Volume 624 Week 82 - Wednesday 9 March 2005 
Volume 624 Week 82 - Wednesday 9 March 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19033] 
Wednesday 9 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Tabling of Documents 
Allegation by JohnTamihere 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 John Tamihere the member for a northern Maori seat laid an allegation against me in this morning’s paper that I think is somewhat scurrilous and untrue. Rather than bother you with a privilege procedure I simply wish to take this opportunity to table for the House my identification tag for the Hui Taumata presented to me by the organisers when I arrived and worn by me for all the time that I was there. The fact that Mr Tamihere has no recollection of my being there will be of no surprise to this House. He is the man of course whose recollection of the past is so poor that he now has the Serious Fraud Office helping him to remember it. 
I seek leave to table the identification that proves my presence at the Hui Taumata. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Could the deputy leader of the National Party also supply evidence as to when he actually clocked in at the conference? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought and it should have been taken. Leave was sought to table the identification. Any objection? Yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it now that the requirement of the Prime Minister—the dictatorial Prime Minister that she is—that I should provide evidence of my clocking in is no longer required. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order. 
Questions to Ministers 
Solid Energy—Reports 
1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What reports has he received on the recent performance of Solid Energy? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I have seen a report stating that Solid Energy has increased the value of shareholders’ funds by $125 million since 1999 and was awarded New Zealand’s Supreme Exporter of the Year award at the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Export Awards in July 2004. I have also seen a report that the National Party wants to privatise that well-performing taxpayer-owned company. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Could he further advise what reports he has received on the future outlook of Solid Energy? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government will not sell Solid Energy unlike the National Party which has decided to take New Zealand back to the 1990s and flog off State assets that have been built up over the years with taxpayers’ money. 
John Key 
: Does he agree with the mixed-ownership model currently operating in Air New Zealand where the Government owns 80-odd percent and the other 20 percent is floating on the stock market or should I infer from his answer today that he is announcing that he is renationalising Air New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is important to remember that the Government had to buy back that airline after it was privatised—an example of privatisation and that included New Zealand Rail. That is why this Government will not privatise State-owned assets. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Minister seen the report on Solid Energy’s environmental performance in the Christchurch  
Press 
 where chief executive Don Elder told the Environment Court he recognised that some of the company’s past mining practices had been unacceptable and the company still had considerable work to do and does he accept that Solid Energy has been making profits at the expense of the environment? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have not seen that particular report from the Christchurch  
Press 
. I have seen reports however where Solid Energy has acknowledged that it made mistakes and stated that it is making major steps in order to be able to rectify those mistakes. I commend Solid Energy for doing that. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling of the people of Huntly against the privatisation of Solid Energy a taxpayer-owned company they have worked long and hard for? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I am aware of the very strong feelings of the people of Huntly against the privatisation of Solid Energy and the fact that the National Party is now advocating the sale of that taxpayer-funded company. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the E9 from the 1990 election demonstrating that when the Labour Party was busily selling everything that moved Mr Swain was happy to line up as a candidate. 
Document not tabled. 
Wages—Working for Families Package 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she stated in relation to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union call for an across-the-board 5 percent pay rise “Of course 300000 families are getting very substantial targeted tax relief starting on April 1 so one would hope that would be taken into account in any negotiations” had she been advised of what the impact of a 5 percent pay increase would be on the take-home pay of a worker on $50000 with two children receiving the Working for Families package and an accommodation supplement; if so what was that advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it correct that a 5 percent pay rise for a journalist earning $50000 a year supporting two children and receiving the accommodation supplement could leave as little as $5 extra in the hand each week; if so is it not true that the primary beneficiary of a 5 percent across-the-board pay rise would be her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This may well be true in a single-income household with two children in an expensive area where there is qualification for the maximum accommodation allowance but that is not a reason to deny all other workers on $50000 a wage increase. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that in fact Working for Families is a major form of corporate welfare because the taxpayer will be subsidising up to 61 percent of families with children by 2007 due to the low wages paid by employers and given the extent of the support for business why is the Labour Government not backing the union push for a 5 percent across-the-board wage increase? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member said it is true that 60-odd percent of families will benefit from the Working for Families package. It is the Government’s belief that over time we want to see more workers benefiting from higher wages from higher productivity and skills—not have the National Party policy of making people pay for their own wage increases through tax cuts. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister have any calculation available as to what sort of tax cut would be required to match the fiscal impact of the Working for Families package on individual families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Last time I looked at such costings and looked at the family on $55000—one earner four children living in Waihi—it was clear that for that family to get the same benefit from the Working for Families $1.1 billion package which was around $149 extra a week one would have to have a flat tax rate of 20c—costing $5.5 billion which is presumably what the National Party would want to do—and cut public services. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Now the Prime Minister has confirmed that for most families the bulk of future pay rises will simply fund the Government and not the families concerned what advice does she offer workers who are considering taking industrial action to secure a pay rise most of which they will not receive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is a fundamental flaw in the logic in that question—that is Working for Families benefits 300000 families with dependent children who happen to be on low and modest incomes. This is a targeted tax relief to low and modest income families. The Leader of the Opposition is arguing that no other workers should get an increase because some workers are getting Working for Families benefit. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer to my earlier question mean that there will be cases where there are families who will receive more under the Working for Families package than they actually pay in tax at the moment? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have those figures at my fingertips. It is possible. Of course if I were the Leader of the Opposition I would be worrying more about whether I was going to get an income at all given today’s front page where Mr McCully has told him he is unlikely to have a job. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why will her Government not be offering tax cuts to all workers and thus allow all New Zealand workers a pay rise? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I regard it as ludicrous to suggest that workers should be getting their pay increases out of tax cuts. Why should workers not be getting a fair distribution from the gains for growing firms and the economy—and no amount of silly yelping from the Leader of the Opposition and his cronies can change that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does she seek to belittle and demean Parliament by constantly referring to the National Party’s policy—a policy that has no hope in Hades of being put in place given that party’s current leadership and internal disruptions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only say that the member’s question conveys a point of view utterly subscribed to by Mr McCully who said National did not have a hope of winning. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does she think it ludicrous that working people keep more of the money that they earn each week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because unlike ACT I know that it is the Government’s responsibility to fund good health education and pensions for people. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can working people have any confidence in this Prime Minister who professes to care for them when she has not bothered to figure out what the impact on their net wage is of her Working for Families package combined with the union call for 5 percent and she is quite happy to tell this House that she has had no advice on what the net effect of that would be? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure that was a question but does the right honourable Prime Minister wish to comment? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not helpful when an Opposition member gets up and asks a question—and that certainly was a question—and the Speaker then interlopes and says: “Well I am not sure that that was a question.” Either it is a question or it is not and if it is a question then I suggest Madam Speaker that you stay out of it and let the Prime Minister answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I was trying to be helpful to you by asking the Prime Minister whether she would wish to comment. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was a question. It is not for you to decide that the Prime Minister might wish to comment. It is for you to ensure that the Prime Minister addresses my question. I would very much appreciate it if you would do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I will take that on board and apply it the next time you ask a question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unlike some parties opposite I do not assume that every worker earning $50000 has a single-earner household two kids and gets the maximum accommodation supplement. That is the shaky construction the question is built on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Prime Minister bothered to get advice from Treasury which the department has tabled with the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the Government could keep the present low tax rebate and reduce the income tax and the company tax rate to just 21c in the dollar at an overall cost of just $5 billion which Treasury says would be just as progressive as the present tax system and would result in an additional 1 percent growth; if so would that not be a better course of action? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What is very progressive about the tax changes taking effect from 1 April is that 300000 families with dependent children will get significant income boosts. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question actually asked whether this would be a better course of action. Instead we were just told that having 300000 people get some money from the families package was a good thing. That does not answer the question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer addressed the question. It does not necessarily have to satisfy the member. 
Tertiary Education—Tuition Fees 
3.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What advice has he received regarding tuition fees charged by New Zealand universities compared with those charged in other countries? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received advice that New Zealand university tuition fees are significantly lower than those in Australia and those being introduced in the United Kingdom. A law degree in New Zealand costs just over half what a comparable degree in Australia costs with fees for commerce and science degrees ranging from just over half to around two-thirds of those in Australia. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What steps has the Government taken to limit the growth in student tuition fees? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When Labour became the Government we moved quickly to freeze fees in 2001 2002 and 2003. From 2004 a fee maxima policy has been in place to ensure that fees cannot be ramped up like they used to be. Between 1997 and 2000 average university tuition fees grew by over 41 percent. By contrast under Labour between 2000 and 2004 average university fees stayed about the same and dropped in real terms. 
Education Vote—Cabinet Approval 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Was he the Minister in charge of Vote Education during the period 2000 to 2003 in which spending on bottom end sub-degree courses doubled; if so did he obtain Cabinet approval for funding these courses? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I was the Minister in charge of Vote Education during that period. No I did not obtain Cabinet approval because I was not a Minister at the time the decision to have this policy was taken. However because I have seen the outrageous waste resulting from Bill English’s decision I and my colleague Steve Maharey have capped private training establishment funding put in place caps for managing growth in tertiary education institutes and reduced classification 5.1 community education funding—and members have not seen anything yet. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister’s answer raises quite an interesting question because when I look at the way the question is drafted I see that it asks whether the Minister was in charge of the vote and it does not appear to me that it is really appropriate for the Minister to get up and say: “Well at the time the decision was taken I wasn’t in charge of the vote.” Indeed if the Minister is able to get away with saying that all that this Government needs to do in order to be completely unaccountable for the last 5 years is to have a shuffle of portfolios. It would seem to me that as the Minister took over the role of Minister of Education 5 years ago he really does have an obligation for what the ministry has been doing in the last 5 years especially when the question is actually drafted as “the Minister in charge of Vote Education” and names the year. He cannot get up and say: “Well I wasn’t the Minister in those years but I can give you some other interesting bits of abuse that you might like to hear.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry if I was not clear. I do want to clarify for the House that I was Minister in charge of Vote Education when Parliament approved the funding in all of those years. The approval for the policy change that allowed that funding to happen was done when Bill English was in Cabinet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the answer did address the question. Whether it was appropriate however is a matter for political debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister who has been regarded as one of the key Ministers in the Government now saying that he was not present at any of the Budget round meetings Cabinet committee meetings or Cabinet meetings where the Government agreed to fund $1.75 billion for tertiary courses between the years 2000 and 2003 that students did not complete; if he was not present or responsible for that huge waste of public money who was? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think I was certainly present for a lot of Budget meetings and a lot of Budget bilaterals as that member was during the period of the last National Government when $5.5 billion was wasted on uncompleted courses. Using that member’s calculation methods—shared with us—$5.5 billion was wasted in that time. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will sub-degree courses that are taught face to face be differentiated price-wise from the packaged distance programmes delivered by the likes of Te Wananga o Aotearoa on a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:60 or greater? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has not taken that decision yet but I am pretty sure that it will. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the impact the crackdown on classification of 5.1 community education funding is having? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I have seen a report that the Southern Institute of Technology is trying to claim around $2.5 million over and above its capped entitlement for delivering 5.1 courses. Those are the courses that Bill English complained about substantially and now I see him quoted in the paper as saying that the institute should get its money. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware of the comment by the Southern Institute of Technology Chief Executive Penny Simmonds that it has no choice but to run low-cost sub-degree courses that make a profit in order to cross-subsidise the underfunded trade courses that run at a loss; if so does he take any responsibility for this perverse outcome and the trade skills shortages that the country faces at present? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Southern Institute of Technology has chosen to go to Christchurch to charge nil for its trades courses in Christchurch to undermine the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology trades courses there to take nothing from the students and then to complain when it makes a loss. I have no sympathy for it. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister feel about his decisions to spend millions of dollars on radio singalong courses and computer courses that do not exist when he gets letters from parents of children with special needs like this one about John aged 8 who cannot read write or speak but who has had all his special-education support cut; or like this one from a mother who now has to cut back her working week by 15 hours because her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter who goes to school three afternoons a week has had all her teaching-aide hours cut? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government has significantly increased the funding to special education and we will continue to increase it significantly. There are questions around priorities of spending on education and I might say that the decisions that that member took when he was Minister of Finance around the prioritising of education funding as part of the 1998 and 1999 Budgets are something that we are taking some time to reverse—too long in some cases. But I say that rip-offs that were set up under his rules are being closed down. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister feel then about letters from this decile 8 school which last year had to raise $35000 to make its budget balance and which has been told by the Ministry of Education that the increase in its operations grant from his pre-Christmas package to offset that $35000 is $298? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Under this Government that school has had a significant increase in its operations grant funding—much much more than it had under the previous Government except for the period when the Hon Brian Donnelly had some control of the purse. 
Urban Planning and Design—Quality 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Urban Affairs 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the quality of urban planning and urban design? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister with responsibility for Urban Affairs) 
: 
 There have been four steps. First this Prime Minister and Government established the urban affairs portfolio. Second I convened an advisory group on the best way forward resulting in the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol. Third the Ministry for the Environment took the protocol to central and local government and the private sector gaining 80 signatures. Fourth yesterday we launched the protocol to an enthusiastic audience receiving royal backing in the process. 
Dave Hereora 
: What response has there been to the development of the Urban Design Protocol? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There has been a very positive response as demonstrated by the 80 signatories from all sectors involved with urban planning. As Prince Charles noted yesterday putting urbanism and the environment together along with adopting the protocol places New Zealand at the forefront of global best practice. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is the Minister aware that urban planners and urban designers are driving up the cost of sections and therefore homes to an almost unaffordable level right through New Zealand by limiting the amount of land available for subdivision under the Resource Management Act; and what does she propose to do to ensure a supply of sections and land is available to New Zealanders right throughout this country? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The point I would like to make to my colleague across the Chamber is that the ministry is not actually responsible for land availability. He should take into consideration that if we continue to build and extend quarter acre sections then we will have the cost of waste water stormwater phones and electricity lines. 
Dave Hereora 
: What difference does the Minister expect the Urban Design Protocol to make? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The 80 signatories to the protocol have committed themselves to take specific actions aimed at quality urban design. Those outcomes will be evaluated and reported on by the Ministry for the Environment every 2 years. In other words the signatories have agreed to be accountable to New Zealanders for creating better urban environments. Over time that will improve the quality of life for 87 percent minus one of New Zealanders who live in urban areas. 
Residency—Employees of Relocating Businesses 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What are the requirements for a person to qualify for residency under the employees of relocating businesses category and is he satisfied that this policy is working in the interests of New Zealanders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The main requirements for the employees of relocating businesses category are that the applicant must be a key employee of a business that is relocating to New Zealand and that the relocation of the business must be supported by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The policy intent of this is to work in the interests of New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What investigations did the New Zealand Immigration Service undertake when it allowed the residency approval of a Mr Jim Peron the director and establisher of the Institute for Liberal Values who set up an Auckland porn shop under the guise of a bookshop; and did the investigations reveal Mr Peron’s links with the North American Man/Boy Love Association known as “NAMBLA”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not aware of the full extent of the investigations that the Immigration Service would have made. Clearly investigations would have had to be made as part of any approval process under the immigration system. I would happy to make further investigations on the member’s behalf and get back to him when the information is available. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister agree that allowing people to enter New Zealand under a business category that enables them to use New Zealand as a platform to promote their extreme political propaganda and contaminate minds with explicit pornography is of no benefit to New Zealand whatsoever and further puts our children in grave danger of sexual predators; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: If a person wanted to come to New Zealand and was guilty of the things the member said that would not be acceptable to New Zealand or to New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Minister aware that this same individual had his work visa cancelled in South Africa supposedly a Third World country because of the dubious nature of his business activities; and why would New Zealand supposedly a First World country allow this man to run a bookshop and pornography outlet in Auckland notwithstanding that this paedophile’s sponsorship form was endorsed by a member of this Parliament? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not aware of all those facts as the member has portrayed them. I am keen to make further investigation but obviously it would be of concern if a member of Parliament knew all that information about someone and continued to promote that person’s gaining access to New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table several documents: firstly an email linking a member of this Parliament who was actively working on Mr Peron’s application to enter the country; secondly a website for the Institute of Liberal Values of which a member of Parliament is a member; thirdly Mr Peron’s declined application to the Residence Appeal Authority including the parts where he lied about the true nature of his business activities; and fourthly an email linking Mr Peron with the North American Man/Boy Love Association. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just so there is no doubt I think the member is referring to me. I want to make it plain to this House that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide are you requesting leave to make a personal explanation? 
Rodney Hide 
: I am seeking your guidance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest you seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am raising a point of order to seek your guidance first. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I need to know whether that is what you are doing before I can rule on the point of order; otherwise you are out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is a request for your advice on what to do when a homophobic member of Parliament attacks someone simply because that person happens to be a friend of an MP. This man runs a legitimate bookshop—and this has been investigated by journalists—and the allegations against him have been found to be without foundation. Jim Peron has turned up at the National Party conference and sold books and he has turned up at the ACT party conference and sold books. He is an upright New Zealander and I consider it to be an outrage that people are trying to score cheap political points by attacking someone simply because he is gay. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In no way was that a point of order. Worst still Mr Hide made an allegation about me that should have been stopped at the time he made it. However it gives me the opportunity to say that the ACT party which claims to have a paedophile list has left one of its main friends off it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Having listened to the points of order I say that that was not a point of order. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Please consider what we are about to speak to you about. It relates to the transfer of this question. We accept that the Government can transfer questions. However it makes it difficult for the Opposition that when this question was first asked it was handled by the Minister of Customs as a customs issue. It was subsequently transferred to Dr Cullen because it was a finance question. Today following the Government’s expression at the time that it should be dealt with by the Minister of Finance we lodged the question to him. We appreciate that he is not here and we know that the Associate Minister of Finance is here yet we find that the issue has been shuffled by the Government to a third ministry. I accept that any Minister can answer a question but it is the question of whether the Opposition can pin an issue down to a ministry that we ask you to consider. We note that the Acting Minister of Finance is in the House. The question refers to the financial implications of the tax. That is surely the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and not of the Minister of Transport. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It has long been a tradition in this House that the Government indicates which of its Ministers on a particular day is taking responsibility for a particular issue. This one is quite clear; the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport have been working on it together. The Acting Minister of Finance has not been involved and we thought it better that there were informed answers especially to supplementary questions from a Minister who has had much more involvement in the issue than the Acting Minister of Finance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just want to clarify this Madam Speaker. You will hear the question read in a minute and it is in front of you at the moment. There is nothing in it that is specific to the transport portfolio. There is a decision by the Government that the tax will be applied to roading but the question asks about the effect that the tax will have on the economy about whether the increased petrol prices are a good idea and about the calculation made by the Automobile Association in relation to the tax. To all intents and purposes it is a question that one would expect the Minister of Finance to be answering. My point of order requested that you consider giving some indication to the Government that although any Minister may answer a question a ministry may at least be pinned down to be responsible for something. After all if the Minister of Finance and Treasury are not responsible for tax and the Ministry of Transport is where does that leave us with regard to any question that relates to the Government’s responsibilities? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As both members who have spoken to this point of order have indicated it is not for the Speaker to determine who should answer a question. 
Petrol—Price Rise Impact 
7.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he agree with calculations made by the Automobile Association that the introduction of the petrol tax and higher oil prices will see the price of petrol rise to over $1.30 per litre; if so what impact does he think this will have on the economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 My informed answer is that I do not know. If I were able to predict movements in oil prices or exchange rates then I would be as rich as the Opposition member. 
