to ensure that they are held there. 
Hone Harawira 
: Rugby league. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I would like to see rugby league obviously which is a great sport but also some musical and cultural events held there. 
The second object of the trust as I mentioned is the one that ensures that it is to be administered on a prudent commercial basis so that it is a successful financially autonomous community asset. That is the challenge in front of the trustees and I am sure they are well aware of it. The other objects of the trust make note of the partnership between the Crown the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Auckland Cricket Association. Again I will pause here to pay tribute to the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Auckland Cricket Association which have adopted a very flexible approach in the negotiation of the bill. I also pay tribute to the officials mainly from the Ministry of Economic Development who worked very hard to ensure an outcome that was acceptable to all parties. The committee certainly valued their advice. 
I will move through some other parts of the trust deed that I think are important to note. One of them clause 6 of the covenants is around the trustees’ responsibilities. It notes the different responsibilities of the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Auckland Cricket Association. The Auckland Cricket Association will have preferential use rights to the No. 2 ground. 
Hone Harawira 
: But you’re from Wellington. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I know but I care about cricket and rugby right across New Zealand. The best rugby team in New Zealand is obviously in Wellington. I thank my colleague for noting that but Auckland rugby and Auckland cricket need support as well. The Auckland Cricket Association will also have permanent use and occupation of facilities on a year-round basis and concessionary venue hire. There are concessionary terms here for the Auckland Cricket Association. That is recognition of the association’s long-term contribution to the ground and the development of the ground as there is for Auckland rugby as well. 
I can say that the entire community will benefit from this asset. The Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Football Union have their role in developing it and continuing to develop it. I hope Eden Park will be a community asset we can all be proud of and in 2011 when we win the Rugby World Cup we can all look at a stadium that is for all New Zealanders. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I move  
That the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 29 July. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: When the bill was debated last Metiria Turei was speaking. She has 3 minutes remaining should she wish to take them. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ms Turei will be on her way. She is otherwise disposed at the moment. Is it possible for her to take her call later? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am certainly happy to take a quick call while we are waiting for Metiria to arrive in the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not possible. The call is for Metiria Turei. If she is not here to take the call the call moves to the next speaker. Should Metiria Turei turn up some time later she is free to seek the leave of the House to complete her call. If the House agrees that will be the case. This is her spot but the time has moved. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe e te Mangai. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Hoi ano e te Mangai tera e ki nei waimaria matou o te Pati Maori i te mea i hara mai tenei pire ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata i te wa o te reo Maori. Ae he waimaria pea engari tera pea ka kia he tino tikanga tenei mai i te wairua tupuna. Ki te whakaaro Maori e orite ana nga kaupapa e rua nei mo te reo mo Matariki ano hoki. He taonga tuku iho i nga atua ki o matou tupuna a tae noa mai ki a matou i enei ra. Ko te reo ko Matariki ano hoki he matauranga i ora ai o matou iwi mai i te wa i a ratou i Hawaiki tonu. Na Matariki me ona hoa whetu o matou tupuna i arahi mai i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa ki Aotearoa. Na nga whetu ratou i mohio ai kei hea ratou ki hea ratou haere ai i nga wa katoa.  
Ko Matariki tetahi tohu nui mo te huringa o nga tau me te hokinga mai o nga rangi mahana o te koanga o te raumati. He tohu nui mo te whakatipu kai mo te hi ngohi mo te mahi manu me nga momo mahi e ora ai nga iwi i te ao kohatu. No reira he tohu mana a Matariki he tohu e kaingakautia ana e nga iwi o te motu. No reira e tika ana kia korerotia tenei pire mo Matariki me te mana o te reo Maori. Koi ano hoki tetahi tohu mana. 
Ko te kaupapa o tenei pire kia whakamana i te wa o Matariki i raro i te ture kia whai wahi ai nga iwi katoa o Aotearoa ki tenei tohu mana. Ma tenei pire e manaaki e whakanui e whakarangatira te Paremata i tenei koha a nga Maori ki o ratou hoa o Aotearoa. Ehara i te tikanga o tenei pire ki te akiaki i tetahi atu ki te whiu i tetahi atu ki te pehi i tetahi atu. Kao. Hei whakakotahi i nga iwi o te motu i runga ano i nga tikanga taketake o tenei whenua. Kua kite ke tatou i te ahuareka o nga iwi katoa e tautoko ana i nga kaupapa o Matariki. Ko te karanga a tenei pire ki te Paremata: tautokonatia manaakitia hapaitia tenei kaupapa ataahua! 
Me hoki atu o tatou whakaaro ki nga tau e toru tekau kua hipa atu ki te timatanga o te wa o te reo Maori. Ka pera tonu te whakaaro Maori kia manaakitia tenei taonga whakahirahira e nga iwi katoa o te ao hei taonga mo ratou katoa engari i tera wa o te kuware kihai i tutuki pai te whakaaro. Ka mataku wetahi kei whakakorerotia te reo e ratou hakoa ta ratou kore hiahia. Ki wetahi he kaupapa whakawehewehe i te iwi kotahi o te motu. Tena ka pau te toru tekau tau kua rata mai te nuinga ki te reo Maori ka kitea hei kaupapa whakakotahi i a tatou hei kaupapa whakaatu i te mana motuhake o Aotearoa ki iwi ke. Ko te tumanako ka pera ano a Matariki. Ma tenei pire tatou e whakakotahi i Aotearoa. Ma Matariki tatou e whakawhanaunga ki nga iwi o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa e mohio ana nei ratou ki a Makali’i ki a Mataliki ki a Matari’i ranei. Otira he tohu e ki ana no Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa tatou katoa. E mohio ana tatou katoa ki to tatou whakapapa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all the House. Mr Assistant Speaker you might say that we in the Maori Party are lucky because this bill came before Parliament at the time of Maori Language Week. Yes we may be lucky but it could also be said that this is our destiny bequeathed by our ancestors. The Maori view is that these two issues the language and Matariki are very similar. They are treasures handed down from the gods to our ancestors and on to us today. The language and Matariki are part of the culture that have enabled our ancestors to survive since the time they were still living in Hawaiki. Matariki and other stars guided our ancestors across the Pacific the great ocean of Kiwa. The stars told them where they were and where they were to head to at all times.  
Matariki is also a great sign of changing seasons and the return of the warmer days of spring and summer. It was a great guide for planting crops for fishing fowling and activities like that to enable the people in the old days to survive. So Matariki is a powerful symbol valued by the tribes of the country and it is appropriate that we talk about the Matariki bill and the importance of the Maori language at the same time. That in itself is a powerful sign.  
The purpose of this bill is to empower the season of Matariki under the law so that all New Zealanders can contribute to this powerful symbol. Through this bill Parliament will respect acknowledge and glorify this gift from the Maori people to their fellow citizens. This bill is not intended to coerce anyone or force anyone or pressure anyone. Absolutely not! It is intended to unite the people of this nation on the basis of shared indigenous values. We have already seen the pleasure that people get from celebrating Matariki events. This bill invites the Parliament to support endorse and promote this wonderful philosophy.  
Let us cast our minds back 30 years to the beginnings of Maori Language Week. Maori thinking was just the same in that all people should share this cultural treasure as part of their own heritage but in those bad old days of ignorance the dream was not realised. Some people were afraid they would be forced to speak Maori against their will. Others saw it as an issue that divided the one people of Aotearoa. Well after 30 years most people have come round to te reo Maori. It is seen as a philosophy to unite us and to showcase New Zealand’s autonomy to other people. The hope is that Matariki will do the same. Through this bill we will unite New Zealand. Matariki will enhance our relationship with the people of the great ocean of Kiwa who know it as Makali’i Mataliki or Matari’i. Indeed it symbolises that we are all from the great ocean of Kiwa. We all know our origins 
.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has 1 minute remaining. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Ko taku korero i te reo Maori ko te rima meneti tera ko to whakapakehatanga ko te rima meneti ano. Ko te katoa e tekau meneti. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
My address in the Maori language is for 5 minutes and the interpretation is for 5 minutes as well. That makes the total 10 minutes 
]. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are taking that into account. When we have an interpretation the clock stops. You have 49 seconds left. We do take into account the interpretation and the clock stops. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: E kao. Kua kite au i te karaka i timata au i te rima karaka. I naianei kua rima meneti pahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I beg to differ. I noted that it showed 5 on the clock. Now I see that 5 minutes have passed. 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The clock started at 4.58 p.m. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Ka pai. E toru meneti e toe ana. 
Mena ka whakamanahia tenei pire hei ture ka mana hoki te tuatahi o nga ra whakamahara i tetahi kaupapa taketake. E tekau a tatou ra whakata a-motu me tetahi ra whakata a-rohe i tua atu ia tau a kahore tetahi mea kotahi na te tangata whenua. Ko te Ra o Waitangi he whakanui i te whakahoatanga o nga iwi taketake me tauiwi. 
Hei kupu whakamutunga maku kei te awangawanga wetahi kei noho nama nga kaipakihi mo te utu i tetahi ra whakata ano. Ko taku ki a tatou waiho tera mo tenei wa. Me wanangatia te kaupapa nui i te tuatahi katahi ka huri ai ki te utu. E whakapono ana ahau he kaupapa pai ke ake a Matariki i te ra whai muri i te Ra o te Tau Hou i te Ra Mekemeke ranei hei ra tapu. Hoi no ko taku whakahau ki te Whare kia tautoko kaha i tenei pire. Tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Good. Three minutes remain then. 
Should this bill be passed the first of such days commemorating an indigenous event will be recognised as well. We have 10 public holidays plus a provincial holiday each year and not a single one has indigenous roots. Waitangi Day celebrates the relationship between the indigenous people and non-Maori.  
In closing I say that some people are concerned about the cost to business of another paid holiday. I say to them: leave that for the moment. Let us discuss the main issue first and then address the cost. I personally believe that Matariki is a much better “holy day” than the day after New Year’s Day or Boxing Day. I urge the House to support this bill strongly. Greetings to us all 
.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I start by posing this question: why do we try to find legitimisation from Parliament when we should be finding legitimisation in our communities? I think the idea of Matariki Day is a good one. There is so much good feeling around the issue of Matariki. It is distinctly and uniquely New Zealand. Every indigenous culture around the world recognises Matariki. It is known as Subaru in Japan—and they did not have to legitimise it through Parliament. Mr Twyford shakes his head but I do not think it is necessary—and I apologise to my Maori colleagues for the term I will use—to “tapu-ise” or whakatapu our ideas so much that we spend only one day of the year celebrating or having reverence for Matariki. I am of the opinion that the Government the Opposition and everyone else should spend time in fact the whole month— 
Grant Robertson 
: How does this argument work for Christmas Day? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member would not understand what Matariki is. He should shut up and listen to a real cultural discussion about Matariki and what it stands for. It is not a public holiday and it should never be a public holiday. But what we should do in this country is recognise the cultural importance of the whole of June as Matariki month. We should think about the leverage we could get from that in terms of tourism sport culture and recognition. We should think about the leverage that Wellington Auckland and every other community could get from having a Matariki month. 
All that Labour members want is another public holiday—that is all it is about to them. Labour members want another day to sit on their fat chuffs and do nothing. They want another day to sit back put their feet up and watch TV. That is all that Matariki is about to the Labour Party. Where are all the Maori members of the Labour Party right now? They are nowhere to be seen. They must be having a BBQ somewhere. Where is Shane Jones? This bill is about a cultural icon that should not be in this House being legitimised or even talked about by the idiots across the way. Members should think about the sort of leverage we would be able to garner overseas if we had a whole month of celebrations about Matariki. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’d be fantastic. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well why does Labour not come up with an idea or two about how we would achieve that? It is pretty simple. 
Grant Robertson 
: Send the bill to the select committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member says we should send it to the select committee. Matariki has been around for a long time but in the last 9 years Labour did not come up with the idea of having a public holiday for Matariki. Now that Labour is in Opposition and does not have to make the decisions it will support this bill. Gone are the times when Labour accused the party who brought it to the House of being haters and wreckers—but that is all right because Labour apologised for that. It is pretty plain and simple that we need to grow up and have our cultural icons as days where communities celebrate in recognition of those cultural events without Parliament saying that we must have a day off and without Parliament saying to the businessmen that they must give somebody a day off. Why do we not take the responsibility for ourselves in our communities? 
Phil Twyford 
: Who thought up this line? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well it certainly was not the Fabians—that is for sure. It is time for New Zealand and her communities to recognise Matariki and celebrate from 1 June until the end of June and not just have another public holiday so that Labour members can sit on their chuffs and do nothing. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa e te Whare. In speaking on this Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill I start by acknowledging Rahui Katene for this great idea and for presenting it to the House. Certainly we will be supporting the bill going through to a select committee and we acknowledge the idea of proposing a truly indigenous holiday for our country. We think its time has certainly come and it is something we should be discussing as a country. 
Matariki has traditionally as others have said been a time for planting planning valuing the past and preparing for the future. An increasing number of Matariki celebrations are held throughout New Zealand for a period of a month or so as the previous speaker said. Matariki really does come across as an example of the strength and vitality of the Maori people. But Matariki is also something that is unique to this country. As I have already said we certainly support the bill going to a select committee. A whole number of issues could be discussed in a select committee if of course the Government chooses to let that happen. But it would seem from all of the speakers so far that it will not happen and that the Government is not willing to allow the concept of having a Matariki Day to be discussed. 
The bill is about more than just saying there should be another holiday. Other speakers have talked about the possibility that Matariki Day should be instead of a current public holiday. Let us discuss all of those points. Let us discuss the issue that Mr Henare raised about a month of celebration of Matariki. Let us use the bill as an opportunity to let the idea go to a select committee and to hear what people think. I think the bill is very very important. 
The bill itself proposes a new public holiday to celebrate Matariki on the day of the next new moon after the Matariki constellation has risen. That will vary from year to year but it is generally in May or June. Matariki is really important as part of our identity of Aotearoa New Zealand. Labour certainly supports building a strong identity for Aotearoa New Zealand. Many things already define us as a country. 
Labour has been very very proud of many things over the years such as our independent foreign policy our support for New Zealand’s creative sector and establishing our own judicial system and honours system. But a number of members will recognise that some of those things have already been undermined. Our identity is being undermined by the current Government. 
Holidays are important. Holidays benefit all New Zealanders not just a privileged few who are prioritised by the current Government—all New Zealanders. The current Government is prioritising the rich. I ask members to look at things like tax cuts and funding of private schools. We like the idea of having another public holiday. It would benefit all New Zealanders. Our record in the area of holidays is one that no one can deny. I ask members to look at Labour’s track record. Having 3 weeks of annual leave was brought in under a Labour Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Norman Kirk. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: That is right—the Kirk Government. Annual leave increased in 2007 to 4 weeks. Workers being paid time and a half for working on a public holiday was done under a Labour Government. In fact as I understand it—and I could be corrected—the last public holiday that was added was initially called New Zealand Day and became Waitangi Day in 1974. So in fact we have not had a new public holiday for a very very long time. 
Public holidays and annual leave are very important for rest and recreation but public holidays are particularly important as celebrations. They are celebrations of particular events but also they are celebrations that enable communities to get together whether that is for family reunions sporting tournaments or cultural events. Those are all important things for all New Zealanders. Holidays are a time to rest and to spend time with family. 
