Volume 632 Week 18 - Thursday 22 June 2006 
Volume 632 Week 18 - Thursday 22 June 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Thursday 22 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill and any other first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it the Government’s intention to move into urgency next Thursday with a 2-week adjournment following? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. 
Responses 
Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the application of Mr Russell Hyslop relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on Thursday 6 April 2006. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move most generously  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Current Account Deficit—Oil Prices 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps if any will he take to reduce the current account deficit and in particular what steps will he take to reduce the impact of rising oil prices on the current account deficit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I will continue to maintain a prudent fiscal policy including the building up of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund introduce the KiwiSaver scheme subject to the approval of the House and support the development of a better energy efficiency strategy. The Labour caucus is united on all these matters. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the Minister is keen to promote New Zealanders saving what steps will he take to put limits on the trading banks’ aggressive marketing of credit to New Zealanders who cannot afford to keep on raising their mortgages to the hilt; and does he believe that prudential requirements for trading banks should be increased? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Prudential regulation of trading banks within the legislation is the preserve of the Reserve Bank. Of course new rules relating to the Basel II two accords are being introduced in that respect. The Government has not interfered directly with credit controls of the sort suggested by the member for some 22 years now. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is the Minister able to tell the House what reports he has received on policy proposals likely to exacerbate the current account deficit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What a good question! I have seen reports that continue to call for large tax cuts despite the current fiscal macroeconomic conditions. Such a policy is likely to aggravate our current account deficit now in excess of 9 percent of GDP as well as boosting inflation and raising interest rates. Of course someone who takes out a mortgage only to qualify for a Wellington accommodation allowance is not worried about interest rates. 
John Key 
: When the Minister issued his press release this morning congratulating himself on his economic management of the country was he reading the same report I was reading—stating that the current account deficit is now worse than it has been at almost any time in New Zealand’s history; when he came out and said that there were hopeful signs that things would improve had he bothered to read the report from Jason Wong at First NZ Capital that states things are going to deteriorate to 10.5 percent; and is this the same Minister of Finance who when he was in Opposition and the current account deficit was 2 percent of GDP campaigned on doing something about it and what he has done about it has been that he has blown it out? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly do not recall the last part. On the first part indeed we have a very large current account deficit. I hope the member understands that the current account deficit is the gap between our investment and our savings. What that member wants to do is to reduce our savings further and he does not back the Government’s initiative to lift savings through the KiwiSaver scheme. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that oil imports accounted for some 70 percent of the merchandise trade deficit and further that a drop in the value of the dollar resulting from the deficit will increase the cost of oil to New Zealanders even further; if so is it not time the Government had a proactive strategy to reduce the dependence of New Zealand’s economy on oil imports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has a proactive energy efficiency strategy being developed. The member is the Government’s spokesperson on that matter. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the Minister’s refusal to build more passenger rail infrastructure in Auckland and Wellington and his $1.5 billion roading binge reduce our reliance on oil and improve our worst-ever current account deficit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has increased spending on passenger transport some sevenfold already. Over the next 2 or 3 years it will spend many hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the rail infrastructure in Auckland. I have not refused to invest in passenger transport in either Auckland or Wellington. What I have demanded of the Auckland Regional Council—the sole proponent—is that before it puts proposals it has to have a proper supporting business case particularly if it does not expect to pay for the work itself. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister believe the Reserve Bank prediction that oil will return to $45 a barrel the Treasury prediction that it will flatline at around $68 a barrel or neither; and is he concerned that the difference between these two official forecasts made at the same time is greater than the total price of oil was in 2002? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oil was very cheap in 2002. The current price of oil in real terms is very similar to what it was in 1981. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that in the course of asking his supplementary question Mr Robertson was wearing a scarf carefully arranged to identify the name of Adidas the international sportswear company and to display it for the benefit of the cameras. Members on this side are of course alive to the wide vista of commercial opportunity now available to us as a consequence. Before we all rush off and make such arrangements I invite you to perhaps give a considered ruling on the practice before we proceed too far down that track. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I think that that is a very important point. Members opposite should wear scarves saying “Exclusive Brethren” because they have already been sponsored. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As members are aware the House has dress codes and standards. But as long as articles of clothing are decorous it is really a question of taste. I shall leave it at that and thank members for raising the point. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I just tell the honourable member that it is a Hurricanes scarf. 
Tertiary Institutions—Financial Assistance or Intervention 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has he received on the Ministry of Education’s expectation that it will need to assist as many as 15 financially troubled institutions in the coming financial year and to introduce formal interventions at up to five? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The advice I have received is that the figures referred to are a statement of capability to be maintained and do not reflect the situation pertaining to any specific institution. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why would the Government be willing to fund the Ministry of Education to maintain the ability to help 15 troubled polytechs if the ministry believes that nothing like that number is going to get in trouble and if the fund is more than is required why does the ministry not give the money back? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For many years the ministry has maintained a capability in excess of likely demand in the same way that the United States maintains what it calls a one-and-a-half-wars capacity not expecting to fight one and a half wars at any particular time. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any previous similar capability statements relating to the monitoring of tertiary institutions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. These kinds of statements have been within reports for a long time. For example in 1996 a departmental forecast report referred to avoiding the possibility of the financial failure of institutions and estimated that 40 institutions were going to be monitored. I assume the Associate Minister of Education at the time Mr English did not expect as many as 40 institutions would actually fail in that year. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Could the Minister tell us whether any tertiary institutions had to be financially bailed out in the years 1995-99 what were those institutions and what level of financial bail-out was required? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware that three institutions were in significant financial difficulty during that period. Subsequently the current Government had to act to rescue them all. For example in 2002 Wanganui Polytechnic Wairarapa Polytechnic and of course the Central Institute of Technology were in very serious trouble indeed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why in the example he gave of the Universal College of Learning in Palmerston North taking over the Wanganui and Wairarapa campuses the Government injected $32 million into the Universal College of Learning to fund the write-off of Crown debts on Wanganui Polytechnic and consolidate the campus on one site but 4 years later the campus has not been consolidated and the $32 million has gone? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is true that full consolidation has not occurred yet at this point. We anticipate it will occur at some time in the future. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where did the money go? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The money has gone into restoring the balance sheet and covering the costs of the merger. There are a number of institutions where such injections will be required and I am sure that members opposite will be the first to come with a begging bowl for their local institution should that be necessary. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister willing to provide to the House on another day if he can an account of the $32 million given that some of it was provided to write off Crown debts and the rest of it was provided to buy out leases and consolidate the campus on one site and 4 years later that has not happened—the leases have not been bought out the building has not gone up and not only has the $32 million gone but he has just given the institution another $3 million on top of it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information in front of me in respect of that. I will come back to the member with further information as soon as I can—hopefully by the end of the week. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister continue to run a funding policy that forces polytechs to subsidise their core trades and skills courses because they make losses on them and to fund that with high-margin low-cost courses like computing and is that not the central problem for smaller polytechs which he plans to merge when they fail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member might have missed it but the Government made key policy announcements a few short months ago indicating that it is developing a new funding system to move away from the system inherited from the National Government—the so-called “bums on seats” policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many extensive reports or how much correspondence has the Minister got from the National Party front bench on the bail-out of the Wanganui Polytechnic to the tune of $10 million in 1998? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no correspondence in front of me on that matter but I have no doubt that such actions took place. I also have no doubt that should any polytech in the country get into any significant difficulty a local National Party MP if there is one unfortunately will write to me seeking assistance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that answer was important but I had a barrage of interruptions from the National back bench so I could not hear what the Minister was saying. Frankly I will make it a policy that if I cannot hear an answer I will ask that the question be answered again until we get some proper courtesy in this House where the back bench on the Opposition side of the House is concerned. We simply cannot hear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be considerate of other members and I also remind members that questions are to be heard in silence. In the last question there was in fact an interruption so people are now on their last warning. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the new funding policy he has just talked about has no certainty or rules as of now and will not come in until at least 1 January 2008 and that in the meantime most of the smaller polytechs are predicting that they will be in financial difficulty; what will he do about that between now and then? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course there is no finality on a policy that is being developed. The difference is that we are developing such a policy. We inherited the failed “bums on seats” policy from Mr English. 
State Housing—Changes 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What proposals if any has he received about changes to the provision of social housing in New Zealand? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Housing New Zealand Corporation allocates social housing on the basis of need. Low-income families qualify for an income-related rent. Last month 98 percent of those houses were in that category. I have seen two contradictory proposals this month. One proposal argued that the provision of State houses in National-held electorates was economic vandalism while the other argued for more money to be spent on housing for low-income families. Perhaps John Key and Anne Tolley should get together and have a conversation. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other proposed changes to the provision of social housing in New Zealand is the Minister aware of? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I have received feedback from yesterday’s meeting of the Social Services Committee in which a member of that committee Mr Clarkson advocated that the Housing New Zealand Corporation should turf out tenants and instead provide cash grants to needy families so that they can rent from private landlords like himself. I am also informed that the chair of that committee Judith Collins moved immediately to clarify that Mr Clarkson a housing spokesperson for her own party was not representing National Party policy. So that we can hear a third contradictory housing policy from the National Party I think it is time for the real housing spokesperson my colleague Phil Heatley to stand up and tell the House exactly what National’s housing policy is. 
Dog Control—Microchipping Farm Dogs 
4.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Does he support the exemption from microchipping for farm dogs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: [ 
Interruption 
] And woof to you too! As far as I am aware the exemption passed last night related to working dogs not farm dogs alone. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does he therefore support the exemption for farm dogs and working dogs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Now that the member has learnt to beg correctly I can say the answer is no. I voted for the microchipping of all dogs and voted against the amendment relating to working dogs. 
Hon David Carter 
: How can the Minister credibly claim he represents the interests of New Zealand farmers when last night he voted against the exemption for working farm dogs. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Agriculture took to Cabinet a submission from Federated Farmers in which they stated that the top issue for the farming sector in New Zealand was nothing to do with earnings agricultural products market access or anything else; it was to do with the microchipping of farm dogs. That was the top issue facing agriculture in this country. Mr Anderton did take that to Cabinet but Cabinet reaffirmed its position and Mr Anderton supports that position. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much taxpayer money did the Minister waste sending out  
Primary News 
 to every farmer in New Zealand telling farmers they would have to microchip their dogs; and how arrogant is it of him to presume the wishes of this Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know how long the member has been here but Ministers have communicated the intentions of Government that require legislation for as long as I have been here and for a lot longer before that. 
Nathan Guy 
: Will his Government learn any lessons from the flip-flops on the “fart tax” the carbon tax and microchipping; and why is the Government proceeding with a series of meetings to force the issue of public access over private land? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Taking the last issue I point out that the Government’s policy is to seek consensus and consent around access across private land. If the member wants to try to heavy farmers to prevent access then that would be very strange indeed particularly where there are designated public roads. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it arrogance or is it just further proof of just how out of touch the Minister is with rural New Zealand that led him to vote against farmers’ wishes last night? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I regard as arrogance is that member going along to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as he did waving his own tax return and asking for answers about why it was dealt with in the way it was—using a parliamentary select committee for his own financial purposes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has just made a very serious accusation. I am sure that no member of the House would do something like that. I think if it is true the member should resign; and if it is not true the Minister should apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not wave my own tax return around in any committee whatsoever yesterday. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With due respect I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and can vouch for the fact that maybe Mr Foss did not wave his tax return around but he definitely told the committee he was speaking about his own taxation situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. There is another way of handling any contradiction about this matter and it is not in this House; it is in fact to refer the matter by way of complaint. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member had the right to make a personal explanation. He did not seek leave to do that; he just belted it out without so much as a by your leave—and it was wrong for you to have received it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. In fact I do not think there have been any valid points of order so far today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I said in my point of order that what he did was not within the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings. That is a valid point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I have ruled on the matter. The member asked for the comment to be withdrawn and it was withdrawn. As the member may recall that is what happened. The matter was dealt with. When it was raised again I said there is a more appropriate forum for handling that. 
Indonesia—Bilateral Aid 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: How much of NZAID’s bilateral support to Indonesia is prioritised for strengthening governance including law and justice and accountability? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 NZAID is spending $11.5 million to aid— 
Paula Bennett 
: Have you been microchipped? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I tell the House—in that member’s case they would need more than one microchip would they not? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please settle. I assume that is not the Minister’s answer. Would he please continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It will be if she goes to Indonesia! NZAID is spending $11.5 million in aid to Indonesia this financial year with 22 percent or $2.5 million of that directly focusing on strengthening governance including law and justice and accountability. In directing all aspects of the bilateral programme with Indonesia and the governance element mitigating against corruption— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When are you going to East Timor? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am able to write my own answers unlike that member the clown—yes able to write my own speeches unlike that peon over there who cannot think without the research unit doing everything for him. The aid will mitigate against corruption strengthen local accountability and transparency combat terrorism and ensure positive outcomes for local communities—including the eradication of dunces. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I found it extremely difficult to hear the answer to that question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I did too Madam Speaker and I sit two seats away from the Minister. With regard to the comments he made about anti-terrorism assistance is the Minister satisfied that the NZAID funding is doing all that it can do to help the Indonesian Government play a constructive role in the global campaign against terrorism—as was outlined I think in his own ministry’s statement of intent? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I suppose the answer is that we could always do more. But we are an active participant alongside Australia in an array of regional counter-terrorism efforts including of course those of Indonesia. They run through APEC the ASEAN regional forum and the Bali ministerial process on counter-terrorism. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When are you going to East Timor? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Shh! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well the last time that member went he was homesick and came home early. Does he remember that? He lasted only 2 days and came home because he wanted to see his mum. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please continue with his answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Like Australia we have signed a joint declaration of cooperation to combat international terrorism with ASEAN and we are a member along with Australia and the United States of APEC’s regional movements alerts list. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that answer does the Minister and/or the New Zealand Government have any concern about the release of Abu Bakar Bashir after just 26 months of his sentence as part of the Bali conspiracy; if so given the fact that New Zealanders lost their lives in that attack has the Government expressed any concern to the Indonesians about it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The Government did express its concern at the time he was convicted and sentenced although I think it is fair to say in defence of the President of Indonesia today that he was not in power at that time and that since he has come to power he has been unequivocal in his commitment against terrorism. The Indonesian Government has taken steps to bring the Bali bombers to justice and its relentless pursuit of Azahari bin Husin bore fruit in November of 2005 as we can witness. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why has the Minister done nothing to publicly convey the concern of New Zealanders over the release of Abu Bakar Bashir an architect of the Bali bombings in which New Zealanders as well as Australians were killed when the Australian Prime Minister Mr Howard has taken that man’s release sufficiently seriously to raise it directly with the Indonesian President? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The chronology of events is very important. That is why I said that that man was convicted and sentenced before the President came to power. That sentence was set in stone so it is hardly befitting someone who was not the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at that time—Mr Goff was—to now intervene when that decision is one for the domestic law of Indonesia. We do not interfere with the domestic law of other countries but at the time I can remember Mr Goff expressing his concern. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Talk to John Howard. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Talking about it now is a bit late—John Howard or no John Howard. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the acting Australian Ambassador to Indonesia has raised Australia’s concern about the release of Abu Bakar Bashir directly with the Indonesian Foreign Minister and specifically sought assurances about measures being taken to ensure that he does not engage in terrorist activities now that he is released and can he tell the House whether the New Zealand Ambassador to Indonesia has done likewise; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I want to point out to the member that the Government supports the rule of law. The facts are that this man was charged was convicted and was sentenced. That was the duration of his sentence. What can we now possibly raise with Indonesia that has any merit other than an attempt to interfere with the law of Indonesia and its processes without any colour of right whatsoever? If the member thinks that the sentence was too short so do I and so do most New Zealanders. But if the member is suggesting that we can do something concrete about it other than attempt to interfere with another country’s domestic law without having a law to rely upon in terms of the action then frankly he does not understand his job or the law. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The Minister is asleep on the job. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I was admitted to the Bar; that member never was. I wonder why he was not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek leave of the House to table press clippings from Australia outlining both the position adopted by Mr Howard and the statement also from the Australian Foreign Minister regarding his instructions to the acting Australian Ambassador to Indonesia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table the press accounts of the trial of Mr Bashir and the conviction and sentence. At the time of course the present President of Indonesia was not in office. 