John Key 
: If an operating balance of $7.4 billion a cash surplus of $1.4 billion and the very strong likelihood that New Zealand will have net debt of zero by 2008 are not conditions that this Government thinks are conducive enough to allow it to build more roads without adding any additional taxes then will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what the surplus would have to be before he would not have to put on more taxes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The tradition in New Zealand is that we build roads largely from motorists’ moneys not from taxpayers’ moneys because it is motorists not taxpayers who use them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on transport funding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have of course seen many reports. All the ones that I will quote from are from the National Party and they all conflict. First of all leader Don Brash included the money from the increase in his promise to Aucklanders then John Key told him not to spend anything as it was “not time to be ramping up Government spending” then National voted against the money that Dr Brash had already promised to Aucklanders and then Maurice Williamson told him to spend the money and to use it from a surplus that he knows does not exist. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely you can see the disorder we get to when the Government makes these changes without considering what the consequence of such change will be. The Minister just gave an answer by referring to comments made by the Opposition. We are quite happy for him to go around publicising our policy positions any time he likes but question time is for him to answer for Government policy. What we have had him say today is: “I don’t know” “I am not sure” and “I can’t say”. If the Government is able to transfer questions of this sort of importance to any old Minister who can use those responses as answers then the point of question time does seriously come into question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I just want to submit that it was not one at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister should confine himself to his own portfolio responsibility; I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 51/4 and 51/5. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is a New Zealand tradition to build roads not from taxpayers’ money as he said but from motorists’ money then why have he and his colleagues engaged in the outright deception of disguising the fact that a lot of the money collected for that purpose which comes from motorists and road users is not in any way going into road maintenance road safety or road construction? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All the money from the petrol increase which formed the basis of the question—every last cent of it from the petrol increase that formed the basis of the question—is going into roading. However if the member wishes to ask about the money that goes into the consolidated account he may want to reflect on last week’s answer from the Minister of Finance about the role of capital charging and how that alone would not be covered by the diversion. Or he may like to take cognisance of the fact that the non - accident compensation health costs and the benefit costs of roading well exceed the diversion into the consolidated account—well exceed it. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister not think that if more money is invested in public transport cycling and pedestrian initiatives in fact motorists may save money and avoid some of the petrol taxes and that if enough of them take up those smarter choices we may negate the need for future roading projects? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To an extent yes. 
John Key 
: Does he agree with his fellow Minister Rick Barker when he said: “Some have suggested that the country should borrow the money for improving the roading infrastructure obviously thinking these loans don’t have to be paid back and that somehow loan money is free—in other words voodoo economics.” and if he does agree with Mr Barker is he telling the House today that he is ruling out all Government borrowing to fund any future new roads in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I rather suspect my colleague was referring to the points of view held by some members in this House including some members in New Zealand First. In that respect the answer to the second part of the question is no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How long will it take for him to familiarise himself with his job and acknowledge that Dr Cullen has been prepared to acknowledge to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there is no capital charge on roading and therefore his answer to this House today is a cod load of drivel? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer on capital charge was not given by me; it was given to this House last week by Dr Cullen. My answer concerned non - accident compensation health and benefit costs from roading and I will give the member the unfortunate facts again. The diversion into the consolidated account does not pay for those costs. 
John Key 
: Did he notice that last year Transfund did not spend all the funds that were in its account and neither did it do so for the year earlier; and can he confirm to the House whether this year there will be any surplus funds left in those accounts over and above the petrol tax he is collecting? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The activity from this Government in addressing the infrastructural deficit left by the previous Government is such that not only are there substantial year-by-year increases in capital investment but the underspend of last year and the year before is rapidly disappearing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague John Key’s question was very specific. It was in regard to the surpluses that have been held by Transfund New Zealand. I listened to the Minister’s answer. There was no comment at all in his answer with respect to the issue of the surpluses held by Transfund New Zealand. I think as Speaker you should require the Minister to address John Key’s question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: If the member had paid attention to the end of the answer as well as to the beginning he would know that he was completely wrong in what he has just asserted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened closely to the question and the Minister did address it at the end of his answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table Dr Cullen’s answer in this House where he did not claim that there was capital charging but said “if there was”—a totally different answer from what the Minister gave the House today. 
Document not tabled. 
Animal Welfare—Shipment of Cows to China 
8.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Agriculture 
: What action is he taking in response to the stockman’s report of a recent shipment of cows to China in which it was stated that the cows were “sleeping in shit up to a foot deep” and were fed hay that included dead animals various bits of wire and thistles and in which the stockman wrote “I hate to see them in this state.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials have read the stockman’s report and have taken action. They have gone back to the exporter seeking more details of the shipment and are awaiting written reports from both the shipping company and the exporter. They will be investigating whether all requirements of the animal welfare export certificate were met. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that on the same voyage the ventilation system broke down on occasion resulting in a very rapid build-up of heat and ammonia on the decks housing the cows that many animals became lame from standing on the hard floor covered in sharp anti-slip grip and that some animals did not have adequate access to feed and water; and can he further confirm that these conditions do not comply with the requirements under the Animal Welfare Act to provide for the health and well-being of animals? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of those particular claims but they will be investigated. We will have a written report. There are requirements that have to be met both under the animal welfare export certificate and under the maritime transport code. It would seem that those conditions might not have been met but we will await that report and the outcome of it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that this was not a one-off incident that on another recent shipment of cows to China some animals were so overheated that they died and many others were severely stressed and that on another shipment in 2003 110 animals died as a result of injuries sustained on board the ship; and why does the Government support a trade that clearly breaches the Animal Welfare Act? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: New Zealand produces some very good genetic material in livestock. That is why people seek to import those animals from our country into their own country. There are very high standards of welfare on most of those shipments but there will always be the odd occasion when deaths will occur. Reports on most shipments indicate that fatalities are very low in number. I finish by saying that as a Government we are focused on adding value to our economy and we encourage as much processing of animals on shore as possible. We do try to minimise the amount of bull shipping that does occur. 
Janet Mackey 
: What measures are currently in place to ensure adequate welfare standards for cattle and sheep being exported by sea? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: A Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - approved veterinarian inspects all shipments prior to departure. The shipments must comply with welfare standards that have been developed by the ministry. The standards cover a range of requirements such as minimum space preconditioning and feed and water requirements. A voyage report is sent to the ministry following each shipment. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why are we exporting 20000 live breeding stock this month alone to countries such as Mexico and China when it is clear that the animals will simply be used to improve the quality of their herds so that those countries will then be more competitive relative to us in international markets; why does the Government allow a trade that is simultaneously cruel to animals and detrimental to New Zealand farmers? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We do not accept that the trade is cruel to animals. Very high standards have to be met and for the most part they are. As I said before we produce the highest-quality genetic material in the word. There will always be countries that seek to import that livestock. It is up to us as a country to ensure that we stay ahead of those countries and produce better-quality livestock. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can the Associate Minister claim that the Government is trying to keep this trade to a minimum when the export of live animals from New Zealand has increased by 300 percent over the past 2 years when 20000 live cows and sheep have been exported this month just for breeding purposes and especially when breeding could be done by the export of semen alone? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We allow the export of embryo and semen as well. To go back to the point that I am trying to make to members because we have high-quality livestock other countries will seek to import it. There was a very large trade in livestock in the 1990s. That trade has reduced and the animals that are exported from this country are for breeding purposes not for slaughter and this Government supports that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a report by a stockman of conditions on a shipment in December of last year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Any objection? There is objection. 
Communications Centres Police—Report of Review 
9.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: When does he expect to receive a copy of any report by the commissioner’s external panel reviewing police communications centres and when will it be made public? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the Commissioner of Police is expecting to get the report by the end of this month. After consideration of the report the findings will be made available to the public by the commissioner. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister made available to the panel the unsuccessful Budget bid by the police in 2004 for additional communications centre staff that the Government is suppressing under the Official Information Act; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Commissioner of Police is putting forward all the information that he wants looked at so that his report can be thorough. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was quite clear: has the Minister made available the unsuccessful 2004 Budget bid? He did not address that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister wish to address the question? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The commissioner has all the information available and it is his review and he is making any information that he has available to the public. It is not my report. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the guilty secret contained in the documents that the Government wants to hide this information? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: None. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance to New Zealanders who want to trust the police that irrespective of the report 111 operators have been told they must not deliberately or carelessly mislead callers; if not why should they trust the Minister or the police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am waiting for the commissioner’s release after the review has been completed. I am not getting into those areas because it is the commissioner’s review not mine. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that some of the problems experienced by the police communications centres are due to the fact that they have had to recruit inexperienced staff who have been referred from Work and Income; if he cannot confirm it as he stated in response to my written question why does he not have access to that kind of information? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell the House again that it is the commissioner’s review; it is not my review and the commissioner has all the information that he needs available to him. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If there is no guilty secret will the Minister now release the 2004 Budget bid currently being suppressed by his Government? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This Minister is trifling with the House and indeed I believe he is trifling with the Chair. He has been asked on a number of occasions about his responsibility. The Budget bid is a Budget bid that he takes control of as Minister of Police and he deals with the Minister of Finance and Treasury as a consequence of that. He is therefore responsible for it and he should not be allowed to get away with that sort of evasive obfuscatory answer that does not relate to his responsibilities in the way that he should be asked to be accountable for them. He is responsible for the bid and he takes charge of it. He should be prepared to disclose it to this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the Minister was very clear. He advised that a copy of the bid is held by the commissioner and if the commissioner thinks that it is relevant for that material to be made available to the inquiry then the commissioner will take that decision. He can take that decision. He is a very capable commissioner and the slur on his integrity in the House today is very offensive. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling on the point of order is that the Minister addressed the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask again why should any New Zealander who wants to trust the police trust them when the Minister of Police cannot give a straightforward answer to the question asking whether 111 operators irrespective of any report will be told not to deliberately or carelessly mislead callers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously the people in the centres give the best answers they can to callers. They are well trained and the review will look at that issue completely. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House that the police have the resources they need; if so how does he rationalise that with his earlier statement that if the commissioner needs more resources the Government will make sure he gets them. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The New Zealand Police are well funded. If the review shows there is any need for additional funds that will be a part of the review recommendations and will be favourably looked at by this Government. 
Aged Care—Funding 
10.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Have aged residential care facilities received their 3 percent increase as announced in December last year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am told that most district health boards have advised providers that they will receive their increase backdated to 1 July 2004 shortly. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider an 8-month delay and bovver-boy tactics of district health boards before aged residential care facilities receive the 3 percent increase to be acceptable given the crippled state of the sector; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My understanding is that the increase was announced in December which is somewhat less than 8 months ago. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What steps has the Government taken to assist in the provision of home support care to older people? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Home support expenditure has almost doubled in the last 6 years from around $93 million to around $170 million. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What comfort does the promise of a 3 percent increase offer those such as Roskill Masonic Village the Methodist Mission the Salvation Army Presbyterian Support New Zealand and a litany of other providers who have essentially already been forced out of the sector by what they consider is a 20 percent funding shortfall due to 5 years of serious neglect by a Labour Government unwilling to listen or act? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think the facts match with the invective. The truth of the matter is that a number of providers sell out as going concerns. In some parts of the country there is oversupply so it makes sense for that to be reduced. We have increased expenditure to this sector a lot in our time in office and we are contemplating increasing it even more. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that there must be pay parity between the caregivers in the aged-care sector who currently receive $10.80 an hour before tax and health-care assistants who work in hospitals who now receive $16.50 an hour due to the nurses’ pay settlement; if not how can keeping those workers on poverty wages be justified? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The amount of money that is paid by an employer for say a home-care provider is for the employer to determine. However if someone is paid $10.80 per hour as the member quotes it is worth noting that the amount of money that leaves Wellington per hour per homeworker is a good deal more than that. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of Presbyterian Support Otago Gillian Bremner who said the aged-care residential sector needs $200 million; if so is the $18 million increase not missing a zero somewhere? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am in close contact with Gillian Bremner and she refers to the entire aged-care sector not to residential care alone. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question which states that 37 homes have shut down in the last 2½ years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can a 3 percent increase help deliver pay parity for nurses working in aged residential care facilities and where is the Government’s commitment to equal pay for equal work for nurses working in aged residential care facilities or is this just another example of the Government’s priority? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I just happen to know that some providers have already increased nurses’ wages in the residential care sector and that others anticipate a claim. Obviously contracts fall due for negotiation in that sector at different times. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table a report citing Presbyterian Support Otago chief executive Gillian Bremner who said that the $18 million boost still feels like crumbs. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Home Detention—Risk to Community 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What assurance can he give that criminals placed on home detention are not a serious risk to the community? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Decisions to place offenders on home detention are made by the New Zealand Parole Board which is an independent statutory body. I can give the member an assurance that the board in making its decisions is required by the Parole Act to consider as its prime consideration the safety of the community. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister have faith in a system that allows a high-risk sex offender such as John Albert Thomas Clarke a man who in 1997 was charged with assault with intent to rape threatening to kill and beating his female victim with his fists and a tennis racquet who was then bailed against the express wishes of the police and who while on bail kidnapped raped violently assaulted and threatened to kill a 15-year-old school girl to be placed on back-end home detention? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In the short time since the question was set down I have had a chance to look at some of the matters the member has raised. Firstly the offender did not serve his home detention at the house the member referred to and he completed his home detention without incident. I am aware that following the home detention he was released on conditions then without permission went to stay with a woman he had recently met and her children—against the conditions that had been laid down for him. As soon as the Community Probation Service found that out it took enforcement action and this offender is now in custody awaiting a final recall hearing before the Parole Board. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has he received on rates of reoffending by offenders who have served a sentence of home detention? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: From 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 offenders who completed home detention had a reimprisonment rate of around 10 percent 12 months after completing the order compared with a reimprisonment rate for offenders released from minimum security prisons of around 25 percent. However I am looking into a couple of issues: firstly whether judges should be making the decision about who receives front-end home detention; and secondly the criterion for back-end home detention which is linked to the current Global Positional System technology pilot. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is it Government policy that serious violent offenders should be entitled to early release on home detention prior to parole? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is part of the legislative framework that has been set by this Government. As I have already indicated to the member it is one of the issues under consideration. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain why Clarke after serving only 7 years of what was essentially a 44-year jail sentence was placed on home detention in the care of a 76-year-old social support worker who had no knowledge whatsoever of his previous convictions who ran a social services facility with female staff that catered to vulnerable women without full and complete disclosure of Clarke’s past history? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In relation to the last bit I am certain that a number of the facts the member has outlined are possibly in dispute. On the first point those decisions were made by the Parole Board which is an independent statutory body that looks at a wide range of things—primarily the safety of the community. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister—indeed the public—have any confidence whatsoever in the processes of the Parole Board or the Department of Corrections when it declares a remorseless repeat sexual offender such as John Albert Thomas Clarke suitable for home detention then allows his release on parole only for him to offend again within weeks; and when his third victim asked police what she could do to keep her family safe the advice given to her was: “Change your name take your children pack your house and leave town.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The decision on who gets home detention is made by the Parole Board. Its primary concern is taking into account the safety of the community. It is its decision to make. 
Crime—Asian Perceptions 
12.  
KENNETH WANG (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he agree with the reported comments of Auckland’s Chinese community that New Zealand’s stance on crime is too soft and those of the secretary of the United Chinese Association that the perception of New Zealand being a safe place is changing; if so what is he going to do about this? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I do understand the concerns that all of us have when serious crime is committed in the community. However I can agree that the perception of New Zealand is changing because the latest crime statistics show that New Zealand is a safer place. Last year crime dropped 8.2 percent. Crime is at its lowest rate since 1982. 
Kenneth Wang 
: What will he do about the fact that 38 percent of Asians surveyed by the Manukau City Council—before the latest kidnapping—felt unsafe in their homes which is a much higher percentage than for other New Zealanders? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have made a number of moves to make sure that Asian communities feel safer. There are now 60 sworn staff across the country who speak Asian languages—15 of them in Auckland. The Language Line has been set up to assist people and we have six Asian police at the Police College at the moment. That is a very positive move as we build those numbers up. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister confident that the police and the Immigration Service work closely enough to identify those arrivals who may pose a risk to New Zealand residents? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Those who pose a risk are always carefully looked at by the police and they have an Asian crime unit working in Auckland at the moment. As far as immigration goes the member should ask that of the Minister of Immigration. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister still believe that New Zealand women are more worried about traffic offending than violent crime in light of Monday’s kidnapping of Kelly Zhao and the fact that since he has been the Minister violent crime has risen by 14 percent nationwide and by up to 41.9 percent in some police districts; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The amount of violent crime has dropped for the first time. It went up 76 percent when National was in power which is far higher than the 14 percent that the member is quoting. I can say that in 2002 23 Asians were identified as kidnapping offenders; in 2003 there were 72; and last year there were just nine. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was whether he still believes that New Zealand women are more worried about traffic offending than about violent crime and I think the Minister did not address that question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister wish to address the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member asked lots of questions within that and I answered some of those questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister address one of the questions that were put to him by the member. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I imagine that people who are kidnapped consider being kidnapped is far more serious than road events but I imagine that parents who lose kids on the road consider that to be very important. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table some documents. The first document is notes in a statement dated 28 February 2005 taken in my office in Christchurch from a person whom I will call victim C regarding Mr John Clarke and his activities. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The second document is a statement made to the police on 18 February by a lady whom I will describe as victim C. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Ron Mark 
: I assure the Minister that the victim is entirely happy with this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The objection has been registered. The matter has been dealt with. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave again to table a document that the victim is perfectly happy to have tabled in this House. It is a statement that she gave to the police dated 18 February this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table transcripts taken from text messages on victim C’s cellphone that were sent to her by Mr John Clarke. Again it is a police job sheet and the first date on it is 18 February 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table with the permission of the victim—as in all previous cases—a police anti-harassment notice issued to Mr John Albert Thomas Clarke which I understand was delivered to him at 1300 hours at Paparua prison on 8 March. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this for the same document as before but with mention of the permission? 
Ron Mark 
: No this is a new document—an anti-harassment notice. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debate 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. We saw today that the Prime Minister is totally out of touch with working New Zealand. We heard her reply to a question from the leader of the National Party Don Brash that she did not know what impact her much-vaunted Working for Families package on which she wants to spend $21 million of taxpayers’ money explaining would have on a working family earning $50000 per year. She said that she did not know and that she had not sought advice on what impact the union claim for a 5 percent wage increase would have on a hard-working family. That is how out of touch this Prime Minister is with the day-to-day cares of ordinary hard-working New Zealanders. 
Hon Annette King 
: Two percent and going down. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Annette King calls out. She has no care at all for those poor New Zealanders stuck on health waiting lists. Why would the Prime Minister say that she did not know? It is simple! 
Hon Annette King 
: The ACT party really cares. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I say that we do because we have the numbers that the Prime Minister does not have and they are these. I ask Annette King: if people earned $50000 and received a 5 percent wage increase—that is $2500 a year—what would they get in the hand per week? I ask Phil Goff what they would get in a week. I ask Mr Steve Maharey what they would get in a week. Not one of them knows. I will go across and ask my friend Mr Gerry Brownlee how much they would get in a week. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Five lousy dollars. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Five miserable dollars is what they would get—from a $50 wage increase they would get to keep $5. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh well Mr Goff is like Helen Clark or Steve Maharey. Steve Maharey turned up on the radio with John Key and said that he was not prepared to debate the numbers. That is what he said. 
Stephen Franks 
: He’s not stupid. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is not stupid because he knows that those numbers are death to hard-working New Zealanders. 
Here is another thing. Prime Minister Helen Clark has gone out and said that the Government will spend $21 million of taxpayers’ money to promote the Working for Families package—$21 million! There was a front-page story yesterday about the two old parties jacking it up to spend $3 million on party propaganda. The Government is spending $21 million of taxpayers’ money to promote its Working for Families package. 
Why did Helen Clark give a justification for that? I can see why she might think that it is important because clearly she does not understand it. But she said that it is important that people know what they are entitled to because they have to apply for the extra benefit. That statement was false—totally false.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Put some feeling in it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Pete Hodgson says that I am making it up. Let me explain from the answer to question for written answer No. 1185. Does Pete Hodgson know what those numbers are? No his head is in the newspaper. Government members do not want to know. They just want to rely on the $21 million taxpayer-funded splurge on advertising. 
I say to Mr Hodgson that it goes like this. There are 300000 people who will get the extra benefit from the Working for Families package. Does Annette King know what the answer to question for written answer No. 1185 states? 
Hon Annette King 
: Ken Shirley would do a much better job. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Ken Shirley is a great MP. I know that the member loves him to bits and I know that he was a great loss to Labour but she should just listen to this. She might learn where $21 million will be going. Steve Maharey had to explain in answer to a written question that all the adjustments are automatic. That is right. If a person is a beneficiary or is getting a family allowance now that person does not have to do a thing. The money just comes along; it is automatic. 
Let me see what the numbers are. Of the people entitled to the Working for Families package 150000 are beneficiaries. Another 100000 are already in assistance. That is 250000 people. They do not have to do a thing. The adjustment is automatic. Another 50000 do not have to do anything either. I say to Steve Maharey that it is a joke. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 It is always good to indulge in a little nostalgia at the beginning of these debates as we watch the waning days of the ACT party and its leader. ACT is at 1.7 percent in the polls and consistently polls at under 2 percent. It will not be here in Parliament after the next election. I say to the member that when he is out there enjoying the fruits of being independent from the House again he will notice that New Zealanders all over the country—290000 of those families around the country—will be enjoying money from the Working for Families package. He will be able to sit back and say what a good thing that is. 