We have a culture of long working hours. We have had increased participation in the paid workforce although we are under increasing risk of unemployment at the moment. All of those things are important and the fact that a winter public holiday is being proposed is worthy of consideration. It is a long haul from Anzac Day to Labour Day without a public holiday except Queen’s Birthday. 
My final point is that holidays can be good for business. Some members say that another public holiday would hurt businesses. But holidays can actually be good for businesses because they provide an opportunity for rest and refreshment for workers. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to pick up on the theme that the previous speaker Carol Beaumont was talking on so well when she ran out of time. I am pleased to speak on the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill. I think it is time for us—especially in a time of recession when we are all looking at how to soften its sharp edges—to look at and reflect on the value of time spent with our children and time spent with our families especially on an indigenous public holiday. None of the other public holidays sit well with all of New Zealand. But here is an opportunity for us with Matariki Day to celebrate new life new growth and a new season. 
I was reminded of Matariki by my moko Manaia who came home first from his kura to tell me all about Matariki Day and the constellations the voyage to New Zealand and the planting calendar. I thought “Well done little boy!”. He was then four. Now at school he has come home with more beautiful drawings and celebrations of Matariki Day. The school went to Te Papa and had a wonderful day but his parents could not go with him. It was not a public holiday. 
I think Matariki Day is a wonderful day for us and is about the growth of our country. As the Maori Party has mentioned it has been 30 years since recognition of the Maori language came in. I remember the shock horror at the thought that we might have to speak te reo. Yet now that is seen to be nothing. In fact many cultures are celebrating Maori Language Week. 
I was a bit disturbed to hear National members say things like “Get off your butt.” “Get out to work.” “Add to productivity.” and “Stop sitting on your chuff and wanting yet another public holiday” when at this very time in New Zealand’s culture we are worried about family violence and want to build strong resilient communities. We could do no better in rebuilding communities than to celebrate a day that truly belongs to all New Zealanders. We could do that rather than sharing the vestiges of a colonial past which is actually what Waitangi Day represents and rather than sharing religious holidays. Many people now do not have a religious belief and Christmas or Easter may not mean anything to them. All of those days that we respect are part of the 3½ days of public holidays but this bill gives the opportunity for a truly New Zealand day to be celebrated. 
I think the bill is wonderful; it is aspirational. If the generations of people in this House listen to our children they will understand that Matariki is a festival day. It excites all children not just Maori children about the cycle of life the cycle of growth and the importance of family. Those are the things we should be holding dear to ourselves. 
I also agree with the Maori Party that we do not need to worry yet about whether people are paid a day in lieu or whether there is compensation for the difficulties in the workplace. Select committees can work that sort of thing out. They have a submission process as they had on the Easter trading bill where they worked out how workers and employers should be recompensed for public holidays. 
I think this bill is aspirational for all New Zealanders. I thought the National Government wanted to have a bright future for all New Zealanders. This bill gives parties across the House the chance to not pan the proposal for a Matariki Day but to send the bill to the select committee and let it hear submissions from people across New Zealand: workers employers families and groups that care about building a New Zealand identity that is strong that we can be proud of and that is aspirational for our children. The bill is the perfect tool. It was exciting to see that Rahui Katene’s bill was successful in the ballot. I was very sad to hear that this Government which talks about having high aspirations and high family values is panning the bill which provides the first opportunity for New Zealand to celebrate nation rebuilding. I am proud to be in a party that supports the referral of this bill to a select committee. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I came to the Chamber today in the hope that our nation had evolved to a point at which we could stand together and say that a distinctly New Zealand identity is important. I put Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill into the ballot because it reflects and resonates with so many New Zealanders. Matariki has been taken up enthusiastically right throughout the land as a time for coming together with family and friends a time for festivities a time for connecting all people together in the spirit of the Maori new year. Matariki has been manifest in festivities throughout communities and more formally with the endorsement of key Government agencies such as Te Papa Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and a host of district councils and local government bodies. 
Matariki in its essence is a navigational star to guide us in our journey forward. The Maori Party was only too happy to put forward this bill to show our commitment to move our nation forward. We want to place on the record our appreciation to the Greens the Labour Party and United Future because they had in their mind the vision of a nation in which kotahitanga is an aspiration that we can all share. I thank those parties and the speakers who have taken a stand for their insight and intelligence in investing in opportunities for debate. The spirit of unity and optimism was evident in the korero that has taken place in this Chamber today and a fortnight ago. It was an enormous disappointment that neither the National Party nor the ACT Party could back this bill. It is a sad day when we are divided in the Parliament about something as fundamental as our cultural identity. 
From the way some speakers approached this issue it seemed that Matariki was becoming bigger than  
Ben Hur 
. I want to bring the debate back to why we want to support and promote the concept of Matariki as the time in which we celebrate the unique place in which we live. There are no days in the official calendar in which we have a stand-alone holiday that celebrates the distinctly New Zealand identity that is ours. Matariki Day would do that and being placed in the midst of the winter period it provides a vital breathing space a period for revitalisation and rejuvenation during the colder season. Some of the holidays we currently have bear further scrutiny. The Queen’s actual birthday is 21 April yet we celebrate Queen’s Birthday in June. We have a day off on Boxing Day—a day marked by the giving of Christmas boxes to service workers in the United Kingdom. We have a day off on the day after 1 January. I do not know what that celebrates but we have it. And of course we have the traditional days to mark Christian events or to acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The last thing I will suggest is that we pit Matariki Day against any of the 11 public holidays and make a competition of which event is the most significant. We do not want to be part of any initiative that pits Matariki against God or the Queen. It is not a case of either-or. 
But I also believe that the wider picture of how we celebrate public events and holidays is worthy of further debate than we have been able to achieve in the 65 minutes allocated for this issue. Also the point raised that our 11 public holidays compare poorly with other countries such as Italy with 16 and Japan and Spain with 14 is worth considering more. 
A fortnight ago Mr Tremain stood in this House and shared the proverb: “Whakataka te hau ki te uru”. He spoke with passion about the potential those words offered: “Let the red-tipped dawn come … a promise of a glorious day.” Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill offered us that promise: a time to celebrate the coming together of a nation. We regret that two parties were unable to support the opportunity to bring the people together to celebrate Matariki Day but although the die is cast the debate is certainly not over. The Maori Party will continue to speak out and speak up about the value of a distinctly New Zealand identity. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I also intend to move that the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt amendments that have the effect of requiring a referendum conducted under the Local Electoral Act 2001 before the sale or privatisation of any council assets anywhere in New Zealand. 
This member’s bill could also be known as the “Not Yours to Sell Bill”. It is a response to the overwhelming majority of Aucklanders who fear that the super-city is a Trojan Horse for the privatisation of our community-owned assets. Even those Aucklanders who accept the need for reform of our city’s governance have an uneasy feeling about the super-city. They are uneasy about the indecent haste and lack of consultation. They are uneasy about the centralisation of power into the hands of a few and the potential for an oligarchy to run our city. They are deeply uneasy about the fact that local democracy is being constrained at the community level while powerful forces at the top are conspiring to sell off Auckland’s assets whether for private gain or for ideology. Whether we are talking about our ports the new water company our public transport system or our parks pools and libraries Aucklanders say to this National-ACT Government: “They are not yours to sell.” 
This bill would require majority support in a referendum before the new super-city could proceed to sell any significant assets. It puts the fate of those assets fairly and squarely in the hands of Aucklanders. This idea clearly makes Government MPs uncomfortable. It wedges them between a rock their love of privatisation and a hard place their polling that tells them that people hate it. So we got the fake promise that there will be no sale of public assets or State assets in this term of Government—in this term of Government. Well that hardly inspires the confidence of Aucklanders or the rest of New Zealand. 
Government MPs are desperately trying to persuade Aucklanders that National has changed its spots but along comes Rodney Hide who is driving at full speed the Government’s agenda on local government and the super-city. Rodney Hide is the man who says that he loves privatisation who told the country last night on television that he would like to privatise Ports of Auckland. His party wants to force councils to privatise their assets. He wants roads and piped water run on a commercial basis. Rodney Hide makes Aucklanders deeply uneasy. People are frightened of him. Can we blame them? 
The Prime Minister likes to smile and laugh it off but it was Cabinet not just Rodney Hide that signed off the review of the Local Government Act. That review is not just the loony ravings of a party that cannot break the margin of error; it is the National Government talking. It wants to reduce the amount of consultation that councils do. It even makes special mention of the consultation required before privatisation of assets like the ports or the airport. So while the Government’s own policy signed off by Cabinet will make councils hold referenda on anything that is significant or irreversible somehow selling Auckland’s assets off to the highest bidder does not fit the bill—selling the ports is somehow not significant or irreversible selling the airport is not somehow significant or irreversible. 
Aucklanders remember when the last National Government sold off its 51 percent stake in Auckland International Airport. They watched that monopoly infrastructure performing successfully as airports do all over the world and paying out dividend after dividend that in the case of Manukau City had been used to keep rates down and swimming pools free. Aucklanders watched with horror in the 1990s as politicians prepared the ports of Auckland for privatisation. Grassroots anger and leadership from people like the late Bruce Jesson succeeded in keeping the ports in public hands. Under the leadership of the Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee the ports have remained in public ownership and have delivered huge investments in Auckland’s public transport system—investments that benefit all Aucklanders. We know that in the past when key infrastructure assets have been sold they have mostly ended up in the hands of foreign owners with profits heading offshore. Infrastructure like the ports the airport and the water company are natural monopolies. Kept in public hands they can be managed to protect the public interest to benefit the community and not just a handful of fat cats. 
The new super-city wraps up $28 billion worth of Aucklanders’ assets. That is more than the assets of Fonterra and Telecom combined. Let us take the new water company as an example. Until now its assets were scattered across eight councils. The new monopoly will cover bulk water water to the home and waste water for 1.4 million people. This new company will have the multinational water corporations drooling like a Labrador. 
Keeping the big assets in public hands is also about ensuring they are managed in the public interest. There are some in the Auckland business community who want to sell the ports right now. The Minister of Local Government said on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that he wants to privatise the ports. But Aucklanders know that the ports are one of our single greatest natural assets. We have to make some big decisions about how those ports can be managed in the interests of New Zealand. All Aucklanders want to see the waterfront opened up and made into a fantastic place that we can all work live and play in. If it is sold off to the highest bidder we could lose that opportunity for ever. 
But it is not just the big-ticket items—the water and the ports—that are at stake here. The Government wants local government stripped back to a Rodney Hide - inspired notion of so-called core services. It wants to get rid of the politically correct nonsense about cultural well-being social well-being and environmental well-being. Put alongside Rodney Hide’s party policy to force councils to privatise is it any wonder that Aucklanders fear that their parks libraries and pools are also at risk along with theatres cultural festivals and pensioner housing. 
The Minister wants to believe as he said on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that this is a pretend debate that this is not a real issue. The old line we hear from National MPs in Auckland is that this is scaremongering but make no mistake: Aucklanders understand—New Zealanders understand—what this is about. On one side is National ACT and their big-business mates and on the other side is the bulk of New Zealanders who believe that public ownership of assets paid for through our rates and our taxes and built up over the years can deliver services that everybody can enjoy. That is where Labour stands—libraries where kids can learn to read and parks where they can play. It is the opposite of the mean-spirited user-pays low-tax market rules dog-eat-dog world that exists in Rodney Hide’s tortured imagination which is where it should stay. 
The Local Government Act provides limited protection against the sale of water ports and parks but my bill would provide more comprehensive protection across the board. The Minister said last night that what is wrong with the bill is that it applies only to Auckland and that we should apply it to all councils. Well I thank the Minister for his advice and I say that if he and his colleagues vote to refer this bill to a select committee I will move that the select committee have the power to adopt an amendment to enlarge its scope to include all council assets across New Zealand. These assets—our ports our water company the remaining airport shares pensioner housing parks libraries and pools—are ours. They belong to us they belong to the people and we paid for them our parents and our grandparents paid for them with our rates. If they are sold off they are gone for ever. If we lose ownership we lose control; if we lose control of them it is not our city any more. 
Aucklanders deserve the right to have a say on this issue. This bill gives them that right and I commend it to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement to clarify an answer given in the House earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Earlier this afternoon I told the House that I had not received a draft copy of the independent report of the ministerial review group. On reflection I need to clarify that statement as it was based on a literal interpretation of the question. It is correct that I did not get a draft of the full report. However I did receive some early drafts of part of the report. A staff member also received a draft copy of annex 6 and I will table these at the end of my statement. 
The material covered about 50 pages of what turned out to be a 190-page report. I received the ministerial review group final report on Friday 31 August the due date. Dr Horn advised me that he had discovered some typographical errors and delivered a corrected copy the following Monday. Dr Horn advises me that no recommendations or content were changed. I am aware that a table of contents and biographical details were inserted over the weekend by Dr Horn. I maintained regular contact with Dr Horn and members of the ministerial review group including having a dinner with them. As the Acting Prime Minister said today the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making. I want to make it clear that at no stage as I said in the House today did I issue any instructions that recommendations be changed and I apologise to the House for any incorrect impression given by my answer earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I seek leave to table four documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before that can we have it clarified that it is the full draft report received by his office by a staff member on the Friday that he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No it is not that. These are the drafts that I received. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: They are the drafts that the Minister received. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure and delight to speak on the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. But let me start by saying that I am a little disappointed in the bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Disappointing. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No disappointed. The reason that I am a bit disappointed is that actually I have had rather high hopes for Mr Phil— 
Debate interrupted. 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was 31 July not 31 August in my statement which I would like to correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Let us start again. I ask the Minister to seek leave with the correct document and the date so that we can put it to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I seek leave to correct my personal explanation. The date was 31 July not 31 August. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The date that I was referring to should have been 31 July not 31 August which of course has not happened. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for clarifying that. 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sticking with what I am saying. I am very disappointed in Mr Twyford because actually I had very high hopes for him. But I look across the House and see Mr Twyford and I still do. I know his party has questions about him so I will tell members why I do. Here is a young man who is clearly ambitious which is a good thing. Here is a young man in Parliament who is clearly enthusiastic and who goes about his work with a great deal of enthusiasm. I think that is a very very good thing. But I am disappointed because it is quite important also— 
Phil Twyford 
: Have I let you down Rodney? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No the member has let himself down because I think that member has more talent than he is letting us see. I think that he is probably overcompensating and that although it is good to be— 
Hon members 
: Talk about the bill! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am getting to that. I think you are overcompensating. You have the enthusiasm you have the patience but what you need is a bit more consideration as I am going to explain in regard to this bill. You need to be a bit more considerate about what you are doing and what you are proposing and how you are approaching things in Parliament— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. He should just concentrate on the substance of the debate. Some rebuttal is fine but he should not bring the Speaker into it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do apologise Mr Deputy Speaker. Just for clarification I tell the House that I was talking about Mr Twyford. It is true that Mr Twyford has not brought the consideration and therefore the knowledge to this that one would expect. The ambition is there the passion is there but we have not seen the knowledge or the intelligence— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member has been speaking for 2 minutes and has not addressed the bill yet. He has continued to address the member promoting the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a first reading. The member as I said when I rose to my feet earlier is rebutting some of the points made by the previous speaker. I ask the member to come back to the substance of the debate which I am sure he will do from now on. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me show Mr Twyford the difficulties he has. The first point I will make to the House and particularly to my colleagues on this side of the House who are not required to support this bill is that there are already significant existing protections of the manner that Mr Twyford is talking about within the legislation. That is so around local authority assets and it is especially so around water services parks and property granted to the council by endowments. Unfortunately Mr Twyford appears to be completely unaware or deliberately so of that fact and I wish that he had— 
Hon Member 
: He talked about it if you’d been listening. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do apologise for not listening to the member’s speech well but it was very hard to do so because it did lack a certain passion. It did lack a certain logic so I found it a very hard speech to follow and quite frankly to understand. So it is true that I did switch off. I ended up just reading the bill. I know that if Mr Twyford had discussed this with Mr Hawkins who has some considerable experience in this area he would have been able to explain that there are those protections. He would have also been able to explain to Mr Twyford that there are also detailed consultation provisions and principles guiding the decisions that councils make. 