Document not tabled. 
Infant Homicide Review—Social Development and Employment (CYF) Associate Minister's Statement 
6.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House on Tuesday in relation to the review on infant homicide: “It was always intended to be an internal report as was outlined in the press statement issued by the acting chief social worker”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. My initial advice has been confirmed that the key outcome for this work is to feed back the results into internal planning and development processes within Child Youth and Family Services and relevant agencies rather than for public release. 
Judith Collins 
: Has the Minister actually read the press statement from Child Youth and Family Services that she referred to on Tuesday in which the former acting chief social worker stated: “The findings will be shared with community organisations and other agencies who work with new parents.”; if so why did she tell the House that the report was not intended to be released when it clearly was? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly have read Craig Smith’s press statement of 8 October 2004. It was that statement to which I referred in my original answers to the questions from the member and her colleagues on Tuesday. I certainly stand by that statement. There is a big difference between developmental processes and using report findings to improve them—that of course includes agencies other than just Child Youth and Family Services that may be related to dealings with families—and the public release of a document. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What proportion of child homicides in New Zealand concerns children known to Child Youth and Family Services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Four out of every five children who are killed in New Zealand are not known to the department. For every child who dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver there are many other people around who could perhaps have stepped in and made a difference. Child Youth and Family Services is most often the last link in the protective chain. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that it has not been involved in the review when it is listed as a participant in the original press statement when the Minister told the House on Tuesday that key stakeholders had been consulted when it is part of the Children’s Commissioner’s statutory role to investigate any act done or omitted in respect of any child and when it has a particular responsibility to monitor the actions of Child Youth and Family Services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My understanding of the reported comments made by the Children’s Commissioner is that she did not link the conversations she had had with the chief social worker with the report that was referred to her in questioning on Sunday evening by the reporter from the  
Press 
. My understanding is that of the four agencies that are named in the 8 October press statement three have confirmed their subsequent involvement. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the previous acting chief social worker that the report “is about identifying those children who are most vulnerable so that all agencies can be cognisant of the support these families need as early as possible.”; if so why on earth would she not want the findings to be circulated as widely as possible to help raise awareness of the factors that lead to child abuse neglect and homicide? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If I may repeat the comments I made to the member on Tuesday I say that although the report was never intended to be a public report frankly if the findings of that report can help make a contribution to the work that the public of New Zealand do in order to help lower the incidence of child abuse and death it would be worthwhile making that report public. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand is ranked third-worst amongst 27 OECD countries for child deaths according to the  
Social Report 2005 
; and in light of the fact that Helen Clark described the situation as “shameful” when New Zealand was ranked sixth-worst what adjective would the Minister use to describe the current situation which has clearly become worse under her watch? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I could use many adjectives to describe that member’s response to child deaths and other tragedies in New Zealand but probably none of them is appropriate as a parliamentary term. The fact that any child is killed in New Zealand at the hands of a parent or caregiver is unacceptable and I am committed to continuing to do everything I can to eliminate that scourge from our society. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of Helen Clark who said in 1994: “We have the sixth-worst record in the world for the abuse of children” and that more than just rhetoric was needed to remedy the crisis; if so has the Minister been asked to explain to the Prime Minister whether she has done anything other than spout rhetoric and abuse while the ranking has slipped even further to third-worst? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes and no. 
Driver Licensing—Older Drivers 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: What changes are being made to the driver licensing regime for older drivers? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Last week a new transport rule was signed which will abolish the mandatory on-road driving test for those aged 80 and older from December this year. The changes to older driver licensing will remove the stress and cost of taking the on-road test for most older drivers permitting them to continue to drive for as long as they can do so while ensuring that their safety along with other road users is preserved. 
Darren Hughes 
: What educational and information initiatives are being introduced for older drivers their families and general practitioners to help them understand what the new licensing system will be about? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The following educational initiatives will accompany the introduction of the new older driver licensing system: first new funding for a nationwide expansion of the popular Safe with Age road safety classroom course; second a subsidy for a private on-road driving lesson for Safe with Age course participants; third new educational publications for older people on driving safely maintaining mobility and helping them plan for the future; and lastly regional seminars for general practitioners to educate them about the new licensing changes and what that will mean for general practitioners. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that some general practitioners have some real concerns about having to determine whether an elderly person is fit to drive being the last line of defence so to speak; if so can he give the House an assurance that he has overcome the concerns of those general practitioners? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Representatives from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners were members of the consultative group that recommended changes to older driver licensing and they were fully involved all the way through. A large amount of work has been done with general practitioners and the reason for having the educational programme which will go on from now is to outline the options available to general practitioners where they are concerned about an older driver’s ability to drive safely even if the driver passes the tests that will be in place—and indeed are already in place. I am very confident that in circumstances where a general practitioner has examined a patient who is 75 or over and has decided that the patient is medically fit but is uncertain about the patient’s ability to drive safely then the general practitioner will refer the patient as necessary for an on-road safety test. But I think that will be a rare event. 
District Health Boards—Elective Service Policy Requirements 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Which district health boards if any have indicated they will be unable to comply with the Government’s elective service policy requirements by 30 June 2006? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 During question time on Tuesday I said to the member—and I quote myself: “We signalled last week that we would need to relax somewhat the period by which district health boards would become compliant …”. If the member wishes to ask the same question again next week I would be happy to repeat myself repeat myself. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was very clear and it was worded as such because the Ministry of Health said in the Health Committee on Wednesday that at least half the district health boards have indicated that they will not meet the 30 June time line. When we asked for the names they said they could not give them to us at this stage so that is why I have asked the Minister. It is a completely different question; it asked which district health boards have indicated that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Is it not clear to the member that the ability to meet the requirements by the 30 June deadline has been relaxed? We announced it last week and I told the member on Tuesday. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Which health boards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All district health boards—it has been relaxed somewhat. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has advised district health boards that the requirement to cull their waiting lists by 17000 patients to meet his compliance requirement has been relaxed by 3 months and can he confirm further that those district health boards that do not cull their waiting lists within those 3 months will in fact find that they suffer a financial penalty and can he explain how taking money from district health boards will actually see more patients being operated on? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member seems to have developed the logic that because operations on 17000 people were delayed due to the strike somehow New Zealand will have 17000 people who will be unseen forever. He forgets that our most excellent health system sees about half a million elective patients a year and it can accommodate many disruptions whether it is a bad flu season a junior doctors’ strike or indeed disruption caused by the construction of yet another state-of-the-art hospital. 
Maryan Street 
: What is the intent of the Government’s elective services policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The intent of the Government’s policy is to provide clarity timeliness and fairness to patients—things that were absent under the old waiting list policy. Under Labour we are now closer to the full implementation of this policy than at any time since it was first introduced by the last National Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How did he reply to the woman who wrote to him recently about her husband who has a rare heart disease and who has been removed from the waiting list and sent back to his general practitioner and what would he say to the woman’s niece who has an ulcerative colitis and who has been removed from the waiting list and sent back to the general practitioner and her daughter-in-law who has coeliac disease and who has been dumped from the waiting list and has returned to her general practitioner; and how would he explain to one of those young women that because of his policy and the delays in her getting treatment she now faces life with a colostomy bag? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may be aware that I do not and cannot comment on individual cases but I would be happy to follow up those cases if the member would like to approach me and give me the names of the people involved. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister believe that the district health boards’ inability to comply with elective service policy is the fault of doctors district health board management or his ministry; or if none of these what exactly is the problem? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards are moving progressively month after month year after year into full compliance. We are nearly there and I would like to thank all of those parties mentioned by the member in her question for their part played in getting there. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Can he even dare to imagine what it is like for breast cancer survivor 33-year-old Aletia Hudson who was promised breast cancer reconstruction surgery but has been culled from the waiting list and how would he feel facing the constant physical reminder every day of that suffering? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for raising the question of that person with me again twice in the same week. The answer I give the member today is the same as the one I gave the member on Tuesday. She may wish to check her  
Hansard 
. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How does the Minister explain the fundamental disconnect in Labour’s health policy whereby people can go to their general practitioner and be told they need an operation but the public health system will not be able to do it for them unless of course they get a lot sicker then they might just have a chance of getting on a waiting list that they might then get kicked off or is he stealing policy ideas from old reruns of  
Yes Minister 
? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This Government has a very proud record in health and I will rehearse it somewhat for the member. Not only has surgery in this country increased by about 15 percent under this Government but within major joint surgery it is doubling over 4 years so it becomes one of the highest intervention rates in the world and on top of that we have increased cataract surgery by 50 percent over 3 years on top of that we have introduced mobile surgical services into this country and on top of that we have had very large increases in out-patient surgery and day surgery some of which are not even recorded but will be 10 days from now. I am proud of that record. The member comes from a party that went into the election 9 months ago and said: “We don’t need any increases in health. We can afford to give it all away in tax cuts.” Now he has the cheek to come to the House and say that he wants more money spent on health. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear a word the Minister was saying because there was such a rabble making a lot of noise in the House. I ask that you bring the House to order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think what was actually happening was that we were getting feedback in the Minister’s mike and possibly in yours Madam Speaker from the Hon Tony Ryall who was screeching right through that answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The same problem is arising now from all parties commenting on the question. All parties are guilty at some time. I ask members to please exercise some self-control and discipline in the interventions they make. 
Chris Tremain 
: Can the Minister give an assurance that the proceeds from the sale of the Napier Hospital hill site will not be used to meet the current Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s $13 million forecast deficit and the proceeds will be used as promised—to build two new operating theatres for elective services to rebuild the mental health in-patient unit and most important to ensure that further services are not cut from Napier’s Wellesley Road health centre? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suggest the member direct his question to the district health board in question. 
Government Initiatives—Major International Events 
9.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to attract a greater number of major international events to New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Heaps. The Government is providing assistance to organisations bidding to host international events. We are also working with key players to provide the required infrastructure. For example the Government will provide $2 million for new facilities at the Taupo Motorsport Park to enable the hosting of big international motor racing events up to but not including Formula One. They will be the best facilities in New Zealand when they are finished. 
Sue Moroney 
: What evidence has he seen that the Government support for major events is paying off? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: An enormous amount. People will generally be aware that we are hosting the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Recently New Zealand was announced as the host for the 2010 World Rowing Championships. This is a huge win for New Zealand and shows once again that New Zealand has what it takes to host major events. Rowers from an estimated 50 countries are expected to compete at the championships. It is estimated the event will attract around 7000 visitors to New Zealand and contribute an additional $105 million to the economy. In addition it means that the hub of Rotorua Hamilton and Taupo is becoming known more and more as an events hub for New Zealand showing it as an area that is capable of hosting great events and people very well. 
Peter Brown 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that he has no concern about New Zealand’s infrastructure when we handle such events; and by infrastructure I mean roading passenger transport and hospitals? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly I think in the case of the Taupo event the track quality—the roading of the track—will be considerably improved by the investment that is occurring now. As far as public transport is concerned in the rowing I want to compliment the Hamilton City Council which has taken the decision to provide free public transport to and from Hamilton for people who attend that event thereby taking a lot of pressure off the road during that time. 
Dog Control—Microchipping Working Dogs Publicity 
10.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Local Government 
: What publicity has she or the Department of Internal Affairs run explaining the microchipping of working dogs to farmers? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Since the Dog Control Amendment Act was passed in 2003 including provisions relating to microchipping the Department of Internal Affairs has provided information to all relevant parties about the microchipping requirements coming into force from 1 July 2006. The department has not run any publicity specifically relating to the exemption of working dogs from microchipping. 
John Carter 
: What right did she ever have to arrogantly assume the outcome of the parliamentary legislative process before authorising the expenditure of thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I reiterate that the decision to amend the Dog Control Act in 2003 included provisions regarding microchipping. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government going to do given the very recent changes concerning the exemption of working dogs from microchipping requirements? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Government is working closely with Local Government New Zealand and the local government sector to ensure that they are prepared to deal with the new changes from 1 July 2006. The department has prepared a one-page information sheet for councils setting out the changes and possible issues that they will need to consider over the next few days. This will be circulated this afternoon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister whether the real answer to Mr Carter is that until last night that precisely was the law—voted for by National—and perhaps he should get some legal advice from some of his colleagues as that was the law until last night and that is why putting out the advertising would be justified? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I can confirm that. Last night National successfully argued that we can have one law for some and one law for others. It just does not like the implications of that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If some members wish to remain in the Chamber would they please respect the requirement that those who are asking questions are heard in silence. 
John Carter 
: Did the Minister consult the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister’s approval on spending taxpayers’ money on a farm dog microchipping campaign before Parliament had even worked its way through the legislative process or did she decide to waste thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars all by herself? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I reiterate that the decisions affecting microchipping were made in 2003 and decisions around ensuring that people had accurate information were made from that time on. The clarification around advertising in this regard was set out in answer to written question 6358 from David Carter. 
Eric Roy 
: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Agriculture about how to spend taxpayers’ money on this brochure on farm dog microchipping before Parliament had even worked its way through the legislative process or did she decide to waste thousands upon thousands of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars all by herself? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: As the question has been repeated I am happy to repeat the answer. The decisions affecting microchipping were actually made in 2003. From that time until this time any responsible Government would ensure that people had accurate information around the laws on this particular matter. 
Peter Brown 
: Would this be an issue at all if it had not been necessary to amend the local government legislation at this point in time? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Regarding the information campaign the decisions on making sure that people had accurate information would have continued. When National successfully argued only last night that we can have one law for some and one law for others that raised issues but we will work with local government to make sure that it gets accurate information regarding exemption provisions for working dogs. 
John Carter 
: Are the reasons for the Minister’s assumption that microchipping legislation would be passed the Labour Government’s blind fixation on imposing microchipping on an unwilling public and the fact that she Helen Clark and the Labour-led Government are so arrogant that they thought they could ignore public opinion? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The decisions around making sure people received accurate information were based on decisions made by Parliament in 2003. Last night Parliament—or a number of parties—changed its mind. We need to make sure that people receive accurate information. We are working with local government in this regard. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the opinions of the member who asked the question John Carter expressed in a speech he gave in this House in 1996 on the Dog Control Act in which he said that microchipping was a sensible way of identifying dogs that New Zealand should move towards microchipping of all dogs and that local government would inevitably take this up as a sensible way of identifying and controlling our dog population; and does she believe that this is another example of a National flip-flop? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Yes I do. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Dog Control Act any local authority may be able to exempt all dogs from microchipping? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Dog Control Act and any amendments made thereto are the responsibility of the local authority to implement. Just last night decisions were made exempting working farm dogs and the local authorities will be obliged to implement the Act as it reads. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the current definition of working dogs include lapdogs? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Only if the definition applies to flip-flops. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not the case that in connection with the question asked by Mr Williamson the answer lay in providing him with a mirror? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Most certainly. If the definition applies to National flip-flops then it would be quite accurate. 