A solemn responsibility of the Government is to keep the Opposition honest. It is something we want to do today. I will concentrate my comments on that very honest saying “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” which is what we should be seeing from members of the Opposition. The job of the Opposition is to focus on opposing the Government and proposing alternatives to the Government’s actions that people can weigh up and judge. But the Opposition is just not doing its job and it cannot do it. The National Party cannot do it because I am afraid its senior strategist and spinner Mr “Muzzer” Murray McCully as he is known affectionately on the Government side of the House tells us that there is a crisis in the National caucus room and if unity is not restored and the divisions are not pasted over National can never expect to be the Government. I just want to make sure members understand that the Government is not making those statements. We are saying that the Opposition itself is saying that. Its key strategist and spinner is saying himself that National cannot win the election. 
We know that one of the problems Mr Murray McCully has is that he has spent his time on getting rid of Katherine Rich. That is why he has been unable to come to Parliament for quite some time. She was a tad angry with him for getting rid of her and then spreading rumours about her that undermined her. We know he has only been able to return because that has now been settled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to stop the flow of that member but it is not appropriate for him to start referring to a person’s absence from the Chamber for any aspect of the proceedings and therefore I suggest to him that coming back to his point may be a good idea—although quite frankly just what that is no one would know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I want to make it clear Madam Deputy Speaker because you may have been distracted during the change-over that the member was not referring to the member’s current absence from the Chamber which would have been out of order. It is in order to say that members have not been attending Parliament. That is a matter of record and it is very clear from the records that Mr McCully has not been attending. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before Mr Brownlee speaks to his point of order I want to make it perfectly clear that while points of order are being heard there will be silence. That applies to all members on both sides of the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I apologise for barracking at one point when Mr Mallard was speaking to the point of order but when the point of order procedure is used to breach Standing Orders it probably does invite the sort of response that he got. The point Mr Mallard wants to make is nothing to do with the situation that we face. It is simply a matter of the Chair insisting that Mr Maharey stop referring to the absence of members. There is no register of attendance in the House. Mr Mallard knows that. There is no day-register taken. [ 
Interruption 
] No there is no such thing as a day-register and there has not been for quite some time. Perhaps it would be a good thing if we brought it back; I suspect it would be more embarrassing for the Government than for anybody else. However the reference Mr Maharey was making was unparliamentary and if he cannot withdraw and apologise for his silly comments he should at least desist from making them. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Mallard that that is a final warning against interjecting during points of order. I have made that point very clearly. It is a convention—and only a convention—that members do not refer to the absence of MPs from the House. The spirit of that convention has been that they refrain from all comment on members’ absences at any time. There is also no register of attendance. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The point I am making is that the Opposition is unable to operate as an Opposition and Mr Murray McCully’s getting rid of Katherine Rich seemed to do nothing to her demeanour. I have never seen Katherine Rich look so radiant. She looks like a person who knows that her day will come after the next election when the reshuffle comes and she is back on the front bench—perhaps leading the National Party. 
Then there is Maurice Williamson. We are reliably informed that Maurice Williamson was asked to step down from the Pakuranga electorate in order to make way for John Banks who would then run for the ACT party. Maurice Williamson we are reliably told said the person who suggested that should do something that is anatomically impossible and said he wants to stay on as the MP for that area. It is like a soap opera.ACT meanwhile took offence at that and we have seen a series of attacks on the National Party by the ACT party ever since. I thought the extreme right was supposed to hang together. If those members keep this up they will hang individually. 
Then we have Mr Gerry Brownlee. He does not think the National and ACT parties can make it. We know that; he knows that. He has had his shoes off so that he can count on his fingers and toes. He has counted the numbers and they do not add up. So we understand he went off to New Zealand First and asked whether it would be National’s working coalition partner. Unfortunately for Gerry Brownlee Don Brash had already ruled out working with New Zealand First. But of course because Gerry Brownlee is one of the four or five leaders within the National Party he did not feel the need to consult with the other three or four leaders before he went off to talk to Mr Winston Peters. Mr Peters of course is the only leader of New Zealand First so he knew that he had been talked to by Don Brash and he was able to tell Gerry Brownlee that that would not work and New Zealand First would not be able to do it. Mr Peters told Gerry Brownlee that New Zealand First would rather go with a winner—the Labour Party—if that is what we have after the next election. 
And of course that leads us to the last piece of evidence: the Don Brash biography. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want you to reply in respect of this point of order that it is a debating point because it is not a debating point. What the member is saying at the moment he is just making up as he goes along. There is not a shred of truth in the last allegation he made—that we have somehow given a commitment to of all things the New Zealand Labour Party tired and bereft of any new ideas as it is. That is not right. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is a debating point. There is a robust debate taking place. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The last straw for the National Party was the Brash biography. It must have been hard to write the blurb on the back. The blurb tells us excitingly that the story runs from the dance floors of 1960s Peru. But if we look through the book we find only a single line about the dance floors of Peru in the 1960s where Mr Brash tells us he was lost on the Latin beats—he could not handle the Latin beats. He goes on to tell us in the book that he froze corned beef sliced it and heated it up over peas while feeling lonely in his own flat. He tells us that he loves his pyjamas so much that he still wears to bed the ones his mother gave him and resembles someone from  
Steptoe And Son 
. It is no wonder the National Party feels that it is completely and utterly lost. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 John Albert Thomas Clarke committed crimes in December 1996. In 1997 he was charged with violently attacking a woman in her home. He had tried to rape her he had threatened to kill her and he had beaten her with his fists and then with a tennis racquet. He was committed for trial and given bail. On 20 September 1997 he was charged with rape kidnap unlawful sexual connection threatening to kill and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to a 15-year-old girl. He had strangled her until she nearly passed out threatened to drive her off the top of a cliff in Lyttelton in the back of his car and told her he would bash her to death with a crowbar from his boot. And he admitted all those charges. He had done all that while he was on bail. On 25 September 1997 although he was sentenced to a total of—I had it wrong; I said he was sentenced to what was essentially 38 years’ jail but a quick tally shows that it was 44 years. Let me make it clear. Clarke received 3 years’ imprisonment for threatening to kill 3 years for indecent assault and 2 years for injuring with intent. He was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for abduction 3 years for threatening to kill 5 years for injuring with intent again and 11 years each for each of the sexual violation charges but with all terms to be served concurrently. Clearly the judge knew how dangerous this man was. 
But then we come to December 2004 when although Clarke had served only 7 years in prison under this Government and its policies we saw him released on home detention to Cardijn House in Addington Christchurch. The staff at Cardijn House a group of social support workers led by a 76-year-old supervisor were given no details whatsoever of Clarke’s past offending. They have subsequently said that had they known about it they would have refused to have him there. On 26 January the Parole Board heard Clarke’s parole application. Just 8 weeks after being put on home detention he was paroled. On 18 February 2005 a complaint was made to the Sydenham police against Clarke alleging that he had duped two of the female staff in the Cardijn House facility into having sexual relationships with him that he had tried to do the same with a third woman who had gone to Cardijn House to seek assistance from the support staff and that he had gone on to threaten to kill and to take revenge on all three of those women. He subsequently threatened the children of one of the women who had rejected his advances. 
John Albert Thomas Clarke is a high-risk sexual offender. He shows no remorse. He is proud of his past; he boasts of it. On being placed in home detention he immediately engaged in acts of conning innocent women into relationships and then when he did not get his way he threatened to kill and rape them all and he threatened children. Clarke continues to associate with known paedophiles. Clark was released by the Parole Board after serving only 7 years of his sentence. The report that the Parole Board obviously received from the Department of Corrections was inaccurate at best and a whitewash or absolutely pure fiction at worst. Those responsible for that report—not the Parole Board—are the Minister the Department of Corrections and the much-vaunted integrated offender management system that they are so proud of—a system that continually fails continually lets people down and continually jeopardises the safety and well-being of New Zealanders as it has done in this case. 
No disclosure was made to the staff of Cardijn House as to this man’s past. I understand that there was disclosure to a priest who recommended that he go there but no disclosure at all was made to the female staff of that place or indeed to the 76-year-old woman who ran it. Why not? Because this politically correct Government will not allow such disclosure about people who are placed on home detention. Indeed Mr Rick Barker stood up and told this House one day there were no violent offenders on home detention. How does that Minister feel today? He is soft on crime Labour is politically correct and the people who pay the price for that are people like “victim C” a young innocent woman who was conned and duped and whose children were threatened. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am grateful for the contribution from Ron Mark after the frivolous speeches made by the first two speakers. I too am interested in the area of crime and I would like to pursue that topic. 
The Government has claimed that its tougher approach to crime has meant higher police resolution rates longer sentences and lower crime rates. That is a fiction. It is bollocks. Let us take a look at the crime rates first. It is getting harder to register and report offences. That is a fact. One detective agency in Auckland told me that slam-dunk cases were being ignored—that even after someone made three trips to the police officers still refused to take a complaint. Police do not register any suspect complaints and therefore these are absent from statistics as well. That is something that did not happen before. Police further skew data by calling some offences civil when they should be called criminal—again skewing the statistics and creating a fiction. 
In terms of resolutions the police are increasingly adept at distorting the numbers. Undue pressure has been put on police to record burglary call-outs as resolved even when they attend and find that no burglary has occurred at all thereby inflating the apparent number of solved crimes. Cases such as those where a neighbour might have alerted police to what he or she thought was burglary but turned out to be for example a homeowner fumbling with keys in a lock go into the stats as resolved cases. They look like another burglary solved yet that is completely and utterly untrue. The fact is I have got this information from the police themselves. They tell me what is happening. This Government is utterly out of touch with one of the critical departments responsible for looking after the citizens of this country. 
Police have a code for some of these events. “K1” for example means “police attention sufficient” and “K3” means “no offence disclosed”. Police codes are being misused in the handling of burglary call-outs which are considered to be resolved when in fact no crime might have taken place at all. The denials by the Minister of Police George Hawkins in answers to written questions that these things happen are clearly just the official line. Officers on the street know differently. They are working in a bureaucratic police culture that is massively focused on perceived outcomes to the point that there is dodgy paperwork created to make things look more impressive than they really are all at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers who deserve to know the truth and who deserve to be protected adequately. 
Here is another example: middle-income earners who cannot afford legal aid and who cannot afford lawyers are more inclined just to plead guilty to lower level offences and get a quick clearance. The Government is forcing the police to generate good police stats rather than good policing. What about the much-vaunted Sentencing Act? How is that really working? The reality is that there are more prisoners due to shorter not tougher sentences. Our courts are sending more offenders to prison but many are serving shorter sentences. This is based on figures I have obtained to written questions. 
Since 1994 the overall prison population has increased by 16 percent from 7360 to 8540. But despite claims from the Government that this is due to much tougher sentencing the biggest increase is in sentences of under 3-years in duration. Sentences from 6 months to 12 months in length have increased by 48 percent from 1468 to 2169. Sentences of 1 year to 2 years in duration have increased by 96 percent from 850 to 1646. Sentences of 2 to 3 years’ duration have increased by 87 percent from 298 to 557. It is the waves of prisoners who do a few years or less who have most bolstered the prison population and because of their short sentences they gain next to nothing out of prison-based rehabilitation or skills programmes. They certainly do not get rehabilitated and there is no sense of retribution for the victims. 
Those are just the sentences that are imposed. It says nothing about the prisoners who get out earlier on parole. A census of prison inmates that was carried out in November 2003 showed that only 21 percent of male inmates had no previous sentences 66 percent had more than 10 previous sentences and 16 percent had over 50 previous sentences. We should remember our rehabilitation statistics. Within 5 years 86 percent of offenders go straight back into prison. The higher rate of recidivism suggests that it is the number of prisoners making a return trip to jail after serving a short sentence rather than the imposition of longer sentences that is driving up the prison population. Average sentences from 2002 have gone up by just 6 months. The reason is that the very top end of offenders are definitely getting longer sentences but there are not very many of them. There is only a small handful. Whatever tinkering the police do the reality is that sentences are increasing. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I acknowledge the contributions in the House this afternoon from Marc Alexander and Ron Mark. They were two speeches that helped to highlight how out of touch the current Government is with ordinary New Zealanders and they showed how much there is to be bothered about by crime in this country. We have spent weeks finding out how bad the education system is. We know what is wrong with welfare and we know also that the economy is not as rosy as Michael Cullen may like to paint it. 
If we ever wanted proof that the Labour Party despises workers does not trust workers and does not like workers we got it from the Prime Minister today. When she was asked a simple question about whether New Zealanders who received a pay rise should keep most of it or pay most of it to the Government her response was: “I think it’s ludicrous that workers should get more pay through tax cuts.” That is code for the Prime Minister thinking that it is ludicrous that more workers in this country keep more of the money they earn. 
The Prime Minister and her Ministers think that the best way to improve incomes for New Zealanders is to turn them into State beneficiaries. That is exactly what the Working for Families package sets out to do. Apparently 300000 families will benefit from it. Will they benefit from it by keeping more of the money that they earn? The answer is no. They will not do that. They will benefit because Helen Clark will send them a cheque out of the State’s funds every 2 weeks. The Opposition simply asks that people be allowed to keep more of what they earn. What is worse not only is the Prime Minister saying that it is ludicrous for workers to keep more of the money they earn and much better for the Government to give out benefits but she also overlooks the fact that only one out of every four families in this country will benefit from this income advancement. 
Over the next couple of weeks I want to see Ministers stand up in this House and—rather than go through the sort of exercise that we saw from Mr Maharey today where he tried to rehearse his future occupation as a stand-up comic—explain why workers in this country should vote for a Labour Government. Why should workers who constantly have the Government’s hand in their pockets give Labour their vote later this year? Thirty new taxes have been applied by the Government in the last 5 years. Who pays for that? It is the workers. From 1 April every time those workers pull up at the petrol pump another 5.6c will come out of their pockets for every litre of petrol they buy. 
Government members may say that 5.6c a litre of petrol is not much and that it will be only a few dollars a week but when one is earning $30000 or $35000 a year those few dollars make a very big difference. I say to Government members that when they lose touch with that fact and they cannot understand even for a moment what it is like to live on a tight fixed income and cannot empathise with New Zealanders they start to lose the vote. I predict that very shortly the polls will start telling Helen Clark and her Ministers what a disaster they will face on election day later this year. 
Is it not amazing the way that some of the best Ministers in the Government have started to lose their tracks this year? Today Trevor Mallard was unable to answer a simple question as Associate Minister of Finance. He had to send the question to Pete Hodgson Minister of Transport to get him to answer it. He had the Minister of Transport explain why the Government is applying more tax. The Government is a group of people who have lost touch with New Zealanders and who will pay the price for it. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I see that my good friend Clayton Cosgrove the outgoing MP for Waimakariri groans in his seat at the prospect at having to look for a job after the election. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 That speech was made by a representative of the party that made a headline today because its chief electoral strategist told its members that they will lose the election and that it is their own fault due to their disunity and lack of credibility. Gerry Brownlee just provided the House with the evidence of that lack of credibility. He talked about the poor economic record. This country has the highest growth rate in the OECD and the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. 
Then he got on the crime rate bandwagon—as have several other members—when independent police statistics that have just come out show that the crime rate in this country has fallen by 22 percent. There are 700 fewer crimes a week under the Labour-led Government. We have the highest rate of police resolution—it was 36 percent and it is now 45 percent. Members of the Opposition like to say that people will not report crime when there has been a huge increase in the rate of crimes solved by police. 
Opposition members say that this Government is soft on law and order yet four prisons are being built. One opened yesterday. There are 1500 extra prison beds because this Government has taken the tough line on law and order that the National Party never had the guts to do when it was in Government. 
This Government passed sentencing legislation that has seen those people who are guilty of the worst murders in this country sentenced for up to 30 years before being eligible for parole. Under this Government in 1 year twice as many people were sentenced to preventive detention than had occurred in any other year in the history of this country. Those people who time and time again commit serious crimes are now being locked up indefinitely under preventive detention. That spokesperson never said anything about the fact that parole laws and bail laws have now been toughened which is why we have such a large number of people in our prison system. 
We have seen further evidence of this National Party not being fit even to be an Opposition party let alone make a claim to govern this country. We have seen those who have jumped the sinking ship—the rats swimming away from the sinking ship. We have seen Lynda—what is her name? 
Opposition Member 
: Scott. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Scott—yes she is gone. Roger Sowry has gone. We have seen Katherine Rich distancing herself as fast as she can from the person who is going to lose the election and the National Party leadership and now we are seeing Murray McCully doing the same. We have seen ACT and the National Party—two parties that would have to come together to form a coalition—attacking each other viciously. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Gerry Brownlee said in the newspaper this week that the ACT party has not achieved one new idea in 9 years. Of course the ACT members are counter-attacking. They cannot maintain even a semblance of unity in Opposition yet they claim that they could govern this country. This country saw enough of a National Government unable to govern because of instability. Jenny Shipley could not get on with New Zealand First— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am doing this to interrupt the Minister’s speech because I think he needs a spell. He is popping his blood vessels and is losing control. I think that if he just has 10 seconds sitting down it will be good for his health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. That was not a point of order and I warn the member on that—that was a deliberate interruption of a member’s speech. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member does that again he will be out because it was not a point of order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This week we have seen a further blunder by the National Party—a blunder in foreign policy. A judicial court separate from executive Government has made a decision that a person did not have enough evidence against him to be convicted. What did Don Brash say? He said that he would withdraw the ambassador. What a ridiculous thing to do. Does he not understand the separation of executive from judiciary? Does he not understand that the Indonesian Government with regard to the Bali bombers has imprisoned 30 people and has imposed maximum sentences as serious as the death penalty? 
That member who knows nothing about foreign policy blundered into the area once again. He blundered about the tsunami. When the tsunami occurred he had left New Zealand and had gone to lie on the beach at Hawaii for 10 days where he ignored the worst catastrophe in our part of the world for many many years. He came back and said that New Zealand was not doing enough. What a blunder! He is the same man who said in public that his party would maintain the nuclear-free policy and who said separately to American congressmen that the policy would be gone by lunchtime. It is no wonder that he has no credibility. It is no wonder that he is being abandoned by members of his own party. It is no wonder that Murray McCully is saying the National Opposition is doomed to failure. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On Monday the Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik will be hosted in this Parliament and I think we have a lot to learn from him and the experience of his Government particularly in the area of peacemaking. Norway is a country that is roughly the same size as New Zealand with 4.5 million people and it has made a huge contribution to peacemaking in many countries. Members will remember the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestinians and more recently Norway has been involved in the peace negotiations that led to a successful settlement in the southern Sudan. The Norwegians are also very strongly involved in peacemaking in Sri Lanka and in other conflicts such as that between Ethiopia and Eritrea and in Somalia Columbia Haiti the Philippines the Balkans and Guatemala. Norway has specialised in peacemaking despite being such a small country and it has invested a lot of money in peacekeeping. 
I visited Norway last October and spoke to members of the peace and reconciliation section of their ministry of foreign affairs. They have a specialist section and those specialists in peacemaking work closely with their embassies. They have embassies in over a hundred countries despite being a small nation. They also work in with non-governmental organisations particularly those involved on the ground in the countries in which they are doing the peacemaking. 
They do have a lot of people on the ground. Norway gives a much higher proportion of its gross national income to overseas development assistance than does New Zealand. For example in 2003 0.92 percent of Norway’s gross national income went to overseas aid whereas in New Zealand it was one-quarter of that just 0.23 percent of our gross national income. One-third of the money that Norway puts in is delivered to the countries by Norwegian non-governmental organisations that are linked up with overseas non-governmental organisations or Norwegian people out in the field doing the work. 
In fact the work of non-governmental organisations is often the beginning of Norway getting involved in peace negotiations. For example in Guatemala where there has been very successful peacemaking work it was the Norwegian Church Aid people on the ground there who alerted the Norwegian Government to the possibilities for Norwegian peacemaking. In Sri Lanka it was the specialists over there like Mr Terje Roed-Larsen who did the initial groundwork that was followed up later by the Norwegian Government. 
