Volume 615 Week 48 - Wednesday 18 February 2004 
Volume 615 Week 48 - Wednesday 18 February 2004 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Wednesday 18 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Standing Committee on Health Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing you that the members of the Standing Committee on Health from the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory led by the chairperson Ms Kerrie Tucker MLA are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish the delegation be welcomed. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for members of the Local Government and Environment Committee on a site visit related to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill outside Wellington on Thursday 19 February to be regarded as present within the parliamentary precincts for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is very clear that no meeting of the select committee is being held during that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. 
Personal Explanations 
New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yesterday I stated in a debate that the New Zealand First Party had voted with National to reduce the level of the pension. That statement was incorrect of course. New Zealand First had left the coalition at that point. I apologise to members opposite for that dastardly accusation. 
Personal Explanations 
Immigration 
—Morning Report 
 Interview 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of an answer I gave in an interview on  
Morning Report  
this morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want it clarified. Just getting up and saying— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am entitled to raise a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You may raise a point of order after I have ruled. I want to rule first. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You have just ruled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have but there is no room in the Standing Orders to give reasons for objecting. Any member is entitled under our system to object and a member has done so. That is perfectly valid. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling. I am well aware of it. I am also aware that the House likes to give members the opportunity to make personal explanations and does not normally give an opportunity to explain something that was not said in the House. There are members here who do not listen to State radio so I have no idea what the member is referring to. If I had a bit of an idea what the subject was I could then decide whether the business of the House should be interrupted in order to correct things that appear on the “Morning Moan”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As objection has been taken we come to questions for oral answer. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is in the same vein—just to get better clarification from you about the use of the Standing Order that allows personal explanations to be made. A personal explanation was made yesterday by the Hon Steve Maharey related to the way in which he had answered a question during question time the day before. He did that as a Minister. He did that backed up by the full weight of his ministerial department and his staff who operate with him in the Beehive. The same position exists for the Hon Lianne Dalziel. As Ministers they are making mistakes when they are supposed to be giving answers consistent with the public good. Surely it would be far better that they used the mechanism available to them without recourse to the House—that of a ministerial statement. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
The mechanism of using a personal explanation to correct an answer given in the House has been in existence for a very long time and used by successive Governments for very good reasons. Indeed I seem to recollect a Speaker’s ruling that when a Minister makes a mistake in giving an answer then he or she should as soon as possible seek to correct that mistake by coming to the House and seeking to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. This is in danger of becoming a debate on the request for a personal explanation. Any member is entitled to ask the House for leave for anything. Any member is entitled to deny it. The member asked for leave; a member denied it—that is within the Standing Orders. 
Questions to Ministers 
Seabed and Foreshore—Title 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of her statement that: “Our proposal is for the twin title to have the people’s title alongside the customary title and we think that meets the interest of both people.” is it the intention of the Government that public domain title and customary title will exist side by side over virtually the entire coastline? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Public domain title will be created over the entire coastline subject of course to those few small areas that are currently in private title. Maori will be able to seek customary title over any area covered by the public domain title if they can demonstrate ancestral connection. Customary title of course is not a property right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that Maori customary title holders will have special enhanced participation rights over management of the foreshore and seabed that no other New Zealanders will have; if so how can she see that as anything less than race-based preferment by her Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The proposal for ancestral connection - based customary title reflects the fact that Maori as the tangata whenua of this land do have that ancestral connection. Unfortunately of course from the perspective of the Opposition that is a reality they have to deal with. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Government accept that the rights conferred on Maori by centuries of ancestral association with the coast have never been extinguished and must be provided for in a fair resolution of the foreshore and seabed issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I prefer to put it this way: those rights that have not been extinguished should be properly protected. It is clear that a significant number of customary rights have been extinguished by one means or another since 1840. The proposals in front of the public at the moment do not intend to revisit those customary rights that have been extinguished. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why would the Government contemplate customary title existing over more than a minute fraction of our coastline when the judges of the Court of Appeal expressly cautioned that they expected it to be very rare if it was found anywhere and where Judge Hingston of the Maori Land Court has said that mana moana which appears to be ancestral connection is born of greed and ignorance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can deal with the first point. That is not quite what the judge of the Court of Appeal said. What the judges said—and that was obiter dicta not by any means a legal ruling—was that their expectation was that the sum of customary rights that might add up to something like freehold title would not apply to more than a small number of discrete areas. They never suggested any sense that—oh yes the member shakes his head. I suggest that he re-reads the ruling by the Court of Appeal judges. They did not suggest in any shape or form that somehow or other the amount of foreshore and seabed with which Maori had ancestral connections was limited to small and discrete areas. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm two things: firstly that any customary title granted under this proposal will not imply any sense of exclusivity; and secondly that where customary title is granted it will be on the basis of a reasonable continuity of connection back to 1840 and will be in a situation that means that the rights of access of all New Zealanders are protected and enhanced? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: 
 I will take the last part first. Yes the intention of the proposals is to protect and enhance the rights of access held by all New Zealanders as of right not on a grace and favour basis for the majority of New Zealanders. 
 On the second point I think that the statement about continuity is a statement that applies to customary rights and that of course is merely a statement of the common law definition in effect of customary rights. Customary title already exists in the sense that the connection already exists unbroken since 1840. I am not aware of any iwi or hapu that has surrendered its association with the foreshore and seabed. [ 
Interruption 
] I would point out that the members opposite voted for the Ngai Tahu settlement legislation. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No we didn’t. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Except for ACT members but then of course they are always different on everything to do with race. After they merge with National no doubt they will change their history. I come to the National Party. They passed the Ngai Tahu settlement legislation which recognised the connection of Ngai Tahu with the vast bulk of the foreshore and seabed in the South Island. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Prime Minister trying to tell us that customary title is effectively meaningless and that anyone who holds a customary title has no greater participation in the management of the seabed and foreshore noted in that title? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No indeed not and of course that is a claim made by some particularly some lawyers representing Maori interests in this matter. As always the truth seems to lie between those lawyers and the National Party. What the proposals do imply and indeed state very very clearly is that the existence of customary title will give the opportunity for participation rights in relation to planning matters with regard to the coastal marine area which is foreshore and seabed only—not I have to point out to the Opposition yet again the beaches above the high mean tide mark. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In light of the overwhelming iwi opposition to the Government’s initial proposals at the 12 hui last year what process has the Government adopted for further discussion and good faith negotiation with iwi to achieve an agreed outcome in the spirit of partnership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A range of further consultations has occurred at a personal level at a group level and indeed at many other levels I think it is fair to say. I do not accept that the current proposals are opposed by the vast bulk of iwi. There is a lot of noise but there is also a lot of quiet talking going on around those proposals which are not helped by the exaggerated representation of those by members opposite. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister of Finance understand or know what is the legal authority for regarding the seabed as land? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Apart from anything else at this point of course the Court of Appeal decision. That was made quite clear in the Court of Appeal decision. What the Government has said is that the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act passed in 1993 was not intended to allow the Maori Land Court to grant in effect freehold title over the foreshore and seabed. Much as I might make many accusations against the Bolger National Government I would never accuse them ofactually intentionally planning to hand over freehold title ownership of the foreshore and seabed to Maori. 
Stephen Franks 
: Would the Deputy Prime Minister like to again answer the question I first asked which in essence was: where is the legal requirement in the Court of Appeal judgment or from the Maori Land Court to regard ancestral connection as any authority for issue of customary title or customary right of any kind? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Court of Appeal decision did was to leave us with a situation where Maori—and many have done so—may apply to the Maori Land Court for customary land status over foreshore and seabed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it doesn’t. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know what the member thinks the Court of Appeal said but the Court of Appeal said that the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the foreshore and seabed is customary land. That is the actual precise statement of what the Court of Appeal decided and therefore left unattended that decision means that potentially significant parts of foreshore and seabed could become customary land. That is a matter for the Maori Land Court to determine. 
 The Court of Appeal may express its view about what the Maori Land Court would do but that does not mean to say that that is what the Maori Land Court would do in that circumstance. That customary land status can easily be turned into freehold title. If members opposite are stating that they wish now that that should be left in that position that is not what their leader has said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Government’s proposal is to put a significant amount of New Zealand’s coastline into customary title or into public domain which of the two types of title will have pre-eminence when it comes to issues relating to the management of that area and if the customary title does have a certain amount of pre-eminence over the public domain title does not that create a racial preference? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The proposal is that the public domain title expresses the full ownership of the seabed and foreshore. Customary title sits alongside that ownership. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Customary title is a mess. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not a mess at all. It may be a little bit intellectually difficult but that does not make it a mess. The next part of that is that the exercise of those participation rights for Maori through customary title are within the context of the Resource Management Act and other legislation. It is called one law for all. 
Unemployment Benefit—Zones 
2.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he still planning to create so-called “no go” zones for recipients of the unemployment benefit; if so when will the Government be announcing the location of these zones? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 No despite some media usage of that phrase it has never been Government policy to create no-go zones. 
Sue Bradford 
: In what way is saying “You can’t live here and get a benefit.” not creating a no-go zone? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What the policy says is that a person must be able to meet the terms of the work test. That is the essence of the policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: When in an answer to me to a written question the Minister cannot point to even one Work and Income New Zealand client in the last 5 years who has failed any work-test requirement by moving to a remote area where is the “evidence-based research” that he says underpins the Jobs Jolt? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the same way that the National Party when it was in Government had a remote areas policy I imagine that it also gained the same evidence that we do; that is when we circulated policies to front-line staff one of the things they indicated was that quite often when they lived in a town such as Nelson and a person was shifting to a small town in the far north that they had no idea of the front-line staff had no way of being alerted as to whether there were jobs there. This policy is aimed at giving front-line staff that kind of alert list. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How will the Government’s limited employment locations policy assist unemployed people seeking work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The policy is designed to encourage people to seek work in locations where there are good job opportunities to discourage people from moving to locations where few opportunities exist for them and to ensure local people already seeking work in locations where there are limited opportunities are not further disadvantaged by job seekers moving in. In other words we have a very low rate of unemployment in this country and we are seeking to ensure everybody gets a job. I can tell from the National Party spokesperson that that is not their interest but it is ours. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: When the no-go zones for recipients of the unemployment benefit are identified as proposed how will these areas be policed and what form of identification will be used if any and is the Minister proposing to use identification cards? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They are not no-go zones. I remind the member that that has already been cleared up in a previous question. The system works simply on the basis of people being able to comply with the work test. As I have just explained people who tell a case manager that they want to shift somewhere else will now have a question asked of them on the basis of information that the case manager has as to how they will meet the work test when this particular area has say jobs only in agriculture and the persons want to work in retailing or there are no jobs at the current time in that area because basically there is no work. That is the essence of the question. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on 18 August 2003 on Jobs Jolt that Maori beneficiaries “living in their ‘ancestral papakainga district’ will not be subject to the policy”; if so how on earth can he possibly claim that the Labour Government does not have race-based laws? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The policy is not retrospective—in other words whether people are Maori Pacific Island Chinese or any other basic ethnicity the policy does not apply backwards. Wherever people live at the present time we are not applying the policy. As I just pointed out it is for people who are moving so the current policy would apply to them. Yes I stand by the policy that people will be whatever their ethnicity in a particular place at this time and they will stay there. However people who choose to shift in the future whether they are Maori Pacific Island Chinese or of European extraction this policy will apply to them—one rule for all. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the focus in the Jobs Jolt package on discouraging unemployed people from moving into regions with few available jobs what specific initiatives have been considered to make it easier for those already living in such areas to be made aware of jobs in other regions with labour shortages such as reclassifying Work and Income’s job bank to list vacancies by the skills required rather than geographical location as I suggested last year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is a good idea and Work and Income is ensuring that its job bank is available across the country and provides a wider range of information. I should point to new policies such as the mobile employment services. People now living in a remote area will be able to access those services through a case manager who will be in their region by dint of a van that will carry computers and information and he or she will be able to take it right to the doorstep of those people. 
Sue Bradford 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer to Muriel Newman’s question will Maori people returning to their papakainga or home rohe be subject to the new provisions of the remote areas policy or whatever it is to be called? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said going into the future whether people are Maori Pacific Island Chinese or European extraction the policy will apply to them. So if people have indicated that they are returning to Maori land then they will still be subjected to the same test—that is whether they can comply with the work test. I should also point out that Work and Income case managers do take into account such cases as a person saying: “Returning because my children are in that area. I have access rights to them. I would like to be able to visit them.” Those kinds of individual circumstances are taken into account but I repeat because I can tell the ACT people who seem to have antennae for anything of this nature one rule will apply to all people. 
Sue Bradford 
: Whatever the name of the scheme is there actually a new policy about to be implemented by the Government in this area and can the Minister advise when the delineation of these areas will be announced? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will be aware over the summer period we have consulted mayors and regions around the country. I intend to announce an update on all of what were called mutual obligations parts of Jobs Jolt within the next 2 to 3 weeks. 
Seabed and Foreshore—Customary Rights 
3.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that the holders of customary title under the Government’s seabed and foreshore proposal can apply for customary rights which in the words of the Solicitor-General have “real power” including the “right to stop activities”; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes they can. Whether they get any rights will depend on whether their application meets all the criteria that will be in the legislation. A customary right is the same as any other property right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that the Minister has already stated that the customary title carries with it the right to be involved in decision making will the proposed legislation incorporate only existing provisions of the Resource Management Act or will it in fact provide additional provisions of consultation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The provisions in the legislation will provide for adequate and appropriate opportunities for people to be involved in decisions that affect them. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the holders of a customary right be able to prevent a development on the seabed or foreshore from taking place where that activity does not have a significant impact on the customary right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No it will not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister recall the very successful 2002 campaign slogan of “fixing three things in 3 years” in particular the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry and why did she ignore that and ignore the public’s view on it to the peril of her political party? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I try to be all things to all people but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was very very wide of the original question asked but because it is Wednesday afternoon I will give the member another chance to ask it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the member was campaigning in Tauranga and across the country does she recall the very successful slogan in the 2002 campaign about “fixing three things in 3 years” including the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry and why did she personally ignore all of that as Minister and carry on misadvising her party to its political peril? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Minister’s ministerial responsibilities are concerned she may answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have no recollection of saying I would fix all the provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi grievances in 3 years. But it is demonstrably clear from the Government’s records the number of settlements that have been effected and the fact that at this stage we are engaging with over 25 claimant groups that we are certainly making progress in that area. 
Metiria Turei 
: When will the Government stop wasting its time debating Pakeha semantics with Pakeha and engage instead in a round-table dialogue with Maori to develop an agreed foreshore and seabed solution that recognises kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga while meeting the needs of all New Zealanders? Mr Speaker are there any members who would like a translation of the te reo? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Now the member is going too far. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to have the member’s translation of “rangatiratanga” in this context. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to give the explanation of that she can. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to know who these “Murri” people are. 
Metiria Turei 
: I would like to know what he said sorry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been asked a specific question. She will give a specific answer. Then the question will be answered. 
Metiria Turei 
: Mr Speaker would you like to give me a translation of “rangatiratanga” in this context? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have been asked whether you would. 
Metiria Turei 
: Certainly. The translation of “rangatiratanga” as used in this context is the chiefly authority held by the whanau hapu and iwi in a particular rohe or area that is exercised by the person who holds the chiefly position. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think we have just seen a very good example of how this House can talk in many tongues and have some understanding of each! Certainly the Government is in fact engaging in extensive discussions and consultation with Maori. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Going back to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question given that customary title is intended to confer powers of consultation will she agree that those powers are additional to those that any other New Zealander has? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: All New Zealanders have a right to be consulted when applications are made for consents under the Resource Management Act. The various ways in which that consultation takes place are specific to the particular events. It is no more and no less. It is what is appropriate and effective communication. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If it is the case that the Maori customary title confers the same right of consultation on Maori as any other citizen in the country has why on earth is the Government overturning 130 years of long-established precedent that established Crown title over the foreshore and seabed—the very title that this Minister last June in Parliament said she would confirm? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: With respect I find that question incomprehensible. It muddles so many different notions. What we are talking about here has been clearly stated. I will not repeat what has already been clearly stated by the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to a question to the Prime Minister. What we are doing here is ensure that the methods of communication that are already provided for in the Resource Management Act can take place in a more efficient and appropriate way—no more and no less. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can she confirm that the current law states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed; if that is so what would be the effect on the Court of Appeal decision of simply passing another law that said no more than that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Very little. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that answer is allowed to stand that is an insult to this Parliament. Parliament can surely do as it chooses. Dr Mapp asked a legitimate question—a very uncomfortable question for the Government—and it was answered on the basis of “We don’t really understand it but we’ll just chuck out some abuse around that question anyway.” The two Ministers then colluded—very unusual of course but perhaps not so for this Government—to get an answer that effectively insults Parliament. I suggest that the Minister does owe this Parliament a greater explanation than “Very little.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked for an opinion and she gave it. It can be debated and objected to but she gave an opinion. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister gave an opinion could she repeat it? All I heard and I think all this House heard was her saying that she did not propose to answer the question with the spurious allegation that the Deputy Prime Minister had previously made it clear. All that he had done was babble mud. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That member’s point of order relates to an entirely different question and an entirely different answer. The answer to the question I asked was “Very little.” That is because it is the law already so if we say it again it does not change it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That in fact was the point made. 
Tertiary Education Organisations—Initiatives 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Government supporting innovative initiatives by tertiary education organisations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In December the Tertiary Education Commission announced it was investing up to $20 million for nine projects from its Innovation and Development Fund and those contracts are now being signed. The Innovation and Development Fund aims to lift the capacity of tertiary organisations so that they can take on new roles consistent with the tertiary education strategy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What sorts of initiatives will the funding support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We give three examples: funding for the nationwide roll-out of Manukau Institute of Technology’s project to better align secondary schools with polytechnics; a centre for designers and manufacturers to research and develop new ideas in collaboration with students based at the Wellington Institute of Technology and a project to support industry training organisations in taking a leadership role in identifying and addressing the skill needs of their industries. 
Hon Bill English 
: What did the Minister mean when he said in a letter of 11 November 2003: “The Government considers that the treaty relationship with Maori is central to the tertiary education reforms.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Consistent with section 181(b) of the Education Act 1989 which was passed in 1990 and was in place for 9 years during the National Government it is the duty of councils of institutions to acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the context of that letter I was also— 
Hon Bill English 
: What did you mean? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am finishing and I would like the member to just be quiet for a little while. What I was doing in the letter was reminding people of that and reminding them that the tertiary education strategy has identified that Pacific Island and Maori populations are very young and we want to see them as a central part of the policy brought into tertiary institutions retained and gaining qualifications. 
International Students—Seriously Asia Website 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she received any reports regarding the content of the Seriously Asia website as it relates to international students in New Zealand; if so does she have any plans to address the issues it raises? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable to create an environment where students say this about this country: “Gambling and prostitution are legal. There is no pressure from parents teachers and society. International students perceive that there is a very small chance to be caught without a licence when police are rarely seen on the street.” and further quoting them: “and if you have a low attendance rate you can also pay an immigration company or lawyer to get your visa extended. As long as you have money you can buy almost anything including university assessments.” Is that a satisfactory picture to have painted about this country in terms of the people she is bringing in? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the answer is no pray tell me what is the Minister doing about it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Government—and it was not my ministerial responsibility as Minister of Immigration but the Minister of Education’s—introduced a code of pastoral care for international students in order to address a number of those issues. We have increased significantly from an immigration perspective the fraud capacity of the New Zealand Immigration Service. If the member has particular examples that he brings to our attention he now knows that we follow them up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first one is an article where the Race Relations Commissioner says to Aucklanders: “Smile and you’ll come to like it.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document states: “Shoddy course and the students running amok”. It is an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 22 December. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The third one is an article written out of Hong Kong which states: “The Kiwis are just a walkover” which is a representation to that country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Tourism—Economic Growth 
6.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What recent reports has he received on tourism’s contribution to economic growth? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 The year 2003 was another record year for tourism. Statistics New Zealand figures released just today show a 3 percent increase over 2002’s all-time high of over 2 million visitors. International visitor expenditure represents 15.7 percent of export earnings—second only to dairy. Overall the sector comprises 9 percent of the country’s gross domestic product—over $15 billion per annum. The latest accommodation figures show that tourism continues to drive growth in our regions with nine out of 12 showing an increase in guest nights. In a year marked by international conflict by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and by other challenges to the industry I think the New Zealand tourism sector has to be congratulated on still showing world-beating growth potential. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister received any forecasts regarding tourism’s future value to the economy? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Tourism Research Councilforecasts show that international visitor numbers are forecast to grow by 5.7 percent annually through to 2009. But better than that expenditure will increase at nearly double that rate—nearly 10 percent. That does not happen by accident. From day one this Government has worked in partnership with the sector to build a sustainable yield-driven industry. Together we put in place the strategy and—clearly—the results are outstanding. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Given the glowing tourism figures the Minister has just given to the House does he agree that the opportunity for stronger growth in tourism was missed when he failed to agree with New Zealand First’s view that tourism should be recognised for its export potential during the formation of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Not only as a Minister but as a member of the Government I think this Government has demonstrated the value of getting alongside and working with this key industry. We see the benefit of that work built out of the rubble left behind by the McCully years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last phrase can be withdrawn. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I withdraw. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of proving who might have created New Zealand—not the Labour Government—I seek leave to table the book of Genesis. 
Document not tabled. 
Special Housing Action Zone Programme—Maori 
7.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Given the Prime Minister’s reported statement that the Government does not fund on race but on need is the Special Housing Action Zone programme that “provides funding and services for Maori communities” to be changed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Maori Affairs 
: The special action housing zones are part of the Rural Housing Programme to assist disadvantaged people in rural areas living in dangerous unhealthy or inadequate housing. The assistance is based on housing need and goes to Maori and non-Maori on the basis of need. The member may have forgotten that the children who burnt to death in inadequate houses lit only by candles highlighted in 1999 by the Social Services Committee report on substandard housing—and Gerry Brownlee was the deputy chair of that committee—led to this particular policy which was implemented by the new Labour-led Government. We put in place the Rural Housing Programme and special housing action zones in response to that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —and they are available to all people; even to you Dr Smith if you have a low income. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an interjection in the second person for a start. It is out of order. The member should know that. He has been here a long time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can raise a point of order but not in relation to that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question by the member was quite specific in respect of the issue of need or race and the Prime Minister’s statement. The Minister made absolutely no attempt to answer that question. Instead we just got a lecture about a whole lot of other issues that were not relevant. If members of this House—and it is not the first time today—are not to get any attempt by Ministers to answer the question we can expect nothing less than disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I rule on that matter I will not have threats like that. I will not have comments like that made. The member properly raised a point of order but then went on to make a silly threat that will result in members being asked to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister gave a long answer in which he made it very clear on a number of occasions that the programme is based on need. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed adequately in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to this Labour Government programme that provides non-repayable taxpayer-funded grants of up to $50000 to private homeowners who have allowed their houses to fall into disrepair can the Minister clarify whether poor white families can access this scheme; if so when exactly did this policy—which was part of the closing the gaps strategy—change? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Leaving aside such epithets as people letting their houses fall into disrepair the answer is yes. People from all backgrounds have access to this policy and its genesis as I explained earlier followed the select committee report in 1999. The policy was introduced by the new Labour Government at that time. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why were the rural housing and Special Housing Action Zone programmes initiated? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because children and old people were being put at risk by living in unsafe and unhealthy housing. Most people in this country were and are horrified by stories of children dying in fires often because of the use of candles for lighting. Most people were horrified to learn that people were not able to use for example sanitary toilets. It does not matter whether people are Pakeha Maori Pacific Islander Chinese Scottish or whatever—they just have to be New Zealand residents or permanent residents to have access to the particular policies we are talking about here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that the 6-monthly implementation report on the reducing inequalities initiative—which covers the period from January to June 2003 and was released by Minister Maharey on 5 February this year—states that special housing action zones have target groups of Maori and Pacific Island peoples and that the programme’s main purpose is to provide bridging finance for papakainga and other rural developments can the Minister tell us how many non-Maori property owners have been helped by this scheme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: With regard to the last question not everybody recorded an answer in the box asking about ethnicity so we cannot answer the question. Unlike Mr Brownlee not everybody wants to answer the question about ethnicity. Of the people who did answer it Maori and Maori-Pakeha families comprise about 95 percent of the people who have those loans. Other families of different ethnic origins comprise about 4.7 percent. As I said that is not the whole 100 percent. The papakainga programme is one whereby multiple-owned land—which cannot be used as equity—does attracts support so that we can try to build houses on that land. That policy has been in place for quite some time. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In light of the Minister’s answer that the Special Housing Action Zone programme is for Maori and non-Maori based on need and given that the Te PuniKokiri website states the Special Housing Action Zone programme “... provides funding and services for Maori communities to repair existing houses or build new houses. It is principally for Maori communities occupying their papakainga ... or living on Maori land in multiple ownership.” can he confirm that the Government has just done a U-turn; if not what is he trying to say? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would not be surprised if Te PuniKokiri—which is the Maori ministry and relates to Maori people—states that this money is available for Maori as part of the programme. I refer the member back to the policy which states unequivocally in its eligibility criteria that the only qualifier in terms of applicants is that they are New Zealand residents or permanent residents. That means everybody has access to the programme but Te PuniKokiri would be talking to Maori about it. There are 11 policies as part of this programme and one is aimed at Maori land. It was introduced by Mr Goff and has been administered by those people for 9 years. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister confirm to the House that not one poor white family has in fact got a grant under that scheme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I will not confirm that. I will go back to the answer I gave to Gerry Brownleee—that is we do not know the ethnicity of everybody who got money under this programme because not everybody replies. However of the people we do know about Maori and Maori-Pakeha—that is Maori and non-Maori families and I want to say to Mr Prebble that means they are of Scottish and Irish types of origin—got loans and 4.7 percent of the loans were to non-Maori families altogether. So the answer is no I cannot confirm that. It is only people like you who want to create— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That brings me into the debate Mr Maharey. The member will withdraw that comment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw Mr Speaker. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table Labour’s 2000 election manifesto policy on Maori health which states it will provide access to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a standard for the Minister to treat the House properly and I draw it to your attention that he has told the House that the ministry does not record the race of the people who apply but he is quite prepared to tell us that Maori-Pakeha families have applied. How on earth does he know that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did not quite say that. I heard what the Minister said and I thought he addressed the particular issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a document that sets out the eligibility criteria for the issue at hand in the House as being in the first bullet point on page 2 that the individual must be a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. 