Public Works Act—Land Acquisition Paraparaumu Airport 
11.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What processes will be taken into account to recognise the status use or significance of land acquired under the Public Works Act 1981 with particular reference to Paraparaumu Airport which was originally taken during World War II? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Land at Paraparaumu Airport acquired under the Public Works Act must be disposed of in accordance with that Act. 
Tariana Turia 
: Has the Minister read the report by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General that states that the Ministry of Transport failed to inform former owners before it sold the airport; if so will there be retrospective legislation to remedy this injustice? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware of that report because I read it in my former role as the Minister of Transport. My understanding of that report is that the method by which the airport was privatised and sold was in compliance with the law. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the Minister aware of any proposals that would attempt to provide processes for former landowners of airports like Paraparaumu Airport that were privatised by the former National Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. I understand that Darren Hughes the member for Otaki has prepared a member’s bill that would provide another process for former landowners particularly around Public Works Act obligations. 
Tariana Turia 
: When will the legislated right to an offer-back be triggered? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Public Works Act requirements are triggered by disposals of land that come within the purview of that Act. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement from the local Otaki MP Darren Hughes that there has to be some justice for former owners; and how will justice in the case of Paraparaumu Airport not only be done but be seen to be done? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The original sale of Paraparaumu Airport happened in 1995. My responsibility and powers are limited to dealing with any dispossessions of land made under the Public Works Act. 
Land Transport New Zealand—Excise Rebates Liquefied Petroleum Gas 
12.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is the letter sent by Land Transport New Zealand to retailers last week informing them they could no longer claim excise rebates for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sold for non-automotive purposes evidence the Government is planning to introduce a new “barbecue tax”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No the Government is not planning to introduce a “barbecue tax”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Smith should listen carefully. I am advised that the letter related to the detection of what may be an anomaly in the rebate process for LPG sales dating back to 1992. [ 
Interruption 
] Members should listen to this. A review by PricewaterhouseCoopers is continuing to investigate the extent of the anomaly. The results of the review will be known in the next few weeks. No changes to current practice have been implemented. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: If there was no intention for any changes to be implemented yet why did the letter state: “These changes will apply to LPG sold by a wholesaler or retailer on or after 1 July 2006.” 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The letter from Land Transport New Zealand was sent out to retailers telling them what the law is. It was followed up by a second letter stating that no action would be taken until the review is finished. It is what the law states that is important. That is what the review will show us. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why did the initial letter dated 16 June this year state: “As a result we are introducing some changes to the criteria for refund”—when the Minister just said there was no intention for any change—and go on to state that those changes will take effect from 1 July which I understand is in 8 days’ time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the member’s benefit I repeat: Land Transport New Zealand has sent out a second letter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Contradicting the first one. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes contradicting the first one. The second letter stated there would be no changes until the review is finished. I will find out who has been caught out in a very short time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the Minister intend to get a signal through to the Minister of Internal Affairs Rick Barker—who I understand is snowed in somewhere in the South Island—so that he can pass on to all the concerned residents of the South Island who are relying on gas canisters for their heating and cooking because they have been without power for so long that they do not need to worry and a $2 tax will not be imposed on their barbecue canisters from next week? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would not be surprised if that very good Minister was doing that at this very moment. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why did the Secretary for Transport Dr Robin Dunlop stop short of giving any assurance that there are no plans for the buyers of LPG for domestic use to pay fuel excise and say he could not do that until the review was completed hopefully by the end of July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He could not do that because the review has not been completed. But the review is investigating a 1992 letter that was sent out by the Secretary for Transport at that time which changed the process for refunds and does not appear to be in line with the law of the day. That is what is being looked at. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can I take it from that answer that it has still not yet been ruled out that there may actually now be a “barbecue tax” of $2 imposed on each 9-kilogram cylinder of LPG gas sold to ordinary consumers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no doubt that the member is aware that any change in the levy on LPG is a matter for the Minister of Customs. I have discussed that matter with the Minister of Customs Nanaia Mahuta. She has no intention to make any changes to the amount of the current levy on LPG. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first document is a letter from Land Transport New Zealand dated 16 June which states that that organisation will be introducing some changes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The second document is a letter from Land Transport New Zealand dated 21 June which states that that organisation has no intention of introducing any changes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Personal Explanations 
Trip to East Timor—1995 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I left Auckland on the same plane as did the Hon Jim Sutton the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Roger McClay and the Hon Nick Smith. I also left East Timor on the same plane as those people. I carried out my duties in East Timor. I left before the trip to Flores Island which I considered to be a bit of a junket. 
Allegations—Inquiry 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I believe false allegations were made last week by a member in this House which prompted me to make a personal explanation. As I understand it yesterday in my absence further allegations were made in relation to an inquiry that everybody in this House is aware of. I want to make it quite clear that those allegations are again absolutely false. I am concerned that members can come into this House and promulgate lies under the guise of supplementary questions when in fact oral questions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot make the allegation of lying. Would the member please retract that statement. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
:—at least have to be authenticated and have some semblance of the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please do what I directed him to do. Would he please withdraw and make an apology for that remark. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I withdraw and apologise. But I take great exception to people in this House who come and make statements for the benefit of getting media coverage when in fact there is no evidence for or authenticity to those statements. I invite that member if he has any spine and any guts to take his allegations outside the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Personal statements are to relate to the matters of the member; they are not to be used to make charges against other members. They are to be confined to that matter only—[ 
Interruption 
] Would the members who interrupted during that personal statement please leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Carter withdrew from the Chamber. 
John Key withdrew from the Chamber. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked the members who interjected on Taito Phillip Field to leave the Chamber. Nick Smith clearly interjected. He sat there with a smirk on his face when you instructed people to leave and he continues to sit in the House right now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard the statement. I did not hear who made it but it was very clear. I have to rely upon members to take responsibility in those matters and members did. As far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The difficulty you have occurs when a member who is making a personal explanation goes outside the Standing Orders and makes allegations. A large number of members on the Opposition side of the House raised noise at that point. If you were to require all of those who made any noise when Mr Taito Phillip Field was breaching the Standing Orders to leave I suspect there would not be many members left in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I say to the member that I did deal with the matter and I do not need any assistance. I was waiting until I could hear what the member was saying towards the end of his sentence. It was clearly wrong. As soon as he said the word “lies” I intervened. So would members please desist from raising those points of order. I have ruled on this matter. I do not want to hear any more points of order but I do want the member to complete his personal statement in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The ability to make a personal explanation to the House is a privilege not a right. We know that because the member has to seek the leave of the House and of course the House would not—if it knew—give leave to a member who was going to go ahead and accuse the House of lying. But also after you had told the member to come back to be within the Standing Orders he then accused a member of lacking spine. I think you would be testing the will of the House to allow this member to continue to have a third go at his personal explanation because by his actions today—whatever we think of the merits of what he wants to say—he has effectively given up the capacity to get the leave of this House to give any personal explanation in this session again. We gave him leave he abused it and you have given him two chances. You are now about to give a third chance and I think that is going too far. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member is in fact relitigating what I have said. I have decided that the member is to complete his explanation and to do it succinctly. I ask him to please complete his explanation. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for having to raise the matter again but you did ask the members opposite who interjected on Mr Field to leave. Dr Smith certainly did interject and in effect admitted he did. Actually I was listening and heard very few people from the Opposition interject. He was clearly one of a small number who did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Dr Smith did you interject? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please leave the Chamber then. I asked members to leave. I am sorry if I had not made myself clear. All members I asked to leave will be out obviously until the end of the session. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do this just in the interests of getting this tidy. The member who is making the personal explanation I think breached the Standing Orders twice. The first time he was pulled to a stop and you made him withdraw and apologise. But he went on to then infringe again as you know when he talked about a lack of courage by saying that a member was lacking in spine. Up to this point you have not asked him to withdraw and apologise for that comment and I think that if he is to be allowed to proceed then he must do that first. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I expect this House to treat me like any other member and take on face value my word. When a member makes a statement to this House then that should be accepted—mine like any other member in this House. I also want to say that if the member has any evidence in respect of the allegations he made yesterday then he should table it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raised this matter with you last week and I am raising it again now—I raised it yesterday as well. You have an allegation being made by way of a supplementary question that is an allegation of criminal behaviour. Not one shred of evidence has been produced by Dr Lockwood Smith in 2 weeks but he keeps it up. I think therefore it behoves him if he does not have any evidence to get up here and apologise. He owes the member that action instead of shrinking away from it without so much as a by your leave having in 2 weeks made two very very serious allegations. I am saying to you Madam Speaker that members are usually required to produce some evidence when they make allegations in this House and that member is getting away with making allegations of a crime which is a serious matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. It is not a point of order. It is obviously a matter for Dr Smith to address himself. 
Third Readings 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention that during this debate National will be taking four calls and the twelfth call will be split between two members with each having 5 minutes. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As one of those who were ejected for interjecting I seek clarification. I thought that the ejection was until the end of question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No because the questions had ended in effect. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Litter Amendment Bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill was to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate to reflect recent policy decisions to clarify existing provisions and to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools. These bills clearly show the wide array of interests and responsibilities that local government administers and consequently make changes to eight pieces of legislation. Those Acts range from the Litter Act 1979 to the Local Government Acts of 1974 and 2002 and to the Land Transport Act 1998. 
Perhaps the most important of the amendments are those to the Rates Rebate Act of 1973 to ensure that eligible ratepayers are able to receive their full entitlement under the expanded rates rebate regime that comes into force on 1 July 2006. This bill ensures that rebates will be able to be applied to uniform annual general charges to charges levied by councils and to postponed rates. As I indicated to the House at the time of the second reading from 1 July there will be a significant increase in the number of people eligible for assistance to pay their rates. In most cases the income threshold under which people will be eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7400 up to $20000. For people on incomes above $20000 the rebate is progressively abated meaning however that a couple receiving only Government superannuation as their income will in many cases still qualify for a rebate. In addition there will be increases in the maximum rebate from $200 currently to $500 and in the additional income allowance for each dependant from $156 to $500. 
Whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4000 people actually received a rebate up to 300000 New Zealanders will be eligible for rates rebate as a result of these excellent changes. These changes will have a positive impact on many New Zealanders particularly on older people and others on low incomes. It may surprise some listeners—but perhaps not—that both the ACT party and the National Party voted against Part 7 of the original bill which dealt with the rates rebate. That perhaps reflects en masse the attitude well described by the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 
when describing National’s leader Don Brash as “the voice of ignorance narrow political advantage and selfishness.” Certainly their voting against that provision was bewildering for most other members of this Parliament. But I digress. 
In regard to other elements of this bill I say that the amendment to the Land Transport Act clarifies a number of technical issues raised through legal advice. 
Although much of the debate at the Committee stage focused on microchipping the new Dog Control Amendment Bill actually contains many other positive changes to the Dog Control Act that will help to further improve public safety around dogs. Those include clarifying the fact that dangerous and menacing dog classifications apply across New Zealand providing enhanced abilities for dog control officers to seize dogs that have actually made an attack and dealing with disqualifications and increased penalties for irresponsible dog owners. Although not voting for comprehensive microchipping the House has none the less ensured that microchipping for other than working dogs will come into force as planned from 1 July. Microchipping will significantly increase the probability that the owners of dogs that attack or menace will be identified so creating a strong incentive for those owners to make sure that their dogs do not have the opportunity to cause harm. 
These bills collectively are part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure efficiency effectiveness and responsiveness in New Zealand’s local government legislation. Though many of the provisions in the bills are technical in nature they continue and refine the platform of local government that this Labour-led Government enacted in 2002 thus acknowledging the responsibilities of the sector and providing for its ongoing constructive development. The key goal for both central and local government is positive outcomes for communities and their citizens. The working relationship established between our two spheres of government is vital to achieving that goal. These bills further advance the relationship. With the upcoming Commonwealth Local Government Forum conference to be hosted by New Zealand in the city of Auckland next year I am also mindful that international local government relationships can be advanced with the ability of our local authorities to provide the benefit of their experience and expertise—beyond their boundaries—to local government bodies overseas if they so wish. 
These bills and the changes that have been made throughout the parliamentary process are further evidence of cooperation between local and central government which has developed well over the past 6 years and which will continue to grow with this Government in the future. I am in no doubt that the changes provided by these bills will provide more certainty for councils as they administer and work within the existing legislation and they will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authorities. As I indicated at the outset it is highly desirable that the local government law reform legislation be enacted before 1 July to ensure that ratepayers eligible for a rates rebate are able to receive their full entitlement. In conclusion I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Local Government and Environment Committee of all my officials and of the select committee staff to ensure that that can in fact occur. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take this opportunity to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee staff who are involved with this legislation—Beth Watson and Pavan Sharma who have done a great job for us—and also the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who I think yesterday went through all sorts of gymnastics in trying to get the legislation right. Of course there are also the advisers and a number of other staff involved and I think it should be put on record—as I am sure the Minister would want to do—that they have given great assistance to the select committee and to Parliament in getting us this far. I want also to take the opportunity to thank the Green Party whose member was with us on the select committee. That is not to deny thanks to members of any other parties who have been involved in getting us this far. But working with Metiria Turei in the select committee was very useful. The work we did was productive because of course we have now got to the stage where we are at least able to stop the microchipping of working dogs. 
I just want to make one point. Although it is not my place to defend the Greens or to speak for them—I am sure they will do so themselves—I notice that it seems a surprise to some people in this House that last night we saw a split vote. Members might like just to reflect on the fact that one party more than any other—the Greens—has persistently and continuously supported MMP. That is unlike latecomer parties like New Zealand First which has suddenly decided that MMP is not a bad idea. What we saw happening last night was the reality of MMP working in the way it should and does work. Whatever spin people might like to put on it I say that that is what we saw and I suggest members might like to reflect on that. 
I want to speak on three parts of this legislation and my colleagues will pick up other parts of it. But first of all I want to speak on the matter of microchipping. I make the point that the Government some time ago—I think it was in 2003—introduced microchipping through a Supplementary Order Paper by the then Minister of Local Government Chris Carter. Of course at that stage it was opposed by the National Party—and by other parties like ACT for example—and National has consistently opposed it. It is true and on the record though that once when I was younger and not so thoughtful I may have spoken in support of it but people do things when they are young and they learn as they grow older. It is a rare thing—[ 
Interruption 
] Some of us do not learn—like the Minister—but some of us do. 
The point is that through this whole debate we have not been convinced of the value of microchipping dogs. Indeed the Minister himself said that the microchipping of dogs would not stop one dog attack. I tell him it is not proven that the microchipping of dogs will mean that more dogs will be registered. In fact the public need to know as the legislation proceeds in whatever form it does that not only will people have the cost of microchipping dogs but they will still have the cost of continuing to register those dogs. So there will be a double cost on dog owners. I must say that when the public finally become aware of what will be foisted on them plus the cost added into the rates because councils will have to administer this law people will not be happy. 
 Then there will be the gymnastics of trying to figure out what this Parliament has actually passed and what the law now means because of the way the legislation is structured. Does it mean that as the 1996 legislation says the territorial authorities themselves can decide what are working dogs and have the right to pass a resolution to say that all dogs in the area can be working dogs? The lawyers will have a field day on working through this at great cost to local government and at great cost to the ratepayers. For people who are grumpy about having to microchip their dogs I can see a huge amount of litigation for councils coming up because somebody’s dog somewhere will not be recognised as a working dog as he or she thought it was. I think the Government would do better now to admit defeat and pull this whole thing out. However that will not happen. 
