Volume 641 Week 51 - Wednesday 8 August 2007 
Volume 641 Week 51 - Wednesday 8 August 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:10893] 
Wednesday 8 August 2007 
 Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by the Rt Hon Michael Howard QC is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Consumer Affairs Minister—Confidence 
1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Consumer Affairs given Sunday’s press statement from that Minister rejecting the Green Party’s call for mandatory country-of-origin labelling of single component foods; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Consumer Affairs when instead of backing consumers’ rights to make decisions based on good information as the Minister is mandated to do she is actually undermining their rights by claiming that country-of-origin labelling should be voluntary and should simply be left to the market and does she agree that businesses will provide consumers with information only if they think it will increase sales of their product and they will not provide it if they think it is likely to decrease their sales? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is aware that the Government does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling. The Government supports labelling around the issues of food safety. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Why does her Government consider that country-of-origin labelling does not fit in with its stated priority of access to safe affordable and good food? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because we do not believe it is relevant to the issue of food safety which we do regulate for. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does her Government support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for footwear and clothing but not for food and surely if we have a right to know where our T-shirts and our jandals come from then we have a right to know where our food comes from? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is an issue around residual tariffs. No doubt at some point when we get to a situation of not applying any tariffs those rules of origin will also go. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers how does the Prime Minister reconcile her Government’s support for a Buy New Zealand Made campaign with her refusal to support country-of-origin labelling for foodstuffs; does she not accept that when people go into a supermarket if they do not know where the food has come from then they will not know whether it is made in New Zealand or anywhere else? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a question of drawing a distinction around the promotion of something and the Buy New Zealand Made campaign is about promoting to Kiwis goods that are made in New Zealand but distinguishing from that whether compliance costs should be loaded on to business for reasons that have nothing to do with the safety of the food being consumed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware that there has been a string of scandals surrounding food imported from China and that the United States for example has recently suspended imports of shrimps and prawns because carcinogenic residues were found in them and that the Californian department of health has advised consumers not to consume ginger because it found dangerous and illegal chemicals in it; and how therefore can she claim that country-of-origin labelling is not a food safety issue particularly as the overwhelming majority of consumers believe that they have a right to decide whether to choose to buy food from countries that have a very poor safety record such as China? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I come back to my point: the issue is food safety. That is what we regulate for. Whether food is unsafe is a question not of where it comes from but of what systems apply in those countries and of how we evaluate the food product that seeks to be on the shelves here. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not clear that we need to strengthen the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and our consumer protection regulations given the string of recent incidents such as the recall of Thomas and Friends wooden toys that were covered in lead paint reports that toxic jewellery made in China from electronic waste and car batteries may be being sold in New Zealand the international outcry over contaminated Chinese seafood and the recent recall of toothpaste contaminated with industrial chemicals; and is it not clear that our present approach of waiting for scandals to break overseas is not providing consumers with the protection that they want and need and that our consumer protection laws need to be strengthened? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The points the member makes are all good reasons for having strong regulation for safety. They are not reasons for having regulation to require labelling of country of origin. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document “Foreign food fright” stating how consumers are increasingly concerned about the safety of food particularly from China. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
State Services Commission—Advice to Prime Minister 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What steps did she take when the Acting State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie advised her office that former Minister David Benson-Pope had told Hugh Logan that he would “likely be less free and frank in meetings” with Madeleine Setchell and when did David Benson-Pope advise her that was indeed what he had said? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Confirmation was sought from the member on the evening of Wednesday 25 July and he was advised to be full and frank about the matter. 
John Key 
: Well if that is the case why did the Prime Minister not just sack him on the spot? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thought that yesterday afternoon in this House would have shown that Mr Benson-Pope was not the only person with a flawed memory around here. 
John Key 
: Why did the Prime Minister not sack David Benson-Pope right on the spot on the Wednesday evening when he clearly went to her and told her that he had lied and misled the country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I was of course aware that this was new information. I was not aware that it contradicted anything that had previously been said. I discovered on the following day that it did and I acted on that. I am still waiting for Mr Key’s colleagues to act on his untruths. 
John Key 
: Is it not the case that if the National Party had not in fact asked the right question David Benson-Pope would still be in Cabinet with the Prime Minister knowing that he had misled this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No that is not the case because it was inevitable that my attention would have been drawn to transcripts of media interviews where clearly a wrong impression had been given. 
John Key 
: Is it not the situation that when David Benson-Pope went up to the Prime Minister’s office on that Wednesday afternoon and told the Prime Minister the truth the Prime Minister said that if the Opposition asked him the question he had to answer it honestly—because that is a new standard and not something she normally expects? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is indeed a standard imposed here—not a standard imposed by the Leader of the Opposition himself who told a blatant untruth about what he had said on Iraq. 
John Key 
: Is it not the situation that the Prime Minister of New Zealand now has so little confidence in her own Cabinet colleagues that she cannot actually ask them whether they are telling the truth but has to have her own department undertake a forensic analysis; and what sort of way is that to run a country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would say that the forensic analysis going on is about why Mr Key did not tell the truth about his party’s position on Iraq. That is where the blowtorch is today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please settle. 
John Key 
: Why did the Prime Minister have to go and look at the transcripts when David Benson-Pope was actually in her office and telling her he had lied? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear that the full story had not been told. Transcripts— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Mr Key’s question was heard in silence when I asked members to settle. The Prime Minister’s response will now be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear that the whole story had not been told to me and to Cabinet. When it became clear that journalists had been told by Mr Benson-Pope that he had not expressed an opinion on Ms Setchell’s employment and that that was not true I moved to the conclusion that became clear on Friday 27 July. I am still waiting for Mr Key to be held to account for not telling the truth about Iraq. 
John Key 
: How many other members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are now sitting there in the situation where they too have lied and misled the public but the Opposition has just not asked the right question; and is she applying the new standard to them as well—if the Opposition asks a question make sure it is answered honestly; it is a new standard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am applying the same standard to Ministers as I apply to Mr Key: tell the truth. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Throughout the afternoon you have listened to the Prime Minister suggest that somehow Mr Key has not been telling the truth. That arises from the fact that the Labour Party has spent a considerable amount of time in trawling through old bits of newspaper and cutting and pasting various ideas. But essentially should the Prime Minister not give an answer that is consistent with the public good and would you not expect Madam Speaker that someone of the Prime Minister’s stature should be able to answer that question without having to resort to that sort of cheap tactic? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure exactly what your—[ 
Interruption 
] If members wish to remain in the Chamber they will desist from calling out when the Speaker is on her feet. I am not entirely sure about the point of that point of order but if the member was asking whether the Prime Minister was addressing the question I say that yes she has been. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a list of the numerous explanations of what the Prime Minister was doing as her chauffeur-driven car sped across the Canterbury Plains— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: —at 140 kilometres an hour— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that when they seek leave to table a document they should merely identify that document; they should not read and give a long explanation of it. In future if that is done I will consider it to be a matter of disorder. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the police report into Helen Clark’s art forgery. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Unemployment—Expenditure 
3.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the reduction in unemployment-related expenditure? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have recently received a report noting that unemployment benefit - related expenditure reduced by over $64 million between September 2006 and June 2007. I am advised that if this performance continues the Government’s expenditure reduction targets for 2007-08 will be achieved in 2 or 3 months. What this means in practice is that under a Labour-led Government more New Zealanders are getting real jobs while the National Party is stuck in the 1990s dredging up Work for the Dole schemes. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister seen any alternative statistics on unemployment benefit - related expenditure? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have. I have seen a media release from Judith Collins the National spokesperson on social welfare inaccurately claiming that there are 279156 working-age people on a benefit and some 40323 on an unemployment-related benefit. This is simply not true. In fact as at June 2006 the numbers were 261009 working-age people on a benefit and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Some members may not be interested in the answer but others are. We will have this answer in silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —to stress the last fact—there are 23159 on an unemployment-related benefit. All I can conclude from this is that Mrs Collins’ inability to add up reinforces Bill English’s view that she was promoted beyond her capacity and has an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we are robust enough to take that sort of cheap shot and thank goodness it was there because it gave a bit of substance to the Minister’s answer. But by and large if we are to have silence around the questions and answers then I think it only fair that we expect a robust response to that sort of answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I accept what the member said and that is why I did not act on the fact when he moved from addressing the question to making a political comment. But I say in particular to members in a corner of the House that is noted for its unruliness that if this continues—[ 
Interruption 
] And yes you may look around but you know who you are. So I would now ask members please to desist. We will recommence. Are there any more supplementary questions? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has he seen any plans to reduce unemployment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have. I have seen a plan from Mrs Judith Collins of the National Party proposing the reintroduction of the failed Work for the Dole scheme. I say to Mrs Collins that she will have to be quick as there are not many unemployed people left. Perhaps if Mrs Collins spent more time doing her homework and less time as Mr English says cultivating the media and believing the resulting publicity she might have time to come up with a better policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was noted today also a tendency by Ministers—senior Ministers; people whom one would expect might know better—to bring you into their answers. We do not want to interrupt the flow and we certainly do not want to confuse the Ministers but they may need some advice as to how they construct their answers from this point on this afternoon. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In response can I say that all of those quotes came from Bill English about Judith Collins and not yourself. That is right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is really kind of you. Members will note that point. 
Judy Turner 
: Does he accept that people unemployed right now are likely to be the long-term unemployed and face many obstacles to gaining work; if so will he trial any schemes that assist the long-term unemployed into work by reintroducing them to the soft skills required by employers like punctuality and team work through work-based projects? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will be pleased to know that the number of people who are long-term unemployed is plummeting along with the number of all others who are on a work-related benefit. The member will also be pleased to know that many of the schemes run by Work and Income on behalf of unemployed people do teach things like turning up for work on time. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table the statistics given to me by that Minister’s predecessor which show the figures that he so kindly quoted. 
Document not tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that expenditure on sickness and invalids benefits has increased by $800 million. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Environment Ministry—Confidence in Chief Executive 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he have confidence in the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Acting Minister for the Environment 
: Yes but of course we are awaiting the outcome of the current inquiry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen comments from the Prime Minister over the last 2 weeks questioning the competence of the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and does he agree with those comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of comments made by the Prime Minister about Mr Logan in relation to certain comments that he did not pass on to Mr Rennie and that would have been helpful in the circumstances of the events of 2 weeks ago. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister believe are the reasons why the chief executive of his ministry is subject to an investigation under the State Sector Act by the State Services Commissioner and now by an alternative and independent investigator Mr Don Hunn? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There were clearly issues around the employment of a person in the ministry and statements were made by the Acting State Services Commissioner that were based on incomplete information. That information was available to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and had in fact been made available to the State Services Commissioner earlier. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the inquiry confirms what is publicly known and what has in fact been stated several times by the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment—namely that he did not pass the information on—will the Minister maintain his confidence in that chief executive? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a matter the Minister will have to consider at the time that any such report is delivered taking account of any of the circumstances in that report. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Acting Minister who has recently taken over the portfolio discussed with the chief executive any progress on the Ministry for the Environment register of personal interests and how it will be administered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information on that but I would be very surprised if anything has been happening in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister not know whether the Ministry for the Environment is going to proceed with its register of interests given the high level of interest in that across the whole public sector and by the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because I am answering on behalf of the Minister I have not been briefed on that supplementary question which is about the seventh one. 
Iraq—New Zealand Troops 
5.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What further reports has he received on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have seen a report in today’s  
Dominion Post 
. It seems that Mr Key contrary to his recent denials now acknowledges that he did indeed support sending troops to Iraq but according to his office spokesman that was because he was inexperienced and his comments reflected the caucus position at the time. I accept that the Leader of the Opposition is inexperienced—that is not the point. The point is that in his denial on television last week he openly misled the public. Saying something that is untrue to cover up something that is embarrassing ought to lead to resignation—a point that Mr Key made in question No. 2 today. The Leader of the Opposition is paid as much as a Cabinet Minister and he should be held to exactly the same standards. I ask Mr Key to tell the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I could not hear that answer. I am not going to ask the Minister to repeat it because it did seem to be somewhat overlong but if that level of barrage continues I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence the next time it happens. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question asked: “What further reports has he received …”. He could have easily answered that question but he particularly chose to give a reasonably lengthy speech and inside that speech there was a whole lot of supposition and frankly nonsense— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I understand the member’s point. The point is I could not hear so I do not know whether your point of order has any substance or not—that is the point. Members in this House including the Speaker are entitled to hear answers and questions. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what other reports he has seen relating to this matter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen a further report contradicting what Mr Key is now saying through his spokesperson. That report is from TV3 on 28 May 2007 when Mr Key said: “Our caucus didn’t support sending troops there.” He said that at a time when his office said yesterday it was the National caucus position to send troops to Iraq. That is obviously contradictory but again that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is that Mr Key misled the public as recently as 10 days ago in denying that he or National had ever supported sending troops to Iraq. The cover-up and the untruth are even more important than the flip-flop that that represents. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sitting just two seats behind the Minister and I have a loudspeaker beside me but I could not hear the answer. I am not particularly deaf. There was a barrage from the National benches. Could we have the Minister repeat his answer please? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There are two things. National members were tolerant of Mr Goff doing what he did; we did not want to stop him for fear the vein might pop. But the point is that his speech bore no relevance to any ministerial responsibility that he has. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. As the member well knows—we have been through this many times—if there is ministerial responsibility for reports that relate to the question then the Minister is unable to address them. But the general point to be made I think is that members are entitled to be heard in this House. [ 
Interruption 
] I will leave it where it was. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is the Minister able to tell the House whether he has seen any further reports in respect of further deployment of New Zealand troops in conflict zones such as Iraq? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard the Minister say: “Is the Minister able to tell the House …” but beyond that it was impossible to decipher what he was saying because of the barrage of noise. I cannot see how the question can be in order or out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please repeat the question. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is the Minister able to tell the House whether he has seen any further reports in respect of deployment of New Zealand troops in conflict zones such as Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen a further report dated 1 May 2004. It is a report from the National Party conference and it is from the defence spokesperson Simon Power. It says— 
Simon Power 
: Oh that’s new. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member might not like the truth but it is the truth. The report states: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia the United Kingdom and the United States when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” What that demonstrates is an inability and an unwillingness on the part of the National Party to think for itself and a lack of vision about New Zealand as a proudly independent nation. No wonder Simon Power was sacked when he had made that stupid comment! 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the statement: “My long-distance telephone calls are almost certainly monitored by American sources. They have the surveillance equipment to pick up long-distance conversations and believe mine would be of interest to them. That doesn’t stop me making calls but sometimes I feel very afraid.” and can he tell the House whether these paranoid ramblings of Helen Clark published in 1986 still represent the basis for the Clark Government’s defence and foreign policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not seen that statement but I did see— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have given members a fairly free rein. I could not hear that answer. Would it please be heard in silence. Anyone who interrupts will be leaving the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not seen that statement from 1986 but I have seen a more recent statement from the National Party that indicates that the nuclear-free New Zealand policy would be gone by lunchtime. That statement was made when those members were busy telling New Zealanders that they were in favour of a nuclear-free New Zealand. That was a lie that was an untruth that was misleading as is what Mr Key has been saying recently on Iraq. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that if he had seen that statement from Helen Clark a few years ago his barbecue would have been a little bit more successful? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It might surprise members to know there is no ministerial responsibility for barbecues. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it fair to conclude that Mr Key has finally been the first person to find a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq and it blew up in his face? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that passes for wit. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: In the public interest I seek leave for Mr Key to make a personal explanation on the contradictions which are now worrying the public in National’s position on sending troops to Iraq. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You cannot seek leave on behalf of a member. That is not an appropriate point of order. 
State Services Commission—Advice to Prime Minister 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What actions if any are being taken by the State Services Commission in light of the statement by the Prime Minister she was “unhappy” that Ministry for the Environment chief executive Hugh Logan had not disclosed the full extent of his conversation with the Minister for the Environment about the appointment of a ministry communications manager? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I am advised that the State Services Commissioner has announced an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act into the recent handling by the Public Service of employment processes relating to Madeleine Setchell. The commissioner will determine any appropriate action once the results of the investigation are known. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When Dr Prebble stated in his article in the  
Dominion Post  
on 20 July written about the sacking of the communications manager that: “ministers … ought not to be involved and I understand Environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved” was he telling the truth? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest the member direct that question to Dr Prebble. I cannot speak on behalf of Dr Prebble. However I do know that Dr Prebble is a highly respected public servant and that if he did write something that was incorrect he would seek to address that as soon as possible. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports of expressions of unhappiness and what have been the consequences? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do happen to have seen a report in which the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he was unhappy about comments made recently by Maurice Williamson who said that if some people cannot lose weight no matter what— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been a bad day for the Government when it comes to answers—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on a point of order. However I do believe that answers need to be given and questions need to be asked that are of some relevance to the primary question asked. Whether there is a degree of unhappiness from the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with this question which is about the unhappy expression given to the media by the Prime Minister about this particular matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I observe that it has probably been a bad day for Parliament so far. The report that the Minister is asked to comment on must relate to the portfolio area. The question relates specifically to the chief executive. I ask the Minister to confine her answers to the supplementary questions to within the context of the primary question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If we are talking about reports of unhappiness about the State sector then I have a number of reports in which the National Party has expressed unhappiness with the State sector. Have National members forgotten that they wanted to get rid of James Buwalda? Have they forgotten that they said they would sack Barry Matthews? Have they forgotten that Murray McCully attacked Te Puni Kokiri’s chief executive? Have they forgotten that they attacked the police in New Zealand? These are some of the unhappy things from the National Party. I think National members play a bit of a double game when it comes to making comments about the Public Service. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When Dr Prebble stated in his article in the  
Dominion Post  
of 20 July 2007 written about the sacking of the communications manager at the Ministry for the Environment that: “ministers … ought not to be involved and I understand that Environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved” was he telling the truth? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is an identical question to one I have already answered and my answer is the same. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that New Zealand’s most senior public servant was incapable of remembering the most salient detail relevant to this case when he sat down to write his article in defence of the Public Service and that somehow his decision not to mention then his knowledge of what actually happened was perfectly acceptable for the State Services Commissioner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In this House yesterday I pointed out that Dr Prebble has said publicly that he had forgotten. He made a mistake he owned up to that mistake and he corrected that mistake. As I said everybody is entitled to make a mistake. We have heard plenty from the Opposition side of the House today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by her claim made in the House during question time yesterday that during the period 27 May to 4 August 2007 there were two or three phone calls between her and the State Services Commissioner or someone acting on his behalf and can she confirm that the State Services Commissioner has a no-surprises obligation on matters of potential controversy; and is she seriously asking the House to believe that Dr Prebble failed to tell her of a conversation that was important enough in the end for David Benson-Pope to get the sack? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think members will find that the question from the member yesterday asked me what contact notes letters etc. I had had from 25 July. I think that was the date; it was not in May as was stated in the question. However I am happy to go back and tell the member of all contacts letters etc. that I have had. I have no problem with that. I do need to tell this House as I said yesterday that the first I heard of this issue was from the Deputy State Services Commissioner on Tuesday 3 July when he reported to me that he had met with the chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition on the day before at the request of the chief of staff. He was informing me that they had had that meeting and that they had discussed an employment issue at the Ministry for the Environment and other matters including advertisements. That was the whole nature of the discussion I had. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister believe that she has been poorly served by the State Services Commissioner firstly in his failure to remember the most salient fact relating to this issue and secondly in his failure to recognise his obligation to ensure that the Minister was not faced with any surprises in this portfolio? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am disappointed that Dr Prebble failed to remember that until later but I agree with the Prime Minister that it is not a hanging offence. There is now a review and we will await the outcome of that review which will also look at Dr Prebble’s actions as well as the actions of others. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister of State Services have confidence in the State Services Commissioner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do. 
Housing New Zealand—Hobsonville Development 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received about support for Housing New Zealand’s flagship affordable housing development at Hobsonville? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have seen a report by economist Dr Arthur Grimes a director of the Reserve Bank who has endorsed the Hobsonville project as an example of “enhanced leadership” on the issue of providing affordable housing options in Auckland. Dr Grimes appears to be at odds with John Key who described the project as “economic vandalism” a description seemingly inconsistent with last Sunday’s keynote address at the National Party conference that called for affordable housing. It would seem a call for action but obviously not in his own electorate. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other reports has he seen about plans to redevelop the former Hobsonville air base into affordable and higher-cost housing? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Hobsonville development has been welcomed by a range of prominent Aucklanders. The Auckland City Missioner describes it and other affordable housing initiatives as commendable; the local mayors say it is our best opportunity yet for Waitakere’s economy to thrive and find solutions to deal with the city’s rapid growth. A pleasing report came from the Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association which described the vision for Hobsonville as impressive. It must be confusing for John Key who panders to some prejudice in his own electorate while simultaneously seeking cheap headlines advocating the same solutions elsewhere. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. What is the likely effect on house prices and affordability of implementing policies that increase demand reduce State housing stocks and largely ignore supply issues? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It would be the same outcome we had in the 1990s when National tried those policies: acute housing distress leaky buildings and no decent homes for ordinary New Zealanders. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister satisfied that construction at Housing New Zealand’s development at Hobsonville is not expected to begin until at least 2009 nearly a decade after the project began and does he agree that more affordable housing needs to be made available well before construction is completed in Hobsonville if we are to adequately address the current housing affordability crisis? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased with progress at Hobsonville. I think it is a very important project and it requires a lot of consultation with the local community and a lot of consent processes. But what I can tell the member is that the Government has moved in a whole range of areas from the Welcome Home Loan to KiwiSaver to a piloted shared equity scheme. We have contributed to the supply of affordable homes in high-pressure areas like Hobsonville—and soon Weymouth—and we are supporting community and local government initiatives. Indeed we have already spent $99 million doing shared partnerships with local government and just recently announced $220 million for Wellington. These are really fantastic initiatives to try to increase the supply of affordable houses—real homes for real New Zealanders not empty slogans. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Chris Auchinvole and David Bennett you are both on your last warning. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to show the consistency of Mr Carter’s statements by lodging this document in which he refused to hand over cellphone records to police and refused to sign his police statement when police investigated the “paintergate” forgery from his Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
in which the Auckland City Missioner says that the plan announced by housing Minister Chris Carter to provide more affordable homes for Aucklanders is commendable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a newsletter from the Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association which lauds the Hobsonville development. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand transcript in which Chris Carter complains about the time it is taking for his building consent for his bach on Waiheke. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the census data showing that since Labour has been the Government homeownership has declined by 5 percent or 76000 New Zealanders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a list of projects that the Government has done with local government where it has spent $99 million building homes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Definition of “Publication” 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the definition of “publication” in relation to an advertisement under clause 4 of the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 If the member reads the Electoral Finance Bill he will see that the definition is as provided for in clause 4(1) of the bill in (a) to (h) under “publication”. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister reluctant to tell the House that that definition will mean that issuing a press release sending an email or posting a letter will constitute publishing an election advertisement if those documents disagree or agree with anything any political party is associated with? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not reluctant to inform members about the contents of the bill at all. I just assumed that other members unlike that member have read it. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Electoral Finance Bill prevent criminal gangs such as the Mongrel Mob or Black Power from buying political influence through the funding of various political parties’ campaigns; if not what justification can he give for allowing organisations that openly engage in crime to gain political patronage? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Such groups would be caught not only by this legislation but also by other legislation the Government has before the House at this very time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that further to the material from the Littlies Lobby that was discussed yesterday a press release issued yesterday asking people to take a stand against child abuse and announcing that “New Zealand worriers” were going to do so will constitute the publication of an election advertisement and that anyone who forwards it to someone else will be regarded as publishing it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that that would be caught within the meaning of the definition in this legislation. But I can confirm for the member that the sort of publication referred to in this letter to Messrs Brash and Key indicating an intention to run a million-dollar campaign to oppose a Government whilst trying to avoid the limitations of the law will be caught and will be prevented. 