They are doing tremendous work there first of all in establishing the ceasefire which has lasted for over 3 years now and in monitoring the ceasefire along with other Nordic countries and trying to get the peace negotiations going again. Of course that is very important in Sri Lanka because areas affected by war were also devastated by the tsunami—the coastal areas of the north and the east. The same applies to tsunami-devastated Aceh where there is a need for peacemaking between people in Aceh and the Indonesian Government. It is important that we work to prevent a situation where war breaks out again in either Sri Lanka or Aceh. 
Although I am saying New Zealand can learn a lot from Norway of course we have our own very positive experiences in peacemaking in Bougainville. In fact the solution in Bougainville—that is to set up an interim situation of a Bougainville Government with a strong degree of autonomy putting off any decision or referendum on independence for some years but leaving it open—is exactly what has been applied in the recent peace agreement in the southern Sudan. That agreement allows for a decision on possible independence for southern Sudan in a few years’ time. 
The Norwegians talk not just about peacemaking they also use the term “peace-building”. Peace-building has four components which the Norwegians are all very actively involved in. One is the peacemaking I have talked about—the negotiations the monitoring of ceasefire and that sort of thing. Another is human rights and democracy-building—giving aid to institutions to empower the people to build a civil society and to get good governance going. The third leg is development assistance itself to social economic development sustainability and all those sorts of things that make a country viable. The fourth leg particularly coming out of an armed conflict is post-conflict work in disarmament demobilisation and reconciliation. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 There is a crisis of confidence in the National Party. There is a crisis of confidence in its relationships and there is a crisis of confidence in its policy. The National Party is in meltdown. Its caucus is a toxic brew of poisoned personal relationships bruised feelings punctured egos and frustrated ambition. 
All the signs of this have spewed on to the front page of the  
Independent 
 today where the headline screams “Crisis in Nats’ caucus room”. According to the article Murray McCully the chief strategist and spinner for the National Party has told his caucus colleagues that they have little hope of winning this year’s election and this is confirmed by none other than Don Brash who said at the time he was elected as leader: “A lot of people who supported me said: ‘Look we probably won’t win in 2005 but we need to be sufficiently well placed so we can win in 2008.’ ” I wonder what Dr Brash now thinks when he reflects on that. This crisis of leadership should come as no surprise to the public or to the National Party. Dr Don Brash has been in the electoral process before: he stood twice in East Coast Bays and lost on both occasions. In short Dr Don Brash is unelectable; he could get into the House only on the National Party list. His worst trait is coming to the fore in how he manages people. 
The crisis in the National Party caucus room is well documented: Katherine Rich—sacked; Georgina te Heuheu—sacked; Nick Smith—according to his own words—“dorked” by his caucus and his leader; Bill English—shafted by his own caucus still bruised and trying to count back to 14; Lynda Scott—totally disillusioned so she has left politics; Roger Sowry—totally disillusioned by what has happened in the National Party; all the doors have been slammed on him and he is leaving as well. Brian Connell said that his leader was stupid. “Stupid” was the word that he used about the sacking of Katherine Rich. Simon Power has been demoted for revealing truthfully probably the National Party’s true defence policy. Maurice Williamson has been left languishing on the back bench. In fact it has just been revealed today that they are trying to push him out of his seat of Pakuranga to make way for the ACT party. Clem Simich is facing a brutal coup to shove him out of Tamaki. Paul Hutchison was passed over by a small-town lawyer for the health portfolio even though he is a doctor. Lindsay Tisch a former president of the National Party is still languishing on the back benches. He is constantly being passed over. Richard Worth has not been given any of the responsibilities that he believes are commensurate with his ability and his perceived talents. John Carter has resigned from the whip’s position because of the actions of the National caucus. Wayne Mapp has been demoted. 
The simple maths of this tells us that over half the members of the National Party caucus are disillusioned. In fact the disaffection index of the National Party caucus is now over 50 percent. The National Party caucus has gone—in nuclear power station terms—critical. Bells are clanging lights are flashing and hooters are hooting simply because there is such a crisis and it is all because the people are aggrieved or as Nick Smith said “dorked”; or in the words of Brian Connell they have been treated by a stupid leadership. This is a very fertile ground for the rising of a soufflé a second time. The National Party needs only 14 votes to become the leader again and today we witnessed yet again in the House that Bill English is outshining Dr Brash on every front. Any count that members may like to do on the work in this House will show that Bill English is well ahead of Dr Don Brash. He asks more substantive questions and more supplementary questions and he takes part in debates. 
It is interesting that here we are in the Wednesday general debate but yet again Dr Brash is sitting in the House silent. He will not take a call and take up the argument against the Government. He sits there silent letting his minions try to do it. That is pathetic. Maurice Williamson is the best weathervane one can have on the performance of Dr Don Brash. After all he was the person who promoted him the most. If one looks at Maurice Williamson’s face when Dr Brash speaks in the House one will see him looking at the ceiling of the Chamber and drumming his fingers with embarrassment. It has been very embarrassing. But this is not the worst part of the National Party’s crisis. It is not just the toxic personality clashes of the National Party; it is a crisis in policy. Its members cannot agree on one simple thing. Let us take for example 4 weeks’ annual leave. They have said they will get rid of it. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 If there is any political party in this House that is losing confidence it is not the National Party—it is the Labour Party. 
I make this observation very simply for the benefit of the House. That speaker was the Minister of Customs who a couple of weeks ago was allowed to front the petrol tax issue. Labour members decided they should not put up Dr Cullen so they went to the Minister of Customs. Today we came down to the House and we asked a very simple question about petrol tax. I can understand why Labour members would not want to give the issue to Rick Barker; I understand that and I will not question their strategy team on it because it was probably a wise choice. But the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard sat in the House and if he had not made such a hash of his question yesterday he might have got a shot at it. Even he now lacks the confidence of the inner circle of Labour. He is no longer a safe pair of hands because Bill English has made him look like the inept bungling fool that he is. He is now unable to come to this House to answer basic questions on taxes. He is the Associate Minister of Finance and he has to give those questions to the Minister of Transport. Mark my words Labour is not looking terribly flash. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ha ha! 
JOHN KEY 
: I tell Mr Cosgrove to look around the Chamber today. The entire front bench had their heads down. The entire front bench was not looking chipper and I am sorry but Labour members know a disaster when they see one coming and it is called election 2005—mark my words. 
Andrew Little from the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Ross Wilson from the Council of Trade Unions and Mike Williams from the Labour Party all want something; “5 in 05” is what they want. Well I have a piece of advice for Andrew Little Ross Wilson and Mike Williams. They should be extremely careful what they wish for because I have a prediction for them and it is that they are going to get what they asked for. They are certainly going to get “5 in 05”. They are going to get $5.20 for their workers per week. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What a disgrace! 
JOHN KEY 
: What a disgrace! The party of the workers has sold them down the river. They will get a $2500 pay increase and they will get to keep five bucks. By the time they fill up the car they will be down for the week. That is the party of the workers. 
What did the Prime Minister tell the Leader of the Opposition Dr Don Brash the next Prime Minister of New Zealand? What did she tell Dr Brash? She said: “That’s right when the unions go out there and strive for a 5 percent wage increase all of that money will go back to the Government.” It is not bad enough that it is running a $7.4 billion operating balance; more of that wage increase will go back to it. So the average worker is now sitting at home saying: “Let me work this one out. I’m potentially going to go on strike to get a 5 percent wage increase. It’ll cost me probably days of militant action. I’ll be picketing out there in the cold and the rain and the wet. I’ll be begging with my boy for a raise and when I get it I’ll lose more money than if I’d stayed in the comfort of my own environment.” Members should check it out. If that is the party of the workers no wonder there is a confidence crisis taking place in Labour. That crisis is well founded. 
This morning I had the wonderful opportunity to go on  
Morning Report  
with Steve Maharey the architect of the Working for Families package. I sat there and Geoff Robinson in those tones of his said: “Mr Key can you explain the situation?”. I said: “Workers will get $2500 as a pay increase; they will get $5 to take home per week.” He looked at me and said: “That can’t possibly be right.” He turned to the architect of Working for Families Steve Maharey and Mr Maharey said: “Oh I’m not going to argue with John about the numbers. They’re right.” They are right! Can members imagine the workers of New Zealand having their Weet-Bix listening to Steve Maharey and spitting their Kornies all over the breakfast table? The poor kids are wondering why they have got cornflakes all over them. All of a sudden the workers realise that they should not have been painting those signs stating “Strike Now” and “5 in 05” in their garages in the weekend because they are about to lose money. It is a disgrace. That is the situation. That is Working for Families—one of the most deeply flawed policies this country has. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the women in this party and the women of this country because this was the week when we celebrated International Women’s Day. Yesterday we got our first woman Speaker in the House—something that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the House. We celebrated a precious token and that was the right to vote which was gained in 1893. Around the country women met for breakfast yesterday and we talked about the gains that this party has achieved for women. 
Another issue that happened this week was a 1-day hearing on the elimination of violence against women and children. I want to say that not one member of Parliament of any party other than the Labour Party turned up for that hearing. I found that really sad when other parties are talking about their issues. They did not take the opportunity to come and present at that 1-day hearing that was attended by a lot of women who came and talked about the issue of violence in this country and that is recorded by women. 
But I want to talk also about what we have done for women. It is not just about income in our back pocket as families it is also about things like paid parental leave which from December of this year will go up to 13 weeks. It is about increases in early childhood education—millions more are going in for funding childcare and after-school care subsidies for our children.That is a wonderful thing. In 2007 there will be 20 free hours and for families that is huge. So it is not just the net gain in our back pocket. 
We also talked that day about strategies that we need to improve on and this was a Government that was prepared to listen to what is working what is not working and what it can do better. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has any reflections on that. 
Let us look at that leadership style and its impact on women. It has been divisive alienating colleagues—and one-time allies including women around the country notice that. We watched the treatment of Georgina te Heuheu. We understand she got a safe little job but fancy getting rid of somebody who spoke proudly on Maori affairs! We watched Lynda Scott challenge the leader and for that challenge she has resigned and will be gone. We watched the latest debacle with Katherine Rich—the doyenne the new look and the intelligent woman who could have been branded with National so cleverly. We watched her being pushed to the back benches and women in this country do not like that. 
Helen Bain observed that the sacking of Katherine Rich by National was like watching bystanders observing the wreckage of a car crash—not knowing what to do or who to blame. It was an absolute tragedy. Was it about those who could talk and would talk and those who would shut up? There is a huge gap in the Opposition that will not be closed at this election by women of the country when they go to the polls to make their decision. There are no women on the front bench of the Opposition. Even Mr McCully is too busy to be seen sitting next to Katherine Rich who is back on the second row. He doubts whether they can win the election and he would resign from the campaign committee. 
Murray McCully should go to ACT. Catherine Judd acknowledged that Dr Brash is the ninth ACT MP. Perhaps he could help ACT with its campaign. That leader that man with “gravitas” we have heard with “considerable pulling power for the girls”—that was in his biography—and does anyone in this House have any reflections on that! That is the man who has admitted he was backed as the leader because he would lose less badly. It is all rather sad really. 
That leader has more than a few speckles on a cream carpet. He has custard on his face with the flip-flops he has led since he has bungled his way through policy decisions in this House. 
What about his women? The disunity within will cause more distress to Dr Brash than the cream carpet with a few speckles. Dr Brash alleges that he has lived and worked with women throughout his professional career. “I think I do it effectively.” he said. “It just happens that we don’t have a large number of women in my caucus at this stage.” 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The pale shadow of a Labour Party we have in this Parliament today would have Michael Joseph Savage turning in his grave. Yesterday hundreds of workers in this country lost their jobs. Tanners and timber businesses closed down. Phoenix Freight is going to the wall and Skope Industries laid off dozens of workers yesterday. Yet senior Cabinet Ministers who have spoken in the general debate today have not shown the slightest concern for those workers. The Prime Minister admitted that she did not even get advice on how her policy the Working for Families package would impact on workers and wage earners as they sought to earn more money in this country. 
So far we have heard only the good bits about that package. The news is not so bad. We have heard the news that if two-parent families with a couple of children are on $50000 and seek to get the 5 percent pay increase that the president of the Labour Party and a few other unionists want them to get of the $2500 pay increase they would get to keep $270 of it. The Government gets $2230 and that worker gets $270. People think that that applies only if that family has two children. I tell this Parliament that if a family has six children it still keeps only $270 out of that pay increase. They are the lucky ones. If a family was on $65000 and got a 5 percent pay increase under Labour’s Working for Families package in theory it would get $3250 in increased pay. Of that $3250 that family would get to keep $156. The Government would get $3094 of that increase and the family would keep $156. Under a Labour Government a worker would get to keep $156 out of that $3250. 
John Key 
: Three bucks a week. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Three bucks a week says my good colleague John Key a future Minister of Finance and a very good mathematician. 
But that is not the worst news. Labour once used to say that it cared for low-income people. If that same family is on really low wages—on $10 an hour; earning $20000 a year—and it gets a 5 percent pay increase it would get $1000 extra. This is what is so disgusting with this hopeless Labour Government: that family would get to keep $78. That is $1.50 a week. With a 5 percent pay increase under Labour’s policy Helen Clark’s wonderful Working for Families policy which that clever clever senior Cabinet Minister Steve Maharey dreamt up low-income workers on $20000 a year get to keep out of a 5 percent pay increase $78. The Government takes $922. This Labour Government takes $922 out of that 5 percent pay increase and a working family on $10 an hour keeps $78. The Government—Labour—takes $922. I ask Marian Hobbs as a Cabinet Minister to justify why Labour is taking $922 of the $1000 pay increase— 
Helen Duncan 
: The member is talking absolute rubbish as usual. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The figures I have used are from the Inland Revenue Department. They are not our figures. 
What is quite good though is that if one is really a high-income earner and is on $75000 a year the 5 percent pay increase would give that person $3750. That family would get to keep $2240 of it. So the high-income people do better and the low-income people really suffer under this Labour Government. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I have three questions to put to this House today. The first question is whether the National Party will get its act together the second is whether the National Party will get together with ACT and the third is what National would do if it ever got its act together. I shall ask the first one: will National get its act together? I know Murray McCully. He is a team player. He is prepared to put his body on the line in a parliamentary team right to the bitter end. He is a team player yet he has admitted that he is playing with a bunch of losers in the National Party because they cannot win the next election. It is not good enough just to take Murray McCully’s word. We should ask Richard Long. Perhaps Murray McCully is outside the inner circle. Richard Long said that as far as he was aware Murray McCully remained very much an active member of the election campaign committee.I suggest that Murray McCully may be the only active member of that committee. 
The second question given that we can clearly see the National Party will never get its act together is whether it can get together with ACT. ACT is the only other foolish party chasing right-wing ideology in this House and the only other party that could ever get into bed with the National Party. How would the National members build a relationship with ACT? They could ask their deputy leader what he thinks about their potential coalition partner. Gerry Brownlee said that ACT had been in Parliament for 9 years and had done nothing. I do not think that is a very good start to a good relationship. I do not think that we can seriously suggest that ACT and the National Party can get together. So that is the second question and I suggest the answer is no. 
What would National do if it ever got into Government? I look to John Key that master of economic destiny and his speech this week. What would he do as Minister of Finance? The new revolutionary policy that National has is to sell State assets. 
John Key 
: I didn’t say that! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Let us take one small example of that because John Key qualified his sales pitch by saying that in the first 3 years National probably would not sell Transpower or Air New Zealand. Would people trust National? I will tell the House why National wants to sell things. It is not because the assets “slow the boat” to use Mr Key’s words; it is because his mates want to have a slice of the action. Would National sell a non-performing State asset to the sharemarket? No it would not. Would National sell a top-performing asset? Yes it would. 
Two examples of those top-performing assets would be Landcorp and Solid Energy. Both of those are brilliantly performing State-owned enterprises returning huge returns to the taxpayer. For example what is the financial performance of Landcorp? Its net profit after tax last year was $37.4 million and its increased value of land and improvements was 28 percent up to $623 million. There are some who say that perhaps Landcorp should sell off the smaller farms. I have to say that there are no small farms with Landcorp because very successfully it has built up amalgamated units that are quite substantial in size. 
If John Key gets his way if National ever gets its act together if it ever gets together with ACT and if they are ever in the position of being in Government which is highly unlikely they would sell key State assets. They would sell the performing State assets to their mates. We can take an example of what happens if we sell strategic assets and put them into the hands of the wonderful private sector. Lockwood Smith told us in this House that the private sector can no longer guarantee jobs because those poor workers unfortunately lost their jobs yesterday. We feel sorry for them but this economy will give them job opportunities. National would sell our State assets. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Relationships (Statutory References) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
Relationships (Statutory References) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Acts 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill is one of a number of bills from this Government that attacks the family as an institution in New Zealand undermines marriage and imposes on our country the politically correct view that all relationships whether they be a marriage between a man and a woman a civil union or a de facto relationship are just the same. It is like a National Certificate of Educational Achievement of family life—that is it makes absolutely no difference to the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs and to the Government whether a person is in a lifelong relationship or simply in a de facto relationship. 
I firstly want to draw the attention of the Committee to the quite deceitful way in which this Government advances its legislation through Parliament. We should be having a debate on the changes to the Care of Children Act the Income Tax Act 2004 the Estate and Gift Duties Act the New Zealand Superannuation Act the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and changes to all number of statutes but the Government has developed a sneaky trick. Rather than the bills having individual parts so that this Parliament might debate each of them the Government has come up with this sneaky drafting technique called subparts. This means that rather than having a debate on each of the amendments the Government is able to rush through wads of legislation—hundreds of pages of legislation—and slam it through Parliament with disrespect for democracy. These are significant changes they will have major impacts on the lives of New Zealanders and they should not be rammed through in this rough and cavalier way. 
I want to focus particularly on the definitions that are provided in this bill in respect of de facto relationships. I draw the Committee’s attention to these because they are of enormous significance. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are living in de facto relationships will have a whole number of their legal rights changed by this bill. They need to know and society needs to know whether they are in a de facto relationship that will be affected by these laws. The public needs certainty yet what we see is a quite secular definition in respect of de facto relationships. There is absolutely no certainty. In fact the select committee even took out the basic criteria. All we know now is that any two people who are living in a house—a couple of men a couple of women or maybe a man and a woman—will be in a sort of Reverend Moon exercise; automatically married off in their thousands by this Government. I say again that Reverend Moon will be jealous of what this Government is attempting to do. 
But I would like to know who is and who is not in a de facto relationship. If members look at the definition provided by the Government in clause 40 they will see that it gives us absolutely no clarity at all. And it matters. It is absolutely vital for a doctor in a hospital who is dealing with the emotionally charged environment of a person on life support and the decision as to whether that life-support machine will be turned on or off to know who is the next of kin. 
People need to know. But does this law give us any clarity as to whether a person is or is not in a de facto relationship? At least the matrimonial property legislation passed 4 years ago provides that the relationship has to be 3 years old. We still do not know exactly what the starting point is for the 3 years but at least there is some time required. But the way this bill is written means that all these legal requirements take effect the day after a person enters a de facto relationship. 
The importance of this definition is that all these legal changes suddenly take effect and cover issues such as who is a step-parent who gets rights under the Care of Children Act who gets superannuation payments who gets particular rights in the court who gets particular rights under our tax legislation and who gets particular inheritances under our estate legislation. It is my strong submission to this Parliament that we need to provide our citizens with clarity around that issue. 
There is clarity when a person gets married. It is absolutely clear. There is a date there is a certificate and there is an open ceremony. But how are our public authorities and more important how are our citizens to know when they are in a legally defined de facto relationship with all these provisions? 
The second point is the doublespeak from the Government with this bill. The Prime Minister said that we are not going to have gay marriage. She knew that middle New Zealand would not accept gay marriage. So what the Government did was to give it a different name but make it exactly identical in law! If we go through all the 168 statutes that are being amended by this bill we are saying there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple. That is not what the Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand. This bill is gay marriage by stealth. 
Members opposite do not have the courage to say to the people of New Zealand exactly what it is they are doing. They want to dress it up. They are not prepared to be straight with the people of New Zealand and say that this bill is about gay marriage. Let no member walk away from that. Then we have the cuteness around all the amendments where the Government says: “Oh no no. We think marriage is really important so what we are going to do is protect the definition of ‘husband and wife’ but all the legal rights will be exactly the same for those who are in a two-men or a two-women relationship.” 