I want to go on to another part of this legislation that refers to the long-term community council plans. Some people who came before the select committee this morning told us about the cost that has been imposed on local government. I said earlier in this debate that long-term community council plans or councils looking at their infrastructural needs and planning ahead were actually started in 1995 by the National Government. It makes good sense. I have not heard anybody say that the principle of what is to be achieved should not be achieved. Looking at what one has and looking at what one’s needs will be is sensible. We do that in our everyday lives—we think ahead and we plan ahead; so should local government and indeed so should Government for that matter. Unfortunately this Government does not do that enough. 
But the problem is that the way in which this Government has asked local government to administer long-term community council plans is costing ratepayers huge and unnecessary amounts of money. To date it is estimated that just the audit of the draft schemes is likely to cost ratepayers somewhere between $5 million and $8 million. But that pales into insignificance when one starts looking at the cost of preparing the draft schemes. For example Whangarei District Council has told me that the cost of preparing its draft scheme—not the audit—was in excess of half a million dollars; in excess of $500000. If one extrapolates that out over local government across the country we are talking somewhere between $50 million and $100 million. I say that that was a dreadful waste of money. It was unnecessary. We did not have to go through the whole issue of the draft scheme then the final scheme and then audits upon audits except we had to work out a system of presenting these things to the public and discussing the issues with the public. But nevertheless the way in which this Government has asked local government—not asked but directed it; forced it—to take this thing— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No option. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There was absolutely no option at all. This Government directed local government to undertake the process in the way it has and then it did not trust local government to do that. It directed the Audit Office to check to look at whether local government was doing it right. As it transpires there are only three local government agencies that according to the Audit Office did not follow the process correctly and one in particular of those three took a deliberate decision not to comply because it believed it could not guess what the rate of inflation would be in 10 years’ time! Well I have to say that I am not surprised. I would like anyone in this House to stand up and accurately predict what the rate of inflation will be in 10 years’ time. I would like it put on record because we— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Nobody knows. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well of course nobody does actually; they just do some forecasting. 
I want to finish on this note—the legislation is to make changes to the Transport Act. We are now shifting the responsibility of fines and infringements from police to Transit and local government. That is seriously dopey. Local government is not structured to carry out infringements and neither is Transit New Zealand. We do not need to go back to those days. We should not be asking local government to go back to the days when it was involved in policing. That is what this legislation will do. 
The problem with this legislation is that most of the measures will add extra costs on to local government and as a consequence on to ratepayers. Ratepayers in this country are already suffering from the burden of extra compliance that this Government has imposed on them. We are now seeing too many local authorities having to increase their rates well above inflation to meet the demands this Government is making of them. I say that local government is finally standing up and rebelling against what is happening. Local government knows that it is not its responsibility. It knows that these sorts of measures which the Helen Clark Labour-led Government is passing today will put more costs on to local government and as a consequence on to ratepayers. Local government around this country is saying “Enough!”. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading debate and I want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I particularly want to thank the select committee clerks the Parliamentary Counsel Office and also the officials who advised on this legislation and given the decisions made last night I want to acknowledge the hard work and effort that everyone has made to get the legislation here so we can discuss it. 
There have been a lot of issues in particular relating to microchipping. As this House knows Parliament with the exception of ACT originally voted in support of the Dog Control Amendment Bill in 2003 which included the introduction of microchipping along with a range of other strengthened dog control measures. However it has now voted to exclude farm working dogs from that requirement. We acknowledge that and will move on and will work with local authorities to try to get that through. 
Let me reiterate that we will be proceeding with the dog microchipping law in the form passed through Parliament last night to ensure the safety of the public as best we can. This law will still support the wide range of strengthened dog control measures introduced in 2003. These measures which for the large majority of the dog population still include microchipping give councils more power to deal with dangerous threatening lost or problem animals as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. In fact we know already that some owners are voluntarily microchipping their dogs because they are pets and if they get lost they want to be able to track them. 
Our focus is now to move forward and make the legislation as effective and painless as possible for those who will be required to administer and enforce it. Let me also say that we are committed to continuing to work closely with local authorities to ensure that they and the majority of dog owners who will still have their animals microchipped over time have good and accurate information about what is required under the latest changes to the Dog Control Amendment Act. Although any exemption is not favourable as it will add costs and have other implications for councils the reality is that over time the majority of newly registered dogs will still be microchipped. It may also be that farmers in time will see the benefit of that. In the meantime I reiterate that for the majority of dog owners who have newly registered dogs after 1 July the microchipping requirements have not changed. 
Unfortunately a lot of misinformation is still being circulated about microchipping which is not helpful to either the public or those who must implement the Act as it now stands. For one let me reiterate that inserting a microchip in a dog will not by itself stop dog attacks and the Government has never said that it would. The whole point that we have been trying to stress is that microchipping will support a raft of other strengthened dog control measures that are designed to ensure more responsible dog ownership. If we have responsible dog owners they are more likely to train their dogs so that their dogs do not act in an irresponsible way. Ultimately we want to work in that manner to create a safer environment around dogs. If we look at the example of New South Wales which has had microchipping since 1998 we see that has certainly been achieved. 
There is another misconception and this is something that others continue to get wrong but it is only dogs that are first registered after 1 July this year and those currently classified as menacing or dangerous dogs that will have to be microchipped—apart from the latest exemption for farm working dogs. This means that one’s little dog at home—Mark Blumsky’s dog or nanny’s dog at home—that is already registered which one is also proud of and fond of will not have to be microchipped unless of course it has never been registered. We are talking only about new puppies. 
The other misconception is around the issue of costs. The Government has agreed to support local councils in meeting approximately half the $1.1 million cost of introducing the national dog database with smaller councils’ costs levied according to their size. With microchipping itself let me reiterate that vets have consistently said they can provide a complete microchipping service—that is inserting the microchip and verifying it—for somewhere between $35 to $70 which will reduce if combined with other procedures such as vaccinations. This is nowhere near the erroneous figures that were referred to in the House last night. When compared with the overall costs of owning a dog microchipping is still a relatively small one-off cost. However some councils such as in Christchurch have actually embraced the new technology and agreed to offer free microchipping in order to encourage compliance with legislation. The Government is committed to doing all it can to improve dog control in response to calls from the public for improved safety around dogs. And exemptions or not we have not wavered from that commitment. We will work with local authorities to achieve that. 
I turn to one small part concerning the rates rebate scheme because although National was more concerned about dogs than people we actually believe it is important to invest in people. The rates rebate scheme was introduced in the 1973-74 financial year by the Rates Rebate Act. It gave effect to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge at the time to provide assistance to ratepayers on low incomes who paid rates. The scheme is particularly suited to helping those ratepayers who have low incomes high rates and own their property outright. Superannuitants form a significant group within that set of criteria. Financial assistance for housing costs such as rent board or mortgage payments is also provided via the Government’s accommodation supplement administered by Work and Income. Eligible ratepayers will be able to apply to their city or district council for a rebate. The council will then process the application and deduct an amount from the rates bill. The council will then apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for a payment equal to the rebates that have been granted. This will help a lot of people; over 300000 people will benefit from the rates rebate scheme as of 1 July. It is somewhat concerning that the Opposition chose to vote against that particular part of the legislation. The fact that its members spent more time talking about dogs than people really does show where their priorities lie. 
However my final comment is in relation to the Dog Control Act. We look forward to moving on. We want to work with councils and dog owners and other relevant groups to ensure that the Act can be administered in a way that will be effective. In time farmers will see the benefits of microchipping I am sure and voluntarily microchip their dogs. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Just to follow on from some comments made by the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if she had had the opportunity either to take advice from her Local Government and Environment Committee members or to sit in on the committee she would have understood that there were some fantastic debates about people; dogs took up only a very small part of the select committee process which went on for a very long time because it was a very complicated extensive bill before us. I can say from my own personal point of view that it was a wonderful challenge. It was my very first shall we say bill before the House select committee period. I was very impressed with the officials and the quality of advice. I was impressed also by the I suppose desire of the select committee as a whole to look at making good changes. It was nice to work across the table from some of my colleagues in the House whom I now find are nearly as human as one would hope. 
It was a baptism of fire because it was interesting for me that the very first legislation I considered in the select committee was an omnibus bill on local government. It had to be! Local government as I am sure many in the House would know is a passion of mine having been 6 years as mayor of the best city in New Zealand—a fact—and being a member of Local Government New Zealand. It was surely I can attest a baptism of fire; it was one heck of a challenge and it was a fantastic learn. 
 I was surprised we could put so much into one bill. I was surprised that one bill can affect so many and in very different ways of the day-to-day activities of just about every single New Zealander. People must understand that a heck of a lot was crammed into this omnibus bill so much of which I agreed with so much of which I had sympathy with so much of which I could take issue with and so much of which I thought was just plain dumb. It was what one could call a real smorgasbord and does it not make a difference when one brings a smorgasbord into the House? 
How could members support a bill when they disagreed with so much of what was in it yet agree with so much more that was in it? A cynic would tend to be of the mind that if we wanted to pervert the course of proceedings a good way to do it would be to bring in an omnibus bill because it mixes the good with the bad and if we put in just a little more of the good than the bad so that members will support it members may tend to overlook the bad. So when members vote on an omnibus bill they may end up supporting it in principle but later they may find that because they supported the bill in principle they may be hung out to dry on some of the issues in the bill that they appear to have agreed with. 
However as I am not a cynic I will take this opportunity to highlight in a light way—and to have noted in  
Hansard 
—some areas of the bill that I felt substantively we supported. As I said earlier in many ways the omnibus bill touched on many parts of our day-to-day activities. Many of us have dogs. I can assure the House—and I am delighted to put on record—that Winston Blumsky is a working dog. I am delighted that he and his kin will at no stage be forced to partake of a microchipping process now. I suggest that he would be just as confused as damned near everyone else has been when trying to sort out the mess that has been generated by this Government through its introduction of what is stupid legislation. I acknowledge the good people of Hamilton who took the time and effort at the Fieldays to queue up and sign a petition about the provision in the legislation that last night Parliament decided needed to be changed. 
Moving on not only was the issue of microchipping dogs part of the omnibus bill but the issue of litter and the dumping of rubbish was also a part of it. I think it is fantastic that Parliament has taken the opportunity today to increase fines for littering. Those fines have not been touched since 1990 and the fact that some of them are going up tenfold in an attempt to discourage people from dumping rubbish or even to drop litter on the streets is to be applauded. 
We talked about parks and reserves. We talked about the need to consult on the disposal of reserves and parks and I think that was an important aspect of the bill. It was not talked about very much in the House but it is important to those in the Auckland region. We did take exception to what the Government called a minor part of the bill—that is boundary changes and the need for each council to consult at length on any minor boundary change that relates to their reserves. We suggested that that provision was an absolute waste of money. 
Being a justice of the peace I would like to put on record that justices of the peace will look forward to presiding over by-law offences through the liquor laws. The issue of abandoned cars was touched on. We have simplified the ability of councils to move on abandoned cars. Abandoned cars are a disgrace and a blight on the environment and I think it was important that the bill took the opportunity to make it easier for councils to move on that issue. 
We talked about rates and the need for lump-sum contributions. The omnibus bill tidied up that issue and that is to be applauded. Many people submitted on that issue and they will be delighted with the decision we made. We also came to the conclusion—well certainly members on our side of the fence did—that councils should not go back to being traffic officers. Councils should not go back to traffic enforcement and writing tickets and that is an important fact. 
We even had a discussion on developers’ levies. Yes they are fair but the message to all councils out there is that they have to be fair. We started receiving submissions from the public that claimed developers’ levies were becoming a little outrageous and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee and the National members on it are watching with interest the way developers levies are being set. We want some transparency around the fact that those levies should be fair. 
While I was sitting on the select committee that was deliberating on this bill I actually found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the Minister of Local Government. The Minister was quoted in the local government newsletter that came out recently and I will repeat his comments. At a meeting of the Local Government New Zealand metro sector he acknowledged that over the past few years it has been a very challenging time for councils. The Minister made the point that councils have had to contend with major legislative reform and other ongoing reviews and initiatives. In other words the Government has kept local government incredibly busy. I will repeat the Minister’s comment: “This raises questions about whether and when central government should assume some responsibility for funding local infrastructure and the relationship between such funding and the local expenditure priorities of each council.” He acknowledged that there is a difficult task in front of councils and he also stated: “I have no details on how I see the challenges being met.”—and I have a concern about that. 
How on earth can councils rein in their expenditure when their rates are going up because of major legislative reform coming from this Parliament? It became very clear during submissions before the select committee how this Government’s legislation and regulations are forcing rates up. We had submissions from a number of councils that talked about the cost of administering the dog microchipping programme. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per council. We had submissions from councils talking about the cost of administering the rates rebate scheme—the Government has asked local government to pay $150000-plus per council. We heard my colleague John Carter talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that councils have to spend on their long-term council community plans and the audits for it which are separate cost up to $80000 per council. 
A disgracefully high amount of dollars is being forced on local government by this Labour-led Government—and I have not even talked about the Gambling Act the Prostitution Reform Act the Building Act food regulations legislation and so on. They just keep coming from this Labour-led Government. These are costs incurred and forced on local government by this Labour-led Government. These costs are being thrown at local government and they will increase and do increase rates which results in ratepayers paying for what taxpayers should be paying for. 
To finish it is just too easy for this Labour-led Government to create legislation. Unfortunately it is even easier for the Government to get others to pay for it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation in all of its parts. The main part that we have heard about—and I have been as guilty as anybody—has been the microchipping of dogs. I think what we will see is the playing out of the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for because you may receive it.” Last night an exemption was granted for working dogs. This makes things very difficult for the modern registration of dogs which we always believed dog microchipping to be about. Whether we like it or not we will have a bit of a rural-urban split along those lines. I know that the will is there to make it work and I know that the Labour Government will do its very best to make it work and will go out with good intention. 
I hope as the Minister hopes that farmers will come along and see the worth of dog microchipping and engage in it on a voluntary basis. But I hope most of all that we do not have the situation that I am hearing hints of from the National Party. Its members are saying that the mess that will ensue will be a problem of the Labour Government and that National had nothing to do with it. In fact National and Federated Farmers had everything to do with it and sadly this was backed up by four members of the Green Party last night. New Zealand First I can say will hold the National Party to account for what it has done. 
John Carter 
: Who? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Members of the National Party can well say “Who?” as I heard John Carter say one time during this debate that New Zealand First would be dog tucker. There was another guy from the National Party who said that called the Hon “Dog” Kidd—Doug Kidd. 
John Carter 
: “Dog” Kidd! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Well he is dog tucker now! He said New Zealand First would be dog tucker. In fact he is not here but I still am the Rt Hon Winston Peters still is and we will be here for a wee while yet but that is for us to worry about. Throwing cheap shots around the House serves only to motivate us rather than the other way round. I will not say much more than that about dog microchipping. New Zealand First has been consistent. We agreed with it 3 years ago we agree with it now and we will agree with it in the future when somebody has the presence of mind to bring it back. 
But in the meantime I want to talk a little about the interface between local government and central government and it was right for Mr Blumsky to bring that up. I think there is a growing tension there. A problem I hear many people in the rural community talking about is increased rates. We all know in this House that this has come about from the reforms of the 1980s when Roger Douglas followed by Ruth Richardson and both Labour and National embarked on a right-wing reform programme that in fact shrank central government. The people of the day saw no role for government in the community. They promised no increase in taxes but what they did by sleight of hand in my view was then hand a lot of devolved responsibility—those were the words they used—to local bodies but they did not devolve money along with the responsibilities that were handed to local councils. 
That is a problem still to this day. So we have rates being imposed on local people to pay for the services required by local government. They may well make the argument that they are another form of tax. I would agree with them on that because they are. I believe quite frankly that it is time—because I have never been one to say that small government is great—for central government to start administering some of these things itself and thus take the burden off local government thus allowing it to hold rates and if transparency is the name of the game then levy taxes as it must. But to pass responsibilities continually to local governments and then have them levy their consumers—not always fairly I might add—their ratepayers I believe is wrong. 