Document not tabled. 
Fisheries—Regulations 
8.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does he agree that clearly articulated and strictly enforced fisheries regulations are crucial to the survival and sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries resources; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that customary fishing rights under regulation 27 of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 which allows for seafood to be caught specifically for a hui or tangi are subject to the same size regulations as other amateur or recreational fishermen as specified in regulation 6; if so how does he explain the case shown on a recent episode of the TV show  
Coastwatch 
 where some customary fishermen despite being caught with a catch of 88 undersized crayfish seemed to escape prosecution? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Following the  
Coastwatch 
 programme last Monday many people—including many Maori—have expressed their concern to me or to my parliamentary colleagues. That particular case will not be able to happen again because last October the Government tightened the regulations so that customary fishers must carry their permits on them from when they go fishing until the fish is delivered to its destination. 
Janet Mackey 
: When were the Maori customary fishing regulations negotiated and when were they promulgated? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Maori customary fisheries legislation is Tory legislation through and through. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member could mention the National Party or previous Governments. I would prefer him to do that in his answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very good Mr Speaker. The legislation which does allow for kaitiaki to issue a permit to take undersized fish is the result of National Party regulations that were negotiated from 1993. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not the National Party. The National Party does not govern in this country. Certainly the National Government does and come the next election it will but it is not the National Party. The member must get his answers correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now going a little too far. Everyone knows that the member was referring to the National Government. He meant the National Party in Government and should have said so. If we are going to call up for every single little comment like that we will never get anywhere. The Minister may continue briefly. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The National Government the National Cabinet in fact; there was a negotiation— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Between 1993 and when it concluded finally with promulgation in 1998. Those regulations did not go through this Parliament; they went through a National Cabinet. If anyone is distressed about the use of regulations in the Maori customary fisheries arena allowing the taking of undersized fish they know its origin. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As is often the case when it is windy outside it does affect what happens inside. There is no exception today. I just ask for a little more order. It is members’ day and members are in their own time but we will carry on. 
Phil Heatley 
: Given the Minister’s statement that Maori customary fishers are allowed to catch smaller fish than commercial and other recreational fishers and his parking of the blame with the National Party do the changes he passed last year when he was in Government fix this problem; or does he plan to bring in regulatory changes that will fix this problem now that he is the responsible Minister? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is probably not aware that these regulations are tied from beginning and end to a Treaty of Waitangi fisheries deal negotiated by a National Government as a full and final settlement in respect of Maori issues and fishing. This Government and I hope every future Government will uphold that full and final deal whatever they think of it. That is the issue. 
Pita Paraone 
: Given that effective fisheries law enforcement is imperative if the decimation of our fish resources is to be arrested what initiatives are in place to ensure that there are enough trained and sufficiently resourced staff to achieve that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The quality and quantity of fisheries compliance in this country is rising and will continue to rise. I am not sure that we will ever reach the day when we all agree that it is enough. I am not sure that there is such a thing as enough effort any more than there is such a thing as enough police or enough nurses or enough teachers. But I will say this: when the National Government was negotiating it got some bits right. Customary fishers are required to have quite tight regulatory requirements on their permit—tighter than exist for recreational fishers. Although kaitiaki are allowed to issue a permit to take undersized fish—so the ministry advises me—they rarely allow that to happen. In other words although the National Government might have mucked it up Maori have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s answer was too long. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I apologise for being deaf but most of my faculties are here unlike the Government’s. As the Minister has now given us a history will he now— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member made a silly comment at the start. He will now ask the question. Please ask the question. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: As the Minister has given us a history will he now move to assure New Zealanders that he will ensure that customary Maori take will be subject to the same conservation measures of size and number and that race will not be an excuse for the rape of our coastline and coastal waters? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has failed to acknowledge that this is part of a full and final treaty settlement reached between the National Government and representatives of New Zealand Maori so that part of the deal remains unalterable. Insofar as we can improve administration we have done so in respect of regulations passed last October so that the case we saw last Monday cannot happen again. The more important point is that a week ago the leader of the ACT party said he was putting questions to me. He has not yet done so and the reason is he has realised that his mates the National Party were the origin of this problem. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table press reports of 3 October 1992 and the relevant  
Hansard 
 which demonstrate that the only person who opposed the deal was the MP for Tauranga who was expelled from his caucus the next day. 
Documents not tabled. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister clarify for us that the part of the deal he is referring to which is enshrined in legislation relates to the rights to take customary fish for hui and tangi and not undersized fish and that that part of the problem can be fixed by current regulations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Customary fishers are required to adhere to permit conditions that must include the dates on which fishing is to occur who will be taking the fish the quantity and size limit of each species to be caught the fishing method for each species the area where the fishing is to occur the purpose and venue for which the fish is needed and other matters as the kaitiaki sees fit. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleague Dover Samuels when he told the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 12 February: “The protection and sustainable management of kai moana is at the very heart of tikanga and Maori custom but if we keep abusing and depleting our fisheries there will be nothing left for Maori to have customary rights over.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I warmly endorse those comments. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that current regulations require a national database of kaitiaki reports that would as the Minister has said earlier require data to be kept about the species being taken the quantity harvested and so on; and is that database currently being kept nationwide? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The negotiations led to customary fishing being implemented by more than one method. The first method called the section 27 method does not require those records to be kept; the second method a kaitiaki appointment under the customary regulations does require them. We are rolling out the second method year by year. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to point out that just prior to your calling me you obviously did call my name. Many in this House know that I am significantly deaf. Despite wonderful advances in the microphones it is extremely difficult to hear at the back if a lot of banter or whatever is going on. My retort was as a result of the Government members muttering some comment which thankfully I did not hear in the first place. I wish to draw to the attention of the House that I am extremely deaf. I note that a number of people have the same problem that I do but perhaps do not wish to announce it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Interjecting is something that always leads to problems. I think the member has made a valid point. 
Civil Defence—Defence Resources Manawatu/Rangitikei 
9.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 on behalf of  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What defence resources are available to civil defence authorities organising relief efforts in the Manawatu/Rangitikei region particularly Air Force Iroquois helicopters? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Under the National Civil Defence Plan and depending on the circumstances the full resources of the Defence Force are potentially available. In this latest situation the worst since Cyclone Bola 200 personnel 40 vehicles and 3 Iroquois helicopters have been involved in civil defence and accommodation was made available at Linton Camp and Ohakea air force base. A defence command post was established at Linton early on Monday morning. Liaison officers are deployed to all district councils and the regional civil defence headquarters. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister confirm to the House today that following the Government’s winding down of the Air Force there are only three Iroquois helicopters available and operational because the rest of the New Zealand fleet is grounded and unable to fly? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Darren Hughes 
: In addition to the defence resources that have been made available to the Horowhenua Manawatu and Rangitikei areas what other Government resources are available to help in these flood-stricken areas? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Mr Speaker if I am to give an adequate answer it will be a little longer than usual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked and I think that in the circumstances concerned I will allow a longer answer. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Civil defence was activated in a timely manner with defence and police involvement. Ministers today signed off a package of assistance including Government agencies including health Work and Income agriculture and forestry housing and Te Puni Kokiri coordinating their activities with civil defence and emergency management groups’ regional recovery activities in problem areas; and the activation of an enhanced Task Force Green scheme to provide clean-up support where needed. This will be supplemented by volunteers and the military if required and as available. There has been the appointment by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of up to six agricultural coordinators; the provision by the ministry of technical and consulting assistance in the form of advice to farmers for the rural sector where appropriate; activation of the ministry’s rural sector assistance special needs grants; and Rural Support Trust counselling for farmers and their families where required. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is working to assess the extent of problems in the rural areas and the resources needed to achieve full recovery. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management will coordinate that information with information from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management’s groups and utilities. Task Force Green workers have been successfully utilised many times to help with clean-ups after civil defence emergencies as well as help restore public assets and external farm fences. Local council costs in dealing with displaced people are fully reimbursed. 
Hon David Carter 
: Now that the Government has finally realised the seriousness of this disaster and that its response requires far more than the initial response of $20000 what does the Government estimate will be the total cost of the package that the Prime Minister announced 2 hours ago? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The total cost obviously will not be known until the total size of the problem is known. I think it ill behoves the member to try to make cheap political capital out of people’s suffering. 
Home Detention—Reoffending 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Are there any individuals other than Kevin Moana Jarden who might also be described as predatory paedophiles who have been convicted later given home detention and/or parole and who have subsequently reoffended; if so what are the circumstances? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Undoubtedly there are other individuals who fit the category that the member has described. If the member could be more specific about a time period geographic location any specific cases he has in mind and whether the reoffending occurred while on home detention or parole or afterwards I would be happy to get the answers for him. Unfortunately the reality is that some offenders will reoffend despite the efforts of the justice system. What I can say is that when the Department of Corrections becomes aware that a child sex offender on parole or home detention is not complying with his or her sentence its job is to take appropriate enforcement action immediately. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not accept that failures by the Parole Board and the probation service such as in the Jarden case the William Bell case the McIntosh case the Carroll case and other cases in the pipeline pose a serious risk not only to the community but also to the integrity of the justice system and expose the Crown to punitive litigation by the victims and their families as we are already seeing in the case of William Bell? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The first obvious point is that the system is not perfect. Of course it is up to someone to make the decision about parole and we give that decision to the Parole Board. In a number of the cases the member has mentioned—for example McIntosh—independent inquiries show that the cases were well managed by the Department of Corrections. In the case of Bell which the member mentioned there were obvious shortcomings and the Government has put considerable money into the probation service in order to overcome those shortcomings. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the Government doing to ensure child sex offenders can be monitored more intensively in the community? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has introduced legislation that provides for an extended supervision regime for child sex offenders. The bill would give New Zealand one of the toughest regimes for child sex offenders in the world with the ability to monitor certain offenders for up to 10 years after their sentences have ended. The bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the Government’s own research shows that 86 percent of the people released on parole reoffend within 5 years does the Government want to continue with parole? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. Parole is part of the post - prison sentence regime. The member will know that reoffending rates internationally for people who leave prison are traditionally pretty high. They were high under the previous National Government. But we can try to manage it better and that is something the department and I are working on currently. 
Ron Mark 
: Noting the fact that 86 percent of offenders who are paroled reoffend and the recent revelations about serious offending by people on home detention why does the Minister not accept that placing serious offenders on home detention is wrong was wrong and was never the intention of this House and when will he do what New Zealand First has been asking him to do for over a year now and that is change the law to prevent these people from getting home detention? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The first point of course is that home detention was introduced by the previous National Government which that member supported. As far as front-end home detention is concerned it is for sentences of fewer than 2 years. 
Refugees—Deportation Sri Lanka 
11.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How did she obtain potentially legally privileged notes relating to the 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl recently deported from New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I understand that the lawyer’s office made the information available to the Mt Albert electorate office some months ago when they were seeking support for the individual. One of the electorate agents faxed it through to my office last week. It was not brought to my attention at that time and it was re-faxed on Monday which was the first time I had seen it. The Prime Minister was not aware of either the fact that the electorate office had the information or that it had sent it to me until I advised her of that this morning. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister know who took an envelope containing the written communication between the young girl and her lawyer and left it on the TV3 desk in Parliament; if so was that person a member of her staff her department’s staff the Prime Minister’s staff or did she do it herself? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not personally give the document to TV3 but I can confirm that a staff member of mine did. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement on TV3 on 16 February that this sexually abused and raped girl deserved “not one jot of sympathy” from the New Zealand public; if she does does she still accept the view of the Hon Damien O’Connor when he described rape of this child as “not being very kind”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I answered that question in the House the other day by reference to the fact that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority accepted that sexual abuse had occurred in respect of two uncles. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority also accepted the grandmother’s word that the daughter was not at risk of any abuse from one of those uncles and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority—the independent authority—determined that in fact she had nothing to fear from the other uncle. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has made no attempt to answer my question. I asked her whether she stood by her statement that this girl deserved not one jot of sympathy and she has not answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have said that the circumstances do not deserve one jot of sympathy. I do have sympathy for a young woman who was brought to this country deliberately to make a false claim for refugee status. I am absolutely amazed that members of the National Party think that it is acceptable to make a false claim for refugee status to cover up the true state of affairs. 
Judith Collins 
: Who was the member of the Minister’s staff who took those notes to the TV3 office at Parliament? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The name of my staff member is Juli Clausen. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article that reports Ms Dalziel as saying “the 16-year-old girl and her grandmother did not deserve ‘one jot of public sympathy’ ”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Minister’s answers on today’s Radio New Zealand  
Morning Report 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Minister’s answers on today’s Radio New Zealand  
Nine to Noon 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to Marshall Bird and Curtis that contains the handwritten notes that we have referred to today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer given by the Minister to the first supplementary question asked by Miss Collins leads to a potentially serious issue. I ask that the  
Hansard 
 of this question time and in particular this question be made available a little bit sooner than is usually the case so we can determine just how serious the situation has now become. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the member that under our new technology all questions go on the net as soon as they are processed and that is very very quickly. 
Transport Infrastructure—Policy 
12.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is the Government doing to improve New Zealand’s transport infrastructure? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government is investing considerable resources in the transport infrastructure following decades of under-investment. As part of a multi-modal transport strategy Air New Zealand and the rail-track have been purchased more money is being spent on road construction and maintenance than ever before and funding for passenger transport has doubled since 2002. This Government sees transport infrastructure as critical to New Zealander’s economic performance. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What impact will the recent transport announcements have on transport infrastructure in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In consultation with the very good Minister of Finance in December 2003 the Government announced a significant new package of transport measures to address infrastructure constraints across the country. It will mean approximately $1.6 billion for Auckland on top of planned transport spending and approximately $1.35 billion extra for other regions over the next 10 years. The acceptance of the package yesterday by Auckland local government leaders means that we are now in a position to make real progress. It will have a huge impact on upgrading the transport infrastructure and that is important if we are to ensure long-term sustainable economic growth. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister regard New Zealand shipping as part of our transport infrastructure and is he aware that it is in dire straits; if he is will he tell the House what he intends to do about assisting it and when? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes yes and shortly. 
Keith Locke 
: As a fellow participant with the Minister and other MPs in this morning’s “bike to work” event could the Minister explain how the Government’s walking and cycling plan announced last year will help to improve transport infrastructure in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The initial document released last year has received a number of submissions. It will be released towards the middle of the year. The reality is that New Zealand is way behind other countries in having a proactive walking and cycling strategy. If we get more people off the roads and walking and cycling— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: On your bike! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: —yes that was the name of the strategy actually—it will help to reduce some of the congestion on our main roads at the moment particularly as far as young children going back and forth to school are concerned. 
Larry Baldock 
: In light of the Government’s commitment to improve the New Zealand transport infrastructure can the Minister confirm that he has received a letter from the mayors of Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty and the chairman of Environment BOP requesting assistance for that area on the same basis as Auckland’s special package and pointing out that very similar circumstances exist in that area such as rapid growth and the importance of the port to the country’s economic improvement; and what does the Government plan to do in response to that request from the mayors of that area? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I can confirm that and I intend to have meetings with representatives in the not too distant future. 
Keith Locke 
: Just to follow up the Minister’s comment on children going back and forth given that 40 percent of Auckland’s peak traffic is education related how will plans such as those of North Shore City to get more children walking and cycling to school affect our transport infrastructure? I am talking about such things as new pedestrian crossings safe cycle paths secure bike parking and lockers at schools and walking buses. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member points out a lot of the congestion in Auckland at peak time is education related. If we can get more schoolchildren walking to and from school particularly in walking buses—and the North Shore City Council is one of the leaders in New Zealand in that respect and should be congratulated on it—then that will have a net effect of reducing congestion on the roads and making it easier for other people to get around and go about their business. 
General Debates 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who cares to look at the figures that this country is on a roll. If we look at the figures to do with growth if we go to the regions if we look at the simple fact that New Zealand has the sixth-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and if we notice that we are healthier better educated and better housed and that our roads are safer than they were 4 years ago when we began the programmes to bring this country out of the deficit created by National then we can see that everybody is going forward. Mr Brash of course does not know that. I have come to the conclusion that the reason he looks so miserable is that he does not get out much and as a result he is not participating in the fantastic surge amongst New Zealanders of confidence in their nation. They are the ones who have gone to  
Whale Rider 
 the ones who have turned up to watch Peter Jackson’s triumph the ones who listen to NesianMystik and the ones who are saying that this country is a fantastic place to live in. 
But across the road we have Mr Misery. Dr Brash has never won an election in his life so we know he is not only miserable but also unattractive. He lost the blue-ribbon National seat handed to him on a plate—he could not get in here to the House with it—to Garry Knapp for goodness’ sake! He came in here finally on the coat-tails of his colleagues. He has walked over them and their bodies are now littered on the Opposition side of the House waiting for him to fall over them so they can come back. But he is a “use me or lose me” kind of guy so he has told them that he intends to make it to the top of the tree and to implement his programmes. 
Over Christmas Dr Brash sat down to have a think. He is a man who is an economist and a reserve banker—a man who has lived a privileged life for the whole of his life. He asked himself what he would talk about to kick off his programme. He decided on that and said sadly he would talk about race. He said he was doing so sadly and reluctantly. But Dr Brash did not actually talk about race; he talked about Maori. He does not talk about any other ethnic group at all—only Maori. Why does Dr Brash not talk about Pacific Islanders or about other groups like women or about regions or about age—youth or older people? Why not? The reason is that over Christmas Dr Brash came to the conclusion that there is a fault line in New Zealand politics. It is called Maori issues and if one scratches those issues and beats them up one can make something of them. In other words Dr Brash is prepared to scratch his way to the top by inciting division purposely. That is what he is doing and he is doing it in a way that is utterly meaningless. 
Let us look at this: kura and kohanga reo are OK because that is choice. They may be Maori immersion environments but that is choice. Maori rugby is OK because Dr Brash had not thought of that as being a problem yet. Maori seats are bad because National does not win them. Treaty references will all go from legislation for as long as it takes Nick Smith to say they will not because that would mean removing them from legislation from 1908 till now and National would not do anything else if it happened to get back into Government. Tangi leave is not OK because it is too much leave. But that disgraceful statement as the  
Dominion Post  
reported was utterly without foundation. Tangi leave and bereavement leave are the same: they are at the discretion of the employer. As the  
Dominion Post  
reported it is disgraceful for someone like Dr Brash to misrepresent things in a way that may lead to people not getting jobs on the back of an untruth. That has been the most disgusting part of the Brash agenda of distorting and misleading on Maori issues for political advantage. 
But it will not stop there. Next will come beneficiaries. Members are used to that on the National Party side of the House so one can bet they will pick on beneficiaries. Trade unionists and State schools are next. Women have already been before the gun because we are not even to have a women’s affairs department any more—it is about creating division so that the real agenda can come through. And what is it? It is tax cuts for the rich privatisation for National’s mates cuts in social spending and the reduction of rights in the workplace. Why? Because Brash stands for privilege. He stands for privilege because he himself has lived nothing other than a privileged life. Those are the people he represents. That is whom he stands for. On the Government side of the House we stand for ordinary New Zealanders and we always will. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That speech continues the theme of the current Labour Government as it has been for the last 5 years. It was a speech telling New Zealanders what they can think what they can say what they can do where their children can go to school whether they are married whether they can take a particular job in a particular area and come up with some benefits whether they can have a cigarette in a hotel and any number of other things that this Government has done. It is a Government coming to an end. It is a Government that knows that New Zealanders are sick and tired of being told what to do when to do it and how to do it. 
If there is one thing that has come through in the last couple of weeks since Dr Brash’s Orewa speech it is that New Zealanders suddenly feel empowered to talk about important issues in their country. 
 Labour does not like that because it does not listen. To show Labour how much trouble it is in let us look at the Prime Minister’s speeches and comments made over the last couple of weeks about Dr Brash’s speech. She started out saying it was racist and that New Zealanders would reject it. Then in over the next week or so up to 10 February she repeated that his speech was racist and divisive. On 10 February in the House she rejoiced in Maori television and any other number of separatist initiatives taken by the Government in favour of Maori. Then came the television poll! The day after the Prime Minister took once again another position on that issue and started saying that Labour did not fund on race it funded on need. 
That is exactly the issue that Dr Brash is raising. Those Labour Party members over there—13 of whom have already gone and 13 who should get some boxes into their office and start packing their mementos because they are gone and there are more to come I tell Mrs Pettis who is trying to interject—need to understand that they cannot take the sort of position they are proposing on the seabed and foreshore and expect New Zealanders to believe that the Government is acting in their best interests. 
Let us look at the issue. Today the Deputy Prime Minister said there will be a system of dual title—public domain on the one hand and customary title on the other hand. When National probed a little bit we found that the dominant title—that is the pre-eminent title; the one that will have the greatest effect on the usage of land adjacent to seabed and foreshore—is customary title. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Special consultation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Special consultation for that group special rights of veto for that group and in the case of Europeans—non-Maori New Zealanders—a message that they are excluded. They are almost completely excluded from the management of the seabed and foreshore around this country. 
I have a question to ask. What future does a sixth generation New Zealander have without some whakapapa into Maoridom. Why will the Government not answer that question? Why can the Government not answer that question? The fact is that the legislation proposed on the seabed and foreshore is the first step towards disenfranchising non-Maori New Zealanders in this country. That is why people are upset. That is why overwhelming numbers of New Zealanders are asking the Government to rethink the position. That is why there was such a huge swing in the polls last week. National does not say that that number will be cemented in but if the Government does not listen to what New Zealanders are telling it then it will not continue to govern. 
I am proud to say that Dr Brash has opened up a debate in New Zealand and shown himself to be a leader and well capable of being the Prime Minister of this country. I believe that that will happen beyond 2005. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 That was a typically vacuous speech by Mr Brownlee. He has overlooked a number of facts. The first fact is that the New Zealand economy is in the best shape it has been for 30 years. There is greater opportunity to get jobs. I remember being a young person in the 1970s when jobs could be got very easily. If one did not like a job one left it at morning tea and had two jobs by lunchtime. For 30 years we have not experienced that but today we are. There are record levels of employment and record lows of people registered on the unemployment benefit. 
The only issue that is a blot on the landscape is the racial tension being stirred up by the National Party. Mr Brownlee talked about the leadership qualities of Dr Brash. If telling people things such as “I wouldn’t employ a Maori because Maori have unlimited tangi leave” is leadership then that is the most disgraceful sort of leadership that this country—and I am sure it will never stand for it—could ever have. 
The most important thing about leadership is to be honest and tell the truth. Telling the New Zealand public that Maori have unlimited tangi leave is a canard. It is nothing short of that and it is disgraceful. If Don Brash had any gumption or leadership he would have issued an unreserved apology for that but he did not. He did not because he knows like the National Party knows that there is only one area in New Zealand where there is discontent and that is around race. 
Steve Maharey correctly pointed out to this House that the National Party does not talk about race relations with Pacific Island people. No it dare not go there because one National Party leader made quips about Pacific Islanders climbing in people’s back windows to commit theft. That is the truth of the National Party’s position. National does not refer to that. It does not refer to race relations with Asians or other races. It makes reference only to Maori and it does it on the basis that Maori have privilege. 
As has been said many times before if living 10 years less than the rest of the population is a privilege then I do not want that. It is a national disgrace that Maori men and women die 10 years younger than the rest of us. It is such a disgrace that we should do something about it. Dr Brash’s policy would do nothing about that at all. According to him everybody would be treated the same. I have to say that New Zealanders are better than that. It is also a disgrace that for a long time we have had high levels of Maori unemployment. Maori unemployment was at 17.4 percent at one stage when the rest of the population never got to 10 percent on average. As New Zealanders we should be concerned about that and want to do something. 
Basically New Zealanders are good people. If a person’s next-door neighbour has run out of sugar or his or her lawnmower has broken down we help. That is who we are. We help in our sports clubs schools and all of those things. The good part of the New Zealand nature is that we help those who are less fortunate than us and do not have the same opportunities and advantages. That is why New Zealanders support programmes that help raise levels of Maori employment and reduce Maori levels of unemployment—just as we support programmes to reduce the level of Pacific Island unemployment. 
Opportunity is not what the National Party is all about. It is against opportunity. Let us look at its history. The National Party shoved up State house rents by virtue of the market rent simply to cut people’s wages. It cut superannuation for our superannuitants from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. The only opportunity the National Party likes is opportunity for its mates. Its mates are starting to circle because they want to see the National Party privatise the last remaining State assets and sell them off. They are all coming home because they are waiting for the National Party to have a big sell-up. 
I have bad news for the National Party’s mates. This Government will carry on for a long long time. We have policies that are of benefit to all New Zealanders. We have lowered the levels of unemployment. We have given young people the opportunity to get jobs. We have increased participation rates for Pacific Island people in employment programmes. Maori unemployment has fallen. More people are going to university. There is a lot more hope and opportunity around in New Zealand. I feel that for the first time in 30 years that New Zealand is in the state it was when I left school and went to work in the 1970s. Then I had hope and opportunity. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Last week I told the House of my concerns that there had been misappropriation of health moneys through Tihi Ora Mapo. Mapo are Maori co-purchasing organisations established through treaty-based relationships with the then North Health to increase Maori participation in health. They were established between 1995 and 1999 and it would be helpful if the National Party would say that those separate forms of funding were established under it. I like all other New Zealanders admire people who can stand up and say: “We didn’t get it right but we now know that this is the way things should be done.” 