Heather Roy 
: In relation to political publications and advertising how does he square his answer yesterday on the importance of freedom of speech with the provisions of this bill whereby New Zealanders cannot spend their own money to express their views but this Labour Government can take money from every Kiwi to promote its propaganda? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The premise of the member’s question is fundamentally incorrect. This legislation precisely protects the right of every New Zealander to participate fully in the electoral process. What it prevents is the sort of abuse of the electoral system perpetrated by the Brethren with the full knowledge of the National Party—and the full knowledge of Mr Key who still has not owned up to it—which was seeking to enable others to get round New Zealand’s law in order to overcome the voices of ordinary New Zealanders when they want to participate in their electoral process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that this press release issued by the Council of Trade Unions criticising National’s policy of a 90-day trial period would constitute election advertising because it was issued because it was disseminated by electronic means and because it was stored electronically in a way that was accessible to the public and that if someone printed it off and stuck it on the noticeboard in the smoko room that would make that person a “promoter” under the bill and guilty of publishing election advertising material; and is he aware that the Council of Trade Unions put out about 140 of these press releases in the last election campaign and that in the next one they will all have to be costed and counted? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that members of the public are fully entitled to continue to participate in normal communication among themselves. I can also confirm that it is the right of New Zealanders not to have their electoral process corrupted by the sort of behaviour we saw from the National Party and its mates which Mr Key was fully aware of. An attempt at a million-dollar campaign to subvert the electoral process will not be permitted under this bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has had about 6 months to think about what all these definitions might be and that it is not good enough for him to come to the House and keep saying he does not know; and does he know that if someone runs an ad campaign saying “Eat More Vegetables” that will count as political advertising in election year because any number of parties are against obesity? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly the assertion at the front end of that question is clearly not the case and secondly the member is clearly wrong. I suggest that before coming back to the House for a seminar he reads the bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that even for those who have read the bill and who want more information about the meaning of the bill he cannot answer simple questions as to whether press releases emails letters fliers posters or billboards are covered by his definition of election advertising; why cannot he answer those questions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because if the member had read the bill he would know that it depends entirely on the context of any document and what it seeks to do. In other words if a document seeks to support the election or to oppose the election of a given candidate or party it is within the context of the bill; if it does not it is not. The example the member most recently gave is a patent nonsense. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Te Arawa 
9.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: He aha ta te Minita ka mahi whai muri i te kupu whakatuturu a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i te tahi o Here-turi-koka 2007 e kore e taea e ia te tautoko te whakataunga a Te Arawa e ai ki tona ahua o naianei otira ki ta ratau tutohutanga hoki e ki nei hikia mo tetahi wa te whakataunga kei te whakatakotoria e ratau kia puta rano tera ka hua mai i tetahi wananga whakatau aratohu mo te tohatoha i nga whenua ngaherehere a te Karauna? 
[ 
What action is the Minister taking following the Waitangi Tribunal’s definitive statement of 1 August 2000 that it could not endorse the Te Arawa settlement in its current form leading to its recommendation that the proposed settlement be delayed pending the outcome of a forum to decide on high-level guidelines for the allocation of Crown forest lands? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Ministers are undertaking careful analysis of the report from which that statement comes along with other recent tribunal reports. A key issue in our analysis is the consistency of recommendations and their implications for this settlement and other settlements. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ma te aha ka taea e nga iwi te whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro me te Karauna i raro i te pono me te tika i runga i nga panui a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi ara he awangawanga ano wa ratau mo te ahua o tenei tono kua tatu a ka taka te ahua o te ngoikore ki runga i era iwi kaore ano kia tatu wa ratau tono a tarewa tonu nga tono i te rohe o Te Puku o te Ika a Maui? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[How can any iwi negotiate with the Crown in good faith when the Waitangi Tribunal has reported again that “it has grave concerns regarding the potential negative impact of this settlement on overlapping iwi and on the durability of future Central North Island settlements”?] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think as I indicated to the member the complexity of some of the tribunal’s rulings and the apparent in some cases contradictions between them are matters that Ministers are looking at very carefully. But the member’s concern has to be reconciled with the fact that to reach the point that the group in question has reached required it to undertake a process of rigorous mandate acquisition. That mandate was tested not only with its own members but by the High Court and by the tribunal itself and it has been upheld. I say to the member that the reverse of his question is: how would one maintain the confidence of claimants if the Crown turned its back on those who had engaged with it in good-faith negotiation following the tribunal report? 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister received any advice from other claimant groups relating to the recent tribunal reports? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Crown as members may know is actively engaged at various stages with over 20 claimant groups and a number of those have expressed concern recently about any unnecessary delay to their negotiations—particularly those who have been properly mandated to undertake negotiations with the Crown by the people whom they represent. That further I think illustrates the challenge of fairly balancing the legitimate interests of different and complex claims. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
:  
Ka aro ake ia kaore ranei ki nga tohutohu a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi kia kaua te Karauna e tohu ko nga iwi e ngakaunuitia ana e ia ka mutu ko te whakatau whaiti nei i nga hiahia o nga iwi a ka ahatia nga whakautu hei whakatika i nga tikanga whakahaere? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Will he ignore the advice of the tribunal that the Crown cannot continue to pick favourites and make decisions on tribal interests in isolation; if not how will the response to such advice change the process? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Frankly I think the assertion that the Crown picked favourites is incorrect. The Te Arawa Kaihautu Executive Council in the case we are discussing and the people it represents made their own decisions in continuing in direct negotiations as did those iwi and hapu who chose not to participate or to engage in the tribunal process. The Crown has endeavoured to respect each of those decisions: the decisions of those who have chosen to engage directly with the Crown of those who have chosen not to and of those who have chosen to engage with the tribunal. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
:  
Hei ahea ia whakatakoto mai ai i te ture whakatau kereme ki te Whare nei hei kokiri whakamua i te tono o nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa mo nga whenua ngaherehere o te Karauna 51000 heketea te rahi? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
When is he intending to introduce legislation into the House to advance the settlement with Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa over the 51000 hectares of Crown forestry lands? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The introduction date of any legislation relating to that settlement is yet to be determined. 
Hospitals—Triage Benchmarks 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Which hospitals in New Zealand are meeting all three of the Government’s triage benchmarks for safe and timely treatment of emergency department patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Most hospitals do not because most hospitals in New Zealand do not have emergency departments. However of those that do the first and most critical target is nearly always met but two others are usually not met. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why was an 83-year-old woman with dementia forced to spend 4 days in North Shore Hospital’s emergency department with a broken hip lying on a trolley under glaring fluorescent lights without any painkillers or anything to eat or drink—for 4 days—and is that the sort of care New Zealanders can expect for our oldest and most vulnerable under this Minister? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As I have advised the House on many occasions I am not able to comment on individual cases first of all without the permission of the person involved and secondly without notice from the member who hides the personal issue behind another sort of question. I am however really happy to look at that issue if the member wishes to approach me and give me any detail to enable me to identify the patient he says was thus treated. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of comments made by his ministry’s principal medical adviser that there is a steadily increasing demand on acute services and that health services have not changed sufficiently to cope; if so what if anything is being done to deal with the increased demand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the comments made by the ministry’s principal medical adviser to that effect and indeed of the comments that followed in the couple of sentences immediately after in which he pointed to ways forward to try to reduce pressure on emergency departments. 
Sue Moroney 
: When was data on emergency department treatment times first collected across New Zealand and why was it collected? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was first collected in June 2000 6 months after this Government came into office and it was collected because we wanted to know how good our emergency departments were. The previous Government apparently did not want to know. An international comparison of emergency departments and waiting times between Australia Canada Britain the United States and New Zealand showed New Zealand emergency departments to be the best-performing of all five nations. I would like to thank staff in emergency departments; that is a splendid result. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does it show that this Labour Government values and respects health professionals when the Government’s Wellington bureaucrats have decided to stop the supply of grated cheese to Wellington Hospital so that surgeons can no longer have cheese on toast because it is considered too high in fat; and is it not the fact that the only thing on toast in this House is this Minister question time after question time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may not be aware that Wellington bureaucrats of any shape or description do not decide which New Zealanders eat cheese and which New Zealanders do not. They do not decide that; they do offer some advice on food classification and on what foods might be eaten regularly and on what other foods might be eaten less regularly. But I think a more important point is that in this country each day 1000 New Zealanders go through an emergency department doorway and are triaged in such a way that those who need treatment most are treated first. In particular those who need immediate treatment are treated immediately—not after 4 days 4 hours or 4 minutes but immediately. That is why emergency departments exist and that is why they operate in that way. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Four days with a broken hip! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me put it another way to that member who cannot bear to hear anything resembling the truth. If a two-car accident happens and the people fetch up at the emergency department other people will wait even if they were there first. That is how triaging works and that is how it has to work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please keep it down. It is very difficult to hear and concentrate on who wishes to speak. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister really think he has his priorities right when the North Shore Hospital’s accident and emergency department is on the brink of collapse it is failing to meet waiting-time standards and it has patients stacked in the corridors and in ambulances yet he has district health board managers focusing their energies on a plan to phase out full-fat milk from the hospital tearoom? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member like his colleague seems to make light of something that I do not think we should make light of. I do not think we should make light of it. I just say to the member—although the Opposition may not wish to hear it—that the Waitemata District Health Board was the worst performing district health board in the last round as far as emergency department waiting times were concerned; it was the worst-performing district health board in the country. I am advised that in recent weeks—in the last 2 or 3 weeks—as far as triage 1 patients are concerned there was a 100 percent delivery on that target. One hundred percent of people who needed to be seen immediately were seen immediately—100 percent. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why—with the Government being able to release whatever health priorities it wants this afternoon—are the Minister’s bureaucrats who should be trusting and valuing our health professionals deciding to restrict the size of the chocolate bars those people can have in their vending machines and deciding that they cannot have cheese on toast between operations and why are the bureaucrats now prohibiting full-fat milk in hospital tearooms when surely we should be relying on these highly intelligent health professionals to make those decisions for themselves and trusting and valuing their contribution to the New Zealand public health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Whatever food is sold or not sold in a hospital canteen is not done by virtue of some edict from the centre. The member is aware that this afternoon the health system in New Zealand is about to take another significant step forward and he wants to rain on the parade. I invite him to turn up and see what a Government that is not lacking in ambition and is determined to have better health for New Zealanders is able to do and compare it with the fact that after 8 years in Opposition he has developed a five-point policy plan for health that has only four points in it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a fistful of reports of how New Zealanders are missing out on emergency department support— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those reports. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Children—Family Education 
11.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does the Government have any plans to address the issues of fatherhood marriage preparation and marriage enrichment to ensure that more children are raised in a safe loving and caring home? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government wants to ensure that all Kiwi kids living in all sorts of families live in safe loving and caring homes. Since we became the Government we have set a task for example of raising 130000 out of poverty. We have done that through our income-related rents policy and the Working for Families policy and by reducing health costs. We have had a real impact of course on families which has made life safer for those young people. We have been investing $1.6 billion to increase the amount of support available for Working for Families to children which means that three out of four New Zealand families are now enjoying that support and that undoubtedly is making life better for those children. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Government continue to ignore family form when the evidence demonstrates that on average a home headed by a married couple produces the best outcomes in terms of health education and income level and by far the lowest involvement in the criminal justice system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: At the risk of giving the member a sociology lesson I think that the evidence actually shows that as long as the family form maintains a safe caring nurturing environment with clear boundaries for behaviour then whatever the family form is those children will be in the proper kind of environment and that is the evidence that this Government follows. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that a sample of 7000 young people involved with the youth justice system each year indicates that just 12 percent are living with both their mum and dad 28 percent with only one parent and a massive 60 percent with neither their mum nor their dad; and does this not provide ample evidence that family form especially the presence of a mum and dad is all-important? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think everybody in the House would say that it is preferable if children can remain with their biological parents. However unless the member has a bill intending to force people to stay together we have to deal with the facts as they are. That is why I say that we reinforce good positive relationships within any family form that exists in New Zealand. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a Youth Court paper setting out the statistics that I quoted in my supplementary question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from the Chief Family Court Judge saying that very few youth offenders are from stable two-parent homes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
[The following supplementary question supplementary answer member raising a point of order and the Speaker’s response were wrongly omitted.] 
Moana Mackey 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that children are raised in a safe environment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Since the Government came to office in 1999 it has invested very heavily in programmes to keep children safe—for example Family Start early intervention programmes to tackle family violence and Women’s Refuge. There has been about $136 million from the Ministry of Social Development alone. Meanwhile can I say that Mr Copeland’s contribution has been to miss the vote on section 59 and today to call for a Children’s Day not realising that Children’s Day is celebrated in March every year. If he wants proof of that I have here a photo of his former leader on the steps of Parliament and I can only guess that the big figure in the suit is hiding Mr Copeland who maybe could not see that it was Children’s Day being celebrated on the steps of Parliament. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member’s statement is misleading.  
Hansard 
 will indicate that I voted against the section 59 anti-smacking bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Recognised Seasonal Employer Policy—Foreign Workers 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Will he give an assurance that foreign workers in New Zealand under the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy will enjoy the same conditions as New Zealand workers? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 All workers in New Zealand regardless of nationality or citizenship are subject to New Zealand employment and industrial legislation including the Employment Relations Act the Holidays Act the Minimum Wage Act and so on. Relevant immigration policies including the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy are designed to support and respect that. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why should Kiwi workers have to pay for their own accommodation and their own transport to and from work and organise their own pastoral care while foreign workers under the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme have in addition to their wages their accommodation provided and paid for transport to and from work provided if required pastoral care provided and half their air fare paid? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place the member should check his facts. Nothing in the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy requires employers to pay for the accommodation of their foreign workers. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on seasonal labour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes I have seen a report in the  
Marlborough Express 
 of 20 July 2007 in which a senior National Party politician implies that backpackers will no longer be available for seasonal labour in Marlborough. This politician has leapt in before he has acquainted himself with the facts of the policy. Last year more than 33000 backpackers were approved to visit New Zealand under the working holidays scheme—a scheme that was is and always was proposed to continue. The comment is yet more evidence that that politician Mr John Key was either uninformed or dissembling. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s answer to the principal question is he aware that many of these seasonal workers will not readily understand New Zealand’s employment law; if so does he have confidence in the Department of Labour to monitor the situation and can he briefly advise the House what penalties will apply to any employer who exploits these people? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The answer is yes and for that reason a suitable induction programme has been proposed as part of the scheme that ensures that workers are aware of their rights in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] That may be one of the points that the member opposite disagrees with but I think it is a prudent step in order to ensure the sustainability and quality of this labour supply. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on seasonal labour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I have seen a press release by Horticulture New Zealand dated 30 April 2007 in which the president Andrew Fenton was said to be “delighted to bring to life a programme designed by horticulture and viticulture employers”. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Recently? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes this week. Now that Mr John Key knows that horticulturalists support the scheme is he going to flip-flop on this one too? 
Craig Foss 
: Will the Minister apologise to horticultural industry leaders for walking out of a meeting with those same representatives when they asked him to discuss their concerns about the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and the ending of the Seasonal Work Permit scheme? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I certainly will not because that did not occur. I suggest to the member that like his two senior colleagues he should check his facts before putting his mouth in gear. 
Craig Foss 
: Will the Minister apologise to the growers from Hawke’s Bay at a Recognised Seasonal Employer meeting organised by the Government who were told by various Government officials that it was their fault for planting the trees in the first place? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Based on the rather dismal track record of the member opposite so far in this question in terms of his command of the facts I have no reason to believe the veracity of the presumption. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is that appalling track record on consultation the reason why the Pipfruit New Zealand chairman Ian Palmer stated in this month’s edition of  
Rural News 
 that the situation is “becoming a major fiasco. The horticulture industry has tried to work in good faith with Ministers Benson-Pope and Cunliffe with little or no response. They just do not want to hear our concerns …”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I suggest the member check with the leaders of Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers who were in my office this week and who are working very productively with officials on a transition package to support the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme. I can tell the member that those discussions are going extremely well the industry supports the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and the only people with the pip are Opposition members. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Press 
 of 2 August entitled “Government admits flaws on Labour policy”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table an article on the Stuff website from New Zealand Winegrowers entitled “Government departments have no idea how a business operates”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a press release from Horticulture New Zealand dated 1 August that includes the quote: “Unless we”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Marlborough Express 
 dated 20 July 2007 entitled “Key slams employment scheme”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the current edition of  
Rural News 
 which quotes the chairman of Pipfruit New Zealand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a note which confirms that I was at the Havelock North meeting where growers were told it was their fault for growing the trees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that note. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
General Debate 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is official: panic has well and truly struck the Labour Party. There is no more pretence that things will come right no more pretence that there will be a bounce back no more suggestion that there will be a honeymoon and no more pretence that these are just short-term blues. Labour is dog-tucker and now it knows it. It has taken 9 months and Labour members have finally worked out they are all gone. I will come back to them in a moment. 
Does it not bring out those endearing and wonderful qualities in Labour members when they finally work out the truth? We know what those qualities are: viciousness nastiness ugliness vindictiveness—just the normal stuff that goes on in the Labour Party caucus on Tuesday mornings. You see Michael Cullen and Helen Clark stopped talking to each other about 9 months ago. You might remember when Helen Clark came back from overseas—from Malaysia—about 2 weeks ago. We asked her about David Benson-Pope and whether the case had been well handled. She got up looked at Michael Cullen and said: “No but I’m back now.” 
I have news for the Labour Party. If this is how seriously spooked they are when National is 14 points in front of them they are going to get ugly when we are 28 points in front of them that is all I can say. They will be running round like a bunch of sewer rats looking for a drainpipe because that is what they are. 
But I will tell you what is worse than all of this—it is that the New Zealand public do not care. They are so over Labour they do not care. What is even worse is that they do not expect anything different. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Mallard I now know why there is an official duck-hunting season mate. We will get back to you in a minute. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course I do not care about any comment about me but you should not be brought—[ 
Interruption 
] Are you going to deal with that Mr Assistant Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just warn members that points of order are to be heard in silence and are to be terse and to the point. Any interjections in future will be getting a yellow card and the member will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I of course do not mind at all about comments about myself—I can take it—but you should not be brought into the debate as he did on three occasions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is correct. I let it go but the member should not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
JOHN KEY 
: No one will be surprised that the country is over the Labour Party. Let us get a few facts right. These are people who stole $800000 to get here—OK? That is what the public know; Labour members stole $800000 to get here. And what have they done since they have been here? No Government in history has sacked so many Ministers for lying; one-fifth of its entire caucus has been sacked for lying. That is a fact. What is coming next? What is coming next is a Mugabe-type raid on the Electoral Act so that Labour can stay there. Labour members stole the money to get here they have done nothing when they have been here and now they are trying to change the rules so they can stay here. Well that will not work because people are sick of them. 
Let us think about some facts. Helen Clark has new standards for her Ministers now. You do not have to tell the truth— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JOHN KEY 
: —if you are a Minister in this Government. Those Ministers do not have to tell the truth and they will not be held accountable even when the Prime Minister of New Zealand tells people they will. There is only one time when they will be accountable and that is when the Opposition asks the right question. That is a new standard—OK? It used to be that we would just expect to get an honest answer but that is out the window. 
How many Ministers are sitting over there who have not told the truth to this country? The Prime Minister has sacked one-fifth of them; how many of them are sitting there knowing they could have asked the question and they did not? None of us should be surprised that David Benson-Pope has gone. The inside word from the Labour Party—this is what they told me—is that 5 months ago she stopped having dinner with David Benson-Pope on a Monday night. That was gone. I will tell members what else is true. She has stopped having dinner with Rick Barker and she has stopped having dinner with Mark Burton. The Prime Minister has a strategy: she is going to sack every “B” in the caucus. Every “B” in the caucus is gone. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That is what the death rattle from a hollow man sounds like—a man who Audrey Young said lied to her. He lied to her and now he runs from the House because he cannot take it. He cannot take criticism; he runs away. He lies and lies and he runs. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is far too much noise and barraging is not permitted in the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would be a good idea if the Deputy Prime Minister just swallowed a bit on the Standing Orders and recognised it is quite inappropriate for him to talk about not only the Prime Minister but also other members being out of the House at this time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There used to be a convention of course that members stayed in the House to hear a response to their speech but that member could not take it and fled the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that each and every one of us at various times has to leave the Chamber for other pressing public business. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That man has had a bad few days. He entered the National Party conference to a song called “Clocks” by Coldplay. And what does that song actually say? 
Lights go out and I can’t be saved.  
Tides that I tried to swim against  
Brought me down upon my knees  
Oh I beg I beg and plead  
The song goes on to say: 
You are  
You are  
Confusion that never stops  
For once in his life Mr Key was honest—for once. That is the man who did not tell the truth about where he lived before the 2005 election and who lied about the electoral roll. He is a man who talks about housing affordability and owns six houses in New Zealand alone. He is a man who said in 2003 that the National Party would send troops to Iraq then said a few days ago that it would not have done. Then his staff said he was merely repeating the caucus line. Mr Key said in May this year that Dr Brash was not supporting the caucus line and that the caucus line was not to support going to Iraq. 
Mr Key is a man who says anything to anybody to try to please them. He has no notion of what the truth is. You see David Benson-Pope had to resign for making conflicting statements. Mr Key believes it is perfectly all right for him to make conflicting statements within one speech or one interview. His colleague Dr Smith was found by a judge to have lied to that judge and nothing happened to Dr Smith as a consequence of that. Audrey Young accused Mr Key of lying to her—and he did—over the joint trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency just as he lied to me over that agency. He cannot tell the truth because he does not know what the truth is. 
Yesterday Mr Key sat in this House— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes—I know what the member is going to say. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No you do not so I will give it to you. When members of this House have in the past raised the issue of the Prime Minister lying over “paintergate” the Prime Minister lying about racing through the straights of Canterbury in the back of a speeding motorcar the Prime Minister lying about her knowledge of the release of GE corn the Prime Minister lying to Plunket over PlunketLine the Prime Minister lying and lying and lying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Make the point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We have been told by the Speaker that that was unparliamentary and that such behaviour had to stop and we have accepted that. You yourself sir have said many times that honourable members should be treated as honourable members. Indeed the Prime Minister herself has repeated that and relied on that many times in the last couple of weeks as she dealt with the Benson-Pope issue. I know that Michael Cullen is upset; I know he is wound up. I know he is giving a speech based on his own venom—his own jealousy etc. But sir you have to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is making a speech. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —uphold the standards of Parliament and that line is unacceptable. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I would remind you Mr Assistant Speaker that Mr Key used that word frequently during his speech. I deliberately did not take objection so that the Opposition will therefore get what comes back to it in that respect. I have chapter and verse for every one of the contradictions that Mr Key has engaged in. That man does not know what the truth is. He says whatever he will say to please anybody at any moment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that they can never allege that another member has lied. That is absolutely out of order. A member may challenge the validity or correctness of a member’s statement but must not accuse the member of lying. A member cannot accuse another member of having made a statement on any occasion whilst knowing it to be incorrect or untrue and cannot impute a deliberate untruth to another member. I am asking members to desist from doing that. We have here a situation that will lead to disorder and it is my job to keep the debate within the 402 Standing Orders that we have. I ask members to desist and continue with the debate. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will desist. I will simply point out that Mr Key does not know what he says on one issue from one moment to the next. On the issue of climate change for example—the biggest issue facing the world at the present time—Mr Key said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” and the previous year said: “This is a complete and utter hoax. I am suspicious of the notion of global warming.” He is a man who says one thing one day and another thing the next day because he wants to be loved wants to be liked and does not care what he says along the way. 
Of course when it is pointed out that Mr Key is unreliable does not know the facts and tells different things to different people he says: “This is a personal attack. I’m such a poor little National Party leader; please don’t pick on me any more. Those big nasty Labour Party bullies have been picking on me in the House all the way through yesterday and I need some protection from those big nasty nasty bullies on the other side of the House.” 
Who believes that this man can be a Prime Minister of New Zealand? Who believes that somebody who cannot even remember his position on the war in Iraq could possible be the Prime Minister of New Zealand? Mr Key cannot remember what his position on the Springbok Tour was. He cannot remember what his position was on global warming. He cannot remember almost anything. He cannot even remember where he lives for the purposes of the Electoral Act. He is not a man who inspires confidence. This man appeared on  
Morning Report­ 
 this morning smiling so nervously that he looked like a Cheshire cat with constipation waiting hopefully for some kind of pill to put him out of his misery and save him from the Labour Party. 
Mr Key knows that he has made disastrous errors in the last few days. He knows the honeymoon is over and he is now into relationship counselling in the National Party. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If we were to typify New Zealand today we would have to say it is a country of very high interest rates where mortgage stress is causing New Zealanders a great deal of hurt where child abuse is absolutely out of control and where emergency rooms throughout our hospitals are overcrowded and people cannot get the service they want. This is a Government so disappointed with and unwilling to talk about its own performance that all its members could do in the last couple of days is come into the House and hack away at the knees of the National Party. 
Michael Cullen asked the question: “Who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand?”. I say that he should go and look at the polls—that is who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand and that will not change. So what is the plan when one’s policies do not work? What is the plan for the Government when it has spent 8 or 9 years making an absolute hash of it? What does one do? Well one starts to politicise the public service and turn it into some great arm of the Government and then deny anybody else any right to make a comment about it by altering the Electoral Act to prevent any criticism whatsoever of the current Government. That is the broad plan. 
One of the things we are most concerned about is the sham that is going on in the State Services Commission. This country has tens of thousands of State servants who do a good job day in day out regardless of their political persuasion and when they deal with other New Zealanders they do a good job without regard for the political persuasions of those New Zealanders. So why is it then that we cannot accept the need for the public service to be neutral? We know that Government members cannot accept that because they talk about it so very much. 
Let me build a bit of a picture. Firstly we had the situation where Minister Benson-Pope said: “I won’t have that woman in my office.” That comment related to the new manager of the Ministry for the Environment communications team. He conveyed that message to Mr Logan the chief executive. Mr Logan said: “What am I going to do now?” and he went to Dr Prebble who is the commissioner himself. The commissioner has said that he advised Mr Logan on how to handle this matter. Mr Logan said he told Dr Prebble of the instructions clearly given to him by David Benson-Pope. Time unfolded Ms Setchell lost her job and the whole ruckus started to arise about the interference of the Minister. 