I think a more responsible attitude needs to be taken. Some of the laws we pass in this House should be retained in their administration by central government and in my view uplifted from local government. This is a growing issue because local government is growing like Topsy. I am not talking about taking away responsibility from mayors. I am not talking about taking responsibility away from local councils. I am saying we should not give them more responsibility. Some of the laws we pass here we should keep unto ourselves and administer them through central government mechanisms. 
Like Mr Blumsky I am pleased to see that something is being done about litter. I do not believe particularly that continual penalties are the way to go. I think there are far more sophisticated methods. New Zealand First has not made a decision but we are not looking very favourably on Mr Nandor Tanczos’s litter amendment bill at this point but we are looking forward to the debate that will ensue when it comes into the House. I think local government issues will then come to the fore as well because again and again we are in danger of passing those things down to local government without the money to administer them. 
I am disappointed in the outcome of the Committee stage of the Dog Control Amendment Bill; I think National will rue the day it acted as it did but that is its decision. I think—most certainly—farmers will rue the day they were conned into supporting that. Those things are not for me to worry about. Suffice to say that New Zealand First will watch with interest how that legislation progresses and whether people in fact will believe that having a two-tier system—which is basically what it is going to be; one rule in an urban environment and another rule in the rural environment—is the way responsible parties want to go about things in this country. From New Zealand First’s point of view I say once again that it is not the way we wish it were. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Who would have thought that this little Local Government Law Reform Bill—full of good words about abandoned cars national parks and littering—would be so controversial? 
I want to add my thanks to the Local Government and Environment Committee and its staff Office of the Clerk staff and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I thank my National colleagues on the select committee who supported our amendment to get rid of compulsory microchipping except for dangerous and menacing dogs. I thank Labour members of the committee as well. The process in our select committee was very constructive despite our differences—it really was good democracy in operation. I also thank Federated Farmers kennel clubs and all those in the community who have supported the Green Party position as being the most rational and reasonable response to the issue of trying to prevent dogs from biting. 
The microchipping of dogs has remained a fierce political issue since 2003 and compulsory microchipping of the general dog population will remain an issue for as long as it is on the law books. The House will no doubt have to deal with this issue again sometime in the future. I am sorry this process has been such a monumental waste of time when it really could have been sorted out properly this time. 
In the vote on the Dog Control Amendment Bill later this afternoon the Green Party will split its vote with two votes opposed and four in favour. The principled position that Jeanette Fitzsimons and I have been advocating on behalf of the Green Party is that compulsory microchipping will not stop attacks on any child stock or wildlife. It cannot in any physical or practical way stop an attack from happening. If the truth is at all important I point out that nothing can really stop a dog from attacking if it intends to do so. 
The question here is whether microchipping will save a child’s life. If the answer is truly yes then the only principled position to take is to immediately enact legislation to make sure that every single dog in this country—whether it is currently or newly registered and regardless of what it does—is immediately microchipped. But if the answer is that no microchipping will not save children’s lives then no dog should be chipped unless there is a reason to suspect that it might pose a danger—hence the amendment in respect of dogs that are classified as dangerous or menacing. That is the position we have tried to put into the law—first through Jeannette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill which was defeated by only one vote; second at the select committee where with the support of National we had the bill changed; and third at the Committee stage where we put up six amendments to this part of the bill to try to find some solution that could gain cross-party support. No other position is a principled position. 
Other positions such as the one that is supported by my four colleagues—who are here with me today in the House—might be pragmatic and I support their right to take the vote they have taken but I continue to strongly disagree with them. The amendment passed in the House yesterday will exempt dogs that are “kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock”. Maybe there is validity in the argument that if those dogs are exempt then the system will be unworkable. That may come to pass sometime in the future but in the meantime this law is very unfair to those who have dogs as pets—whether they live on farms in towns or in cities. They will now have to bear the full burden of the cost of the microchipping regime. 
What about all those people who are beneficiaries or on low incomes? What about the elderly on superannuation who will now not only have to pay for registration and inoculations but up to $100 for a microchip? Why should those people have to pay while other people in unspecified kinds of businesses will not have to? If those people do not have their puppy microchipped they will be subject to a fine of $300 from the council and quite possibly a $3000 fine through the courts. Does this simply mean that dog ownership is now a privilege of the wealthy? 
What about dogs that are used for disability support? The exemption does not include disability assist dogs or those used by charitable organisations like the Pets for Love Outreach Programme which takes dogs into rest homes and special needs schools to provide love and companionship to people who are there. Those dogs still need to be microchipped. All other working dogs—police dogs biosecurity dogs Department of Conservation pest management dogs civil defence dogs—have to be microchipped. Where is the principled policy in choosing one subsection of working dogs but excluding all others? Dogs whose job is to protect the environment and dogs who save lives will still be microchipped. 
Maybe there is a real threat that microchipping could be used on people. Maybe this is actually the thin end of the wedge. Damien O’Connor certainly made it clear in his speech in the House that microchipping is already being used on other animals and could be extended to even more animals in this country. In the US at the moment farmers are fighting the Government which is trying to microchip every farm animal in the country. In the US and the UK the microchipping of people has the support of a number of major business leaders including Bill Gates of Microsoft. But how does excluding only dogs involved with stock provide a principled basis for a crucial opposition to the microchipping of people? 
What this House has done pleases one sector of the community. That is fine for that sector. But in the process we have created a bad law in the hope that it will achieve some other aim. That is not good lawmaking under any circumstances. Law should be based on evidence should not unduly or unfairly burden the community and must produce real identifiable outcomes. Compulsory microchipping fails this test. Exemptions for stock dogs fails this test. The law cannot and must not be based solely on hope. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena koutou te Whare. This year 2006 will always be remembered as the year that Parliament was hounded by politicians prattling on about their pets. We have had Tau Henare’s mongrel Jacqui Dean’s Jack Russell Metiria’s grandma’s poodle and United First’s lapdog. We have heard Labour howling on about its “one law for all dogs” we have seen National chasing votes on this issue like a bitch on heat and of course we have been graced intermittently by the presence of New Zealand First’s very own poodle. 
According to Chinese astrology 2006 is the Year of the Dog. They reckon that people born in the Year of the Dog can be a little selfish kind of eccentric and very bloody stubborn. The insane debate over the last few months suggests that these traits are particularly true of many of the politicians in this House. Yet through all of that insanity we have had the cool calm voice of the Maori Party reminding the House of the historical insanity of this law harking back to the imposition of the dog tax in Hokianga and warning of the perils of dog whistling—pitching a political message to a group of voters that other voters cannot even hear. 
We know too that some of those who proposed the microchipping of dogs had no idea at all about the reality of farming communities or even the expectation on local authorities to manage this measure. I do though. I asked a mate of mine who used to be a dog ranger about policing it. He said it would be a lot to expect someone to monitor the microchipping laws and that in a lot of places people would simply ignore them unless they had a squad of cops alongside them. So I asked one of the cops up north about police support for the legislation. He said that they would help out if they had to but he asked whether that was what Parliament really wanted policemen to be doing when they were already stretched. 
Parliament received a petition of 6000 signatures from Waikato calling for an exemption for working dogs. We took heed of the Kennel Club President Lesley Chalmers who said that it was not dangerous dogs that people should be concerned about but dangerous owners. We also noted the increase in costs for local bodies and the extra taxes imposed on dog owners. We noted all of this because anybody with half a brain knows that microchipping dogs will not stop dog attacks. In fact the Maori Party has been very clear that the most effective—not the only but the most effective—way to control dangerous and menacing dogs is to muzzle them not to wait for an attack to occur and hope the scanner will find the bad dog later. People with menacing dogs who do not control them will not bother to microchip them. Responsible people with potentially dangerous dogs will get lazy thinking that the microchip will do the work when in fact the key to the solution is education of the owners and control of the dogs. 
So we were happy to support David Carter’s amendment exempting farm dogs—and on behalf of the Maori Party I congratulate Federated Farmers National and also the Greens on supporting the vote. The Green Party split vote—which is what we ourselves in the Maori Party have done—shows the unique diversity that is possible in parties that are brave enough to welcome and embrace open and free debate. I listened carefully to the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimons last night and was glad to hear her speak proudly of the respect the Greens have for different points of view. Would that the rest of Parliament could be so bold for that is the sort of open thinking this Parliament needs. 
While microchipping dominated the debate on the Local Government Law Reform Bill a number of other matters in it of real interest to the Maori Party almost drowned in the saliva of the great dog debate of 2006. I refer to the amendment to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for example so that local bodies can sting ratepayers for more money for capital projects. The Local Government and Environment Committee suggested that the lump-sum contributions—as it called them—not be called rates. But taking more money from ratepayers and not calling it rates is kind of like taking more Maori land under the Public Works Act and not calling it theft. It is a Clayton’s rate increase—the rates increase we get when we are not paying more rates. 
Land rates have been a curse of Maoridom since they were first illegally used back in the 1800s for the express purpose of getting Maori into debt and forcing them off their lands. As Shane Jones’ relation Professor Margaret Mutu pointed out about the rating and valuation of Maori land in Tai Tokerau in 1991 the impact on the well-being of the tribe through longstanding grievances stemming from the rating and valuation of ancestral lands has been substantial. Indeed the Maori Party would welcome a review of the land valuation legislation because it appears that Maori land that can never be sold such as Waitangi is still valued the same as all coastal property. This means that the value goes up and the rates go up faster than the Maori owners can keep up and before we know it the land has gone up for sale to pay the rates. Although councils can give rebates most of them do not. 
Last night when the issue of Maori constituencies came up I had to sit through the contributions of a whole lot of people telling me how bad I feel about having Maori seats on councils how demeaning it is to me to have Maori seats in Parliament and how humiliating it is for Maori to have their rights protected under law. I can just see the Tui ad now: “Hey bro! Isn’t it cool that they stole our foreshore and seabed? Yeah right!”. I support Maori constituencies not because I believe in a process whereby councils can act like God giving Maori seats and taking them away but because for Maori to grow they need to experience governance at every level of society. My own personal view though is that Maori should simply stop paying rates to councils pay them to iwi and make councils negotiate with iwi for them. That way our contribution is maintained but our desires have been genuinely met as well. I agree with the comments from some of the National Party speakers who said that Maoris do not want tokenism. We do not. But we do not want anybody else telling us what we want either. Hello? Try asking us! Maori have a voice. We even have a voice in Parliament; it is called the Maori Party. 
This House will recall that earlier this year a United Nations special rapporteur recommended that Te Tiriti o Waitangi be entrenched in the constitution and that the MMP electoral system be entrenched to guarantee adequate representation of Maori in Parliament and on regional and local bodies. This nation continues to grow but it will never flourish until we recognise the validity of the Treaty and the status of Maori as tangata whenua. The Treaty is a contract to be honoured in the deed not just in the spirit. It should not be a simple whim to be renegotiated to suit the political colours of the day. For Maori it will ever be our right to be so—to know and to live as tangata whenua. 
We are delighted that farm dogs have now been exempted from microchipping but fundamental flaws remain in this legislation. In the interests of highlighting the need for improving relationships between Maori and local council authorities and for enhancing the rights of Maori to full recognition as Treaty partners in Aotearoa the Maori Party cannot on balance support this legislation. Kia ora tatou. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future was of course delighted but I must say extremely surprised that Parliament last night adopted our own party’s position—namely a continuance of the microchipping regime for dogs but with an exemption for working farm dogs. For me personally it has been an interesting 4 months. This debate has aroused passions from one end of our country to the other. Members should look at my in-box some time and see the volume of email I have received from people in every conceivable part of the country. The issue has aroused great passions. That has made me reflect that there is a unique relationship in New Zealand between human beings and their canine friends which is an integral part of our culture. We only have to think of  
Footrot Flats 
 or  
Country Calendar 
 which has been broadcast now for 42 consecutive years or of the dog wars in Northland in the 19th century or in fact of the almost mythical dog that worked with one Mr Mackenzie in the South Island back in the 19th century rustling other people’s sheep. 
When Federated Farmers came to us about 4 months ago seeking an exemption from microchipping for working farm dogs United Future was quickly convinced that working farm dogs—that is dogs trained to work with stock—are actually a different class of dog from other dogs. Why? For a start they are working dogs—not only in the sense that they earn their own keep unlike pet dogs but also in the sense that they make an enormous contribution to the agricultural and particularly pastoral economy of this nation which remains the backbone of our economy. So for that reason alone they come into a special class. Secondly those dogs are on farms. They are away from urban playgrounds parks and streets and certainly not in people’s backyards. And thirdly as I mentioned to the Committee today the figures show they are not involved in the majority of dog attacks—they are 40 percent of dogs but are responsible for just 2 percent of dog-biting attacks as reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
I have no doubt that Parliament has made the right decision because I think that a voluntary regime which is what we now have for farmers and their working dogs is far more likely to succeed than if we had gone ahead and foolishly insisted in the face of a good evidence-based case from Federated Farmers that farmers must microchip their dogs. Now we are saying that they may microchip their dogs and I think that will make a lot of difference. 
I want to thank National ACT the Maori Party and four members of the Green Party for voting with United Future in order to make last night’s result possible. I was greatly disappointed by the attempt by National and the Greens to overturn the microchipping regime. I am glad it has failed. I thought their response to the law that was passed by Parliament 3 years ago with the support of all parties except ACT was simply reactionary. 
I remember being at a meeting in the Waikato with a group of farmers early in May. We were talking about microchipping and they were giving me a pretty hard time to some degree. In the end I said that all we were really talking about was the difference between a collar and a chip. Collars get lost dogs slip their collars and collars wear out and have to be replaced. A microchip put into a puppy on the other hand is there for that dog’s whole life. 
This issue is simply about a new technology. I said earlier the National Party had been reactionary about it. I would have thought the National Party would be progressive in its thinking about new technology. We should have the best system we can for controlling our dogs and if that involves new technology then so be it. I foresee the day maybe a few years from now when we discover we can track a microchip through a Global Positioning System so we are able to see exactly where every microchipped dog is at every moment of every day and every night. That really will be important for this country. We should be a forward-looking country. We should not be frightened to embrace new technology and we should go forward on that basis. 
Microchipping is now to happen and in that regard I want to thank Labour Progressive and New Zealand First for holding fast along with United Future to the concept of a microchipping regime. I really deeply regret the comments that have been made by the Greens in this debate along the lines of saying it is dogs today and will be humans tomorrow. I do not agree with the politics of fear nor with the politics of conspiracy. United Future is a party that believes in the politics of hope and the politics of the potential to release the greatness of New Zealand. For me personally the gulf between dogs and humans is total as it is for my party. Dogs and humans are not the same. Our party is not into speciesism; we actually believe that human beings are unique in their dignity. To suggest that microchipping dogs will somehow lead to microchipping humans is plainly the politics of fear. I have said to a number of people since I have been in Parliament that if I received 10 bucks for every time I heard the Greens bring up the subject of fear in this House then I would be quite a wealthy man. 
At the end of the day I believe Parliament has done well. Let us now come together and keep working to make the playgrounds parks streets and backyards of our country safe. We need to make those places safe for our beautiful children because that after all is what we set out to do 3 years ago. These measures have come in response to the Carolina Anderson attack and in response to an understanding of what happened in New South Wales where there has been a microchipping regime since 1999. 