We know now how our public health system works. In New Zealand we have two streams of funding and two standards of accountability. A very good example of this is Tihi Ora Mapo. This is what happens when there are two separate systems operating for different people in one nation. Tihi Ora Mapo receives around $1 million of funding each year directly from the Ministry of Health. 
There has been much debate in this House in the last 2 weeks about whether programmes are funded on race or on need. We know that this Government bases its funding formula for health on race not on need. So one section of the community is getting special treatment while other people—white people in particular Europeans—in a great deal of need are missing out in many areas. 
The primary health organisations are a prime example of the way funding is based on race. There are Maori people on over $100000 a year who can see their doctors for $10 while a solo mother living in a middle-class area goes to her primary health organisation and has to pay $45 for the same doctor’s appointment. The Prime Minister’s comments have been very interesting. I quote from the Christchurch  
Press 
 of 17 February: “Miss Clark said Labour did not fund on race but on need.”She went on to say in the same article that the Government could take a look through and assure itself that what it was doing was thoroughly based on need. That clearly is not the case. There are two streams of funding and two standards of accountability in health.  
Members might remember that concerns were raised about this mapo last August. The NgatiWhatua were so concerned that off their own bat they employed a private investigator Mr Michael Crawford to look into where approximately $250000 of the $1 million the mapo received last year had disappeared to. It had gone along with two laptops that were thought and are still thought to contain incriminating evidence.  
I raised these concerns in Parliament last week. They have been known since August last year. The Ministry of Health became aware of them at the end of October last year. The Minister of Health has known about them since January this year but it was not until I raised this concern in Parliament last week that anything was done about it. The chief executive officer Mr KereCookson-Ua who had been on sick leave for many months has now resigned. Unfortunately the two laptop computers have not been returned and it is not known where they are.  
This whole scenario raises many questions and I have questions for the Minister of Health who does have responsibility for this area. The first is what has happened to the two laptop computers. The second and most important is why the police have not been called and a search warrant executed. What has the Ministry of Health done to deal with this issue since it first received advice of these concerns on 31 October last year? What has the Minister done since January when she became aware of these concerns? I have written to her but she has not answered me.  
Why has the Auditor-General not been alerted and why does it take an Opposition MP to raise concerns in this House before this two streams of funding two systems of accountability issue is addressed? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There was something that the deputy leader of the National Party said in his speech that I agreed with and that was his comment that Dr Brash’s Orewa speech had occasioned an important debate. But beyond that I have to say there was very little in that speech that I found favour with. I think that the way in which the important debate is being handled brings no credit upon anyone. It is as unacceptable to dismiss Dr Brash’s comments as “Hansonite” as it is to portray this debate in the increasingly divisive bitter and extreme terms that are being used. 
What is fundamental to the issue beyond the rednecks and the racists who have contributed to some of the public reaction is that middle New Zealand feels very strongly a sense of anxiety about a number of issues of which this one has become the focal point. The way ahead in terms of addressing it is neither to dismiss it as just a few depraved ravings nor to pretend that somehow this country is on the point of tearing itself apart because both are equally extreme and unacceptable reactions. 
I think all of us have to take stock and listen to what the message is and attempt to reflect that in the policy positions we espouse in this House. What I believe New Zealanders are saying at the moment is that they do not want to compromise their historical sense of a fair go for the next bloke—or person. They do not want to see a country that is unnecessarily divided against one another but they do want to see injustice inequality and unfairness addressed where possible and at the same time they also want to be able to get on with living their lives the way they always have done. 
If one looks back over the span of the last 40 50 or 60 years in New Zealand history that has been a constant thread. I think the fear people have at the moment which is giving rise to the current debate and the reactions it is drawing is that in a world of great change—going back to the economic and social changes of the 1980s and beyond—some of the things we held as constants are now coming under challenge and scrutiny. What we need to do as members of Parliament of whatever political persuasion is seek to address those concerns as we move forward as a nation. We cannot recreate yesterday. We cannot say: “Let’s put the world back the way it used to be.” Time has properly moved on. But we can talk about a vision and a direction and we can start to discuss the things that we need to do to take people to that point. 
One of the issues I believe is core to this whole debate is that New Zealanders really do not have a clear sense any more of their own identity. Partly that is because of increasing global changes but partly it is also because of changes within this country that have never really been talked through. I would like to give the House a couple of examples. I think that over the last few years we have been engaged in a process of constitutional change by stealth. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of any of the particular positions that have been advanced but I am saying that what is happening is that changes are occurring in a way where people appear ambushed uncertain and unclear what is next. I think the culmination of those things has given rise to the climate we face at the moment. 
Firstly we do need to have a thorough and properly organised constitutional review. Secondly we start to need to conduct the debate that Dr Brash’s speech—inadvertently I suspect—triggered in a way that is far more mature and responsible than has been the case to date. I do not think any New Zealander is against dealing with disadvantage wherever it occurs and whenever it occurs but let us get the balance right. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 We know that Helen Clark has no answers and we know that Helen Clark knows when she is in trouble when she decides that her solution to a political conundrum is to poke Clayton Cosgrove the most expendable and unpopular member of the Labour caucus out on a long pole to deliver a bit of political thuggery on the Leader of the Opposition for the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. We know that Helen Clark has no answers when she vacates the Chamber for the general debate and leaves Steve Maharey and Rick Barker the two most unpopular and expendable members of her Cabinet to carry the flag for the Labour Party. 
Recent days have seen a good deal of political debate over the speech made by the leader of the National Party Dr Brash at Orewa. 
In essence he pointed to the crossroads that New Zealanders confront—the two very different paths from which New Zealanders must choose. There is the path of political correctness and treaty separatism being espoused by those who lead the Labour Government—which sees the treaty imported into every process every institution every statute and every part of New Zealand life—and there is the path advocated by Dr Brash and his colleagues in the National Party that New Zealanders should be treated equally regardless of their race and ethnic origins. 
That sentiment has struck a chord. I say to members opposite—as Mr Dunne has said—that they should listen. New Zealanders come to my office bail me up on the street and tell me that they are grandparents of children—some of whom are part-Maori and some of whom are not—and that they cannot believe we live in a country where those children are treated differently. When people feel that sentiment I say to members opposite that they should listen. 
It has not just been members of the public who have reacted. We have seen members of the Labour Party react very quickly. Some six of them from Cabinet were tripping over themselves to attack Dr Brash personally. The editor of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 has embarked on one of the most transparently unprofessional jack-ups in New Zealand’s journalistic history. Working with the ninth floor of the Beehive is not professionalism and I say to the editor of the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that she will have to justify her actions not only to her employees but also to the increasing numbers who will cease to buy that publication—as indeed I will myself.  
The Governor-General also will need to reflect on her position because she was very quick to buy into the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not bring the Governor-General into debate. He will move on to another subject. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I was just making a passing reference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There must be no reference. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The speech made by my leader Dr Brash has seen many New Zealanders take the opportunity to express their views to members of Parliament and members opposite should learn to listen. It will be a new experience for them but they should learn to listen. 
I want to remind the House this afternoon—because some members seem to have great difficulty in understanding it—that we have seen an outbreak of racially funded programmes in the last few years. For those journalists who have difficulty understanding what needs-based funding versus racially based funding is I simply refer them to the alleged “closing the gaps” programme—the flagship programme of the Helen Clark Government from 2000 that became a political submarine. 
That programme was to be so important that every chief executive would have to demonstrate that he or she had achieved results in his or her portfolio area. Every chief executive stood the risk of losing the bonus that he or she was due each year unless he or she could demonstrate results under the closing the gaps programme. The Prime Minister trumpeted it from one end of the country to the other. She said it was $243 million when she was talking to non-Maori audiences and $900 million when she was addressing Maori audiences. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is great to be speaking today in support of our Government—a Government that has a clear vision for the future and a proven track record that tackles the tough issues and is positive. Compare that with the negative National Party. I know that party is in Opposition but it takes negativity to the extreme. The doom and gloom merchants from way back claim that every positive policy or legislation will wreck this country whether it is in health education industrial relations race relations or the economy. Time after time it is wrong. 
This Government deals in facts not fiction. It is amongst the highest deliverers of health and education in the world. That is fact not fiction. There have been fewer work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act. Why? It is because those labour laws are fairer. It is a fact that the economy has grown faster over the last 3 years than the OECD average. It is also a fact that our unemployment rate in this country is the lowest in 16 years. 
This Government is committed to reducing inequality not promoting it—with policies that are based on need not privilege—and on building our nation not dividing it. The National Party is the party that voted against fairer labour laws. It voted against improved health and safety laws. It voted against improved holidays. It would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday. It voted against paid parental leave and in fact Mr Brash questions the need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. National does not support increases to the minimum wage and with Gerry Brownlee as spokesperson for Maori Affairs—with friends like that who needs enemies? 
This is a party that wallows in the past. It cannot help itself. It just keeps rehashing the same tired old rhetoric. So I put it to the House: to which group of our “all one people” nation does the National Party have anything to offer—and will not fleece should it get into power? Is it New Zealand Maori? I think not. Is it New Zealand workers? I think not. Is it New Zealand women or New Zealand families? I think not. Is it New Zealand students or New Zealand superannuitants? I think not. Who does that leave? Mr Brash’s proposed tax cuts which would mean less spending on health education and training and superannuation mean that someone on his salary would get another $168 per week. 
National sees that there are two groups of people in our nation. There are the rich and there are the rest. National is for the rich. This Government is for the rest and I say that with pride. That is why we are interested in improving living standards for people on low and modest incomes. That is why we have a major family assistance package coming through in the Budget which will be aimed at low and modest-income earners—at hard-working families in our country who look towards this Government to deliver and to continue to deliver fairer conditions of work fairer job opportunities more training and a country in which they can hold their heads high on the world stage. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to talk today about a problem that I have consistently raised with the Government which has consistently refused to act and do anything. We hear all this talk about it being a Government of action but the area in which it does not seem to want to make any serious redress is in law and order. New Zealand First is the law and order party in the House. Over the last 12 months I have consistently raised for New Zealand First issues and problems surrounding home detention parole and that nonsense called deferred sentencing. 
When I first raised the problems of violent offenders and home detention Mr Barker stood and told the House that no one convicted of a serious crime was on home detention. Of course he was blatantly wrong and had to come back and retract his words a few days later and since then we have revealed cases of people who have been child abusers sexual molesters rapists murderers killers and drunk drivers who have killed who have all been put on home detention. 
 New Zealand First has repeatedly called for this Government to repeal those parts of the Sentencing Act that give offenders a deferred sentence. We have repeatedly called for it to wind back and get rid of what it calls back-end home detention. It has no place. It is a failure. It does not do what the public thought that home detention would do. In recent times New Zealand First has said that parole is failing. I do understand there is a huge rehabilitation industry out there many members of which are Labour voters who have to be fed. This rehabilitation industry is probably two to three times the size of the treaty gravy train that we seem to be so preoccupied about right now and which New Zealand First has campaigned against. 
I put on the record that over the last 2 days I have raised the case of Mr Jarden which has become public knowledge again. Once again a man who is a convicted paedophile who was given back-end home detention and who was paroled off his sentence early subsequently was able to reoffend and create three more victims. The question is how many more victims Helen Clark Annette King Ruth Dyson and Helen Duncan will create by allowing this nonsense to continue. Will we have to wait for these women to wake up as a result of more victims and more families bringing the type of litigation against the Crown that we are currently seeing as the result of the Bell case? She nods her head and smiles. That woman member has no feeling for those children who have been raped and sodomised by Mr Jarden. [ 
Interruption 
] If she does she should do something about it. 
I have warned the Minister of Corrections that another case is pending of a man who was convicted who took children into his home and offended against them and who has been since paroled and put out on the street and I am fully aware that he is about to reappear in the courts again. Sub judice prevents me from discussing any detail of it but the responsibility for victims and future victims of this type lies in the hands of these women: Jill Pettis Helen Duncan and Helen Clark. So long as they sit here and do nothing New Zealand First will continue to make it known to the public. 
There is another group of people who cannot escape accountability and they are the members of the Parole Board. They are the people who allowed Mr Carroll out on to the street like Justice Tony Ellis Fleur Grenfell Alison Timms—do we know that name?—David Chaplow and Bruce Buckton. All those people have a responsibility to protect the public and thus far case after case people like this are failing and the people who are paying the price are ordinary New Zealand citizens who want nothing other than to be safe in their homes knowing that their children are safe going to and from school. 
Enough most definitely is enough. Whilst everybody is preoccupied with the Maori debate men and women mothers and fathers and children out there are grieving as victims of the crimes that have been perpetrated against them. New Zealand First does not intend to sit here and allow this to continue. We want the home detention laws repealed. We want back-end home detention ended. We want deferred sentencing finished. I would like to see parole ended because as we know 85 percent of those paroled reoffend within 5 years. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 If that previous speaker is the New Zealand First spokesperson on law and order then I fear for the safety of our community. He is the sort of person who wants to arm everybody in a vigilante group—to go out and shoot first and ask questions later. 
I really relish the opportunity to speak in this debate. The deputy leader of the National Party made mention of the Prime Minister’s speech last week in terms of her statements to Parliament. I want to contribute an extract from her speech which I think is very relevant to where this country is going. It is relevant to us as a Government because our primary goal is to build a strong vibrant nation that not only values but builds on the diversity of its people. We are a Government that delivers according to need not privilege. “Our mission is clear; we want to build a New Zealand that offers equal opportunity a fair go and security for all our people. We want to unite not divide. We want New Zealanders to take pride in all our country’s achievements—economic social and creative. We want our country to be well respected internationally. In short we want to make a difference for the better. We know that being in Government is a privilege not a right and that we must earn that privilege every day.” 
Our people out there in the electorates have told us we are heading in the right direction. I am confident that the people out there have confidence in this Government. On the international stage day after day we see our people out there competing against other nations of the world. 
From the time this party was elected to Government in 1999 we have been putting in place a policy programme that looks at building the capacity of all our people. We have put in place a better public health service that acknowledges need; a better standard of affordable housing particularly social housing that targets families according to need; access to education as a right not as a privilege; and opportunities to learn for employment and to be skilled to the highest level through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. Unemployment is down and Modern Apprenticeships numbers are up—well beyond expectation. 
The launch of the Maori Trade Training programme later this week in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the far North will indicate to the rest of the country that this Government takes employment seriously and is prepared to go out and train its people to meet needs right across industry. The greater percentage of unemployed and unskilled workers is in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and the far North and is predominantly Maori. Therefore the programme targets according to need not race. 
I want to use a term although I think I had better not because some time last week the term was considered unparliamentary. But like a dark-skinned gentleman in America during the 1960s we too on this side of the House have a dream—a dream about being a strongly unified nation. To be that nation we need to empower our people. We need to upskill them; we need to build up the capacity of our communities. 
I want to state to members on the other side of the House particularly to those who think that playing the race card is a good way of getting votes that it never pays off at the end of the day and gives us no respect on the international stage. Let us imagine our sons your sons my sons everyone’s sons on the international sports field where the best of our people regardless of ethnicity—Eurasian Pakeha Maori Chinese just name it—are shoulder to shoulder side by side stripped to the waist and doing the haka. Pukana! That is who we are. That is what our people are telling the world on the international field—that we are a unique nation and that we can be proud of it. 
No one for any political reason can ever destroy that. The Prime Minister said in her speech that she would fight to her last breath to make sure that that never happens and that goes for the rest of us on this side of the House. I know it is difficult for some people to acknowledge that greatness comes from being unified but there is an old saying: “United we stand; divided we fall.” As a nation division can do us no good; it will not help our nation to prosper. We have a very strong economy. We are up with some of the best in the world. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I commend the speech that occurred just before I stood up. I want to recite a poem—a little poem by Lewis Carroll: 
“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried 
As he landed his crew with care;  
Supporting each man on the top of the tide 
By a finger entwined in his hair. 
“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: 
That alone should encourage the crew.  
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: 
What I tell you three times is true.” 
Every time I hear Mr Brash repeat his “one people” and “needs not race” slogans I am reminded of the bellman in this little “Snark” poem. I am reminded of the desperate urge to make something happen by sheer political advantage rather than by considered deliberate action. I am reminded of the wilful selective amnesia where facts and truth come second to the desire for and the exercise of power. 
 This is where I believe Mr Brash is at in this debate. He has an urgent desire to take the public by the hair—not by their hearts and minds—to seek a return to a nostalgic colonial fantasy that has never existed in this country. Mr Brash is unconscionably feeding on the misunderstanding in the public mind in order to increase fear and create division in our community. To do that Mr Brash is purposely confusing two different but very important issues. 
The first is the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. This nation has been working through a very difficult process of untangling different perspectives to try to get at the heart of what the treaty meant in 1840 and what it can mean now in the 21st century. But most New Zealanders have not had access to information or education on the history of our country. That has been a serious and ongoing failure that unfortunately no Government in our history—including present company—has dealt with or given the priority it deserves. 
That has left open the opportunity for Mr Brash to take advantage of our communities as he has. The urgent repetition of Mr Brash’s mantra is nothing more than an attempt to convince both himself and the public that if said over and over again the nostalgic colonial fantasy of equality will—as if by magic—appear. Although it is true that colonial New Zealand was partly built on the dream of equality history tells us that that dream imagined a community of equality for some and not for others. One need only traverse the history of the pension or the widows benefit or the multitude of other legislation to see the race-based application of the law in our collective past. 
Equality that denies the reality of one of the parties to the treaty—born of an attitude of supremacy misunderstanding and fear—is not just not fair and not equality. Learning about our collective past is not for the purpose of making people feel guilty but it is absolutely essential if we choose not to repeat the dangerous mistakes of our past the mistakes that Mr Brash and the National Party are perpetuating. 
The second issue is that it is an important aspect of our democracy that social inequities should be addressed in a manner that facilitates a just outcome for those in need. Mr Brash talks about needs not race. He criticises any targeted programmes for Maori and argues for the elimination of that targeted funding but his is actually a race-based analysis because he is opposed to targeted funding for Maori but fine with targeted funding for everyone else. 
His mantra should really be “for everyone but Maori” because there is a wide range of targeted programmes to address the identified needs of particular ethnic groups in this country. For example the Problem Gambling Committee a well-known radical organisation funds a race-based specialist service that targets special assistance to people of Asian descent. There are counsellors who speak Mandarin Cantonese and Korean along with an Asian phone helpline. The service is predominantly provided by Asian people for Asian people and it is essential because this group has a specific need around problem gambling that can be best addressed by targeting their needs with specialist services. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I thank the member for her speech. I enjoyed listening to it. My colleague Mita Ririnui gave a very good speech as well as did my colleagues Lynne Pillay and Steve Maharey. 
National’s attack on Maori issues has been coming for some time. I have to say I was surprised at the ugliness and the desperation of it—and I was genuinely surprised by those two elements. I underestimated National’s lust for power but after all we here in Labour are sitting where National believes is its rightful place in Parliament. National’s born to rule arrogance is coming to the fore. I remember Maurice Williamson who has a good sense of humour saying after the last election that where National went wrong was that every time it did something for Maori it lost votes in rural New Zealand. That is a quote from Mr Williamson. 
I also have to say there is a degree of emotion surrounding myself in this whole debate; of course there is. I remind the House of a very important poem by Pastor Martin Niemoeller. It is known throughout history and found in religious quotations. We are all familiar with this poem. One version is: “In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists …”. It goes on and then at the very end he concludes by saying: “Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak up.” 
We on this side of the House will speak up for minority groups. We will speak up for those people who are not in a position of power and authority to protect their own interests. I am proud of the philosophy of this party. I know why I am Labour. I know exactly why I am Labour; so do all my colleagues on this side of the House. We are political. This is not just a job where we look out for the money that goes in by automatic payment every fortnight. This is a commitment. This is a passion. This is a belief for us. That is why we are in Parliament. We on this side of the House will continue to speak up for people who are not in a position to do so themselves. I am proud of my colleagues and the collegial way in which they are behaving at the moment. 
I am also very worried about the implications of what is being said by the National Party at the moment for this country’s economy. I was on an official visit to Taiwan some years ago with colleagues from both sides of the House. I met a woman from Queensland who was on an education sector recruitment visit. It was her 14th visit to Taiwan and she said it was the worst recruitment period she had ever experienced. Why was that? It was because a certain woman—an Australian politician—was getting an awful lot of publicity at the time. This woman said that the parents of potential recruits in Taiwan were saying they would not send their children to Australia. They would send them to Canada. So Canada very smartly while we were in Taiwan had a wonderful publicity campaign: “Send your children to Canada; we are not racist.” 
These comments that are being espoused by that National Party over there have huge potential to damage this country long term. Tourism is one of the biggest growth markets in this country second only to dairying. It provides 9 percent of our gross domestic product. Tourists come to New Zealand because they are attracted by our unique environment and our culture. They do not come to look at people like us who are rather boring. They come to look at people like my Maoricolleagues and my tangata whenua relations as well. 
One of the things that has the National Party really rattled is the fact that out in provincial New Zealand our economy is really strong. In my electorate we have more people working more building consents and more young people in training. We have a spirit and a sense of attitude in the electorate that we have not experienced for a very long time and it is wonderful. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Around 200 years before Christ was born the Roman soothsayers would read the entrails of chickens and pigs. They would look at the heart the liver and the lungs—critical organs in those animals. The modern and more sophisticated equivalent of that of course is to track the reputable pollsters. So it was on the One News Colmar Brunton poll on 14 February that we saw these results: National 45 percent Labour 38 percent New Zealand First 6 percent the Greens 5 percent United Future 2 percent ACT 1 percent with a margin of error of 3.2 percent. If I could adapt a phrase used by Lord Dawson the king’s doctor as King George V lay dying: I believe that the life of the Labour Government is moving to a close. 
There are a number of reasons for that. Here are three of them. First some of the Government’s spin is being unmasked and reported by the media. That is new because the media has generally been hugely uncritical of the Government and at times fawning. 
 Second despite what the previous speaker has said economic events are moving against New Zealand. Some pundits pick with the rise in the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar that the New Zealand dollar may hit 80c. It is now about 70c. That has a huge impact on exporters and particularly on small businesses which are less likely to hedge. In addition the Government has imposed wayward immigration policies that instead of encouraging migrants who would make a contribution to our society permit migrants to enter New Zealand who have no such intention at all. 
Third United Future—an alleged centre-right party that props up the Government on issues of confidence—is looking increasingly shaky on issues like the Families Commission Act and the foreshore and seabed legislation. How a centre-right Christian party can support a godless and unprincipled Government beggars belief. This is a Government with an agenda that has fallen out of alignment with the views of New Zealanders. It has a social agenda that is actively undermining the tradition of the family and the institution of marriage. It is an agenda that pursues policies designed to prefer—despite what the previous speaker has said—ethnic groups rather than targeting individuals in need. It is an agenda that is reckless as to the consequences of the importance of our relationship with the United States and Australia. It is sad that those relationships at present are at historic lows. 
It is an agenda that increasingly suggests a headlong rush to republicanism and we saw that well illustrated today with the press announcement by the Minister of Justice in respect of oaths and affirmations. There is a litany of events that indicate there is a plan to take New Zealand along the republican route. Here are some examples: the revamping of the honours system; the abolition of the Privy Council; clamour from some Labour politicians to scrap the parliamentary prayer which refers to the Queen; the plan to abolish Queen’s Counsel in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill; the decision not to award the Golden Jubilee Medal to New Zealanders. There is a plan to move New Zealand to that republican state. 
There is also an agenda that tramples over human rights. I think it is astonishing to look at the record of the Attorney-General in that regard. Under Standing Order 264 of the current revision of the Standing Orders she is required to certify where legislation breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If one counts up her record in that regard it is to be seen that no fewer than 19 bills have infringed that statute. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. It has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with the recommendation that it be passed. I offer my thanks to the members of the committee for their very careful consideration of this bill. It may be short and brief in its outline but it contained some local issues that had the potential to be divisive. This bill repeals a statutory restriction applying to land the Wellington City Council owns at 45 to 53 Willis Street in the city. The land is currently occupied by a number of retail shops with The Malthouse—well known to some—occupying the upper floor. In broad terms the restriction prevents the council from selling this land; it can only lease it. It remains a mystery why this restriction was applied to this particular piece of land. It provides a statutory barrier to the council considering this land on the same basis as it does for other land it owns. 
Adjacent to the Willis Street land is property the council owns in Victoria Street. It makes commercial sense for the council to consider these properties as a package in any sale and marketing strategy. I support the council being able to make local decisions about its property portfolio free from the arbitrary restrictions of old and outdated laws. Before everyone leaps up and tells me that I am a socialist supporting business I say that I always recognise when a council is doing things that may benefit in other terms the distribution of its rates and the money it makes to other good social practices here in this city that I love. The council might even give some more money to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary as a result. 
I note that in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 the council has consulted on and adopted an amendment to its 2003-04 long-term community plan which includes the sale of the property at 45 to 53 Willis Street. In addition I understand that the council’s draft plan for 2004-05 includes its intention to sell the property so there can be more consultation on this proposal if necessary. At this stage I feel it is incumbent on me to draw attention to the people who live in Central Terrace who are very worried about the possible height of the buildings that might be built on this particular property. That is another issue on which they may wish to negotiate with the council. 
An equally concerning problem for me was the future of the community groups that tenanted the Victoria Street buildings. These were the community law centre Women’s Refuge and the volunteer centre. The sale of their premises is a potential threat to the way they operate. There is value in them being able to work closely together—community law Women’s Refuge and the volunteers—and also for them to be close to such services as the police across the road; the Central Library particularly where the elderly community meets; and the Central City Citizens Advice Bureau. 
The council has confirmed its commitment to the community tenants to me and to the select committee that it will do its utmost to assist them in finding alternative premises following any decision to sell the land. I know that it has committed a sum of money as a one-off subsidy to assist five of those groups to meet their relocation costs. The council is still working with them—I will not actually name the particular building in town where they are trying to find accommodation but it will still be in the central business district. 