Things got so bad in the middle of that that the State Services Commissioner felt the need to sit down in front of his computer and write an article explaining what political neutrality is and he published that article in the  
Dominion Post 
. The interesting thing is that when he sat there to consider this particular issue he forgot the most important fact in it. He forgot why the issue arose in the first place. He somehow seemed to think that the sacking of Ms Setchell came out of the sky somewhere—that there was no particular reason for it other than the fact Mr Logan had decided there might be a conflict. The reality is that it is not plausible for anyone to defend Dr Prebble on the basis that he simply forgot what happened. 
So here we have the State Services Commissioner who forgot the most salient fact in this matter now being required by the Government to lead an inquiry into what happened. The question that arises is: if as we were told in the House today by the Minister of State Services and by Dr Cullen this inquiry is into the handling of this issue by Mr Logan and it is occurring because the Prime Minister was unhappy that Mr Logan did not let the acting commissioner Mr Rennie know about David Benson-Pope’s intervention where does that leave Dr Prebble because he is a man who also knew? So here we have the adviser to the culprit. In other words Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan. Mr Logan told him all the relevant facts. Dr Prebble admits that. But now we have Mr Logan being investigated by Dr Prebble who knew all the time what was going on and advised Mr Logan on what was supposed to happen. This is a whitewash of the worst kind. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is my privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First. I have to say that right now is probably a timely moment to take a little bit of a pause in what is starting to sound like a House winding up for an election. I guess that makes this little contribution appropriate because New Zealand First wants to take just a quiet moment to make something very clear to both the National Party and the Labour Party who right now are locked in a clear battle for supremacy. We simply say that it is gloves off folks may the best team win. We are watching with interest but those parties should understand very very clearly that the debate on law and order is becoming a non-negotiable debate as we watch some people—from within the public sector the Ministry of Justice the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Youth Court and a range of other people—make some outlandish and ridiculous statements many of which are now proven for what they are. 
The latest report released by the Ministry of Justice is the report on youth offending statistics. Those statistics make a couple of things very clear. First there have been no reliable statistics to date. It is stated in the report that the report itself has many defects and deficiencies because of the methodology that is used. So let us have no more nonsense about having the real oil on what the real statistics are. But let us be very very clear: what we do now know from that report is that 43 percent of all apprehensions in this country are from people in the age group from 10 to 20 years. Forty-three percent of all apprehensions in New Zealand are of people aged from 10 to 20. New Zealand First is saying that that is enough. We mean to lower the age of criminal responsibility one way or another. Let me tell both National and Labour this: 82 percent of the population agrees with New Zealand First. The latest Stuff poll on the web says so right now. 
My second point is that we have had enough of the platitudes and the nonsense surrounding gangs. I say to Mr Power that we do not care whether Labour stole his policy or he got an inside look at its announcements or what the truth is on that. What we do know is that Murray McCully said a long time ago that the best source of policy advice for the National Party in the run-up to the last election was New Zealand First’s website. Is that not right I say to Murray McCully? We know that. I was going to table a piece of paper that showed National’s original ideas for policy but I realised that it was a blank page. We were going to table a page of a good research database used by the National Party but it is actually the home page for New Zealand First. 
So let us have no more of that nonsense but let members understand very clearly that New Zealand First believes that the only way to deal with gangs is to outlaw them. Everything else is rubbish. The very notion that a civilised society can tolerate in its midst a bunch of lawless people who prey on the misery of others is totally abhorrent to New Zealand First and will not be accepted. If these two parties want to enter into coalition negotiations for the Government benches after the next election they should get these two points on board: first outlaw gangs; and second lower the age of criminal responsibility. New Zealand First is deadly serious about these issues. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You won’t be here. 
RON MARK 
: There goes the old boy from somewhere. He yells: “You won’t be here.” If I had $1 for every time I heard that said about New Zealand First we would not have to work. Mr Clarkson is the man who is now rated as the biggest joke ever to be inflicted on Tauranga. He is the man whom Tauranga would prefer that he goes back to building and doing what he knows best because he knows that he does not do this well at all and Tauranga is the worse for it. So shut up and listen sonny. 
New Zealand First is absolutely adamant: outlaw gangs and lower the age of criminal responsibility. It should no longer be acceptable for 43 percent of the people being apprehended in this country for breaking the law to be aged between 10 and 20. Let us have no more of the nonsense from the ministry saying: “Adult offending is as bad as youth offending.” when the ministry knows very well that in the figures it is talking about in relation to the adult offender group there are 17 to 20-year-olds who are actually young New Zealanders—youths. They are the sorts of people who in St Albans are rioting on the street outside out-of-control parties and throwing bottles bricks and pieces of wood at the police when they are trying to help the injured. That is the problem that New Zealand First intends to deal with. If we cannot deal with it in this Parliament we are sure as heck going to do it in the next one. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 It has been a bad week for John Key and the National Party knows it. It is written all over the faces of National members and it is in their body language. It started off with the National Party conference when John Key made a poor speech and faux pas. The caucus is in disarray. Poor old Maurice Williamson said something about concentration camps; somebody else said something about Tim Groser and marijuana. 
The keynote address was to be given by Alexander Downer. Alexander Downer wanted his speech to be on the record but the National Party—the party of transparency and openness—refused to allow the media to go in and I have found out why because I have some of his speech. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a bit unfair of Mr Goff to go down that line. Mr Downer is of course the Australian Foreign Minister. The last thing the current Government of New Zealand would want is for his speech to be on the record. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr Brownlee. It is a frivolous comment that can lead to disorder. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can tell the House why National did not want his speech printed. Here is part of what he said: “what is going to matter [in the next election] is substance not stunts. The Leader of the Opposition … is a master of stunts. He does stunts very well. But he doesn’t do substance …”. Regardless of whom Alexander Downer was talking about that was far too close to the bone for the National Party. It was in fact an almost perfect description of John Key. 
I saw  
Facelift 
 the other night and that was even better. It portrayed John Key going up to the counter at McDonald’s. He spent some time looking at the menu. People were backing up behind him and they were getting frustrated. The guy was saying: “What do you want Mr Key?”. Mr Key says: “What do you think I want? What would you like me to have?”. That was the caricature of the National Party leader—no substance no policy no direction and no answers. 
But it got worse for John Key during the week because he got caught out not once not twice but three times. He got caught out about Iraq. I cannot say that he was lying about Iraq as he said other members were. I did note that he was a bit pathetic like a little puppy dog on morning television today saying: “They are being so nasty to me.”; then he got up and gave a speech that was full of personal invective and abuse. But I will say that Mr Key was mistaken. He was mistaken three times. He said on the record—and Dr Lockwood Smith knows this because he said exactly the same thing—that National would send troops to Iraq no ifs no buts no maybes. That is what Dr Smith said. That is what Mr Key said. Now we find that John Key is blaming it all on Dr Brash; it was Dr Brash who thought that not the National caucus! But this morning we heard from Mr Key’s office that actually it was the caucus policy and that is why the poor inexperienced John Key got it wrong. His own press secretary called him inexperienced. That is why the country will not have John Key. They cannot rely on him. In a crisis he would go to pieces. He knows nothing he contributes nothing he says nothing and he has no principles. 
But it got worse. It was not just Iraq; it was also the joint therapeutics agency. He flip-flopped once twice three times. He did the interview with Audrey Young a veteran reporter then he said she got it wrong then he flip-flopped again. But Audrey Young has it on tape. That shows who the liar was in that dispute. She has it on tape and she has witnesses. It is one thing to get it wrong it is another thing to flip-flop but then to cover it up by not telling the truth about Iraq and about the joint therapeutic agency—that is what New Zealanders will not tolerate. 
Then there is the hypocrisy of the other issues such as affordable housing. That was the keynote of his speech to the National Party conference—the boy who came from a State house and good luck to him. He got a helping hand with his family from that Labour Government but now he wants to deny other kids in the position he was in the chance to get a decent home. Mr Key says that affordable housing is National’s policy but not in his own electorate which is a bit upmarket for that—not in Hobsonville. That is a tragic case of double standards. No wonder John Armstrong wrote this morning that Key got “a drubbing a thrashing a trouncing … a hiding” and I say he richly deserved that. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 On behalf of the members on this side of the House I urge the Minister of Defence to find himself the opportunity for a lie-down and a nice cup of tea because he was very close to doing himself a serious mischief there and members on this side were getting quite concerned about him. 
I am not going to respond to the details of the attacks that have come from members opposite today aimed at the Leader of the Opposition. All I want to say to members opposite and to the public is this: at a time when New Zealanders are fearful about their ability to own houses because of rising inflation rates and rising interest rates at a time when businesses involved in the export sector are concerned about their ability to continue to do business and at a time when each and every week 737 New Zealanders pack up and move permanently to Australia New Zealanders look to the people who have the LTDs and the flash offices—the Ministers of the Crown—and they ask what the Ministers will do to put matters right for our country. Those Ministers are charging around emptying every rubbish bin they can find and checking through ancient back copies of the  
Rodney and Waitemata Times 
 to try to find out what John Key might have said when he was in the seventh form. That is what those members opposite are up to. They are a disgrace to the warrants they hold. 
I want to spend just a minute on the issue that really should trouble members of this House and that is whether they can continue to have confidence in the most senior public servant who holds office in this country Dr Prebble. I say that for two reasons. Firstly he has abandoned a long-accepted concept of neutrality within the Public Service and we have yet to find out what will replace that longstanding rule. Secondly there are grave questions now about the integrity the honesty and indeed the competence of some of those involved who hold senior Public Service offices. 
What we do know first of all is that a senior Ministry for the Environment employee was sacked because some people did not like the politics of her partner. That is not something that has ever happened in this country. Right through the 1990s Ministers of the National Government accepted that people who were personally close with those on the other side of politics could provide professional service. Now we find that Dr Prebble the State Services Commissioner has said it is OK to dispatch senior public servants for the reason that senior officials do not like their personal lives. That is something we have not accepted in this country and members on this side now want to know what the new rules are because when we find out what Dr Prebble’s new rules are we will make up our minds whether we have confidence in him as the State Services Commissioner in this country. 
There are also some serious issues that require explanation and the means by which we will get those explanations is important to us. An issue is the credibility of the leadership of the State sector. Many questions need to be answered first of all about Mr Logan the head of the Ministry for the Environment. There are questions to be answered as to why he did not tell the Acting State Services Commissioner what he should have about his conversation with the Minister. There were questions for Mr Benson-Pope to answer but they have now been answered and we know what his fate was. There were questions—and those questions remain—about the State Services Commissioner Dr Prebble because he advised Mr Logan on the steps that are at the heart of the enquiry that is now under way and he is the person who was also told by Mr Logan about the information that is potentially fatal to Mr Logan’s future in the public service. Arguably he should share the same fate. 
We have had two explanations from Dr Prebble. Firstly we were told he forgot the information then on radio the other day we heard him say that he did not tell anyone because he did not think it was important. Well both of those two explanations cannot be true. At least one of them has to be an untruth and members of this House will want to hear a further explanation or rationalisation of those two before we can make up our minds as to whether we should have confidence in Dr Prebble. 
We also want Dr Prebble to stand aside from this inquiry. He is the wrong person to conduct it. We will not have confidence in the results of the inquiry as long as he is a participant in it and we will not have confidence in any decision that is made if he is there. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 It is unusual to have a visit from Murray McCully to this House. I am wondering whether there are some numbers to be counted. Is that the reason he is here today? After all he usually spends most of his time in the Cook Islands. 
Today I want to talk about double standards. I wonder whether there are many people in this House who remember that old billboard campaign Wellington used to have. An anonymous group of people would go out overnight and stick up a billboard that looked like a newspaper billboard. Some very famous ones went up in the 1970s and the 1980s and they were usually pointed at the double standards of politicians. Some I could tell members about include the very famous one where a person who spoke out on abortion in public was not against abortion in private life. Then there was the one about the person who was carrying on an extramarital affair whilst speaking about the need for family values. 
The double standards posters were fantastic. They really exposed politicians to the core. They exposed their double values and double standards. That is what it was called  
The Double Standard 
 as if it was a newspaper. We had a lot of laughs over the years looking at those posters as they went up. 
I think it is time that that anonymous group of people came out again and started putting up some more of those posters because we have had an outbreak of double standards from the National Party lately. I will go through just three of them today. I know that members opposite are eager and anxious and that they want to hear them. 
Let us take the issue of political neutrality in the public sector. Today National members are all puffed up with self-righteous indignation over Public Service neutrality. They accuse the Government of meddling and interfering and they are demanding political solutions. Well let me just remind the House of the National Party’s approach to the Public Service. I will just look at some of the things that have been said. 
Have those members forgotten that Don Brash called to get rid of James Buwalda from the Department of Labour? How politically threatening is that? 
 Have those members forgotten that John Key told Barry Matthews of the Department of Corrections that he would sack him? How politically menacing is that? Have they forgotten John Key saying that he would sack senior officials at the Department of Corrections as well? How politically neutral is that? 
Have members opposite forgotten Murray McCully attacking Te Puni Kokiri’s chief executive? Have they forgotten his despicable slur on Wellington’s top cops only a couple of years ago? 
How about their short-term memory? Have they forgotten Gerry Brownlee’s attacks on Mark Prebble Iain Rennie and Hugh Logan? At the rate they are going there will not be a public servant left standing that has not been in the National Party’s firing line. 
What is the right of reply for public servants? There is none—none at all. In thinking of  
The Double Standard 
 billboard that one could get from that situation it would have to be something like this. Members should imagine a photo of Gerry Brownlee saying: “Don’t stand in my way—Gerry Brown-eyes State Services.” 
Let me move to the second double standard—the double standard whereby National members demand that Ministers be truthful and not mislead the public Parliament or their electorate. That is fair enough; I agree with that. But where is the scrutiny by the National Party of a potential Minister? 
Let us look at the headline on the front cover of the  
Sunday News 
. Most of us could not care a hoot about the contents of what is in this newspaper and do not care a hoot about what Mr Groser did outside Parliament. But here comes the important issue: has he told the truth to his leader? Has he told the truth to New Zealanders? Has he told the truth to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 the  
New Zealand Herald 
 or the  
Sunday News 
? 
Is Tim Groser telling the truth? Because if he is not then that man should go. That man should go because he would have been telling a porky to his leader to New Zealand and to the media. I believe that matter is worthy of investigation—not into what he did outside Parliament but into whether he told the truth to his leader. I do not believe that he did. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am sure that everybody in the House saw the irony of that tarnished Minister Annette King talking about a double standard—that Minister who could not come and deliver her truthful version of events to the House if she tripped over herself to try to get it here. Let us ask about her truthful standards and her performance in this House. This is a Minister who through bluff and blunder destroyed the public health system in New Zealand. She has taken this health system to a state where we no longer have a Government that trusts or respects our health professionals. The Government is deciding whether health professionals can have cheese on toast! That is what this Government is doing. Now the Government is deciding whether our health professionals can have a big chocolate bar. That is how it values and trusts our health service. 
The ultimate irony from Annette King was when she said: “What about the National Party and its despicable slur on the top cop in Wellington?”. Well what about the Prime Minister’s lies about— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he cannot allege that another member is lying. The member will desist. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What about the Prime Minister’s stories totally inconsistent with the facts on Peter Doone? What about that slur which this Prime Minister cannot answer about? The Government opposite is on its last legs. We know that. We have been in a Government in its eighth and ninth years and we know what it is like. 
If only the Government knew who we are meeting with this afternoon. If only the Government knew which of its friends we are meeting with this afternoon. Week after week the Government’s friends are coming to talk to the National Party because the Government’s friends know that in less than a year it will be this side of the House that will be providing leadership to the future of the country of New Zealand. It will be John Key providing that leadership. It is a leadership that will contrast completely with Helen Clark. 
How can she get up in the House and question John Key when she had so many stories about what she was doing in the back of the car at 140 kilometres an hour on the Canterbury Plains when she had so many stories about that painting—did she paint it or did she not paint it—and when she had so many stories about the serviette with the Beehive picture? This is a Prime Minister who time and time again cannot be relied upon to tell the full story. How dare she try to say that John Key is not honest? The Prime Minister is really describing herself when she tries to make those allegations against John Key which this Government is so desperate to do. 
Members should look at the Government’s appalling behaviour. This is a Government that is on its last legs. When there is speculation about Maryan Street and Shane Jones going into Cabinet as the answer to the Government’s problems we know it really is on its last legs. What about question time today? Was there one Government policy idea today? There was not one—and the Government goes on about us? Was there one positive announcement that will actually get people into their own homes? There were none whatsoever. Was there any Government announcement about how interest rates will get under control? There was not one. 
Was there one Government announcement about what it will do about an 83-year-old woman who sat on a hospital trolley in North Shore Hospital for 4 days under fluorescent lights with a broken hip and no food drink or pain relief? What did Pete Hodgson say about that? He said: “Oh I don’t know anything about it.” That is what he said—“I don’t know anything about it.” He is the Minister of Health and he should be reading the jolly papers. That story was reported in the papers. The daughter told about the pain her mother suffered. And what is this Government doing? It is happy that an 83-year-old woman can lie on a trolley under fluorescent lights for 4 days with no respite at all. 
What about the older retired woman in Tauranga who had to pay $15000 for her own hip replacement because she was not sick enough to qualify for an operation? Even though she was in interminable pain the Government did nothing. The Government did nothing about that. These people are being forced to pay for their own operations. We have a health system that is falling apart. The health system has $5 billion extra and fewer people are getting care. If a person breaks his or her leg in Greymouth today do members know where that person will go to get treated? It will be Blenheim! That is what we get under this Labour Government: a charity hospital operating under a Labour Government. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. What I have just heard in the House following that speech was applause for the spokesperson on health for the National Party whose greatest issues in health as far as he is concerned are cheese and chocolate. When one gets down to that level of the issues and one cannot raise anything of any substance it is time to go. I think it is also the view in that member’s electorate that it is time for him to go. 
The National Party conference of 2007 was not a good one for National. It was an even worse one for John Key. I ask members to imagine how John Key would have felt the day after the conference when he woke up and thought to himself: “My God I’ve stuffed that up. Bill please spare me the execution.” But you see that is what happens. When one is a sprinter who jumps from cloud to cloud—which is how Bill English described John Key—when it comes to the real issues one is unable to cope. The leader of the National Party is under pressure. Splits and divisions are starting to show. His days are numbered. We can see the grins on the faces of the National Party members on the front bench. They are grinning to themselves cheek to cheek and thinking: “Your time is over John. Sorry.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes. Mr John Key’s days are numbered. I heard an interview on  
Morning Report 
 this morning. Is it not incredible that John Key stands up in this House today and calls everybody a liar when he told the interviewer this morning that Labour members are vindictive and are getting into personality politics? That is exactly what he did in the House today. He feels that nobody likes him. Well what does he expect? If he cannot be upfront tell the truth and put the issues on the table he is going to lose popularity amongst his supporters. 
Election 2008 is going to be about leadership—good strong dependable reliable and honest leadership. When we step up before the people and we put our policies on the table that is what they expect us to deliver. There are no flip-flops. There is no stealing of other parties’ policies. What was John Key’s position on Iraq? What was his position on nuclear ships entering New Zealand waters? What was his position on KiwiSaver? What is he saying now? National totally supports them. What was his position on global warming? It was a figment of our imagination! Now he is talking as if he has discovered it. Is not that double standards? There is a word that we are not allowed to use in this House but I am going to use one starting with “h”: hoha—hoha katoa tatou. We are tired of it. We want to see some substance and we want to hear some truths mentioned in this House. I know you are looking at me in that way Mr Assistant Speaker but when I talk about leadership I talk about the strong leadership from our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She is a leader who walks amongst the people—the big the small the rural the urban—te iti me te rahi—to listen to the issues that they are faced with on a day-to-day basis. 
I want to make a few points about our visit to Tai Tokerau Northland 1 week ago. Northland in the 1990s was considered to be the most depressed area of our country. It was an embarrassment to the Government of the day. Nobody can say that now. If we go to Northland now there are no 18 and 19-year-old unemployed Maori. Their unemployment rate is well below 4 percent. In fact in the north they have a problem with getting skilled labour. They have a labour shortage. No one has ever been able to say that about the north over the past three or four decades. Now they have a problem with skill shortages. 
What does that tell us? It tells us that something is happening in the north that is working. There is a level of confidence in the north that is making people get up and make decisions about how they manage their own lives. New businesses are opening on a very regular basis. Now they are screaming out to the Government: “Help us find skilled labour.” There are health and educational groups taking control of their circumstances. We have seen that first hand in the north over the past 2 weeks. 
Is it not interesting that when we do speak to these people we ask them the question: “What is it that you do that is improving your circumstances in your particular community?”. What do they say? They say that there is strong leadership dependable leadership reliable leadership and good strong Government. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Apart from this two-party debate the hot topic on everybody’s lips is who can be the toughest on gangs. The Maori Party never being one to shirk from a challenge has some tough talk of our own to bring to this debate. We urge all parties in this House to take the time to familiarise themselves with the ground-breaking international research that is revealing that more police more prison and more punishment have not stopped gang violence. The research I am referring to is entitled  
Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies 
 which has just been released from the Justice Policy Institute in Washington. The international research is telling us that the billions of dollars spent on traditional gang suppression activities have failed to promote public safety and in fact are often counter-productive. 
Gang Wars 
 describes two key strategies that will help us avoid going down a flawed anti-gang path to failure. There is the Los Angeles and Chicago approach of tough-talking elimination through enforcement. We could call this the “Labour - New Zealand First - National crack down on gangs and get heaps of votes for next year” method. Or there is the New York and Toronto approach that is committed towards ensuring public safety through gang and community engagement. This is the approach that the Maori Party favours in our emphasis on public safety and prevention by promoting jobs and education and encouraging youth to turn away from gang activity. 
The numbers make it blatantly clear that there is no argument about which way works. The results speak for themselves. Two years ago Los Angeles police reported 11402 gang-related crimes and New York police reported 520. The research cites extensive evidence that the use of social resources such as job training mentoring after-school activities and recreational programmes has made significant dents in gang violence while heavy reliance on police enforcement has far less impact. Not long ago we attended a hui of gang leaders in Auckland. Each of the 25 current gang leaders who attended the hui had a job one of them had an economic proposal that he wanted support for and all of them spoke of the value of education for their children and grandchildren. 
We must confront the facts rather than endlessly sharpen the political knives in order to engage in futile battles against gang members. We need to ensure that we all know what the problem is in the first place. This is far too serious a matter to indulge in a game of who can talk tougher on stamping out gangs and gangsters. The Washington report concluded that heavy-handed suppression tactics can actually increase gang cohesion while failing to reduce violence. No one who truly cares about the future of this nation can afford to ignore leading-edge research that warns against legislation to stiffen penalties for gang-related crime. Sure gangs are in our face so the war on gangs has become an easy target for politicians. But we must be committed to solutions not just to quick-fix populist reactions. We must take bold action and support the kinds of prevention programmes that are already showing reductions in violence and crime. Aggressive gang enforcement is not the answer. Investing in jobs schools a decent wage and programmes that give young people good reason to leave gangs is shown by the US research to have promising impacts on reducing crime and violence. 
We must work together to reduce poverty to address the ongoing alienation that so many of our young people are expressing and then to target the right problem with the right solution. At another hui that the Maori Party attended at Manurewa with different gang leaders—senior leaders—they told us about strategies they are working on to contain inter-gang violence and to discourage the new youth neighbourhood gangs from the street fighting that has developed in Auckland and other cities. Working with them we talked about how they had drawn up a list of 85 youth gang leaders from these gangs of the style of the Los Angeles gangs the Bloods and the Crips and how they were working with those groups to defuse street violence. In the last few months that violence has decreased. 
We need to ensure that the investment we make in creating healthy communities will have the best results in the widest interests of public safety and community well-being. It is not about talking tough; it is about facing facts it is about engaging gangs in the communities in which they live and it is about acting smart. Tena koe. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We had a speech today from an Associate Minister of Health Mita Ririnui in which he said that all the National Party could talk about was cheese toasties in the health system. I wonder where that man was today during question time when my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out that an 83-year-old woman had been left for 4 days on a trolley in North Shore Hospital without drink without food and without painkillers. This woman had a broken pelvis and suffers from dementia. That Associate Minister of Health did not even know anything about it. It was in the local newspapers and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and he could not even tell us about it. 
Another Associate Minister of Health could not even keep himself awake long enough to hear about that tragic story today. All he can say is: “What about the cheese toasties?”. It is significantly more important than that; it is about the trust and the support that we give to the health professionals. When we are trying to tell health professionals that they cannot have a cheese toastie between surgery because it is bad for them we are showing them utterly and absolutely no faith whatsoever. 
The public actually care about the health system and they care about interest rates. Have we heard one thing from the Minister of Finance about interest rates and what he is going to do with his Government’s spending to help to bring down those interest rates? We have heard not one word. All we hear from that Minister of Finance is that he is trawling through back issues of the  
Rodney and Waitemata Times 
 a newspaper that even I had not heard about until he raised it—clearly his bedtime reading. That Minister of Finance needs to get his priorities right. The public do not care about what John Key said when he was a seventh-former. What they do care about is what John Key is going to do when he leads us into the election next year and he comes out the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He will be the best Prime Minister this country has ever seen. He is a man who achieves. He is not a man who breeds on the politics of envy like nasty little Michael Cullen. Michael Cullen’s maiden speech in the House was all about how much he hated the farming community and he has gone to every length to show exactly that is where his sentiments are. 