Melissa Lee 
: They don’t talk to each other. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I just do not know how it gets there. But council decisions of course are also subject to judicial review in the High Court which gives an amazing degree of protection. These provisions I tell my colleagues who might be wondering whether Mr Twyford has hit the nail on the head are in the Local Government Act 2002. The interesting thing about this Act which I have had many many complaints about is that it was actually drafted introduced and passed under a Labour Government. Mr Hawkins knows all this because he was there when that was done. But Labour had 9 years in general to fix any failings it saw in local government legislation including in particular the 6 years after the Act was passed. 
Phil Twyford 
: And then you came along Rodney. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: But I was always coming along. I was always coming along because I am different from Mr Twyford in this regard: yes I have his passion; yes I have his ambition; but I listened to people in Parliament. And when they told me to take a bit of time gain the knowledge and take consideration I actually listened. I learnt and I progressed. That is what I am suggesting—I am giving Opposition members the benefit of that I tell Mr Twyford. That member could do so much better. 
The 2002 Act focused on empowering communities and ensuring they were properly represented by their local authorities. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which has sparked Mr Twyford’s fury actually contains no provisions relating to the sale or purchase of community-owned assets. I suspect he has not read that bill which is my point. Those are rightly decisions for local communities and for those whom they have elected to represent them. All the existing controls on local authorities in the Local Government Act passed by Labour will apply to Auckland. It is the same everywhere in the country. 
I know Mr Twyford lies awake at night worrying about me. But there is nothing to worry about. [ 
Interruption 
] No; they are all very happy. There is no actual change in arrangements from what there was under the previous Government. But the difference might be that on this side of the House we believe in local government and we trust it and we trust communities. The unwritten message in Mr Twyford’s bill is that Labour does not trust anyone. Labour does not trust the community. Labour does not trust local authorities. It is still in the old “Helen Clark nanny knows best” mentality. Labour members have not learnt to respect people and other institutions because they believe— 
Hon Member 
: She’s still texting them. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know; I understand that Helen Clark texted Phil Twyford to put this bill in the House. They got their instructions from New York. If we think about it we see that Mr Twyford and by implication the entire Labour Party including George Hawkins who knows better are actually insulting the councillors who are working hard up and down the country to make their communities safer with good standards of living and decent services. This is also a vote of no confidence in the very bill that Labour passed in 2002—it is absolutely. If they were serious about this on the other side of the House they would have passed it when they had an opportunity. They did not do anything. They did nothing for Auckland and nothing for local government. Why? They did not respect the people of New Zealand. Suddenly Mr Twyford sweating away in the night worried about nothing— 
Phil Twyford 
: About you! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know Mr Twyford is worried about me. I can understand that because he must look at the ACT leader who has such charm intelligence and power and think: “What’s he got that I haven’t?”. That is what he lies awake at night and puzzles about. I am trying to give him some help. So what we have here is a manufactured little crisis because Mr Twyford cannot sleep at night and is worried about how to show his Labour Party colleagues that although he might make a fool of himself in the House every time he gets a question—and they roll their eyes behind his back and groan—he will show them that he can lift the standard and he will scare the people of Auckland into a great huff and a puff. He has written a bill and what do we have here? Actually all we have is a bill that is a stunt. It is a simple scaremongering stunt and that is why I say to Mr Twyford that I am very disappointed in him and I am very disappointed in this bill. I believe that if he had decided to work constructively on the issue of Auckland’s governance we could have shown Parliament at its best. Thank you very much. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Sometimes in Parliament and in caucus people think I am a bit of a right-winger. I do not know why they think that because I say that we cannot trust a National Government. I have been in politics both at a local level and in Parliament for 30 years and I have yet to see a National Government that keeps its word. It changes it manoeuvres it twists and it turns. I want to talk about why we cannot trust a National Government. 
The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill has been put forward to try to make people feel a little easier. I remember when as Mayor of Papakura we owned 1.6 percent of Auckland International Airport. I sold that to the Government thinking that the Government would then have a majority and would look after the asset. What happened? Back in 1998 the Government sold its shares. It let down the people of Auckland—so we cannot trust the National Party. National members said they would not sell any assets in their first term in Government but they will in their second term and they will wriggle around in their first term. We have seen the policy changes the wriggles and the squirming all along. John Banks sold off the pensioner housing in Auckland and there are pensioners who will be sleeping tonight in a very restless way because they know that you cannot trust the National Government. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you would not do that to pensioners yourself. I have to say that this Government cannot be trusted. Yes it is up in the polls at the moment but that will not last. People like Paula Bennett will regret not supporting this bill. She is in a minority of National MPs in Auckland she is one of the poorest polling members and she will be down the gurgler. She will be gone. 
I think it is interesting that people in Manurewa indeed the whole of Manukau are worried what will happen with their swimming pools. OK at the moment there is protection but we all know National Governments of old and— 
Hon John Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: John Carter is laughing as he thinks of all the money. When they want to do an asset sale they will grab them. They are already talking about a $250 million saving in assets. They will sell them—that is how they will realise that $250 million. The assets will go. This Government can sit over there and we can have someone from Tauranga thinking he knows all about Auckland but he does not. He does not know a thing about Auckland. I know he has been there once or twice. But that is not very good. Perhaps he should ask Ms Lee what happens to people who stand for public office in Auckland when the party sees they are not up to it. That is what will happen in Auckland. They will see that people cannot trust the National Government to hold on to assets. It does not matter what the asset is and it does not matter whether it is $250 million that it will save on public buildings. We have already seen the National Government talking about the airport and how that may go. In the end I think people will realise that this bill is an honest attempt to do something about protecting Auckland assets. 
Now I am going to criticise this bill so those Tories who have gone to sleep had better listen. I think this bill should apply nationwide. If this bill is referred to a select committee I think we should discuss more than protecting just Aucklanders. We ought to protect the people of Christchurch and Invercargill. We should protect people up and down the country—everyone. We should even protect people from Kaiapoi and Tauranga. We should look after all of New Zealand. Hopefully at the select committee this bill will be amended so that it covers the whole of New Zealand rather than just Auckland. There may be 1.4 million people in Auckland who deserve the support of this House but so do all New Zealanders. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the time which is about 1 minute before we break for dinner and to save interrupting the erudite speech from the next speaker who happens to be myself I wonder whether the House would mind lifting 1 minute early and resuming again at 7.30 so that I can then give a 5-minute contribution without interruption. I seek the leave of the House so to do. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill should be known as the “Save the Moon Bill” the “Mars is Not for Sale Bill” or something like the “Pluto is Secure Bill” because it has about the same sort of meaning as those titles. The first thing we need to understand is that these assets are not the Government’s assets they are not Parliament’s assets they are not the National Party’s assets and they are not Rodney Hide’s assets; they are the assets of the people of Auckland. They are owned by the people of Auckland. Parliament and the Government have no ability to sell these assets at all. That is the first point: we have no authority to sell them at all. As it happens we have no intention to sell them because they are not ours. We cannot sell them unlike the Labour Party which needs funds and probably would try to sell them. But that is the point. 
The next thing is that I ask the member whose name this bill is in Phil Twyford to tell me how many Governments in the past have sold local government assets. I wonder whether he can tell me that; I suspect he cannot because the answer is that none have. The Government does not have the authority to sell local government assets—that is the first thing—yet every one of Labour’s speeches is about the National Government selling this and Rodney Hide selling that. What a lot of nonsense! 
The next point I make is that this bill talks about securing the assets of Auckland for Auckland people. Well most of what is in this bill is actually covered by the Local Government Act 2002. It is actually in the law. The procedures suggested in here are already in the legislation. Members should listen to this because one part of this bill which was written by this member needs to be drawn to the House’s attention. New section 63A(3) inserted by clause 5 says: “No Auckland local authority shall sell or otherwise dispose of any parks swimming pools public libraries or public housing assets”. It then goes on to say: “except in a business as usual transaction”. Well that actually means that unlike under the 2002 Act the council can sell the assets. The member has drafted a bill that actually allows the council to sell the blimin things. He is trying to protect them yet he has got the wording wrong in the bill so that it actually gives the council a better opportunity to dispose of the assets. 
I asked someone with a legal background what that new section means. That person looked at it and said that it actually makes it easier to sell the assets for the people of Auckland. 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re joking! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No that is what it actually means. The member intended to secure the assets but if this House passes this bill it actually gives local government in Auckland the ability to sell assets more easily than if it wanted to do so now. 
Paul Quinn 
: Sloppy. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Sloppy? I have to say it is absolutely dopey. Do members know what is most disappointing about this bill? It is that there is no intention to sell the assets. The Government has never made one comment about selling the assets of Auckland. I have never heard any of the current mayors suggest that the assets be sold. I have never heard anybody go out and campaign to sell. What is disappointing is that this is all about politicking and scaring the people of Auckland. You know I thought we had actually got past that. It is a little disappointing. We have had a very good select committee. We have had good communication with the people of Auckland. Phil Twyford has been part of it and I have to say made a good contribution to that process. It is disappointing having set up that environment whereby there is good communication and good understanding between the people and the select committee that this member has brought this bill to Parliament. I have to say that on this occasion I thought we might have moved past these politics but unfortunately Labour members cannot bring themselves to do so and are out there politicking on this issue. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I start by congratulating Phil Twyford on an extraordinarily clever bill the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. It has unmasked the true intentions of the Government and of Rodney Hide for the super-city. If their hidden agenda is not really to sell off the assets of Auckland City why do they not support the bill? Why are they making such a fuss about it? 
Rodney Hide said that it is a pretend debate. He said the debate over this bill is just diversionary. But it is actually a real debate and it gets to the heart of what I am sorry to say are deep concerns out in the Auckland electorate about the real agenda behind the super-city. That is Rodney Hide’s agenda to amalgamate all of the assets of the Auckland region built up over generations into one big super-city. It is $28 billion worth of assets; I can almost feel him rubbing his hands with excitement. Then they will try to get their people elected to the super-city council and—mark my words—they will sell those assets off one by one piece by piece. 
Paul Quinn 
: Conspiracists! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is no conspiracy; I will tell members what has happened in Wellington. One thing we must congratulate Rodney Hide on is being completely open about his intentions unlike the members of the National Party. He has made no secret of his privatisation agenda. The other day he said: “I love privatisation.” Those were his words. Last night on  
Campbell Live 
 he said: “I would love to privatise Ports of Auckland.” 
Let us be under no illusions. Let us ignore the spin and the discomfort of the National Party. That is what this bill is all about. Thank goodness Phil Twyford came up with this bill! If it is defeated tonight we will seek to put amendments into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Previous speakers have recounted horror stories of Auckland assets that have been flogged off with disastrous consequences. I will contribute a story about a Wellington asset that was sold off about 15 years ago. It is like a parable of what happens when one sells a good well-functioning community asset. In 1994 I was a Wellington city councillor. The smarties on the council Kerry Prendergast her predecessor Mark Blumsky and Fran Wilde decided it would be a brilliant idea to sell off our well-functioning local electricity network. First of all they set it up as a saleable entity called Capital Power then they launched a campaign. They said that Capital Power was a high-risk investment and we would be fools to hold on to it. They said that if we sold it to private enterprise it would run it much more efficiently and they promised that electricity prices would fall once we privatised it. There was no referendum. Wellingtonians were not allowed to have their say. A majority of the councillors—not me I assure members—sold off this precious asset that had been built up over generations to a Canadian company TransAlta for a couple of hundred million dollars. Then the Canadian company sold it to a Kansas banking group for about $1.5 billion then on to Vector and now it has gone to the richest man in Asia who runs it in partnership with the Chinese Government. So after a decade $1 billion or more of profits have disappeared out of New Zealand. Electricity prices instead of going down have gone up by 600 percent over the last decade. And our electricity network is owned by the richest man in Asia. 
Here is the hypocrisy revealed by the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill: Rodney Hide wants to say that if a council wants to build a new asset it must have a referendum but now he is opposing a bill that says a referendum should be held when a council wants to sell a major asset. So we should hold a referendum when we want to build an asset but there is no problem when we want to sell an asset—we can just flick it off. That is the agenda of Rodney Hide and the National Government and nobody should be under any illusions about it. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora. I am happy to report that a great majority of the submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee took the same view as the Maori Party in acknowledging the importance of mana whenua in local government and of ensuring that tangata whenua have an equitable say in decisions that affect them through Treaty-based representation on local bodies. I am also happy to say that the Maori Party is proud to return our support of the people of Auckland for the Maori seats by standing alongside them in opposing any sale of council assets. The Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill sets it out quite simply stating that no Auckland authority including the Auckland Transition Authority set up this year shall dispose of any parks swimming pools libraries or public housing assets. It attaches a comprehensive list of some 41 assets that the bill seeks to protect including such assets as water supply transport port and property. 
At the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearings Maori submitters spoke with one voice about the need to involve tribal representatives in overseeing kaitiakitanga responsibilities—guardianship roles—over their respective taonga. We are all aware of the concerns that Maori have consistently raised about the failure of local government to address its Treaty responsibilities and we hope that in restricting the sale of Auckland local body assets local government can also get to grips with what we mean by concepts like rangatiratanga kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga and figure out how to honour the rights and responsibilities of mana whenua. This bill gives us a great opportunity to get things right in terms of the health and well-being of our environment by enabling whanau hapu and iwi as kaitiaki to propose shape and help implement measures to keep our natural resources healthy safe and intact for future generations and also to ensure that all lands and resources remain in domestic ownership rather than in the hands of foreign speculators. 
Let me also take the opportunity to speak to associated issues in respect of this bill in particular the level of representation that the Maori Party is championing for the Auckland Council. I understand that there are doubts about the level of democratic participation in the process by which mana whenua seats might be elected in Auckland but I would also like to think that in the interests of enabling Maori living in Tamaki-makau-rau to participate freely and openly in a process to elect councillors to the Maori seats we will find a process that enables those doubts to be set aside. The principle of mana whenua is an important aspect of our society and one that I am pleased to say is universally supported by all parties in this Parliament including ACT. From that point I would hope that enabling mana whenua becomes the important issue rather than discounting the process by which it is achieved. 
Maori do not participate in local government elections. That is a simple truth. Indeed in 150 years of Auckland City there have been only eight Maori councillors. The question is whether we allow that sad record to continue in a city that is the centre of the greatest Maori population in the world. The answer of course is that we should not. So what do we do about it? Well given that mana whenua is important to the development of the future of Auckland the only issues are: one to establish an open and transparent process that enables candidates who meet mana whenua criteria to contest the election; and two to establish an open and transparent process that enables Maori to vote for those candidates. I know that everyone thinks this issue is done and dusted already but the truth is that it ain’t over until it is over. The Maori Party has been working strenuously on this proposal and we will continue to do so until we achieve a solution that ensures the most democratic outcome by encouraging more and more Maori to participate in the electoral process. 