There are some remaining groups that have some difficulties. It is probably not as important for these organisations to be situated in the centre of Wellington as it is for the community law centre Women’s Refuge Vincent’s Art Workshop the volunteer centre and Courtenays mental health drop-in centre. The council has committed a sum of money as a one-off subsidy to assist these groups in the first year of rent. I understand that the five groups are close to securing alternative accommodation and the council is continuing to work with the remaining groups. I am pleased to note that the committee has commended the council for its proactive approach in assisting these community groups. It is a lovely way of working between central and local government. Here was I as the local MP not wanting to impede local government in going about its business but also speaking out for those groups inside the community who do a great job. The select committee heard that and really helped put the pressure on the council to listen very carefully and be proactive. 
The committee recognised the importance of having these groups centrally located in Wellington City and urged the council to continue working with the current tenants until satisfactory alternative accommodation was found. These organisations carry out the council’s social goals and it would be a tragedy for Wellington if they were suddenly lost from the central city. My joy is that central government the select committee and also the city council recognise that and are working proactively to do something about it. I give my thanks to the Wellington City Council to the community groups and to the select committee. This is about working together to solve a problem and I made this comment the other day in the House. This is what I believe Government and leadership is about. It is not about working on divide and rule; it is about working together to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to all. Once again I thank the committee for its consideration of this bill which I commend to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 If as the Minister and member for Wellington says this bill is the great saviour for Wellington I am somewhat depressed for the future of Wellington—and they obviously need a new member of Parliament. This is actually a very boring minor bill. National will support it but let us be clear about it—if this is the boldest legislation that Marian Hobbs can bring through this House then it will be a disappointing political epitaph that she leaves. All we are doing with this bill is letting the Wellington City Council control its own assets and land and National will support it for that reason. 
We say that the Wellington City Council bought and paid for this land it was originally purchased for road-widening purposes it is not needed for road-widening purposes and we believe that the Wellington City Council should be able to sell it. It is pretty straightforward and simple. It will not save Wellington City; it will not shake great excitement around the traps. We would probably ask why we even need legislation of this sort. I remember when this House debated the Local Government Act. That was the great Act of Parliament from Labour that would provide councils with the power of general competence so that we would not need little bills like this—yet we still do. 
From a principle point of view the Wellington City Council is elected to manage the assets of the Wellington City area. We do not have a view about whether it should or should not be sold; that is for the elected representatives of the Wellington City Council to determine but we do not believe that we should impose these sorts of restrictions. I do find it interesting that in that same Local Government Act we had members opposite wanting to put all sorts of restrictions on councils around New Zealand about what they could and could not sell—talked and preached principles of general competence but practice was quite different. We on this side are quite consistent. We say that if the local council owns an asset it is an issue for those local representatives to determine what should be the future of that land. That is why we support this minor legislation that gives them the power to do so and why we are happy to facilitate the passage of the legislation as quickly as possible. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the bill. The previous speaker spoke of it as being a boring minor bill. It is not boring not minor to the people and the communities directly affected. First I take the opportunity of complimenting the Local Government and Environment Committee on its excellent work. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the local member of Parliament for Wellington Central the Hon Marian Hobbs and her excellent work in working with the communities the select committee and the Wellington City Council as she outlined. 
Why should I as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West be interested in this bill? Believe it or not I have an intense and incredibly keen interest in this bill in that it represents a very very good relationship between the local authority in this new era of partnership between the Government the Parliament and democratically elected local authorities in our country. Why should I be interested in this particular bill as a Hamilton MP? I am interested for the simple reason that notwithstanding some of the democratic argy-bargy that may be happening on the Wellington City Council from time to time as a Hamiltonian I am a little bit envious of the Wellington City Council and some of the far-reaching positive things it does. 
In many ways it is a role-model council. Let me take an opportunity—yes it is a wee bit away from Willis Street—to applaud the wonderful initiatives that we are seeing in terms of the waterfront development. There is awonderful sense of excitement that we get in this city and this bill and this relationship in terms of giving the council the right with a democratic mandate to develop this particular section of property and to look at managing a property portfolio appropriately for local conditions is a very good positive example of a forward-thinking city council. 
I repeat the purpose of this bill— apparently it was not captured in the Local Government Act—was to if one likes amend some historical circumstances. When the select committee spent quite a bit of time working through this bill hearing some very good submissions and presentations and a briefing from the Hon Marian Hobbs it obviously had uppermost in its mind the power of general competence which means returning decision making back to local communities. 
I am very pleased and have been reassured. Commercially obviously the council pointed out that it makes very sound commercial sense to consider the Willis Street land in conjunction with those other properties in any future sale and marketing strategy. In terms of the commercial strategy we had a very good example in Hamilton—when I was Deputy Mayor of the city of Hamilton—of the Hamilton property company at the time that was a subsidiary of the city council. In terms of the city council we set out the benchmark and we made a split between things that were strategic purchases that would help the growth of our city and were appropriate property purchases in terms of the structure of our city. But also we had investment properties that obviously were like any company there to return a yield to the ratepayers and to council. 
There has been much debate in my own community and the council became involved and took a key part in for example the purchase and development of an international standard hotel—now called the Novotel Tainui Hamilton—which again has won praise from my city because it has been a very useful adjunct to our tourism strategy. Some other property was purchased and the buildings were pulled down to improve access to the Waikato River. I just use those as examples. Day to day Hamilton Properties Ltd operated as an independent company with a clear brief. But again as shareholders we the city council gave an outline of the kinds of things that we wanted to see. 
Marian Hobbs very eloquently identified her concerns and her role as a local member of Parliament to represent local community groups and I think it is very important. Again I compliment the select committee on observing the fact by noting the words: “some of the tenants of these properties are extremely important community groups including (but not limited to) the Wellington Community Law Centre the Women’s Centre Trust Mokai Kainga Pacific Islands Community Arts and Cultural Centre ALAY Community Centre for Refugees and Migrants and the Wellington Volunteer Centre.” I note the words of the committee—I guess this is a message or point of view expressed to the Wellington City Council: “We appreciate the value in having these community groups centrally located and in close proximity to each other and were therefore very concerned about what may happen to the tenancies of these groups should the council decide to sell the Willis/Victoria Street block. It is noted that there are however no community groups based within the land located at 45 to 53 Willis Street.” 
The report goes on to say very importantly: “We received a briefing from Hon Marian Hobbs …who informed us that the council and the community tenants have formed the Victoria Street Community Tenants’ Liaison Group which aims to address the concerns of groups that may be affected by the possible sale of the land. We sought assurances from the council that they were assisting these tenants to find suitable alternative accommodation.” 
Basically obviously I want to note in the  
Hansard 
 very clearly we have received assurances from the Wellington City Council that those very important groups will be treated appropriately and fairly and that their great and wonderful contribution to the community of Wellington will be taken into account in any future development of the land in that area. 
It is interesting that the parliamentary committee focused also on complimenting the council for taking a proactive approach in assisting these community groups. Again we recognise the importance of having these groups centrally located in Wellington City and urge the council to continue working with the current tenants until satisfactory alternative accommodation has been found. 
 I take the opportunity that is presented to me around this bill to observe the really critical role that the Wellington City Council and other local authorities have around the country my own council included in fostering and assisting community groups which in a way this bill highlights. This happens all around the country. My own city council is a major provider of accommodation and assistance for community groups. There is a real benefit to residents and ratepayers in these community groups functioning effectively and being proactive within our community. 
Again obviously local government is not just aboutbasic structural infrastructure—the roading system or the sewerage system etc; it is about the health and welfare of communities. I am here to give praise this afternoon and I think the Wellington City Council in its proactive involvement with this community and in its focus on the economic and social development of the Wellington City is in many ways a role model. I have even said that in terms of my own draft annual plan submissions to the Hamilton City Council we have to look at some best-practice models albeit in terms of its wealth and capital structure Wellington is a lot wealthier than the city of Hamilton. Let me commend the leadership of the Wellington City Council: the mayor; the Deputy Mayor Alick Shaw; and the other councillors on their excellent leadership. 
I go back to my own council to give members an example. We are having a debate about our river bank development. We are debating some resource consents and Wellington is getting on and debating where it will put the “Waterfront Hilton” and all those things it is doing. This bill is an example in my view of a progressive city council that came to a progressive parliamentary committee. I think we have a very very positive result. Let me commend absolutely the hard-working focused member of Parliament for Wellington Central the Hon Marian Hobbs who gets in with the community. She does not sit and poke borax. She does not sit and get negative. She does not say that this is a minor unimportant bill. She gets in and works for the people of Wellington Central in getting the best outcome for her community. I commend this bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. I listened to the speech made by the Labour Party member from Hamilton. It was such a vigorous speech in support of Wellington. He made so many points with regard to this legislation that one wonders with the way things are going at the moment whether he will be looking for a job in Wellington after his demise at the forthcoming election. He gave very very good support for Wellington and I commend him wholeheartedly for that. He is obviously an electorate constituent member of this House and I know what it is like to be a constituency member. He gave this legislation everything it was worth and he is to be commended for his support and the trouble he has taken to understand it. 
By coincidence I happened to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee when this matter came up. I found myself present once or twice when this legislation came forward and my initial reaction to this bill was: “Well what is Wellington City going to do about the existing tenants? Where will these people go if they are booted out by the Wellington City Council?” to put it bluntly. I am pleased having read the report from the select committee that every effort is being made to accommodate the people who are currently there. New Zealand First is delighted that the local member Marian Hobbs has been working with Wellington City Council and with the select committee to ensure the best possible resolution to this problem. 
As I read from the report with regard to the Victoria Street Community Tenants’ Liaison Group I see the select committee noted that separate to the specific situation the council has recently agreed a  
Policy on Accommodation Assistance for Community Groups Seeking to Reduce Disadvantage— 
that is a long name to give to policy—and intends to establish a new accommodation fund for central city community groups. Clearly the authority being given to the Wellington City Council by this legislation to dispose of this land if it so wishes will enable it to have sufficient funds to help people. Really in New Zealand we must not lose sight of the fact that there are new comers to the country all the time not only from overseas but also from the outlying areas who come to Wellington for the first time. It is handy to go somewhere and get legal or other advice as to where to go and what to do. Regarding the sale of endowment land: “We sought clarification” the select committee states in its report “from the council on provisions relating to the status of the property as endowment land. The council confirmed that the land in question is held as an endowment for municipal purposes. The council assured us that it would undertake any sale process for the land in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions for the sale of endowment land.” This is a local body and there will be elections later on this year and if the people of Wellington are unhappy with the way in which the Wellington City Council has handled the matter they can take the appropriate action at the local body elections as happens to all of us in this building and at a local body level. 
One thing that New Zealand First was concerned about was the Treaty of Waitangi implications. I think we are still entitled in this House to talk about Treaty of Waitangi implications without being branded by one side or another with a particular viewpoint and New Zealand First and the committee as a whole took a close interest in the attitude of the Wellington Tenths. May I say as a totally disinterested member that I was a little disappointed at the slowness in response on the part of the Wellington Tenths to the efforts of the select committee to try to get some answer from it as to what its viewpoint was. 
One can take it for granted in New Zealand and at any parliamentary select committee that the select committee will try its very best to get the views of anyone who might be interested in a particular topic. This select committee was no different and tried to get the view of the Wellington Tenths on the matter. Finally we were informed and the report clarifies that this is not a matter for further consideration by the Wellington Tenths Trust. That matter has been resolved by the select committee as well. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation. My colleague Jim Peters would have spoken on it today having spent more time on this than I have done but he is away from Parliament and asked me to make this speech on his behalf. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill. It is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation that is needed in the City of Wellington and we are happy to see it passed through the House reasonably expeditiously today. Although it is a fairly simple bill it does not mean that some issues did not come up that the Local Government and Environment Committee needed to look into properly in order to fulfil our responsibilities—not to interfere in what the council’s responsibilities were but when submitters came to us with issues of concern we of course had to address those. I believe the committee has done a thorough job on that and has now recommended to the House to see the bill passed. 
I do want to make a couple of quick comments about some comments that the member from National—who plays a very important role on our select committee and a very active one—made earlier. He was speaking about the fact that the new Local Government Act was of course supposed to have rendered such things redundant and there was no need for these small bills to be coming to this House any more. It is important that the people who read this  
Hansard  
and those who are following the debate here would be aware of the facts in this regard and I am sure the member must be aware of what the committee put in its report regarding this piece of legislation which began its journey prior to the Local Government Act. In fact it began its journey in 2002. 
The select committee’s report to the House actually makes it very clear that this bill is to come into force on 1 July 2003. I will quickly read out the reasons why so that the member might be brought up to speed with what happened. Perhaps it went through the committee too fast for him and he was unable to catch all of the relevant details: “The Willis Street land is held as an endowment for municipal purposes and is therefore currently covered by section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974. However from 1 July 2003 the new Local Government Act 2002 will come fully into effect and the Willis Street land will be covered by sections 140 to 141 of the 2002 Act. For reasons of clarity and simplicity we consider that this bill should come into force on the same day as the new Local Government Act 2002 comes fully into force that is 1st July 2003 and we recommend that clause 2 be amended accordingly.” 
 All this palaver and criticism about the Local Government Act 2002—which we worked so very hard on at the beginning of my term in this Parliament; and select committees have worked on it in previous terms—for the fact that this one has to come through is very unfounded and misleading. I am happy to correct that impression in the House today and again reiterate our support for this bill. I hope all members will help it to go through the House quickly this afternoon. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I support the comments made by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith with regard to this bill. If things were simplified this process which is at a considerable cost to taxpayers would not have been necessary. I would like to mention a comment made by the Hon Marian Hobbs in a speech she made in the House on this bill at an earlier time. On 4 December 2002 she said: “I support the council being able to make local decisions about its portfolio property free from the arbitrary restrictions of old and outdated laws.” Well I think it is a shame that councils are not free to make those sorts of decisions and make decisions for themselves even with the new law that has now been passed by this current Government. We support the passage of this bill but thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent on this process which should have been absolutely unnecessary. 
I was overcome before by the grovelling of the highest order with regard to the Wellington City Council. While it is to be commended for all its efforts with regard to the community service groups that it housed in the buildings concerned I put it to the House that local authorities generally do look after their community groups do consult with their groups and do the best that they can for their communities as a whole. I would not want to single out any particular council for doing that. It is only right and proper that the Wellington City Council in this instance has done that also. It is to be commended for doing the best that it can for these groups but this is by no means concluded. I am sure that the sale of the properties will assist in that regard as already mentioned. 
I think it is a shame indeed that the new Local Government Act has not supported councils and has not lessened to any degree their compliance costs—nor has a number of other measures that have been implemented by this current Government. On that note I will leave it at that and say that National supports the passage of this very very minor bill although we are very disappointed that this process has cost so much and taken the time it has. Was it really necessary? That question was raised at the select committee but of course an answer was not forthcoming. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of ACT New Zealand I rise to support this bill. It makes very good commercial sense. The Wellington City Council is the rightful owner of this land; there is no dispute about that. It should therefore be able to sell the land if it so wishes. 
I would like to commend Mr Gallagher on his enthusiastic support of Wellington. Those of us who live in Wellington of course know what a great and vibrant city it is and it is a pleasure to live here. But it is always good to hear that other people also appreciate the things that a city one lives in oneself has to offer. 
With regard to the piece of land in question—the part of Willis Street where The Malthouse is with community groups housed downstairs—the council should be commended for the responsible attitude it has taken to the community groups that are tenants in the building at present. By assisting them to relocate the council is taking its duties very seriously and it should be commended on doing so. 
I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions from the Wellington City Council and the Wellington Tenths Trust but I read with interest the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It states that in 1929 when the council was considering the sale of the Willis Street land in order to use the proceeds for street-widening purposes the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act was passed. It is clear later in the same report that there was really no indication why section 13(2) was enacted. It states that the council’s archives do not give any explanation. I think this sends us a message that as lawmakers we have a duty to consider very carefully why we are putting legislation in place what the future might bring and whether in the future the legislation is going to cause problems. The previous speaker alluded to that. 
I would also like to point out that when the council in 1929 was considering the sale of this land for street-widening purposes it was showing a lot of foresight. It is a shame that at the time that foresight was not given to what might happen in the future. A very good example that springs to mind of some foresight shown by Wellington councillors of years gone by with some vision is in my own suburb of Karori. I recently read the history of the building of the Karori tunnel One councillor who obviously had quite a lot of vision fought long and hard with his other councillors in the late 1880s to make the Karori tunnel wide enough to allow two horses and carts to pass each other. I in particular and the other residents of Karori are very grateful for the vision that this gentleman had because we now have a tunnel that two cars if not two buses can pass through. With regard to the wideness of the roads in Wellington we certainly wish some were a little wider but they do add to the character of the city. 
ACT New Zealand supports this bill mainly because of the good commercial sense that it makes. I come back to the issue of property rights: owners of land must be free to sell it as they see fit. So ACT New Zealand supports this legislation. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 This bill has the purpose of repealing section 13(2) of the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act 1929. The history of this particular land is a bit lost in the mists of antiquity as so often happens with bills that relate to local councils. We have instances of this in the House from time to time. Although they might seem a little trivial to those of us who are not directly affected by or caught up in the provisions of them they are as other speakers have said particularly important for the people who are affected by them. 
This particular piece of land has restrictions on it that have forced the Wellington City Council into the position where it is not able to make the best use of the land. This amendment bill will allow the city council to exercise its own judgment about what happens to the land. In 1929 the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act prohibited the council from alienating the land by selling it. All that it was allowed to do was to lease the land. That Act actually gives no indication why it was enacted and the council’s archives do not offer any explanation either. So we are left in the position of having only to guess at what motivated the legislature at the time. 
The history of the land is linked to another piece of land which adjoins the borough of Pahiatua—the Mangahao endowment. That land was vested in the council as an endowment for municipal purposes. In 1924 the Wellington City Mangahao Endowment Sale Empowering Act allowed the council to sell that piece of land provided that the proceeds of the sale were used to purchase land as an endowment. In 1929 when the council was considering the sale of the Willis Street land in order to use the proceeds for street-widening purposes it passed legislation that allowed the proceeds from one endowment sale to be used for street-widening purposes but the Willis Street property had to be retained as an endowment for municipal purposes. 
Why the restrictions are there is a bit confused and muddled. At this time it is up to the House to remove that confusion and those restrictions so that the Wellington City Council can use its own judgment about what is the best way that the land can be used. We want to remove the statutory barriers to the council being able to consider the land in the same manner as it does its other properties. 
The Wellington City Council owns several other properties that are situated adjacent to the land in question. It needs to be able to consider them all in a parcel so that it can make sensible decisions about how to dispose of them or use them. There have been some difficulties with the tenants in the properties because there are a lot of community groups there but the council has done its best to ensure that those community groups are catered for and can be rehoused in suitable premises that enable them to carry out their functions. It has provided assistance in finding suitable alternative accommodation. We commend the council for this proactive approach in helping these community groups and we urge it to keep working with the current tenants to make sure that these difficulties are smoothed away. 
The select committee sought clarification from the council on provisions relating to the status of the property as endowment land and the council assured the committee that it would undertake any sale process for the land in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions for the sale of endowment land. The council has no intention of doing anything except to make the best possible use of the land in terms of its long-term community plan. 
The committee was also keen to ensure that there were no Treaty of Waitangi issues associated with the land. The departmental advisers assured it that the land in question is not specifically mentioned in any of their databases or registered as wahi tapu a site of significance or a historic or archaeological site. The Wellington Tenths Trust was also consulted and it acknowledged that the contents of the bill do not give rise to matters that would lead to any further litigation under the Waitangi Tribunal. 
It is important that this House recognises the right of the Wellington City Council to determine the future of this land and its best use for the purposes of the citizens of Wellington. The Government is pleased to support this bill and commends it to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (NZ Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (NZ Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I want to thank the House for its support and consideration of this local bill. I agree that lined up alongside the debates we have had on the Kyoto Protocol or some of the not-so-pleasant debates that have ravaged this House in the last short while this is a minor matter. I also happen to agree very much with those speakers who have said—and I have said this myself—that local government should control its own affairs. That is what this bill is facilitating and allowing to happen well before the Local Government Act that was passed last year comes into play. The reason this bill is going ahead now is to allow the city council to get on with it before the Local Government Act comes into play. 
I also want to thank those out there who understand what it is like to be a constituency MP when one part of the constituency wants to do something and another part of it says there are things the city council might want to do that will have an effect on them and they come to the local MP to try to get it sorted through. That is why I really appreciate the support of those people at the select committee who actually took on board that issue and I thank them for it. Many of them had an understanding of what it is like to be an MP who is placed in between the city council and the really worthwhile local groups—both of whom are trying to achieve something positive for the Wellington community. 
I say to those members who come into Wellington only 3 days a week as opposed to those of us who live here that we have a real push on space in this particular area. 
Phil Heatley 
: Where do you live? We are confused. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: That is a very old story and I would not go down that line. 
Those of us who happen to live in Wellington know it is a very small space that we try to occupy. Therefore every part of that space is very very important in terms of fitting all that needs to be in there whether for businesses and their headquarters for Government departments or for the social services that people need to be able to access. That is why I appreciate the work that is done. We are a bowl if one likes and people come down the hill. We do not want them to come down the hill and have to catch another bus to the outer regions of the city—maybe to Miramar—in order to access particular services like the Wellington Women’s Resource Centre and some of the other centres we have been talking about here. 
I appreciate the work done by the select committee. I appreciate the fact that the House agreed to allow this bill to go through all its stages today so that the city council can get on with its job—remembering that it has several jobs to do to keep the diverse community of Wellington happy. 
I just want to refer to something I touched on previously. As this bill was going through—probably after the select committee hearings—residents of a certain street in Wellington came to me really concerned about whether very tall buildings were to be built in this particular area that might block the view of the residents of Central Terrace. That is another issue that will have to be taken up. 
Heather Roy 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I would not laugh if I were that member. She may know somebody who is very close to this particular issue who will know that it has to be taken through the planning process of the city council. I commend this bill to be read a third time. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In talking to the third reading I would just like to take up some points raised across the House relating to the property in question. This property owned by the council was deemed to be private property and therefore not subject to treaty claim. That is the general case with private property or with property owned by councils that is deemed to be private property. That is my very clear understanding. 
It is interesting that the Minister is waxing lyrical about the council and its constraints in terms of the particular area she is in yet councils in endeavouring to do their business do so when central government dumps a whole heap of rubbish and compliance costs on top of them. The foreshore and seabed issue will be no less an issue that she will dump on to local authorities or more likely regional authorities. So this will be another issue she will have to confront with her council. 
I would just like to raise those matters that she herself raised in speaking to this part. It will be very interesting in time to come— 
Rod Donald 
: It’s the third reading. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes she raised those matters herself. We are all going to be treated the same in this debating chamber are we not? The debate has been wide ranging ever since this bill was introduced to the House. So yes we are still continuing to support it. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Yes we should all be treated the same in this Chamber and those people who say silly things that are unsupportable by the facts ought to be criticised for making silly statements. 
On that topic I would like to refer to two contributions we have had from the National Party on this bill. One was from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the other was from Sandra Goudie. Both criticised the fact that this legislation is necessary and suggested that the Local Government Act passed last year would if in proper form have rendered this legislation redundant. I have to say that the simplicity and the naivety of that logic does not surprise me. When analysed the logic of National Party arguments is often found wanting. 
The suggestion that the Local Government Act 2003 could have prevented the need for legislation such as this is simply wrong. Endowment properties are properties that are held on trust by councils. Endowment properties come into the possession of councils because property or money for the purpose of purchasing property has been endowed upon the council. A property is endowed on terms that require the council to honour the terms of the trust that created the endowment. The prior Local Government Act and the amended Local Government Act both quite properly require councils to honour the terms of those endowments. 
What has happened in this unusual case is that back in 1929 the legislation concerning this particular endowment became confused. Back in the 1890s a piece of land was endowed upon the council. In 1920 the council purchased a separate piece of land in Willis Street. Subsequent to that purchase the endowment land was mixed up with the private purchase of the Willis Street land and the same legislation—the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act—was passed in 1929 and caught up both the Willis Street land and the endowment land. As a consequence of the mistake made in 1929 to include the privately purchased land in the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act the land that had been purchased with council money from a private owner was caught up with the endowment land. 
The suggestion that that should be fixed by the Local Government Act that was passed last year is with respect in error. Specific legislation always overrides the general. General legislation never overrides the specific. It would have required a specific provision in the Local Government Act to deal with empowering legislation like the 1929 Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are you sure about that? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am. 
Mita Ririnui 
: He’s a Government member. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. I do claim to understand this area of law better than the National member. The suggestion that endowment lands should have had their endowment qualities removed by the Local Government Act last year would have meant asking the Government to strip away the natures of the trusts that underlie each and every one of these endowments all around New Zealand. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: That’s right theft. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. It would have meant trying to rewrite those trust terms in respect of endowment properties up and down New Zealand. First it would have been inappropriate and second it would have been an impossible task—except if there was a generalisation that caused great injustice by overturning the carefully considered terms of the donations that have been made by benevolent New Zealanders through the centuries. 
To do that would have caused an injustice. It would also have enabled the terms of endowments to be ignored by future councils up and down the country. For example if a forebear of Sandra Goudie had made a generous donation to a council for recreational purposes then notwithstanding that that endowment was made for those purposes that member might try to empower the council through general legislation like the Local Government Act to ignore the trust that was created by that endowment and use the property for whatever purpose the council chose to use it for. 
The Local Government Act last year does amend the provisions in respect of the use of endowment properties. It does empower councils to sell endowment properties and utilise the proceeds of sale for purposes that are consistent with the endowment. So the Act does what I think councils should be able to do—that is sell an endowment property and acquire a replacement one that honours the terms of the original endowment and the terms-of-trust that were originally set down. What the Act does not do is permit councils to go past that original intention and apply endowment properties for a completely different intention. That is why this bill is necessary. 