The public of New Zealand care about the education system. They care about the fact that 20 percent of all New Zealand children leave school without being able to read write or do arithmetic to their chronological age and that statistic is even worse for the Maori population. It is a shocking statistic. All that that Minister over there—Steve Maharey who is off preparing his job application to Massey University—can say is “Oh well some kids are doing really well.” Well we know that because the gaps in New Zealand are getting bigger and bigger day in and day out. That is why 730 New Zealanders move permanently to Australia every single week under this Labour Government. 
I will tell members what else New Zealanders care about; they care about child abuse. The people in this country care about child abuse. I have actually had a gutsful of people in the media blaming Maori for child abuse—that is utter rubbish. Child abuse is caused by the people who kill their children beat them and torture them. Those are the people who cause child abuse. Their race is totally irrespective of anything else and I say that because it is true. Why do people do this? Well they certainly are not people like you and me I say to other members. They do not wake up in the morning and think constantly about how they can make life for their children better. These people have no responsibility and no knowledge of what is expected of them. They are riddled with drugs. They are riddled with a crime wave that is right throughout the community and they are also people who spend their entire life waiting for a handout from somewhere and never thinking about the wonderful potential that they have themselves and the wonderful potential that their children have. 
This Government has had no answer to child abuse in this country not one answer except it put David Benson-Pope in charge of it last year and what a disgrace! We heard from Helen Clark that she was going to find clusters of these difficult families. We were going to have clusters everywhere. Apparently Work and Income cannot look up its records to find out itself. And what happened to these clusters? Well they clearly have not made a scrap of difference. Every week almost—it seems to me—we have another story of child abuse. Every 5 weeks a child is killed in this country by his or her supposed caregiver. I say that because the term “caregiver” is such an insult when used for those people. 
I look at law and order which is another issue that New Zealanders care about and they care about it for several reasons. This country is paid for by decent New Zealanders who go about their business not breaking the law looking after their families and doing the right thing. Those people and particularly the poorest people of New Zealand are the people who suffer the most from lawlessness. That is because they do not have monitored alarms. They do not have security firms patrolling the streets. Those people have been left aside by Helen Clark who is only interested in digging up dirt from John Key’s trash cans. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that the Justice Policy Institute which Dr Pita Sharples has just been talking about is not a Government agency; it is simply an anti-gang group of lefties. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to correct that statement. It is not an anti-gang group of lefties; it is a pro-gang— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I am correcting the statement Mr Assistant Speaker. My statement was incorrect and it misled the House and I was seeking to correct that statement. It is a pro-gang group of lefties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Mark for that. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave of the House to table the document  
Gang Wars 
 which Dr Sharples was speaking of. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave of the House to table the document  
Separating Fact from Fiction: The Truth Behind the Justice Policy Institute report Gang Wars 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave to table a document from Know Gangs in the United States of America which separates fact from fiction. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 If there is any message that the leader of the National Party John Key should take from this week’s activities in the House despite his state of absolute and total confusion the message should be a pretty simple one. The Labour Party does not want him as its leader. The National Party is absolutely welcome to that man as its leader and he can get up at any conference he wants up and down New Zealand and proclaim himself as Labour’s leader and we will decline decline decline. It does not matter how focused this Government is on jobs and how committed it is on reducing unemployment in this country there is no vacancy in the leadership of the Labour Party. That is an undeniable fact that any single observer of politics should know. It astounds me that John Key the Leader of the Opposition who is paid the same salary as a Cabinet Minister cannot work out that he is not welcome to lead the Labour Party. 
It has been a particularly bad week for John Key but it was a bad week in the last week of the last sitting period as well. What we have learnt about John Key is that this man is very prone to criticism. He does not like being criticised and he does not like any negativity being spread around about him. When Colin James wrote that very perceptive article about his antics on the therapeutic joint regulator with Australia in that last week of the last sitting period John Key came into this House like a deflated balloon and sat there looking grumpy with his shoulders and his head down and nobody noticed. To be fair there was another little political drama on at the time. But the seeds were sown in that week when we started to see that the leader could not quite take the heat of this Chamber. 
Then we went into the adjournment and I think it is fair to say that most observers in politics assumed that John Key was going to have a fantastic National Party conference. It really was my opinion and I thought that was going to happen. He had had quite a good run in the polls. He had had very soft little feature pieces about himself. People were talking about him and I thought: “How could you possibly stuff up going to speak to your own party faithful at that weekend?”. One would think it would be a coronation. One would think he would walk in there on water. What did we find? The conference was a comprehensive disaster. The one thing that should go well for one in politics is one’s own party conference. The National Party members are interjecting— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the speaker but I just ask your advice on this. That member cannot stand up at her bench and barrack while a member is on his feet giving a speech under your call. That member over there beside Mr Clarkson stood barracked and continued standing right through that speech. That is out of order and I would ask for your assistance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Cosgrove. I did actually call the member to order because it is not in order to move to facilitate interjection. I advise the member to look at Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I have been here only 5 years but I have never seen a member stand on her pins and interject and screech like a banshee from the background of the National Party Opposition benches. Dr Blue’s behaviour just now highlights the enormous sensitivity the National Party is feeling at the present time. After yesterday’s blood bath in here when the front bench of Labour mowed down the Leader of the Opposition it was pretty clear to me that the National Party had a strategy from its meeting this morning. Mr McCully came back to Wellington and he said: “We’ve got to go into the House hard today.” So they were all prepped up and wound up. They were going to come into the House and were not going to put up with anything. 
How do I know that? At the moment Jacqui Dean is screeching out and she yelled out all during question time. One does not hear a lot from Jacqui Dean it is fair to say. She is not one of the great heavyweights in New Zealand politics but she was speaking out. Chris Auchinvole who is a normally a member who speaks in the evening was chirping away all through question time. David Bennett that great strategist in politics was wound up and speaking and poor old Gerry Brownlee who is not normally working by this stage of the week even got up and made a couple of points of order as well to try to defend it. They had obviously said: “We are not going to sit there and take it. Let’s go in there and show how tough we are.” The problem is that if a party has a strategy the cleverest thing to do is to make it look as if the party does not have a strategy. Of course this point was lost on those National front-bench potentials Jacqui Dean Chris Auchinvole David Bennett and one or two of the others. 
You know the conference was extraordinary and I noticed two things about it. The first was that John Key decided he would walk in to a conference theme like an American politician. He ran a website and said: “I can’t decide what song I want to walk into my own conference to—could you decide for me?”. It is a bit like when he goes to McDonald’s to order a Happy Meal and when he is asked: “What would you like sir?” he says: “Oh no—what would you like me to have?”. He is not quite sure what he should order; he would like the people to decide for him. Mr Key finally decided on a very good Coldplay song—Dr Cullen read some of it out to us—the great song “Clocks”. The second paragraph is: 
Confusion that never stops 
The closing walls and ticking clocks 
Gonna come back and take you home 
I could not stop that you now know … 
Cursed missed opportunities 
Am I part of the cure 
Or am I part of the disease 
Well it is pretty clear that the National Party leader is now part of the problem in that regard. When he walked in to that Coldplay song it just described the week he was about to have. Members should remember that this was before he declared himself to be the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. 
The other thing I thought was really interesting about the National Party conference was the way it looked. National members went to the Langham Hotel’s ballroom. When the camera panned around I did not see many faces that were not white at the National Party conference. I did not see a modern 21st century multicultural New Zealand there. I saw a lot of white New Zealanders—Pakeha New Zealanders. That is a pretty good thing. I am a white New Zealander myself. I am in favour of Pakeha New Zealanders. I saw a lot of older people. I am in favour of them too. I would not mind being one one day. But this country is broader than just that. This is a party that claims to have a revival going on yet its conference room floor did not look like New Zealand and that is a fundamental problem. Some of the smarter ones like Jonathan Coleman actually know that. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of this Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. National will support this bill but as I will discuss shortly we have tabled an amendment. 
I thought the Health Committee members worked very well together on this bill. The Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill obviously addresses some issues that are pretty important in New Zealand. We had 22 submissions. The range of opinions expressed over the course of the submissions was interesting. One of the main things that came out of the process I think is the importance of involving families in the care of those who suffer from chronic mental illness. We know that 0.3 percent of the New Zealand population suffers from a chronic incurable mental illness and the burden for much of the care needed falls back on families. We heard a lot from families who were in that situation and who felt quite concerned that they really were no longer part of the decision-making process. One thing we have to bear in mind in the mental health sector is to make sure the views of families are taken into account when we are considering chronic care arrangements for the mentally ill. 
The main amendment we have relates to clause 8(1). This bill will extend the life of the commission to 2015. Well the National Party supports an amendment—and I hope that the rest of the Committee will support it as well—to limit the life of the commission to 3 years after the date of the Royal assent of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Act 2007. There is a very clear reason for that: we think there really has to be accountability with regard to public money. If we look at what has happened with mental health over the past 8 years since this Government came to power we see that spending has gone up by 75 percent. It is now nearly at the $1 billion mark. That is an awful lot of money but we have to ask what the public is getting for that expenditure. 
The reality is that mental health statistics in this country are actually getting worse but the real issue is that public access to mental health services is deteriorating. There is no question that the sort of headline-grabbing areas of mental health—like forensic services—have been well funded because politically it is very important for any Government to get that stuff out of newspaper headlines. And this Labour Government has been the epitome of doing just that. That is all very well but if we look at what has happened for Maori and Pacific Islanders for children and for the elderly we see that they are not getting access to services that they should be getting. We think that is a real crime. When we have so much more money in the system those people—many of whom are disadvantaged and many of whom are without a strong voice in our society—should be getting access to a fair share of the services. 
I come back to the amendment. Why do we want to limit the life of the commission to 3 years in the first instance when it will be reviewed? I must say that there is no doubt that the life of the commission will be extended. The reason for the limit is that the National Party believes that we cannot write blank cheques with public money. Basically we believe that if the Mental Health Commission is written a blank cheque to 2015 it is being given too much latitude. We believe that if the commission is fulfilling the role it should be and if it is doing a good job there is no reason why its life will not be extended beyond 3 years from the date of the granting of the Royal assent. But in the age we live in where we have had so much profligate spending by this Government and where so much money has been wasted on reports and bureaucracy we believe that it is irresponsible to extend the life of any commission or Government bureaucracy for 7 years like that without any accountability. That is what we will be asking for. 
We believe that the Mental Health Commission does a good job; there is no question about that. It has done a great job in promoting awareness of mental illness in a positive way. The John Kirwan ads have really done a lot to destigmatise mental illness. There is definitely a role for the Mental Health Commission and it does good work that needs to be supported. But like any body it has to be constantly watched and monitored. 
One thing we want to see the Mental Health Commission doing is pushing this Government much harder because the Government really has not delivered on mental health. That is the role we will be seeking to have the commission fill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to the Committee stage of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill I note in terms of some of the issues raised by the previous speaker that National members are very keen to talk about too much money being spent on our health service. Jonathan Coleman again raised this issue of not being happy about the amount of money being spent on mental health services. One of the roles or functions of the Mental Health Commission under the bill that we are speaking to today is to act as an advocate for the interests of people with mental illness and of their families generally. That includes ensuring that there is a good funding level for the services to be adequate for people in this area. 
Dr Coleman also referred to the National Party’s position of wanting to bring the commission to an end earlier than the Health Committee report recommended. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: No you know that’s not right Sue. You know that’s not what I said. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well it was the National Party’s position. It is recorded in the commentary from the select committee that “New Zealand National’s view is that the principal Act should expire on a date that is three years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent.” The rest of the select committee did not uphold that point of view. 
 At this stage I just point out that the Health Committee has representation on it from many of the parties in Parliament. It has on it members from the Green Party New Zealand First the Maori Party Labour and National so it is very representative in its views. It was only the National Party—not even any of the submitters—that wanted the commission to be reviewed earlier than 2015. 
I have done some thinking about why that might be and I know that the National Party has decided in its own mind—it is not in the mind of voters—that it will be the Government come 2008. Well that is up to the voters to decide of course but I think that is the reason National does not really want a watchdog body in place until 2015. If National were to become the Government it would want to get rid of the commission pretty damn quickly because this is a party that is standing on a platform of reducing taxes. We all know what that means for areas such as mental health. Reducing taxes equals reducing public spending and reducing public spending always means cutting the health budget because that is the largest area of public spending. So when it comes to the Mental Health Commission and its role—its very important advocacy and watchdog role—why would the National Party want to have that body cemented in place through to 2015 if it fully planned to cut funding to mental health services in that period of time? 
I say in conclusion that I am fully in support of this part of the bill because it extends the life of the commission in concrete through to the year 2015. All of the other parties on the select committee apart from National agreed with that view. The submissions we heard also agreed with the extension to 2015. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am happy to speak to Part 1 of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. There are a couple of clauses I want to speak about. The first one is clause 5 which defines “stakeholder”. The definition “stakeholder” includes many groups not just the ministry or the usual bodies or people who are normally named as stakeholders such as district health boards and traditional providers such as doctors and mental health services. The definition has been widened to include groups who represent the interests of people with mental illness such as families and caregivers of the mentally ill. I think that is an excellent amendment. 
The mental health area is highly dependent on groups and organisations that support families and individuals who have mental health issues. Really if it were not for non-governmental organisations we would be in dire straits. Probably 20 percent of Vote Health goes to non-governmental organisations across the board but mental health providers have greater representation than that in the mental health vote as such—almost 30 percent of the national expenditure. I think they are unsung heroes. Their crucial input is often not acknowledged. They are the glue that keeps our families stuck together. I understand that in the northern region which is where I live there are 80 non-governmental organisation providers in the area of mental health. They receive 30 percent of the mental health funding and that has been devolved to the northern district health boards. It is predicted that the non-governmental groups will actually increase in size over the next 10 years as the shift to services in the community becomes more prominent. 
I think that National’s tax package with breaks for volunteer groups and charitable organisations went down well and it will make significant changes to the way community groups will be funded. It was a very successful policy. It was so successful that Labour stole it word for word and announced it in this year’s Budget. But it is a good initiative for the non-governmental organisation sector and I am sure that much more money will flow to this invaluable group. 
The next two clauses I will speak about are clauses 7 and 8 which deal with the term of the Mental Health Commission. National as Jonathan Coleman pointed out has some concerns about that. We would like the term of the Mental Health Commission to finish 3 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. There are a number of reasons for this. The Mental Health Commission was established 11 years ago in 1996. If it is to expire in 2015 that is another 8 years away and National thinks that date is too far away. The commission is a publicly funded body and we feel it should have measured outcomes. The 2015 date is too far in the distance. We do support the work of the Mental Health Commission but we feel it should be accountable and answerable. We feel that the date Dr Jonathan Coleman proposes in his amendment is more realistic and tangible. 
I raised the point last night in the second reading debate on this bill that it is interesting how the Mental Health Commission has devolved away from the Ministry of Health with its own directorate of mental health. If at some point in the future we look at bringing the Mental Health Commission back into the Ministry of Health then we would want obviously a date for its expiry that is not as far away as 2010. Three years from the date of the Royal assent would be a much more realistic date. The Mental Health Commission does very good work. As Jonathan Coleman pointed out the advertisement aimed at destigmatising depression that features John Kirwan is actually the Ministry of Health’s advertisement. But there are many other facets that the advertisement works on. 
I am really concerned about the mental health workforce. That is a particular issue for me. I raised it last night and I would like to raise it again today. Enrolled nurses are in a threatened workforce. Basically they have been stigmatised in the mental health workforce. They have been sidelined and pushed out. It really began when Mark Burton a psychiatric patient killed his mother and an enrolled nurse was incorrectly implicated. An edict went out that enrolled nurses should be removed from more acute care situations including psychiatric facilities. Basically they have been sidelined ever since. Where was the Mental Health Commission in that situation? That was the question I posed to the House. I went to the commission’s website and looked at all its archived press releases but I could not find a solitary word in favour or support of this workforce. There are about 4000 enrolled nurses in New Zealand. About 250 of them are in the psychiatric workforce. Those are 2004-05 figures; we do not have current figures. It is an aging workforce and as the nurses retire I doubt that we will see many more unless they are supported. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this very important Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. The commission started in 1996 under a National Government. It was brought about after many years of the mental health sector being regarded as a Cinderella sector—much like the disability sector is today. It has meant that there has been an independent advocacy power for people with mental illness and that has had a very powerful effect over the last 10 years or so. 
I am very sympathetic to Dr Jonathan Coleman’s amendment which suggests a 3-yearly review. This does not mean stopping or terminating the Mental Health Commission but merely reviewing it. It is so important within the context of mental health to ensure that all aspects of it are effectively monitored and that includes the financial aspects. As this Government has found out resources are finite and the demand in any aspect of the health sector is almost infinite. It is hugely important that we are responsible. 
For a moment or two I want to go over the functions of the commission which are highlighted in Part 1. These do draw attention to the very important aspects that the commission is there for. Firstly it is there to act as an advocate for the interests of people with mental illness and their families because so often they cannot advocate for themselves. We hear this time and time again in the disability review being undertaken at present by the Social Services Committee. So often we have heard the request that a similar commission be set up for the disability sector. Secondly it will promote and facilitate collaboration and communication about mental health issues among stakeholders and representatives in the mental health government academic and community sectors and members of the general public. Indeed there are lots of stakeholders and it is hugely important that they are given the chance to collaborate so that their networks are built up and they are all talking the same theme. This is one of the aspects that was not there when the deinstitutionalisation occurred and it has been built up gradually over the last 10 years. 
The commission will work independently and with others to promote better understanding as I have just mentioned and to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. I think Jonathan Coleman just pointed out how successful the recent TV advertisements have been involving a former All Black whom many New Zealanders can identify with so easily. John Kirwan has been prepared to give of his time and be so frank about the condition that plagued him; and obviously many New Zealanders have realised that this is something that so easily could affect them. Indeed it pervades so many families throughout our society. So this is one of the very important functions of the commission that needs to be perpetuated. 
The commission will monitor report to the Minister and advise the Minister on any matter relating to the implementation of the national mental health strategy. This is very important. The blueprint for mental health has meant that there has been an amount of money out there and at times there have not been the people able to fulfil the duties that are required. For instance paediatric community mental health has not had paediatric psychiatrists available. This has been of great concern given that paediatric mental health is one of the areas that are so important. If we are not able to ensure that a child with mental health problems is given early attention then it can get much much worse and it is much harder at a later date to help that individual. Over the last 6 or 7 years we have seen a dearth of community paediatric psychiatrists and the situation has not been made much better to my knowledge under this Labour Government. This is the sort of function that is very important for the Mental Health Commission to carry out and feel free to report on. The commission reports on a yearly basis and it is so vital that that can be done without fear or favour of government. 
The commission will stimulate and support the policy makers funders and providers of mental health services in developing integrated effective and efficient methods or systems. One of the things we do know is that many systems are involved with mental health not only in the health services but in the Ministry of Social Development and education and that the complex arrangements around these are often very fragmented. So it is hugely important to perpetuate this commission and I agree entirely with the very sensible amendment put forward by my colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman that the term be reviewed on a 3-yearly basis. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the expression “2015” and substitute the words “3 years after the date of the Royal assent of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Act 2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Transitional provisions 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill deals mostly with issues pertaining to the office of members of the commission. 
One of the things we learnt quite clearly in the Health Committee was that there are many differing approaches to mental health issues. Some of those were represented in the select committee hearing and we heard many different philosophies. It is always a very contentious issue as to how mental health treatment is delivered: who delivers it how it is carried out where mental health clients or patients live and how much influence and say they have in their own treatment and management. Of course things have moved on over the years and we live in a much more informed society now. I think that is reflected in society’s treatment of and approach to people with mental health issues. 
But when we look at the issue of who is on the Mental Health Commission one of the things we need to ensure is that the officers represent a balanced approach to mental health issues. We cannot have the commission philosophically dominated by anyone who is wedded to one particular mode of treatment or philosophical approach. 
In getting back to this issue that Sue Moroney mentioned about a 3-yearly review I know that the idea of a 3-yearly review is probably something the Labour Party members are extremely sensitive about at the moment—because of course those members are facing their 3-yearly reviews and there are several in the House who frankly may as well not turn up because they have failed already. Indeed some of them have faced that situation in the past and have been rejected as members by their electorates but have sort of scooted in on the coat-tails of various retirements or been well camouflaged so far down the party list that they have actually managed to get in there. I can imagine that Ms Moroney is very averse to that concept of the 3-yearly review. 
But when we think about it the Labour Party thinks that 3-yearly reviews are a good idea. The electorate thinks 3-yearly reviews are a good idea. So why would we not want to have a 3-yearly review of another body that spends a lot of public money—the Mental Health Commission? Ms Moroney was quite misleading and wrong when she said that National would cut spending in mental health. That is wrong. The point she does not appreciate is that with this massive increase in spending under this reckless Labour Government the public need to know that the money is being well spent and that the Government is actually delivering the services people need. Even Ms Moroney if she really looks at the facts would be hard-pressed to say this Government has delivered on mental health. She knows that the Government has not done that. Writing a huge stack of reports is not delivering on mental health. Delivering on mental health—the definition of that—is more people getting access to services and Ms Moroney knows that is not the case. The spending has gone up; it has gone up to $1 billion a year. The spending is $1 billion a year on mental health. That is a huge proportion of the Government’s expenditure and for that money people would expect that the Government would actually be delivering something. 
We also have this ridiculous situation where district health boards are not even managing to spend the allocated money in the correct way. So although there is no money for services for young women with eating disorders we still have $18 million across all the district health boards ring-fenced for acute mental health problems that the district health boards are just not managing to spend. 
A National Government would want to free that money up and put it in areas where it is needed. We would make sure that there are services for young people and services for children. We would make sure that people in deprived groups in society would actually be able to access mental health services in the same way that some of the more mainstream groups are doing. 
Really what this idea of a review of the Mental Health Commission comes back to is making sure that it is delivering on what it should be doing. What it should be doing is holding this Government to account because what has been happening is that the spending has gone up and up but the mental health statistics are not improving—in fact they are getting worse. We know that over the course of a year one New Zealander in five will suffer symptoms of a mental illness. That is a fact and we cannot dispute that. We know that is the case and that the situation is not improving in any way. National members say we have to have accountability. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Dr Coleman has once again got it wrong. He is wrong on mental health again. He is using Part 2 of this bill which after all I say to Jonathan is the transitional provisions to have a go at the Government. So I say to him: “Get a life!” Dr Coleman has got it wrong again. He has tried to use Part 2 of the bill—the transitional provisions—to have a go at the Government. The fact is that this Government has actually got it right in mental health and Dr Coleman does not like that. 
All that the National Party can talk about is tax cuts and tax cuts are not going to deliver to mental health users or their families or to the professionals in mental health in the way that the current Government is delivering to mental health through the ring-fenced funding. Dr Coleman does not seem to have grasped that tax cuts are not going to do it in mental health just as they are not going to do it anywhere else. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is nothing in this bill to do with tax cuts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The current speaker is actually more relevant to this section than the one before her. 
LESLEY SOPER 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. That was exactly the point I was making—that Dr Coleman was using Part 2 of this bill inappropriately to get in what he felt like talking about rather than actually talking about Part 2. 
We all know that one of the commissioners’ key contributions has been to express the needs and wishes of mental health users. Now Dr Coleman might not believe that and that might not have been what his speech was about but the fact is that Part 2 is about bringing the commissioners’ terms of office into line with the Crown Entities Act 2004 and that seems an eminently reasonable thing for Part 2 to do. 
Under the provisions of this bill the Mental Health Commission is retaining its role in addressing the stigma associated with mental illness. It has a new role to stimulate research and service development and this Part 2 is very sensibly saying: “Let’s bring the commissioners’ terms of office into line with the Crown Entities Act.” It is a very sensible provision. All Dr Coleman could manage to get up to say was that the Government had somehow got it wrong. Well Dr Coleman has got it wrong. The whole bill will do far more for mental health than the tax cuts that the National Party keeps endlessly talking about. 
The innovative things that are going on in mental health and that health boards will continue to bring into place when they have managed to repair the damage in mental health done by the National cuts of the 1990s can be done best under the provisions of this bill. That is what Part 2 is about I say to Dr Coleman; that is why it is part of a good bill and why we on this side of the Chamber support its passing. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 135 in the name of Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 9 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to clauses 1 to 3—one debate with separate questions on all three. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am happy to speak on the title of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. It is interesting that we had a number of submissions to the Health Committee for the bill and they were very comprehensive and wide ranging. One submission was specifically on the name of the commission. The group submitting it felt very strongly that the name of the commission should be changed from the Mental Health Commission to the “Mental Health and Addictions Commission”. The group felt there was a lot to a name and that the name said it all and that with “Addictions” inserted there would be much more focus on addictions. This group felt quite strongly that addictions in the community—drugs alcohol and gambling—were an issue and that there would be a focus if that name were included. The committee looked at the group’s submission and heard a number of other suggestions apart from the name change. The group also suggested the need for greater expertise in addiction issues the establishment of an addictions consumer advisory group and the appointment of a commissioner. 
