Volume 622 Week 77 - Tuesday 14 December 2004(continued on Friday 17 December 2004) 
Volume 622 Week 77 - Tuesday 14 December 2004(continued on Friday 17 December 2004) 
[Volume:622;Page:18059] 
Tuesday 14 December 2004 
( 
continued on Friday 17 December 2004 
) 
Taxation (Base Maintenance and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night before being interrupted I was talking about foreign-owned banks and the sad sad situation that we have in this country whereby all of a sudden and all because of past Labour and National administrations different State-owned enterprises were flogged off to foreign-owned enterprises. One example of that is our banks. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Disgusting! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: As my colleague seated behind me said it was disgusting—nothing more and nothing less than that. But the sad thing about it was that successive Labour and National Governments not only sold the banks to foreign-owned enterprises but the banks then did not even pay the appropriate amount of tax that they should have paid. I say that that is a disgrace. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the member a Kiwibank customer? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I remind members that there is actually another New Zealand - owned bank in this country as well as Kiwibank. With the sad loss of our now foreign-owned banks which the then Deputy Prime Minister sold off back in the mid-1980s and the National Government sold off in the 1990s we then had that situation. I remember speaking to taxation advisers a few months ago and they said that the situation has been going on for 5 years or so and that a taxation shortfall of something like $360 million has been occurring. I say that that is very very sad. It is a tragedy for our nation. 
This Government would have us believe we have an economic boom in this country when it is taxing individuals at up to 39c in the dollar in income tax if they are the so-called rich people on about $60000 a year. The tax is 33c in the dollar for companies and there are no taxation incentives or concessions for exporters especially when the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar is at 70c against the US dollar. There is no economic boom I believe like the one that this Government would have us believe is occurring. The Minister of Finance and other Ministers in this House jump up and down and tell us how great everything is when they know that that is a load of hogwash in many ways. Our dollar is worth 70c against the US dollar and we have houses that young couples cannot get into or buy because the prices are too far beyond their reach. First home buyers— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Oh it has a lot to do with this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right. It is just unbelievable how relevant it is to this bill. When we talk about taxation and the amount of taxation that people are paying and when we look at the banks I have just talked about that have not been paying a sum that the Minister of Finance has said is about $360 million a year for a few years now we know that it has every relevance to this bill. It is very very relevant and that is a fact. 
Do members know why I want to talk about this bill? I want to talk about something that is very important regarding the vision of this Government. It all comes back to this kind of legislation that come through the House—the taxation bills. We are continually sliding down the OECD rankings. Australia is way ahead of us in those rankings and the Minister knows it. The average Australian earns about $120 a week more than the average Kiwi. That has every relevance to this bill because if the average New Zealander earns $120 a week less than the average Australian then the Government and individuals here in New Zealand are both worse off than their Australian counterparts. That Minister with all his intellect and wit still knows that that is right. He knows that. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Richard Prebble for again deferring to me his place in the speaking order. In fact in honour of Richard Prebble I decided today to wear my Fraser Institute tie from Canada. I was privileged to speak to the Fraser Institute last year on taxation and other matters and particularly on MMP. I paid homage to Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas because both of their portraits were on the wall of honour of august gentlemen at that institute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now could we come to the point? 
ROD DONALD 
: I am just about to narrow the debate but this is a valedictory to Richard Prebble. I ask you Mr Speaker to allow me one more sentence. I paid honour to Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas because I said that without them New Zealand would not have MMP and without MMP I would not have been there to speak to the institute about the excellent policies that the Greens promote in Parliament. 
In speaking of excellent policies I would like to say that the Green Party will be supporting the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill because there are some very good features in it. We do have some disappointments with it but I will come to those in a moment. The very good features are of course the ones around the thin capitalisation rules for foreign-owned banks because for too long those banks have got away with not paying their fair share of tax in New Zealand. I am all in favour of Dr Cullen having a bigger money bag with which to invest in sustainable infrastructure and to be able to invest more in human capital particularly in our young people through taxpayer-funded tertiary education. So if Dr Cullen is able to rake in I think $360 million from foreign-owned banks that they have not but should have been paying that is a very good thing and something that we look forward to supporting as this bill progresses. 
It is also worth noting when talking about banks that I am pleased to see that the Reserve Bank has finally told Westpac that it needs to set up a proper bank in New Zealand instead of running its New Zealand operation like some sort of branch operation out of Australia. Too many of New Zealand’s business enterprises are run like branches out of Australia and we have to reverse that trend. In the same way we have to make sure that our Government does not become the equivalent of an Australian state operation as happens under Food Standards Australia New Zealand and some of the other bodies set up in recent times. 