Finally I raise— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member should be brought back to the bill itself. The bill has nothing to do with the seats. It is all about the assets of Auckland. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member speaking for a constituency has made his views quite clear. I understand the points he has made. The point of order is not upheld. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe. Finally I raise an idea for consideration about how we can ensure the full participation of Maori in governance arrangements including the management of those assets. In our Treaty policy the Maori Party signalled an interest in joint ventures as a means of advancing the reconciliation between iwi hapu and the Crown. In a similar fashion we see public partnerships with collectives of hapu and iwi as an excellent way of ensuring the protection of local body assets for the whole of the population of Auckland in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are happy to support this bill. We look forward to Mr Twyford taking steps to ensure that local government acknowledges the authority of mana whenua as the bill goes—if it goes any further—through the House. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the first reading of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill which is a member’s bill in the name of Phil Twyford. National will oppose this bill and the reason for doing so is very straightforward. The reason is that the bill is superfluous and not necessary. 
The purpose of the bill is to protect the assets currently owned by the various Auckland local authorities by requiring existing and future local bodies in Auckland to hold a referendum before any assets are privatised. This bill is redundant. Auckland assets are already protected. The protections to which I refer are provided in the Local Government Act 2002 which was drafted introduced and passed under the previous Labour Government. It is surprising that we even have this bill. The previous Labour Government had 9 years to make the changes it wanted to make to local government. Six years have elapsed since the Local Government Act was passed. If Labour had any real concerns that there were loopholes in the Local Government Act that meant Auckland assets or indeed assets owned by other councils were at risk I ask why it did not do something years ago. If Labour was serious about this issue why were these initiatives not put in place during its 9 years in office? 
I will tell members why the previous Government did not take any action on this issue. It is because there was actually no need. Significant protections particularly around water services parks and property are already granted to the Auckland City Council. The council is guided by detailed consultation provisions and principles that it must follow when making decisions. In addition council decisions are subject to judicial review in the High Court. This bill basically is a response to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. It is nothing more than a political stunt to unnecessarily scaremonger Aucklanders into thinking that suddenly there will be a wholesale sale of Auckland assets. That is an outrageous assertion. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill contains no provisions related to the sale or purchase of community-owned assets. Those are rightly decisions for the local community and those whom the community has elected to represent it. 
The controls in the Local Government Act on local authorities’ treatment of assets will apply in Auckland just as they do everywhere else in the country. Auckland assets are under no more threat than they were under the previous Government. To scaremonger that they are is irresponsible and misleading. 
This Government is all about growing our assets not downsizing them. Councils also want to grow their assets and provide excellent public services. I guess we must be an unusual Government in that we believe in local government. The current Auckland bill is all about putting the local back into local government. We trust communities and councils to deliver for their people. Even more we trust the public who elect the councillors. 
I congratulate all the councillors throughout New Zealand who work tirelessly for the good of their communities so that their communities can be supported with decent services. I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and I want to add here that I was hugely impressed by the passion of the individuals and groups who presented to the select committee. The public were very clear in telling the committee what they want out of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. They were very clear on what they were concerned about and what their fears were. I have every confidence in the public to elect councillors to make the right choices for their community. 
National will not support this bill. We consider that it is not necessary and that it is redundant. Public assets are already well protected under the existing law of the Local Government Act 2002. There is no need to duplicate this. It wastes Parliament’s time to do so. Indeed if this bill was to become legislation it would be hugely costly and bureaucratic and that is something this Government is totally against. We are in an economic situation where we need to make sure every dollar counts and is spent wisely and where we need to get rid of unnecessary red tape. National opposes this bill. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I gained no sense at all that the previous speaker Jackie Blue believed a single word of her speech in opposition to the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. That member would have heard from the people of the Greater Auckland region from young people from Maori Pacific and Asian communities and from organisations that they do not want their assets to be sold. This bill unmasks the true intention of this Government. 
About 2 years ago  
Reader’s Digest 
 published a list of who New Zealanders currently trust in New Zealand covering the most trusted people brands charities and professions. Top of the list of 75 of New Zealand’s most trusted people was the name of the late Sir Edmund Hillary a name respected by New Zealanders and even revered in some parts of the world. At the top of the list of 25 most trusted brands was Cadbury’s chocolate followed by Tip Top and Sanitarium. That is reflected in the size of some of the MPs in this House. At the top of the list of New Zealand’s most trusted charities was the Cancer Society of New Zealand followed by the SPCA and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. At the top of the list of 40 of New Zealand’s most trusted professions were firefighters ambulance officers and pilots. Sadly as professions go politicians were at the very bottom of the list of the 40 most trusted professions. 
The feedback I have received from my constituents from members of the Manukau community and indeed from throughout the Auckland region is that National in its 9 months of being in Government has contributed to increasing the number of people who hold the perception that they cannot trust politicians. Although some MPs come to this House with good intentions and are genuine in their desire to serve the public good from time to time some MPs make mistakes. Those MPs who commit big mistakes pay dearly and ultimately suffer the demise reserved for unwanted politicians: they are sent from this place and never return. I note there is an exception in this House but nevertheless bad behaviour contributes to the public perceptions about politicians. Perhaps the biggest contributor to the public perception that politicians are not trustworthy is when politicians or political parties say one thing and then do something else without owning up to their changed position. Alternatively they may say one thing today and then say something else tomorrow. The public have a difficult time understanding what their real position is. 
In the past several months people have had a difficult time accepting what has been said by members of this Government. The public have begun to keep a running count of the broken promises made by this Government. National promised to maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by not selling Kiwibank or any other State-owned asset. Then Mr Key said that he had never said he was philosophically opposed to the sale of State-owned assets in some form and that it was never off the agenda for ever. The first thing he did was appoint “Mr Privatisation” himself the Hon Rodney Hide to be the Minister of Local Government in order to start the bidding process for the selling off of Auckland’s valuable assets. The Minister of Local Government rammed the Auckland reorganisation bill through this House setting in motion the devolution of democracy removing power from elected councillors and giving it to a handful of unelected ministerial appointees. 
The Government super-city wraps up $28 billion worth of Auckland assets under one organisation instead of eight councils. It makes privatisation that much easier to be attempted. We know that business has a keen interest in getting hold of these assets. Their interest should send a clear message to the Government that these assets are worth protecting. We know that when key infrastructure assets have been sold in the past they have mostly ended up in the hands of foreign owners with the resulting profits going offshore. The Minister of Local Government is a big fan of privatisation. He said on  
Campbell Live 
 that he personally favoured privatisation and that he makes no secret of that. He said that he would like to make the case for the people of Auckland to privatise Ports of Auckland. On  
Q+A 
 on 19 July Mr Hide said: “Of course I’m in favour of privatisation … I love privatisation …”. 
Aucklanders should be concerned that their assets are at risk. I am aware that one or two National MPs share this concern and I invite those MPs to vote in support of this bill. The reality is that even the limited provisions currently in the Local Government Act 2002 that protect some assets are in danger of being reduced and dismantled. We know that the Minister of Local Government will introduce changes to the Local Government Act and he has signalled that he believes there are too many consultation requirements over potential privatisation. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Every so often a bill comes along that is nothing more than political slogans waiting for a policy and nothing more than cheap politics or rank scaremongering. That is what we have today with the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Do that pointing thing again! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: This bill is such rank scaremongering I say to Mr Cosgrove. This bill is red tape for the sake of red tape. And it is more than that. It is interesting to reflect on some of the quite pertinent comments from Dover Samuels recently in light of this bill. He made the point about political retreads and he mentioned Pete Hodgson whom I see is in the House today. But I did not appreciate in relation to this bill the fact that new members as well have been caught up in the tired old stale debates of the past. I came into the House and listened to some of the maiden speeches at least—and we have some good members on both sides of the House—but what we have seen with Phil Twyford and this bill is— 
Paul Quinn 
: Going backwards! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is right it is a reversion backwards. It is a reversion to the tired old politics to the sterile old debates. It proves the point that Helen Clark is still texting Labour members. She is still texting them. Labour members are caught in the sterile old debates. 
I ask why this bill is needed because it is quite clear to me that we have the Local Government Act 2002 which is a framework that the Labour Government obviously could work with; Labour worked with it for 7 years in Government. The National Government has not brought in any related amendment legislation so we still have Labour’s law. Yet what does Labour want to do? It wants to bring in the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. Why did Labour not pass it? I heard Mr Twyford and other members opposite say the reason for the bill was that they could not trust National. We heard members opposite saying at the election that it was all about trust. I have news for Labour: the electorate did not buy that then and at 58 percent in the polls this week the electorate still does not buy it. The electorate trusts us and it does so more now than it did with the scaremongering under the previous Labour Government going into the election campaign. 
National is doing a lot about local government. We want to see much improved services and facilities for Aucklanders and I have been proud to play a part on the select committee led so ably by the Hon John Carter. Phil Twyford has played a productive role on that committee. He has also said some interesting things about local government and I think it is pertinent to raise those in the House as we discuss the bill he has brought forward. As he said in the recent  
Listener 
 article: “There was a feeling for quite a long time that the city wasn’t working properly with traffic problems crappy infrastructure and a downtown that looks like a bomb site. There was a lot of grumpiness about that. I think our Government was very late in coming to the party and doing something about it.” It is too late now I say to Mr Twyford. He had his chance. Labour had 9 long years to bring forward legislation but instead it comes forward with a slogan looking for some policy and with little more than that. 
I want to dig into the local government framework we have in this country because it becomes very clear when we do so that we have existing protections in the legislation that make it quite clear that we cannot just privatise assets although it is not as if that was something that the National Government wanted to do anyway. It is quite clear in the Local Government Act. Section 12 “Status and powers” states explicitly: “(4) A territorial authority must exercise its powers under this section wholly or principally for the benefit of its district.” Section 14 goes on to explicitly require councils to conduct their business “in an open transparent and democratically accountable manner;”. When making a decision a local authority must take account of the diversity of the community and the community’s interests within its district or region. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I actually agree with one of the things Simon Bridges just said. He said that the privatisation of assets is a tired old debate. It is a tired old debate but it is a tired old debate that simply will not die because National and the ACT Party fundamentally still believe in the privatisation of State assets and would privatise them if it were not for the fact that the New Zealand public prevents them from doing so. 
History is repeating itself because the sale of local government assets split the previous National Government away from its New Zealand First coalition. It split New Zealand First down the middle. Tau Henare and half of his colleagues in New Zealand First walked away from their leader because they wanted to support the sale of Wellington International Airport. They thought that protecting their ministerial seats was more important than sticking up for the principles they were elected on. 
New Zealand First campaigned in 1996 on opposing the sale of State assets yet when National decided to sell Wellington International Airport Tau Henare and his mates—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —left New Zealand First to prop up Jenny Shipley’s National Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is a robust debate but one member has the call. There is constant screaming—and it is screaming—by Mr Henare and Mr Quinn at the top of their voices. I suggest that you might want to bring some members to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will uphold that point of order. I was calling for order. I understand that there is a bit of passion around this matter. The member on his feet though has been a little bit more political than probably was necessary. We will have just a little bit of caution from either side. Let us get on with the debate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am just getting started. The sale of Wellington International Airport split New Zealand First in half. It split it in half— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Rubbish! You weren’t even born then. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well maybe the numbers might not be quite right but certainly Tau Henare and his mates split away from New Zealand First so they could prop up Jenny Shipley and help her to sell Wellington International Airport. The local government reorganisation in Auckland is splitting this National Government as well. The reorganisation of local government in Auckland is splitting National ACT and the Maori Party. 
I have to say that I support the Maori Party’s position on this— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh you do now. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I do support the Maori Party’s position on this issue as does the Labour Party. I want to know who was the senior member of the National Party who sent around the memorandum to all caucus colleagues about the fact that this issue is “too far-reaching and too important for a party currently sitting at 1 percent in the polls to decide alone.” Yet the entire local government agenda of the National Government is in fact being driven by Rodney Hide Roger Douglas and the ACT Party a party that at its core believes in the sale of State assets. 
Those members would love to get their hands on the local government assets in Auckland and sell them off. Those members are quite crafty. They know that National went around the country at the last election and promised not to sell State-owned enterprises and State assets—in its first term mind you. There was the qualifier that National would not do it in its first term. ACT members knew they would not get their hands on those assets this term. So what would they focus on this term? They would focus on the assets under the control of local government. 
The issue is one of the things that are splitting apart the coalition of ACT National and the Maori Party. According to the memorandum sent around the caucus: “Clearly we are at a crossroads. The ACT Party has threatened to end its relationship with National if we allow Maori seats on the super city. Despite multiple arguments in support its mind cannot be changed.” But that situation is not unusual for ACT members because they do not really tend to listen to other people’s arguments. Once they have made up their minds they know best. They know what is good for New Zealanders and they will just give it to them. It is the Roger Douglas “never waste a good crisis” theory. They want to sell State assets which is why National and ACT will vote en bloc against the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill which would ensure that Aucklanders get a say in the sale of any assets owned by local government bodies in Auckland. 
I say in conclusion that I have only one objection to this bill which is that it does not apply to the assets of all local government bodies around the country because I do not want those members to get their hands on Wellington’s assets either. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 There was not much of substance to reply to in the speeches from members on the other side of the House but I observe just how bizarre the contribution from the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide was to this debate on the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. He delivered a vacuous response to an issue that Aucklanders feel deeply about. But I watched an item on  
3 News 
 during the dinner break and the Minister’s conduct in this House this evening makes sense when one looks at it in the context of that item. He had other things on his mind. 
My colleague read out some of an email from a senior member of the National caucus. That leaked email went on to state: “Consequently I believe the issue is too far-reaching and too important for a party sitting at 1 percent at the polls to decide alone.”—1 percent in the polls. It is interesting to wonder who wrote that email; I will tell members who I think it is. When I look around the National benches today and I look at the tone of that email I reckon that it came from Steven Joyce. He is the head kicker. He is the guy who is starting to call the shots. He is the guy who is enraged by the fact that Mr Key’s carefully crafted Crosby/Textor strategy is being derailed by a party with 1 percent of the vote. 
Mr Hide failed to address any of the substantive issues in my bill and my opening speech just like the way last night on TV3 he dodged and weaved to avoid addressing the real question. Does the Government support an agenda of the privatisation of Auckland assets? Is it prepared to reassure Aucklanders and give them a say in deciding the future of their assets? Mr Hide cannot answer that question because as he told  
Q+A 
 he loves privatisation and as he told  
Campbell Live  
last night he wants to privatise Ports of Auckland. This is the man who is leading the Government’s strategy on the super-city. Just days after the royal commission presented its report—800 pages a year and a half in the making—Mr Hide delivered a pamphlet of his own. It had hasty ill-conceived and arrogant proposals that were a slap in the face for Aucklanders. How the Prime Minister must be regretting that haste now! How the National Government must be regretting allowing Rodney Hide to lead this important piece of work! Mr Hide’s local boards—or toothless talk shops as they have come to be affectionately known by Aucklanders—have been universally derided. His proposal for at-large councillors immediately set alarm bells ringing for Aucklanders who smelt a stitch-up. 