The committee took on all the group’s suggestions. We considered them and we recommended finally that there should be an addictions advisory group established to provide expert advice to committees. We certainly hope that this recommendation is taken up because drugs alcohol and gambling cause increasing problems in society and in communities. 
I want to go back and say that I really support the work of the Mental Health Commission. National wants to see accountability. People should not get worried that we want a date of 3 years from the Royal assent. It was more that we should have a checklist—a point where we can look back take some accountability and look at some measurable outcomes. People have obviously got far too wound up about the 3-year date; it is to ensure that public spending is accounted for and that the money is spent wisely. 
Money has been pushed into mental health—quite rightly. National has been concerned about the value of the spend. In fact some district health boards cannot even spend their mental health budgets and that is of great concern. I understand that the main reason for that is that they do not have the mental health workforce to enlist but key objective No. 3 for the Mental Health Commission which is to strengthen the mental health workforce will be critical in the years ahead. We know that the burden is increasing steadily—the statistics have come out today in the speeches—and mental health is a serious issue. It is not going away we cannot cover it up and we must address it. We cannot do that well without a mental health workforce—I think that is quite critical. The problem actually goes across the whole health sector; our whole health sector workforce is in crisis. Its members are an aging workforce they need to be rejuvenated and the mental health workforce is no exception to that. 
We support the work of the Mental Health Commission. We are concerned about the increasing number of hospitalisations for suicide and the increasing concern with depression in the community. We want to support the work particularly in the non-governmental organisation sector and the work of groups on the ground. They are quite critical in our health sector and their people are often the undervalued unrecognised and unsung heroes. 
We talked before about the Ministry of Health and the Mental Health Commission—why it had been split off. Why that happened is quite an interesting matter. The Mental Health Commission was established in 1996. In 1998 it became a Crown entity supposedly to give it independence and autonomy; but with that type of split focus can be lost and there can be two groups working in different directions. I certainly hope there is no duplication of their workloads because that would obviously be a waste of time energy focus and money. Certainly I wonder about the need for both groups to head off in different directions and I hope they are working together. 
I know that the John Kirwan ad was a Ministry of Health initiative and it has been a very good initiative. I think it has raised awareness in the community. People are talking about mental illness freely and without any shame. It is a common illness it is treatable and it is reversible. There is no shame in having a mental illness. I congratulate the ministry on those advertisements and I congratulate John Kirwan who got an honour recently. So National supports the Mental Health Commission but I think people have got hung up on the 3-year date we are proposing. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and I do so because along with my colleagues the Hon Tony Ryall and Drs Jackie Blue and Jonathan Coleman I examined the bill at the select committee and believe on balance that there is merit in supporting its passage through the House. In general the purpose of the bill is simply to extend the life of the commission to 2015. But the opportunity this extension offered to improve the bill was taken and there have been changes in the commission’s role: firstly in advising and reporting to the Minister on the implementation of the national mental health strategy; secondly in promoting and facilitating collaboration and dialogue about mental health issues; and thirdly in advocating for the interests of people with mental illness and their families generally. 
It would be fair to say that when we were listening to the 14 submissions and reading the other eight we were given a valuable insight into the complicated lives of the family members of those who experience mental illness. At times we heard tragic stories shared and it was through that experience that we came to realise the significance of a highly functional and effective Mental Health Commission. Sixteen of the submissions were from organisations and groups and six were from individuals. Some family members expressed opposition to the bill and it would seem that that signalled a really important opportunity for the Mental Health Commission to look at why these people felt that their needs were not being met. The commission should see that as an opportunity and not a threat. So when this bill passes through Parliament in a slightly different form the Mental Health Commission should be able to ensure that it addresses the concerns of those people rather than just putting those concerns into the past. My colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman questioned the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson during the select committee estimates process. Of note during that process where spending on mental illness was scrutinised was the sense that although the Ministry of Health believes there have been improvements in the lot of those with mental illness there is actually scant evidence to support this belief and that certainly worried the National members on the Health Committee. 
Spending on mental illness has increased under Labour but as with other areas of the sector it is not enough just to spend more. The public of New Zealand deserves to know that when the Government increases spending there is a corresponding value for money. We in National believe that the mental health sector like other parts of the health sector is a victim of report mania or “report-itis”. When reports get in the way of delivery rather than facilitate improved delivery we then see that as a waste of taxpayers’ money. 
The Mental Health Commission needs to play an important role in monitoring results and providing an assessment of the Government’s role in mental health service provision. Adding to monetary accountability issues are the workforce issues the sector faces but these issues should not happen when some district health boards are underspending their ring-fenced mental health dollars. Meetings with mental health practitioners have shown me that workforce issues including large workloads and a lack of support from the Government should be a very high priority for this Labour-led Government. In my electorate Aoraki we have a district health board that has in the past underspent ring-fenced mental health funding. Much of the problem has been due to a lack of numbers in the workforce to provide that particular service to the local community. We have lacked the specialised people to fill those roles and in fact that is a nationwide problem. As we know the health sector workforce crisis is widespread and the South Canterbury District Health Board is like all other district health boards in that respect. In fact when we looked at the amount of underspent ring-fenced mental health money we found that more than $18 million remained unspent last year. 
The Mental Health Commission has the responsibility to act as an advocate for the interests of people with mental illness and their families generally but it also needs to take into account the interests of other stakeholders. The list of stakeholders in this bill includes the ministry district health boards mental heath service funders and providers those with mental illness their families and caregivers and also groups representing the interests of people with mental illness and their families and caregivers. Therefore a lot of masters are listed in this bill—an awful lot of masters—and I am sure that juggling so many masters gives rise to many tensions. That may be why the select committee heard some submissions that caused us some concern and that may be why some people were highly critical of the Mental Health Commission. 
One thing that has changed over the decades and needs to continue changing—and I will finish on this note—is the way that mental illness is viewed and discussed by the general public. These days mental illness is much less viewed as a taboo subject something that needs to be hidden away and a shameful thing to happen to oneself or one’s family members. More and more we see communities advocating for a fair go for those who suffer from mental illness. The Like Minds Like Mine campaign and John Kirwan’s attempts to destigmatise mental illness have been vital and they have made significant improvements for people who suffer discrimination because they suffer from a mental illness. 
In my electorate a constituent wrote a book about suffering from depression. It is entitled  
No One Gives You Chocolates 
. The author’s penname is Ellen Munro and I commend the book to those wishing to understand depression. This book is about depression and those who suffer from it and it was written by someone who has an absolute understanding of it. The thing about depression and about other illnesses that people need counselling for is that the people concerned do not actually fit the criteria for that ring-fenced money. Time and time again I hear community groups ask how they can access money for those people who need counselling. It is certainly a role for the Mental Health Commission to address the concerns of stigma discrimination and access to services for those people suffering mental illness and needing some counselling. Maybe it is time to look at the blueprint for funding parameters. 
This bill will address some concerns that have been raised and hopefully will continue the work successfully achieved by the Mental Health Commission and develop that work to achieve more. My colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman has indicated that during this Committee stage he will promote a change to the date on which the Act will expire so that instead of being 2015 it will be 3 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. We in National believe that just as that change to the date will give the Mental Health Commission an opportunity to address its effectiveness it will also give us a chance to reflect on that opportunity and put up an achievement standard for the commission to either achieve or not. It will be another chance for us to scrutinise the Mental Health Commission. 
I commend this bill to the Committee. I support the bill but I also note that some submitters had grave concerns and I urge the Mental Health Commission to address those concerns soon. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 In speaking to the title the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill I think we have made it clear that National sees a real role for the Mental Health Commission well into the future. We think there is a real need for the work it does and it performs that work very very well. I have to take issue though with what Ms Soper was saying—that the Government has got it right on mental health. Quite frankly that is not what members will hear if they talk to anyone who has a family member in care in the mental health system. There is a lot that needs to be done and to let Ms Soper know the reality of it I tell her that one cannot address the problems in the mental health system by just pouring more and more money into it and by issuing more and more reports and that is what has happened under this Government. 
What National members are saying with our amendment to extend the life of this commission for a further 3 years before it is reviewed is that we have to have accountable public spending. But of course that has gone very much out of fashion under this Government. I will give members an example of what is happening in mental health. I have asked every district health board to send me a list of the organisations to which they are contracting out mental health services and to tell us how many clients each service is treating. They can give me a list of the providers but none of them can tell me how many clients each provider is actually seeing. These district health boards are paying out millions and millions of dollars of public money to mental health providers yet they do not have a clue what they are getting for that. They do not know. They could be seeing zero people but the district health boards are still paying the bill. That is the problem with what has happened under this Government—there is no accountability. 
Tariana Turia 
: That’s not true. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well it is true because I have asked for it under the Official Information Act. They have sent me a list of providers but they cannot tell how many clients they are seeing. The district health boards do not know. I hope that someone at the Ministry of Health knows because that is hopeless. Lesley Soper says that this Government has got it right in relation to mental health but I think it has a heck of a long way to go. The reality is as I said at the start there are many groups in society—Maori Pacific Islanders young people people in need of specialist services like eating disorder clinics and older people—who are not getting access to services. The Ministry of Health itself states that in its annual report—people are not getting access to the services they need. Yet the Government has increased the spending on mental health by 75 percent to $1 billion a year. 
One would expect that for $1 billion a year we would get some sort of improvement in the level of services and we would expect it to be pretty substantial. But Labour has not delivered in this area. When Labour members came into office they thought they could socialise everything. They thought they could pour money into everything. They have ramped up public spending on health but they forgot to measure the outcomes properly. When we ask the really hard questions on this we can see that the outcomes are just not there. Lesley Soper comes in here and says that Labour has it right on mental health but we need only to go out and ask the families and the people in the system what is happening to be told that they feel badly let down by what this Government has done in mental health. But having said that National is very keen to see the Mental Health Commission continue because we reckon that the Government needs a real eye kept on it in mental health. We want the commission to keep on the Minister’s back and to make sure the Minister delivers on some of his promises in mental health—that the Government is providing services and giving good value for the taxpayer spending that is going on. I can tell members that the spending has been profligate. 
So there we have it. National will support this bill. We want to see a review 3 years from the date of the granting of the Royal assent but if the commission is doing its job there is no reason its life will not be extended. But it is the old story—what gets measured gets done. It is far too long a time to extend the life of this commission to 2015 without any public accountability. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper No 133 relating to that bill and for the Committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
 The adoption of this motion would suspend Standing Order 261 to allow the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to be treated as an omnibus bill for consideration of amendments to the Building Act 2004. 
The Building Act 2004 establishes an accreditation registration scheme for building consent authorities. The scheme will strengthen New Zealand’s building control system by helping to improve the decision-making processes at the critical building consent inspection and approval stages of the building process. The aim is to ensure that the building consent authorities have the resources and the systems in place to deliver high-quality building consents in a timely manner. 
Under the Building Act 2004 territorial and regional councils have until 30 November 2007 either to become accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand and registered by the Department of Building and Housing as building consent authorities or to transfer their building consent functions to an accredited and registered building consent authority for example a neighbouring council to perform. 
The Department of Building and Housing in partnership with Local Government New Zealand is providing guidance to councils and actively working through case advisers assigned to each council to support those councils. The Government has provided a $3 million accreditation assistance package to help councils prepare for accreditation and registration or to transfer their building consent functions. So far around $1.9 million has been committed to assisting 61 local authorities and the remainder is available to local authorities as they require. 
Discussions have been held with mayors councillors and chief executives across the sector to highlight what they can do to lead their organisations to successful accreditation. This approach seeks to minimise the likelihood of any council failing to achieve accreditation but they must still meet the higher standards set by the Government in order to protect prospective house purchasers and builders. 
It is clear that councils have a strong commitment to achieving accreditation by November or making alternative arrangements. Local Government New Zealand is also providing strong leadership in this sector. I am advised that as of today 72 out of the 73 territorial authorities have so far applied to become accredited and one—the Palmerston North City Council—has achieved accreditation. Nine regional councils are arranging to transfer their building consent functions to a registered building consent authority and the remaining three are preparing to apply for accreditation. It is expected that all 85 territorial and regional authorities will have applied for be in the process of achieving or have achieved accreditation by 30 November 2007 or be in the process of transferring their building consent functions. Although the vast majority of local authorities are on target for meeting the original deadline— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion before the House is a very serious motion. It is to suspend the Standing Orders of the House. It is not a debate about the substance of the amendment we will debate if the motion is passed. The role of the Minister is to explain to the House why we should suspend the rules under which this House operates not to give a long and lengthy explanation as to the policy. I simply ask you Mr Deputy Speaker given the seriousness of a Government using its majority in the House to throw out the Standing Orders that normally apply to bills that the Minister is asked to justify why we have to suspend the Standing Orders for the Government to be able to advance its business. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for bringing that to the House’s attention. You are quite correct. The notice of motion is clearly set out on the Order Paper. Debate or reasons or any discussion should be confined to that motion. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In order to address that in its widest sense we believe as I have said that the vast majority of councils will by the given date be in the process of meeting accreditation or may well be accredited or will be in the process of transferring as I have said—and the member may want to take note—their building functions to other councils. However although the vast majority of local authorities are on target to meeting those original deadlines some councils particularly small rural councils with capacity and capability limitations may not complete accreditation or transfer their functions to a registered building consent authority on time. 
Making the leap to the higher standards the Government has set for building consent inspection and approval so as to protect homeowners is a stretch for some. A few councils simply need more time to come up to speed and make the necessary changes and the Government makes no criticism of those councils. By extending the registration date there is a consequential amendment to the Building Act that will also allow more time for territorial authorities to transfer to regional councils the responsibility for issuing building consents for new dams built in their areas. A fail-safe provision allows for the extended deadline to be extended by regulation rather than by coming back to the House in the unlikely event that that may be necessary. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I come back to my original point of order. As you have rightly ruled this is a debate about why the House should suspend its Standing Orders and although the Minister has again given us a long diatribe around what the issues in the bill are he has not even attempted to address the debate which is about why Parliament should not follow its normal rules around changing the law. Mr Deputy Speaker I think you do need to bring the Minister into line to the point of the debate which is about why Parliament should not follow its normal process for a bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for again raising that. I will not repeat what I said before but it is necessary for the Minister to do exactly that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Although I do not challenge the ruling at all—and I am almost concluding the speech as it were—it is I think helpful to the House to provide a little background to answer that question. The two are rather interlinked I would have thought. But I am not challenging the ruling. I take it on board. There is no problem with that. Therefore I propose that the House consider a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Building Act by extending the date by which territorial and regional authorities have to be accredited and registered as building consent authorities from 30 November 2007 to 30 June 2008. Extending the registration date by 7 months does not alter the accreditation process or affect its credibility or integrity by lowering accreditation standards which again are designed to protect homeowners. It simply reflects that councils are committed and working hard towards achieving accreditation or transferring the building consent functions but that some are unlikely to be able to achieve that by 30 November. 
Allowing councils an additional 7 months will ensure certainty continuity and confidence for the building consent activity the building industry and the people who are building and renovating. It is a prudent measure to provide certainty swiftly some months before the deadline occurs and that is why this has been done. It is logical and efficient to use as a vehicle a current piece of legislation before the House. Of course one could argue that we could use the Building Amendment Bill which was debated just yesterday. However we in the Government feel that that is a large piece of legislation that deserves quite a degree of scrutiny and I am sure even Dr Smith would accept that. 
It is important now some 4-odd months before the deadline to provide certainty to the building industry to local authorities and to the community that this will be set in place and expedited. What we are talking about here is the movement of a date to allow more time. The alternative of course could be to not do that and to create havoc. That may be the motivation of the Opposition; it is not the motivation of the Government. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion we have before the House is to suspend the Standing Orders—the process by which we introduce a bill have a first reading a second reading and a third reading. It is an incredibly important process for ensuring the scrutiny of legislation. What the Minister wants us to do is to throw out that normal process for scrutiny of a bill. Now I listened all the way through his speech and there was absolutely no justification at all in that speech or even an explanation as to why he should not have to follow the rules followed by any other member or Minister as to the suspension of the rules of the House of Representatives. I ask you to consider whether the Minster in giving a speech actually needs to explain why the Standing Orders of the House have to be suspended. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 First of all the member’s contribution is debatable. That should be the point he takes a call on—to debate whether the House should suspend this in order to do what the Minister has asked. I listened carefully to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. After he moved the motion he explained what he wanted to do at the conclusion of this debate if the House passes it and what he intends to do in the Committee stage when Government order of the day No. 3 is called. So we can now have a debate about whether we should do that and then get onto the substance. It seems to me quite straightforward. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank both members for their contributions. Towards the end of the Minister’s speech he did of course give some reasons—albeit not to the satisfaction of some but that is not relevant here. It is up to members of the House to decide whether he has convinced them that the course of action proposed in the motion should be taken. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Nowhere in that speech from the Minister Clayton Cosgrove did we hear justification for throwing out the rule book of Parliament for him to do his business and the reason is that there is no justification. What we have from the Minister is a mess—an absolute mess—in our building laws and now he wants to cheat on the rules of this Parliament to prevent the proper scrutiny of Government legislation. 
I just want to explain the scale of the botch-up we are talking about. In 2002—surprise surprise under urgency—in a mad rush the Government passed legislation to set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. It was a botch-up. It was a mess. In 2005 again under urgency and breaking the normal rules of the House we then came along and tried to patch it up. Then after botching it up a second time earlier this year the Government—again breaking the normal process—had to truncate the process and introduce a third bill to try to fix up the mistake on the fix-up that was a mistake on the fix-up. 
Now we have the Government saying it wants to throw out the normal process for advancing legislation. It wants to not have a first reading or a second reading but to simply introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the last stage of a bill—a bill that has already had its first reading its second reading and its select committee stage. It is on to its third reading and the Minister wants to slip in a Supplementary Order Paper. He says: “Trust us we’ve got it right.” Well I have to say to the Minister that he botched it the first time he botched it the second time and he botched it the third time so why on earth would this Parliament trust that he may have it right for a fourth time? 
I say that this is just so symptomatic of the absolute mess that we have in our building laws. Let us just remind ourselves of how serious this problem is. Since Labour has been the Government we have seen a decline of 1 percent for every year it has been in office in the level of homeownership in New Zealand. We now have the worst level of homeownership at any time in the last 50 years. In the preceding 5 years of census data homeownership levels were stable. They have gone backwards. 
 I have just received a letter today from one of my constituents who because of the economic and housing policies of this Government is being forced into a mortgagee sale of a home. I put this figure in the hands of the Minister and the Government: in 1999 a person with a house of average value with a 75 percent mortgage would have been paying $166 a week. But because of house prices going through the roof and high interest rates that rate has now gone up from $166 a week to $533 a week. The problems that we have in the Building Act are part of what causes this. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s that got to do with the motion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have heard Darren Hughes ask what that has to do with the Government. Well the Building Act mess is causing record increases in housing prices—a 20 percent increase. We have seen the Government—under the Building Act that it has now botched up and is trying to fix by breaking Parliament’s rules—treble the building levy. Well hello hello: if the building levy is trebled from $6 million a year to $18 million a year surprise surprise house prices will go up. 
This Parliament has not suspended its Standing Orders for more than 4 years. Members of this House— 
Lesley Soper 
: Calm down! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member—I cannot remember her name; she is the temporary member from down south somewhere—says that this is no big deal. It is a big deal. The Government is saying that it does not want to follow the rules that govern this Parliament and that it wants to cheat those rules. It is a bit like the Government’s electoral bill. It cannot win an election next year under the ordinary rules so it wants to cheat and change the rules to suit itself. The Minister Clayton Cosgrove cannot manage his building laws under the normal rules of Parliament so today he proposes to cheat and throw the rule book in the bin. On this side of the House we say that is not good enough. 
I have to challenge the Minister. His problem is that he put a stupid law in place that said building consent authorities needed to be accredited by 30 November. That is a long way away; that is 4 months away. Why can we not have a bill put in for its first reading and put through the proper process? I ask the Minister why we cannot do it properly. Why has he not simply introduced a bill rather than breaking the rules of this House? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The House determines the rules Nick. You should know that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that the Government just makes up the rules as it goes. That is what the Minister says. That is not quite what I thought Geoffrey Palmer was asking for when he wrote about unbridled power. This Minister says that if he does not like the rules of our House of Representatives he will just pass a majority motion to throw the rule book out. His botch-up does not come into effect until 30 November and there is ample time for him to introduce a bill and send it to a select committee. We members of this side of the House would properly scrutinise that bill and we might save him from another one of his botch-ups. 
The further point I have for the Minister is that Local Government New Zealand told me last November that councils would not be able to meet this deadline. The Minister has known this for months. There is no good reason to throw out the Standing Orders of this House—he has known of this problem for months. He knew of this problem even before the bill that we are attempting to amend was to come into effect. I say to the Minister that he should not expect this Parliament to change its rules to fix up his and his department’s botch-ups. It is not right. 
I further have to say to the Minister that this was a stupid policy in the first place. In 2004 the Government said that the way in which it would get better quality processes in building consent authorities was to threaten them with non-accreditation. What does that mean? It means that if a council is not accredited there can be no building consents issued in that area. That would be a disaster for any community. It was a stupid provision. The reminder I give the member is that one does not make threats to one’s children that one cannot carry out. Here the Government has broken that golden rule. It threatened councils and said that if they did not get accredited they would not be able to issue any building permits. But of course it cannot carry out that threat because of the damage it would do to the community. It would not punish the council; it would simply punish the people in that community who wanted to get a building consent. It was a stupid provision then it is a stupid provision now and the reason that the Minister wants the House to suspend its rules is that he has locked himself into this stupid corner. 
This is a true sign of a tired Government that is on the way out. When else would a Government want to throw the rules of Parliament to one side? This is not something that a Government does willy-nilly. A Government using a simple majority in the House to throw out our Standing Orders and the proper process for legislation is the sort of thing that Geoffrey Palmer wrote of in  
Unbridled Power 
. 
I challenge the members of minor parties. They justify their existence by saying they will keep the Government honest. We have not heard one argument from the Minister as to why we should suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I have outlined perfectly how the Minister can introduce a bill to the House and meet that deadline of 30 November. He simply wants to cheat. I say that a Government that wants to cheat on the rules of this House is a Government that has had its day. It has made an absolute botch-up of the building laws in New Zealand. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What’s that got to do with the motion? Come back to the motion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Fairbrother that this is the fourth bill that we have had to try to implement changes in the Building Act. The Government has had to continually defer the introduction of those provisions. New Zealand builders and Local Government New Zealand right across the board have had enough of this Minister and his Government botching up these building laws. I say to the House that this Parliament should not suspend its normal rules to bail out a Minister who is not on top of his portfolio and not doing his job. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This is the thing: usually when legislation is tabled in this Parliament we have a very robust debate in this House. Parties have the right to have their say and share their views within this Chamber and that is broadcast across this nation. People who take a tremendous interest in the topic at hand write in to their local MPs because they have heard it discussed through the media because of the robust debate in this House. These people contact their local member of Parliament—for example Nathan Guy in Otaki Jacqui Dean in Otago or myself in Whangarei. We give them the attention they deserve and bring their ideas back to Parliament. 
This all occurs because there is a first reading debate on the legislation. We then go to a select committee process where we hear from those same people. In this case we would hear from the building industry local district councils and all those ratepayers and taxpayers who are affected by housing—and that is every last one of them because every last New Zealander lives under a roof in New Zealand; although I would have to say with a growing underclass that is fast becoming not the case. Taxpayers the building industry and district councils would sit down at select committee and discuss the legislation. That is the second stage—there is a first reading then a select committee process. 
The legislation would then come back to this House for a second reading—another robust debate. It would then go though the Committee stage—a fourth stage—where we would debate clause by clause everything that is happening in the legislation and again I say that it affects every New Zealander in this country. Then we would have a third reading debate and if the law stood up to the scrutiny of the taxpayer the ratepayer and all members of Parliament that legislation would be passed. That is good process that has stood the test of time. 
The Minister is now asking this Parliament to ride roughshod over that five-stage consultative process. He is asking us to pass his legislation when no light has been shed on it at all from a public perspective and to pass it in this House over the course of a few days. There has been no select committee process. The public are unaware of it happening and that is bad law. 
How do we know it is bad law? The reason we know it is bad law is that this is not the first time this Minister has introduced building legislation to this House that needed to be corrected. This is not the second time that this Minister has brought building legislation to this House that needed to be corrected. This is not the third time that this Minister has brought legislation to the House that needed to be corrected. This is the fourth time. But what the Minister wants to do today is to run roughshod over the normal processes of Parliament where legislation receives plenty of scrutiny. He wants to ride roughshod over that and fast track this legislation. Why? It is because he does not want it to have the scrutiny of a select committee. He does not want district councils from all over the country coming to him and saying to him once again: “We do not need this legislation where we are regulated by central government. We do not need this legislation that means we have to be accredited to give building consents.” 
Why do district councils not need that? It is because district councils have been issuing building consents for decades. District councils have been issuing building consents for perhaps 50 years perhaps 100 years and they do not need accreditation because they have been doing it for so long—longer than the self-appointed Minister. But no he has decided that central government bureaucrats need to accredit district councils across this country to do something that they have been doing for 50 years—maybe 100 years. Jacqui Dean from Otago says that it is donkey’s years and is not that the truth. 