In the case of this bill the Wellington City Council found that the endowment that applied to the Mangahao endowment property—through an accident I suspect back in 1929—also applied to the Willis Street land that had been purchased by the council from the council’s own funds in a private purchase. In order to separate the Willis Street land from the terms of the endowment that applied to the other property it was necessary for the council to seek the assistance of Parliament to separate the Willis Street land from the other land. So the council asked the local member Marian Hobbs to sponsor a local bill. 
Local bills come before Parliament only if a parliamentarian is willing to sponsor them. That is a statement by the local member that he or she thinks it is worthy of consideration by Parliament. It does not necessarily mean that it should be passed. In this case it will be passed because all parties are supporting it. None the less it requires the support of a local member to bring it before Parliament. 
Having brought it before Parliament of course causes some cost and expense. Sandra Goudie is quite correct. A cost and expense is incurred as a consequence of this process but there is no alternative to that other than the Wellington City Council being stuck in the position of not being able to deal with that land dispose of it and put the proceeds of sale to a worthy purpose. So the council came to Parliament and said: “Look this is the history of it. Can you help us out?” Parliament is doing that by passing this legislation. 
The select committee as is its duty looked at the issues thoroughly and considered whether there were any treaty implications. There were not. Sandra Goudie pointed out—and I agree with Ms Goudie on this point—that the land was privately acquired so there are no treaty ramifications. That point is interesting because at times suggestions are made by people who are trying to foment concern unnecessarily amongst non-Maori that their assets might be seized for treaty purposes. But interestingly this is a case in point where even though the land is local authority land it is treated exactly the same as other private land—as if it was land I had acquired privately using my own money—so no treaty claim can be made against it and there are no treaty ramifications. 
Other members have already spoken about the efforts that have been made to help the council find new premises for some of the community organisations based there. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the member answer a question? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member has answered two questions that were raised by the Opposition both of which were incorrect. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would you answer another one? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The Speaker is now asking me to sit down which I will do. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is amazing is it not how a poll result can change the mindset of Parliament. The Government is on 35 or 38 percent or whatever it is with its members filibustering and acting like the Opposition and the National Party on 45 percent is acting like the Government-in-waiting. Accordingly I recommend the passage of this bill through the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Status of Redundancy Payments Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 3 December 2003. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been warning Government members for the last 12 months that if they continue with this type of anti-business legislation they will be history at the next election. However they have been so entrenched in their views that they would not listen to what members of the Opposition have been telling them; they have been so in bed with their union mates that they could not or would not listen. And what has happened? They are now coming down like a pack of cards. It is not just their race-based policies that have got up people’s noses; it is also their anti-business socialist claptrap and people have suddenly said: “Enough is enough!” Raft after raft of this type of anti-business legislation has been directed at the very people who generate the money those people so irresponsibly spend. 
Now the party is over. I say to members of the Government that they should dust off their CVs because they are out of a job—or they soon will be—and they will certainly be out of luck. I could also ask those of them who have a job to stand up but that would embarrass them. For some of this crowd dusting off their CVs will not help. I have gone through a few of them: union stirrer union stirrer failed lawyer union stirrer Government gofer history teacher union stirrer and so on. Boy employers will be lining up to employ that crowd! 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s just the front bench. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That was just the front bench. They will be lining up to take on this crowd will they not? The great irony is that when these people come knocking on the door with their hands out asking: “Will you give me a job please?” employers will remember that they were the crowd who tried to bring down their businesses with the type of anti-business legislation they are trying to foist through with this bill. That is why I said right at the beginning of this speech that the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill is garbage. It is ill considered and has not been thought through. The relationship between employer and employee should end on the day the pay cheque stops and the relationship between a fair-day’s pay and a fair-day’s work should not be forgotten. It will force employers to become risk-averse. 
There is a view on the Government side of the House that the employers are the bad guys. They are essentially the mums and dads who risk everything who mortgage their houses to give hard-working New Zealanders a job. But this crowd is trying to force them out of business. That is why I say that this type of legislation will do more harm than good and it must be brought to a stop. The National Party is very strongly opposed to the bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand to support the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill. I would say something about that member who just resumed his seat if I knew his name but I do not know his name. He has been here about 18 months I believe. He did take over a seat from the former National Party leader the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley and he is— 
Rod Donald 
: Which previous leader? How many previous? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Oh it is a while ago but I think most New Zealanders whether or not they liked her knew who she was. But could anybody in this country say who her replacement was? No. I do not know his name and that is because he is a totally—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Could I just say to the member on my left that under Speaker’s ruling 56/1 interjections are acceptable. However we do not have running commentaries and we have that at the moment. So I ask the member to please restrain himself. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is at least a minute into his speech and he has not even addressed the bill yet. If he is going to make controversial statements I think it is only reasonable to expect some response from members in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member again quoting  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that under Speaker’s ruling 43/3 a member is allowed a little bit of leeway in responding to a previous member’s speech. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on that point. 
Brian Connell 
: Yesterday you might recall that I raised these very concerns with you and you made a ruling that now seems to me to be in conflict with the one you have just made. You ruled yesterday that it was reasonable for a member to interject if the member had been sitting in his seat for some time and he had not moved specifically to that seat to cause a disruption. I put it to you I have been sitting in this House for an hour in this seat and according to your ruling yesterday I am entitled to make interruptions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There seems to be some confusion. The reason I asked the member to desist was that his interjections were becoming a running commentary and under  
Speakers’ Rulings  
that is not permitted. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on this Mr Connell. It had better be something new. 
Brian Connell 
: It is. You have ruled on that matter but the other matter I raised with you yesterday was a running commentary and you said that was in order. We will go to the  
Hansard 
 record if we have to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what I said yesterday Mr Connell and if the member continues to challenge the Chair in the way he is then I will have no option but to ask him to leave. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: It is rather odd that the member who continually takes points of order does not like it when he gets a bit back. It is OK for him to stand there and point the finger and say: “Union stirrer this failed lawyer that.” When he gets a little bit back the hanky comes out and he starts to wipe the tears from his eyes—the poor wee soul whom nobody in this country knows and who has made a useless speech about the purposes of this bill. The purposes of this bill are in fact to protect the rights— 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To be fair and reasonable I think the member has had enough lead-in time now—it would be well over a minute—and it would be good if he started to get into the substance of the bill. So to be fair I think the lead-in time has been taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member. I am sure that the honourable member will be coming to the point very shortly. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I have taken about as much time in my speech denigrating that member as he did denigrating this side of the House. He did not know anything about the bill and he proved that when I listened to what little he had in his speech about this bill. 
He made some wild accusations that this bill was about putting New Zealand businesses out of business. I have to tell that member that the bill is about protecting people after the businesses have failed. They are the people who worked solidly and loyally to make that business a success and did not end up in jail after the business went under—unlike some of the people who ran big companies like Fortex Group who had to spend some time at the pleasure of Her Majesty at a jail near the member’s electorate. No we are talking about the workers who put their lives on the line when working in many of those industries because they were dangerous. There are a great many people who worked in the freezing industry for instance who were injured seriously or killed and then the companies went bust and did not pay up what was due to those people. On some occasions the people who ran those companies were found to have broken the law and ended up paying with the loss of their liberty. 
So that member on the Opposition benches who I understand comes from the farming industry should go back and talk to some of those farmers who also lost an awful lot to those businesses. They understand the need to protect their interests and they do their very best using the law to do so. What this bill seeks to do is to offer some small protection to the workers who make that industry and many other industries successful and profitable for most companies in this country. It is fortunate that we have had a strong economy with good management by this Government and there have not been the terrible redundancies of the past that have hit many industries. 
 We also know that quite a number of workers in the public health sector for instance work day and night. For 7 days a week 24 hours a day they are out there cleaning hospitals cooking the food shifting things around the hospital—which is what the orderlies the cleaners and the kitchen staff do. Many of them are contracted out not to New Zealand companies owned by mums and dads—which that member over there said this bill is targeted at—but to big multinational companies that have come here and cleaned up quite nicely in more ways than one in our public health system. Some of them did not consist of particularly nice and wonderful people. One of them here in the Wellington region went bust. What protection was there for those workers who had cleaned cooked and worked in those hospitals looking after the elderly the sick and children for very low wages year in and year out? What did they get when that big multinational company went bust here in New Zealand? It still operates in the rest of the world but it went bust in New Zealand. What happened to the loyalty that those workers were owed in terms of protection of their earnings and their redundancy entitlements? 
I know what happened because I represented them as a union official at the time. It was shocking that they missed out on so much that they were owed. Anybody who knows about the way in which redundancy agreements have been negotiated into employment contracts in the past knows that generally employees—workers—take less in terms of a potential increase in their earnings so that they can have the protection of a redundancy agreement. So they pay for it in their own way by accepting a lower wage increase. In some cases they took no wage increase in order to secure some protection against their job disappearing overnight. 
Of course those redundancy agreements by law were not enforceable and that is what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to give some level of enforcement for people who are entitled to a redundancy agreement so that they have some chance of getting redundancy pay. I would like to look not at the effect that this will necessarily have on the small business that goes bust but at some of those glaring examples of large businesses that have gone bust. In the bill we see that redundancy entitlements are included within the employee priority and that such entitlements form part of a contractually negotiated package for employees. The committee recognised that there had to be an actual negotiated package for employees and their entitlement in terms of the priorities for that money is recognised in this bill. 
Some very valid points are made in the commentary on the bill and by the committee in its report in terms of other people who would like to be treated better in terms of that priority. I can understand that but what we have to realise is that in most cases it is the only source of income for the employees in these businesses. Some of the other creditors that line up may not be completely devastated and wiped out because they have other sources of income. The committee obviously had to take that into account and has supported in its report what the bill seeks to do for employees. 
The cap on employee priority has been moved to $15000 which again is an improvement on the past figure. I believe that needs to be reviewed regularly so that it is a figure that makes some sense 5 to 10 years from now. The level of the cap will in fact be looked at on a 3-year basis as a result of the select committee report. 
There will be other people taking part in this debate who will be able to recall for members and those listening to the debate some of the awful situations that a lot of workers found themselves in as their companies went bust over the last 10 or 15 years in particular. We saw significant restructuring in the economy. As a result we saw quite a number of business failures and it did tend to be the very large-scale ones that were taken note of. But there will be smaller businesses that will have to take this legislation into account. I am sure that they will understand the necessity for it. Nobody wants to see businesses go bust particularly the people who work for those businesses—who generally give their hearts and souls to the places they work for so that that does not happen. We know that many of them may even forgo wages for weeks on end to try to help out their employers. This bill seeks to give a little bit of redress if possible when all the washing-up is done. 
I absolutely support this bill and I congratulate both the member whose name it is in now Mr Peck and the original author the Hon Rick Barker. Both of them come from areas of New Zealand that have been hit drastically by large-scale redundancies and I know that the workers they stood alongside and the managers of those companies will appreciate the intent of this bill and why it is necessary. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Peter Dunne’s microphone light appears to be on. It may just be an accident but if it is on— 
David Benson-Pope 
: They’re all on. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No they are not all on. Ours are not. I just want to make sure that Mr Brown’s speech will actually be recorded not some sigh from a ghost of Peter Dunne. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I am sure those things can be checked out. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill for a number of very good reasons. I listened to the National Party contribution a little while back and I found it inconsistent with what is reported in the commentary on the bill: “We recommend that redundancy entitlements be included within the employee priority. We consider that such entitlements form part of a contractually negotiated package for employees which may have included trade-offs in relation to wages or salary.” That seems to imply that at the select committee level everybody was in agreement so I found out who the members of the Commerce Committee were. Among those members were Gerry Brownlee—the deputy chairperson of the committee at the time and now the deputy leader of the National Party—Rodney Hide and the Hon Maurice Williamson. Therefore I find it a little bit unusual that members of those parties come to the House now and take the exactly opposite stance to their members on the select committee. 
A redundancy agreement in a contract is not compulsory; it is negotiated. It is agreed to by both parties—the employer and the worker the employer and the union or the employer and a group of workers. There is nobody with a gun to anybody’s head saying that there must be a redundancy clause in a worker’s agreement. There might be some pressure and I understand there is but as the Hon Mark Gosche said very often redundancy packages are negotiated at the expense of a wage rise—sometimes in total and sometimes in the acceptance of a lesser level of increase. Redundancy is part of a contractual agreement exactly as wages and holiday pay are. All this bill does is raise the priority of redundancy in the circumstance of a company going into liquidation when the receiver has to determine who gets what and who is paid out first. 
There is a cap which is currently $6000 and embraces holiday pay and wages or salary. That cap will be increased to $15000 which will still embrace wages holiday pay and now the redundancy entitlement. 
 I say to my National Party colleagues in particular that working people need to be looked after to the degree that it is not acceptable to sign a contract with people and then try to walk away from it. It is not acceptable to sign a redundancy agreement and then try to avoid paying it out or try to put it at a lower priority. I always had a saying when I was in business. I used to say to my staff: “Make your handshake count. Keep your word.” If there is a redundancy agreement in an employment contract then it should stack up with some degree of priority. That is what this bill does. 
When people have been made redundant in the circumstances we are talking about—where the company has folded and is in the hands of a liquidator—it is a desperate situation for many. When people get this package depending on their financial wealth income or what have you they either get the unemployment benefit or they do not. If they are sufficiently well off—if the redundancy package is reasonably generous—they get a stand-down time of I think up to 10 weeks or thereabouts and they do not get taxpayers’ money. So it is not exactly a golden handshake in every sense of the word. There are some savings for the taxpayer when redundancies are paid out in many circumstances. I say to the National Party which advocates that unemployed people should queue outside post offices that to some degree now those queues will be a little bit shorter. 
On many occasions prior to my coming to Parliament—in my role as a shipping management consultant—I sat in many boardrooms gave many senior executives a piece of advice and was paid handsomely for it. That piece of advice was very simple. Basically it was: “Look after your people because people are the most important component of a company. Be straight with your employees; don’t beat around the bush. If you are inclined to sign a redundancy agreement make it count. Be fair.” New Zealand First has looked long and hard at this legislation. We looked at it when it came before the House in 1996 at the time New Zealand First signed the coalition agreement and we were persuaded by our then National coalition partner not to run with it. I regret that because there have been people who have suffered since. But I am glad we have now not changed our minds but re-looked at the legislation and taken a positive attitude. 
I was quite upset by United Future. It claims to be the party for the family but what about the family person who will go home having been made redundant and who will be put low on the list? We are talking about several people in those sorts of circumstances. They will face their families effectively with nothing—with little more than their wages for the last week and their holiday pay entitlement under the current legislation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How do people earn 6000 bucks a week? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is the maximum cap. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And you are now saying that they should get $15000? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am saying to the honourable member that if people are entitled to redundancy it should have equal priority to wages and holiday pay. 
I will tell members the story of what happened on the New Zealand waterfront in 1996. An overseas company owned the biggest stevedoring company in the country. It put its management team in a separate company and put its available plant in a separate company—it might have been the same company that management was in—but the working people were left on their own. They were the face of the company and many of those men—and I know many of them personally—were hand picked at the time of the port reform to do the job. In part they turned round the level of production of cargo handling in this country working 7 days a week 24 hours a day with modern equipment. Then one dark night someone decided that that was the hour and on the Monday morning the workers were told they were not required. They lost everything. They got nothing and some of them had been in the industry for many years. By many years I mean that some of them had been in the industry for 30-plus years—but they got nothing. I would have liked to sort that out. I gather that the whole thing has been addressed now but in my view a long way short of satisfactorily. 
With this legislation at least there will be some priority of entitlement. Money cannot be made where there is none but workers will get consideration ahead of other organisations and contractual services. New Zealand First thinks that that is right and proper and we say to employers that if they do not want to agree to redundancy then they should not sign the employment agreement—they should not put it in the agreement. If employers are absolutely hell-bent in their belief that they will not pay out redundancy in such adverse circumstances as this bill covers then they should not put redundancy in the agreement. But if they put it in it should get the priority it deserves and New Zealand First says that that is second or equal to wages and holiday pay. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The purpose of Mr Mark Peck’s Status of Redundancy Payments Bill is to cover the situation that occurs when a company has gone into liquidation or bankruptcy. The law states the priority for paying various people should there be any money available. At the moment Parliament gives priority to employees over what are called the unsecured creditors which are companies that supplied services to the company that has gone broke. Why do we do that? We do it because we recognise that many working people do not have a lot of cash so the requirement is that working people who have actually done the work should get paid. Then we try to work out how much money that should be. The limit is $6000 and for the average worker in New Zealand that is 2 months’ wages. There are very few liquidations of companies in which people have not been paid for 2 months. If the boss does not pay employees for one week they realise that something is wrong. If he has not paid them for 2 months I take it that they would have made some inquiries. 
Phil Heatley 
: Some inquiries? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Just to find out what is going on. 
Phil Heatley 
: “Has there been a little mistake?” 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes. They would ask: “Has there been a little mistake? Why have I and my mates not been paid?”. It is not as though the Government has not looked at this matter. The Government itself did an insolvency review. That was carried out in 2001 so it was done by the Labour Government. It had a look to see what was fair and it said the $6000 limit was still fair. The point is this: the company has gone broke so there is not enough money and somebody is going to lose out. Parliament says the first people who have to lose out—who really should be the bottom priority for payment—should be the shareholders the investors. Normally they get nothing. Sometimes they get 10c in the dollar but normally they get nothing. 
If we give priority to the people who have worked for the company that means we are saying other people should lose out. New Zealand First and the Labour Government have not said who the unsecured creditors actually are. Those of us who are in business know who the unsecured creditors are. They are small businesses. They are the people who are least likely to know that a company is going broke. What are the small businesses that get hurt the most from insolvencies? They are usually the self-employed—the self-employed carpenter and the self-employed contractor. I hear New Zealand First saying we do not want to look after families. Does New Zealand First not realise that people who have mortgaged their homes and set up their own businesses are family people too? Why should they get lower priority than the people who worked for the company? 
Let me just take the example given by New Zealand First because I know about that stevedoring company. I do not support what the owners did but in that particular case the management told the employees that their wages and conditions were out of sync with everyone else and the employees were invited to renegotiate them. They refused to do so. But they had the chance to do that. 
Companies do not go to a small business that is supplying it with goods and services and suddenly say they are going broke. The first time that a small business discovers that is when a cheque bounces. This bill states that the Labour Government believes that small businesses should go broke so the Government can do this deal for its trade union mates. It is unfair that people who have supplied goods and services should lose their money so that the middle management of the company that has gone broke can get $15000. That is who will get that amount. When a company goes broke we have the idea that somehow the shareholders are totally responsible for that. Sometimes they are but usually the middle management played some role in it. Why should people from middle management be able to get $15000? What is that for? It is not for work that they have done. No it is for holidays they might like to get. Those are to be increased. At the moment holidays are protected to the extent of $1500. This Government says that if someone works for a company and is in middle management—the person could actually be the manager the person who bankrupted the company—provided that person did not make himself or herself the director the person could loot the company for $15000 and then say to a small businessman who is running a little plumbing outfit that it is tough luck but he or she will have to go bankrupt. That is what this bill means. 
I say to the Government with regard to the idea that there is enough money for everyone of course there is not enough for that. Over the years Parliament has said what the order of priority for payment should be. The Government itself did an insolvency law review. It released a discussion document. The Government set the position out to people in the community in the way that it does; it says it wants to consult with business and be business friendly. The Government set out the position to business and to insolvency practitioners—people who actually see these cases—and what did they say? They said yes workers should be protected but the $6000 limit is fair enough because that is 2 months’ wages and after that the little man or woman who is supplying goods and services ought to be able to get at least a share of the money. 
This bill is grossly unfair. It will cause a great deal of hurt. It will result in a lot more small businesses going bankrupt and it will make doing business in New Zealand more risky. I have no doubt that Mr Mark Peck who comes from the trade union movement will get a round of applause at the Council of Trade Unions organisation for having used this House to take money that belongs to other people. Yes there were representations on this bill. Federated Farmers pointed out for example that under this bill when there is an insolvency of a freezing works the farmers who have supplied their cattle or sheep to that freezing works will find themselves further down the list than the management that has bankrupted it. They ask what is fair about that. I say to Government members that they can wax eloquent about the fact that workers get hurt in a redundancy and in a company liquidation—so does everyone else. The issue is what is fair and what the certainty and priority should be. Why should we give priority to people who through their own actions contributed to the company going under? Who do Government members think runs companies? It is the very people who are being protected by this legislation. This bill does not state that management is excluded; it just states that directors are excluded. It is unfair legislation. 
This bill is the worst type of party legislation. It is a misuse of a member’s bill and the Government should vote against it now. If the Government thinks this legislation is a good idea it should present it as a Government bill. But it cannot do that because its own Government document states this legislation is not a good thing to do. This bill is an abuse of Parliament. The ACT party which makes no apology for representing small business or for getting up in this House and saying we ought to have fairness and we do not support this type of class legislation says that this bill which takes money from small businesses to give to the Government’s trade union mates is fundamentally unfair. ACT says the bill is wrong and will cause mum and dad businesses to go bankrupt. People should know that when they vote for this bill. And it is all so that Mark Peck can get reselected for Invercargill which he will lose anyway because he has closed down the local schools. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I tell members the issue of red lights was raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. I have been informed that the red lights on all microphones are on. It is just an indication that the system is switched on. When a member has the floor the microphone is turned on for that member. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I feel privileged that I am able to contribute to this debate. I will share with other members some of the situations that occurred during my time as a union organiser. I stand in support of the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill and in doing so I will reiterate its purpose which is to amend the preferential claim provisions of personal and corporate insolvency legislation to introduce preferential status for workers’ redundancy entitlements. 
I would like to pay tribute to a group of workers that have been affected by redundancy. The example I will relate is an acknowledgment of the immense hurt and heartache that occurred as a result of contracting out services in our public hospitals. In doing that it is important to acknowledge the moral issues surrounding a redundancy announcement. Obviously the first effect it has on workers is that it creates insecurity as far as providing for their family and insecurity about their home. It also lessens the opportunities they have for contributing within the community. 
The example I give involved 130 cleaners who were contracted out. It was very difficult for us as the union responsible for negotiating their transfer terms and conditions to have the contractor accept liability for the redundancy as part of that transfer. I believe to this day that we were fortunate that their first employer agreed to transfer their redundancy entitlements to the contractor as a part of their terms and conditions. Members can imagine the relief that we felt in managing to achieve that. Although the contractor refused to pick up any liability of service of employment with them we however managed to firm up redundancy entitlements for those workers in the negotiations. 
The length of service of those workers—130 of them the majority of whom were Pacific Island and Maori women—ranged between 15 percent of them who had 25 to 30 years’ service to 75 percent of them who had between 5 and 15 years’ service. Their average earnings were not a helluva lot. Their earnings per annum ranged between $18000 and $22000. On their particular entitlement for redundancy they would have received between $10000 and $12000 if they had been there for 30 years. That is not a helluva lot in today’s situation but I suppose it was in respect of the provision of redundancy for that group of workers. 
I reiterate that it was not easy negotiating those terms so for me this bill provides the opportunity to offer some form of protection for that situation. Following a 3-month period with the new employer we assumed that things were not going right. We assumed that through their constant restructuring and attempts to save money that there was a possibility redundancy could occur. After 8 months of constant approaches to that employer on the issues surrounding redundancy and constant denials those workers were called to a meeting one afternoon and told that the company had been liquidated. 
One can imagine the despair of all those workers when they were told that there was no work for them for the next day for the next week and no employment security for them to continue to offer protection for their families. As their union representatives we assisted them with paying their power bills and helped with food—the basic essentials that were necessary to get them through. During that period we also renegotiated a contracting service for that group and managed to stitch up a deal on terms and conditions that were relatively less then than that which they had enjoyed with their previous employer. To this day that group of workers does not have the opportunity to stop and enjoy an afternoon break—that was a part of their new deal. 
So when identifying talking about and giving acknowledgment to the moral issues surrounding redundancy we begin to realise the importance of putting up protections—although they are minimum protections—for workers who are vulnerable. I reiterate that of those 130 workers the majority were women who were considered to be the main earners in their families. They all had families they all had children and overnight they had nowhere to go. 
Some 7 years later we managed to receive some part payment in respect of their redundancies. That part payment amounted to just over 1 percent of their total entitlement. For workers who had given their service for between 25 and 30 years and who loved their jobs they ended up with a redundancy package worth less than 1 percent of their total entitlement. This bill is timely in introducing some protections although they are minimal to ensure that we do not revisit that situation ever again. 
Before the tea break the leader of the ACT party mentioned that this bill would kill small businesses. Throughout his address to us I did not hear him talk about big business. Although he did say that this bill was designed to support our union buddies he did not talk about big business. The company that I have talked about is a foreign company and was a big business. It came to our shores secured this contract and formed itself into another company. To this day I know that the reason it formed the new company was to avoid paying out that redundancy. Let us not forget that as a part of the transfer of conditions it was responsible for holding in its bank account the redundancy entitlements of all those workers for when it came their time to be made redundant. All that went out of the window as well. The company jolly well knew that it was responsible for protecting the interests of its employees by holding that redundancy entitlement on their behalf but it was gobbled up as part of the liquidation. So it is timely that we have legislation that gives us the opportunity to protect those workers. 
I will finish by saying that this bill will protect redundancy as structured in an insolvency and it will amend the Companies Act to make redundancy payments a preferential claim when a company goes into liquidation or receivership. The workers from Tempo DNC had to line up with all other unsecured creditors for their redundancy payments and it is now a matter of record that they did not get what was owed to them. They believed quite rightly in my view that should their employment with the company cease they would be compensated in some measure through redundancy agreements for their loss of employment. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill passing through Parliament at this time and I will outline the reasons for that. 