Rodney Hide’s next mana-enhancing gift to the National-ACT Government was an insistence that the royal commission’s sensible recommendations on Maori representation be tossed overboard. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I was just wondering how one smells a stitch-up. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Henare that we now know that Rodney Hide has threatened to throw his toys out of the cot if the Government listens to the royal commission’s recommendations on Maori representation. 
On three counts the Government has offended the democratic values of Aucklanders. It is no surprise that John Key wheeled in John Carter—the man who should have been the Minister of Local Government and the kindlier gentler face of reform. It is not just what the Government is trying to do to Aucklanders; it is the arrogance in the way that it has gone about it. It is the arrogance of the Government breaking its manifesto promise to consult Aucklanders on the findings of the royal commission the arrogance of ramming the first super-city bill through the House under urgency and the arrogance of taking away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. Is it any wonder that Rodney Hide was so distrusted and so disliked by Aucklanders that John Carter was brought off the bench to try to restore some calm? It raises the question of what kind of role Mr Hide plays in John Key’s political management strategy: attack dog or court jester? Mr Hide gets to fly all the kites to test public opinion and whenever this particular Minister crosses the line the nice Mr Key can laugh it off and say that it is just Rodney. 
Why do the people of Auckland so distrust Rodney Hide? Has his association with the super-city and his mishandling of the process cast a shadow over what should have been a bright new day for local government in Auckland? Can anyone blame Aucklanders for fearing for our publicly owned assets when Rodney Hide is the leader of a party that advocates the forced privatisation of council assets? 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 There are many problems with our current system of administering social welfare. The framework that governs the activities of Work and Income goes back to the Social Security Act 1964 an outdated law that has been amended so many times it has become a ramshackle mosaic of flawed piecemeal legislation. The Act is I suspect a nightmare for the staff to administer and I know for sure that it is just as bad for the caseworkers and advocates who try to help ordinary beneficiaries and superannuitants navigate their way through the system. I am also aware of how much worse it is for those claimants who do not have anyone to represent them in their dealings with a department that controls their access to their very means of survival. 
I am conscious of the irony of bagging the fragmented Social Security Act at the same time as I am putting forward a member’s bill proposing yet another amendment. Before going any further I will make the point that the Green Party believes that what should really be happening is not more reform of bits and pieces of this law but the creation of a whole new Social Security Act based on principles of simplicity sufficiency and universality. However I doubt that that is on the National Government’s agenda much as I wish it might be. In the meanwhile I feel it is really important to propose this member’s bill in a bid to improve at least one piece of the system. 
The fundamental purpose of the bill in front of us tonight is to change the way in which the review of benefit and superannuation decisions is carried out. For many years there have been concerns from advocates and beneficiaries that the current system is flawed at its core. The benefits review committees to which claimants appeal decisions are made up of one member appointed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment and two members who are staff of the Ministry of Social Development. Although the so-called community representative appointed by the Minister might theoretically be seen as being more neutral—and in some cases will be—that person even with the best will in the world will always be outnumbered by the departmental members on the committee. 
There is a widespread perception that the benefits review committee structure is one of bias in favour of the department. That perception has been reinforced by the fairly recent Arbuthnot Supreme Court judgment which reversed the previous understanding that benefits review committees carry out a quasi-judicial function and instead ruled that benefits review committees have a purely administrative role. I believe firmly that the only way out of this situation is to change the law so that the benefit review and appeal function is not carried out by the benefits review committees as currently constituted but by a fully independent body that is separate from the Ministry of Social Development. 
There are other problems too. At the moment the Social Security Appeal Authority is the only body to which people can appeal if a benefits review committee decision is made against them. Beneficiaries and superannuitants often have to wait for months and months before the appeal process works its way through. Meanwhile they may have nothing to live on or may have less than what they need and are entitled to. There are also complaints about the length of time it takes in some cases just to get a benefits review committee hearing. For example the community law centre in Christchurch says that in Canterbury it is not unusual for applicants to wait between 6 months and a year to have a hearing scheduled and in one case it dealt with recently the hearing was set 4 years after the review application was submitted. 
The quality of decisions made by benefits review committees has also been widely criticised at times not only by advocacy groups but also on occasion by the Social Security Appeal Authority. Decisions are made without adequate reasons for them being stated. The committees also often rely on current Ministry of Social Development policy rather than complying as they should with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act. The quality of information provided to applicants is also dubious. For example applicants are not always notified that they have a right to appeal benefits review committee decisions to the Social Security Appeal Authority or they are not told of decisions in a clear or timely way. 
Medical appeal boards are another big problem. The boards hear appeals from applicants for the child disability allowance the invalids benefit the sickness benefit and the veterans pension against decisions made on medical grounds. Those boards have been criticised a lot for their failure to run procedures that comply with the basic principles of natural justice. This failing is compounded by the fact that there is no right of appeal at all under the Social Security Act against medical appeal board decisions. 
A further failing of the system as it currently operates is that there is no provision for costs to be awarded in favour of successful review applicants. This means that highly skilled and experienced beneficiary advocates often work for little or no payment. Some beneficiaries who are the last people to be able to afford lawyers nevertheless end up indebted to them as there is nowhere else for them to go for help. In many cases beneficiaries wind up inadequately representing themselves at review and appeal hearings. 
In short this system is unfair it is biased in favour of those who hold all the power over beneficiaries and superannuitants’ lives and it is a costly administrative shambles. Therefore this bill proposes to do four key things. First it replaces the existing benefits review committee structure with genuinely independent reviewers who would make decisions based on the principles of natural justice. In terms of implementation a possible model for this is the Dispute Resolution Services review and appeal system currently used by claimants under the accident compensation scheme. 
Secondly the bill abolishes the medical appeal boards that currently hear reviews in the areas I mentioned earlier: the medical aspects of the child disability allowance the invalids benefit the sickness benefit and the veterans pension. These reviews would devolve to the new independent reviewers who would have the ability to obtain expert medical advice as necessary. 
Thirdly the bill requires the new benefit review body to award the actual costs incurred in the reviews that are decided in the applicants’ favour. It would have a discretion to award some costs in other situations as well where the claimant has a good reason for appealing a decision. 
Fourthly the bill requires a statutory requirement that the Ministry of Social Development formally notify its decisions to beneficiaries and benefit applicants in writing and that it must also give written notice of all their rights. It also seeks to ensure that review decisions are made and notified within a strict time frame. 
The key thing in all of this is that the review body must be genuinely independent of the Ministry of Social Development. I will bring a couple of beneficiary voices into the debate. The first voice comes from a gentleman who recently made a submission to the Social Services Committee on the social assistance bill dealing with aspects of superannuation and the veterans pension. Among other things he stated: “Benefit review committees are loaded against us even the third person”—that is the community representative—“is usually someone previously employed by the department. I’ve never met a single sympathetic ‘community’ person—they all manipulate the benefits review process to suit themselves. There should be a review system that is truly independent.” 
A second quote comes from another fellow who wrote to me recently saying that he had been battling Work and Income for years on behalf of his disabled wife. He stated: “Current legislation in regard to Benefit Review committees permits Work and Income employees to have complete control in determining decisions. In most cases the decisions … are a farce a disgrace to the ideal of justice and fair play. For an applicant (often naive and inexperienced) to be forced to have a review heard by Work and Income staff plus a biased community representative—also chosen by Work and Income—is just a sick joke.” 
The community law centre in Canterbury stated: “The single biggest impediment to beneficiaries accessing justice is the legislation governing benefit reviews and appeals.” The law centre goes on to say that it is already proactively working towards law reform in this area. It has a research project under way at present in association with the University of Canterbury examining access to justice under the current system. 
I know that there are many other law centres beneficiary advocacy groups superannuitants’ organisations community groups and individuals who are just as frustrated by the lack of a fair and timely review and appeal process within Work and Income. It is high time that the law was changed. 
In advance I thank Labour and any other parties tonight that have decided to support this bill’s first reading. It would be great to get it to a select committee where we could hear the evidence from the public about what is really going on and about how the bill could be improved which I am sure it could be. If by any chance the bill does not succeed tonight I sincerely hope that the Government will take on board the serious nature of the issues I have raised and will take on the task of urgent reform itself. 
Changing the review and appeal processes at Work and Income should not be an ideological issue. In fact I hope that my proposal might appeal to National because I am suggesting a way of cutting down on bureaucracy and possibly privatising the system—for example through using Dispute Resolution Services. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired but the member also is required under Standing Order 279/1 to indicate which select committee she would like the bill to be referred to. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I intend that this bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand and commend the member Sue Bradford for the advocacy role she has played over a number of years for beneficiaries and for those people who are vulnerable. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: But you’ll vote against it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Would Mr Hodgson like to say something or is he leaving? What an odd man—quite seriously! Let me start again. 
I congratulate the member Sue Bradford on the advocacy that she has played over a number of years for beneficiaries and for those who are vulnerable and at the margins of our society. I also want to congratulate her on her capacity to get members’ bills from the ballot. She seems to have a certain advocacy for that. I saw some of the work that Ms Bradford did in the 1990s and how conscientiously she has moved to promote the rights of those who really are the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable in our society. I think that the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill in many ways continues the member’s focus on ensuring that those who rely on Work and Income for their weekly incomes get their correct entitlements. I know that she has been working on this bill for quite some time. I also—and she will know that I do not mean this condescendingly at all—quite enjoy the debates I have with her over social issues. They are well researched she has strong opinions and she respects that I do as well. We may not always see eye to eye on what they are but we can at least go to battle and have a good debate on those issues and sometimes even agree on what we need to do to go forward. 
I am concerned about this bill though as I think it makes changes that will have a very costly impact on us in this economic climate where we are having to make tough decisions focus our resources and prioritise our spending more to the front line and to those people who really need it at the moment. Essentially it is my belief that this bill will add another layer of bureaucracy to the review process. It will fundamentally change the nature of this process and result in huge cost at a time when perhaps we need to be concentrating more on those people who need our help. As such there are a number of reasons why the Government does not support this particular bill. 
First and foremost it proposes to amend a review and appeal process that I believe in essence currently works well. This bill proposes changes based on a view that the current process is biased favouring the Ministry of Social Development. I do not believe that the current process is biased; I believe we have an adequate process in place to assess decisions made by the ministry. Currently a person who is unhappy about a decision made by the chief executive can apply for a review of that decision. We see about 4000 formal review requests each year that seek a review of a decision under this process—about 65 percent of these are resolved at this stage. If the outcome of the review decides that that original decision stands correct the person can then ask for a benefits review committee to consider the decision. The benefits review committees are made up of two employees from the ministry as the member has previously said and a community member. If the benefits review committee also agrees with the original decision the person may then appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority before deciding to take a judicial route. The process is balanced; it is fair and equitable to all concerned. Indeed the Supreme Court has confirmed that it is appropriate for an administrative review as currently provided by the committee to take place. 
The bill proposes that the committee should be replaced by an independent reviewer who is under contract to the ministry. In effect this introduces a quasi-judicial review which is not needed in the process. Independent reviewers would have to be lawyers or experts in particular fields. In any given year the ministry holds over 1000 benefit review committee meetings. The cost of contracting people to do these reviews instead would be significant. In fact a conservative estimate that the department did was that it would be over $4 million. On top of this cost would be the cost of indemnity insurance. This would also be quite considerable. That is money we can put to much better use than changing a system that works well particularly when we are in these tough times. We want to see our spend and resources go into assisting people those who are in hardship to ensure that they have the support and backing they need to get back on their feet and into work. 
Another significant change the bill proposes is that the reviewers will be able to award costs and not just when a person is successful in getting a decision overturned but also when a person is unsuccessful if the reviewer thinks the unsuccessful application for review is reasonable. The bill does not provide direction for what these costs might be awarded for nor does it propose any limits on the costs that could be awarded. This opens the Government to fiscal risk that is totally unacceptable. The bill proposes the abolition of the medical appeals boards which review decisions in relation to the medical assessments required for some benefits. They were established so that where a benefit was declined on medical grounds that decision was reviewed by people with the appropriate knowledge and expertise. Abolishing those boards and having a decision reviewed by an independent contractor with no medical expertise would cause considerable difficulties. Inevitably for those reviews the Ministry of Social Development would have to contract in specialist advice and that again would add to the cost of the process. The bill proposes to legislate the current practice in a number of areas. I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce legislation for processes that are best covered in administrative or operational guidelines. 
We do not always get it right within the ministry and I note that the member Sue Bradford brought up issues of timeliness in terms of how long it takes for people to get a benefit review when they need one. Those are matters that I would be happy to take up with the member and discuss further if her bill does not go through tonight. We want to get it right as much as we possibly can and if I was making a judgment on the staff whom I have met over the last few months—in fact over the last few years but predominantly those working within Work and Income—I would say they predominantly want to help people. They want to give them their correct entitlement as much as they can and to make sure those people get what they want and what they deserve. 
The Ministry of Social Development sends out about 5 million letters each year about decisions that have appeal rights attached to them. From those 5 million letters about 4000 formal requests for review are made each year. That is about 0.1 percent of the decisions made by the ministry and certainly the internal review process resolves about two-thirds of those. That means we are getting it right; for that small percentage of decisions where we may not be there is a process that people can go through and 65 percent of cases are dealt with in the first review. The others are dealt with in the second review. We are in fact taking it seriously and getting it right. 
I finish by acknowledging Sue Bradford for the issue that she brings to us. I acknowledge there is stuff that we can do differently and we can do better. I would particularly like to look at the timeliness issue. I do not think it is fair for people to be hanging on and trying to find out whether they will get that review and what it might mean for them particularly in cases where I think we make mistakes and that is human error as well. So I wish her luck. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in support of the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill going to a select committee at the conclusion of the speeches tonight. I add my congratulations to those given already by previous speakers to Sue Bradford. In my view this issue is overdue for consideration. It was certainly looked at quite rigorously during Labour’s time in Government including looking at the different forms of reviews that operate in the various Government departments whether in housing the Police Complaints Authority or the accident compensation scheme. So it is an issue that in my view has been ready for consideration for some time. 
The speech made by the Minister for Social Development and Employment has confirmed that the recession can be now used officially as an excuse for just about anything including the inability to support a bill in this Parliament going to a select committee for consideration. The Minister said that she could not support it because we are in recession. We have pretty well heard it all now. That is the weakest excuse for backing off a debate for being scared to listen to concerns and for not being able to front up to real alternatives that I have ever heard. 
In my view part of the entitlement within our social security system should be the timeliness and the fairness of any review and appeal process. In theory that has always been the case and in my view a number of our benefits review committees work very well; they certainly try their best. But it is beyond doubt that the perception is that they are not fair that the majority of the committee are Work and Income staff members that they have a community person who relies almost entirely on Work and Income for consideration of the facts and that reviews are certainly not performed in a timely fashion in many parts of the country. If the Minister was genuine in saying that people are entitled to their full correct financial entitlement then she should also consider that part of that entitlement under the Social Security Act should be the review and appeal procedure. 
For many people the perception becomes the reality. The theory is that those review committees are independent they are neutral they listen to every case on its merits and they do not make a decision that is biased towards the ministry. The perception is impossible to relate to that theory because of the make-up of the review panels. So for both the benefits review committees and the medical appeal boards which this bill deals with I am strongly supportive of the theory finally moving to the perception and a new regime being established. I am not sure that this is the right regime but it may well be. It could certainly give us the framework for a decent debate to hear from some of the people whom Sue Bradford referred to in her introductory comments: people who deal with beneficiaries superannuitants and family members of beneficiaries and superannuitants and people who are frustrated by the system and believe that they could provide a better way forward. 