I agree with Nick Smith when he asks: “Where are the third parties in this Parliament the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party?”. Where are their good friends Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland? Where is their good buddy and old pal the MP for the Christchurch electorate of Wigram? Where is Jim Anderton when they are keeping this Government accountable? I cannot see them. I cannot comment on whether they are in the debating Chamber and in this House. I do not have my glasses on and I cannot see them. This Government is held up by six parties and the public should know that. This Government is a ragtag group of parliamentarians held together by six parties. Jim Anderton holds this Parliament together. Jim Anderton holds Labour together. Taito Phillip Field holds this Labour Government together. Gordon Copeland holds this Parliament together. When New Zealand First members have taken their No-Doz and they are awake in this Parliament and when Winston Peters is not overseas supping wine with his mates over there they are holding up this Labour Party in this Parliament. Of course the Green Party is also holding up the Labour Party in this Parliament. Such a ragtag group of six parties including Taito Phillip Field Gordon Copeland the Green Party New Zealand First when its members are awake Jim Anderton when he is not back in Wigram and the Labour Party is now ramming legislation through this Parliament without any scrutiny at all and National finds that absolutely appalling. 
We cannot believe that Clayton Cosgrove is so ashamed of what he has put on the legislative agenda that he will not let the bill go through a first reading a referral to a select committee a second reading a Committee stage and a third reading in this House. He is so ashamed of the job that he is doing as Minister for Building and Construction that he will not let the public have a say on this legislation. We are surprised at that. We thought that Clayton Cosgrove had a bit of courage. He is not bright but we thought he had a bit of courage. But no. He will force this bill through the Parliament today by suspending the Standing Orders. He will avoid the scrutiny of the public and of the Parliament. He will gather all his ragtag friends—Taito Phillip Field Gordon Copeland New Zealand First whose members I do note have had No-Doz and are awake and the Green Party—and he will force this motion through the Parliament. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is speaking but he has mentioned Gordon Copeland three times and I think there may have been a change that the House should be notified of. I understood that the proxy for Gordon Copeland was held by National. I assume from the member’s comments that that has now changed. I think we should be informed of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That certainly concerned procedural matters but only in that sense was it a point of order. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member should be aware that Gordon Copeland is supporting this Government on confidence and supply. I know that the member has no confidence from his party. I want him to know that this Labour Government is a ragtag group of individuals. We do not support the idea of running roughshod over New Zealand’s democracy. We will not be supporting this motion at all. We believe that legislation should have the full scrutiny of the public and Parliament. 
We are disappointed that this Minister in particular would rush it through because quite simply his track record of getting legislation right is not good. Nick Smith mentioned the number of times the member has tried to address the leaky homes crisis and failed—three times. Three strikes and one is out normally. We have no confidence in the Minister getting it right this time. We know that local councils are quite capable of issuing building consents. They have been doing it for decades. Why the Minister needs to accredit them is beyond us. It is not the councils that have been getting it wrong all this time. Perhaps we could ask that the Minister withdraw his motion. The National Party will certainly support him if he does put his tail between his legs and backs down on this strategy to avoid public scrutiny. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to remind the House again that we have a resolution from the Government to suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I noted that the Minister who moved the motion gave no justification for that. He did not address it. I now note that not a single member of the Government intends to speak on that resolution. This is an extremely serious and arrogant— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. The member is making an observation. There is no requirement on the Government or on any mover of a motion to give any justification. It is up to the House to decide whether it thinks there is merit in it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I accept that but the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House in a unicameral Parliament is a very serious resolution for the House to make. In my 17 years in this Parliament I find it unprecedented that a Government would not even give any justification for this Parliament to suspend those Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point is well raised and I thank the member for it. I cannot intervene on the observations you have made. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Unfortunately I do not have much time. We need to go and have our dinner because this Government would give us ulcers with what it does. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: It is quite good. We have been and settled the ulcers after listening to that bunch over there—we have had a bit of a feed. So that is good as I said before. 
In talking to this motion or whatever people like to call it—all these things get a bit tricky here—I tell members that I am sick of coming into this debating chamber and hearing amendment after amendment on various bills. I had great trouble this morning trying to sort out which amendment this is. Is it to sort out the foul-up in 2002 when the bill first came to this debating chamber is it to fix the amendment in 2005 or is it to fix the stuff-up in 2007 that we are still trying to sort out? Maybe it is this new-deal Government Notice of Motion No. 1 with regard to the weathertight homes legislation—heaven’s me timber! 
I believe that the latest suspension of the Standing Orders will be a sad reflection on the Labour Government. I will need to talk to my senior colleagues on what is happening here. I believe it is true that the Labour Government wants to override the rules of Parliament. This shows that the Government is arrogant and heavy-handed. A good example of the arrogance of this Labour Government was the smacking legislation. That for example was a form of home invasion with bullying tactics and arrogance. It is time the Minister got the bill and the amendments correct. 
The original bill came to this House before I came to Parliament. In fact I was quite young when I came to Parliament and when this bill first came here and the Minister still has not got it right. A TV programme could be made about this bill and its multiple amendments. The programme would be called “ 
Believe it or Not”. 
 It would be as simple as that. With this Government it could be an ongoing TV series. But thank goodness that series would run out in 2008 when this Labour Party leaves Government. 
The whole Building Act weathertight homes legislation amendments more amendments extra amendments motions and suspensions of the Standing Orders is a mess. I am a new MP and I do my best to keep up with all those bills multiple amendments the going outside of the Standing Orders and all that stuff. But I would ask the Minister to number his bills and his amendments in the future because I just cannot keep up. 
Darren Hughes 
: That won’t help the member—he cannot count. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Ha ha! I have to try to keep up to speed on which amendment is being altered and at what time. “Do it once do it right” does not mean much to this Minister. I ask him please to listen to Nick Smith and Bob Clarkson on how to fix these problems—they are great guys by the way and they know how to do it—it is quite clear that this public relations man Mr Cosgrove does not know how to fix the problems. 
The National Party will solve all these problems and will not go outside the Standing Orders to do it. The answer is “Look listen and learn.” The last time there was a suspension of the Standing Orders in England was in the 1800s. The Standing Orders were lifted to allow an amendment to the law in order to allow somebody’s head to be chopped off—the Minister is warned. 
Darren Hughes 
: You are misreading your notes. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Yes but trying hard—trying hard! 
To finish off I say that this Government is quite happy to move away from normal standards. I can remember its corrupt act for example of overspending by $800000 in the election and then changing the law to legalise itself. Labour Government members are now legalised crooks. The Government that moves away from the normal rules is a corrupt Government and is heading towards becoming a dictatorship. God forgive and help this country if that happens. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure for me on behalf of New Zealand First to stand in this debate and talk to this motion. Many of the previous speakers’ comments have been unrelated to the motion. I asked myself when we considered whether to support this motion what we are talking about. All we are talking about is a Supplementary Order Paper that is not bailing out the Minister but is about common sense and allowing this issue to be considered with an existing vehicle—that is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
If what a previous spokesperson from the National Party has said is true that our building laws are an absolute mess then is it not incumbent on members of this House to fix up the mess if in fact there is a mess? But there is no mess. This motion is not about a mess in the building industry; it is about providing certainty to local bodies to the building industry and more important to the general public. 
I am sure that National Party members would not want to see local bodies not become accredited in the time frame that has been set at the moment which is 30 November this year. It just seems to me it is practical that we give local bodies all the opportunity we can for them to be able to become accredited by extending the time frame from 30 November this year to 30 June next year. What is wrong with that? Nothing—that is dead right. It is for that reason New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. 
It will not be the last time irrespective of who is in Government when there will be a request to suspend the Standing Orders in this House. I am damned sure that the general public are listening to this debate—some of them from Auckland are still sitting on the motorways in the gridlock of that city. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Their cars will be boiling! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Of course but so will their temperatures be boiling. I would say to National members that although their comments suggest that they think they will be the next Government in 2008 whoever will be sitting on the Treasury benches will not be able to do so without the support of the caucus that I represent in this debate tonight. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. We understand the position the Minister is coming from. It is important that we initiate the intent of this motion as quickly as possible not only for the betterment of Parliament but also for those local bodies who may not be able to meet the present deadline to become accredited. This move is important not only to the building industry but also to the people of New Zealand. Again New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will make just a very short contribution to the debate to advise the House that we do not make mountains out of molehills. We will be supporting this motion. We think it is infinitely practical that we engage in this debate in order to make the changes that need to be made. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. The Maori Party will also be supporting the motion tonight as we also think it is important that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is resolved as quickly as possible. 
When the 6 o’clock bells ring on a Thursday night everybody is thinking about home sweet home. But for far too many New Zealanders their thoughts of home are anything but sweet. Although this bill addresses—rightfully—the need to ensure that remedies provided by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal include general damages for mental distress and anxiety the Maori Party has continued to raise the issues of the ongoing mental distress and anxiety occurring in too many homes in Northland East Coast and the Bay of Plenty homes where Maori whanau try to live the sweet life despite the building failures that they live in. 
 The Maori Party has with constant regularity profiled the low-quality workmanship that has seen too many homes in too many Maori communities end up rotten leaking and ripe for public health disasters. Worse still the question must be asked about building inspectors who work for councils. Who is it who approves the substandard workmanship? We have written to the Minister of Housing attended local meetings and talked frankly about the state of mould and damp in houses labelled as substandard. We have shared stories from the far north from Ruatahuna Morrinsville Waitahanui and Ruatoki and we will keep profiling these stories until we are heard as we are not a political party that refuses to face up to the challenge of conflict. We will always stand up proudly despite the numbers being against us to defend Maori rights and uphold Maori aspirations for the best interests of Aotearoa. Every family has the right to a warm home built of quality materials to a quality standard but sad to say many Maori homes fall very short of this requirement and no one takes responsibility—not the inspectors not the builders and not Housing New Zealand Corporation— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Or the Government. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: —and the Government. 
We have stood throughout this debate and supported the amendments to ensure that deficiencies caused through the penetration of water into a building and the associated damage or loss of value caused by these problems are properly dealt to. We have acknowledged how such amendments are necessary to give adjudicators and the tribunal the same abilities as courts of law to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. But we cannot stand up for the rights of those affected by the leaky home syndrome and turn a blind eye to the crisis of substandard housing or overcrowding that is collapsing around us. 
More and more New Zealanders are going home to caravans garages and low-quality boarding houses where health and well-being are compromised. The Child Poverty Action Group has identified the particular implications on children of overcrowding in South Auckland homes and it has pointed out that admission rates at Starship Children’s Health for readily preventable diseases—the diseases of poverty—are a national disgrace. There are national and international studies that show a high association between the prevalence of certain infectious diseases and crowded and substandard housing. We know that if our house is not weathertight our home is likely to be cold and damp resulting in poorer health status. 
There are also educational impacts. If people are jostling for space in an overcrowded substandard home the chances are that there will not be a place for a young person to study nor a warm safe environment to help that young person achieve. Who are the New Zealanders most at risk from the substandard and overcrowded houses syndrome? Well the  
Social Report 2006 
 makes it clear that 41 percent of those living in more severely crowded situations—that is requiring at least two or more bedrooms—are Pasifika families and 38 percent are Maori. A quick calculation makes that 79 percent of New Zealand families who are living in severely crowded situations and they are Maori and Pacific families. So is there one standard for all? I do not think so. 
So much has been said about violence this year and I remind the House of the great soul of India Mahatma Gandhi who believed that poverty is the worst form of violence. Is it not time to consider the housing crisis as another manifestation of the violence of poverty that impacts adversely on our children? Children are more likely to live in low-income households than any other group of New Zealanders. Children bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of substandard and overcrowded houses and because Maori and Pasifika children have a far higher likelihood of being in low-income families it is therefore those children who are faring worst from the housing fallout. 
The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is primarily forward-looking and the provisions of the bill will apply to claims currently lodged but yet to be determined. It is likely that the majority of those claims will be from middle-class families. In much the same way would it not be a great day in the House if we could be forward-looking in addressing the chasm of despair that currently sits between those who have and those who have not? Would it not be a great day when we could look forward to a time when caravan parks were not overflowing when Starship Children’s Health was seeing only children whose health was compromised by unpreventable conditions and when families were stable rather than constantly shifting to find a place to live? 
The Maori Party will support this bill at its third reading and we will also continue to speak out about housing affordability overcrowding and the substandard housing that our relatives our whanau our constituents and our people live in. No reira tena koutou. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The first thing that the House needs to take note of is what this Parliament is doing right now. I listened with interest to the very short comment from the Green member who said that the Greens are supporting the motion but did not give a reason. I listened then to the contribution from the Maori Party and the well-reasoned thoughts of why those members would support this motion. I have no argument with the comments that member made. But we need to take a step back and consider what this Parliament is doing. 
Tonight we are suspending the Standing Orders to correct a mistake that has been made by the Government and that is a rare event. When somebody seeks leave to undertake some step such as to make a personal explanation we suspend the Standing Orders and that is accepted as a right that we have as members. If we have made a mistake we can correct it personally and individually. Parliament gives leave to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the member to correct that mistake. There are occasions when a private bill a member’s bill or a local bill comes up and for some reason because it deals with a local issue Parliament might well consider suspending the Standing Orders. But for Parliament to suspend the Standing Orders because the Government has made an error of judgment is something that is a significant constitutional issue. 
We need to understand what we are doing here tonight. The last time that I can recall that we suspended the Standing Orders—and there may be others who have a better memory than me—was when I was the senior Government whip in I think about 1995. I allowed a vote to be taken— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We supported it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well no Labour did not actually. I allowed the vote to be taken and the vote could well have overturned the Government. I must confess that I was very embarrassed. The Prime Minister of the day Mr Bolger was to put it succinctly rather unhappy. At that stage we had to have—I cannot remember now; I think it was—75 percent of the House represented to vote to overturn the decision that had been taken. The Standing Orders now say that we need to have half of the Parliament or 60 which is less than half in support of a motion to overturn the Standing Orders. 
I want the House to understand—and I want the member from New Zealand First to understand as I do not think he has even considered this—the constitutional issue we are dealing with here tonight. I am not sure that I have heard any comment about this and certainly not from the Greens. That surprises me because the member who spoke is one who does take this place very seriously and for whom I have a great deal of respect. Certainly the member from the Maori Party who spoke and gave good reasons for that party’s support of the motion did not talk about constitutional issues. 
This Parliament needs to be worried about the fact that we are here tonight correcting something that we have to actually suspend the Standing Orders to do because the Government has made a mistake. 
Bob Clarkson 
: It’s damn naughty. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it is worse than damn naughty; it is actually constitutionally seriously important. Members of this Parliament and the public of this nation need to understand that tonight we are making a law change outside of our ability to do so only because we give ourselves the power and we do that by suspending our Standing Orders—which have stood us in good stead for years and years—so that the Government can have its way. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it brings to notice the fact that—and this is the point I want to make—this Government here again is doing things that one would not expect a good Government to do— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Under normal circumstances. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —under normal circumstances. I stress to those parties that have said they will support this step that suspending the Standing Orders is not something we do just to help a Government out; it is something we do because there is a crisis. It is something we do because the country is in difficulty because we are threatened or because the country may well not be able to operate unless Parliament takes this decision. But we are not passing this motion tonight for any of those reasons; we are doing it because the Government of the day has made yet another mistake. 
Quite honestly the debate we are having now is a far more serious one than this Government gives it credit for and I want to stress that. It is seriously important. This is about our constitution. This is about our nation. This is actually about the fact that we are going to change a law and override everything we are formed on because the Government decided it wants to fix something that it mucked up in the first place. That is the first and most serious point. 
I want to make my second point. Let us have a look at what the Government is trying to correct: the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Last night I spoke on another bill that Minister Cosgrove had brought in the Building Amendment Bill. In fact this bill is to become part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill—this is one thing we are suspending the Standing Orders to do. I want to say to the Minister what I said last night because tonight he is present. I say to him that he should be absolutely ashamed that we are debating this matter at all. I say to Minister Cosgrove that it is an absolute disgrace that we are here debating this issue. You have been told on many occasions— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister has been told on many occasions—and I have been one of those who have told him this—that local government would not be able to meet the deadline the Minister imposed on it. He has been told that by local government by the building industry and by the institute of building officers. This Minister has been advised by anybody and everybody that it would not be possible for local authorities to meet the date that he and his Department of Building and Housing set. But what did he do? He blindly went on irrespective of advice. He did not care; he did not worry. He did not worry about the cost the stress and the problems that he put on local government and the building industry. This Minister who has failed them in every other way has failed yet again. 
It is an absolute disgrace that we are here tonight on this matter. This Minister has been hopeless and useless. Quite honestly I stand by that statement entirely. This Minister is a complete failure. He talks about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services. He needs to understand that more leaky homes are being built in this country right now than ever. His Department of Building and Housing quite honestly is failing him completely. This Minister is failing his Government. This Government is failing this country and we are here tonight debating a constitutional resolution because this Government has failed the people of this nation. 
I want the nation the people who are listening and this Parliament to understand that we are debating this tonight because this Minister and his department have completely let down the building industry and the people of this country. They will be brought to account in time. This whole issue will become known. It is already well known. Parliament should think about this and the parties that are looking to support this resolution should think about what they are doing. It is not just an issue about passing a motion; it is actually an issue about us changing our whole constitution because we are changing the Standing Orders. That is something that we should not do lightly; we should not do it unless there is an absolute crisis. This is not a crisis. Thank you. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Labour Party is at it again. Here it is wanting to suspend the 402 Standing Orders in the book. We have just heard from my learned colleague John Carter about how important the document I am holding in my hand is and here we have the Labour Party trying to bend the rules and break them. It cannot win so it looks to do something to get around its own problems. 
I believe that this matter is one of the biggest blunders we have seen in the last 4 years. The Standing Orders have not been suspended since 2003. Here we have the Labour Party which because it cannot win tries to bend the rules. This matter should be opened right up to the select committee process. The public should have a right to have a say in this. It should go through the due process and have a first and second reading. It should go to a select committee where the public is allowed in to have its say because there are some contentious things in this bill and I want to talk about those tonight. 
This whole leaky homes thing is an absolute mess is it not? When we look back to 2002 when the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act came into force to provide homeowners with a speedier more flexible cost-effective alternative to courts we see that only 60 percent of cases have been solved since that time. We have to ask about what has actually happened. The Labour Government here this evening is a Government that if it cannot fix something wants to put a bolt on it. It wants to glue it together to put an Ajax bolt through it or to use araldite glue to glue something else on. Quite simply this measure should be going through the whole due process. 
I think it is a bit of a shame—a big shame actually—that the Standing Orders are having to be suspended this evening. We should look at the whole Building Act and think about the building inspectors. Local government is saying that it has had a gutsful; that it has had enough of the legislation that is being passed in this Parliament that affects ratepayers and council staff. The building inspectors get a document and they just get au fait with it running off to a seminar a conference or another course and then there is another change in Parliament and they have to go through that whole process again and attend another seminar and another conference to get up to speed on that change. Then there is another change. So now we are seeing the third attempt and it is because of this sloppy Minister. I have heard him say publicly that this is all about sorting out the shonky builders in the industry. Well we have here this evening a real shonky Minister who cannot sort out something that is fundamentally pretty basic. 
One of the big things that the Minister glossed over this evening—and I welcome his taking a call on this; I welcome his taking a call on the dams being shifted from the local councils to the regional councils— 
Darren Hughes 
: You didn’t listen. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I was listening actually. Fundamentally this is a key thing. The public should have a right to have its say whether the matter is about a dam on a farm for drinking water whether it is about an irrigation dam whether it is about a recreation dam or whether it is about a hydro dam. Labour wants to slip this through yet the public does not have its chance through the select committee process to have its say. The Minister glossed over that very significant point very very lightly. 
The big thing that is holding up this whole process is the fact that this Government will not address the Resource Management Act and give it any sort of reform. We have some very good proposals which were outlined by Nick Smith at the National Party conference in the weekend. They would allow for direct referrals to the Environment Court and not allow vexatious and frivolous objections— 
Bob Clarkson 
: All good stuff. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—all good things—while still adhering to the principles of the Act. 
The pendulum has swung far too far and that is why this whole process is cumbersome. It looks messy for the Minister when he cannot sort out a very very simple process and has to keep coming back to the House to get this sorted out by means of collapsing the Standing Orders. In summary the 85 territorial local authorities—which the Minister did not believe would be up to speed by November so has extended the period out to June—all say they are not taking any more of this stuff. They have had an absolute gutsful of this sort of legislation being passed in the House. The provincial councils out there have to pick up the pieces. In my area of Horowhenua and Kapiti about 700 homes are built a year and our building inspectors are bogged down by the whole bureaucratic process. Tonight the Minister is asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders for the first time in 4 years—all 402 of them—to fix up a shonky deal that has been done. This issue should be going through due process. That is why National has some real concerns and will be voting against the motion. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper No 133 relating to that bill and for the Committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
Recommittal 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 133 and dividing the bill 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. The Committee’s consideration therefore is confined to those provisions. The debate on Part 1 is confined to consequential amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Part 2 is not amended. New Part 3 is debatable in its entirety and clause 3 is a separate question. 
Part 1 General provisions  
(recommitted) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to remind the Committee of the debacle that is involved in this legislation. What we have historically is that in 2002 in a mad rush in a Supplementary Order Paper that was tagged on to another bill we passed and set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was such a botch-up that the Government needed to come along in 2005 with another bill in the name of the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to fix up that botch-up. Then earlier this year we discovered a botch-up in the fix-up of the botch-up from the botch-up! 
So a new bill was introduced and that bill was taken through its first and second readings its select committee consideration and all the way through the Committee stage. Now we have this extraordinary spectacle from the Government whereby we have done something that is done within Parliament only on very rare occasions—we have suspended the Standing Orders and we have recommitted the bill to the Committee stage for the consideration of this Supplementary Order Paper. 
I have a question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister introduced the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service under a Supplementary Order Paper and it was a botch-up. He then introduced a bill to the House to fix up that botch-up and it was a botch-up. He then introduced amendments this year to fix up that third series of botch-ups. Are we now to trust that these amendments which were tabled in the House only today have got it right? 
Well I have to tell the Minister that we are once bitten twice bitten three times bitten and we do not believe him. He cannot botch up the law as many times as that and ride roughshod over the legislative process. There is no good reason why the amendments contained in this Supplementary Order Paper 133 should not be referred to a select committee. In debating Part 1 of this bill I would ask the Minister how many mistakes we should tolerate. 
Let us just remind ourselves of the legislation we are dealing with. We are dealing with legislation governing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. This organisation was set up in 2002 to resolve the problem of leaky homes. Despite our spending $85 million—$85 million—we have resolved after 5 years only 16 percent of the cases. It has been a failure because 85 percent of those homeowners out there who are waiting for justice and for some resolution of the problem of their leaky homes are still waiting. They are waiting because this Government has cocked up time after time after time with this legislation. 
In this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill we have a provision to provide for general damages. The interesting part is this. At the select committee stage in 2005 submitters said that the law was not clear and that we needed to make it explicit that we would provide for general damages. What did the Minister and the Government say? They said that they had the law all right and that they needed to ignore that public submission. As a consequence they have got it wrong and that is the reason for the bill. 
I have to say that in my 17 years as a member of Parliament— 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s too long. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a lot longer than the temporary member for Otaki will be here but I cannot remember in my 17 years in this House any area of legislation that has had so many botch-ups. Let me remind members. There was a botch-up in 2002 and a botch-up in 2005 that were to be fixed with this bill in 2007 and at the very last moment we are having to—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member opposite—I cannot remember her name she is such a non-event— 
Hon Member 
: Moron. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Moron—is that her name? The moron member opposite interjects. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would just remind members that this bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. That is what the debate is for: to consider the amendments. That is where the debate is. It is a narrow debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have a very unusual spectacle. It is something that occurs very rarely—that is a motion passed by the majority of this Parliament to overrule the Standing Orders. The Government itself has mismanaged the legislative process that has resulted in this bill having to go back to the Committee stage. I would be very concerned Mr Chairperson if you were to now curtail the contributions from members of the Opposition after the legislative debacle that we have seen and the motion that has involved the suspending of the Standing Orders. 