But before I do that I would like to say that we in the National Party thoroughly understand the need for redundancy payments. We appreciate the need for redundancy payments but we do believe that that is a matter between the employer and the employee and there is no reason why an employer and an employee and even an employer and multiple employees cannot reach their own conclusions when they sign a contract agreement as to how much that redundancy payment should be valued at. 
Lynne Pillay 
: They do. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They can discuss that with each other through the individual contract process and we support their doing that. Obviously I know they do it and we support that way of going about it. But for this Government to legislate right across that mutual agreement is absurd to us. Why can it not be left to the employer and the employee and why does this Government feel the need to interfere and to legislate right across that process? That is the question we ask. 
There comes a point when a relationship between an employer and an employee severs and that certainly becomes the case when an employer can no longer afford to pay the employee. The employer is not asking the employee to continue to work for no wages; the employer simply cannot pay the employee any longer and is going bankrupt. That is one point where the relationship between the employer and the employee clearly must sever. This bill extends that responsibility. The employer has obviously proven he or she cannot afford to pay the employee yet this Government expects the employer to do that very thing even though the employer has proved that he or she cannot do it. Simply that will make businesses more risk-averse. They will not want to grow. There are plenty of other reasons at the moment why they do not want to employ more people and one is the compliance costs that are incurred; this measure is just another one. Although it is not a cost unless a business goes bankrupt it is a cost in terms of the risk the business knows it is taking on. 
When we look at the details of this bill we see that it raises even more concerns. Why for example is it suggested that the cap be increased to $15000 from $6000? We heard earlier from Richard Prebble who pointed out that if we go by the average wage $6000 is roughly 2 months’ work. Why have we suddenly decided that the cap should be 5 months’ worth of work? In fact it may not even be work. In fact we know it is not work. The employees concerned are going to be paid 5 months’ worth of wages for no work at all. Why does this Government believe that an employer should pay out from money he or she does not have 5 months’ worth of salary for no work at all? Why would the Government recommend that an employer with no money at all pay out 5 months’ worth of wages for no work at all in return? That is absolutely absurd. How did the Government reach the figure of $15000? 
It is interesting too that that figure can be varied. The bill states that that cap can be adjusted to reflect overall percentage increases over the relevant adjustment period in average weekly earnings calculated by reference to the last quarterly employment survey. In other words it is tagged to the increase over time of the average wage. Surely if an individual employee’s pay increases phenomenally more than the average wage or phenomenally less than the average wage the cap on his or her redundancy payout should shift accordingly. Why choose the average? Why go for the median? Why go for mediocrity? I have no idea why this Government has chosen such an arbitrary figure and such an arbitrary way of adjusting it. 
Also the bill states that if there is an overall decrease in the average wage there will not be a decrease in the reduction; it will stay the same. In other words employers are left with a situation where the payout and the cost to them can rise over time but cannot decrease over time. In other words the risk to them can increase but not decrease. Again that seems to be an arbitrary choice by the Government. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That member’s party would pay the Gibbses but not the workforce. That is what that member’s party would do. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The chief Labour whip might twitch over there but he has no idea what is in the bill. He has made one speech I think this term. I do not want to provoke him enough such that the Prime Minister will again have to apologise on his behalf and again be embarrassed by his twitching over there. 
I am also interested to see that clause 5(7) the clause that deals with amending the seventh schedule of the principal Act deals with those who are excluded from this redundancy cap change. Interestingly if a family member of one of the directors works in the company he or she is not entitled to this privilege that this Government is giving the workers. The vast number of businesses in this country are small businesses. Many of them are family businesses whereby family members particularly children are employed to sweep the floors and to work their way from the bottom up so that they can one day run the company. Those particular people who may exert as much blood sweat and tears as any other worker in the company are not entitled to this provision in the bill. 
Why is that? Why are those who carry the weight of the business not entitled to any payout? Worse still family members related to those who carry the risk of the business are not entitled to any payout. Why is that? Why is this Government picking on small family businesses and family members who work in those businesses? I can name countless large companies and countless small family businesses where children are employed in order to learn the ropes. Yet they will get no benefit from this bill. 
The question has to be asked as to who risks the capital in these companies whether they are small or large. Who risks their savings in these businesses whether they are small or large? Who lives and breathes the businesses day in and day out—not just during the 37½ hour working week but all weekend and all night as well? Who does that? Well in the Labour Government’s mind the people who do that are the ones it is going to punish and they are the business owners. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What party is it that ensured this country had the worst industrial record? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I might have to call on the Prime Minister to apologise for “Twitch” over there. I can see his moustache twitching away. I am going to have to apologise for the member. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Can I call down the Prime Minister to apologise for the member? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When the member is told to be seated he will please be seated. The member must refer to members by their correct names. He knows that. The member will withdraw that remark. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The remark? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He did not refer to the member by his correct name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw. I will not take the time of the House to invite the Prime Minister down to the House to apologise for the chief Labour whip David Benson-Pope. It has happened once already in the last few days. What I will do is finish my speech by reminding members of who puts up the capital who takes the risk and who worries day in and day out all week. It is the business owners the ones whom the Labour Government seeks to penalise. By doing so it inadvertently penalises the very workers whom those people employ. That is why National opposes this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 The National Party member has it wrong again. All those people listening to their radios in Whangarei will be very disappointed in their member. This bill is not about referring— 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member who is the Labour buddy MP for Whangarei is talking about people in Whangarei listening on their wirelesses to these speeches; she may not be aware that people in Whangarei cannot receive Parliament and I would just like to let the House know that. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Then those people were not blessed with listening to all that rot. Clearly that member has missed the plot. This bill refers to an insolvency situation. It imposes no extra cost on the employer. It is simply about making the creditor status of workers fairer—that is making them preferred creditors. His speech was another example of misinformation from that side of the House—another outrageous claim just like his leader’s claim. 
I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill and I commend my colleague Mark Peck for his member’s bill. I commend him for producing this bill because as I have he has seen the heartache of redundancy the heartache to workers and their families and the heartache to employers and their families. It is devastating for anybody to be deprived of one’s livelihood through no fault of one’s own. The stress both financial and emotional is far-reaching. For some workers the security of redundancy compensation goes some way to assisting them and their families at that difficult time while they adjust to the loss—the loss of their job the loss of their income the loss of their self-esteem and the loss of their dreams for the future. That redundancy compensation can provide some hope whether it is to tide them over until another job is found whether it is for financial support while training or studying or whether it is to allow them to look towards restarting a work career through a small business which this Government is happy to support. Imagine the double whammy if those workers then learn that their redundancy compensation which offers some short-term security is at best at risk but more likely worthless; that that redundancy deal is simply not worth the paper it is written on although it was negotiated in good faith by the employer who is willing for the employees to receive that money should the funds allow it. 
I have seen that situation most recently with the Qantas New Zealand employees. The uncertainty for those skilled professional employees who had thought they had a career a job for life was devastating. They were in a job market that had severely diminished and they had the challenge of finding employment in their chosen field. Add to that the harsh reality that their longstanding redundancy deal which they had negotiated with their employer in good faith was worthless. It was an extremely difficult time for those employees and their families. It was unjust and unfair. 
This bill goes a long way to address those injustices in that it does give employee redundancy claims priority over other unsecured claims and some preferential claims in—and I repeat for Mr Heatley—an insolvency situation. The bill removes the current limit of $6000 on preferential claims made by an employee in a corporate insolvency situation and raises the cap to $15000. I think that is good for workers. The bill also introduces a new priority and that is to provide an incentive for creditors to financially assist a liquidator in recovering or preserving business assets. That is one way to help increase the overall return to creditors. So this bill is about common sense fairness and balance and builds on this Government’s election policy to improve protection of workers’ conditions where businesses are transferred and sold—as we will be addressing in the Employment Relations Act amendments—and to continue reforming laws relating to redundant workers. 
If we look at the background to this bill the Weddell collapse we see that those workers had to line up with other unsecured creditors for their redundancy pay—compensation that had been negotiated in good faith between them their union and their employer. They were collectively owed $35 million and had to line up with other unsecured creditors for their money. It is unlikely that any of those creditors will ever see a cent of what is owed to them. This Government looks forward to workers not being in that situation again. Although there is still no guarantee of full redundancy there is considerable comfort for workers in being in a fairer position in the queue. 
I say to those on that side of this House who oppose this legislation “Shame!”. It is the same sad little group who revels in opposing anything relating to fair play whether it is about workers’ rights women’s rights students’ rights superannuitants’ rights and so on. It is consistent with their support for the pillaging and plundering of the Employment Contracts Act and with their opposition to the Employment Relations Act improved health and safety provisions and improved holiday entitlements. It is consistent with their inability to accept or even comprehend the principle of work-life balance. It is consistent with their inability to comprehend the win-win situation of investing in employees by having healthy and safe working conditions by having a family-friendly approach to employment by following the principle of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay and by ensuring a degree of certainty about receiving fair compensation in a redundancy situation. 
I repeat that this bill does not unlike what Mr Heatley said add any cost whatsoever to the employer. I am tired of sitting in this House and hearing or reading in the newspaper outlandish claims about what is happening. Those things are simply not true. It is simply not credible—even if we make allowance for stupidity—to make those outlandish claims in this House. Again I commend my colleague Mark Peck. He has had the foresight the compassion the sense of justice and the intelligence to bring this bill to the House to build on this Government’s delivery of fairness and justice so that we as a nation can hold our head high on the world stage and so that we can look our people in the eye and say we are committed to being fair and do not want to see people ripped off. We are also committed to saying to employers that we want to be fair to them and to support them in their businesses but we insist that it is fair that in insolvency situations workers have a fair place in the queue. I say to Mr Heatley that that is supported not only by Labour supporters and workers but also by businesses in New Zealand. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I congratulate my parliamentary colleague Mark Peck who sponsored this bill. It has arisen out of the bitter experiences that many workers have faced as a result of redundancies. I concur with the comments made and the situations explained by colleagues on this side of the House who have represented workers up and down the country. 
From personal experience I have witnessed the trauma and suffering caused when people lose their livelihood and the impact that it has on the individual the spouse the children and the wider family. Most New Zealanders understand that aspect because they have seen redundancies happening for a few decades in New Zealand. As a result of policies adopted at times in our history they have seen the closure of factories particularly in the meat industry and other industries. They have seen workers thrown on to the scrap heap and have witnessed the suffering not only of families but also the community and in many cases some of the rural towns that those people belong to. 
I want to talk about the meat industry which prompted my colleague Mark Peck to bring forward this bill. I particularly refer to the closure of the Weddel meatworks and also remind the country of the situation in the meat industry over the past 15 to 20 years. Many meatworkers will vouch for the fact that they were not responsible for those policies but paid the price. Those workers gave many many years of dedicated commitment to their companies but were thrown on to the scrap heap as a result of restructuring and policies that were adopted at the time. I am talking about the National Party Government lead by Rob Muldoon when we were paying supplementary minimum prices for lambs that we could not sell so had to turn that meat into tallow. The only way to sell it was to sell it as soap. As a result of some of those policies certain companies could not survive when the final crunch came. The workers paid the price for those policies and it was the workers who lost their jobs and their families suffered. 
I can tell the House now that some of those workers paid the price not only with psychological problems but also probably with a shortened lifespan as a result of that redundancy situation. I remind members this afternoon that we are talking about the very serious business of redundancy that ordinary New Zealanders—Maori European Pacific Islanders and Asians—suffer as a result of any business closure or insolvency. It is only right that the House should look at the priority to be given to workers who are in that unfortunate situation and their families and children in terms of a negotiated redundancy agreement already signed and sealed and of what is owed to the workers. We are not talking about payment for no work as Mr Heatley said but recognition and compensation for the many many years of service that those workers have given to the development of that particular industry. 
New Zealanders have come to understand that redundancy compensation is legitimate and justified. This bill provides that there is some minimum safeguard to ensure that workers line up and be given some priority with other creditors and as preferential creditors in an insolvency situation. Members of this House should support that safeguard as a minimum. 
Just lately Opposition members have been talking about fairness and Mr Brash has talked about fairness. But they should put their money where their mouth is. If they are really genuine about the issue of fairness they should also think about equality. We are talking about ordinary New Zealanders of different ethnic backgrounds who suffer the situation of redundancy. They should be given some fairness in the way they are treated and given priority in relation to redundancy compensation—that is well-earned compensation for many years of service to a particular company or workplace. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. The Commerce Committee has done a good job. It looks to increasing the cap on the employee priority. Again the member for Whangarei was wrong in relation to the $15000 cap because $15000 redundancy would have to represent significant years of service. In fact if we look at the normal 6:2 situations—that is 6 weeks for the first year of service and 2 weeks—people would be very lucky to get a 6:2 redundancy agreement. That payment for many years of service is actually a pittance. It only goes towards assisting in some small way the re-establishment of a family and the individual trying to find another job. That is a very minimal amount of money for the many years of service that workers give to their workplace. The $15000 cap that has been determined and recommended by the select committee is not some outlandish figure. It is a reasonable cap. The entitlement to redundancy is not enforced by this bill. It is still up to the employer the workers and their representatives to negotiate a fair redundancy agreement. That is still open in terms of that relationship. 
It is important that the Government sets a fair framework for those negotiations and a fair law to ensure that workers get a fair deal in terms of their employment and conditions of work. Redundancy and preparation for hopefully the unlikely situation of redundancy should be established on a fair basis. I believe that this bill sets a fair framework for workers to be given some priority in the situation of redundancy. It removes the current limit of $6000 on preferential claims made by an employee in a corporate insolvency under the Companies Act and is reasonable. 
The other recommendations that the select committee made are fair. If companies are in difficulties then to some extent the bill requires them to plan properly before they announce a closure. Companies need to look at ensuring that workers are included in the equation of how a closure will occur and how an insolvency situation will be dealt with rather than the company thinking it can get away with throwing workers on to the scrap heap without giving any consideration to matters of relocation and re-establishment. In particular there must be recognition of service and the upheaval to families and the price they will pay. Often children pay the price when there is loss of livelihood by a father or mother. 
From my personal experience as a secretary of a union that was involved in the closure of a meatworks involving nearly 1500 workers in Petone some 25 years ago I was proud to be associated with people who fought a good fight in terms of protecting the level of wages and conditions of the people in the meat industry. They did not kowtow to the demands of an unreasonable employer. The price they had to pay was the closure of their factory and to fight the good fight in terms of a redundancy deal. We know that Southdown freezing works was one of the first freezing works in New Zealand to close. A deal of 6:2 was established as a redundancy standard and I am proud to say that meatworkers at Gear Meat Processing Ltd fought a redundancy battle that resulted in their getting a level of redundancy that was at least comparable to that received by the Southdown workers during their dispute over redundancy. 
I am proud of the history of the workers who have fought for and actually established standards on the issue of redundancy not only for the meat industry but for other industries throughout New Zealand and for fighting for the interests and advancement of workers’ level of payment and compensation for redundancy. With regard to these issues I am proud to be representing here not only the Labour Party but also the labour movement. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Road Traffic Reduction Bill 
Second Reading 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Road Traffic Reduction Bill be now read a second time 
. I strongly support the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Road Traffic Reduction Bill not proceed because the bill has served its purpose. I am very happy at the extent to which its provisions have been incorporated or improved in the Land Transport Management Act passed last November. However I have moved that the bill be read a second time because the House needs the opportunity to debate what has happened to it and how its provisions are already having an effect. 
I remind the House that the bill was drafted in the year 2000 drawn from the ballot in May 2001 and had its first reading only in December 2002—the same week by coincidence that the Land Transport Management Bill was also read a first time. In the intervening period the Greens and the Government had worked together on the latter bill and incorporated into it many of the features of my own bill. Those that were not incorporated into the bill as introduced were added by the select committee considering the two bills together and I thank it for that. 
The purpose of the bill as stated is to provide for regional councils and the Minister of Transport to put in place measures to reduce motorised traffic and thereby enhance environmental quality and the health safety and well-being of people and communities. That purpose has been largely addressed in the new legislation. I do not need to remind the House of the economic social and environmental damage done by congestion crashes air pollution high and growing fuel use severance of communities and risks to children pedestrians and cyclists of our previous transport policies which were focused solely on encasing everything that needs to move inside a tonne of metal and putting it all on the same congested roads. That policy is now changed and it is providing for a multimodal integrated intelligent-mix of solutions. 
The bill provides in clause 6 for the national land transport strategy already mandated by the 1998 Act to provide for the reduction of motorised traffic. There has been no national strategy in the statutory sense for some years and there still is none. Frankly I think there should be. But what we do have now is the New Zealand transport strategy developed by the Government in partnership with the Greens. It sets a broader range of economic social and environmental goals for land transport. It covers all modes and it states that sustainability is paramount. This was a huge change of direction. 
I still hope that one day that strategy may evolve into the statutory strategy provided for in the 1998 Act and thereby acquire mandatory force. At present it is being used to guide transport developments so it is having an effect anyway. That change of direction is reflected in the purpose of the new Act which is an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system. Section 12 of the Act now requires land transport programmes at the regional and national levels to assist economic development assist safety and personal security improve access and mobility protect and promote public health and ensure environmental sustainability. 
Part 2 of my bill widens the mandate of Transfund New Zealand to provide funding for all modes of land transport so that it can fund rail and public transport as well as roads. It also requires Transit New Zealand to avoid significant or irreversible destruction to the environment existing communities and historic heritage when building its roads. Those matters are now provided for in sections 68 and 77 and schedule 6 of the Act. I look forward to an end to the cowboy behaviour that has sometimes bulldozed through sensitive wetlands poured spoil into coastal areas failed to track sediment from roadworks and generally failed to respect the environment through which roads must pass. That behaviour is no longer tolerated in Europe and it is good that from now on it will not be tolerated here either. 
Clause 7 of my bill requires Transfund and Transit to provide for the targets timetables and measures for the reduction of motorised traffic that are set out in the strategy. The language to express that idea has changed in the new Act and we now talk of “traffic demand management” rather than “road traffic reduction”. The meaning is exactly the same but it seems that we have hit on wording that people understand rather better. Maybe we will not get so many silly jokes about skateboards now. 
Schedule 6 of the Act requires regional land transport strategies to include demand management strategies and to have targets timetables and measures to implement those strategies. That was added by the select committee and supported by the House as a way of incorporating the intent of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill and I thank members for their support for those provisions. 
The new Act is already working and I have been delighted at the speed with which the language of transport planning has changed. There are real gains on the ground especially in Auckland where the most serious problems are. Although it will take a few years to undo the neglect of the past we are already seeing a 25 percent increase in passengers on public transport and an almost doubling of funding for passenger transport operations. The rail track has been brought back under public control which the Greens called for 3 years ago and it will be maintained and used to keep heavy freight and commuters off the roads. 
As the Minister said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
just last week: “We cannot simply motorway our way out of congestion. Congestion will only be cleared with a balanced approach involving all transport modes. Demand management is widely accepted in most OECD countries as a valid form of transport planning. Traffic demand management is about using existing roads more sensibly.” Those are wise statements by the Minister and I endorse them. 
We are seeing local government pick up and run with this part of the new Act and there are some exciting developments in North Shore City. The council there has employed six new school transport coordinators to work with schools families and trust boards to find alternative travel plans for pupils whose parents currently drive them to school. To make it easier for them to walk and cycle the council is looking at new pedestrian crossings safe cycle paths secure lockers and bike parking and supervised walking school buses. 
 The Auckland Regional Council says that already there are noticeable results. With that programme in place the children are fitter the air is cleaner parents have more free time traffic flows more freely and there is less congestion. We know that some 40 percent of peak-hour congestion is education-related. If we could even halve that through targeted school travel plans a lot of the worst congestion in Auckland would simply disappear. 
The Greens have a basic principle of doing more with less for longer of making better use of what we already have and of cutting out waste. We have contributed to that goal for energy with my Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act that was passed in 2000. We are proud to have done it for transport too with our cooperation agreement with the Government over the Land Transport Management Bill and with the trigger that this member’s bill has provided in the select committee. 
I thank the Minister for the work that we have done together and I thank Helen Duncan for her able and sympathetic chairing of the select committee. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill has served its purpose and I farewell it happily. RIP. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 First I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimmons and the Green Party on promoting ideas whose time has come—ideas that many in New Zealand scoffed at 3 or 4 years ago and are now saying are sensible. I remember that when I first became the Minister of Transport the Automobile Association visited—as it should—and obviously it was a very strong proponent of more roads and motorways and not particularly good on other forms of transport like public transport. So we challenged the association—the Associate Minister of Transport at the time Judith Tizard challenged it to find out whether its members agreed and in particular the people of Auckland about whom the association was most concerned. To the Automobile Association’s credit it did a professionally run survey which told it that the Auckland public wanted to see a mix of public transport and roading and alternatives to roading as the answer to Auckland’s transport problems. 
Members will now find that some of those people who were very strong on building more roads as the only solution have changed their tune dramatically and are not afraid to say so. I know that Auckland City and its mayor have been very strong proponents of more road-building and good on the mayor for saying so. But he has also accepted as the rest of Auckland has that there needs to be better public transport more people walking and a safe infrastructure for those things to occur. Those ideas have been incorporated by the Government—not only into law by way of the Land Transport Management Bill but put into action. Action is something that this side of the House knows about. 
Unfortunately the theorists on the other side have all sorts of weird and wonderful answers to these problems and I am sure that Maurice Williamson will rise to tell us what they are because he is National’s new spokesperson on transport. I know that not so long ago he was still telling all the local body people on the North Shore that “better transport” and “better roads” were the answer. I am sure he will tell us that in his speech just after me but sadly they are not. 
Not so long ago a report in Auckland newspapers stated that funding for walking school buses would be cut. The story turned out to be wrong—sometimes the media does pick up the wrong end of the stick—but there was a public outcry. People in Auckland said that would be terrible because they liked walking school buses. They demanded that the small amount of money that had been put into the project—which still has quite a few noughts on the end of it but is small in comparison to the cost of some of the roading projects—be continued very rapidly. The powers that be in Auckland said not to worry and that it would continue. Why? Because parents are grabbing the idea and saying that they do not want their kids going out on those congested roads and if they can get their children to school safely then that is a good thing. 
As all MPs in this House do I get the publications of Transit and Transfund. I am not sure how many members read them. Certainly nobody in the National Party probably does because they would not like this headline: “Biggest construction period in Auckland history gets under way”. I will come back to that in a minute but on the back of the January/February 2004 issue of  
Transfund News 
 is the news that 14 new walking and cycling projects have been approved—over $1.3 million worth of projects. Those projects are not just happening in Auckland and feeding the fears people have had that this Government has a focus on Auckland only. 
Manukau City will get $30000 and construction of an airport - to - Mangere Bridge cycleway. Anybody who goes to the airport in Auckland will know that there is a significant number of workers at the airport. It now has its own supermarket and Warehouse so the market recognises that there are a lot of people out there. There has always been a cycleway but not a particularly safe one that I would like to venture on to. That cycleway is getting $71000. 
I go to the Waipa district. Who would have dreamt that the Waipa district would have wanted a walking strategy but it will have one and it is being funded. In Taupo a control-gates bridge cycleway will be constructed costing $300000. National Party members joke about that but the National Party is so out of touch. Taupo used to be its heartland—did National not hold the Taupo seat once upon a time? It probably has not been there for such a long time because the people have rejected it. The people of Taupo say they want a cycleway. The Government did not say it would make Taupo have a cycleway. The people of Taupo through their local authority said that was what they wanted. 
If National Party politicians got out of their little enclaves every now and then and realised what the rest of New Zealand already realises they would see that Ohope which I think is in Tony Ryall’s seat will get $30000 for a road cycleway. A safe cycle route is to be constructed along State Highway 2 and so on. There is a list so maybe National Party members could get this pamphlet out of the piles of papers in their offices they never read. They would see that New Zealanders welcome a mix of solutions to transport. 
Yes they do want roads but the National Party will not like this: “Construction is about to begin on two of Auckland’s most significant motorway projects. Celebrations were combined”—so much is going on that there have to be combined celebrations on some projects—“for the start of stage 2 of the central motorway junction.” Everyone in Auckland knows what a shambles “Spaghetti Junction” is—left completely by the National Party. It thought that the concrete with the steel sticking out of it was artwork that Transit did when it started to build the motorway. We know different. In fact it was uncompleted work. 
I could not find a single piece of motorway infrastructure in Auckland that has Maurice Williamson’s or Jenny Shipley’s name on a plaque opening it. There is nothing. As the Minister of Transport I even opened the Albany to Puhoi realignment which is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who started it? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: And who finished it? So those proud road builders over there cannot find a single piece of motorway in Auckland that they completed in 9 long years of Government. They then criticise this Government for activity on things like tolling. In 9 long years National did not pass a single bit of legislation that enabled local bodies throughout the country to make that decision for themselves and for the local people to say they wanted that road. 
They all mock the stuff that the Green Party has talked about. They do not like the idea that public transport use in New Zealand since we have been Government has increased by 24.9 percent and that we have doubled in 4 years the spending on public transport that Maurice Williamson froze for 5 years. Why? Because more people are using buses trains and ferries and there will be even more. 
We have a funding system that does not reward people for doing nothing but rewards them by giving them extra money for more bums on seats. It is called patronage-based funding and companies like Stagecoach cannot invest quickly enough in new buses in New Zealand. They cannot believe the growth their company is getting because there is a Government with vision that says it must build more roads and they must be safe roads and they have to have some alternatives built into them so that there can be busways cycleways and walkways. That makes them multimodal and gives safe options to people who want to get on their bikes or their feet and walk places and not just use their cars. 
This Government has the vision it has the legislation and it has the action that the poor old National Party just cannot stand looking at. Those members must put on their blinkers dark glasses and everything else as they drive back to their homes in Auckland and say: “I cannot stand the look of this. The Government has actually done something when we sat on our backsides for 9 years and did nothing except freeze public transport spending and watch the road toll go through the roof.” There were not enough police on the roads. 