I would like to mention that Moana Mackey has made a very important contribution to the debate over the last couple of days. It seems that Moana and myself are about the only two MPs here who have actually bothered to find out what has happened in New South Wales. Routinely in New South Wales now as puppies arrive in this world they are immediately microchipped by the breeder. People simply go along and buy a puppy with a microchip in it. There is no hassle. As I have told the House the number of dog attacks has come down from 521 in 1997 to only 167 in 2003. I know that microchipping is worthwhile because fewer children are being attacked by dogs in New South Wales as a result of microchipping. Victoria will follow suit. All we have done is to catch up with the real world. We have got real for once and it has been a really really good outcome. 
With those few words I signal once again that United Future will be voting for the third reading of not only the Dog Control Amendment Bill but also the seven other bills—we will be supporting them all. I must say it has been an enjoyable 4 months as we have got to grips with the very real issue of microchipping. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of this legislation on behalf of the ACT party. As we know this whole debate has focused largely around the first bill on the list of the Order Paper today the Dog Control Amendment Bill. Three years ago in 2003 we had the tragic experience of one little girl who was attacked by a dog. As a result of that there was a knee-jerk reaction from the Government that was not really aimed at treating the cause of the problem but was in fact only an attempt at treating the symptoms. I think it is something of a reassurance today that this House has come at least part of the way towards recognising common sense by amending the Dog Control Amendment Bill. 
ACT has always remained consistent on this matter. We opposed the bill in 2003 for the reasons I outlined during the Committee stage and for the reasons that have been voiced by other parties in the House today. The proceedings have also been reassuring in that they have highlighted one of the strengths of MMP which has also been outlined by the Green Party. Parties particularly small parties from across the political spectrum joined together last night to allow common sense to prevail so that at least some dogs in this country would not have to be microchipped. However the ACT party finds it sad that all the other dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. We have done only part of the job and I hope that in the future we can address the rest of this issue. Unfortunately there were not sufficient numbers in the House last night to do that. But ACT will be supporting this Dog Control Amendment Bill because it goes a long way towards doing the right thing. 
It does not hurt to mention yet again that the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 would not have prevented any attacks and it would not have saved any children’s lives or have prevented them from being mauled or physically maimed for the rest of their lives. That legislation is not a safety measure. It will not save lives; it merely addresses the symptom of the problem not the cause. So it is a shame that since 2003 there has been a huge amount of political distraction around this whole issue. Hopefully the passing of this Dog Control Amendment Bill today will see an end to that. 
Of course there were many other parts to the Local Government Law Reform Bill as it was introduced into the House. It has now been divided into eight separate bills and ACT is taking a variety of stances on those bills. As I said we will be supporting the Dog Control Amendment Bill. We will be supporting two of the other bills—the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill—but we will be opposing the other bills that have been put forward in the omnibus legislation. 
ACT has been very consistent in opposing all local government bills that impose further regulation on local bodies that will in turn be passed on to New Zealanders and that will impose further compliance costs—firstly on local bodies and secondly in turn on New Zealanders. We have always said that people particularly when they are doing things on their own property and are usually making improvements to it should not be impeded by unnecessary regulation and excessive compliance. 
Unfortunately in the past 7 years under this Labour Government we have seen bill after bill after bill doing exactly that to New Zealanders—denying them their freedom and making it harder and harder to take care of and make improvements to their own property. ACT will continue to oppose any measures this Government puts forward in order to do those things. Yet again in some of those bills we have central government imposing more and more regulation on local government authorities too which is unnecessary and creates a further burden on them. That always seems to result in ordinary New Zealanders bearing the brunt of that usually in terms of financial cost. 
I wanted to take just a short call and voice our support for those three bills which are sensible and move in the right direction. In respect of the Dog Control Amendment Bill we would have liked to see a complete abolition of the ridiculous situation where dogs in this country will have to be microchipped. But we will be supporting that bill because it moves at least part of the way in the right direction. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 We are debating the third readings of the eight separate bills that were formerly part of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I certainly will not have time to cover all those bills but there are some salient points I wish to make principally around what has been seen as being the fundamental issue that has captivated and captured New Zealand over the last few weeks—that is the Dog Control Amendment Bill and the aspects of that relating to the microchipping of dogs. 
I begin by acknowledging the work that was done on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I acknowledge the select committee clerks for their diligence and for the work they did for the submitters who submitted from all over New Zealand. By and large the submitters took a very rational approach. Some submitted by way of videoconferencing and they made some very clear and reasonably articulate points. It is interesting that from memory only three local authorities made some claim to the fact that they wanted to see the microchipping of dogs proceed. Almost everybody else was against it. So we thank them for their contribution. A couple of petitions were also reported back with the bill. A number of people around New Zealand signed petitions under the names of a number of people and organisations saying that the bill was a nonsense. 
So my next acknowledgment would be to those individuals and parties who listened to the voice of the public. They articulated very clearly a number of issues about efficacy about longevity about actually fixing the problem and about the costs. Concerns were raised about a number of issues and the National Party was one that clearly considered all the facts and wanted to make an absolutely unequivocal stand to say that microchipping was a nonsense. We said that if we could not have that then we would support an exemption for working dogs and we got there. 
I also acknowledge some of my parliamentary colleagues in other parties particularly in ACT the Maori Party and the Green Party—in fact all of the Greens; they actually had some principles around which they made their decision. I concurred with their initial position. Then when it looked as though we were at an impasse and were going to make no progress whatsoever four Green Party members shifted their position so that we actually got some resolution. I think the decision is quite a sensible one—and I will come to that. A lot of people had an expectation that MMP would deliver the kind of decision we achieved out of this and I acknowledge those members who shifted their position and listened and those parties that divided and allowed that to happen. 
I want to comment that New Zealand First members took a very intransigent position right through. If I were to use an analogy in the dog world I think it would be that they ended up like a little dog surrounded by four tyres: in the end they did not have a leg to stand on. They completely misread the public and were quite uninformed in a number of the comments they made throughout the process of the bill. In the second reading debate members of the New Zealand First Party were telling us about hydatids control. Well for goodness’ sake how far out of touch could they have been! 
On reflection I think there is an interesting question about why we need to register dogs at all particularly farm dogs. I pay a $15 dog registration fee and for that I get a little disc I can attach to the dog’s collar. That is all I get. The management of animal health issues both hydatids and sheep measles whatever form it is in— 
Taenia ovis 
 or  
Cysticercus ovis 
—is my responsibility and the trace-back is from the freezing works. If it occurs on my sheep I have to answer to that. But registration does nothing other than provide me with a little disc and that raises questions about just how important registration actually is. 
I mentioned earlier that I think we achieved not a bad resolution. If we listened to the people of New Zealand we would have heard some local authorities say they wanted microchipping. I honestly do not know why they want it but if that is the case then that is fair enough. To me local authorities having a permissive regime whereby they could decide whether they wanted microchipping probably was not a bad answer and that is what we have ended up with. Section 5 of the Dog Control Act of 1996 states that local authorities must determine a dog management policy but after that it gets prescriptive and tells them a whole lot of things they can and cannot do. A range of costs have come out of that and people get grumpy about the costs that central government lays on local authorities. That largely was another reason why there was such an outcry about the process of microchipping. It would incur costs without actually doing anything to solve the problem which was dogs biting people and particularly in response to the Carolina Anderson incident savaging young children. 
The definitions under Section 2 of the Act state that a local authority can determine what is a working dog. This legislation is giving us the permissive environment that I thought perhaps we should have got to. So we have had a win. In my area in the southern zones the local authorities held up their hands and said they would not enforce microchipping. They actually took the Government on and said they would not enforce it. I do not know what would have happened had microchipping progressed through as a mandatory requirement. I think they would have just waited for it to be reeled back after a change of Government. But now local authorities do not have to break the law because they can actually determine that all dogs in their areas are working dogs. They will now be able to do some things with quite enthusiastic initiative because one of the issues we have talked about but never dealt with is allowing dogs into this country that have no right to be here. Those dogs by their nature are macho aggressive dogs. They include the Brazilian fila and a whole lot of others. So local authorities could have their own registers and say that those dogs shall not be working dogs and that all others are. So they could now require the menacing dangerous dog by breed to be microchipped. But they could also say that anybody who has had an offence for the ill-treatment of a dog or anybody who has been known to keep dogs for the purpose of dogfights or anything else is not eligible for an exemption as having a working dog. 
So we have actually put in place something that I think is quite innovative. We probably did it quite by accident—and I see the Green members are nodding; they concur with the decision we finally reached. I tell those Green members that they are largely responsible for the brilliant outcome we have achieved and I again acknowledge them for that. So we have now ended up with something whereby central government has provided a permissive regime that can be determined by local authorities. I think honestly that that is a pretty good outcome. 
John Carter 
: We did well. 
ERIC ROY 
: We did exceptionally well. I think it says a lot about the understanding of the Government and its members not to have picked up on that situation. 
John Carter 
: But we did—we cunning ones who saw it. 
ERIC ROY 
: Oh yes we saw it but we did not want to raise it earlier because the Government would have closed it down. I look forward to working with local authorities now and encouraging them to put in place regimes that will deal with the problem. 
I conclude by saying there are some other harsher things that I think we should have done. Dogs are an intrinsic part of this society. We have changed the legislation to recognise “disability assist” as a term and have had a small part in that. We recognise such dogs as companions as working dogs as dogs for protection and as dogs that find people who are lost in avalanches. We use dogs for a multiplicity of reasons. But there are some people who use dogs for inappropriate things. 
One of the amendments I introduced at the Committee stage stated that we should have zero tolerance towards dogs that attack and bite children. Members who seriously wanted to do something that would have put a line in the sand about what was or was not acceptable behaviour could have voted for that amendment. That would have put an unequivocal message before this nation of dog owners as to what would happen if their dogs misbehaved. The opportunity has gone but I hope members reflect that that is something they should have given more thought to during the Committee stage. 
I thank the House for the opportunity of making these points through this third reading speech. Of course a number of other areas were dealt with and they have been mentioned by other members. They include littering issues around the policing of special transport lanes and the rates rebate. But there is an overriding factor that does concern National in that many of the things included in this local law reform legislation—which is now divided into eight bills—have a cost implication that has to be picked up by the ratepayer. I want to conclude on that note that as central government as a Parliament we have the responsibility to be aware of just handing on costs—shovelling them out of here and letting someone else worry about them—and there are significant cost imposts in this legislation. As a member of the National Party I want to register our concern about that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Well has this legislation not shown the true colours of the National Party? Whenever the tough issues come before it and whenever the pressure becomes a little too much National wimps out. There are many different parts to this local government law reform legislation—now split into many different bills—as we have seen throughout the process of debating it that show us exactly what National is really like. We have talked a lot about microchipping and I will come to that shortly. But let us take one of the matters that has not received a lot of attention in the House. 
We are to pass the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill which amends the Land Transport Act of 1998. That bill brings in some provisions around transit lanes. On the North Shore of Auckland there has been a bus transit lane for 23 years. It has been a way of ensuring that public transport is promoted and that those who take public transport to work or to their place of study are given priority in the traffic flows. The council quite sensibly tried to enforce that provision—to make sure that people who were not entitled to be in the lane did not use it. There are other areas around New Zealand where such lanes are used as well and where a driver with two or more passengers in the car can use a priority lane in order to encourage people to car-pool. 
The National members of Parliament from the North Shore went to the Mayor of North Shore City and can members guess what they told him? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: They said they would support that bill in Parliament. They said they would support priority being given to transit lanes and would make sure that they got their fair share of funding in Parliament. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Did Maurice say that? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no—not Maurice Williamson! My colleague asked whether that came from Maurice Williamson a member of Parliament who has been here for some time—the old warhorse of the National Party whose shameful conduct around Paraparaumu Airport was under the spotlight again in question time today. No it was the big flash North Shore MPs—Dr Wayne Mapp the Hon Murray McCully and Dr Jonathan Coleman—who were all tough at home to the Mayor of North Shore City telling him not to worry and saying they were good local MPs. They said they would go to Wellington and support the legislation. 
But what happened? Maurice Williamson got hold of those members and said: “No no chaps. There’s room for politics here. There’s a bit of pressure on here. Let’s do the old National Party wimp-out routine and when the bill comes before Parliament we will vote against it—we will vote against the transit lanes.” There is a word for that; I ask Mr Okeroa what that word is. 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: The truth. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is right. That is the way those North Shore National MPs behaved—and boy will they have some explaining to do to the Mayor of North Shore City George Wood! 
Then we come to the microchipping issue where National conveniently forgot it had joined with 109 members of Parliament in 2003 to support not just one measure on dog control but many measures on dog control—many many measures; a whole suite a whole package of things we could do to try to give the community reassurance that we were taking the issue seriously. Why did we have to do that? We had to do that because when there were all those dog attacks against children the National MPs could not wait—they were falling over themselves—to get to the meeting we had at Bowen House with some of the families of the victims of those attacks to show how concerned they were about dog attacks. Some of the National members can burst into tears at the drop of a hat and sure enough at the meeting that is what they did. I was at the meeting and I saw National MPs ingratiate themselves and say they would join together with other parties and get tough on dog attacks. Do members know that at that meeting the National members said we had to get the politics out of the issue? I mean do some things not make one sick? Now as soon as a bit of time has elapsed and there is some wiggle room those members cannot wait for the politics. 
The National members try to paint the situation as being one where one measure by itself would stop dog attacks. How ridiculous is that? No one has ever argued that. If we took just one measure on its own out of the whole suite of measures we had we would find none of them would do that. This Parliament has voted to ban some people from owning dogs if they are proven to be irresponsible dog owners. That is one of the measures we took. Will that on its own stop dog attacks? Of course it will not. But we did that because we were building things together to make sure we had a sensible approach to the issue. 
How many times in the last Parliament did over 100 MPs vote together on the third reading of a bill? Only on a handful of issues—only a handful of times—and dog control was one of them. But when the pressure came on the National Party members they wimped out. They could not stand and hold together a decent argument. If they cannot do that in Opposition how on earth could they ever stand the pressure if they were in Government? Every time someone came to them and said he or she was a bit unhappy about something they would buckle under the pressure and say they would unpick everything. They do that while they are in Opposition but how could they do that in Government? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh rubbish! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The fact that it is only Sandra Goudie who says “rubbish” tells me a lot about the point I am trying to make. 
If we sadly—and I hope it does not happen—have another spate of attacks by dogs on children there had better not be one Tory MP who gets up and says the Government has to address the issue. When the pressure was on back in 2003 the National MPs were full of bravado when the problem was there. They had part of the solution: we were all going to hold hands together and do something about dog control. Now that we have gone through a period where thank goodness children have not been attacked in large numbers by dogs so the pressure is not on in that regard the National Party members bow to other pressure they are under from outside this Parliament and that tells people a huge amount about them. 
The most important part of this legislation—I will get to John Carter later on—was hardly talked about by the National Party members throughout the debate. They spent 3½ hours talking about one part of the dog control legislation: microchipping which is just one part of our suite of measures. But how long did they talk on the most important part: the rates rebate scheme? They spoke for 20 minutes about 300000 low-income people receiving a rates rebate and for 3½ hours on one part of the dog control measures. As Sandra Goudie yaps away it becomes clearer to me why those members sit over there on the Opposition benches. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She must be in pain! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I do not know about that and I do not think any of our measures could assist in that regard. But the most important thing we are doing is to increase for the first time in 30 years the threshold around the rates rebate—a fantastic measure for people who live in this country. Can members guess who opposes that? The New Zealand National Party. The National Party opposes us helping 300000 low-income New Zealanders. 