The Government has referred this bill back for recommittal. It is doing that to get around the process of having to introduce a new bill and in my view it would be quite an abuse of Parliament for you to now restrict members’ contributions. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate every single part of Part 1 because that is what they are required to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would just say to the member that it is my understanding that the bill has been debated previously. As set down on the schedule of proposed questions it is stated specifically that the bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I too am guided by the Standing Orders of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Members are able to debate Part 3 which is on the amendments that have been introduced by the Minister. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate Part 1 under the recommittal motion as per the proper process because they will again have a vote on Part 1. Members will vote again on Part 2 and they will also vote again on Part 3. So as a consequence of the Government’s own sneaky decision to get around the Standing Orders members are required to debate Part 1 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have listened very carefully to what the member has said. The difficulty I have as the Chair is that I am governed by the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. It is also shown deliberately here on the schedule of proposed questions that we can consider only the amendments. I will be lenient with my interpretation of that but I do not want members to go too wide outside the amendments that have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you clarify for the House Mr Chairperson that we are debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and that it would not be within the Standing Orders to debate Part 3 in the course of debating Part 1? It seems that your rulings are somewhat contradictory Mr Chairperson. On the one hand Mr Chairperson you are saying that as a consequence of the motion from the House members can debate only those matters that arise from the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and on the other hand you stated at the beginning of the debate that members were to debate Part 1. It will be either one or the other because there is nothing in Part 1 that includes Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is using the point of order process to conduct a debate in part. In response to his main issue which seems to be what the Committee can debate the House has been put into Committee on the motion of the Minister which was that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. That is the motion the House voted on to come into Committee. It is very clear what the House wanted us to debate. It is what is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I do not see how the—[ 
Interruption 
] I am being interjected on during a point of order. But it seems to me that is quite tight. The Supplementary Order Paper had been sitting on the Table of the House before the House went into Committee which is standard with Supplementary Order Papers in the Minister’s name. So I think members should proceed with the debate as was intended by the motion that they voted on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I would just say that the motion that the House agreed to was specifically that the bill be recommitted for the purposes of considering the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate Mr Chairperson you said that members were debating Part 1. I ask whether members are debating Part 1 or debating Part 3 which would include the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Mr Chairperson you said very distinctly at the beginning of the Committee stage that members were debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are debating Part 1 and I have it in front of me. I am of the understanding that it is both clauses 4 and 5. The member will have a sheet like this one where it is listed. This is what we are debating—this part here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it part 1 of the Supplementary Order Paper or Part 1 of the bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under the heading “Heading to Part 1” it states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” We are starting from there and we go down to where it states: “Subclause (5): to omit ‘this Act’ … ‘Part 2’.” We are debating that part. That is as I understand it the situation. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To add to what my colleague Nick Smith has said the fact is that this is what happens when the Government ends up suspending the Standing Orders in order to interfere with the constitution of this country and the Standing Orders. Now members find themselves in difficulty. 
If members look at Supplementary Order Paper 133 it states under the heading “Clause 3”: “To omit this clause (lines 1 to 3 on page 2).” Then it states under the heading “Heading to Part 1”: “To omit ‘General provisions’ …”—you have just referred to them Mr Chairperson—‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” The fact is that one cannot make an alteration to Part 1 without debating it. Members have the right to debate Part 1 as my colleague Nick Smith just did. The fact is that this is referring to Part 1. 
I would just draw it to the attention of the Committee and in particular to you Mr Chairperson that my colleague Nick Smith is absolutely right. When we say we are to change the heading to Part 1 that means it allows us to talk about the heading. When we start talking about the heading we cannot of course talk just about the heading without advising the Committee of the whole House so it can make decisions around what is behind the heading. 
My colleague Nick Smith was absolutely correct in setting out what was intended in Part 1 so that members could make sure they had the correct heading so that as a consequence they could decide whether they were debating the right form of words under Part 1. It states that very clearly right at the very beginning. Nick Smith is absolutely right and I support him entirely. 
Members should be able to debate Part 1 and the words and the intent behind them because that is what Supplementary Order Paper 133 states. It is set out very clearly. People like myself and Nick Smith who have been around for a long time understand these things. Members are entitled to debate Part 1. That is absolutely obvious. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Putting the hyperbole about the constitution of the country aside when Mr Carter refers to clause 3 at the beginning of the Supplementary Order Paper that is actually a separate question—that will be the third question members debate. The first question members are debating is under the heading “Heading to Part 1” where we have new clauses 3A 4 and 5. That is the limit of the debate as it affects Part 1. It is not a general free-for-all across Part 1. Dr Smith shakes his head but that is what the motion putting the House into Committee states. It is so that members can debate Part 1 as it is affected by these clauses here but it is not a free-for-all across all of Part 1. Although the two members giggle away there that seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of what the motion was from the House. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Perhaps members have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. I think the point my colleague Dr Smith is making is that if members accept what my colleague Darren Hughes has proposed and debate the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper before them then following those amendments they will vote on a new Part 1 as amended so surely that gives them the right to debate Part 1 in full. The Minister may want to make some amendments but this Committee still has to pass Part 1 with those amendments. So it surely has the right to debate Part 1 including the amendments that are being made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise members that the question before the Committee is that Part 1 stand part. However the debate is limited to the consideration of the amendments proposed to Part 1. I am prepared to listen to the debate and consider it as it progresses and if I think members are going too wide then I will use the motion. [ 
Interruption 
] We have decided I say to Mr Carter. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Can I just get clarification so that I can understand if I make a contribution whether I am within the scope of your ruling. My understanding was that the motion was to allow members to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133. I understand that is correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister’s amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Right—and that allows members to debate it. Therefore if we look under “Heading to Part 1” we see it states: “To omit ‘General Provisions’ …”. The heading refers to that. It states that very clearly in the Supplementary Order Paper I have before me unless there has been an alteration—in which case members are entitled to debate the heading to Part 1 and the amendment omitting “General provisions” and substituting “Purpose and application of Part 2”. That then allows members to make contributions to that amendment. 
As I said earlier members cannot debate the heading without debating the intent and if they are debating the intent then they are allowed to debate what the intent means. Therefore it gives them the ability to have a debate on the provisions of Part 1. So although I understand that you will listen carefully Mr Chairperson I would just say that you need to give members guidance as to what that actually means because some members would interpret that as meaning they are able to cross over to the intent of the bill and to its provisions and the purposes because that is stated in the Standing Orders. That was in the motion passed by the House—which we opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. In consideration of what the member has said the debate will be taken in so far as the points are relevant to the debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak about Part 1 and about the clauses in the Supplementary Order Paper that obviously affect Part 1 and that change the meaning and interpretation of that part as we originally debated it I believe the week before last. One of the difficulties we have of course in having confidence in these particular clauses and in the Supplementary Order Paper affecting Part 1 is that they have not gone through the normal select committee process whereby we can consider them in depth. For instance in Supplementary Order Paper 133 under “Heading to Part 1” the amendment states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” It seems to us that that change gives more emphasis to the purpose and the application of Part 2. Yet when we said originally that we would support this bill and particularly Part 1 our concern was for the fact that general damages could be claimed by those people seeking out the service of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
It is no surprise to us that New Zealanders across this country many of them vulnerable and many of them elderly are having to deal with all sorts of stresses costs and burdens as their houses continue to leak and rot while this Minister bowls up year after year to make amendments to the original legislation which first came into the House in 2002. That legislation was ill-considered so legislation had to be brought into this House again in 2006. That too was ill-considered so legislation has had to come into this House again this year at this time to fix the leaky homes problem. Again the legislation is ill-considered and we find ourselves with a Supplementary Order Paper presented to us at the eleventh hour to somehow fix Part 1 which we are considering here tonight. 
So it is no surprise to us that many New Zealanders across the country often elderly and often vulnerable who are sitting in leaky and rotting homes right now and who are filled with stress and concern will go straight to these new provisions in Part 1. They will walk off to court with them under their arms and they will now be able to bring an eligible claim under clause 4(a): “… for general damages (for example for relevant mental distress) or for any other remedy that could be claimed in a court of law in relation to or for consequences of all or any of specified damage deficiencies loss of value and penetration of water;”. 
But it is that focus on “general damages”—for example “relevant mental distress”—that is of most concern to us in the National Party. We would have liked to see the leaky homes issues resolved very shortly after the problems were first discovered which was early in 2000-2001. Here we are in 2007 under this Labour Government still trying to pass legislation that will alleviate the stress of those New Zealanders who are now sitting in rotting homes those New Zealanders who demand their day in court and those elderly and vulnerable New Zealanders in particular who do not have years of earning power ahead of them to resolve their own leaky home crisis. 
 That is why I bring the focus of this particular chairperson and the Labour Party on to the purpose of this legislation and the provision in the legislation that people can now claim for “relevant mental distress”. I can tell the Committee that there is a fair bit of mental stress going on in this country because of this leaky homes crisis—stress that is no less so because it has taken 7 years for this Government to resolve this crisis through legislation. It is also quite appalling to me that this legislation would try to bring district councils to account when they too are in the dark as to what direction they are getting from central government. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this debate and to draw to the attention of the Committee and the public the fact that this provision if passed will actually omit the general provisions of Part 1 which I understand is the intent of the Minister. I assume that is his intent—he is not nodding one way or another—but given his history we hope that he knows what he is doing this time although we cannot be assured of that. The bill certainly states that it is his intention to omit the general provisions. 
I listened to the contributions from my colleagues Nick Smith and Phil Heatley and the emphasis on the issue of stress under the general provisions which will be taken out if this proposal is passed tonight. I say to those members of the smaller parties who may well support this proposal—we do not know yet; they have not indicated—that it is seriously important for this House and the public of this nation to understand that up until now we have talked about the leaky home syndrome that we currently know about. There were about 3200 registered the last time I looked although there may be more now of which about 2700 are in Auckland. It was—it was; I want to stress that—predominantly an Auckland problem up until this point in time. 
The problem is that under this Minister this Helen Clark - led Labour Government and this Department of Building and Housing we will find—given that the Government is looking to delete the general provisions that include the clause relating to stress—that there are more stressed people in this country than we ever understood. It is for this reason: this Government and this Department of Building and Housing are letting materials come into this country and be put into houses that will cause more leaky homes than we will ever begin to understand. The House needs to know that. I want put on record the fact that the National Party at least understands that we are building leaky homes today. We are building leaky homes right now in this country in volumes that have hitherto been unknown. It will take another 5 10 or 15 years before the regime developed by this Minister and this Helen Clark - led Labour Government is exposed. The Government and the Department of Building and Housing have been so irresponsible that they are letting faulty materials come into this country and be put into homes today. 
What we are doing tonight is taking away the ability of people to express a view to express a concern and to have the stress caused as a consequence of that noted. I say to the Minister Clayton Cosgrove that I cannot understand why he wants to do this. I cannot understand why the officers in his department are allowing this to happen. 
Surely the Minister’s officers are competent enough to know that houses being built today will cause stress. Surely they are competent enough to know that the houses being built today will end up being leaky. Surely they know that the materials being put into houses today are faulty. Yet this Minister the Government he is part of and the department he represents are asking this House to pass this legislation so that people cannot express a view. I say to my colleagues—and I know they understand this—that if this bill is passed it will cause more unnecessary concern emotion and stress than ever. I say to the Minister that surely he understands that he is causing problems in this nation right now. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I would like to take just a quick call on Part 1. I understand that we are confined to Supplementary Order Paper 133 but when we look at what those omissions are about they are about enabling the original bill debated in the Committee stage 2 weeks ago to be changed and divided into two bills. One bill will continue to be the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and do all the things we find in clause 4 in relation to general damages and aiding the process of resolving leaky homes. The second which we will be debating in Part 3 is because in the mess that comes before this House there is another set of amendments to another whole bill that is completely outside the scope of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
So in debating this very tight Supplementary Order Paper’s clauses and changes to Part 1 of the original bill it is almost like a Trojan Horse because it is the mechanism for allowing changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill to be entered into this Parliament and debated. That is offensive. I find that a perversion of the processes of this House. I say to the Minister that it was only 2 weeks ago that we were debating the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. If he had changes to make why were they not made then? 
The whole point of the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 is about allowing the Minister to make changes to a bill unrelated to the bill before the Committee to fix up a mess that the Minister has got himself into because he would not listen to local bodies. I find it amazing that we are in this position. 
I realise that we are under very tight restrictions in this debate and I look forward to the Minister taking an active part in dealing with Part 3 and explaining to the Committee how we got into this pickle. But I make the point again that the only reason we have these amendments to Part 1 is that the Minister has to cover up his incompetence by splitting the bill into two and perverting the whole parliamentary process to allow him to fix up his botch-ups. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I want to just remind the Committee of the history of the leaky home issue. If we go back to 2001 we will remember well when the issue was raised by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. The Prime Minister Helen Clark said she did not know what the  
Herald 
 was banging on about. There was a denial from the Government that this issue which affects thousands and thousands of New Zealand families was completely ignored by the Prime Minister. 
I have to commend my colleague Wayne Mapp who pursued the then Minister George Hawkins. Would members believe that we have had seven different Ministers in this portfolio area? It is sort of like a game of pass the parcel within the Government; I think we have had John Tamihere we have had Speaker Margaret Wilson we have had Mark Burton we have had George Hawkins of course and now we have Mr Clayton Cosgrove. 
My question to Mr Cosgrove relating to the bill is this. The Government has spent $85 million on the bureaucracy to deal with the leaky home problem. The average settlement for a homeowner has worked out at $70000. The cost per settlement for the taxpayer has worked out at over $120000. That $120000 has not been to fix the houses but to pay for the bureaucracy of the legal mechanisms in this very bill. Can the Minister not see that he has wasted millions of dollars of public money? How could any person with so much as an ounce of common sense defend what has taken place since the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was put in place in 2002? I find it indefensible that we would spend more money— 
Darren Hughes 
: Is that what you tell the judge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Darren Hughes pops his head up. I ask him whether he thinks it is a good system if it costs $120000 per settlement for the bureaucracy of the settlement process when the settlement for the homeowner is only $70000. 
Darren Hughes 
: Explain a better process then. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite is interesting. He asks me to explain a better process. Well I put this to him. Does he accept that the process in place is a dog? I think members on this side uniformly agree that it is a dog. 
It seems like common sense to us—as my colleague Bob Clarkson has argued up and down the country—to spend the money on fixing the homes not on the lawyers and the bureaucrats. So I ask whether this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill will spend the money on fixing the houses. No it will not. All it does is continue the mad system that has failed for 5 years. 
I simply ask the Minister in the chair to get to his feet as he is responsible for this huge vote.  
[Interruption] 
 Maybe the member moron opposite might explain. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Of all the members in this Chamber of all 121 members Nick Smith would have to be the last member who should accuse another member of the name he just used for one of my colleagues. It is unparliamentary and he should not do it—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Mr Henare should not interject on a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If a member takes objection to something that is said the member himself or herself should take objection. It not for another member to do so on behalf of someone else. The Committee has listened. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My simple challenge to the members of the Government is to answer this question: are we as a country getting value for money? I ask Mr Hughes whether we are getting value for money from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. No we are not—$85 million has been spent with only 15 percent of cases resolved and those cases cost more for the bureaucracy to resolve than what goes to the homeowner. That is clearly not fair. 
I further wish to ask why it is that the Government under urgency in 2002 rushed through the legislation establishing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service made a botch of it came along in 2005 with the Minster in the chair—in a rush again—and botched it up again and the third time around brought a third bill to the House to fix the botch-up yet we are no closer to fixing the plight of leaky home owners. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Laws should be made after careful studies to solve the problem; this is what the problem is. Debates should be had with people who understand the problem and can give good advice on how to rectify the problem. You should not make laws on the run. You should not wake up with a warm feeling after a long night. This bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chairman into the debate. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise. The Government is protecting itself through the courts by letting the Building Industry Authority off the hook and it has caused a lot of mental stress for thousands of homeowners. Now we have a Minister bringing a bill into the House that allows people to claim for mental stress. How strange is that? The Government causes the stress by not dealing with the situation and by protecting one of its departments the Building Industry Authority so it cannot be sued for damages. This in itself causes the stress. 
The bill is a waste of time. We can fix the mental stress by fixing the problem. In case the Minister has lost sight of the problem I tell him that it is that we have leaky homes that are taking too long to get fixed. We have people who cannot face a hearing in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—or the later versions of that service because that has changed now too—because they do not know anything about houses. That is what got the Government into problems in the first place. 
There is a major problem with people getting stressed; the problem being that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer to assist them. They have to take a lawyer along to the hearings at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service because the other side has top lawyers defending them. The Minister has the cheek to say that one does not need a lawyer to defend oneself in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearings but if there are lawyers on one side it is only fair that there are lawyers on the other side; otherwise one will get stressed. 
I say to the Minister that he should wake up and get in the real world. What is the use of spending more money on a lawyer to win a mental-strain case when there is a fair chance that the full payment on the case just won concerning a leaky home will not be paid? The lawyer’s account will be bigger but there will be no extra money for the homeowners. Take the Hartley case in Auckland. If they had been allowed to claim for mental stress and damages they would have won the case; the problem is that they would have ended up with a bigger legal bill and would not be paid any extra dollars. In that particular case their claim was for $270000. They won $90000 through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearing. The hearing was a failure—it put a lot of stress on them as it happens—so they went to the High Court and got another $90000 which made it a total of $180000. 
How could this new bill have helped them? Maybe they could have spent another $15000 on lawyers’ fees and been awarded another $20000 in compensation for stress. The bill would not help because the builder is hiding behind a company and has no money; he has offered $46000 in a full and final settlement. Therefore the Hartleys would have to pay their lawyer’s account which would be bigger and they would not get any extra dollars. So that makes the bill an ass actually. 
Would the Minister please get real get a decent policy sorted out and please think of the people involved and how they are getting ripped off. All the people I have met just want a deal in place that fixes their houses. They want their houses repaired and should not have to wait for years. The repairs should be done now. 
 I have got myself lost here; that is sad is it not? I will just finish off at any rate. I have tears in my eyes every time I hear the statement “with access to speedy flexible and cost-effective procedures” to fix these houses. What a joke! It will take 20 years to sort all these problems out. There will be a hell of a lot of stressed people around by then. They will not get any extra money. They will not get all the money on the first claim at any rate. We have to support this bill because some people might get some money. I will leave it at that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 3 Amendments to Building Act 2004 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We have experienced in Parliament tonight an incredible abuse of parliamentary process. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me explain to Mr Maharey exactly what that abuse is. The slimy members—as Bob Clarkson rightly describes them—from the Government do not seem to understand that we have rules in Parliament about how legislation is changed. 
I want just to summarise for the Committee the extent of the mess that we have. In 2002 Labour passed under urgency using a late Supplementary Order Paper the legislation that established the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was in 2002. In 2005 the Government said that it was a botch-up and we had to fix it. By truncating parliamentary process in 2005 it passed a new set of laws around leaky homes. Then the Government found out that the original fix that was botched up was botched up in the fix-up so another bill was introduced at the beginning of this year to fix up the fix-up on the fix-up. The bill that was to do the fix-up on the fix-up was introduced to the House went through its first reading was referred to a select committee had its second reading had its Committee stage and was on to its third reading when the Minister in the chair said: “Oops! I’ve got another botch-up and I’m going to override the rules of Parliament and make Parliament do the Committee stage again.” In this Committee stage he is introducing the amendments in this new Part 3. These amendments are bad process on top of bad process. 
Supplementary Order Paper 133 will become law on the same day that it has been introduced and the Minister did not even see fit to explain to the Committee what he is doing. So I will do it for him. His original law had a stupid provision in it. The stupid provision said that if a council was not accredited by 30 November this year as a building consent authority it would not be able to issue any building consents. 
Hon Bill English 
: What a stupid Minister! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Exactly! What a dumb provision. 
Hon Bill English 
: This is the rising star. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is the so-called rising star of the Labour Party. A really basic law of raising kids is that one should not make threats that one cannot carry out. The Government threatened councils by saying to them that if they did not get accredited by 30 November then the Government would stop them from being able to become accredited and they would not be able to issue building consents. 
The consequence of not issuing building consents would be horrific. It is not the council that would be punished; it would be the thousands of New Zealanders in that area who would not be able to process building consents. The real problem here is that the Government has been way behind in giving the support that councils have needed to become accredited so the Government wants to extend the date from 30 November. 
The Minister has completely failed to explain to Parliament why this bill could not have been referred to a select committee and gone through the normal process. Why go round the Standing Orders and do what Geoffrey Palmer would have called an absolute abuse of process? He refers to New Zealand as the fastest lawmaker in the West. We do not have a second Chamber. The amendments that the Minister has introduced today will be law by tonight. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why did he not have this Supplementary Order Paper go through the normal process? The issue addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper is not a problem until 30 November. Why is it necessary to override our Standing Orders and not go through proper process? 
The second question for the Minister is this: does he not accept that this is dumb policy? There is no other area in Government policy in which we approve councils to do stuff. For instance under the Resource Management Act if councils do not get their act together by a particular date do we take away from them the right to issue resource consents? No. What about the Health Act and the approval of restaurants and health authorities? Does the Health Act say that if the council is not accredited by a particular date it loses authority to issue permits and consents under that Act? Of course not. Well why should this be the case under the Building Act? The Minister is absolutely silent. He cannot answer that basic question. His Building Act was a flop. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: You can be silent and answer. It’s a non sequitur. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh good. Maybe Marian Hobbs might explain. We know that the Government wants to pass law to override the Electoral Act so that it might be able to cheat and win the next election. Why is it also trying to cheat on the normal parliamentary process— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Lack of logic on your part. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member might explain why we are suspending the Standing Orders of Parliament and introducing— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: We’ve done that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The interesting thing is that Mr Fairbrother says we have done it. The extraordinary part is that not one Government speaker has risen to his or her feet to justify overruling the Standing Orders. I would expect Mr Fairbrother a respected constitutional lawyer to think that if we are going to throw out Parliament’s rule book the onus is on the Government to justify why it is doing so. But this arrogant tired Government has not seen fit to do even that. 
We have a Government that botched its original law botched the leaky home fix-it botched the fix-up botched the fix-up of the fix-up and now expects Parliament to roll over on the latest error. Members on this side of the Chamber simply say that is not good enough. It is not good enough from Minister Clayton Cosgrove and it is not good enough from his departmental officials. What we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Has the member got the job yet as vice-chancellor of Massey University? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Not good enough as deputy leader. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member wants to distract. He cannot answer the question so he wants to get personal. I tell Mr Cosgrove to answer the question. Why do we have to suspend the rules of the House? This issue will not be a problem until 30 November. Why do we not send the Supplementary Order Paper through the proper process and not have the extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process of introducing law one day and passing it the same day—particularly given the Minister’s track record? Not once not twice not three times but five times in respect of building law we have rushed the process and subsequently had to introduce amendments to fix up those botch-ups. 
Quite simply members on this side of the Chamber have completely lost confidence in the Minister’s assurances that he has got it right. He cannot make over three pages of legal changes to the Building Act without having a proper process to refer them to the select committee. We actually ask the broader question as to whether the policy is right. We think it is nuts. It does not apply to the Health Act. It does not apply to the Resource Management Act. We think the very notion that councils will be unable to issue building consents is wrong. Rather than simply extending the period to 30 June we should ask the question as to whether the policy itself is sound. 
We further challenge the Minister to take some responsibility for the extraordinary costs that he has put on ratepayers through the accreditation process and through the extraordinary delays that it has caused. Councils have had to spend more time dealing with the demands of the Department of Building and Housing and dealing with the process of accreditation rather than processing building consents. This has meant that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had delays in the processing of their building consents. It is little wonder that building costs are going through the roof. It is little wonder that homeownership is falling through the floorboards. It is these sorts of botch-ups in the area of building regulation that the Minister should have got right so that New Zealanders did not need to put up with the problems in the building law that are driving up the cost of housing making homes unaffordable driving our builders off to Australia—where they might have a sensible regime—and causing all of the problems that we see within the law. I say again to the Minister that in my 17 years as a member I have not seen these sorts of repeat botch-ups. He owes the Committee an explanation. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This very interesting statistic might come as a surprise to you Mr Chairperson and it might come as a surprise to the Minister for Building and Construction and to colleagues in the Chamber. District councils and city councils across the country issue about 80000 building consents a year and they have done so for many years now—in fact for decades. They are quite able to do that and have the experience in it. It is a surprise to us given that fact that this particular Minister and Government have suddenly decided that councils after 50 to 100 years of issuing consents have to be accredited to undertake that very task. 
I do not know why they are being regulated in that area. They are not regulated in a whole lot of other areas in which they have functions. Clearly that particular function of issuing consents is underpinned by legislation and regulations just like all their other functions. Why councils have to be accredited is beyond us. Furthermore the fact that they have to be accredited or from 30 November this year they cannot carry out the function of issuing consents which they have done for decades is absolutely absurd. It means that although right through the 1920s the 1930s the 1940s the 1950s the 1960s when I and the member for Napier were born the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s district councils were issuing a maximum of 80000 consents a year from this November for some reason they have to be accredited to do so. 
For all those decades those councils got it wrong! Now the Minister is saying that from this November they have to be accredited to issue consents. If this Minister’s legislation does not pass from 30 November this year councils will not be able to issue consents. The fact that councils have issued tens of thousands of consents for decades is all going to come to a grinding halt this November if the Minister’s legislation does not pass. I ask the Minister how well-thought-out that is. Why cannot we have a proper select committee process? There is plenty of time between August and November for this legislation to go before the select committee and for us to re-examine the Minister’s supposed need for councils to be accredited to do a task that they have done for nigh on a century. 
This threat—of councils not being able to carry out the task if they are not accredited—is also absolutely absurd given that the Minister is now shifting the goalposts in terms of the time frame. Has the Minister realised that to do this was always a flawed policy position? It makes it look like the Minister is doing something about leaky homes but really all he is doing is heaping compliance costs on councils. 