I urge the House to give consideration to one other thing in relation to the model that Sue Bradford seems to have adopted in her bill and that is the Dispute Resolution Services model from the accident compensation scheme. I do not believe that that system is perfect either. It often feels weighted against a person who does not have the ability for whatever reason to hire a lawyer or who may not think it is necessary to do so and is then up against a department that has a lot of resources behind it. That is one of the considerations we need to make. The other is whether we need a lower-level process for resolution such as the one the accident compensation scheme has adopted. In my view the earlier and lower level the intervention engagement between the Government system and the individual the more likely we are to get a successful sustainable and fair outcome for everyone. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and speak to the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Bill tonight. First of all I would like to acknowledge Sue Bradford who has put this member’s bill forward. I have worked on the Social Services Committee with Sue for the last 2½ years and I can tell the House that she is extremely passionate about beneficiaries and about the most vulnerable people in our society. I admire her for being their greatest advocate and for always having them at the forefront of everything she does at our select committee to ensure that we produce the best legislation that we can for them. I admire what Sue Bradford does and I think she is leading the way for many members in the House by doing what she believes is absolutely right and standing by it. So I wanted to acknowledge her first. 
This will be a quick call. I will touch on what the bill proposes to do what the current law is and why we think it could be improved. The bill proposes changes that are focused on the review and appeal rights of benefit recipients as set out in the Social Security Act 1964. The bill intends to provide a benefit review system that is independent of the Ministry of Social Development and converts the current review process into an independently contracted quasi-judicial review. 
That is really important and I did not realise there was a big issue around the benefits review committee. I personally had not heard about that but I am a relatively new member of Parliament so I have not been exposed to as much as Sue has in terms of beneficiaries. There is a process that people go through and I realise that there is one community person on that committee. But I was not aware that in many instances those people have been former Ministry of Social Development staff and have in effect the inside-running on how the system works. That is why this debate is so great—we hear a lot of new viewpoints. That is what we are here to do; to hear viewpoints on members’ bills that deal with concerns out there in the community. 
The bill seeks to change the way the benefit reviews are conducted and to award costs to both successful and unsuccessful applicants. I can understand that. I understand that it can be intimidating for people to go before a benefits review committee. It is expensive to go through that process to be represented at the committee and to seek advice before the committee. This bill is about beneficiaries and beneficiaries do not have a lot of money. Many of them do not have the skills to go before those committees themselves. We should be trying to get the committee right to begin with to ensure it is delivering what it should be delivering to beneficiaries in the review process. I am sure these committees do try to get it right and maybe it is something we should look at anyway outside of this bill to make sure that the committees are working. 
At this time we are trying to keep down the cost of everything that is happening including the cost of the awards that can be given because the process is meant to be a low-cost process. The other constraint on this is the fiscal constraint around independent contracting. The proposal would require the ministry to engage reviewers on contract which would incur substantial administration costs well in excess of costs currently paid for community members of benefits review committees. 
The bill proposes that the ministry would be responsible for meeting all the costs incurred by a reviewer in conducting a review. One full-year cost for benefit review committee adjudicators—if the reviews are to be heard by an independent contractor—is estimated to be around $4.45 million. So we are talking about a significant amount of money. I understand that about 5 million letters are sent out every year in relation to appeal rights and only a small proportion of these come back to the review committees. That indicates to me that most of the time we do get it right. 
I think that the Work and Income people are committed to ensuring that beneficiaries do get the correct amount of benefit. Obviously it is not always right. We do have a process in place and maybe that is something we can look at separately. I congratulate the member on bringing this bill to the House and letting us have this debate. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I join my colleagues in the Labour team in supporting this bill and I acknowledge the work of the Green Party member Sue Bradford in introducing the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Bill. This bill reflects the desire by the Labour Party in support of the Greens to support working-class families as many of them struggle as they experience what members opposite term as the sharp edges of the economic recession. On average an additional 1100 people a week are signing up to the dole. It is a reflection of the fact that families throughout New Zealand are hurting. As more and more people sign up to the dole—some of whom are doing so for the first time after working 15 or 30 years in the same job—they find that they would like to appeal some decisions that they do not agree with. 
When the Government introduced its Budget on 28 May New Zealanders in general gravitated to the TV in anticipation of some kind of support for those New Zealanders who were feeling hardship as a result of the economic recession. There was high expectation that the Budget would be about job creation industry support investment in research and innovation and investment in skills development. It should have been a Budget that would enable people to meet their normal daily expenses of food rent mortgages petrol medical needs and the needs of schoolchildren. Unfortunately that was not the case. That is not what the Budget produced. In fact it resulted in families feeling the recession as they have never before. 
In my own constituency of Mangere there are many more examples today of families where sometimes for the very first time in their working life people have lost their jobs. Under Labour these people would have had meaningful jobs and earned good incomes. People had a strong sense of confidence then. They had little worry and could sleep well at night. Many of them were able to manage their financial affairs with both mum and dad working. There was food aplenty for the young children. In the past 3 months my electorate office in Mangere has had more and more dealings with people who have lost jobs. In the first week of July I was advised that one local company had had to lay off about 20 mainly Pacific workers. They all lost their job with only 1 week’s notice. They were not members of any union and there was no redundancy agreement. These people had been working for this particular company for many many years—some for about 4 years but others for about 25 years. The company could not keep these workers. These men wanted to work. They were scared for their families. These were grown men some of whom cried. They were desperate because they no longer had an income but their bills still needed to be paid. The household bills did not stop. 
I have had people from families come to me and say that while they were both working they could manage their financial affairs but now that one spouse has lost his or her job they were extremely stressed out. When rich people get stressed out they go on holiday to Hawaii—like some in this House—or to wherever their fancy takes them. When working-class people are stressed out by the onslaught of the economic recession with lay-offs and loss of income they generally go without some of the essentials. Some will turn to their families their church or the Salvation Army for support but mostly they go without. Believe it or not they go without breakfast and lunch and will have only the evening meal. The evening meal makes it easier for them to sleep during the night. They go without heaters and humidifiers to save on electricity costs. Some of them will get sick or catch the flu as a result. They go without medicine or visits to the doctor in order to save money. These are the lucky ones; others will turn to booze and drugs and it will take a long time before they come out of it. If one spouse is earning a high income the spouse who lost his or her job can get only minimal additional support from Work and Income. In one case it was only an additional $50 a fortnight. 
This is the kind of gut-wrenching experience that many families now face. One particular man was angry that after paying taxes for most of his life when he needed support from our welfare system for the first time his experience was far from good. That family felt as though it had done something wrong. It had no control of the business decisions made by Work and Income. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I add my congratulations to Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House and thus continuing her longstanding advocacy for the most vulnerable in our society. She has been doing it for a long time. I have followed her work and she continues to be exceedingly successful in doing that here as well. Along with my colleagues on this side of the House I am pleased to support the bill. 
This is an important question relating to the rights of those who feel in some way prevailed upon by the decisions made against them. Therefore societies like ours develop robust appeal systems so that those who feel aggrieved can take this matter somewhere. What are the characteristics of that system? First is independence. It has to be palpably independent. It is also based on a set of principles in particular the principles of natural justice. That needs to come through and to be seen to be operating. Another characteristic of a good robust appeal system is timely decision-making. Also good systems provide reasoning for their decisions and perhaps most important of all they are not unduly criticised by other courts—there is support for them. It should also be comparable with other appeal systems in different areas. 
We can look at the benefits review committees and run this ruler by them and ask the same questions. Is this a robust appeal system? If we go back to the notion of independence is it independent? It is not. Essentially at the present time the chief executive is reviewing his own decisions. As the decision from the Supreme Court says the decisions reviewed by this group are the decisions of the chief executive. So it is not independent. It is based within the ministry. There is one outside person but two people from the staff of the organisation can clearly vote out the external person. So it is not independent and we need to develop a system that is. 
Does it work along the principles of natural justice? Well here again as Sue Bradford said clearly the decisions that they are making at the moment are based on administrative procedures within the Ministry of Social Development rather than based on the principles of natural justice. Again we would expect the decisions to be timely. 
This is probably one of the most important principles particularly at this time when there is going to be a growing number of people on benefits and particularly as we appear to be coming into an area where a punitive attitude towards people on benefits is growing. These people feel aggrieved. They are the ones who miss out and their concerns become real because when the money stops for families who are poor the effects on them are quite serious. When decisions take a long time then the problem is made worse. Clearly beneficiary groups are already saying again as Sue Bradford said that these decisions are taking too long—even as long as 6 months. That is an inordinately long period of time for a person dependent on income support to be waiting for a decision about those very things. 
The other point is whether the reasons are given. Well they are not. Again beneficiary groups have said very clearly that the reasons for these decisions are not given. The courts are critical of this particular system. The architecture of this appeal system under the Social Security Act is questioned by this decision. When we take all of those matters together we find that it is time to have a look at that particular system. Sue Bradford makes some suggestions in this Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. They might not be the right ones but the way to look at them is to send the bill to a select committee so that it can be examined there and have improvements made to it. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. In doing my research on the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill I came across a blog called NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money 
. 
 I want to share some of its ideas here because it talks about the disgusting abuse that New Zealanders heap upon beneficiaries. It states “Read the mainstream opinion pieces and people on the benefit are castigated as unworthy citizens of New Zealand. They are looked down upon and seen as worthless bludgers on the State. Perhaps it’s a sign of these struggling economic times but where is the empathy in this country? … for the vast majority of people who have unfortunately found themselves on a State benefit it is because they are a victim of their circumstances. Most beneficiary recipients are honest law abiding New Zealand citizens who are struggling day by day and are immensely grateful for Government assistance. As a Samoan Christian I often think about when Jesus said ‘what you do to the least of you you also do to me’.” 
I congratulate Sue Bradford a long-time soldier for our most vulnerable New Zealanders on having the courage to put an idea before the House that will help to make a difference for beneficiaries and superannuitants. It is great timing on her behalf given the release of the report from the Tax Working Group that shows it will be beneficiaries and superannuitants who will be hardest hit by any proposed increases to GST. Sue Bradford’s bill is one way to help to restore the balance. 
The Maori Party knows all too well the frustration and the anger that beneficiaries feel about the current review process. The Ministry of Social Development’s annual reports show that less than 60 percent of the cases scheduled to go before a benefits review committee are heard within the same reporting year. That delay is absolutely unacceptable. On top of that beneficiary advocates tell us that the current system is costly slow and biased. It is not surprising that people think that a benefits review committee is biased because of the three people on it two are Ministry of Social Development staff and the other one is appointed by the Minister. They cannot act with empathy or common sense because they have to comply with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act. 
As anyone who works in a Maori Party electorate office can tell us the rules that apply in Ministry of Social Development offices are applied unfairly unevenly and inconsistently forcing beneficiaries to engage advocates or lawyers to present their cases thereby clocking up extra debt and putting their households under extreme stress. It all becomes a vicious circle yet the answer is simple: providing an independent voice an outside view to give the transparency and accountability that we all like to talk about in this House. And we must not be afraid of putting the State under scrutiny. A departmental system that is fair and unbiased should feel comfortable about having an independent eye cast on its operations. 
Finally I tell the House that the Maori Party is concerned about the ongoing and consistent allegations of institutional bias against Government departments. The presence operation and effects of institutional racism were highlighted in the 1986 publication  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
 a report by the ministerial advisory committee on a Maori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. Twenty years on the picture is either unchanged or worse than it was in 1986 so the Maori Party intends to develop a bill on institutional racism which we think will fit very well alongside this one. Kia ora ra Sue. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. I am so glad to get the chance to speak in support of this particular member’s bill the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. It is very interesting to note how often the member Sue Bradford has her bills drawn from the biscuit tin. I am sure there are some statistical reasons for it relating to how many bills she has written but I like to think that the gods favour the people who fight for the poor. I think that if Jesus and Buddha were hanging around in the Clerk’s Office they would approve of the magical good luck of Sue Bradford in having her bills in defence of children and the poor selected from the ballot. 
They would not get very excited about some of the bills drawn especially not the bills about building jails Tasers privatisation and trashing the environment. But being spiritual visionaries they would be very keen on this bill because it supports the people reviled by the media and the shallow unimaginative policies of decision-makers. They cannot visualise themselves waiting in a line at Work and Income for their moment of humiliation after hitchhiking from a village 2 hours away with two small kids and a power bill they cannot hope to pay only to be told they do not have the right to their entitlement but they can fill in a form to ask for a review by the system that has just rejected them. It works well but for whom? 
Sue Bradford’s bill makes the process of benefit review panels and appeals more independent and robust on behalf of the people who badly need to be heard and heard with some semblance of equity. It makes a vital improvement to that sad old bad old legislation known as the Social Security Act. It is a justice-based reform of the welfare system—an idea that does not appear to be on any major party’s agenda. We need to do something to try to fix the worst inequities of that Act and this bill is a useful amendment to it. The bill also requires the Ministry of Social Development to communicate decisions in a timely manner. That might sound like a small thing but it is not such a small thing for someone who is waiting at home for a decision. 
However I will leave the technical niceties to my more able colleague who wrote this bill and to the people who stand with her outside this place: the formidable and heroic beneficiary advocates. I came to know those people when I moved to Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa where poverty and unemployment have been the norm for tangata whenua for a long long time. In the face of statistics about the performance of Work and Income in that region we set up an advocacy group and then I met the national advocates who fight for the poor. Every day in Gisborne people without hope came through our door and they are still coming in bruised by a range of experiences with Work and Income. There are some good Work and Income staff and some useless staff but the problem is not individual; it is profoundly structural and attitudinal. How hard is it to have fair processes for beneficiary review when the entire context around these issues is riddled with punitive and judgmental attitudes? 
We need beneficiaries to have the power to review Work and Income’s decisions and to appeal those decisions with equity and dignity and with the ability to choose effective advocacy without economic hardship. Sue Bradford’s bill is based on an intimate knowledge of the dilemmas that beneficiaries face with the child disability allowance with the sickness benefit and the veterans pension. She is proposing to get rid of medical appeal boards and transfer that function to an independent benefits review committee which can obtain medical evidence when needed. These seemingly obscure changes to review and appeal are actually significant changes in terms of beneficiaries being heard and of justice not only being done but being seen to be done in terms of beneficiaries’ just entitlement. They are part of the very long journey by Sue Bradford and by her allies in the movement to educate the rest of the country about the fact that beneficiaries are actually entitled to support respect and a fair hearing. 
I urge every MP in this House to get over any residual socially reinforced prejudice against fair play for beneficiaries and to join the forces for good—who include Jesus Buddha and Sue Bradford—in their support for this bill. Kia ora. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri noa i te Whare; tena tatou katoa. I too congratulate Sue Bradford on the bill she has brought before the House tonight. I am a relatively new member not only to the House but also to the Social Services Committee and it has been a great opportunity for me to hear from the member as recently as today and also to benefit from the advice of the member’s vast institutional memory—I mean that as a compliment but it is so often used as a criticism—her humility and her preparedness to share her knowledge with people such as myself. I very much appreciate that. 