When I became the Minister in 1999 it was a terrible portfolio to take over such was the neglect of the National Government. There was not even a national transport strategy; there was nothing. There were regional ones but the Government of Maurice Williamson was too lazy to even have a strategy let alone to build anything. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 What a golden opportunity Mr Gosche presents to us in the National Party with a speech like that! First of all the celebration of the most minute trivia on the back of the latest Transfund New Zealand newsletter was the centrepiece of his speech. The fact that there are now three people in Cornwall Park on bikes who were not there before is something that Mr Gosche has to grab at and come to this House to celebrate. I want him to know that the people of Auckland will be delighted to hear that speech as they sit in their cars locked blocked and stopped tomorrow morning and going nowhere. 
To hear that speech from Mr Gosche one would think Auckland’s transport problem was all fixed. One would think it was all OK. He is even holding up a picture of something. Mr Gosche has clearly not been back to Auckland for a while. One would think that the Labour Government had fixed it all and that one could cruise into the city whenever one liked and back again. Well I have news for members. Congestion is actually much worse than it has ever been and it is getting worse by the day. I will tell this House right now that with the lame limp-wristed wimpish package that has been announced so far congestion in Auckland will be worse 5 years from now—I am happy to put a bet on it. I am happy to put a bet with any member from the Government side who wants to from my own money and of whatever sum the member likes that congestion will be worse in Auckland then. 
A bill like the one we are debating tonight does nothing but make me laugh when it states its purpose is to reduce road usage by getting people out of their cars and on to walking tracks and bicycles. Now that is a very nice thought. In theory I would love to be able to bike to work. Unfortunately I work in Wellington. I have to go to the airport and I do not think cycling or walking from Pakuranga each day is even a slight option. The same applies to the vast majority of people in Auckland who have to cover big distances to go to work and who have to go to two or three different locations during the course of the day to pick up kids go to supermarkets and so on. What an insult it is for Mr Gosche to tell Aucklanders he is putting a bill in to the House to fix their problem and that he wants them all to get out of their cars and start using cycles. 
I think the greatest irony of all the stuff about that from the Greens was what happened during nearly every election campaign that occurred while I was transport Minister. I used to love it— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How long was that for? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Six glorious years when the south-eastern arterial— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: And you did nothing. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The member does not even know about the south-eastern arterial route that was built during my time as the Minister. It is in the member’s own electorate and—[ 
Interruption 
] No but we funded it. He says the Auckland City Council built it. He does not even know that Transfund funded it—and it is in his own electorate. That is tragic; it is sad. I will leave the member alone because it is not fair to badger a man who does not even know who funded roading in his own electorate. That is just not fair. [ 
Interruption 
] This may not be a point of order. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is misleading the House by indicating that the Government built that road while he was the Minister. It was a local road built by Manukau City Council ratepayers. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I quite properly pointed out that it would not be a point of order. However I will return to the election campaign meetings because I used to love them. I used to love them as transport Minister. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What year? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I can tell the member—1996 1993 and 1999. I will tell members what happened. I would go to a number of public meetings and there would be the Greens. One could spot them; there was something about them. I do not know whether it was because they had been sprayed or whatever it was but one could spot them in their kaftans sandals and so on. They would be into me saying that we must have people using public transport bikes and walkways. I think that concept has some merit provided it is a viable alternative and I do hope people think about it. But no the Greens wanted that to be mandated. They wanted it to be mandated and they wanted legislation that would drive people to do that—just as this bill does. 
Before the meetings I would get somebody who was with me to have a watch around the car-park to check who had arrived and how they had come to the meetings. Then at the end of a meeting after I had already had some verification of it I would ask how many of all the people there had come to that night’s meeting using public transport Shanks’s pony or a pushbike. And we never had one! Do members know what the Greens used to say at those meetings? They would say they could not do so because they had another meeting to go to. So it was always other people who should be doing that—not the Greens—because they had a good reason for bringing gas-guzzling smoke-belching old cars into the car-park. Some of the cars they drove were an absolute disgrace but no no—they had to do that. 
I say to the Greens that if this Government is serious about congestion problems in Auckland then I want them to listen to what I am about to read to them. This is a story about a man who would be the most left-wing politician to be found in Britain. 
Darren Hughes 
: John Banks? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Hughes should just listen to this. It is not often that he will learn something—tonight he may. The man’s name is Mayor Ken Livingstone—“Red Ken” the Labour Party - endorsed candidate for the mayoralty of London again—and he is the arch left-winger. The story states: “A year after congestion charging zones were established in London Mayor Ken Livingstone is to kick-start a process aimed at doubling the areas now covered. Despite indications that he was harbouring doubts over expanding the scheme into Kensington and Chelsea he will this week begin a consultation exercise on the issue right throughout London.” Now I ask members to listen to this stuff: “Transport for London is surveying 3.3 million households and 250 businesses canvassing opinion expansion of the project which will cost about £100 million. It is thought that Livingstone’s enthusiasm for the initiative has been rekindled by the predictions that he will win decisively a victory and a lot of his coming victory in the mayoralty is based on what he has achieved.” Here it goes: “His political stock has rarely been higher than now at a time when the volume of traffic entering the capital has reached its lowest level for around four decades. Cities all over the world which have been watching the experiment with scepticism are now taking an active interest and even beginning to copy it. The success of the £5 congestion charge at relieving traffic jams in central London is generally and in some cases grudgingly accepted as being very successful. Cars entering the zone have dropped by around 50000 a day—about a 38 percent drop in cars into the centre. Average speeds on five key routes inside the area have risen by more than threefold.” 
So if this Labour Government wants any indication about how to fix Auckland’s problems I ask Labour members to please stop getting up in the House and telling members about the three cyclists who are now going through Cornwall Park or about the two people who are using the Bucklands Beach walkway—all of which I really welcome. But if one talks about celebrating the minutiae that has to be the best example of doing so. What Auckland has to have—and have sooner not later—is the completion of its arterial roading network. Nothing else will do for the public of Auckland. The Government tells motorists that in 10 or 15 years’ time they will get something yet Auckland will still be congested. 
I want to finish the last couple of minutes of my speech with a question for the Labour Party. Labour needs to be a bit careful. It will need to have its research unit really working overtime now because what it will have to do is to go back and check some of the speeches—and I have kept some of them—and some of the statements that some Labour members used to make about the evils of tolling. They said the roads were free and have always been free. They said the Queen’s highways were free and that dreadful Tory Government of Williamson and so on wanted— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: And you are going to sell it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No this has nothing to do with selling roads and there was never a proposal to sell any roads—never. What we were proposing—[ 
Interruption 
] There was never a proposal to sell roads. We proposed tolling and that was described as very evil. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all right Mr Speaker. I do not mind those members having a crack because it shows that they are vulnerable. The Labour members just thought tolling was evil and said they would not have a bar of it. They went to the battlements at the 1999 election and told people that if they voted for Labour it would never allow the travesty—the evil—of tolling that Williamson wanted. I want to hear from the next Labour speaker tonight whether he or she still thinks that. Do Labour members still think tolling is evil? Do they still think it is a disgrace and that the roads should be free? 
What about the private sector? Harry Duynhoven has just interjected that we were going to sell the roads. Actually we were not. We were talking about getting the private sector involved in participation. What about the private sector now? Will we allow it to participate now? Let us hear from the next Labour speaker about private sector participation in roading because if we do not have such participation Auckland will have a $3 billion shortfall in fixing its problems over the next 10 years. There is about $3 billion missing when one adds up Infrastructure Auckland’s money Transit New Zealand’s debt funding the current Transfund regime and the new December package. When one adds all that up it is about $3.5 billion short of the total cost of Auckland’s roading projects on the best estimates. So what will have to happen? The private sector will have to be involved. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And he nodded. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am never sure whether in the member’s case that means he is just nodding off. That member often just nods off. I want one of the Labour members to tell us whether that is what will happen. Will we see the private sector involved? Will we see tolling? I will be fascinated to hear the answer to that. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 That speech was really a doozy was it not? To hear Maurice Williamson talk one would think that he had actually done something about the roads when all of us here in this Chamber know that he did nothing. He did not introduce private sector funding of roads. He did not introduce any ability for private sector firms to be involved in roads at all. I think we had better buy him a couple of gross of Twink pens because he is rewriting history at such a rate that he will need them. That speech was absolutely unbelievable. But the reality is that everybody knows that for the 6 years he was Minister of Transport and for the 9 years that party was in Government they did absolutely nothing. The mess that this Government inherited in Auckland’s roads is attributable—not entirely but in no small measure—to the stewardship of that party and of Maurice Williamson. 
Seriously now I thank my Green Party colleagues Jeanette Fitzsimons and Mike Ward for their work on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we were considering the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which we considered in concert with the Land Transport Management Bill. It was really interesting being on that select committee and listening to the submissions that came in. The submissions fell into three lots. There were those people who took a balanced view and said that yes we do need to do a variety of things on our roads to make sure that we deal with the problems. They were concerned to look at traffic reduction or the management of traffic on our roads. Then there were the people—mainly Green supporters—who do not have a lot of time for cars on roads and who really wanted us to move quite strongly on alternative means of transport. Then there were the—mainly—business submitters who started their submissions by saying they did not want to talk about the Road Traffic Reduction Bill because it was a load of rubbish and they did not agree with anything in it. They would then go on to talk about the Land Transport Management Bill. 
When the questions started committee members suggested to those submitters that there should be a two-pronged approach to the problem and that maybe there would be some benefit in demand management. When they were asked that question they all agreed that yes there would be some benefit in demand management and that there were things that could be done to improve the volume of traffic on our roads and to improve the way in which people and city councils deal with the traffic. But though they could see that we had to drag it out of them by questioning. When those people were asked direct questions they had to admit that as well as the building of roads there are other strategies that need to be implemented and in fact we need to do what the land transport strategy states. We need to take an integrated approach to transport and we need to look at a variety of ways of dealing with the issues that are raised. 
On the North Shore there is a real problem with traffic—in Onewa Road for example where the road comes down to meet the motorway. But the passenger funding that was put in place by this Government increased passenger transport use down Onewa Road—the people using the buses—by 27 percent. That is really good because it means that if there are fewer people going by car—one to a car—but 30 or 40 people going by bus down that road then the traffic congestion is reduced. That has got to be good in terms of the cost of transport and of having to develop roads and it means that we can look at alternative strategies. 
The intent of the bill was to get transport decision makers to consider traffic demand management as well as the support of transport infrastructure. The bill required the Minister of Transport and regional councils to develop targets timetables and measures for the reduction of motorised traffic. That was intended to result in an increase in support for public transport walking and cycling at the expense of major roading projects. The second part of the bill was designed to broaden the mandates of Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. The Land Transport Management Act provided for that which has made Part 2 of this bill redundant. But the Government has worked with the Green Party to look at ways in which its objectives could be met through the land transport strategy. We managed to reach an accommodation—a meeting of minds if one likes—on the ways in which the Greens’ objectives could be met by the land transport strategy and by incorporating some of those ideas into the Land Transport Management Act so that it was a win-win situation. I do not mean just a win-win situation for the Government and the Greens but a win-win situation for the people of New Zealand—particularly of Auckland where I come from and where transport problems are causing a great deal of difficulty on the roads around there. 
This Government has taken a broad-ranging look at the transport needs of the country and a broad view of what needs to be done to improve them. For a start one of our key objectives has been the development of the New Zealand land transport strategy. It represents a fundamental change in the way that we deal with transport in New Zealand as it is the first time that all modes of transport—road rail sea and air—have been looked at in an integrated and a long-term way. The strategy has five main objectives. It is designed to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security to improve access and mobility to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. I am sure everybody in this House would agree that those are admirable objectives. 
 The Land Transport Management Act signalled a new era for the planning and operation of this country’s transport infrastructure. The legislation ensured greater consistency in the long-term planning of the networks a more integrated transport infrastructure and a multimodal approach to the sector and it will also provide new mechanisms for the funding of roads. As I said to Mr Williamson at the start of this speech this Government has made it possible for the private sector to be involved in the provision of roads if it wishes if there are protections in place to ensure that there are alternative free routes for those people who do not wish or cannot afford to pay tolls and if the projects are in the public’s interest. 
I will finish by giving members a personal anecdote. In 1985 I was living in England and the M25 was opened—the outer ring road around London. It was marvellous. We would get on to the ring road from north London where I was living and drive right around London even though it was further to drive than the other roads because it was so easy to get to our destination. In 1989 I went back to London and stayed at my daughter’s place. We were going to north London and I said to her that we would just take the M25. She said: “For heaven’s sake Mum do you want to be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 hours?”. That was the difference. In 4 years that road had gone from being a quick and an efficient method of moving around London to being just a huge traffic jam. It had become absolutely congested. The reality is that if we just concentrate on building roads we do not solve traffic problems. We need roads—of course we do—and Labour does its best as the Government to provide new and vital traffic links. But the reality is that a multifaceted approach is needed in order to solve the transport problems of this country. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If the member who has just resumed her seat thinks that the Government is on track to solve New Zealand’s transport problems I say to her that she is woefully out of touch with the problem. We have major problems when it comes to moving vehicles—trucks cars and what have you—on our roads because roads have not kept pace with traffic demands traffic numbers traffic volumes and vehicle types. We had better start thinking seriously about how we will address that problem or it will get worse. 
The former Minister of Transport gave a lot of credit to the Greens for the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Claluse 4 states that the purpose of Part 1 is “to provide for regional councils and the Minister of Transport to put in place measures to reduce motorised traffic and thereby enhance environmental quality and the health safety and well-being of people and communities.” 
This bill will not reduce traffic; nor will the Land Transport Management Act which the Green Party claims takes on board what this bill sets out to do. I would wager with anybody in this House that every area in this country will see increased traffic volumes car numbers and vehicle numbers every year. New Zealanders like the independence that a car provides them with. Trucking is the most effective method of transporting cargo from place to place in this country. Unless we start building roads we will suffer economically and many people will die in the process. 
Our roads are inadequate—in some areas they are woefully inadequate. We have 92000 kilometres of roading in this country and only 60-something percent is tar-sealed. The former Minister of Transport made reference to congestion charges in London. London is half the size in area of Auckland with about 12 times the population. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So? 
PETER BROWN 
: Well think about it. We do not have the problems that London has. We are way short of them. If we built decent roads in Auckland—if both former transport Ministers had really wanted to address the problems—we would have a roading project going on here like nobody’s business. To stand up and read a few pamphlets and say that this is what they will do and that there is record building this year is absolutely disgraceful. The former Minister of Transport the Hon Maurice Williamson knows that the roads built while he was Minister were not of sufficient number—length volume whatever—and Mark Gosche should have known the same whilst he was Minister. This Government uses petrol motorists in particular as a cash cow as did previous Governments. Whilst that attitude prevails we will never get anywhere. We will get more congestion more problems and more people dying as a result of inadequate roading. 
If anybody on the other side of the House thinks that public transport will solve the problem I say that it will reach saturation point pretty quickly too. Unless public transport is reliable comfortable affordable effective—in other words can get there in a reasonable time frame—and provides a regular service it will fail. I congratulate the previous Minister Mark Gosche on at least injecting more funding into public transport and opening the door for its expansion. But please do not say that it will be the saviour of Auckland or indeed anywhere else. We are too small a country and New Zealanders love their cars. I love my car. I have two of them and I get a distinct pleasure in driving—not in Auckland but generally elsewhere it is a pleasurable activity. I say very seriously that if we do not start building roads that are safe and well designed for the well-being of this country we will suffer as a result. 
This bill is gobbledygook; it is twaddle; it is rubbish. The only credit one could possibly give it is that it did get some consideration in the Land Transport Management Act. However I think the Land Transport Management Act would have been all the better without this. This is negative thinking but it should be no surprise. The Green Party which has Mike Ward as transport spokesperson—I have nothing personal against him—would be the only party that puts up a transport spokesperson who cannot drive a car has never driven a car and is not interested in driving a car. He is the transport spokesman for the Greens. No wonder they came up with this twaddle. 
Ron Mark 
: He couldn’t pass a licence. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think he is interested in passing a licence. One thing that the Hon Mark Gosche implied which I would like to challenge him on was that the Automobile Association was against public transport. I do not know who he spoke to in the Automobile Association but as far as I am concerned ever since I have been in Parliament I have had reasonable ongoing dealings with that organisation and I have never known anyone from the Automobile Association to come out firmly against public transport. I believe that that should be corrected. There was I think a little bit of straying from the truth because the Automobile Association although it represents motorists is not on record anywhere to my knowledge as being against public transport. In fact my personal belief is that it would have encouraged better use and better provision of public transport for many years. 
In summary we are bogged down with red tape the Resource Management Act and lack of money. I think the Transit 10-year plan wants $8 billion and even that will not be enough if one listens to some experts. It will not cover the road building that has to go on in the Bay of Plenty and in Tauranga in particular—they need $500 million there. People are playing ducks and drakes over whether they will get the finances. But motorists have paid plenty for roading. It is about time that we injected sufficient capital into roading recognised that it is woefully inadequate in general terms across the country and addressed the problem comprehensively. If as Labour is saying walking cycling and public transport will be our saviour and the Governmentis going to rely on that to save the situation let me tell members the Government will be coming out with egg on its face and plenty of it. 
If this was not so serious it would be funny. We would be one of the few countries in the world that depend on exports and imports and the movement of cargo and people and we treat our roading in such a frivolous manner. I believe it has reached a crisis point in terms of finances being injected into roading and I do not think that with the best will in the world we will do it without being able to borrow more money. The Government should take note that we need to inject capital in large doses into roading not only in Auckland but in other areas. From listening to the two former transport Ministers one would think we were talking only about Auckland but we are talking about the whole country. We need to inject money in sufficient doses and we will have to borrow money to achieve that. I believe that if the Government really had a will to address the issue it would be thinking along those lines. 
It is no good playing politics with this issue. It affects everybody in this country—everybody. We all get in our cars buses trains or whatever and we need to be moved here there and everywhere. Everything we consume is transported and most of it comes or goes by truck. I listened to the two former transport Ministers and I thought they took this issue very light-heartedly. It was almost like a comic opera and that saddened me. 
New Zealand First is on record as wanting something done about the roads in this country and we want it done urgently. I hope the Government takes note. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Helen Duncan says the Greens do not like cars. It is not that we do not like them we just do not like the things they do. I do not know how to drive but my wife has a car. My father gave her his car. I asked my father whether he meant that he wanted me to use my money to keep his car going after he died. 
Our cities were designed around the car. It takes a special effort in fact to live without a motorcar. Most Greens own a motorcar. Most people own a motorcar. It is difficult to live without one. One has to make other choices. This bill is an attempt to make those other choices possible to make them easier to access. Peter Brown made the point that our roads are woefully inadequate. If we build more of them we will wind up with more woefully inadequate roads. Peter Brown also mentioned that bus services needed to be affordable regular and comfortable. That is the purpose of this legislation. Peter Brown also said that driving is a pleasurable activity. It could be it can be but much of the time it is not. If this bill is successful and we trust it will be it will make driving a more pleasurable activity for those people who have to drive who have no other choice. 
Peter Brown says we would be one of the few countries in the world that treat our transport in such a frivolous manner. The kinds of measures in this legislation are not cutting edge. They happen in Europe they happen in many other parts of the world and I will talk about some of those. But the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is an interesting document. It is a hate it or love it document. There were not too many lukewarm submissions. Some referred to the bill as being anti-business. Rural communities appeared to believe that the passage of the bill would oblige them to get their stock to the works by bicycle or public transport. Others saw it as the death knell of the motorcar. They would be prised out of their prized autos and forced to walk or sit next to someone else—heaven forbid—on a bus or in a carpool. They seemed always to say they would be sweating as well. That was one other thing. 
The bill of course proposes none of these things. It is a very practical element in any modern transport strategy. It recognises that making cars easier to own faster and more comfortable and building more roads to accommodate them has not made it easier to move people or products or reduced travel times. The perception of those who opposed the bill was that more cars are inevitable—Peter Brown is typical of this—and that people were not about to change their travelling habits. Such a perception fails to account for those who cannot drive yet; those who are too young too old or too disabled to drive; those who choose not to drive; or the vast majority of us who already use a variety of means of getting around of which the motorcar is but one. 
The “more cars are inevitable” mindset also fails to acknowledge cities like Wellington where over 20 percent of the people entering the city each day have already made the choice to come by public transport and many others have decided to walk. In Western Australia the TravelSmart scheme identified 40 percent of the population who were already making an effort to travel wisely and the 40 percent who were likely to be persuaded to leave their cars at home. In one year traffic volumes reduced by 17 percent. If the Western Australians can do it New Zealanders can do it. 
Supportive submissions came from groups as diverse as cycling advocates public health authorities local authorities and trade unions. Sometimes that support was qualified but generally it recognised that even if it were possible to solve transport problems by building more roads such a strategy failed to address the numerous negative consequences. The Waitakere City Council stated in its submission: “If we are able to deliver high-quality living environments to our people we need to be able to manage and reduce the demand for motorised travel.” While many groups appeared to believe that the bill would undermine business the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions supported the bill and stated that it was interested in traffic solutions that ensured affordable public transport options. The council acknowledged that a reduction in road traffic would confer real social advantages particularly in safety and health and that in fact it would be good for regional development. 
Stacey Gasson from Johnsonville identified the health risks imposed by motorcars and the new sedentary lifestyles. People who climb into motorcars do not exercise. They do get fatter they do get ill they do get cardiovascular disease they do get Type 2 diabetes and they also threaten those who would choose to cycle or walk. 
The Public Health Association of New Zealand and the Auckland District Health Board supported the purpose of the bill and the measures to enhance environmental quality in the health safety and well-being of people in communities. The Auckland District Health Board particularly commented on the estimated 253 people who die prematurely each year from exposure to vehicle fumes. They also point out the use of rewards and penalties that encourage good behaviour like the Onewa Road fast lane in Northcote whereby drivers can travel in that lane if they have more than three people in their car. So communities are already making smart moves to get people to get out of their cars or share their cars. 
The Cycling Advocates Network points out that many of its members are also motorists. While they acknowledge that there is a considerable benefit to cyclists in the Road Traffic Reduction Bill the bill can have benefits for all road users including time benefits for those who continue to make trips in motor vehicles and that during rush hours cyclists regularly arrive at a destination before motorists who are making similar journeys. I might add that yesterday I travelled in from the airport. I came on my tricycle. I left 5 minutes after Ian Ewen-Street left in his taxi. He was actually bringing my bags in. I had 10 minutes to wait after I got here before he arrived. It took me quarter of an hour less to get in from the airport on a tricycle. I had to go via the waterfront I might add. He came through the tunnel. 
The Cycling Advocates Network points out to “the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is anti-business” lobby that shifting people and goods on to other modes of transport— for example public transport and rail—enables goods and services that must travel by road to do so more conveniently. It also points out that regular commuter challenges such as the ones held in Christchurch consistently show that cycling is the fastest option door to door during rush hour for typical work journeys. There has also been the view that such a bill while laudable in its aims is not at all practical in terms of being able to succeed because of our ever-increasing growth in traffic demand. This misses the point that these traffic projections are always based on extrapolating historical trends as a result of traditional pro - motor vehicle policies which the bill aims to change. Such trends have been successfully overturned overseas and with general public acceptance. There is no reason why a similar approach cannot succeed in New Zealand. For example the TravelSmart programme in Western Australia which I mentioned before achieved a 17 percent reduction in car use over the space of 1 year. That is an amazing drop in vehicle volumes. If we do that in Auckland the traffic will move smoothly all the time. A close-to-home example that members of the select committee may well be familiar with he says is the drop in traffic congestion during school holidays. The incorporation in the Land Transport Management Act is a good outcome. 
For those who believe that the bulk of submissions oppose the bill I would point out that the submissions process is not a popularity poll. If making decisions were simply about counting heads our job would be unnecessary. Our task is to listen to our communities to weigh up the arguments and to come to decisions that accommodate those valid arguments. Many of those opposing the bill when pushed simply rejected the idea of compulsion. The bill does not talk about compulsion. The Land Transport Management Act is a much better piece of legislation because of the inclusion of the principles of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill has resulted in transport legislation that just might begin to address the absurdity of vast numbers of people sitting in motor vehicles on their own travelling very slowly—night and morning—to and from places they should have chosen to live much closer to in the first place. I am delighted that this bill has in fact been incorporated into the larger Land Transport Management Act and I look forward to a future in which we start to live in a way that is a little more within the capacity of the planet to provide and gives ourselves more time to enjoy the process. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill and what it subsequently became absorbed by—the Land Transport Management Bill—have a very interesting history for those of us who care to remember back to when all of this came up and how we ended up with what we have now. This goes back to certain prime-mover status public-private partnerships and Dr Ross Armstrong. Is that ringing a few bells right now? A few dinners? I remember going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and asking for a select committee inquiry into what had gone on with Dr Ross Armstrong and the public-private partnerships and I drew up the terms of reference. Why was that inquiry not allowed? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Because the Greens opposed it. Why did the Greens oppose it? Well coincidence coincidence—a week later we had Jeanette Fitzsimons announcing with the Prime Minister the introduction of the Land Transport Management Bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: Shock horror! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It will be shock horror when the taxpayers find out just how much they have had taken from them by certain people to do with that nasty little episode which we have not heard the last of yet. 
Jill Pettis 
: Will you write about it? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: No I will not need to write about it because there are other people in other parties who have a lot more information than I have. This bill is not really about reducing traffic on the roads it is really about telling other people what is good for them. Jeanette Fitzsimons has said that she is pleased to farewell the bill because even though road traffic reduction is no longer mentioned in the Land Transport Management Bill her own words said that that now has become “transport demand management”. 
People in the Labour Government accuse us in the Opposition of not being in favour of traffic demand management. Well that is absolutely incorrect. We are in favour of traffic demand management but we talk about things like congestion tolling and network tolling. What is more environmentally sensitive than congestion tolling? It is one of the best things that can be done to reduce car emission because people can choose not to drive when it is more expensive and it is more expensive when the roads are congested. 