In fact if any member of this Parliament regardless from which party genuinely sat down with a mayor anywhere in this country that mayor would say yes the council is putting up rates and the reason it is putting up rates is that central government keeps sending it things to do. Central government keeps sending councils things to do whether it is dog chipping managing brothels or getting accredited to issue consents which they have done for nigh on a century. Why does this Government keep heaping on councils things to do which they eventually have to bill ratepayers for? Even Labour-voting mayors although they are becoming thin on the ground across the country will say that they are tired of the regulatory creep coming from central government. This is just another example of that. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill which again is before the Committee. I believe I have already spoken on the commencement Part 1 and Part 2 but not on Part 3. This part appears to be totally new and—fancy that—it is. Yet again we are here talking on this bill. This part is something the select committee has not seen at all. It is something that appeared just yesterday. Being a new member I thought that after the Committee stage we would move to the third reading. So I was all ready to come here and make my third reading speech but no there is this new bit of paper and now we are having another Committee stage which I actually did not know one could do but obviously one can do it. 
When I looked at this Supplementary Order Paper I thought it was excellent because there was a Building Amendment Bill on my desk. I thought it must be relevant to that. But no it actually is not. Then I thought this Part 3 has to be relevant to something the select committee has already seen. But no it is not. I went back through the bills we have looked at. We looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 which was repealed. Then there was the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. That was good; it fixed up the errors in the 2002 Act just 4 years later. But what we are debating in 2007 is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. So 1 year later yet again we are facing another bill. I thought: “That’s OK. It’s about weathertight homes. It must be one of those things the Government hasn’t quite got right. It rushes legislation through the select committee every time. There has been a knee-jerk reaction to situations out there and now it must have it right.” 
On my table at the select committee today was the Building Amendment Bill. When I looked at the policy statement I saw that it stated that the bill was “to improve the workability of the Building Act 2004”. The building industry must be getting really confused by now. This is the fifth bill since 2002 that has gone through. I was wondering how many Ministers have been in charge of this portfolio—[ 
Interruption 
]—not in charge! Have there been six seven or eight? That is five bills in 5 years. No wonder the building industry is really confused. 
So I thought I would look at Part 3. Obviously I had to read it. It has not been to the select committee we have not had any submissions on it we have not had any advice on how well it is written and we have not had the Law Commission give us its view on it so let me have a look at it. I think I am pretty good at law. I did law at university. 
What does Part 3 actually do? It converts the bill into an omnibus bill that amends not only the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 but also the Building Act 2004. I had one bill on my desk and that was the Building Amendment Bill to make the 2004 Act more workable but now we also have this Supplementary Order Paper which fixes the 2004 legislation as well. Why could they not have been combined? Oh I know why: because there was an error. The Government had believed that its deadlines could be met and they just could not be met. 
What are those deadlines? Let me tell members what the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 133 states: “Some extend the period during which a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority … even though the territorial authority has yet to be registered as a building consent authority. That period is extended so that it ends on or before 30 June 2008 …” whereas before the date was November 2007. Why is this extension needed? Why is legislation being rushed through again? 
Why is this provision part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill? I must say that I actually do not get that. This bill and I have read it many times now and I have spoken to it many times in the House is actually about the compensation that one can get for distress and anxiety. This bill is actually about the leaky homes that have been built and are still being built in New Zealand. Is Part 3 relevant to the purpose of this bill? I do not think so. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to add a contribution to this Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and I want to draw to the Committee’s attention what is actually happening here. The Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is extending the time by which the councils can become compliant by 7 months. The reason why he has finally decided that he needs to extend the time is because he has become aware that a good majority of local government bodies will not be able to comply nor to achieve the ability to be registered by 30 November. I wonder whether the Minister has ever bothered to ask himself why it is that this is occurring. 
There are two reasons for this. Firstly he is in charge of the Department of Building and Housing—the department that in 1999 was staffed by 31½ people. It now has a staff number of in excess of 300—a growth of I do not know 900 million percent. I do not know what percentage that is; it is some strange number. The Minister is asking how many staff there were. Well of course there was not a Department of Building and Housing in 1999 but the equivalent in the Department of Internal Affairs had 31½ staff. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh you just woke up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister can go back and check. I tell the Minister that I got this straight from the horse’s mouth and I know that I am absolutely accurate. He can talk all the rubbish he likes but there were actually 31½ people employed in the equivalent department back in 1999. Now there are in excess of 300 people. Do members know where they have come from? Do members know why local government actually cannot get people? 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well because the 270 people who are now employed by the Department of Building and Housing are ex-building inspectors from local government. So how can local government get staff when they have to try to compete with Government-funded highly paid people in the dysfunctional Department of Building and Housing? It does not work does it? One cannot be in two places at once. 
The other interesting fact is this. Not all of those people actually came from local government a good number of them were people who had failed at being building inspectors failed at being compliance officers and failed at being bureaucrats. So the Minister said: “Oh don’t worry about it she’s right. We’ll build up this Department of Building and Housing.” and we have made it grow by 270 people over however long it has been—8 years. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Some of them might have been involved in building the leaky homes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member Bob Clarkson says some of them might have been involved in the building of the leaky homes. They were not involved in the building of leaky homes but some of them were the people who were initially meant to sign them off failed went bankrupt and had a hard time for a while until the Minister came along and said: “Hang on don’t worry we’ll start this Department of Building and Housing and now you can be employed again.” So they now have a job. No wonder the whole system is failing. It is because we have incompetent people in the department who have failed in their own lives—in private enterprise—and have not been capable of doing a decent job and now they are in a department telling competent builders how to run their lives. 
The Minister is saying: “You know local government can’t get compliant.” I cannot remember the exact figure I wish I could. I was trying to remember how many councils are likely to be compliant by 30 November. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: None. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No there were some. Out of the 85 I think from memory there were eight—I cannot remember—but some small number. There were a number who had registered to be compliant but the likelihood was that a good number were never going to get there. 
Bob Clarkson 
: One got through. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I know there have been some but most of them were never going to be. I remember this Minister coming up to the Far North District Council and telling the local authority up there—the councillors and the other mayors of the district—“Have I got the answer for you.” Well they all sat there and thought: “Boy great thank goodness this Minister has come along. Everything is going to be right.” Well I was talking to them the other day and they said to me: “Do you think everything is going to be right?”. I said: “You’ve got to be kidding. This Minister’s got to extend the time for compliance.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am going to take a short call and answer a number of issues that have been raised. I want first to deal with the last speaker Mr John Carter a far north MP who made an interesting contribution. He made a couple of claims. Firstly he said—and I will bet him a nice bottle of plonk that it is in  
Hansard 
 that he said it—that the Department of Building and Housing that existed in 1999 I think he said had 31 staff. Well I will give the member a wee history lesson. The department came into existence before I became Minister actually in 2004. He ought to get his facts straight. 
He then went on of course to make all sorts of claims. One I think was that the department was full of building inspectors who were failed builders and all sorts of things. Well he can insult the staff and the department if he wishes. That is his democratic right in Parliament and his democratic right. He can insult the officials and he can insult the staff. He can make false claims about them and he can make claims about staff in the department being bankrupt or having facilitated leaky buildings. That is indeed his democratic right but I will not buy into it and the public who are listening tonight of course will judge his words for what they are. 
I then sort of in reverse order want to deal with the claims of Mr Heatley. Mr Heatley made a number of interesting claims. He asked—fair question—why on earth local authorities which have issued building consents nigh on he said a hundred years should be required to be audited and accredited. And he asked why on earth we should have auditing and accrediting—which has the objective to lift the standard and to ensure that personnel are competent and the process correct—because he said effectively there is nothing wrong. 
Although I am not going to bag local authorities in a contemporary sense I will make this point. I will mention the name Colleen Dicks to the member. Colleen Dicks’ house was signed off by a Waitakere City Council inspector. After having been subjected to the building of a builder who was to put it politely substandard Colleen Dicks then had the building inspector arrive to see a big yellow thing called the sun coming through the roof. Why? Because there was a piece of roof missing. What did the building inspector then do? He signed off the house as being weathertight. So I say to Mr Heatley that that is one reason for auditing. Poor old Colleen Dicks—she is a fighter and she won in the end—was subject to that. I recall going to another local authority where inspectors said to me that they had done away with the drive-by inspection. 
We are engaged in an auditing and accrediting process to lift standards of operation and to lift quality so that we do not have the Colleen Dicks scenario again where a building inspector on seeing a piece of roof missing would sign the thing off as weathertight. That scenario is replicated and has been replicated over a large number of local authorities and is in part according to the Hunn report on weathertight homes part of the systemic failure that occurred and gave us the weathertight debacle we have. 
Dr Smith of course said that we were threatening local authorities by requiring them to meet a deadline. Need I remind him that not a couple of weeks ago he wanted to pass a bill swiftly that would have threatened local authorities that if they did not get a consent done in 20 days the hammer would drop on them. That hammer would be the granting of the consent to the individual for free and all those costs would then be visited of course on every other ratepayer—the same ratepayers that Dr Smith says he wants to lift compliance costs from. He raised the threat but the House put the sword into that bill. It was described by Ms Tolley’s own National Party electorate chair as “daft”. The document in which that was said was tabled. I recall looking that word up in  
Collins English Dictionar 
y because I did not quite know what daft meant being a bit of a young guy. And one of the key words in the dictionary said that daft was defined—and I am sure that Dr Nick Smith will hear this—as insane. I will say no more than that. So we want to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that when Government members get under pressure resorting to personal abuse is their standard frame. But the Minister has not answered any of the reasonable questions and I do take personal offence. I think— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I take personal offence too. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well I could resort to making all sorts of references in quite derogatory ways to all sorts of members of the Labour Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON(Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not start— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You do not want me to go there? Well Mr Chairman I would have expected you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I did not say that. You can go anywhere you like. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I can go anywhere I like? Well who shall I start with in the Labour Party? Is personal abuse now going to be OK in this House of Representatives? I know that the Minister feels a bit inferior. He has no experience in the building industry at all. But to allow a member to make claims of the sort— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. Your point of order is quite clear and that is what I was going to say. It had nothing to do with stopping you sitting you down or anything like that. I understand your point of order; it is very clear. You took offence and I am going to ask the Minister to withdraw—just to withdraw— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: —because the offence was marginal and its meaning was based on an assumption. He did not say anything directly you see. It is not for me to read anything into what he said but I think that most in the Chamber know the implication and you have taken offence so I think it is fair that he withdraw it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and I give you a commitment Mr Chair that I will not quote the dictionary again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Despite all the hot air the protestations and the sort of constitutional emotionalism exhibited by Messrs Carter and Smith about the constitutional outrage of how we should allow people to consult and of how we should take it through a select committee I remind the Committee and all those poor folks who have had to sit through this debate at home scratching their heads and wondering what all the hullabaloo is about that this legislation—just a couple of parts in effect—effectively extends a date by which local authorities have to get audited and accredited. The date is being extended from November this year to June next year. 
Suddenly we have wasted a whole lot of taxpayers’ money listening to a lot of hot air and a lot of political posturing but to listeners out there in the real world and to the members listening what this bill does absolutely is simply extend a date by which local authorities can become audited and accredited thereby allowing them to become accredited thereby creating certainty thereby allowing the building consent process to continue and thereby allowing people to continue to build their homes. I do not know even if we did put this to a select committee who would object to that. Actually I do. Nick Smith would and John Carter would but I dare them tonight— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I dare you! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —and even the interesting individual who barracks like somebody out of the Porirua public bar—to vote this down. This simply creates certainty—[ 
Interruption 
] No I will not say it; I have seen  
Dad’s Army 
 too often. I say to listeners and to the Committee that this legislation simply creates some certainty. 
The question was asked as to why this legislation is being put through now. Well communities have this thing where they like us to act efficiently. A piece of legislation is on the books now but this issue has been identified so we have recommitted the bill and put it through. That is why. It has been done 3½ months in advance to create certainty for local authorities and to allow planning for communities—it is as basic as that. 
So despite all the hot air all the political posturing and all the dress rehearsals going on among new members on the Opposition side that is what it boils down to. That is what the country knows it boils down to that is what Local Government New Zealand which supported the legislation knows it boils down to and that is what every local authority including John Carter’s in the far north knows it boils down to. I invite members if they like to continue the posturing to continue the stupidity and to continue the sort of strange constitutional emotionalism but that in essence is what it boils down to. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s just daft! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is just daft the member said and he is right. I do not believe there is a New Zealander out there or a person in the community who would not say that this is a logical and appropriate move and that this is an efficient mechanism to expedite it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a simple question for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister in the chair. When did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the deadline of 30 November? I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Many councils will. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That does not answer the question. The question is: when did the Minister find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Some not all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well yes some—I can see that. The Minister told us that we need this amendment because councils are not going to be able to meet the 30 November deadline. My simple question is: when did he find that out? Minister? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the speech. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read the speech and at no time in the speech did the Minister say when he found that out. I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the 30 November deadline? 
John Carter 
: I knew over 18 months ago. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague John Carter who is National’s very effective local government spokesperson said he knew that 18 months ago. You know I was told by councils as long as 12 months ago that councils would not be able to meet the deadline. But the question asked of the Minister is when he found that out. 
The Minister is silent. He is a very arrogant Minister just like this arrogant Government which says that because it cannot win the election next year in a fair game it will twist the rules to suit itself. And it says that because it cannot get its bill through the House by the normal process it will just chuck the Standing Orders out so that it can get the bill through. 
I will tell members why this is important. I will quote what the Minister said only a month ago—and we know it was him; he had four chins. He said: “In the end it is the responsibility of TAs to get accredited and registered by 30 November this year or if they are not they will lose their right to issue building consents.” He said that in a speech at the building officials conference only a month ago. He went on to say: “I know you’ll get there.” Well what has changed in the last month? Can any member opposite tell me? Or is this a Benson-Pope situation—that is we cannot believe what the Ministers in this Government say any more? 
The further point I want to make is that the Minister said that this provision is still some 4½ months away. It is an extraordinary step for Parliament to get rid of its Standing Orders and for the Minister to ride roughshod over them. I have a quote here from Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Do members remember him? He was the Prime Minister in a Labour Government and is now the head of the Law Commission. He said that only in extreme circumstances can the suspension of the Standing Orders be justified. Well do we know whether we have extreme circumstances? I have seen absolutely no justification at all that we have extreme circumstances. We know it is 4½ months before there is the potential for any difficulty. 
So I simply ask any member of the Government to explain why these amendments that the Minister wants to advance cannot be referred to a select committee and go through the normal process. Can the Minister explain to the Committee—given that Sir Geoffrey Palmer the head of the Law Commission has said the Standing Orders should be suspended only under extreme circumstances—why these provisions cannot go through a first reading? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I remember 101 hours of urgency in the 1991 Government. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel has piped up. The only problem with regard to Lianne Dalziel is that she has not answered the questions that this Committee needs to be answered. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare has interrupted on three different parties during the casting of their party vote which is against the Standing Orders. As he is a distinguished and long-serving member a former Cabinet Minister and someone who has reached the heights of his career I would have thought he knew not to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. I had noticed it—and yes that applies. But they were laughing; they were having a bit of fun back there at this stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
New Part 3 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended  
(recommitted) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to remind the Committee again of the legislative mess that we are experiencing tonight. We are debating the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. This is a bill to amend a fix-up of a mistake that was made in the 2006 legislation regarding weathertight homes. The 2006 legislation was amended to fix up the mess that was made in 2002. So what we had was a botch-up in 2002 that was plugged through under urgency and overrode the normal parliamentary process. That problem was attempted to be fixed by the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove in 2006 passed under an urgent process and done in a rush. We then discovered that that legislation also had mistakes so that we now have this bill to fix the botch-up arising from the botch-up. 
If members think that that is bad enough we now have had during this Committee stage a further botch-up. In the Building Act—which was originally passed in 2004 and for which another set of amendments was passed in 2006 to try to fix up the Act—the Government has found another mistake so has wanted to correct it. To correct the mistake the Government has said that we have to suspend the rules of the House to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 133 which includes an amendment to clause 3 and in that respect we are going to add the amendments on to this bill to fix the botch-up. 
The simple argument of members on this side of the Chamber is that the Government got it wrong the first time it got it wrong the second time and it got it wrong the third time but on each of those occasions the Government has said: “Trust us. We’ll fix it. We will do it in a hurry.” Opposition members are simply saying that we do not believe Government Ministers anymore. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: But we never believe them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well some members were generous of spirit I tell Mr Finlayson and wanted to think that Clayton Cosgrove was the new-found hope of the Labour Government—that he was the new generation of leadership and that surely he could not get it so wrong. We thought that surely he could not botch it up that badly. 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us about leadership. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Obviously Darren Hughes wants to talk about anything but the bill—the bill that is such an extraordinary botch-up. Members on this side of the Chamber are saying: that given that the Government has got it wrong so often why should we abuse parliamentary process and ram this through? I bet that not one member of this Committee has sat down and gone through every one of those 32 lines of law and checked that they line up with the amendments to the amendments of the original Act. I bet they have not. So what sort of Wild West legislation are we passing in ramming these amendments through under a process by which we have suspended the Standing Orders of the House to enable this Minister to ride roughshod over proper parliamentary process? 
I also want to point out that the Minister gave a speech just a month ago and said that everything was on track and that we could do this by 30 November. I ask him what has changed in the last month to cause him to ride roughshod over proper parliamentary process and ram this bill through in less than 24 hours. What has changed? The Minister gave a speech a month ago and said that this was all under control; there was no problem. Why a month later is he saying that the legislation is in trouble? Is he telling us that councils are not going to make the deadline? If he wants to have established the threshold that Sir Geoffrey Palmer has set for riding over the Standing Orders it is that there must be exceptional and extreme circumstances. What are those exceptional and extreme circumstances? Could the Minister please explain. What is the extreme circumstance that justifies as Sir Geoffrey Palmer says this extraordinary process when we have only a single House—when we are one of the few democracies in the world that has only a single House of Parliament? What is the circumstance that enables the Minister to drop on Parliament today 36 changes in the law and have them passed by tonight—changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill? 
Darren Hughes 
: The member should have debated this during the motion. We are now on to the substance of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I want to know the substance of the bill. I want to know what is the substance that justifies the extreme circumstance of surrendering the Standing Orders. Unless the Government justifies that members on this side of the Chamber will continue to vote against this clause. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to add to the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith and remind the Committee that when I took a call on the motion to suspend the Standing Orders which brought this matter to the House’s attention I made those very points. 
I said it was absolutely unbelievable that the Government would suspend the Standing Orders when there is not a crisis. I could have understood it if Parliament had passed legislation that put upon local government the duty to carry out an action and we had got beyond that date and found that not only was local government not able to comply with the time period but also worse than that it was affecting the building industry it was stopping building permits from being issued it meant that people could not get in their homes it meant that industry was not developing and it meant that commercial premises were not being developed. Then we could argue that we had reached some sort of crisis and had to look at our constitution. However that was not the issue. That did not happen. 
What we have ended up with is the need to address this Supplementary Order Paper 133 which tells us that we have to omit clause 3. That is what we are debating at the moment. I needed to refer to that so that I could fit within the Standing Orders—unlike the Government which decided to suspend the Standing Orders. I like to fit within the Standing Orders but the Government does not. It put forward a motion to suspend the Standing Orders and that is an absolute disgrace. 
As we discuss the omission of clause 3 I draw the Committee’s attention to comments I made earlier. I made some comments about the Department of Building and Housing not doing its job not carrying out what we would expect the Department of Building and Housing to do. I talked about the fact that the department—or the organisation that it was before which actually came under the Department of Internal Affairs—originally had 31½ people and now has over 300. The Minister for Building and Construction got up to defend the department and the only thing in my statement he could criticise me for the only thing I had got wrong was for saying that the department started in 1999—it started in 2004. I ask whether any member heard him say: “And this department’s great. It’s doing a good job. It’s doing all the right things. It’s doing everything we would expect. It is not its fault that we have to debate this.” Did we hear the Minister stand up to say: “What a great department.”? Well I did not. 
As we debate this omission of clause 3 let me mention a couple of other things where this department has failed because the Committee will want to know those. Members will know that in this country it is now estimated that over 250000 homes and buildings have not got a compliance certificate. There are 250000 houses that people are occupying and living in—that number is the size of Wellington City—that have not got certification. They are not compliant; they have not got compliance certificates. That is because this department is failing. It is because of the rules and regulations that this Minister and his department are passing. People in the building industry cannot comply with them. So what are individuals and builders doing? They are just getting on with it and saying they will forget the rules and regulations. That is what happens when we get over-compliance and when we get so many rules and regulations that people cannot understand them. We get to the stage where people just ignore them because they have to get on and live. They have to get on with their lives they have to get on with their jobs and they have to get on with the ability to earn. This Minister is causing that to happen in the building industry. 
The second thing this Minister could have referred to was the fact that the Department of Building and Housing has the responsibility of certifying materials that are put into houses. There are over 600 different materials that are put into buildings in New Zealand. Do members know how many have been certified that I am aware of? The Minister might correct me but I am told that four out of the 600 have been certified. How long has the department been going? This Department of Building and Housing has so far certified four—so I am told. I may be wrong; it may have done five or even six now or three—I do not know. The problem is that as we debate the omission of this clause what we have to seriously worry about is that more leaky homes are being built in this country right now. 
The Department of Building and Housing is meant to be responsible for certification of materials and equipment that are being put into homes. Do members know that right now we are importing into this country material that is faulty? Copper pipes imported from Australia have a certification of 50 years. Copper pipes imported from England are certified for 60 years. Pipes imported from Asia that are being put into New Zealand homes right now have no certification at all. They have been tested and the pipes have a lifetime—so it is estimated—of 7 years. It means that in the next 10 years or so someone is going to flush the toilet and mum is going to get a shower in the kitchen. That is going to be the end result because the pipes will burst. This Department of Building and Housing and this Minister are allowing these homes to be built right now in New Zealand and people will end up with a terrible outcome. 
As we debate this bill and as we debate this Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the proposal to omit clause 3 we need to take these things into account and we need to be debating those issues. We have 250000 homes that are not compliant and we have materials being put into homes in New Zealand that are not going to last a lifetime; I ask why this has not been referred to a select committee. Why have these sorts of issues not come out? Why do we have a Department of Building and Housing and a Minister who know these things are going on yet here we are tonight debating this sort of issue within the confines of the omission of clause 3? I say it is hard to understand. I cannot believe that this Government wants to change things—suspend the Standing Orders—to allow this sort of stuff to be foisted on to New Zealand and on to the building industry and end up causing so much failure. 
Actually it is just another symptom of failure in this Government. The fact that the Standing Orders have been suspended and we are now debating the omission of this clause indicates another failure in the history of this Helen Clark - led Labour Government. It is an absolute disgrace that the Standing Orders have been suspended. It is an absolute disgrace that we are now debating this provision without it having been referred to a select committee. It is a disgrace that the end result will mean we end up with more leaky homes—and the Minister knows that. It is a crime and this Minister will be responsible. I say to the Minister that in another 5 or 10 years’ time when we are debating this issue it will be his name that is put forward as being the root cause of the failure along with this department. 
Bob Clarkson 
: He won’t be here. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No but some of us will remember that he was here and we will be fixing it up. We will have to sort this out because this Government is not capable of it. This Minister is not capable of it. His department is not capable of it. He is a failure. The department is a failure. He is causing problems in the building industry. He is causing problems for homeowners. He is causing serious stress in this nation. He has to be responsible for all of that. 
I say to this Committee and to this nation that people should be aware of what this Minister is foisting on them tonight. He had no defence when I talked about the issues. He had no defence for this department. He was not proud enough to stand up and say: “It’s a great department and I back it 100 percent.” All he said was that I had got the dates wrong. Well actually I had said when I was speaking that the department was not the Department of Building and Housing in 1999. 
What I did say was that this Minister and his department are a failure. I say to this Committee that as we see this unfold in time—this bill this Supplementary Order Paper the Act we debating—it will be seen as a complete failure. The whole Committee should understand that. It is an absolute travesty and a tragedy that we are having this debate right now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 One of the key quotes the Minister for Building and Construction has—and I have heard him say it in speeches not once not twice but at least a dozen times—is “Do it once do it right”. Do members remember that? Well in classic Labour Party style it is a case of “Do as we say not as we do”. I need to summarise for the Committee whether the Minister has lived up to his “Do it once do it right” motto. 
The Government first dealt with the leaky homes issue with a bill in 2002. The bill was rushed through. It was actually an add-on to a bill of my own in respect of subcontractors. The bill was added on at the last stage and it flew through the Committee stage. But that was a botch-up so in 2006 this Minister came along to the House and powered through another bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. He shortened the time and we were assured at the time he had done it right. He sought to wham it through Parliament and said all would be OK. 
Well second time round the fix-up job got it wrong and then the Minister had to introduce another bill just 3 months ago the bill we have before us—the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. That bill had to be introduced because this arrogant Minister ignored submissions to the select committee that said general damages would not be able to be claimed. This Minister said: “Yes they can.” The court decided the opposite and that is why we have this bill. So third time round the Minister who says “Do it once do it right” still has not got it right. 
But it gets worse. Having put this bill through its first reading its select committee process a second reading and all the way through the Committee stage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.