I say that is wrong for this very simple reason. In this Parliament yesterday we had a fascinating lecture on the issue of demographics and the issue that fewer and fewer people are choosing to be parents. Little wonder when we have this Government passing one statute after another that attacks the family and belittles the role that parents play. The statement made by the Prime Minister that a mum staying home with children is not contributing to our economy is just one of a whole number of insults from this Government to families and to those who do the hard yards of raising the next generation in our country. 
What Labour does not understand is that the family is the most important institution in our society. What this Government does not understand is that having a man and woman a husband and wife committed to raising their children is an institution that pre-dates this Parliament it is an institution that pre-dates all the political correctness that has completely enveloped this Government. It has forgotten all of that and it will pay a high price for it. Middle New Zealand understands that the best social policy the best a Government can do for our children is to support families and not to support this PC legislation. 
It is extraordinary to look at the number of step-parents that a child will be able to acquire through this process. There is absolutely no time frame required as to when those sorts of rights will be acquired. That is where this Government completely ignores all the research. In all the social policy research—and it is highly contested—one factor is absolutely true. Children on average do best when they are raised in a stable family involving their mum and their dad. Of course there are situations of single-parent mums who work their heart out and do their best for their children and I salute them.. But I also say that this Minister and this Government ignore the social policy research that shows in terms of drug abuse in terms of educational achievement in terms of this country’s appalling youth suicide figures in terms of unemployment and in terms of youth crime that those children who grow up in stable households with a loving mum and dad are the least at risk. 
Why would the Labour Party want to ignore that social policy research in developing statutes of this sort? My simple view is that it is more interested in playing to its own politically select group of supporters than in the long-term interests of our nation. There will be no limit to the amount of difficulties and complications these legal changes will cause for individual New Zealanders as they suddenly grapple with the extent of this Government’s social engineering. I remember hearing somewhere that someone said this country needs engineering of our roads not of our families. I say that that is true. 
Finally I wish to say there was a huge amount of heat and debate around the Civil Union Act. In so many respects these changes to over 160 statutes are more significant than that legislation. It is more significant because this is the meat. This is the place where we are saying—right across the board—that the Government is imposing its will that there is no difference in a relationship. In Labour’s view two young people shacked up together same sex or different sex with no long-term commitment is the same as marriage. I do not buy the line that it is the same for all relationships simply to be treated equally or identically in law. Relationships are different. It is time this Parliament recognised that. It is also time Parliament recognised that society is best served by long-term committed relationships. That is why society for hundreds of years has provided legal protection for marriage. It is a mistake for this Parliament to undervalue marriage to undermine it and to say that in all these Acts marriages de facto relationships and same-sex relationships are identical. I say they are not. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Alvin Toffler said: “Parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.” Statutory social workers deal with the most extreme situations affecting the well-being of children young people and their families. They make judgments that no other agency or professional is called upon to make within a system that requires them constantly to reassess priorities and risks. They are in the business of predicting human behaviour when it is beyond the ability of any social-work system to anticipate accurately and consistently how people will act. 
The questions I ask are: why is it this way and why has it become this way? Besides the decisions that people make on how they want to live their lives we have laws introduced in this nation that have contributed to the breaking down of the family structure and its importance. First there was the Prostitution Reform Bill; second the Civil Union Bill; and third today we have the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. In relation to the Prostitution Reform Act for example we hear and understand that a lot of our young girls are now going off to Australia for better work conditions. New Zealand First predicted that all of these things would take place. Now we have the Civil Union Act—same-sex relationships. Then to support the Civil Union Act we have the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. There is a term used by Maori—namely whare tangata. Translated it means the home or house of man. This is in reference to the women for whom without them and the sanctity that is theirs life would not continue in perpetuity. 
We have a lifestyle now creeping in that takes away the sanctity of life the sanctity of marriage and what womenfolk mean to us in this world today. We have in this Parliament individuals who have made known their support for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Is this an indication that it is also reinforcing the desire to support civil unions? Would this Labour-led Government support the initiative of a public referendum on this issue and allow the huge majority who are against this bill to have their say? 
For me this bill is an add-on to the Civil Union Act. It gives same-sex couples the same privileges as the founders of our society—namely marriage husband and wife. This bill should be consigned to the rubbish bin because it is wrong and that is where it belongs. I am not going to debate the laws and Acts that have taken place and the research that has been taking place I am saying to this Committee that it is wrong. 
On my flight down from Hamilton on Tuesday morning I overheard the air hostess talking about families to a passenger who was sitting right in front of me. She expressed her concern about what is happening today. She talked about how her mother and father brought her up—how her father worked and her mother remained at home to look after the kids. She is a single woman who has chosen a career that interests her and I think that when the decision comes for her to be married that will be how she will take care of her family. 
Statistics were given in the House yesterday in relation to the adverse effects that have been proven to be caused to our families because of people of the same gender taking a liking to each other. Let us face it there are many countries that have gone down this track and suffered because of it. When will this Government wake up to the social engineering that has taken place and the social problems that exist now and are prevalent in our families today? Money cannot solve those problems. We are putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. In old Maori times families were of the utmost importance and children and grandchildren were of the utmost importance to that family social structure. Now we have laws brought into this Parliament to destroy that.  
Anei aku korero ki a koutou nga Maori o tena taha o te Whare. Kei te tautoko koutou i tenei pire. Pehea nga tamariki me nga mokopuna? 
[ 
These are my words to you the Maori members on that side of the House. You are supporting this bill. What about the children and grandchildren? 
] 
I am speaking to the Maori members of the Government. Do they support this bill? What about our families who have been brought up in love to honour and cherish their parents and to respect each other? 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: They are carrying on. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Kare they are not carrying on because we are bringing into the existence of the laws of this land bills that will destroy that. Prove me wrong! They never will. Kei te noho koutou i tena taha. Kare o koutou waha e hamama ana ki nga pire e hara mai ana ki roto i tenei Whare. 
[ 
And there you sit on that side. Your mouths remain closed when bills are brought into this House for debate 
.] 
Those members are sitting on that side and their mouths are closed. They are supposed to be representative of the people in their electorates. I hope they are hearing me today. I am vehemently against this bill and I hope those people out there who are listening will challenge the Government about these things at the next election. 
Dail Jones 
: On behalf of New Zealand First. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: On behalf of New Zealand First. I was asked in a radio interview on a Monday morning 2 weeks ago: “These bills that have come before the House do you think the population of New Zealand will forget it?”. My answer was: “Not if I can help it. Not if I can help it because they will destroy our nation.” 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I wanted to take a call in the Committee stage of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill because I am one of those who at the second reading changed position. I voted in support of this bill at its first reading because as I read through and tried to make sense of the very many Acts of Parliament that it sought to change most of what I read seemed to be adjusting and providing opportunities for couples other than married couples on issues that I did not believe of themselves undermined the core purpose of marriage. 
Let me explain what I believe by that. I believe that in its crudest sense marriage is actually about breeding. When we look at the legal constraints around marriage it is very clear that I am right. The three constraints are that marriage is heterosexual that it is between two people and that it must not be incestuous. In the Civil Union Bill which I opposed we took one of those aspects of marriage and said that based on human rights it no longer applied. I believed that the rights that were being sought could be given in ways other than through a civil union. However I was happy to support the bill to let it go to a select committee and to allow public submissions to make sense of what was proposed. 
There are two reasons I have changed my mind. The first is that on closer examination many many of those amendments are a complete nonsense. They are giving rights to people for whom in recent years those rights have never been denied. There is almost a culture of victimisation that seems to play on the guilt of those in Parliament that suggests due to kinship status people have been banned barred or unable to have legal redress in some area. I find that on closer examination many of those claims are just not true. 
The second reason I am now opposing this bill is that it is now completely reliant on the civil union legislation—which I opposed; I disagreed with that—as a mechanism for supplying those few provisions in the bill that I think are possibly worthy of consideration. As I stated at the beginning of my speech my opposition to civil unions is that despite claims made by people to the contrary it very much undermines marriage as we know it. I am extremely concerned and interested in an amendment that we have just found proposed by Nandor Tanczos to put the civil union provisions into amending the Adoption Act. It shows exactly the concern I have that this bill is a little dishonest in that it was very selective about the legislation that it would amend at this time. The amendments that really do strike at the heart of what it means to be family and at what marriage was always originally about are very much addressed in Mr Tanczos’ proposal because it intends to provide for non-breeding units the rights to have the children whom by the choices they have made they would normally have walked away from. 
I do believe that there has been a huge amount of dishonesty and manipulation of people’s thinking. I believe that the middle New Zealand that everybody is scrambling to attract in this election year would have been a lot more resistant to this legislation if the adoption provisions had been included. They were very cunningly left out and I am sure that in the not too distant future the types of provisions Mr Tanczos wants will be addressed in an even more comprehensive way than he is now proposing. 
I am always interested when we start advocating for human rights. We have made a bit of an industry out of human rights and we are inventing them at a great rate of knots. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 There are two key areas that I would like to cover in the debate on this part of the bill this afternoon but first of all I would like to reiterate our Green Party commitment to the fundamental human rights contained in this bill. We certainly welcome the removal of discriminatory references on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation that are currently contained in a wide range of New Zealand law. I contrast this with the in-work payment now enshrined in the Working for Families package where discrimination on the grounds of employment status is actually retained and entrenched. It is a real pity that the Government cannot see fit to extend its commitment to human rights seen so demonstrably in this bill to all its legislative programme. 
However on behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are with the conclusion the Government came to particularly in relation to the part of this bill before us today which deals with certain proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. As a result of submissions from a number of organisations and individuals and of discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee amendments to the Social Security Act that had originally been put up relating to de facto couples in social welfare law have now been omitted from the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We had serious concerns all along about that aspect of the bill as introduced seeing the original clauses as a misguided attempt to define the term “de facto relationship” involving a checklist approach both in the general definition to be inserted in the Interpretation Act and in the specific definition that had been proposed to be inserted in the Social Security Act. We are delighted that the checklist approach has been removed. 
Courts have consistently stated—most notably in the Ruka Court of Appeal judgment—that what constitutes a de facto relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage must be interpreted in the context of the purpose of the particular legislation that it relates to. That means for example that social security law has a different purpose from domestic violence legislation so these terms must be interpreted currently in accordance with the respective purposes of those Acts. A “tick the box” method of decision making which is what this bill originally proposed would have been certain to lead to the same sort of inequity and to a de facto overturning of the Ruka decision. 
The Green Party is also pleased to see that the select committee recommended the removal from the bill of attempts to codify court judgments on relationships in the nature of marriage in terms of the Social Security Act. They were subject to widespread criticism from beneficiary advocacy and social service agencies as not accurately reflecting social security case law. Although the Green Party would welcome a move towards greater individual entitlement and away from people’s benefit entitlement being so totally dependent on whom they may be in a relationship with and the very specific nature of that relationship we do not see this bill as being the appropriate vehicle for implementing that move. 
In terms of making current law consistent we welcome the committee’s recommendations which continue to allow existing case law to be applied. However I would just like to offer a small word of warning. Following the Ruka judgment it took several years for Work and Income and its previous incarnations to properly apply the judgment. The Ministry of Social Development will no doubt be subject to the same malicious allegations of a homophobic nature when same-sex relationships fall within the ambit of the Social Security Act in 2007. The rabid intolerance of some of the submitters opposed to this bill and its companion Civil Union Bill makes that outcome inevitable. 
The slowness of benefit control units to adapt to the Ruka judgment does not instil confidence that they will be well prepared to deal with that extra layer of misinformation which comes at them from all sorts of sources. There must be a commitment from the Government that the ministry will investigate allegations of same-sex relationships in a sensitive manner and with some effort to establish whether there is any substance to the allegation before interviewing the beneficiary. Otherwise there will be a perception of harassment not just because that person is a beneficiary but also because the person is homosexual. Because of that we would like to see eventually—but not in this bill I can assure the Minister—an amendment to the Social Security Act that would make it an offence to make a false allegation or report to the Ministry of Social Development so that no one will continue to be maliciously harassed in the way that happens at the moment. But that is a more general amendment that needs to be made to social security law and I will look for an appropriate place to do that. 
Turning now to the second matter I would like to deal with in relation to this part of the bill the Green Party has several amendments on the Table this afternoon in the name of Nandor Tanczos dealing with citizenship and adoption matters. While the first amendment that we have tabled to do with adoption may be seen to be rather radical by some of the socially conservative members of this Parliament I believe that all members voting for this bill today should be able to consider including and supporting the amendment we are proposing to the Citizenship Act. 
In relation to citizenship we are proposing two changes so that civil union partnerships are treated in a similar manner to married couples. The amendment we have tabled to section 3 of that Act relates to the presumption of parentage of children. Under current law in the absence of evidence to the contrary a person is presumed to be the father of someone if he is or was married to that person’s mother at the time of conception or birth. Our amendments extend that presumption to people in formal civil union relationships. That fits solidly I believe with the intent of the bill before us. 
Our amendment to section 8A(1) relates to the Minister’s authorisation to grant New Zealand citizenship to anybody who is or has been married to a New Zealand citizen and who meets set requirements. Our amendment merely extends the right of citizenship to civil union partners of New Zealand citizens. I cannot think of one valid reason why it should not be extended to civil union partners. Those entering a civil partnership will not do so lightly and are making a solemn commitment of partnership and mutual support. Civil union partners will be required to bear the same legal responsibilities as married couples do now in relation to eligibility for benefits—which is what I have just been talking about—and to income tax and the State should therefore confer on them similar rights and privileges. In determining who can be a citizen in his or her own right the law does not and should not discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. It is therefore inconsistent that we should discriminate against same-sex couples who take that extra step of entering a civil union. 
This is a very moderate amendment. We are not proposing an extension to all de facto couples but only to civil union couples at this stage. The Government has said that it was not included in the bill as drafted because the issue of citizenship is under review. I say we should meet the principle of equality first thus meeting our human rights obligations then allow the review to continue its process. Changes made in the end through the review will then apply both to married and to civil union partners. 
The second area in which we propose amendments is that of adoption. In the current Adoption Act only the terms “husband” and “wife” are used. We believe that the right to adoption should be extended to those in a civil union partnership. The debate on the Care of Children Bill showed the prejudice of many members who did not believe that same-sex couples could bring up children in a healthy loving way. Unfortunately the statistics show that child abuse is predominantly found in heterosexual relationships and many of those people are married. There is no correlation between homosexual couples and any form of child abuse child violence and all the rest of it. In a 2000 submission to the Law Commission the Human Rights Commission stated in paragraph 197: “We consider that same sex couples should be able to adopt subject to the same criteria as heterosexual couples.” Although I agree with the Human Rights Commission in recognition of the conservatism of Parliament our amendment is more moderate than that. We propose that only those couples who have made a formal commitment to each other either through marriage or through a civil union be given legal rights to adopt. As the Human Rights Commission says the determinative issue should be the quality of upbringing that a couple would be able to provide to an adopted child rather than their marital status. Again we understand that a review of adoption is taking place but given that this bill is in front of us and we have a chance to make the amendment now we do not see the need to wait. 
This bill is all about ending discrimination against same-sex couples. At the very least I ask the Minister to take a call and make a commitment today that the reviews will address that inequity. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the companion bill to the Civil Union Act. Without it the Civil Union Act does not mean a thing. This bill puts into 100 or so other Acts and into many regulations the references to civil union that make the Civil Union Act more than simply a pantomime of marriage. 
In this debate on Part 1 I want to address three things. Firstly unlike most bills a series of commencement dates are scattered through this part. They are quite curious. The commencement dates of some of the extensions in this legislation are very odd. In effect they show that despite the Government’s policy that it will now treat same-sex couples in the same way as heterosexual married couples and that it wants to treat de facto couples wherever possible—or wherever this Parliament would allow—in the same way as married couples it has drawn a curious distinction. We still have and will for at least 2 more years a privilege for same-sex couples in welfare law. 
Same-sex couples will not be forced to go on to the married or de facto benefit. Same-sex couples will be able to claim benefits as if they were single and I understand from the Justice and Electoral Committee evidence that that relates to about an extra $60 per week for a couple in that position. The reason offered is that they will need time to adjust. That is from the Government that compulsorily married people 2 years ago when it changed matrimonial property law. It did not give those people time to adjust. The only adjustment people could make there was to bust up their relationship. I find that provision offensive. If we were truly attempting to remove discrimination and treat people equally same-sex couples should be taking the bad with the good—the detriments and obligations along with the benefits. 
I think it is disgraceful because the gay couples—friends of mine—who spoke to me about this said that they thought it was demeaning and that they did not want it. They thought that this bill should be making a strong statement of non-discrimination. Instead the Government has justified this little extra perk for the people it wants to favour with this bill in a way that if I were sitting on the Government benches I would be absolutely ashamed of. It is such a small thing but it is so significant in terms of its symbolism and it so undermines the claim that this legislation treats people equally. 
I also want to mention the enormous range of changes made in the schedules that are authorised by this part. Clause 92 the last in this part states: “The Acts specified in Schedule 13 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” When we look at clause 13 we find that the Human Rights Act is being amended. That Act has marital status as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It stuns me that marital status got into the Human Rights Act without an absolute uproar from everyone concerned about the status of our family law. Every church should have been outraged about the inclusion of marital status as a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is hard to think of how any society upholds what it regards as sensible favourable or desirable arrangements without allowing ordinary people to show preference to those arrangements. 
The fact that people may want not to associate with those in relationships that they disapprove of should not be something in criminal law or that penalties can be imposed on. It is a very real problem in human rights law for the State to make that discrimination. I could perfectly well understand the Government supporting a provision in the Human Rights Act stating that the State must be neutral about relationships and that it should not pick favourites. 
I could understand an argument on that basis. I may not agree with it if it were extended to every type of relationship but I could certainly understand the argument. But it is utterly wrong for the State to say that it will put into the hands of commissars on the Human Rights Review Tribunal or the Human Rights Commission the power to punish those who want to draw distinctions in their social or business life on the basis of the kinds of relationships they think are best for society. Therefore I have an amendment that would change the effect of clause 92 by reinstating the power for people to choose to favour the forms of relationships they believe are good for society. 
The amendment is very simple. It would simply remove a paragraph in section 21 of the Human Rights Act so that marital status once again became something that people were entitled to take into account when deciding whom they wanted to associate with employ or favour. More than that it would protect churches from for example being forced to make their church halls available to conduct a civil union ceremony. 
 This bill does nothing to protect that elementary liberty. There are thousands of celebrants and hundreds of thousands of locations for carrying out civil unions and nothing should allow people who oppose civil unions to apply force to stop them. On the other hand nothing in our law should force those who believe that civil unions are wrong to be associated with them against their will. My amendment says quite clearly that those who think such relationships are wrong should be free to continue to argue that and to show in the way they live that they mean their beliefs. 
It is completely wrong in a society that values freedom for the provision that bans that form of discrimination to remain in the Human Rights Act and it is wrong to have no protection against all the other busybody agencies that might decide to impose the Labour Cabinet’s fashionable views of morality and relationships and to punish people whose views are different and who want to express their views in their employment or other relationships. The proposed amendment which would have effect by virtue of clause 92 is one that everyone who believes in freedom should support—particularly those who adhere to the form of classical liberal freedom that states: “I may oppose your views but I will defend to the death your right to express them and to live by them as long as you are not coercive to those who think differently.” 
Part 1 is also the part that effects a whole range of other amendments that have been modified in a very intuitive way by the select committee. The select committee realised almost as soon as it started this task that if we adhered to the Human Rights Act view that discrimination on the grounds of marital status is wrong we could not really do justice to this bill. This bill in its introduced form simply stated that marriage makes no difference. It stated that de facto relationships whether they are short or long are the equivalent of marriage and that that was to be written into the law. The select committee changed that but we did so in a very intuitive way. We went through the bill looking at each bit and each member of the committee applied what he or she considered to be a common-sense view of the purpose of the provision and decided whether it should be included. 
The bill should have contained a clear statement of principle. It should have said very clearly that the choice of competent adults will be respected. Those who choose not to marry or who choose to enter into a civil union should have the dignity of their choice respected by the law. This bill should not be overriding those choices. The most it should perhaps be doing is saying that where there are children of a union—whether it is a union blessed by the Church or by a registry office or whether it is a civil union—the children are entitled to stability and to some commitment from their parents. They ought to know that there is enough sharing of assets to justify— 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I support the Civil Union Act because I believe in individuals making commitments to each other. Regrettably the Labour Government’s pre-emptive move a few years back in introducing the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act makes it difficult for me to support this piece of accompanying legislation to the Civil Union Act but because I support the Civil Union Act I will vote for this bill. 