I endorse the comments that other speakers have made tonight about the member’s tireless efforts on behalf of those who have entitlements to benefits. I really despair of the term “beneficiary” because it has become such a pejorative term in our society. This bill helps us to open the debate wider and to think about the respect that is owed to people who find themselves in need of the support of the State. 
It is incumbent upon the State to constantly review its own processes systems and structures to ensure that the grand intent that is always at the beginning of these processes is still being honoured as time passes. This member’s bill gives us that particular opportunity in respect of the benefit review and appeal process. When a problem is identified and when that problem is particularly relevant to the vulnerable in our society it is particularly important that we make every effort to redress the difficulties and flaws of the system and to look to continuous improvement to ensure that people who are reliant upon the State are able to access what they are entitled to—and to do so with respect. 
The bill proposes changes that are focused on the review and appeal rights of benefit recipients as set out in the Social Security Act 1964. The bill intends to provide a benefit review system that is independent of the Ministry of Social Development and that converts the current review process into an independently contracted quasi-judicial review. Consequently the bill seeks to change the way in which reviews are conducted. The bill also seeks to award costs to both successful and unsuccessful applicants. 
I think it might be helpful if we spend a very short time on summarising what the current benefit review process is notwithstanding the significant criticisms that have already been identified about it in previous parts of this debate. I am not sure whether members are aware of quite the scope and quantity of considerations that the current process is responsible for but approximately 5 million letters are sent out each year about decisions that have appeal rights attached. These result in about 4000 formal review requests each year. The first step in the process is a review of the decision—an internal administrative review within the ministry. Sixty-five percent of issues are resolved at this stage. If the review does not resolve the issue then the matter is formally considered by a benefits review committee. Such a committee as we have heard is made up of two members of the Ministry of Social Development and a community member appointed by the Minister. No additional costs are associated with the process other than the fees expenses and travelling allowances of the one community member. Costs to the appellant are not awarded. 
One of the particular concerns I have about the proposal set out in the bill is that it would seem to incur significantly more costs than the current process and I wonder whether we might more profitably turn our attention to how we improve the process we have rather than remove it altogether and start again. Clearly the system does require greater improvement. As my colleague Hone Harawira has said we must not be afraid to put the State under scrutiny. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this member’s bill the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Bradford. I would like to reaffirm and restate some of the support that has been given to that member who once again is bringing forth what I think is both a timely and crucial piece of legislation in an area that is desperately in need of some support at this particular point in time. We are at present entering an environment where we are more in need than ever of giving additional support to Kiwis who have fallen on hard times. More than ever we are seeing that vulnerable Kiwis who have their rights as citizens in New Zealand to seek the support of the State are being vilified in the public sphere. As a member of this House that is something I deeply regret seeing. 
In my very short time here I have seen some of what I perceive to be crucial support mechanisms provided by the State come under fire. The example I will draw on is the independent youth benefit. We saw recently that the Government put forth a support package for young people but in the very same breath it stated that the independent youth benefit that crucial benefit that is drawn on by no more than 1500 young people would have additional layers of eligibility requirements attached to it before young people would be able to access it. Let me restate to this House that that benefit is extraordinarily difficult for a young person to receive—extraordinarily difficult. Two-thirds of the young people who receive that benefit are already in work training or education. They must go to great lengths to prove they are eligible for that benefit. Let us not be under any illusions: we run a tight ship when it comes to our welfare State. To purport otherwise I believe is dishonest yet we have done so with that particular benefit. Young people must already prove that they psychologically require access to that support mechanism yet we are now putting in an additional layer of requirement for an already vulnerable group of people. 
We have already seen as well the release of information on beneficiaries for political point-scoring and now we see there will be a review of the 50 top—I do not know what the Government wants to call them but they are a group of beneficiaries whom the Government considers are worthy of review. I do not want to comment on the specific details of those individuals but for me this feels like a wider softening up of the public. In this environment I think it is important now more than ever that we ensure that our system is balanced and for me this bill is a rebalance of power. 
We have in New Zealand a number of authorities that provide accountability structures. We have ombudsmen for various institutions whether for insurance banking or our parliamentary system. The principles behind ombudsmen are that they are independent that they respond to and review complaints in a timely manner and that they are accessible. In my mind these are the same principles that should apply to any appeal board that looks at benefits that are awarded or denied in this country. Those same principles should apply in these cases. Those are criteria that I would expect a select committee to consider when looking at this bill. 
In particular I am very pleased that not only are we adding independence to a structure that I believe so desperately needs it; we are also adding time limits. But I ask the select committee to perhaps look further at the specific time limits when issuing a formal ruling. I may have missed a detail in this but perhaps in the process itself we might also need to build in time limits to ensure that the process does not unnecessarily drag or cause undue distress for those individuals involved in it. 
I again reiterate my strong support for this bill. In the current environment we are in I think it is timely I think it is necessary and I think it will bring greater consistency to those other similar structures that we already have in our system. I once again congratulate the member on bringing this issue to the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 First of all I thank members who have spoken kind words about my own work and about the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. They include those who will vote against the bill. 
I will say a few words about what the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett said. Her main argument as to why the Government will not be supporting the bill appears to be that she thinks that it will be costly and that it will add another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that this argument is absolutely wrong. If the Government had been open to picking up this bill and working with us on it at the Social Services Committee if it had heard the submissions from all the groups around the country had listened to advice from officials and had looked at the options of what might be possible with a much more independent review and appeal body it would have found that it was a much more cost-effective way to go. 
It is a myth that the current system would be less expensive than a system like the Dispute Resolution Services process which the Accident Compensation Corporation uses. Unfortunately in the short time since my bill was drawn I have not had time to extract all the figures to prove this but I strongly suspect that a system like this would be much cheaper than what it actually costs the Ministry of Social Development at the moment to run its rather ineffective and time-consuming process. A lot of it is false economy. For example the fact that the department is using departmental staff—who are totally biased—appears to be a cost saving because they are already employees of the department but their time costs something and it is at the expense of having a review and appeal system that is unbiased and fair. 
The Minister also talked about the legislation adding a layer of bureaucracy. Again I think it is the opposite: it would actually streamline the system by taking it out of the department. We would not have all that business of having to get on board with the community reps who may or may not be the unbiased and neutral people they are supposed to be. In fact the bill would strip out bureaucracy and make the whole system much simpler to run. My proposition also would get rid of the medical boards which is another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that the Minister has got it all round the wrong way. 
I welcomed the Minister’s comment that the department does not always get it right and that timeliness is an issue. I am glad she picked up on that issue; she has access to a lot more information than I do. I hope the Minister acts on her words takes up that issue with the ministry and looks closely at what is happening. I hope that if she does an investigation like that she will find out the reality of what I Labour members my colleague Catherine Delahunty and Hone Harawira have been talking about tonight which is that the system is not working well. The Minister has only to listen to the voices of the advocacy groups the community law centres the citizens advice bureaus and others who deal with people coping with the system to learn that the process is a long way from working well. I hope that even though the Government is rejecting this offering it will begin to look seriously at reforming the benefit review and appeal system which is well overdue for consideration. 
I turn to my colleague Ruth Dyson who said that her Labour Government looked at this issue rigorously in its term of office. I say to her that I am sorry that her Labour Government did not pick this up. I regret that my member’s bill was not drawn during Labour’s term of Government. I hoped that it would have gone to the select committee and received due consideration there. But I am very grateful for the Labour Party’s support tonight and for the Maori Party’s support. These parties understand the failings of the ministry. I take on what Ruth Dyson said. She is not sure that the Dispute Resolution Services model is the right one. I am not sure either. I put it up as only one way forward; I am not at all sure that it is the best way and I am well aware that accident compensation claimants have issues about Dispute Resolution Services. It is far from a perfect model but I think it is a lot better and potentially a lot cheaper than the current one. 
I thank those who have supported the bill tonight and I hope the Government picks up the issues I have raised even though it is not voting for the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill 
First Reading 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The purpose of the bill as stated in the explanatory note is twofold. First “To ensure that the use of armed force by New Zealand is always in conformity with international law and in particular the UN Charter;” and second “To protect New Zealand leaders”—that is to say our Ministers of the Crown—“from external pressure to commit the New Zealand Defence Force to any illegal action overseas.” The essential content of the bill is also twofold. First it makes it a criminal offence for any New Zealand leader who is constitutionally in a position to direct the defence forces to commit the forces to any act of aggression overseas. Secondly it requires that before committing the defence forces to any action overseas such leaders receive written legal advice from the Attorney-General that such action is consistent with international law and in particular the charter of the United Nations and that such advice be debated in Parliament. 
This bill does not constrain in any way New Zealand leaders in the exercise of their constitutional obligation to defend the realm. It is directed exclusively at ensuring that the proactive use of force by New Zealand overseas is strictly consistent with the United Nations Charter. Nor does it seek to accord to Parliament any power of executive decision pertaining to the New Zealand Defence Force. That power remains with Cabinet Parliament being accorded simply the right to comment in advance upon the legal merits of a proposed action. When the lives of New Zealanders are at stake their representatives must be given a voice. The bill establishes a new body the Special Prosecutor to be responsible for any investigation and prosecution. That is because the traditional agent for such action in the New Zealand judicial system the Attorney-General is not in this case an appropriate mechanism. Elementary logic of the legal system and constitutional law precludes a person who through executive action has participated in an official decision from determining through judicial action the matter of its own legality. 
The International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill aims not to divide the country or this House but to unite them. The political rationale on which it rests is compelling. In the 21st century New Zealand is rendered safer through the rule of international law than through a 19th century reliance on unfettered military power. In times past even in the 20th century international law was seen as essentially prescriptive in intent and at best only fitfully enforceable. It worked simply when major powers wished it to in the pursuit of their national interests. Today there is a newfound recognition that the emerging global society can rest only on the rule of law whether its interaction is in trade finance environmental protection or the use of military force. It is thus in New Zealand’s national interest to contribute to the strengthening of that law. Indeed international law is in certain ways and to a certain extent transforming into global law. That progression is in all our interests not only for New Zealand but for the rest of humanity provided that such law reflects a global legitimacy in terms of a balanced input from all cultures and a fair and balanced application and enforcement. Action for strengthening international law proceeds along two avenues of endeavour. At the international level work is under way to add aggression as a crime of the International Criminal Court. New Zealand is contributing to that work and it is to be hoped that this will be completed within a matter of years. The International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction however will always be of secondary instance with national courts retaining primary responsibility so it is our responsibility to introduce domestic legislation to ensure that the criminalisation of aggression falls within our national jurisdiction. By doing this now New Zealand contributes to the international work in a meaningful and proactive way. 
Allow me to anticipate and address some possible areas of opposition to the bill which I should acknowledge from the outset I will sincerely respect. First some may contend that New Zealand should wait until the International Criminal Court completes its negotiating process before proceeding to legislate domestically against aggression. But that constitutes an unnecessary deferral. There is nothing to prevent any country from introducing national legislation in advance and there are good reasons for doing so. Indeed many countries have legislated against aggression as a crime against peace. Two have specifically identified it as a leadership crime. This New Zealand bill is distinctive in directly tying the domestic crime to the obligations of the United Nations Charter which I submit is the proper way to proceed. 
Secondly others may doubt that New Zealand should proceed unilaterally when a small nation such as ours poses no threat to anyone and always abides by the rule of law reflecting as it were a peerless brand of enlightened internationalism. In fact New Zealand does not have an unblemished record on the use of force. We stood aside in 2003 when British Australian and US forces used force in an action that most jurists and the UN Secretary-General regarded as illegal but in 1956 we actively supported the United Kingdom in its aggression against Egypt a move that was overwhelmingly condemned by the United Nations including the United States. To those who say that such action half a century ago does not reflect the New Zealand of today I say then let us demonstrate our national maturity by enshrining non-aggression in our criminal law for the pressure of any major power on New Zealand to commit armed force in a coalition remains as potent today as it was then. 
Third there may be those who perceive it as a gratuitous insult to render our national leaders open to criminal liability for directing our own armed forces but that is the old way of perceiving international peace and security. In the 21st century the rule of law reaches into the hitherto sacral domain of national security and no person whether citizen or leader is above the law. Indeed the intent of the bill is not to intimidate our leaders but to protect them through the reach of domestic law. It is the same logic that extends a binding obligation under our 1987 legislation upon the Prime Minister to refuse entry of nuclear-capable warships into our national territory. In that law and in this bill “obligation” equates to protection. 
Fourth others may lament that the issue of aggression in international law is too complex and the definition of aggression too imprecise for any meaningful domestic legislation to be justiciable. But our domestic criminal legislation is replete with complex challenges of definition interpretation and judgment. The definitions of murder manslaughter rape and assault are just a few examples of concepts pertaining to human behaviour where Parliament legislates lawyers argue juries decide and judges pronounce. In no way is the concept of aggression intrinsically different even at the international level. 
Finally some may question the underlying philosophical premise that our nation is made safer through law and power. To them I say with respect that they stand on the wrong side of history. This bill derives not from idealism but from a sobered and forward-looking realism. The bill does not descend from the heavens wreathed in fine raiment; rather does it emerge from the fires of war clothed in the burnt and shredded uniforms of our fallen soldiers they who bear silent witness to the agony of human conflict. It is in tribute to those who have departed and with eternal hope for generations yet to come that I commend this bill to the House and request that it be given due consideration. Thank you. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill demonstrates Dr Graham’s deep commitment to the progressive development of international law. Its ultimate trajectory would be to fundamentally change the contemporary international legal order. The wars of the 20th century led to a general recognition that aggressive war was a fundamental breach of the norms of international law and that all those who committed that crime would be held to account. The Nuremburg trials were the precise incident of that principle. Individuals were held to account for their actions. 
More recently the International Criminal Court has provided a general international statute to hold the perpetrators of aggressive war genocide and other war crimes to account. We have seen its effectiveness in the trials of the various perpetrators of war genocide and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. There are also special tribunals in relation to genocides in Rwanda. Most recently the President of Sudan has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. Dr Graham’s bill is intended to continue that process. So he will be wondering why National is opposing it given what I have just said. 
There are two fundamental reasons. The first reason is that it would effectively hand our foreign policy to the whims of a United Nations Security Council veto. This would be the case under clause 7 of the bill. I refer members to an important recent situation where this was the case. Under the proposed legislation New Zealand and other Western democracies could not have defended the people of Kosovo against genocidal aggression because their Prime Ministers Presidents and indeed chiefs of defence forces would have been prosecuted in the courts. There would have been no authorisation for their actions by the Security Council because Russia and China vetoed the proposed resolution. I cannot believe that Dr Graham would expect or desire that as an outcome. But in reality in the way the bill is written—at its very heart—that would have been the outcome. I also note that the intervention which this whole House universally supported did not initially have United Nations approval. That is why it was called an intervention. It was only later that it had UN authorisation. I note that it is essentially the same with most situations in the Pacific as well. They subsequently get UN approval. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Such as where? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well in the Solomon Islands. So in National’s view that is a fatal flaw of this bill. 
The second point is that I believe the bill has the potential to deeply divide our nation. It is worth recalling that yesterday this House debated the deployment into Afghanistan of the New Zealand Special Air Service. Irrespective of where particular parties stood on that issue they all stated directly including Dr Kennedy Graham’s colleague Keith Locke that we needed to support our servicemen and servicewomen when we place them with huge risk to their lives when they defend the interests of New Zealand. 