John Carter is presently National’s spokesperson on local government and interestingly enough Sandra Goudie has just had to check with John Carter as to whether National is supporting the rates rebate scheme. That is how informed she is about the process. Despite the fact that she sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee and did so during the previous Parliament she did not even know what the National Party’s position was. That just sums up those people. Anyway John Carter got up last night and told us one of his long rambling stories. He said the reason National had to oppose the rates rebate being increased from $200 to $500 a year was that it would impose costs on local government. I ask Mr Carter: who imposed the costs on local government caused by the microchipping changes that the National Party made on Wednesday night? Which party made sure that councils throughout New Zealand will have to go around their areas to find out which dogs are working dogs? What costs for local government could there be from what John Carter has done in that regard? 
The second point John Carter made in his very thoughtful contribution was that there was a cost in administrating the rates rebate scheme and that that was why the National Party had to vote against it. This of course is the rates rebate scheme that has been going for 30 years 18 years of which the National Party was in Government. Throughout the majority of those 18 years did National say it should abandon the rates rebate scheme because it was too much of a cost on councils? Oh no no. Those members are grasping at straws in looking for reasons to oppose a policy that will help 300000 people. 
On our commitment card at the last election we put down as one of our top priorities being able to increase the rebate from $200 to $500 a year. That will help lots of pensioners in our country and people on a fixed income who are trying to make their dollars go as far as they can—and not many people in the National Party would know about that. We are proud to support that policy; we are proud to have campaigned on it. That policy will make a difference for lots of nanas and poppas across New Zealand and for those on low incomes as well. It is to the eternal shame of the National Party that it will vote against this legislation which will help out all those people whom it claims to be so concerned about. It really is typical of National that it focuses on the trivial is juvenile and spends time on things that will make us giggle a bit. But when it comes to really substantial issues such as putting 500 bucks a year in the hands of poor pensioners the National Party does not know its position—that was pretty clear—and then spends 20 minutes debating it before coming up with the most pathetic reasons for opposing it that there could possibly be. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What did National do for the pensioners when it was in Government? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Well National had a close relationship with pensioners when it was in Government. One has to have that when one is booting people in the guts like that. National cut the pension three times on people when it was in Government. We came to Parliament with a proposal to put 500 bucks a year in the pockets of those people in order to help them to pay their rates and the National Party said no that should all be hoovered up so that it could give tax cuts to its rich mates. That is an absolute disgrace. 
This debate has been about rates rebates and there is a website where people can check out their eligibility for them. It is www.ratesrebates.govt.nz and it is far more important than a lot of the puerile nonsense we have had to put up with from the National Party these last few hours. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would just like to commend the sterling efforts from my colleagues in this House to blow the whistle on a Government that the people of New Zealand are rapidly concluding has gone stark barking raving mad. David Carter and Kate Wilkinson have done a magnificent job to highlight microchipping—a ludicrous part of the legislation which is a glaring symptom of a Government forcing more control over people and dumping ever more costs and work on to local authorities. That was referred to by my most excellent colleagues John Carter Mark Blumsky and Eric Roy. 
We are being inundated with reports of escalating local authority rates yet in spite of that we have the Government courtesy of the arch - cash-grabber Cullen telling Aucklanders to cough up more money for roads. Waiheke Island residents are promising a rates boycott if they are forced to pay recommended increases of at least 50 percent. Another group is saying that rates increases are unsustainable when looking at a 9 percent rate increase with more in years to come. A Federated Farmers survey revealed huge rate increases throughout the country. One council chief executive has even resigned citing mounting frustration at the increasing financial burden being put on councils by central government. 
This Government is one of the arch-villains as I have already said through the call by Michael Cullen for councils to start increasing their rates to pay for roads. Throughout the country there has been the suggestion that councils raise rates to fund State highways. We will not support that. Yet the Government thinks that is OK. No wonder with the Government continuing to shift responsibilities on to local government resulting in increased workloads increased compliance costs and no alternative for them but to pass those costs on to ratepayers. 
Councils have faced costs associated with the prostitution law gambling and microchipping but by far the greatest cost has been long-term council community plans. A scoping survey by a group from Lincoln University found that some councils specifically budgeted for the cost of long-term council community planning but some did not. Many councils had to put aside more money in their budgets at the request of staff to help pay for that whole round of community planning courtesy of this Government. Five main areas presented difficulties—that is funding staffing direction guidance meaning interpretation capability and buy-in. Actually that is more than five. But all those areas were really difficult to deal with in terms of long-term council community plans which were foisted on communities by the Government. No wonder when the process cost which many councils have to face was $500000 - plus. 
All of that just gets dumped on to ratepayers but the Government is saying: “They’re doing very well thank you very much.” But they are not. Even Tim Shadbolt Mayor of Invercargill has described the process as complex and bureaucratic and of course costly. Then there is the cost arising from the Government forcing councils to meet compulsory water quality standards which impose unbearable costs on communities instead of the Government allowing communities to determine their own needs. Microchipping is just another cost to ratepayers and the Government does not care. 
The Government loves the idea of developing joint ventures with local authorities because that keeps authorities busy and too busy to fight back. How many central government departments do members know of that are working with local government? I tell members there are heaps. They are all trying to develop these partnerships but all that does is keep councils busy—too busy to fight back. But they will fight back and they are fighting back. The Christchurch City Council has said it will leave the governance of gambling to central government—to this Labour Government—because it brought in the legislation it is the Government’s job and the council will let the market decide. 
As for microchipping of dogs councils may well decide to class all dogs as “working dogs” and not do any microchipping. The fact is they can. That will be a signal to the Government that it is failing the people of New Zealand. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking on the Dog Control Amendment Bill I must admit that National’s first preference was to exempt all dogs from microchipping. Our second preference was to at least exempt farm dogs. Microchipping is still dopey and will not stop dog attacks but at least some dogs now are not subject to that stupid law and for that we must be partially thankful. 
I do wonder what it takes for the Government to listen to New Zealanders to listen to local authorities to listen even to Treasury and to listen to common sense. I have to acknowledge the huge support received nationwide for my own petition which was to exempt farm dogs. It got nearly 10500 signatures. Nearly 10500 New Zealanders—dog owners and non - dog owners—petitioned the Government to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. And now they are exempt! Then again over 6500 New Zealanders also signed a petition to exempt all dogs from microchipping but would the Government listen? No chance! We have heard arguments that microchipping is a one-off cost. Listen to this true story from New Zealand First which supported microchipping just like obedient poodles: “Inserting a microchip is a one-off identification for the dog and owner. Therefore microchipped dogs would not need to be registered annually. The annual fee is a hangover from the days of hydatids and is no longer relevant.” 
John Carter 
: Who said that? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: New Zealand First. 
John Carter 
: Ron Mark? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Not Ron Mark. Oh was it Ron Mark? Nothing in the bill says that. The bill is about microchipping and registration. It is not about microchipping instead of registration. It is not about having one lifelong fee. Dogs still have to be registered annually and the registration fee still has to be paid. 
We have heard arguments about the microchip being a lifelong means of identifying the dog and that it involves a one-off visit to the vet. We have also heard about Mr Roy’s friend Hank the 8-year-old Rottweiler that was microchipped at 10 months and later scanned by the vet but the vet could not locate the microchip. In fact the vet said that microchips should be checked every year to ensure that they have not moved and that they are still functioning. So much for a one-off visit and so much for a one-off cost! 
We have heard arguments that it is easier to identify a dog through a microchip than through a registration tag and collar; that is if one happens to have the appropriate scanner—and the specifications of scanners can vary from country to country. Indeed one needs to get close enough to scan the dog and provided the microchip is where it should be and has not moved or disappeared. What is the point of microchipping a dog to get through the Customs Service and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at the airport if the ministry does not even have the scanner available to do the check in the first place? 
We have heard arguments about the mess that is now being given to local authorities because of the differentiation between working farm dogs and other dogs. Under the Dog Control Act as all members should have read the definition of a working dog includes any dog that the council so resolves can be a working dog. Any dog or class of dog can now be resolved just by a straightforward resolution of the local authority as a working dog and therefore become exempt from being microchipped. The local authority as my colleague Eric Roy said has the discretion. It has the choice over whether to enable all dogs to be microchipped. 
Microchipping whether of urban dogs or of rural dogs will not stop a dog attack. Microchipping will not turn a dangerous dog into a harmless dog and it will not turn an irresponsible owner into a responsible owner. Those Treasury figures—which this Government does not listen to—suggest that 7 to 8 percent of New Zealand dogs are never registered. Of those unregistered dogs 50 percent are responsible for the dog attacks. Those unregistered dogs are even less likely to be microchipped now. This bill is right and it is wrong and the words of the former MP Michael Bassett apply to the situation. I quoted his words last night but I think they are worth repeating. He said: “Microchipping dogs is a pathetic political distraction to disguise the paralysis that afflicts this government preventing it from doing anything worthwhile.” 
I have to say that even after the passing of this bill that paralysis will still be there and it will still be preventing the Government from doing anything worthwhile. At least now some New Zealanders have been saved from this dopey microchipping law and that is something. The question that still remains is whether the Government is the dog or the fire-hydrant and whether it resides in the Beehive or the “pee-hive”. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Litter Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 21 June. 
Part 2 Transitional provisions 
TIM GROSER (National) 
:  
National is opposed to Part 2 the transitional provisions because they are related to the appointments procedures. We have generally had the view throughout this whole process that this amendment bill tries to fix a problem that does not exist and does not fix a very real problem that exists. I will come to that later. Let me deal first with the non-existent problem—the appointments procedures. 
Let me recap the arithmetic although the fundamental point should be well known to members. The Historic Places Trust currently has 11 members three of whom are appointed by the Government. So the ratio of Government to non-Government people on the trust is a fraction under one to four. This amendment bill proposes to reduce the total number of trust members from 11 to nine and to double the number of Government appointments thereby shifting the ratio of Government to non-Government people from fractionally under one to four to two to three. 
One does not need a PhD in mathematics to predict the consequences this will have for the future operations of the trust if this amendment bill is passed. It will move from a situation where we have essentially volunteers in partnership with the Government which we consider to be an appropriate model to a completely Government-dominated trust. It will change the nature of the trust in a very fundamental way. National members keep on asking why. We ask what the rationale is for doing this. All we hear are the words “better governance” but the real issue is what is behind this formulaic explanation. Who has messed up and over what issues? What is the linkage between these alleged mistakes or shortcomings the number of Government-appointed members and the actual operations of the trust itself? 
We know that there are already quite adequate tools to deal with mismanagement. The trust is considered to be a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004 and all the tools are there and available for the Crown to intervene in cases of mismanagement or cases of bad governance so why are we moving to a Government-dominated trust in the future? There is no explanation just the formulaic responses that have been given to us to date. 
So in the absence of any credible explanation I ask what the real reason is for making this change. Is this just cronyism? Is it simply a Government that wants to have more baubles to pass along to its mates? Is that what it is about—or is it really about the underlying mentality of this Government which is about control? We meet this in every facet of the political debates in this House. We meet it on this issue which is not a central issue facing New Zealand but we also meet it on issues of tax versus personal responsibility or on welfare. We meet it on every single issue. 
The Government has this fascination this idea that the Government knows best that it can control affairs and that it will make the decisions for us. The Government does not trust people to make their own rational decisions. National opposes the transitional provisions because nobody has given us a halfway credible and plausible reason why we should move towards a Government-dominated trust. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I am very disappointed by the approach National Opposition members are taking to this bill. I am particularly disappointed given the undertaking they gave a public meeting of the arts community in Auckland that they were going to take a more positive line and given the bipartisan history between parties in this House on cultural and arts legislation that they are being so negative. 
The Historic Places Trust is an amazing organisation that Nick Smith when he was Minister of Conservation insisted—and I think quite rightly—should regionalise. National members also quite rightly have pointed out that in spite of their desire for tax cuts they think this area has been badly underfunded. Indeed this Government has taken heed of that and has taken the funding for the Historic Places Trust from $3.7 million in 1999-2000 the last year of a National Budget— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Part 2 is about the transitional provisions and it is a very narrow part. We are not talking about the title or commencement; we are talking about the number of members who will be on the board. That is what the debate is about. The Minister is talking about funding issues and talking about other issues that have nothing to do with the transitional provisions. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that the Opposition member has gone on at some length about the lack of justification—as he understands it—for this. That is why he is opposing the transitional measures. I am supporting the transitional measures by explaining the questions that he asked. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Tisch. That was by way of a rebuttal in the main and I expect the Minister to come back to the bill or come to the bill. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am speaking absolutely to the bill and to the questions that the National Party—in spite of the fact that this bill has been before the select committee for several years—appears not to have the answers to. I am very proud to say that this year the Government is supporting the Historic Places Trust to the extent of granting it $10.4 million—up from $3.7 million in 1999-2000. The result of that change that Nick Smith and the last National Government put in place is that the Historic Places Trust has far more work. We are seeing extraordinary regional and national moves for New Zealanders to take charge of and support their own heritage. The result has been a huge call on the Historic Places Trust staff—and indeed on the Ministry for Culture and Heritage staff—for advice on the application of the law for example on the right to export. We say the Government needs good advice on developing this rapidly changing legislation. This bill is entirely a result of that call. 
I am very proud of this legislation. The transitional period is about taking the old Historic Places Trust through into the new modern world. We as a Government take very seriously our responsibility to be accountable for public money just as we take very seriously our undertakings given to New Zealanders—whether at a meeting in Auckland or in this House. I am delighted to say that the wonderful people who work for the Historic Places Trust have agreed that they think the Government should have a more direct conduit to that advice and that accountability and they are delighted to give it. It is time National came to the party on heritage in this country and kept its word. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will try to deal with this matter slowly so the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage can pick up the various issues. We are not talking about the importance to New Zealand of the Historic Places Trust; National was in Government when it was formed. All the good work done in the 1950s by National has been continued by it throughout the 1960s 1970s 1980s and 1990s. So we are not talking about the importance of the Historic Places Trust; we are talking about Part 2 of the Historic Places Amendment Bill which is the transitional provisions. Part 2 deals with clause 27 and there are three parts to it dealing with transitional provisions relating to those elected to the board of the Historic Places Trust and those appointed to the board and what is going to happen with them. Clause 27(3) deals with appointments to the Maori Heritage Council. 
We heard nothing from the Associate Minister about the key points raised by Mr Groser in his address a few minutes ago. This compels the National Party to oppose Part 2 given that we opposed Part 1 on the issue of the new governance structures of the Historic Places Trust. For the benefit of the poor old member for Waimakariri let me recap. 
On 13 June I traced the governance structures of the trust from its formation by the National Government in 1954. Indeed Mr Chairman I think you were in the Chair at the time I referred to the debate in 1954 when both the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs and Mr Duncan Rae who was then the MP for Parnell—and who was really the sponsor of the new Historic Places Trust—outlined the trust’s membership and the rationale for it. It was a theme repeated in 1992 as I said by the Hon Denis Marshall another good National Minister responsible for the Historic Places Trust. He said the trust is not supposed to be a statutory quango. It has more than 23000 fee paying members and an effective body of voluntary workers who form a network of distinct communities throughout New Zealand. It is that network of communities that needs to be reflected in the membership of the board of the Historic Places Trust. 
I ask the Associate Minister to take down the following key issues and to address them through the Chair. I would like the Associate Minister to take note of these so we can have a sensible debate rather than a whole lot of raving and what could be called ululations about nothing. 
 The member for Waimakariri would not even know what ululation means. All he knows about is his new hairdo. Why has the 50-year-old governance philosophy of the trust been fundamentally altered by this amendment? Has the Associate Minister taken that question down? How does the change strengthen the trust’s governance arrangements as the report on the bill asserts? The Associate Minister has to look up the dictionary—fair enough. How is accountability enhanced by this legislation as asserted by the Government in the majority report when the trust is already an autonomous Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act? Just like Creative New Zealand it is an autonomous Crown entity already so how do these governance arrangements necessarily enhance its accountability? If the Associate Minister could answer those questions I would be very grateful. 