The fact that the Labour Government a few years ago introduced the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act to recognise—or should I say “impose” almost—obligations on de facto relationships has made the passage of the Civil Union Act through the Parliament a lot more difficult. Most of us believe in one form or another that legal recognition rights and responsibilities should be accorded to individuals who make a deliberate choice to make a commitment to each other. But to impose any further obligations on individuals other than those who choose to commit to each other—either a man and a woman through the Marriage Act or a man and a woman or people of the same gender through the Civil Union Act—because they are living in “a relationship in the nature of marriage” is to me entirely unnecessary. It is State interference taken too far. 
So I seek to have the Minister take a call to reassure members like me that in the deletion of a lot of references to de facto couples in this current bill there has been at least some attempt to recognise the special status of relationships that Parliament has passed legislation—the Marriage Act and the Civil Union Act—to recognise. I hope that in the future Parliament will revisit this issue and say that as society through the Parliament has enacted legislation to recognise relationships under either the Marriage Act or the Civil Union Act then people who have deliberately chosen to live together in a de facto relationship should have no further obligations to or interference from the State. I am sure that Parliament will revisit that issue at some stage in the future. 
I listened with interest to the speeches and read with interest the minority report from United Future. United Future has a quite interesting perspective on the union of men and women: “… the cultural expectation of marriage as being an exclusive commitment for life between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of successfully nurturing the next generation.” I found that quite interesting. I am kind of grateful that when I was young and still shall I say idealistic my husband and I happened to fall in love. I am not at all sure that at that stage I allowed the primary objective of being the breeding ground for the next generation to dictate our relationship. I am glad that after 20-odd years of marriage my husband has not chosen to use that as grounds for divorce. I think that in modern times we need to recognise that individuals come together for emotional reasons as well. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 A number of issues have been raised that I would like to address. I do not intend to enter into any argument about people’s individual beliefs but I with the officials behind me will attempt to answer members’ questions seeking clarification of the bill. 
Dr Nick Smith when he spoke first said that the definition of a de facto relationship could include the relationships of followers of Reverend Moon. The definition in clause 40 states: “In an enactment de facto relationship means a relationship between 2 people (whether a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman) who—(a) live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union; and (b) are not married to or in a civil union with each other; and (c) are both aged 16 years or older.” I think it is quite clear that we are not talking about large households of the kind that that member was referring to. 
 Also he made the point that couples will have difficulties determining whether they are in a de facto relationship. Over 90 pieces of legislation which represent almost half of all laws that contain rights and responsibilities for persons in a relationship already recognise de facto couples. Many of these have been in force for several years and most do not have a definition of de facto relationships such as there is in this bill. There is no evidence from the courts that decision makers or the couples themselves do not know whether couples are in a de facto relationship. 
The last point that Dr Smith raised that I will address is his view that this bill although talking about civil union is really about gay marriage. I will read from the introduction of the report that was put out by the select committee: “The main aim of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was to amend Acts and regulations that contain unjustified discrimination on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation.” It is quite limiting. “The bill is the primary statutory vehicle for implementing the Consistency 2000 project”—which was commenced by Dr Smith’s party in the 1990s and was a very worthy project—“and its successor the Compliance 2001 project …”. That is one comment that I wanted to make. 
Sue Bradford raised the question of Nandor Tanczos’ amendments to two Acts that are not considered in this bill—namely the Citizenship Act and the Adoption Act. Because we are not amending those Acts in the bill that is before us Nandor Tanczos or his representative will have to ask the Committee to agree to those amendments being considered. I say now that I will not agree that his amendments proceed. The reason is that both those Acts are under review. As Associate Minister of Justice I know about the adoption legislation and the citizenship legislation is a long way further down the review process than the adoption legislation is. 
Mr Tanczos is in a sense demonstrating some of the mistakes that the House has made in the past in dealing with human rights by including one thing—civil unions—when dealing with citizenship and leaving off de facto relationships. That is the thing that I as a person who works in the policy area find quite difficult. Therefore we will not be moving to include those matters in this bill. But I give him the absolute commitment that these issues will come up in the reviews of those pieces of legislation— particularly the one I will be involved with. 
I will come later to some of the other issues that have been raised. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Well well well the ink is hardly dry on the Civil Union Act—the regulations have not yet been promulgated—and the next stage of the homosexual rights agenda is before us in the form of the proposed amendment by the Green Party which wants to legislate to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. That was the prediction. In my minority report on the Civil Union Bill I said that it was but the beginning of the agenda there was more to come yet. I predicted that it would not be very long before the ban on same-sex couples converting from a civil union to a marriage would be removed. Here we have yet another issue—same-sex adoption. 
Classically we see here that the Green Party is trying to pre-empt the agenda of the left in order to provide for same-sex adoption by civil union partners for which we can read “same-sex partners”. That was predicted and it is happening already. I am surprised that it has happened so soon because the people who have been promoting the Civil Union Act and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill have been very subtle in the way that they have advanced their cause—“incremental” is the word that gets used. So the promoters of this legislation included heterosexual couples as being eligible for civil unions because they thought that was more palatable and they did not provide for same-sex marriage per se because they did not think that would be acceptable. Instead we got this Clayton’s same-sex marriage called civil union. 
But the Greens are jumping the gun so before the ink is dry on the Civil Union Act and before we have even passed this bill we have the issue of same-sex adoption in our faces. In fact what I have learnt through this process is that there is nothing in law that prevents same-sex adoption. It is a matter of policy. So it is a matter of Government policy as to whether same-sex couples are allowed to adopt. The Greens in this amendment that would amend the Adoption Act state: “adoptive parent means any parent who adopts a child in accordance with an adoption order; and in the case of an order made in favour of a husband and wife or of civil union partners on their joint application means both the husband and wife or civil union partners but does not include a spouse or partner who merely consents to an adoption”. What the Greens are asking for is to codify in law that it is quite acceptable and indeed to be encouraged as being of equal status for civil union partners—namely same-sex partners—to jointly adopt children. 
There is something that those 5500 submitters who opposed the Civil Union Act and this bill—which we should continue to remind ourselves is 94 percent of submitters—ought to be very very aware of. It is this: if as the current polling seems to indicate the Labour Party will be the largest party after the next election there will be a stark choice to be made. Either the Green Party will be the party to support Labour or United Future will be the party to support Labour. If the Green Party and Labour get together I will bet my bottom dollar that legislating for same-sex adoption will be at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. That will be one of the things that will be moved very quickly. It will happen by lunchtime. I can guarantee that. But I can also guarantee that if Labour and United Future are providing the majority Government in this House after the election there will be no same-sex adoption. Here is the reason: we believe that both mothers and fathers are necessary for the effective raising of children. We believe that two mothers and two fathers do not provide the same level of stability and the same environment that children need for a nurturing upbringing. 
In my second reading speech I referred to statistics that clearly show that a child needs a mother and a father. Children need a male input into their lives and they need a female input into their lives by their parents and preferably by their natural parents. That is why we would be opposed to something that would allow children to be adopted by same-sex couples or even by single people because clearly the statistics also show that children who are brought up in those environments do less well on all social indices. That is not to condemn those solo parents who are faced with bringing up a child. We know that is a struggle. But even they would admit that it is a struggle. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I have been motivated to rise in this debate by the last contribution which I have to say was somewhat bizarre. The Committee was told that if United Future can only get back in after the election it will stop the godless Labour Party from introducing the next horrible thing which apparently is same-sex adoptive parents. The problem I have with that is that if United Future was so good at stopping these sorts of things why are we having this debate? Why did United Future not say to the Government 3 years ago that it would not give its support if the Government introduced the Civil Union Bill and if it then followed it with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill? 
Dail Jones 
: It wasn’t their policy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It was the Labour Party’s policy but I am asking this question of the United Future party. It is a mystery to me and it must be a mystery to most people who supported United Future although very few people now admit to having done so. Those who do admit to having done so must question how it is that the United Future party can give stability to the Labour Government day in and day out enabling the Government to introduce legislation of this sort. I think Murray Smith will have a great deal of difficulty persuading anybody that United Future will stop the Labour Government from carrying out any of its lifestyle politics. I would like to think that Mr Smith would do a bit of work on the bill and support Stephen Franks’ measure. [ 
Interruption 
] I am pleased to hear that he says he will because Stephen Franks’ measure is one that not only people like Mr Smith but also genuine liberals should support. What he is drawing to the attention of the Committee is that under the Human Rights Act as amended by this bill it will become illegal for a person who is providing services for things like civil unions—which I understand the United Future party thinks are the work of the devil—not to provide them if asked. 
It seems to me that it is wrong that the Parliament of New Zealand should decide that regardless of whether we are for or against civil union—and I voted for that legislation. If people want to make choices they should. I will support Mr Franks’ measure because I do not think we should force people to provide services. The most dramatic example will be churches that have church halls that are let out for hire. Sometimes the church itself is let out like the Assemblies of God church in Auckland. 
Hon Member 
: Where is it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am talking about the church in Beaumont Street right by the Harbour Bridge. I was invited there on Good Friday by one of our ethnic groups which had hired it that night to listen to an Indian pop concert. Unfortunately they put me in the front row so I was somewhat deafened. I realised that under this bill if one wanted a rip-roaringly big civil union—because one would be inviting a lot of people to fill that church—by law that Assemblies of God church would not be able to refuse the hire request even though it is opposed to it. That has to be wrong and that is why I say that anyone in this Chamber who is a genuine liberal should support Mr Franks’ amendment. 
If people run a bridal service with bridal cars then under this bill they will be required to provide those cars for civil unions even if they are members of the Destiny Church and Brian Tamaki says that they will go to hell for having done so. I say to the Committee that it is a great mistake when Parliament starts to pass measures that people of Christian persuasion think are wrong because that is a church that believes in martyrdom and those people just will not do it. If people just will not do it we then will find ourselves starting to penalise people all to carry out the social programme of Margaret Wilson—but we are not allowed to mention her any more—or of Helen Clark and this Labour Government who intend to enforce their particular social views on the rest of the country. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 With all due respect I just want to put that argument to bed. Mr Franks stated that as a consequence of the enactment of the Civil Union Bill a church could be held liable for refusing to make its church premises available for civil union ceremonies. The advice I have is that under the Human Rights Act a discriminatory practice will not be considered unlawful if the practice constitutes a genuine justification. It is likely that the decision of a church to refuse to make its premises available for civil union ceremonies would constitute a genuine justification as it would also be justified for a church to refuse to hire its premises to Satanists. 
Matters that could be taken into account include that it may be contrary to the religious teachings of the church and may lead to tension within the church community especially if the motives of those wishing to use its premises appeared not to be genuine; in other words they were intended to antagonise. I would also like to make a point about something that Mr Franks mentioned— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I prefer Stephen Franks because he is a better lawyer. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am sure that member may well but I am relying very much on the legal team behind me and I am the person responsible for the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission. 
Mr Franks raised a question about commencement dates and stated that there is a variety of commencement dates in the bill. There are amendments to the Care of Children Act that will come into effect on 1 July 2005 other than the amendments that will come into effect on 26 April 2005 to coincide with the commencement date for that Act for the same reasons that amendments to the Status of Children Act will come into effect on the same day. An amendment to the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act will come into effect on 13 October 2007 to coincide with the next local body election. An amendment to the Rates Rebate Act will come into effect on 1 July 2006 as rates are set until that date. There are quite logical reasons as to why there are different commencement dates. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to respond to that pretty extraordinary contribution from Marian Hobbs after the point that was made by Richard Prebble in support of Stephen Franks’ amendments. The Minister said to the Committee that if the intent of the person wanting to use the church was malicious or farcical there would not be a breach of the Human Rights Act. But that was not the scenario the Hon Richard Prebble brought to the Committee. His point was that if two perfectly reasonable people wanted to have a civil union in the Destiny Church the Human Rights Commission would require the church to comply and that is wrong. 
I want to ask the Minister this. Will the Government in its next term provide for gay adoption? That is a fair question. We know the social agenda of the last 3 years—we know we have legislated for gay marriage and we know we have legalised prostitution. I would just like to know from the Minister— 
Jill Pettis 
: Is the National Party going to sell State assets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a very good question. Last Friday the National spokesperson gave a very clear statement as to which assets National would sell and which assets it would not sell. So I ask Jill Pettis whether the next Labour Government will provide for gay adoption—yes or no? 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re jumping the gun on that one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Jill Pettis says that I am jumping the gun that somehow it is not right for— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Jill Pettis will tell the people of Wanganui after the election. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Richard Prebble says that Jill Pettis will tell the people of Wanganui after the election. Every member of this House—Harry Duynhoven and Marian Hobbs included—knows that if this Labour Government gets another term gay adoption will occur. That is absolutely true. 
Jill Pettis 
: Don’t be ridiculous! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will bet Jill Pettis the very best bottle of Nelson wine that if Labour survives the next election we will get gay adoption. Will she take me on? Jill Pettis said I am incorrect. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is or on the best bottle of wine from Nelson. I will bet that member— 
Darren Hughes 
: You’d have to go to court to get it! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have to say that unlike that member I honour my promises. I am happy to take— 
[Interruption] 
 Mr Darren Hughes interjects. Mind you he will not be here after the election given the very effective campaign that is being run in Otaki by a stunning candidate who will see him out so I cannot take the bet with him. It may be that Jill Pettis might survive because Labour will save her bacon on the list. I simply ask Jill Pettis whether she will bet me a bottle of Nelson wine that a re-elected Labour Government would provide for gay adoption. Well what about Marian Hobbs? Is it not interesting! This is part of Labour’s secret agenda. New Zealanders should know that a vote for Labour is a vote for gay adoption and that will be the next chapter of social engineering. 
What for me is extraordinary about the United Future party is that up and down New Zealand there have been advertisements in the newspapers saying that to fight gay marriage people have to support the United Future party. The advertisements have a big picture of Peter Dunne. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yeah right! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think Richard Prebble should take up a job as an advertising agent with Tui beer because it would make a damn good Tui advertisement. Having spent public money on advertisements up and down the country decrying gay marriage what did Peter Dunne then do? He voted for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The leader of the United Future party is voting for this bill which states that in 168 statutes— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No that can’t be right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was quite dumbfounded when I checked the voting record on the first and second readings and found that Peter Dunne the leader of the “Families First” party voted for gay civil unions to be treated absolutely identically to marriage in respect of the law. I think the remaining supporters of United Future will find it extraordinary that the party has voted in that way. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Perhaps Nick Smith would be good enough to enlighten the public on what his own leader will be voting for on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. But I stand as a United Future member who will definitely be voting against this bill. 
I think that the Human Rights Commission—and we have heard much spoken about human rights—has a lot to answer for in respect of the condition of families in this nation. It is pleasing to see that the commission is starting to wake up in many ways to some of the errors of its ways. It is now under the Doha Declaration on the Family which has recently been passed by the United Nations again beginning to uphold and to promote the institution of marriage. 
I stand here as a proud father a married man and a grandfather and if time permits I look forward to the day I may even be a great grandfather. But as Pansy Wong mentioned in her speech yes some people do get married and choose not to have children and that is fine. Yet when I compare that situation to that of our Minister of Conservation whom I saw on national television expressing great concern that a particular breed of bird was not breeding and when I think of his chosen lifestyle I say: “Hello what’s wrong with this picture?”. 
To continue life in this country we have to have a male and a female involved in the production of children. This bill unfortunately sends out a very mixed message. Young children need to know what is right what is wrong and what is the preferred lifestyle. We will never take away from them their right to choose but like any young trees I believe they need to be staked as they begin to grow. 
Much has been said about the ability for two women or two men to bring up a child and there is no doubt that many such couples are capable of looking after children. But let me assure members that every child in this country needs not only the benefit of a mother and a father but also such a stable relationship preferably that he or she has the benefit of grandparents and even great grandparents. I know that my own children had a 96-year-old grandmother and when they went to visit her they had the benefit of the wisdom of her age and of hearing stories of how life was in the old days—how frugal she was with her savings habits and many things like that. 
I stand here to esteem marriage again. I am glad the word “marriage” has not been taken out of this bill but I am greatly concerned that for so long as a Government we have been taking away the promotion of marriage as a preferred institution. I believe that that is to the detriment of the families of this nation. I believe that we need to give a clear message to young people that if they make a commitment for lifetime it is called marriage. I do not believe that there are any young ladies out there who do not dream of the day when they will be married. I have worked with many young people and I know that they do have a desire to marry. 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: That member can laugh and mock at me. That is fine; I can take that. But I know that in reality the long-term loving commitment that is called marriage which is for life—till death do we part—brings a tremendous stability to children. I know that in my home the children see that dad truly loves mum—but I do not say that others who are not married do not love each other. 
I think we have watered down most of our legislation so that children no longer see the necessity of having marriage as a preferred institution because we have muddied the waters. We have not given a clear message; we have given a mixed message. In Allan Peachey’s book  
“What’s Up with Our Schools?” 
 he says that even in schools children are getting mixed messages from media such as television. They no longer understand what is a preferred pathway and I believe that that is a bad mistake. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 At the last election New Zealand First put out a Labour Party debit card where we predicted certain things would happen during this term of office if the Labour Party was elected to Government. We said for example on Labour’s debit card that Labour would legalise prostitution and soliciting. We warned the people about that and it is exactly what has happened. We said that Labour would legislate for gay marriages. Well that is happening too. We also said that Labour would provide further large payments for prisoners. That is happening too—$130000 worth. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’d better look at next year’s! 
DAIL JONES 
: All I can say is that people should watch this space for the forthcoming election because I am absolutely sure that it will include a statement that the Labour Party will legislate for gay adoptions—[ 
Interruption 
] I bet that Labour members will not say that they will do so but we have heard it virtually by the silence of the Labour Party’s senior whip today. When she was asked by Dr Nick Smith from the National Party whether she would take a little bet on a bottle of Nelson wine as to whether the Labour Party would legislate for gay adoptions in the next term if it should ever get that opportunity she was silent on the issue. It is a very unusual state of affairs for Jill Pettis to be silent on that particular point. 
Jill Pettis 
: We do not make policy on the floor of Parliament. 
DAIL JONES 
: Perhaps Labour members make their policy on some other floor and in what state they do so I am not absolutely certain. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Secret caucus meetings! 
DAIL JONES 
: Secret caucus meetings where only a few people who are party to Helen Clark and that coterie of lesbians and homosexuals make the decisions in these particular areas and tell the Labour Party what will happen. It is absolutely certain that the majority of the Labour Party members get no choice on these issues. They are selected on a particular basis. Apart from the Hon Taito Phillip Field whom I must congratulate on his earlier voting on this particular bill the Labour members have done as they have been told to do as far as I can see. But as I say New Zealand First predicted what would happen and it has happened. 
Of course the history of this Labour Government is very clear. In its first term it changed the immigration rules to allow for lesbians and homosexuals to get preference to come into New Zealand. That was in the immigration regulations and I took it up without success at the Regulations Review Committee. We have seen what the Government has done in the prostitution legislation and the civil union legislation and what it will do in the forthcoming adoption legislation. Even in the civil union legislation Labour members are legislating in favour of single homosexuals and single lesbians. Those people can still get the single person’s rate on their social welfare benefits whereas if one is in a de facto heterosexual relationship one gets paid at the married couple’s rate. So despite rushing everything through Labour still prefers and give favours to single homosexuals and single lesbians in this bill. Those members just cannot stop themselves from doing that and that is made very clear in the legislation. 
This Parliament should be setting decent standards for families and for other areas of society as well—we should be setting standards overall. But that is not occurring under this Labour Government propped up by the United Future party. Although I have the greatest respect for Paul Adams and Murray Smith in terms of their views if one is going to be a Christian one should be a Christian. I was asked at the last election what I would do if it came to a question of Christian values. My answer was very simple. “I am going to Parliament. I am going to Caesar’s court and I’ll do what was said in the Gospel: when you’re shown the coin with Caesar’s head on it you give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and you give unto God what is God’s.” Well I am in Caesar’s court here and I know that but I will try to do what is right as well as I can—unlike the United Future members who said they would do the Christian thing and of course have done only what Caesar wants. Caesar in the name of Peter Dunne and Helen Clark has told them what to do and they have conformed with Caesar’s law despite the fact that before the election they said they would do things in the Christian way.That is obvious to anyone who has the slightest understanding of the matter. United Future members have the cheek to say that when they are returned at the next election they will stand up for Christian values. They have had 3 years in which to prove that and regrettably Christian values have taken a savage beating all the time that the United Future party has been in this House. All the things that have been passed have been passed only because United Future has propped up this Labour Government. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 The last comments from New Zealand First showed its desperation and its lack of potency in being able to do anything during this term of Government. That is a situation that is very likely to continue in the next term. 