Could we get that through the select committee? No that could not be brought into the bill. We could not have that. Could we have network tolling to solve Auckland’s traffic problems? Sure building more motorways straight through a city that is a long narrow isthmus is not going to solve the problems. We need ring roads; we need a whole new system which has been on the books for the last 30 years but nothing gets done about it. And nothing will get done about it with the Land Transport Management Bill. 
If this Government and the Greens really wanted to solve the problems with transport in Auckland and in the rest of the country they would do something about the Resource Management Act. As I said what is more polluting than idling traffic stuck in traffic jams? Look at the northern motorway extension. That has been held up for how long—10 years now 12 years? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who was in Government? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well this Government should fix it. It is no use just saying: “Who was in Government?”. This Government had the chance to fix it with the Land Transport Management Bill but we have already called it the bill of wasted opportunities. It is no good sitting there asking who could have fixed it; this Government should fix it. Under the Resource Management Act the northern motorway has been held up because one person is objecting. Dr Wendy Pond has held it up. She does not even live in Auckland she lives in the Coromandel and she has held it up because of native fish. Under the Resource Management Act those fish are considered more important than people’s lives. There are now Transit signs all along that road saying “danger area” and “high accident area”. I went up and down that road just last weekend on my way to and from Puhoi. People have died waiting for that road to be built. 
Also the extension over the Auckland Harbour Bridge has been held up because of five nesting birds that have to be relocated at the expense of the economy. Then we have the fiasco that occurred during the Auckland to Hamilton road-building project. It was held up under the Resource Management Act—which needs to be thrown out if the Land Transport Management Act is ever going to work—because of Maori spiritual values because of taniwha in a certain bend of the road. This happened under a godless Government with a Prime Minister who talks about us being a secular society. But somehow Maori spiritual values are OK and Christian spiritual values have no worth at all. The motorway ploughed through the Bolton Street Cemetery with no regard for Christian spiritual values there. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons happily says goodbye to this bill. I respect her because at least she is principled—she believes in what she has put up here. But if this Government really cared about pollution it would be pro-automobile not anti-automobile and that is what this bill is. It is anti-automobile. The car represents individual freedom. It is all very well to talk about increasing the use of public transport and we can all use it when we choose but it is interesting to me that the people who have talked so loudly about biking all use cars. How many times do we drive along and see bikes attached to the back of cars or on top of cars. Bicycles are fine walking is fine—one of the members over there talked about walking to work every day and some of us run to work—but that is never suitable for a mother. How can a mother with four children at four different schools who has to pick them up from school go to work drop them off take them to soccer take them to ballet and take them to rugby do all of that on public transport? It is just not possible. 
Today the car is much more accessible to New Zealanders. Most families have two cars and it is ironic for Mark Gosche who was the Minister of Transport when this bill was introduced to proudly say that more people are using buses. Well of course they would be in places like Timaru because this Government is busy closing down schools and shoving kids on to buses to travel an hour each way. So many children have been thrown on to buses down in Timaru that the police have been stopping the buses and taking children off because of overcrowding. 
Why is a bus by nature safer than a car? It is on the same road and it has got the same factor of human error. Mike Ward says that he does not mind cars he just does not like what cars do but then he did not go on to say what the car does. 
This bill as Jeanette Fitzsimons said has been absorbed into the Land Transport Management Bill and that is why she is happy to kiss it goodbye. The Land Transport Management Bill is just another example of how this Government is giving special treatment to Maori—special treatment based on race. They think it is funny but it is a patronising arrogant attitude. The Land Transport Management Bill means that people will have to consult iwi and other affected communities. Are iwi not part of the community? Are iwi going to be treated like aliens by this Government? This legislation will not facilitate one extra kilometre of New Zealand roads. If we are going to get New Zealand back up into the top half of the OECD—another broken promise by this Government just like looking after rural schools—we have to get Auckland the engine room of New Zealand working. The way this Government could start doing that would be to stop spending a lot of the money it takes off motorists in user-charges stop spending it on all its fancy schemes—like have having photographs taken with movie stars and pouring money into movie moguls from California—and spend it on fixing some of the roads. 
I did not actually agree with Mr Peter Brown when he said we need to tar-seal every single road in New Zealand. Just because a road is not tar-sealed it does not mean it is not safe. There are some places that do not need their roads tar-sealed and that is how Transfund used to operate. It used to operate on a cost-benefit basis. But now it is required to take all these other areas into account. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I want to start my speech by commending Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens for all the work the principles and the philosophies behind the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Road traffic congestion is a major problem and I say that as an Aucklander and in fact as a very proud west Aucklander. All Aucklanders know that we need a solution and Auckland’s congestion problems are New Zealand’s congestion problems. This Government knows that one size does not fit all. We are not all the same. The solution has to be an integrated transport system. The Labour-led Government since 1999 has done more for New Zealand’s transport infrastructure than any other previous Government in over 20 years. 
Some people believed that by legislating to remove private cars from busy roads the problem could be fixed. We knew that would not work and we saw things differently. Encouraging users of transport towards using a more effective and better public transport system by having better networks and better infrastructure such as bus and rail would have a much better outcome. Sure we need roads but we also need to use other transport modes. Both Auckland and the regions have been calling out for more transport funding. 
The key issues that were in the Road Transport Reduction Bill have been addressed with the recently passed Land Transport Management Act. Under the New Zealand Transport Strategy which has been developed with the Greens we have seen a fundamental change in the way we deal with transport in New Zealand. The vision for transport—and I think it is a very good vision—is that by 2010 New Zealand will have an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system. This is really exciting stuff. The strategy aims to ensure that transport can contribute to the Government’s objective to return New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD while also improving our communities and our environment. 
The New Zealand Transport Strategy represents a really new way of looking at things. For the first time we are looking at all modes of transport: road rail sea and air. To this end it has five main objectives: to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security to improve access and mobility to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. 
I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and heard many submissions. I congratulate everybody who was committed enough to submit on this bill and they include businesses groups unions councils and individuals. They did not all agree on what the best solution was. Some of them were like Peter Brown; they love cars and find it hard in their leisure time to not be doing something with them—driving them cleaning them repairing them or even taking their photograph. But every submitter accepted that there was not only one solution and that there were real benefits in persuading people that public transport and other initiatives were absolutely crucial to the overall solution. 
Again the National Party is running the same old “one size fits all” line. Its answer has to be roads roads and more roads. We know that a key part of the solution—and we are doing it; we are not just griping about it—is investing for growth. Our growing economy and population requires increased investment. This package will contribute to that. It strikes a balance between a catch-up for Auckland and the need for the rest of the country to develop further infrastructure. 
There is new investment of nearly $297 million per year for land transport initiatives—almost $3 billion over 10 years. All revenue from the increased fuel excise levy will be used to fund land transport initiatives. The revenue will be distributed regionally on a population basis so that every region will get an increase in funding and local bodies will be allowed to borrow and toll. 
Let us look at rail. Last year we opened Britomart and what an event that was. The Labour-led Government has invested in rail by buying back the Auckland rail corridor. In my own electorate we are celebrating the event of double-tracking. It is going to deliver and it is going to deliver west Aucklanders to where they want to go. We have waited a long time for it. Since 2000 the number of journeys taken on passenger transport has increased by nearly 25 percent and we have seen some major initiatives during that time. Central government funding for passenger transport has almost doubled from $36.3 million in 1998-99 to over $71 million in 2002-03. This financial year the national land transport programme has allocated $96 million to public transport. That is good for Auckland and good for New Zealand. For the first time we see that we have a big picture around transport showing work on all our transport initiatives under way. We have all seen it; Mark Gosche spoke very eloquently on that. 
There is road maintenance construction and passenger alternatives—I will talk about those later—and walking and cycling strategies. Transfund allocated almost $1.2 billion last year which is an increase of a whopping 8 percent. There has never been more funding available in New Zealand for transport and there will be more. I want to commend Mike Ward who spoke very well on the advantages to health in this country of initiatives around cycling and walking. I think—and I hate to say it; I do not want to be unkind but the other side of the House ridiculed this and it shows—those members on the other side of the House should get out of their cars and do a bit of exercise. They should get their bodies working and get their brains working. 
Jill Pettis 
: Too late for that! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes it is too late for that. We know about the health benefits and that is why we are committed to $3 million of funding to walking and cycling. We also have a national walking and cycling strategy which will help inform future funding needs. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Another strategy! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That member comes from a party that could not strategise its way out of a paper bag. Whenever they say anything in this House they keep getting it wrong. They are reduced now to just chirping away and not daring to put any facts on the table because every time they do that those facts are wrong. 
We also and I feel very proud of this are reducing the impact of transport on the environment. In March 2001 we incorporated a 10-second visual test to allow police to more easily identify and prosecute owners of excessively smoky vehicles. New measures are being explored to reduce the impact of vehicle exhaust emissions. This is all good for our health. This Government has agreed to changes in the fuel specifications to lower sulphur levels in diesel used in Auckland. Further changes—and more are coming—will take effect in 2004. We have much to be proud of in terms of transport. We are not resting on our laurels. We are making sure things get done. That is what this Government is about. That is what that party never did when it was in Government. It is good to see things happen and it is great to speak in support of this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We can have all the weasel words we like but the fact is that the problem is getting worse. The congestion year-by-year gets worse and worse and no amount of waffle from that member can fix it. But I want to come to the issue of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. One could have taken this bill straight out of Karl Marx’s book—because it is a bit like this: if only we had a bill to reduce traffic reduction it would reduce. The Minister for the Environment would have us believe that if we had a “Flatulence Reduction Bill” that would reduce flatulence; that if we had an “Obesity Reduction Bill” that would reduce obesity and that if we had a “Crime Reduction Bill” that would reduce crime. The notion we have from the movers and from the Labour Party is that if only Parliament would pass a bill stating that everybody will be good then it will happen! It is a bizarre approach—that somehow if we pass a bill that says there will be traffic reduction everybody will get out of their cars and life will be nirvana. Well I have news for members: it does not work that way. One actually has to have a bit more intellectual grunt and a bit more substance to one’s policy than shoving through the Parliament of New Zealand bills of that sort. 
The whole concept behind this bill is centralised planning. It is as though each morning everybody gets up and says: “What’s the Government said I have to drive today? Has the Government told me I have to get on my bike today? Has the Government said I have to drive a car today?” It is as though there is no free choice. The reality is that whether people take a bike walk or drive that decision is an individual decision made by every independent New Zealander. One can drive all the wiffly-waffly bills through Parliament one likes— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Nobody told me I couldn’t drive my car today. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to that Minister for the Environment—a Minister who has wanted to pass all sorts of waffly legislation of this sort—that by passing some sort of strategy and some target such as a target for waste reduction— 
Hon Member 
: What happened? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister has passed a target bill for waste reduction. Waste keeps going up but we have a wonderful target and somehow we are all meant to feel a lot better! Well we do not and we actually need some policies that have some substance. What would make a positive difference? The sort of thing that would make a positive difference rather than the squealing and whingeing from the Minister for the Environment is to do something about the Resource Management Act and fix it so that we can get on and do some things. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What about the environment? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me give an example to the screeching Minister from the other side. The excellent member from the Coromandel is in the House. She would know that every day every week and every year vast numbers of people wait at the Kopu Bridge. She has been diligently working to try to have that bridge replaced. Now let me tell members what happened with the legislation that the Minister for the Environment is responsible for. They had to do some drilling to determine the design of the bridge. 
Jill Pettis 
: Don’t shout! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have to shout I tell Ms Pettis because the whingeing women on her side of the House keep interjecting. Let me come back to the issue and that is that they had to drill into the bed of the river at the bridge to determine— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take objection to that misogynistic statement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that for the whole time I have been speaking I have had to put up with constant screaming from Mrs Hobbs and Jill Pettis. If they do not like being called whingeing women they should shut up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not have members being referred to by those terms. The member will withdraw that please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. Let me come to the substance because that Minister opposite is responsible. As I was saying all they wanted to do was drill two 3-inch diameter holes at the Kopu Bridge to do the foundation. Because of that Minister’s policy they had to get consent from the local iwi and they said under this Government’s policies that it was offensive to drill those holes to build the bridge and they did not even do the investigation. It took 2 years and cost $200000 to get consent to drill two holes. I say to members opposite that we will continue to have traffic congestion like my colleague Sandra Goudie has to put up with at the Kopu Bridge while the foolish Minister for the Environment continues to block sensible reform of the Resource Management Act. Reform of the Act is needed so we can build some of the roads we need. 
I come now to the great plans and the great strategies that the Government has for road building. In particular I want to challenge the Government about its 10-year roading plan. Last year Government members went up and down New Zealand consulting New Zealanders on Transfund’s 10-year plan. They spent 8 months consulting on it and in August last year the Minister with great fanfare said: “Here’s the 10-year plan for building roads around New Zealand.” Do members know how long the 10-year plan lasted? Not 6 months. Within 6 months the Government had binned its 10-year plan and had walked away from the decisions within it. That is how far we are away from getting any sensible decision-making in this crucial area. 
Then there is the key issue of Auckland roads—and everybody accepts we have a problem. The problem for the Government is that it is $4 billion short on solving the problem. We have heard absolutely no answer from the Government as to how it will fix it. All the key groups accept that the congestion in Auckland under Labour has got worse and under its policy it will continue to get worse. 
I also turn to the provisions in the bill for more planning. The provisions that the Minister has picked up out of this bill and put into law involve even more bureaucracy. In fact we had roading plans for roads that were already to be built but as a consequence of this legislation we had to have more bureaucracy and more navel-gazing rather than getting on with the job and building those necessary projects. We are miles away from having any sensible approach to roading. 
I want to set out very clearly what National says should be done. The first thing is that we must reform the Resource Management Act. The select committee has been advised that it now takes 7 years to get a consent for a new road—that is absolute nonsense. It is unacceptable and it must be fixed. It rests at the desk of Marian Hobbs that that legislation has not been reformed. She has rejected the sensible proposals that National had introduced into the House to address those very issues. The second thing we must do as my colleague Maurice Williamson pointed out is look at congestion pricing. That is a sensible model. It is a model that provides for getting the pricing signals right. Where we differ from the Green Party and the Labour Party is that if we are going to get sensible transport decisions we have to get the pricing right. We have to get the market signals correct so that when people are making choices as to whether they use public transport rail bicycle walking or cars those true costs are reflected. 
As has been so amply illustrated in other parts of the world congestion pricing is the way forward. The problem for Labour is that in the late 1990s as National developed the intellectual policy work to bring in congestion pricing Labour members opposite decried it. They shouted it down. They would not understand it they do not understand what is required for it and until they grapple with that issue the transport problems in our major centres will continue to get worse. The third thing that must be accepted by this Parliament is the extra capital investment that is required for roads. I was amused I almost fell out of my seat laughing when I heard Lynne Pillay say that the Government has budgeted to spend more on roads. The problem is that the Government has not spent. Do members know that Transfund is sitting on a $240 million surplus? People are sitting in congested traffic all over New Zealand while Transfund is sitting on $240 million. 
Jill Pettis 
: We’ve got a plan. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How I ask the rowdy Jill Pettis does it help the road users of New Zealand to have their petrol taxes put up not once but twice and to have vast sums of money sitting in the capital funds when it should be getting spent on the roading works this nation requires? 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution in the debate and in doing so I will comment on the previous member’s contribution. His speech said nothing whatsoever about vision and where we are going and that is simply because the Opposition has no real policy to stand on. We heard from Maurice Williamson earlier. I learnt that he had a 6-year term as Minister over a 9-year tenure of the National Government in the 1990s. The National Government did absolutely zilch to contribute to fixing the problems that we have with transport today. This Labour-led Government will fix it. We are in the process of doing that and we have been opening roads in the Auckland area. The plaques have Labour across them. There are no plaques stating that National is opening roads. Not one road in the Auckland area has a plaque stating that National is opening that road. That just goes to show that in the absence of real policy this Labour-led Government will have to fix the problem. 
I want to revisit the purpose of the bill. The bill aims to get transport decision makers to consider traffic demand management as well as the supply of transport infrastructure. The bill requires the Minister of Transport and regional councils to develop targets timetables and measures for the reduction of motorised road traffic. This is intended to result in an increase in support for public transport walking and cycling at the expense of major road projects. I would like to acknowledge members of the Green Party particularly Jeanette Fitzsimons the sponsor of the bill— 
Hon Member 
: Why? 
DAVE HEREORA 
: She has vision—simply because they were putting up alternative methods of transport. It is only right that we give her that acknowledgment. I felt a bit offended when Peter Brown suggested that the Greens spokesperson on transport required a driver’s licence before he could hold that portfolio. I thought to myself: “Well if that is the case Mr Brown do you also have to have a driver’s licence to get married?”. Where did that criterion come from? We all know as my colleague Lynne Pillay suggested that the member loves motorcars. I understand he has two. But to undermine my Green colleague Mike Ward in relation to his holding that portfolio and to suggest that he should have a driver’s licence is I think unacceptable. However in saying that I would like to mihi Jeanette Fitzsimons for her contribution and for putting up a bill that has led to the opportunities we have. 
Road traffic congestion was seen as a serious problem. Some people believe that by legislating to remove private motorcars from busy roads the problem could be fixed. We see things slightly differently. Encouraging users of transport to use more effective and better modes of transport by assisting in the development of better networks and infrastructure such as bus and rail would have a better outcome. The Government has had some key achievements. Released in December 2002 its strategy aims to ensure that transport can contribute to the Government’s objective to return New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD. I was reading through a magazine and I would like to share this point with colleagues in the House: “A Transfund New Zealand review of transport projects over $20 billion has confirmed all six projects remain in the 2003-04 national land transport programme. However some will require conditions to be met before they can be considered for funding. The six projects being promoted by Transit New Zealand are: the Mangatawhiri deviation in the Waikato Hewletts Road flyover in Tauranga the inner-city bypass in Wellington the SH20 Mount Roskill extension in Auckland North Shore busway in Auckland and the Esmond Road interchange in Auckland.” Those are just some examples of this Government’s initiatives in moving to deal with the traffic congestion problem. 
The New Zealand Transport Strategy represents a fundamental change in the way we deal with transport in New Zealand. This is the first time that all modes of transport—road rail sea and air—will be looked at in an integrated and long-term way. To this end we have five main objectives: to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security to improve access and mobility to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. To that end the investment for growth is building a world-class infrastructure as a key element of the Government’s growth and innovation framework. A growing economy and population require increased investment and this transport package is an important investment in New Zealand’s economic infrastructure. It strikes a balance between the need for a catch-up for Auckland and the need for the rest of the country to develop further its own infrastructure. 
The package at a glance is a new investment of an average of $297 million per year for land transport initiatives. That is putting one’s money where one’s mouth is—almost $3 billion over 10 years and I think that that investment will surely look towards the congestion problem. All revenue from the increased fuel excise levy will be used to fund land transport initiatives and the revenue will be distributed regionally on a population basis so that every region—I repeat every region—will get an increase in funding for land transport initiatives. Local bodies will be allowed to borrow and toll and a new non-political body will manage Auckland’s land transport needs. 
Also the Patronage Funding Scheme is an initiative that was taken on board and the community is buying into it. Since 2000 the number of journeys taken on passenger transport has increased by 24.9 percent. It has actually increased. I think that is positive. I think it is good. It helps with the congestion problem. In that time we have seen some major regional passenger transport initiatives thanks to the financial contributions of councils and Transfund. We heard earlier that Transfund had a pocket of money just sitting there. Well I can say to that member that Transfund is contributing as well as the councils. As a result of the success of the scheme central government funding for passenger transport has also doubled. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think members opposite want to hear that but it has. I can see that they do not want to hear it but I will tell them anyway. It has doubled from $36.3 million in 1998-99 to $71.2 million in the year 2002-03. I know that those members did not want to hear that. When the Patronage Funding Scheme was introduced in November 2000 Transfund said that it would review it in 2003. The current scheme would continue until June 2004 to allow time for that review to be completed. 
In winding up I shall talk about one of the initiatives that the Green Party members had looked at and that was to encourage walking and cycling as alternative modes of transport. I did hear earlier that National members acknowledged that that was a positive alternative. Albeit positive they felt that it was not enough to deal with the problem. In relation to the walking bus in the Wellington area before Christmas I walked with schoolchildren to school. It reminded me of my old school days when we had to walk to school as well. We walked from the Hairini bypass through the Waimapu estuary to get to school and back. The memories that walk brought back were quite cheerful because I recall to this day that every time we walked home and the tide was out it was guaranteed that we would be eating eels for tea that night. It was a good alternative practice. I acknowledge the Green members for their initiative to introduce such a scheme. I recall at the time that people were not heeding it. However it is working not only to help our traffic congestion but also in a healthy way for the public. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call in this debate because— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Sit down. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I would sit down but the point is that after the last address I feel myself compelled to take a call. One fact that came out of the speech made by Dave “Horeora” in the debate tonight has to be repeated. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should listen to this; it is important. New Zealand was waiting for something to come out of the Labour Government from this debate tonight and it is this: Dave “Horeora” was responding to a comment made by Peter Brown when he talked about the Green spokesperson on transport and I want it recorded because it is important. Apparently Peter Brown said that the spokesperson on transport from the Greens should have a driver’s licence and Dave “Horeora” said that of course it was not fair that one should have a driver’s licence only for driving. Apparently one had to have a driver’s licence for marriage as well. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the third time the senior whip Mr Carter has—presumably accidentally—inaccurately referred to my colleague and mispronounced his name. I would ask him to abide by the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think it was inadvertent. I take it that the member knows the correct pronunciation of the name of the member who spoke before him. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No. Can you tell me what it is? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Hereora. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Hereora. OK. I do apologise to the member. I was not trying to take the mickey out of him about his name. However I will try to highlight this issue. In fact I will not even say his name now in case I get it wrong. I want to highlight this issue because I think it is important. 
When members think about some of the things this Government has done they will realise that it has been very cunning in the way it has made those announcements. Obviously it was that member’s turn to make that announcement with regard to marriage and family tonight. Now one does not have to get a marriage licence; rather one has to get a driver’s licence when one wants to get married. The mind starts to boggle. Can members imagine a person in a car with a testing officer who is testing that person on driving and half way through the officer says to change into second gear. The person starts to move the gear lever forward and the testing officer says to put the blinker on. The person starts to put the blinker on making sure he or she is getting it right and when turning the corner says: “By the way can I get married?”. The poor old testing officer will not know whether that person means to the officer or to someone else—or who the heck that person is getting married to. It will certainly not be anyone from Labour because there will not be anyone here after the next election—but what a revelation! That is the problem with this debate. That contribution is at about the level of contribution that Labour is making now to the governance of this country. 
That brings me to the thing I really want to say. Here are the Labour members banging on about the fact that National did not do this and National did not do that—we did not open any roads and there are no plaques around the place. The fact is that that may or may not be so—and it is not actually accurate—but more important the point is that it is 5 years since Labour took over governance of this country—5 long years; 1999-2004. Well let us be pedantic. It is 4½ years—or however long one likes—and what has it done about Auckland’s congestion? Labour members have added to it. The only thing they do is to get in their LTDs and drive around Auckland— 
Brian Connell 
: And then they are getting married. 
JOHN CARTER 
: And then they use drivers’ licences to get married to people. 
The real problem is that this is the Government that added 4c on to a litre of petrol—I cannot remember exactly when—and increased the petrol tax. Why did it do that? Those members came into this House saying they had to do it so they could get the roading infrastructure right and get everything right. What has happened? [ 
Interruption 
] It is the cost of a driver’s licence. The question is: what has happened to the money? It has gone into the consolidated account. There is a $240-million surplus. What will happen to that? It will go back into Michael Cullen’s surplus. 
Brian Connell 
: They said that was for Auckland roading. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it has not gone on Auckland roading has it? It has gone into the consolidated account. [ 
Interruption 
] The “paint stripper” from the other side can cry as much as she likes but that is the actual fact about the matter—it keeps going back into the consolidated account. Why? What have they done to make it work? Nothing. 
What have they done about planning? Before we left office we had a plan to get the planning right. The Hon Nick Smith had a bill prepared that would have overcome some of the planning problems and allowed us to proceed. What did Government members do? They scrapped it. They consigned it to the wastepaper bin and changed it so it was hopeless mainly because the Greens were—well I cannot say what they were kissing. Anyway the fact is that they did away with the planning legislation that would have helped them out. 
The next thing that is a worry is that the Government is saying not only did it put petrol up by 4c a couple of years ago but it is going to whack it up another 5c. Why? Because it wants to fix the roads in Auckland—fix the congestion here and fix the congestion there. It cannot do the planning because that will take 3 or 4 or 10 years to get through. But even if it does do the planning what about this question: who will they get to do the work? There are not the firms in this country to carry out all the work that needs to be done if the money were available. Has the Government thought about that? 
Brian Connell 
: What about the RMA? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well we have dealt with the Resource Management Act. But the Government will have to bring people in from overseas to carry out the work if it is to be done and will this Government allow private enterprise firms from overseas in here? Not on your nelly! One has to be joking. It would be like the driver asking the testing officer to marry him or her for goodness’ sake. It would be the same sort of thing. It is just a nonsense and some of the things the Government is doing I have to say in this House absolutely stagger me. Having listened to some of the speeches and excuses from the member who just resumed his seat one has to say no wonder Labour is in trouble politically because its thinking is all over the place. 
Sandra Goudie 
: The wheels have fallen off. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well in this case the wheels have fallen off. At last Labour members are starting to feel the breeze of change going up their skirts and they do not like it. They are starting to get all worried about what is happening in the House. Their speeches are showing it and their demeanour is showing it. The whole way they are looking shows they know they are in trouble and they know that some of the things they are doing will cause them more problems. My colleague from Coromandel remarked to me that she had never heard so many back-benchers speak on a Wednesday night as we have tonight. We have never heard them take full speeches and we cannot understand why. It is a change of tactics—they are worried. This bill is another example of why they will go down the gurgler. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.