There is no justification for this fundamental change. It will not improve governance or accountability at all. As Mr Groser said it is all about greater control by the Government of an organisation that has served New Zealand for many years. The Associate Minister and Mr Cosgrove are looking up the word in the dictionary. I am paying a lot of attention to this effort by the Associate Minister to—rather than focus on the issues—look up the dictionary. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but the Associate Minister is having trouble with the spelling. I wonder whether you would be good enough to give her the first letter—“u”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: So there is no justification for the fundamental change. The Minister just will not address the central issues that are so important to the question of the governance and accountability of the trust. 
This inability to address the issues was reflected also in the speech by Mr Donnelly in this debate when he said that he did not understand all this historical analysis and that surely the National Party would be in favour of a smaller membership because we are in favour of less Government. But—for Mr Donnelly’s benefit—the issue is not so much whether the membership of the trust is nine 10 or 15; it is the composition of the membership that is important. 
So Part 2 which seeks to implement transitional provisions for the new governance structure cannot be supported because the National Party is not satisfied that the governance structures under Part 1 will really improve the situation at all. I ask the Associate Minister to please address my three questions so that we can move on to the long title. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 For those who did not know it that was Chris Finlayson who rather sanctimoniously—as he does from time to time—was pontificating from on high. In talking to Part 2 “Transitional provisions” I agree with the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard that yet again the poor old National Party cannot depoliticise the simplest of issues. Who could politicise and play politics with the Historic Places Trust? Only the National Party could. 
The previous speaker bleated on about the increase in Government appointees. It is true that out of 11 members of the board three were Government appointments and it is true that the bill proposes that it appoint six out of a total of nine. Why is that pray tell? Well I am advised that historically a large amount of money accrued to the Historic Places Trust and it came not from the taxpayer—part of it came from the taxpayer—but from the membership hence the need to ensure that the governance structure reflected accountability to the membership for their money. Now because this Government honours its promises a lot more taxpayers’ money is going to this very venerable and respected institution. Hence as the guardian of the taxpayers’ purse and being fiscally prudent the Government has made the move—with wide consensus and after wide consultation—to increase its appointees on the board because it is increasing the amount of taxpayer-funded dollars being put in. 
It is pretty simple I would have thought—a wee bit too simple for the non-QC over there who still has not got over the fact that he ain’t a QC. He needs to get over it and lose the emotional baggage. I would have thought it was prudent to install more Government people—to have more Government representation—not only to guard the taxpayer’s purse but also to ensure there is accountability for the money as the trust receives more money from the Government and less money from the membership on a percentage basis. But oh no what did we hear from that member? He loves to get up and in some sort of archaic esoteric way bamboozle us with very long words. I was told that that member along with Tim Groser were the superstars of the National Party on the escalator straight to success—a very apt description for one of them. And what has National done? It has sent down the C-team to passionately have a go at politicising Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It could not even support that. 
Essentially National is saying that we can put in more taxpayers’ money and reduce our accountability. We say no to that. We are putting in more taxpayers’ money because we support the Historic Places Trust. The National Party should support it because it will be—and is—a historic place; it is an archaic appendage that hangs around this Chamber from time to time. But will National support a basic prudent measure like Part 2 “Transitional provisions” which has basic support around the country and which nobody wants to politicise? Oh no. It must be practice and audition day for the new superstars on the back bench. I am sure Mr Groser came into Parliament—with his great speech of gravitas—to politicise this issue talking as he did about Part 2 and rendering it down to good old-fashioned politics. I am sure Mr Finlayson—that great lawyer of note that learned gentleman who talks about himself more than anything else in the corridors of power that superstar that rising star in the National Party—came into Parliament with all his intellect and gravitas to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions” of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
I tell those two members to grow up and get a life. The people of New Zealand are not listening to the radio to hear a whole lot of hot air and politics from those two members. They should get over it. If those members want to stand up and have a go they should have a go about a great issue of moment. They should not stand up just because they were sent down by Mr Tisch the national whip to get in a bit of practice and to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It is no wonder that the people who listened to those two speeches scratched their heads. It is no wonder some members in this Parliament are perceived in the way they are. Those members should grow up get over it make a decent speech next time and support the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 First of all I did enjoy the earlier intervention from the member for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove. I think the problem was that he was so dazzled by the learnedness of my colleague Mr Finlayson that he got it into his head that he would single out Groser and Finlayson and ululate over their arguments. I think he needs to do a little bit more research before reaching his conclusions so quickly. 
Now as we are dealing with the substance of the matter let me explain in a little more detail the underlying problems here. First of all I would like to explain to the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard what bipartisanship really means and its limitations. I have two responsibilities: first to support our spokesperson on foreign affairs and trade on trade issues; and second to be spokesperson on arts culture and heritage. In both cases there is a strong degree of support from National for the underlying objectives but that support is always conditional. If the Government drops the ball on these issues as we think it has done in this case—and we will have exactly the same issue when it comes to the Trans-Tasman therapeutic drugs agency—that is where bipartisanship stops. 
Having dealt with the underlying issue let us go back go the fundamental point here of governance. Nobody has satisfactorily explained why we should move to a Government-dominated institution. The word “governance” is a formulaic response. It has been used to describe everything from the need for better policies in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe to provincial rotary clubs. We heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs today explain that the Government was giving $2.5 million for better governance in Indonesia. While I am on the subject of Indonesia and the Minister of Foreign Affairs let me take this opportunity to correct a small error of fact that the Minister made in response to the very reasonable and sensible point of my colleague who asked why the New Zealand Government—and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular—did not have the guts to stand up with the Australian Government— 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty trying to equate the comments the member is making with this particular bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Groser if you would come back to the bill please. I was waiting for a point he was about to make which was quite relevant actually. 
TIM GROSER 
: Well everything is related to everything else and the other way round. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take deep exception to the member’s comments about the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is not parliamentary to impugn the courage of any member and he did that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is correct. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Brian Connell 
: As we are having point of order season I say that it has been a long-held convention in this House that the Minister sitting in the chair does not interject. She has been at it throughout this debate. I ask you to ask her to stop it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It will not happen again thank you Mr Connell. And you want— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I would like him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If you would withdraw and apologise please. 
TIM GROSER 
: Let me move that issue aside. I will explain later to the Minister the position that the President of Indonesia actually fulfilled during that period because it was central to the point. 
What we are dealing with here in substance is an issue that the Historic Places Amendment Bill does not address. It is the elephant in the room—and not just this room but a number of rooms—and it is related to the economic development of this country. Some members will have read as I did a bitter critique of the Government’s approach to economic regulation in the  
National Business Review 
 this week. It started with a very cutting point about the Government’s inability to free up business decisions. Here we have a situation whereby no effort is made in the Historic Places Amendment Bill to clarify the ambiguities surrounding the term “wahi tapu”. The implications of that term for economic development in this country can on occasion be very considerable. That is the elephant in the room and the Government has decided to ignore it. It is trying to fix a non-problem and has not addressed the real problem. In National’s view the real central issue facing this country is that every decision of the Government should be measured against the test of whether it makes investment easier whether it enhances productivity and whether it helps further wealth creation or gets in the way of it. 
Here we have an opportunity to fix the problem of the completely nebulous concept of wahi tapu. Let me be very clear that the real concept of wahi tapu is absolutely central to preserving our heritage. That is exactly the point my colleague Mr Finlayson was making about the underlying position of the National Party. We totally accept that structure; we were responsible historically for putting it in place in the first place. So let us not caricature this debate as political. What we are talking about is not the fundamental need to protect key sites to different communities including the importance of legitimate wahi tapu sites. What we need is greater clarity. Landowners need it Maori need it and Maori landowners need it. The bill which would have been a wonderful opportunity to address that does absolutely nothing to do so. 
Why not? Well we are puzzled by this. Is this Government once again ideologically blocked from clarifying issues that are related to the national interest and the further economic development of this country? Is that the fundamental problem? Is it the same mindset that stops this Government from clarifying key issues in the Resource Management Act and that has it intervening in the Whangamata marina decision after years of legal process? Is it the same mindset that sends such negative signals to New Zealand business people New Zealand property owners and New Zealand creators of wealth? There is no signal that if those people come up with innovative proposals the Government will try to facilitate them rather than get in the way. 
But no we see no opportunity taken in this bill actually to fix the underlying problem. The elephant is still in the room and the Government wants to ignore it just as it wants to ignore it in more important contexts. I do not think we will get any clarity on this issue until such time as we have a Government that is not confused. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting to see Minister Tizard nodding furiously when the member for Waimakariri was speaking. It must be the first time she has ever agreed with him on anything given that he is known around this place as “Mini-Mike”. Clayton Cosgrove has modelled his entire political career on former Prime Minister Mike Moore—although why anyone would want to do that I do not know. We all know that Minister Tizard is from the Clark faction of the Labour Party so it is great to see that unity has broken out between the residual Moore faction and the Clark faction of the Labour Party. It has all happened because of the transitional provisions of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sure I do not have to draw your attention to this. That erroneous drivel has nothing whatever to do with the bill and it might be prudent to explain to the new member that he has to adhere to the Standing Orders. He is a lawyer but he may not understand the Standing Orders. It might be prudent to bring him back to the bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am most grateful to the member for Waimakariri for educating me as a former clerk or whatever he was. I am very grateful to him for that guidance. 
The other point I will make is that the Minister seems to think about the arts culture and heritage in the following way: if someone disagrees on any aspect of the arts culture or heritage then that person is somehow some kind of cultural wrecker. As National members have said all along a former National Government formed the Historic Places Trust and if members trace the legislative developments over the years they will find that National has been responsible for updating the trust. The National Party is utterly committed to the Historic Places Trust just as it is to other great arts and cultural institutions. So it is absolutely vacuous for the Minister to stand up and use that kind of argumentation instead of getting down to the detail. 
The issue is not whether the National Party supports the Historic Places Trust or is not pleased that further money is to be put into it so that historic places and wahi tapu sites can be preserved. The key issue for the National Party—which the Minister has failed to address—is the issue of governance. As I have said the Historic Places Trust under the Crown Entities Act is already an autonomous Crown entity. That means the trust must have regard to Government policy when it is directed by the responsible Minister. So there is adequate governance oversight already. Even at this late stage of the debate I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain why we need to alter the governance structure of the trust so that instead of having a broad wide-ranging membership representing distinct communities around the country we need ministerial control. The trust does not need ministerial control because it is a Crown entity. 
If the Minister could answer that very simple question I would be very grateful because I fail to understand how accountability is enhanced by this legislation as asserted by the Government in the commentary on the bill. The commentary states: “The bill proposes to strengthen the Trust’s governance arrangements …”—well how?—and to enhance its accountability. So if the Minister could answer that question even though we are now talking about the title and clauses 1 and 2 it would be very useful. We say—and I will say it once again—that these governance mechanisms are unnecessary. They run counter to the history of the trust since 1954 they are undesirable given the nature of the body and they are unnecessary given the fact that it is already an autonomous Crown entity. 
The only other point I would make picks up a point raised by Ms Kedgley in her speech. She was very concerned about what could be called the toothlessness of the trust where the protection of historic buildings is concerned. I thought the member raised a number of interesting issues. However those issues pertain to Parts 1 and 5 of the Act which are not affected by this bill. Although her speech was interesting and raised a number of points it was largely irrelevant to this bill. But I pick up what the member said and perhaps the time is coming for a comprehensive review of this legislation. It was last reviewed comprehensively by a National administration in the early 1990s. 
Hon Member 
: Who was the Minister? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister then was a fellow called Denis Marshall—another fine MP for Rangitikei like Mr Power—who gave a great deal to the conservation cause in the 6 years that he was the Minister. The legislation was last reviewed under a National Government and perhaps the time is coming for further review. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to very briefly take up the point of the last speaker. I agree with him that we need and should have had here a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust. Basically over the last number of decades of the trust’s existence historic buildings throughout our country have been bulldozed. As the Associate Minister pointed out Labour has given additional funding to the Historic Places Trust and we are very pleased about that. But we think it is clear that what is needed is not simply additional money but additional powers because there are numerous examples of the Historic Places Trust being left wringing its hands in despair apparently powerless to act when magnificent heritage buildings are being bulldozed. 
Just recently a historic building in the old historic precinct of Petone was demolished. The Historic Places Trust opposed the proposed demolition of that building but in the end it could do nothing except wring its hands. So we agree completely with the National Party spokesperson in this area that a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust is needed. The time has come. The few tinkering technical amendments some of which are not so technical do not begin to get to the heart of the matter. Why are we not giving more teeth to the Historic Places Trust? Why are we sitting on our hands watching more and more magnificent historic buildings in New Zealand be demolished? 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill 
War Pensions Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The main aim of the bills is to extend eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation and veteran pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. The extension will ensure a fairer treatment for as many as 2000 superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse or partner in long-term residential care. The current approach is seen as unfair to spouses and partners in the community because only in a very limited range of circumstances can those people the spouses and partners of people in long-term residential care be eligible for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension. This issue was highlighted by the petition of Barbara White presented to the House in September 2004. 
I would like to take this opportunity to convey my thanks to the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House and in particular to the lead petitioner Mrs Barbara White who was very ably supported by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that is rectifying an unfair situation with these bills. It is ensuring fairer treatment of New Zealanders. The reality is that Peter Gresham a National Government Minister in 1995 investigated this very policy and had it costed. He looked into exactly the measures that we are enacting today but he and the National Party of the day failed to do anything about it after they had seen the evidence. They did absolutely nothing to fix the unfair situation that saw married couples with one partner in long-term residential care get less money than their single counterparts. 
Another important thing these bills do is to remove from 1 July 2006 the “sharing expenses” rule which again currently prevents some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. The living alone payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. The “sharing expenses” rule currently operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. In some cases superannuitants have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment because they have been receiving modest contributions to their household expenses from family members. Well that rule is being removed and its removal will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based solely upon actual living arrangements. That will ensure fairer treatment for all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone. 
The third amendment contained in these bills will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks if he or she is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently the maximum payment period for that work is 52 weeks. 
A further amendment is contained in the War Pensions Amendment Bill. This amendment changes the War Pensions Act 1954 to enable all rates of the veterans pension to be increased by Order in Council. This change will align the legislative provisions for making adjustments to the rates of veterans pensions with those for New Zealand superannuation made under the Social Security Act 1964. 
We have heard much rhetoric from the opposite side of the House on these bills. The reality is that this Labour-led Government has given and is giving our senior citizens a fairer deal. Since we became the Government we have corrected for them many injustices and the unfairness of the 1990s. Let us remember who introduced the discriminatory asset-testing regime that has caused so much worry for our senior citizens. It was the National Party. It is this Government that is phasing out asset testing. Remember who cut superannuation to 60 percent of the average wage when last in Government and who would have cut it even further if they had not been voted out in 1999. It took a Labour-led Government to restore superannuation to no less than 65 percent for a married couple and this year to 66 percent because of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. Let us not forget that the current leader of the National Party is on record as saying that he believes that we should raise the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. 
The bottom line is that families in New Zealand should not trust that side of the House when it comes to issues of fairness for senior citizens in our country. National’s record in the past speaks volumes. Meanwhile with these bills the Labour-led Government is addressing several anomalies in the current treatment of our superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident that the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders and that is certainly what they deserve. I commend these bills to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.