I will support Stephen Franks’ amendment and some of my colleagues will support it also. Once again it has come from Stephen Franks unfortunately at late notice—only today—but because there will be a conscience vote we will fortunately have some flexibility in being able to do that. Sadly others are away from the Chamber and we will not be able to get their proxy votes in time. If Stephen Franks had given us a bit more notice we might have been able to provide a bit more support. 
Same-sex relationships are regarded by many New Zealanders as being wrong. The Human Rights Act provides instead that the people who believe that same-sex relationships are wrong are wrong. That turning-over of what is reality is what is wrong with the legislation. The Human Rights Act turns those people who believe one thing into the ones at fault because they believe that the other thing is wrong. 
Most New Zealanders accept that people’s personal choices are theirs to make so are very accepting of those choices including the choice to be homosexual. However when those choices impact on other people’s freedoms and in particular on the freedoms of others to be able to disagree with those points of view and to act accordingly that is where things really get turned upside down and go quite wrong. 
In terms of the specific provision where Stephen Franks is looking to remove marital status as a form of discrimination I concur with my colleague Paul Adams in relation to the Doha Declaration on the Family that the United Nations recently passed which specifically spells out that States should encourage and promote marriage. How can one encourage and promote marriage without at the same time suggesting that marriage is a preferable form to other forms of relationship—and in that respect to provide discrimination? 
The United Nations is really starting to turn around in terms of its attitude towards those issues of human rights and I think it is time our country did as well. It is really a tragedy and an indictment on this Government that we were one of the very few countries that was not prepared to support that Doha declaration. That shows how liberal we are in the face of most Western countries and indeed probably all Eastern countries. 
The key point I shall address at this time is the definition of de facto and the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I believe that the committee got this horribly wrong and that its rationale at the end of the day really does not make sense. It has tried to correct a different problem from the one that it thought it was correcting. 
It seems to me that once again this is something the Greens have been pushing for. The changes were at very late notice. Similarly with the Civil Union Bill the proposed clauses stating that the intention of civil unions was to provide for exclusive lifelong relationships were removed and that seemed to have been a requirement of the Greens for providing their support. Once again the late notice about that—the fact that those changes were made at the eleventh hour in the committee without much warning and after we had debated the alternative for a lengthy period of time—suggests to me that that there was a Green initiative. In particular the Green speech tonight seems to reinforce that. 
Clause 40(4) as it was in the bill was effectively a very good measure. It codified the way the common law had been going. Contrary to what Sue Bradford said the courts had never said that that was a check list; in fact they had said the opposite. They said that the criteria set out in what was clause 40(4) were not to be regarded as a check list but merely as a list of factors. The clause stated before it was struck out by the select committee: “In determining whether 2 persons live together as a couple all the circumstances of the relationship are to be taken into account including any of the following matters that are relevant in a particular case: (a) the duration of the relationship: (b) the nature and extent of common residence: (c) whether or not a sexual relationship exists: (d) the degree of financial independence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the parties: (e) the ownership use and acquisition of property: (f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: (g) the care and support of children:” and “(h) the performance of household duties:”. 
That is where Australian and New Zealand case law had got to. That is where courts were when looking for consistency when asking how they ensured that their decisions were consistent one with another in being asked to judge whether a relationship was a de facto relationship. When the courts ask how they can be consistent from one judgment to another they will inevitably develop their own factors to be taken into account as a guideline for future cases. So the fact that the select committee has not put that subclause in the bill will not stop the courts from using it. The pity though is that we then wasted an opportunity of taking the numerous cases there have been and of codifying the direction the courts had come to. 
The select committee said it wanted to take out that codification those guidelines and instead to say under clause 40(2) that a de facto relationship is a “relationship between two people … who—“(a) live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union; and (b) are not married to or in a civil union with each other; and (c) are both aged 16 years or older.” The committee wanted to insert a provision to say that in determining whether two people lived together as a couple then the court in determining the question must have regard to the context or the purpose of the law in which the question is to be determined in the circumstances of the relationship. 
The committee’s justification for doing that was because it felt that in different situations and under different legislation there would be de facto relationships in some instances and not in others. It said that in some instances the law casts a wide net for example to ensure that declarations of conflict of interest capture all parties and in other instances with regard to the changing of rights or vesting of property courts can require that those are enacted in ways that usually require a conscious decision to take up those rights or obligations. 
So the committee is saying that in the context of this specific legislation one needs to determine that in one context this is a de facto relationship but that it may or may not be a de facto relationship with regard to any other piece of legislation. Should the question arise for example of whether a partner should be able to sign a cremation certificate if he or she is in a de facto relationship the courts will say that they will have to look at the context of the bill and the context of the relationship before they can determine whether the relationship is a de facto relationship. To see whether a partner in a de facto relationship has a right to receive benefits like the Government Superannuation Fund we have to look at the Act and look at that particular relationship. 
What should be happening is that the courts should be allowed to determine that a de facto relationship exists but then to ask what terms of the relationship were agreed upon rather than making a decision and saying that for the purpose of this legislation it is a de facto relationship and for the purpose of that legislation it is not. That will leave a wholly confused situation. Not only will we be caught but people like Government Superannuation Fund trustees or whatever board that makes decisions as to whether grants should be had will also have to go through the process. They cannot rely for example on a court determination that a de facto relationship exists in a particular case because not only is that particular declaration not binding it is not relevant to whether it exists with regard to the Government Superannuation Fund. 
Instead of looking at whether there is a de facto relationship we should be considering the substance and extent of the relationship so that the courts can say: “Yes there is a de facto relationship but there was no agreement to share financial resources and therefore the social welfare provisions should not apply to it.”—that is what Ruka tried to do—or the courts can say: “Yes there’s a de facto relationship but there was no intention between the parties to allow Government superannuation benefits to be passed on in terms of all the circumstances and therefore the terms of the relationship should not allow for Government superannuation benefits to be passed on.”; or “Yes there’s a de facto relationship but it was not intended that the other party should make decisions in regard to cremation. Therefore the de facto relationship terms do not include that.” It is not a question of whether it is a de facto relationship— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: In summary I say that the select committee has effectively removed the ability of courts or of any other persons to define whether a de facto relationship actually exists because whether it exists depends on the particular legislation that is being looked at. Depending on that legislation it will be deemed to be a de facto relationship for some purposes and it will not be a de facto relationship for others. 
The select committee by majority said in the commentary on the bill: “Although this leaves a degree of uncertainty most of us believe that the ability to tailor the definition to the purpose of the law is preferable to courts struggling to stretch a common definition across a variety of contexts.” So we will get into situations where we will not know whether a person is legally in a de facto relationship at all. People may be in de facto relationships for the purpose of one bill; they will not be in a de facto relationship for the purpose of another bill. 
What should have happened is that the original clause 40(5) should have stated that in determining whether a particular statute applied the intentions of the parties in the de facto relationship should have been given prominence. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the amendments in the name of Nandor Tanczos. They are quite common-sense amendments. I think there was an argument from the Minister that because the Adoption Act and the Citizenship Act are not otherwise dealt with in the bill they should not be included in it and the amendments should not be put. But I think it is incumbent on us to be consistent in advancing to those in civil unions the same rights that exist for married couples in relation to adoption and to the special provisions for spouses to gain citizenship. 
I know the Minister’s viewpoint is that there will be reviews of those Acts and that is fair enough. There are reviews and changes in Acts all the time and it is good that those reviews are coming up. However for something as straightforward as this where all that we are doing is extending to civil union partners the same rights to adopt children that married couples have then why should we not put that in the bill? There may be objection to that and perhaps it is the objection I hear coming from my left from the United Future members that this means same-sex partners in a civil union will be able to adopt children. It may be they have some objection to that. If they wish to they can object to that but it is not a view shared by the Green Party or I think by most people in our society who want more equality and want adoptive children to be brought up in loving and caring partnerships which civil union partnerships will be. 
In terms of citizenship rights if the Minister has discretion under the Citizenship Act to treat the spouse of a New Zealand citizen with some preference in terms of gaining citizenship then that should apply not only to married couples and the married spouse of a New Zealander but also to the civil union spouse of a New Zealander. That is straightforward. 
Murray Smith 
: Civil union spouse? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: A civil union spouse or partner; whichever term the member wishes to use. 
I agree with the idea of holding off the extension of the provisions in this bill to de facto relationships in large part. I am in a de facto relationship myself and although my own relationship may be well established—it is 25 years old—there are people in de facto relationships who have relationships of a shorter time and who do not necessarily want to be treated entirely as married couples or civil union couples. So I support the tenor of the bill to tread a bit carefully in extending all the legal provisions to de facto couples or we could end up with a situation where people are scared of going into any de facto relationship for fear of consequences that they do not know about. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to follow on from Keith Locke. I read with interest the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nandor Tanczos. Initially I have to record two things. Firstly Nandor Tanczos is a very valued and trusted member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and it would have been very helpful if he had put these issues forward at the select committee stage as it would have enabled us to have had a fuller look at the proposals. Secondly a principle was very clearly laid out both in the work of the select committee—it certainly was not challenged at that stage—and in the commentary on the bill that has arisen from the select committee. The principle was that legislation that is currently under review should quite properly be dealt with through that review process. That applies to both pieces of legislation to which this Supplementary Order Paper refers. 
We have engaged in an extensive consultation process on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. The adoption law reform process has gone back for years. I have been on the select committee that has twice considered issues arising out of the Law Commission consideration of adoption. At the end of the day we had a split outcome from that committee. The official report was anodyne but Government members were very supportive among many other things of applying human rights standards to adoption. Currently that process is back in the Government machine and at some stage it will emerge. I think that is absolutely the proper place to deal with issues of adoption. 
It is not only these two pieces of legislation. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill which has just completed its second reading in the House also contains measures that are not in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that are concerned with applying equal rights in terms of relationships. Insolvency legislation securities legislation reform and a number of other law reform processes are under way. Indeed the Wills Act 1837 (UK) which is the one difference between marriage legislation and civil union legislation—it does not include civil unions—is currently part of the Law Commission’s examination of succession law and therefore again we decided not to add civil unions to that. We have had a quite consistent approach in the select committee and for that reason certainly I urge the Committee not to accept the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nandor Tanczos. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 On behalf of National or perhaps I should say more appropriately on behalf of myself because this is a conscience vote I would like to speak to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill in the Committee stage. This of course is our opportunity to look clause by clause at particular parts of the bill. In this case we are talking only about two parts. Part 1 is concerned with a raft of statutory changes and Part 2 is concerned with a raft of changes to regulations. I am not wrong in saying “raft of changes” because the scope of this legislation in terms of the changes to be made to our statutory and regulatory regimes is indeed breathtaking. 
Others have said and I simply repeat that this bill is really about two things. It gives legal effect to civil unions but much more significantly in the context of the Government’s determined social engineering anti-family plans it takes the view that all relationships should be protected—marriages civil unions and de facto relationships. 
In this particular call which I hope will be the forerunner of many more calls that will be able to be taken by National Party members on Part 1 I want to concentrate on de facto relationships. It is easy to say when a marriage starts. It is easy to say when a civil union relationship starts. It is much more difficult in the case of de facto relationships. Is it the first furtive hand-holding in the darkened picture theatre or is it some later active sexual coitus that enables those who must make these judgments to say: “We have a de facto relationship under way.”? 
 I always thought it was helpful to provide some indicia as to what a de facto relationship might be and although I condemn this bill for what it seeks to do and in particular for its anti-family stance when it was initially introduced it postulated some indicia to determine whether in fact a de facto relationship existed. In the development of those indicia there was help gained from what had gone on in other countries in a similar task of search and also of course in what was already contained in some New Zealand statutory material. 
So the sorts of things that one would expect might be looked at to determine whether a de facto relationship has sprung up include duration of the relationship nature and extent of common residence whether a sexual relationship existed degree of financial dependence or interdependence ownership of property degree of mutual commitment to a shared life care and support of children and performance of household duties. Now all that has been swept away by this determined Justice and Electoral Committee majority membership to provide instead it is said a more simple test but a more simple test that will in reality be hugely hard to apply. Now a de facto relationship means a relationship between two people whether a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman who live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union. 
What we are seeing of course is very much part of determined Government policy and that is to blur these concepts. It is all being done in a very deliberately anti-family way. There is to be a much degraded significance in terms of the difference between a relationship in the nature of marriage a relationship in the nature of civil union and a relationship that might be called a de facto relationship. Whereas it might be quite reasonable to fix rights and responsibilities in respect of marriage and civil union it is far more difficult assuming one can establish the status of a de facto relationship to do so in the context of that latter relationship. That is because people enter into de facto relationships for a real mix of reasons ranging from companionship to love to simply transient convenience. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I particularly want to address this part of the bill. Earlier on I heard Stephen Franks put up an argument for his Supplementary Order Paper and on hearing it I felt compelled to support it—that is if what he was saying was true. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Of course it’s true. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Of course it is true. I would not want to question the member’s integrity. I have had a chance to look at the Supplementary Order Paper and am convinced I should be voting for it. After looking at the bill I am very convinced that I should vote against it. I am a bit puffed because I have been trying to round up as many colleagues as I possibly can to vote for the Supplementary Order Paper. In listening to the debate earlier on I was made well aware that if this bill goes through and if we do not support this Supplementary Order Paper in repealing a paragraph from section 21 of the Human Rights Act then for example a taxi-driver would not be able to turn down passengers who had just been through a civil union ceremony that is as I understand it. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Incorrect as was explained. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The Minister is saying that is correct. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Incorrect. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Well as far as I can understand if a church did not want— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Correct. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I have a well-educated lawyer member sitting behind me saying that I am correct. For example even if a church disagreed with the whole idea of civil unions and it is entitled by law to disagree with that if a civil unionised couple wanted to hold a reception in the church hall after their civil union even if the church disagreed with it and did not want them to have it in the church hall it would not be able to turn them down. It would be in breach of the law. That is my understanding of it and what I heard earlier on. That is what I believe to be true. 
This Government is denying what I am alleging tonight as far as what I have just said about a civil union ceremony and a taxi-driver for example not wanting to carry a civil unionised couple after their ceremony or reception because he or she philosophically disagrees with it and that driver then being in breach of the law. I would not put it past this Government even though it is denying it that this is the fact. 
We have a Government that wants an inquiry into hate speech. As soon as the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Prohibition of Child Pornography) Bill sponsored by Anne Tolley a few years ago failed—I think it was the day afterwards—the committee at the time which was a Government-dominated committee decided to undertake an inquiry into hate speech laws along with the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. Then when we had an election in 2002 the new committee which was still obviously a Government-dominated committee decided to continue or I guess officially reinstate that inquiry into hate speech its ultimate aim will be to stop freedom of expression. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I want to comment on or ask the Minister to explain one of the amendments proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. There is a reference to clause 46 and to a schedule that changes parts of the Marriage Act. Reference is made to the terms “stepfather” and “stepmother”. The Justice and Electoral Committee very sensibly I think when looking at the cumbersome words being used to try to express the concepts of “stepfather” and “stepmother” in a whole raft of Acts decided that they were perfectly serviceable terms that everyone understood that the English language had evolved them over a very long time and that in statutes it was easy to read them and to know what was and was not being referred to. So the committee decided to reinstate those words in a whole lot of places where there was a proposal that they be replaced with a whole lot of more politically correct words. 
 That I think may not have been completed and it might be the explanation for the Hon David Benson-Pope’s amendment to stick the terms back into the Marriage Act; and if so I could support it. But what I am not clear about is why in the same Supplementary Order Paper we are touching the Care of Children Act and that has not been similarly amended. 
At the select committee we had prepared all the amendments that would be required to ensure that the Care of Children Act was once more easy to read in this respect—that it referred to the well-understood concepts of stepfather and stepmother—then at the very last minute in fact I think it might have been the last day before deliberation the officials came to the committee and said: “No we don’t want to do that because our computer program for the forms would have to be changed.” It would be fair to say that the majority of members on the committee said: “Well that seems to be a bit of an odd reason to afflict our law with a myriad of incomprehensible jargon words politically correct words when we could just use ‘stepfather’ and ‘stepmother’ and wouldn’t the forms look better if they were made more simple with ‘stepfather’ and ‘stepmother’?”. There was a gap to allow the officials to go back and consult and it appears that they got instructions from the Minister that no they wanted to stick with their politically correct forms and obscure wording instead of “stepfather” and “stepmother”. 
At that stage the committee had a clear chance. I can tell members that the committee divided clearly on party lines. The Labour members did as they were bidden by the Minister and we find that the care of children legislation does not have the words “stepfather” and “stepmother”. All the other legislation that this committee touched does but the reason the care of children legislation does not is that the officials apparently would need to change their computer so that it does not have all the gobbledygook jargon words that are in there now instead of using a simple old term. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Good grief political correctness run riot! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is political correctness to the point where the officials ruled the Labour members of the committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Did anyone consult stepfathers and stepmothers? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They will not recognise themselves in the words that will be there instead. They will be totally baffled and will need a lawyer to know what it means. We had a sense of once again members of Parliament having the right instincts but not enough courage to stand up against the political correctness that infuses the public service they have set in train. I do not think we can blame the officials. They have been told to go out— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They’re running amok. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They are running amok but they have been told to do it by the Minister. They have been told to go out there and purge the language of things that people can understand and instead to fill it with legal gobbledygook. We had a committee that got up the courage to say: “No we won’t do that.”—with great trepidation I have to say—until the last day when one of the Ministers came back and said that oh yes we would through officials. The explanation was not because it was a sensible thing or because anyone wants to see the terms “stepfather” and “stepmother” gone—other than those who are directing this political correctness campaign from wherever the heart of it lurks in the Labour Cabinet—the excuse was: “We don’t want to reprogram the computer with simple words. The computers are all ready to churn out forms with very long words.” 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I was motivated to seek the call after the last contribution. As a stepfather I had not realised that this bill was writing me out of the Care of Children Act and that even a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee no longer knows how I am supposed to be described. 
Stephen Franks 
: I couldn’t tell you. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: He could not tell me. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us. The explanation given to the Committee is so extraordinary that I am sure it is correct: the officials have programed me into the computer under a new name and it would cost them too much to take it out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a stepfather or a stepmother. Who on earth are those people who are deciding that they can make this assault on our language and on our values? Which Government member last election got up in a campaign hall and said that by the way Labour was going to abolish the terms “stepfather” and “stepmother”? 
Peter Brown 
: I’m a stepfather. Am I abolished? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Apparently he is. 
Murray Smith 
: And the sooner the better! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: He is now told by United Future that the sooner the better. 
I believe that the Ministry of Justice is running amok. I do not think the Minister has a total grip on what the department is doing. I have noticed that no matter which party is in Government the department puts forward its politically correct views. I am told that at the select committee even when members of Parliament said they represented ordinary New Zealanders and would like to make some changes to the bill the officials came back to the select committee and continued to argue for their politically correct views. Whom do they think they represent? How do they have the right to do that? 
I ask the Government when it got a mandate for this change. We hear from the United Future members that they will stop Labour from making it after the election. I say yeah right just like they were going to stop it from having gay marriage! I ask the Committee and the United Future member who was speaking just before the break—who went through some elaborate talk about how the courts should decide de facto relationships—what business or right is it of any Government if two adults decide not to use the legal provisions for marriage and now for civil union then to decide to impose legal obligations upon them? The only reason for that can be that we think those people are not capable of making their own decisions. Well the law is quite clear. If we want to make decisions on behalf of our partner we had better marry him or her or have a civil union. 
I am staggered to see the United Future members get up and make these arguments on behalf of de facto couples and say that there ought to be some sort of legal relationship. Indeed I am amazed that Peter Dunne is voting for this bill. As I say I voted for the Civil Union Bill. If people want to have a civil union they can have it. But I am absolutely voting against these measures which say to people who have chosen not to marry and not to have a civil union that despite that they will be regarded as being married. These are Margaret Wilson sorts of marriages—oh no she is now the Speaker; well whoever it is in the Government. Actually I think it is the Ministry of Justice officials who think we in this Parliament know better than couples and should impose legal responsibilities on people who happen to live together. I say we have absolutely no moral right to do that—none whatsoever. If people do not want to be in those legal relationships where is our moral authority to impose that upon them? If they ought to have them—and I think that two adults living together who have children ought to have proper legal relationships—then what is wrong with marriage? If they do not like marriage for goodness’ sake we have now given them a civil union. 