It is the view of Dr Kennedy Graham that the actions in Afghanistan do not meet the test of the United Nations. I say to him that he is wrong on that point. The United Nations Security Council resolutions both in 2001 and 2003 and the annual resolutions provide full authorisation of the NATO International Security Assistance Force mission. But the other key part of Mr Graham’s bill is the establishment of the office of a Special Prosecutor and the ability—this is the key point—of anyone to make a complaint to the prosecutor with the intent that Prime Ministers Ministers of Foreign Affairs Ministers of Defence and chiefs of the defence forces would then be prosecuted. That is the objective. 
It is certain that if this bill were passed members of the Green Party would seek to do precisely that in that particular case. Imagine I ask Dr Graham how deeply divisive that would be to our country and how it would deepen the risk between our peoples in situations that I understand are challenging. I think that passing this legislation is simply the wrong way to deal with this issue. I recognise that it is motivated by the best of intentions; I suggest to Dr Graham that there is a better way to deal with his concerns. He did in part recognise a pathway towards that. 
New Zealand is committed to the universality of the International Criminal Court. At present it does not have that status and a number of nations are not signatories to the court. It has been an objective of the Parliamentarians for Global Action of which I have been a member to get as wide a sign up as possible to that particular convention; it is the principal objective of the Parliamentarians for Global Action. I know that Dr Kennedy Graham has been directly involved in that process. It is a national goal for New Zealand that we should have universality of the International Criminal Court. I suggest that in deepening the global commitment to providing a more consistent basis to hold to account those responsible for the conduct of war crimes and aggressive war then it should be the case that the International Criminal Court becomes the principal and primary place for people to be held to account. 
National understands the underlying motivations behind this bill but fundamental parts of the bill are deeply flawed. There is another way to develop this process and I suggest to the House and to Dr Graham that those parts can be pursued and that there are mechanisms in select committees to advance that case. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Labour Party as its spokesperson on foreign affairs to speak in support of Dr Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. 
We have just heard from Dr Wayne Mapp from the National Party that the Government will not be supporting this bill. He concluded his 10-minute presentation by saying there is another way to deal with the bill. Of course there is and that is to send it to a select committee. There are ways to improve this bill and we have to reconcile this legislation with domestic legislation. We have to see that it fits in comfortably with the International Criminal Court. Aspects of the bill could be improved and I am sure Dr Kennedy Graham would be the first to concede that. We have a process here at Parliament to improve a bill and that is to send the bill to a select committee. It seems that Dr Mapp is not prepared to follow his own advice and that the Government will not support this bill being sent to a select committee. 
Dr Mapp made a couple of points in his rather confused presentation—his presentation of denial—that I feel I have to take umbrage with. Firstly he said this bill empowers our foreign policy to be handed over to the United Nations. Well frankly I would be very happy for our foreign policy to be in sync with the policies of the United Nations. Dr Mapp was quite prepared when National was in Opposition to hand over our foreign policy to the United States. When Labour was in Government supported by the Green Party we said no to the deployment of our troops to Iraq. We said no to that. Members may recall that Mr John Key the current Prime Minister of our country said in the  
Rodney Times 
 that the National Party would send troops to Iraq. Of course he later recanted on that position; he is well known for such flip-flops. But the reality is that National would have caved in to the Americans; we did not do so. 
Secondly yes the previous Labour Government did send our SAS troops to Afghanistan. Mr Goff and other speakers explained yesterday in the debate that when those troops were sent there they were sent to find al-Qaeda. It was a mission supported by the United Nations and many countries in the world. Now of course they will be sent to fight the Taliban which is quite a different scenario altogether. This Government will also have our provincial reconstruction team plucked out of the excellent job it is doing in Bamian. 
I say “Good on you!” to Dr Kennedy Graham. His bill attempts to build on the principled foreign policy that our country has enjoyed for a very long time. It builds on things like our nuclear-free policy. It builds on the excellent work that this country has done—a small country but one with a powerful voice in the world—on the banning of cluster munitions on the attempts to ban the use of landmines and on the pursuit of peace and the very active role that our country has played in that area. Indeed we play a very active role in peacekeeping missions such as the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands and the work we did in Bougainville in brokering the peace agreement there. These are all things that have given this small country of a little over 4 million people an enormous reputation in the world. 
We just heard the National Government say no to this bill. It was a sort of dumbing down of our foreign policy. We have seen much of that in this House since the election. Whether we go from things like conservation to the provision of social services such as education we find there has been a general dumbing down. I remember saying on Radio New Zealand National on election night last year that John Key would become the George Bush of New Zealand. He is a man whom history will record as having dumbed down a country a man who has seen the grinding down of our reputation. The failure to support this bill’s referral to a select committee is just about that: it is about dumbing down New Zealand’s foreign policy. It is about slavishly following some other countries rather than about being a good citizen in the world. I say “Well done!” to Dr Kennedy Graham. He is building on the reputation that our country deserves to have because of its strong support for peace in the world. I say to him that the Labour Party supports his bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this member’s bill the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham. 
I have no doubt that the sentiment behind this bill is extremely worthy but like my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp—who I believe gave a most well-informed and thoughtful contribution to this debate—I say that National will be opposing this bill. 
The bill’s purpose is highly worthy. I think Dr Graham mentioned to me earlier this afternoon that quite a number of countries around the world are starting to look at legislation like this. Perhaps it is something that New Zealand must seriously consider in the future but there are some outstanding concerns about this bill. The purpose is consistent with the worthiness that Dr Graham espouses—that is to ensure that the use of armed forces by New Zealand is always in conformity with international law and to protect New Zealand leaders from external pressure to commit the New Zealand Defence Force to any illegal action overseas. 
I see that one of the key points of this bill will introduce into criminal law a new crime the crime of aggression which might be committed by a New Zealand leader and which would be justiciable in the New Zealand courts. For me a non-lawyer this is a word that I was not aware of. It simply means subject to a trial in a court of law. That in itself makes one a little worried to think that New Zealand leaders who often act in good faith in response to a sudden emergency that has occurred somewhere in the South Pacific may find themselves suddenly in a court of law perhaps inappropriately. 
I think back 9 years to when the previous Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark said that we were living in a benign political environment in the South Pacific. How wrong she was. One has only to think of Bougainville East Timor Tonga and more recently—well several times over—Fiji. These are the realities of the South Pacific and the realities of the need to have a law in New Zealand that is practical and flexible in order to respond to an emergency. 
The bill provides that any prosecution will be brought by a special prosecutor who will be appointed by the Governor-General and I note that in some of the notes Dr Graham suggested this could be a retired judge. Well shivers run down my spine from time to time when I think of those gentlemen and just how capable they may be of taking on this very very important responsibility. The bill provides that it is unlawful for a New Zealand leader to plan prepare initiate or execute an act of aggression that if it is committed by its character gravity and scale constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. 
National will oppose this bill on two grounds: firstly the provisions within this bill could result in severe and blatant misuse; and secondly the bill would mean the use of force is permissible only if it has been approved by the United Nations Security Council. This would have been unacceptable on many past occasions. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in favour of the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill which is in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham. I congratulate Dr Graham on bringing this legislation to the House. I will briefly talk about it and then talk about what we have just heard from National in response to it. 
For decades New Zealand has had a very strong tradition of moral foreign policy. We sent Fraser Colman on a frigate to Mururoa to observe and find out about the nuclear tests being conducted there. Our Dame Silvia Cartwright who is a retired judge is now working as a trial judge on the Cambodian War Crimes Tribunal. It is our Sir Kenneth Keith who has been taking the lead at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. We have never been afraid as a country to put up people of enormous competence to lead moral arguments on international law and issues of international justice. 
I commend Dr Graham for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. Parliament could do nothing more serious than to commit our citizens to wars or acts of aggression. It is positive that this legislation could give us grounds to determine whether it is legal whether it is in accordance with United Nations conventions and whether it is in accordance with some kind of moral principle underlying foreign policy. This kind of legislation could lead to that. 
I will never know whether this bill could be improved because National will vote against it. Dr Mapp said that this bill could be improved and that there are ways in which it could be amended. He tried to strike a position of defence of National’s view by saying that the bill is technically inadequate in some respects. But that is why we would send the bill to a select committee. The kind of leadership and approach that a New Zealand Parliament ought to be taking on principled grounds is being stymied by this National Government. This bill will not be given the chance for improvement or refinement whatever that might be. I am not in a position to know how it might be improved; I am not an international lawyer. But as a responsible member of this House I would like the chance to determine whether this legislation contributes to a principled position for New Zealand in the international community. 
I recall having my own bill about ethical trade rejected by this Government 2 weeks ago. Does this Government not realise that progress is made like this with bills like this? Progress is made little by little step by step treaty by treaty and clause by clause—that is how progress is achieved both domestically and internationally. This Government repeatedly refuses to allow us as a Parliament to investigate and interrogate legislation in order to see whether we together as a Parliament can advance New Zealand’s interests and the world’s interests as well. 
It seems to me that this legislation could do that. This legislation could provide some leadership to countries apart from our own that do not have a principled or legal position by which they might determine whether to commit their citizens to acts of aggression. It is a shame that this National Government on no principled ground that I could discern from either of the previous National speakers will prevent this legislation from being interrogated and developed further by sending it to a select committee. That is a shame. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. The Maori Party supports the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill in line with the history the experience and the example that Aotearoa offers the world in terms of the philosophy of peaceful resistance and leadership. We know only too well the history of the people of Taranaki who in 1881 refused to fight at Parihaka instead drawing on their traditions of passive resistance. We all know the international reputation we gained when former Prime Minister David Lange told the world that nuclear weapons were morally indefensible and declared Aotearoa to be nuclear-free. We recall the protest against nuclear testing in Mururoa in 1985 and the 1996 case that went before the World Court at The Hague. 
We know that our history tells us that unless the peoples of the land are involved in determining their solutions to conflict peace will always be fragile and temporary. We know that the international world must stand strong in condemning any abuse of human rights and democratic freedoms. And we know too that the stage has been well and truly prepared for this bill to be heard. And so we commend Mr Graham for putting forward a bill that will restore the opportunity for New Zealand to be a world leader to get out there and say that we will not violate the United Nations Charter and that we will not plan prepare initiate or execute an act of aggression that violates that charter. 
In many ways this bill mirrors Maori Party policy for we have often advocated for nations to decrease their military expenditure. We seek to maintain a nuclear-free Aotearoa and we support a peacekeeping role for New Zealand defence personnel in the world. 
This bill also makes an honourable attempt to hold our leaders to account in the future by determining that our continued involvement in acts like the United States - led coalition’s war of terror now labelled a fraudulent war by most nations outside of the coalition might constitute an act of aggression illegal in New Zealand law. 
The events of 9/11 were tragic and disturbing and led to many changes in the way Governments reorganised their defence capabilities but also to the way in which they treated their own citizens. The world watched as the war of terror swept through Afghanistan and Iraq showcasing the military power of America and the disembowelling of national sovereignty. New Zealanders watched as that international chain reaction of military enterprise led to our Government executing military actions throughout many communities here in Aotearoa in the local version of the American war of terror. So there is a lot at stake when we consider the possibility of international non-aggression. 
We support the notion that this bill would make it mandatory for any New Zealand leader when deciding whether to deploy our armed forces to a conflict situation to seek and obtain written advice from the Attorney-General to determine whether the deployment was consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Charter—simple. 
As I said in the House yesterday the Maori Party supports Aotearoa committing to activities like peacemaking in Timor-Leste and provincial reconstruction in Afghanistan rather than unjustifiable military endeavour. And we welcome the introduction of a new crime into law a crime of aggression. It is defined as “the use of armed force by the State of New Zealand against the sovereignty territorial integrity or political independence of another State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.” and—I use this word again—justiciable in New Zealand courts. 
The Maori Party takes seriously the obligations our nation has on the global stage. We take seriously the obligation to refrain from the use of armed force inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations Charter and we will support this bill being referred to a select committee. Tena tatou katoa. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is disappointing that National is not supporting my colleague Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill being referred to a select committee. The very questions and criticisms raised by the Minister of Defence Wayne Mapp in respect of the bill are the very issues that should be tested at a select committee. 
He said for example that this bill would have prevented New Zealand troops from being involved in the International Force for East Timor operation in 1999 and in the Solomon Islands. If members look at for example the International Force for East Timor operation they will see that it went in only after an agreement with the Indonesian Government; it did not take on the Indonesian Government militarily. That can hardly be considered aggression and this bill would determine it not to be aggression. If that operation had been tested legally then the sovereignty of the people of East Timor would have been factored in. Their sovereignty has now been reinstated and was never cancelled by the Indonesian occupation from 1975 to 1999. 
The fundamental importance of this bill—it is laid out quite clearly in the explanatory note—relates to the sovereignty territorial integrity and political independence of nations which have been frustrated many times by the aggressive actions of usually bigger powers. Wayne Mapp referred to Nuremburg where those who had committed the grave crimes of aggression and genocide—Nazi Germany under Hitler—were brought to book for those crimes. The member accepts that. It was a war in which New Zealand troops died fighting aggression and defending people from aggression. 
Mr Mapp is worried about the question of Afghanistan. I ask him what is wrong with testing the decision of the Government to send the SAS to Afghanistan. I ask him what is wrong with testing that decision legally against standards of aggression and against standards that have been previously applied in the example he gave because there are genuine standards. 
Mr Mapp said that leaders of our Government do things in good faith and that they should not then be subject to the law. That does not apply in any other area of our Parliament. Sure people do good things in good faith and nobody denies that but we must obey the law when we act. This bill would benefit from being tested at the select committee. There is recognition from Wayne Mapp that the world is moving towards universal codification of aggression under the Statute of Rome under the processes of the International Criminal Court. Why should we not test where we are going on that and what it would mean for our domestic legal process? As Kennedy Graham said there is nothing wrong with being a little bit ahead in terms of an application of international laws into our domestic jurisdiction. It can help that process. It can inform the process of the world putting aggression more clearly under the Statute of Rome. 
The other point that I think is very important is that as a small nation we are often under pressure from bigger countries. Historically we were under pressure from the United States to commit troops to the Viet Nam War. About 40 New Zealand troops died in that war and many have been scarred by that war. That was partly because of pressure. Is it not good to have a law that protects and helps? Keith Holyoake the Prime Minister at the time was not keen on going into Viet Nam. He did it in a minimal way and historians have proved that. It would have been good if he had a law at that stage stating that troops could not be sent unless conditions were met. Those conditions would not have been met and therefore New Zealand troops would not have died in that way. As Kennedy Graham said the antinuclear law—written down in law—protects our Government. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to briefly speak on the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. I particularly want to talk about the great success that Green Party members seem to have in getting their bills out of the members’ bills ballot. We have had two of their bills tonight and if I cast my mind back to 2 weeks’ ago I think there were two then as well. I say to Dr Kennedy Graham who has brought this bill to this House in good faith and has put a lot of meaning into it that I would like to know how the Greens do it. They need to share a bit of the love around. You see I have my own bill in the ballot so perhaps tomorrow just before 12 p.m. I will cross the House and join the Greens for 5 minutes only to see whether I can get my bill out of the ballot. Indeed I will not be able to do that because if I did I am not sure I would sleep well tomorrow night. 
I commend Dr Graham for the work he has put into this bill. Having said that I say I will not be supporting the bill and I want to run through a few of the reasons for that. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.