There is no moral right whatsoever to do what is in this bill and how the leader of the United Future party who says he is favour of family values can be voting for this measure which seems to me to be absolutely opposed to everything I have seen in that party’s newspaper advertisements is just beyond me. However I do understand how United Future can claim to be a broad church party—it covers the whole spectrum. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have Nandor Tanczos’ amendments put during this vote. There was an objection from the Chair to this course of action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think that we have now agreed that they will be put. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My understanding is that because those amendments seek to alter Acts that are not part of the bill and not included in it they are outside the scope of the bill and can be put only if the leave of the Committee is granted. On that basis I believe that leave should be sought by the member to put them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have taken further advice on the matter and on the new subparts proposed by Nandor Tanczos. The purpose of the bill is to give legal effect to the Civil Union Act. Amendments that insert the words “civil union” and/or “civil union partners” are of the nature of consequential amendments. Standing Order 302(1) puts in place a restriction on law reform bills of this nature. It requires the leave of the Committee to make a substantive amendment to an Act not amended in the bill as introduced. These amendments are not substantive in nature; they merely insert words necessary to give effect to the Civil Union Act. They are consequential to the purpose of this bill and they do not introduce substantive new material. Leave is not required for the Committee to consider these amendments. If members do not support the amendments they should vote against them. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just seek clarification. As there is a conscience vote on Supplementary Order Papers and on the bill my understanding is that this should also be a conscience or personal vote and that we should be proceeding not with a party vote but with a conscience vote. I call for a personal vote to be cast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A personal vote will be held. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 11 the following new subpart: 
Subpart 1AA—Amendments to Adoption Act 1955 
11AAAdoption Act 1955 called principal act in this subpart 
In this subpart the Adoption Act 1955 is called “the principal Act.” 
11ABInterpretation 
Section 2 of the principal Act is amended by repealing the definition of  
adoptive parent 
 and substituting the following definition: 
“ 
adoptive parent 
 means any person who adopts a child in accordance with an adoption order; and in the case of an order made in favour of a husband and wife or of civil union partners on their joint application means both the husband and wife or civil union partners but does not include a spouse or partner who merely consents to an adoption”. 
11ACPower to make adoption orders 
(1)Section 3(2) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “spouses” the words “or civil union partners”. 
(2)Section 3(3) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “spouse” the words “or civil union partner”. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Teller: 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Turei(P) 
Locke  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Prebble  
Ward(P) 
Noes 102 
Adams  
Donnelly(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Scott(P) 
Alexander  
Duncan(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Simich(P) 
Anderton(P) 
Dunne  
Mahuta(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Duynhoven  
Mallard(P) 
Smith M 
Baldock  
Dyson(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Barker(P) 
English(P) 
Mark(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother(P) 
McCully(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Franks  
McNair  
Sutton(P) 
Beyer  
Gallagher  
Newman  
Swain(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Brown  
Gosche(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Tisch  
Burton  
Gudgeon(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Turner  
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins  
Peck(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Perry  
Wilson(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hereora  
Peters J (P) 
Wong  
Chadwick(P) 
Hobbs  
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Worth(P) 
Clark(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates 
Collins(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Power(P) 
Connell(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Rich(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Jones  
Ririnui  
Cosgrove(P) 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Laban(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Teller: 
Dalziel(P) 
Mackey J 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 14 the following new subpart: 
Subpart 2A—Amendments to the Citizenship Act 1977 
14ACitizenship Act 1977 called principal Act in this subpart 
In this subpart the Citizenship Act 1977 is called “the principal Act”. 
14BSpecial provision relating to parentage 
Section 3(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “married” the words “or in a civil union partnership”. 
14CGrant of citizenship to spouse or civil union partner of New Zealand citizen 
Section 8A(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “married” the words “or a civil union partner”. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Turei(P) 
Teller: 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ward(P) 
Locke  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Noes 103 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Alexander  
Duncan(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Scott(P) 
Anderton(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Baldock  
Dyson(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M 
Barker(P) 
English(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
McCully(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Franks  
McNair  
Stewart(P) 
Beyer  
Gallagher  
Newman  
Sutton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
O'Connor  
Swain(P) 
Brown  
Gosche(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Burton  
Gudgeon(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch  
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins  
Peck(P) 
Turner  
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Perry  
Williamson(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hereora  
Peters J (P) 
Wilson(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hobbs  
Peters W (P) 
Wong  
Choudhary(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Clark(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Worth(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Power(P) 
Yates 
Connell(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Copeland(P) 
Jones(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Key(P) 
Ririnui  
Cullen(P) 
King(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Laban(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dalziel(P) 
Mackey J 
Ryall(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to amend a vote in regard to new Subpart 1AA an amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to record the vote by proxy against it of Gordon Copeland which was inadvertently omitted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There appears to be no objection. That will be recorded. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Shirley  
Barnett  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain (P) 
Beyer  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton  
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor  
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins  
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora  
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 49 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Perry  
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander  
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong  
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth  
Brownlee(P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark(P) 
Simich(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair  
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Amendments agreed to 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
Anderton(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher  
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer  
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor  
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hawkins  
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hereora  
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Wong  
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key (P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Duynhoven  
Locke  
Shirley  
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J 
Simich(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 43 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander  
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry  
Turia(P) 
Baldock  
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair  
Smith M 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Tisch  
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to regulations 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 includes debate on schedules 13A 14 and 15. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 In talking to Part 2 I note that there are some comprehensive schedules in terms of amendments to regulations that demonstrate the sort of thing I was saying in my principal speech about the difficulty and confusion that will arise in regard to not defining what a de facto relationship is. It starts with the definition in the provision that the Justice and Electoral Committee has added in clause 40 which inserts a new section 29A into the Interpretation Act. The new section 29A states that: “(5) In determining whether 2 people live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union the court or person required to determine the question must have regard to—(a) the context or the purpose of the law in which the question is to be determined; and (b) all the circumstances of the relationship.” In my view the comment on the “context or the purpose of the law in which the question is to be determined;” will create huge uncertainty and a lot of confusion particularly because it is not just the way that the courts will interpret the clause but it is also which “court or person” will be required to determine it. 
As we look at some of the regulations in schedule 15 we can see exactly what the consequences of the provision will be. How do we define the “context or the purpose of the law”? In the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction (Forms) Regulations there is provision for a de facto partner to sign a form that enables treatment of people who are afflicted with alcoholism or drug addiction. How can we say whether a relationship is a de facto relationship in the context of that legislation? Would we ask whether it is the alcoholic partner’s intention that his or her spouse may sign such a form? That is problematic in itself because it may well be that the alcoholic partner is not happy about such a form being signed. So how do we determine whether in the context of that legislation it was part of the purpose of that couple’s de facto relationship that that right should be given to the de facto partner? That is the problem that we find ourselves with. 
To take another example in the Cremation Regulations a de facto partner can sign a certificate to enable his or her partner’s body to be cremated. How do we determine whether in the context of the Cremation Regulations the parties were in a de facto relationship? What does that mean? In order to sign the certificate the partner has to prove somehow that for the purposes of that legislation the parties were in a de facto relationship. One of the problems we have for a start is that obviously the de facto partner has died and therefore is not able to make a comment as to whether he or she would have been happy for the other partner to sign a consent form for his or her body to be cremated. But what does it mean in that context? How does the court determine that the relationship was the sort of de facto relationship that would have enabled the certificate to be signed? What does it mean to state that one is a de facto partner for the purposes of the Cremation Regulations but that one is not a de facto partner for the purpose of other things? For some things one is a de facto partner and for some things one is not. 
When we look at the Government Superannuation Fund Regulations there is the situation where the partner of a deceased contributor may receive a financial benefit if that person was in a de facto relationship. Under the new section 29A(5) that means that the person was openly in a de facto relationship in the context of the Government Superannuation Fund legislation. So how do we determine whether someone was in a de facto relationship? In this instance the Government Superannuation Fund Authority has to determine whether a de facto relationship existed in that context. How will that happen? The new regulation 3(c) of the Government Superannuation Fund Regulations inserted by schedule 15 states that the determination will be based on “… such evidence as the Government Superannuation Fund Authority may in its discretion require …” but there are no guidelines. 
What sort of guidelines will there be? The authority cannot even state that where the person has been declared to have been a de facto partner for the purpose of some other legislation or where the social welfare authorities recognise the person as being in a de facto relationship the authority can take that on board because the legislation as changed by the Justice and Electoral Committee states that that consideration is irrelevant. It is the context of the Government Superannuation fund legislation that will apply in determining whether a de facto relationship exists. 
The Health (Immunisation) Regulations require among other things a de facto partner to advise the school about the immunisation of a child. If a so-called de facto partner does not do that and somebody comes along and says that the partner has contradicted the requirement to advise the school will the partner then say that he or she is not in a de facto relationship for the purpose of those regulations? This legislation is a farce and it will cause a huge waste of time and money for the courts. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I was struggling while flicking through a lot of these schedules. I took a call in the debate on Part 1 to say that the fact that de facto relationships were also introduced into the Property (Relationships) Act a few years back has quite complicated the present legislation. I was looking at the amendments to the Social Security Act in the schedules. We have started to introduce terms like “single” instead of using “unmarried”. I invite the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to take a call about the subtlety of using words like “single” rather than “unmarried”. Why does it need to be defined in that context? In an earlier schedule we have the term “woman alone”. 
In order to ease my mind since I am supporting this legislation I feel responsible for ensuring that the technical amendments in the schedules are useful and necessary for making sure that the legislation will work in the way it is intended. I want to make sure that no Government department will be confused because of the various terminology in use in these schedules. 
I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to explain to the public the difference between “woman alone” “unmarried” and “single” why it matters and how all those different terms that have been replaced in various legislation like the Social Security Act would need to be interpreted. I think that Parliament has a responsibility to make sure that numerous schedules of this type have the assurance of the Minister that all the i’s have been dotted and all the t’s have been crossed. After all on previous occasions during the flurry of schedules when everyone thought that there was nothing but technical amendments invariably we have found that omissions happened by sleight of hand and suddenly Parliament was called back to put through amendments. 
On a personal level I am sure the public will share with me my feeling that it is interesting that we are looking at this legislation which is quite controversial because large sections of the community have misgivings about same-gender union and about the fact that we complicate the issue by having the State impose rights and obligations on de facto relationships. So I ask whether terminology like “single” replacing “unmarried” and “woman alone” causes added complications. I think the Minister in the debate on Part 2 which the Committee has just finished demonstrated a willingness to give an explanation to the public. She said that she does not want to engage in debate on the pros and cons of relationships but she is happy to explain where the public is entitled to be reassured that in effect all these schedules are amended appropriately and correctly. Once again I voice my objection to the State interfering in de facto relationships as well as in marriage and civil unions. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
:  
In speaking to Part 2 of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I say to the Committee that the Labour Government which is passing this legislation tonight should be upfront. It should be upfront not only with this Committee but also with the people of New Zealand and I make that challenge to it. Labour members should be honest with the people of New Zealand and tell them that this is not the final objective in the Government’s long list of social engineering objectives but is just the beginning. This is just the start. A Labour member over there is screwing up her face but she knows that is true. The Government should be honest with the people of New Zealand and this Committee and should say what its real agenda is. The Government whatever its plan is should at least be honest with the people of New Zealand. It should say that last year it passed a gay marriages bill—basically “civil union” is the same thing—and the Prostitution Reform Bill and now it is passing the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. 
 That has all happened at the same time as the Government is being kept afloat by United Future which campaigned on the basis of family values as one of my respected colleagues always says. He says that United Future is not just the family party but is the Clayton’s family party. The United Future members say they stand for families but when it comes down to actually standing for policies that support traditional family values they are not there. They tell this Parliament that they will continue to vote for this Government and keep it afloat right up to the next election. That is what they say and that is what they are doing. United Future puts advertisements in the newspapers week in week out month in month out stating that it stands for family values when the leader and the deputy leader who are pictured in those advertisements— 
Murray Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We can take a little bit of criticism of United Future but for the member to devote his whole speech to such criticism is way beyond the scope of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I am speaking to this part and in particular I am speaking to clause 93 as far as the interpretation of the bill is concerned. I just want to say before I specifically get on to another clause of the bill that before I was interrupted I was saying that one has the leader and the deputy leader of United Future shown on those advertisements as standing for family values but both of them voted for the first reading of this bill. 
I say that when we are debating a bill such as this and speaking to parts such as Part 2 we should be upfront and honest with the people of New Zealand and say that they are implementing clauses 92A 93 94 95 and 96 but that we have other intentions as well. The point I am making is that the parties that support this Government should be upfront and honest with the people of New Zealand. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to debate Part 2. This bill changes around 100 other Acts to give meaning to the Civil Union Bill that was passed before Christmas. Part 2 is a very small part that amends regulations. Part 1 was the amendments to other Acts and the regulations that are amended in this Part 2—it is only about one page long—are the Family Courts Rules and the Property (Relationships) Forms Regulations. Members will remember that the Property (Relationships) Act was the Act that replaced the Matrimonial Property Act. It was the Hon Margaret Wilson’s gift to New Zealand in 2002 when the status of de factos was made in her claim clear when she extended the rights of matrimonial property to de factos. The regulations we are looking at here are the regulations that implement part of the Property (Relationships) Act that came into force in 2002. 
What the bill does is remind us of what has not been changed in the property relationships law. These changes are essentially mechanical. They insert “civil union partner” wherever one sees “partner” or “spouse”. Previously of course in that bill alongside “spouse” we had added in “de facto”. So it means that the Property (Relationships) Forms Regulations now include “spouse” “civil union partner” and “de facto partner”. 
This bill should have been removing—if the Justice and Electoral Committee had had the courage to carry through the scheme of what it did when it got this bill—the references to “de facto” in much of the Property (Relationships) Act and regulations. We should have been acknowledging that there was a big mistake made in 2001. The term “civil union partner” should have stood alongside “marriage partner” once the decision was made by Parliament in December. But “de facto” should have been treated as quite different for the purpose of the Property (Relationships) Act. The Property (Relationships) Act should have gone back to being something that people could freely opt into if they wished but not something that people were opted into without consent or without even knowing it by the Government. 
Alternatively this part of the bill could have tried to have a better definition of “de facto”. If de facto couples were going to be compulsorily married so that they had to share their property the bill could have tried to sort out the kinds of de facto or the types of de facto relationships where sharing might be what the parties would reasonably expect. For example this might have related to couples who lived together for 3 years and where the party with the assets had either not expressly said they did not want it to happen or the party without the assets was the one who was responsible for the children. At the moment it can probably cost up to $2000—the Law Society told us $600 per person but somewhere between $1000 and $2000—to opt out of the automatic property sharing in the Property (Relationships) Act. 
I think this part amends the forms that were supposed to represent a very simple standard form contract to allow people just to look up the regulations sign that contract and have the opt-out done. Well that was sabotaged by the Minister and the officials in the Ministry of Justice. When that form of simple contract was drafted it did not achieve the objective. In fact it was drafted in a way to negate what the committee had intended. I think I ought to know what the committee intended because it was my idea in the committee and I have to say that I feel embarrassed by the way it was implemented. I should have realised how bloody-minded the Minister would be about that particular part of the Act. 
It was a simple concept that competent adults can be deemed to know what they want and if they want to share their property as married people then we would take them to mean sharing when they got married and now when they enter into a civil union but that when they entered into a de facto relationship they were deliberately intending not to take on the property consequences of marriage. What the form in the regulations for opt-out should then have provided was a simple form to fill out to confirm that. If we had to have the automatic deeming then we should have had very straightforward opting out. We do not. 
The position should have been the same for married couples who wanted to retain their financial independence. Though there is nothing untoward in treating people getting married or entering into a civil union as if they are choosing to share their property and their assets from the date of their marriage equally as adults it should not require them to have to go along to lawyers and get lawyers to certify that they know what they are doing if they sign a simple and straightforward form to the contrary set out in the regulations to the Act.Well they cannot do that. They still have to get lawyers and the lawyers will tell them that the form is so rudimentary that it would not be worth using. The lawyers will tell them also that the Property (Relationships) Act allows the court to second-guess them. It allows the court to decide that things have changed and that all bets are off. It allows people to renege on their deals when they may even be the only thing that reassured a party enough to let them get married or to live together in the first place. 
There was an odd assumption even in the way in which the select committee considered those matters. It kept talking about those regulations rights and obligations as if somehow they were protecting someone in a relationship. More likely in many cases in property relationships they were actually burdening someone. Often it is the woman in a marriage or a previous relationship who has managed to protect the family house—particularly as women tend to take the children more often—saved her money and ends up in a relationship looking at any new partner with deep suspicion. The new partner stepping into a relationship with children automatically gets the benefit of the property relationships property sharing and in fact can go gold-digging from day one. 
Women should have been protected from that by being treated as if they knew their own minds. This part could have had a revocation of that deemed automatic sharing that would probably mean that the people least likely to form new long-term stable committed companion relationships are in fact the people who need them the most. They are the people who are trying to rear children on their own. They are the people who ought to be able to rear children and invite someone into their life without fearing that they are there to take the house. A woman should be able to enter into a relationship without needing $2000 to get a lawyer to tell her that she is safe and that she will not lose her house second time around. They are the people who should not be told by lawyers that they cannot give them any guarantee because they do not know what the judge will say when their partner wants to renege on the deal. They can sign it solemnly and they can certify that both of them understand it yet the court can still renege. 
If the select committee had the courage of its own analysis we would have included in this part a revocation of the offending parts of the Property (Relationships) Act and we would have had the gratitude of possibly 200000 people in couple relationships across this country. We would not have needed to throw the entire scheme out. We could have made it plain that the courts for example must take into account the expectations parties have that when they do a deal as adults it will be upheld. We could have had a compromise position on this. If the Labour members could not bring themselves— 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Shirley  
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes  
Rich(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald  
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King 
Roy  
Teller: 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 44 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Smith N  
Alexander(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff  
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
English(P) 
Perry  
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Brown  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth  
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch  
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour: 
 As we are now about to move to the votes on the schedules which are not debatable and pursuant to agreement with the whips from the other parties around the Chamber I seek leave for the Minister’s amendments to schedules 1AA to 12 to be put as one question; for schedules 1AA to 12 as amended to be put as one question; for the Committee to then move to vote on both of Mr Franks’ amendments to schedule 13 on the Minister’s amendments to schedule 13 and then on schedule 13 as amended; for the Minister’s amendments to schedules 13A to 15 to be put as one question and then schedules 13A to 15 as amended to be put as one question. This will result in eight personal votes on the schedules in the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedules 1AA 6A 7 11 and 12 and the following amendments in his name to schedule 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in Part 1 after the expression “25(1)(a)(ii) the expression “and (6)”; 
to insert in Part 2 after the expression “65(1) the expression “and (2)”; and 
to insert in Part 4 the following items: 
Section 37A(1) 
Insert before the words “de facto” the words “civil union or”; 
Heading above section 42 
Omit the words “ 
de facto 
”. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Shirley  
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich  
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher  
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia 
Robertson(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Roy  
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 50 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Jones(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Amendments agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedules 1AA to 12 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
Anderton(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Pettis  
Noes 44 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Brown  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch  
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 in the name of Stephen Franks to schedule 13 to omit items relating to Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Brown  
Jones(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark(P) 
Roy(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
McNair(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Smith M 
Noes 83 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Locke(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Heatley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Yates 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald  
Hutchison(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Dunne  
Key(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Scott(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 in the name of Stephen Franks to schedule 13 to insert new section 32A in the Human Rights Act 1993 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Brown  
Jones(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark(P) 
Roy(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
McNair(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Sowry  
Smith M 
Noes 83 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Locke(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp (P) 
Tisch(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Heatley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Yates 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald  
Hutchison(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Key(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Scott(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 13 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich  
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher  
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley(P) 
Mapp  
Tizard(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Peck(P) 
Yates  
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia  
Pillay(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Barker  
Noes 50 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Amendments agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.