The other particularly good measure in this bill relates to business environmental expenditure. The Greens are very pleased to see that the Government will be addressing concerns raised with regard to the tax deductions available for that expenditure. Anything that is done to remedy or mitigate the detrimental effects of the discharge of contaminants is something that should be encouraged and that is a step forward with regard to this bill. 
Our concern focuses on the Government’s “drill and hope” strategy. Yet again the Government is trying to encourage more drilling—in this case by offering tax exemptions for a period of 6 years. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What’s wrong with that? 
ROD DONALD 
: What is wrong with that is the opportunity cost. We would much prefer any tax incentives for energy generation to be focused on renewable energy so that we can do more to encourage wind generation. I know that the Minister has already done his bit to enable Mr Hodgson to spend a considerable sum of money via carbon credits on encouraging the development of wind energy in New Zealand and that is a good thing. We can see the result of the Government’s excellent commitment to the Kyoto Protocol come through in terms of all the new wind farms that are being announced. There seems to be one new wind farm a week at the moment which just shows that the Government does have a commitment to renewable energy. But that is not enough. We would like more effort to be put into renewables. 
So instead of the Government offering tax incentives for a “drill and hope” strategy to try to find more oil and gas it should be putting more in the way of tax incentives and direct investment into solar energy and into energy efficiency and conservation. The gains are guaranteed in those areas. We know that we could save between 20 percent and 30 percent of our electricity generation through conservation and efficiency measures. That is not a case of hoping we will discover some oil or gas; it is a case of knowing there is energy that can be saved if only we make the capital investment. That is something that the Government could do directly as well as encouraging the private sector through tax incentives to invest capital in the efficiency measures that will have pay-offs not just for those companies but for the country as a whole. That is an area that we will debate strongly at the select committee. 
However overall as I said at the beginning of my speech this bill is a positive one. It does not go as far as we would like it to go. We think this is the sort of bill that should have been called the “Taxation (Carbon Tax Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill”. This bill would have been the opportunity for the Government to bring forward the carbon tax that it says it will introduce in 2007. Why should we wait until 2007? Let us have a carbon tax in 2005 and let us move towards a more sustainable infrastructure. Let us bring in a tax that is vitally necessary to send the right signals to the marketplace about the need to move away from a fossil fuel economy and towards a sustainable economy particularly in relation to transport infrastructure. If the carbon tax had been introduced in this bill it would have given the Government more revenue which it could have then used to implement other Green polices such as reducing the taxation on work and enterprise. We are very keen to see that because we want the taxation base to shift towards encouraging good behaviour and discouraging bad behaviour. I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill at the select committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not think the Minister of Finance will mind my saying that he did suggest to me that the ACT party would find it difficult to criticise this bill. I suggested that we would have no difficulty in doing so and I will show members why that is the case. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It wouldn’t be under 2 percent would it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The truth of a proposition does not depend on a party’s poll rating and it never has. So let me make statements that may not be populist but that make a number of criticisms. Firstly let me explain what the bill is about. The bill has been introduced fundamentally because the trading banks have been quite legally able to reduce their income. The reason they can do that is that trading banks actually borrow large sums of money and they are able to put up for taxation purposes the interest they pay on it. Now we are going to do away with that which is interesting because it means that the tax on banks will be different from that on other organisations. Fundamentally from a taxation point of view that is a bad principle. 
I understand the problem the Minister has but there is actually a very very simple answer to that problem. Banks are no different from individuals. 
John Key 
 Lower the company rate. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the member. If we lower the company rate— 
John Key 
: I didn’t mean to spoil the punch. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No no it is good to see that Mr Key is right on the job and I am sure he has make this point already to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Well let me put this to the Minister of Finance. I have heard him get up in this House and say that New Zealand does not have a higher taxation rate than Australia’s. If that were so then all the Australian banks would be falling over themselves to pay tax in this country rather than in Australia. But they are not and that is another reason that this bill is wrong—it does not actually fix the problem. 
But let me go to another dilemma with regard to the bill. I will make a criticism of our taxation system generally and it is this. An extra 115 pages are to be added to the—what is it—thousands of pages now— 
Gordon Copeland 
: Over 2000. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the member; Mr Copland is an accountant. There are over 2000 pages of taxation law. Why is that? The reason for that is— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How much is there in Australia? Over 10000 pages. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister interjects to say there are 10000 pages in Australia. If he had not anticipated what I was going to say he would have heard me explain to him what the problem is—and it does exist right around the Western World. There is an attempt to artificially define income so then one needs artificial laws. Then when countries take as much in tax as they are taking they need to have a huge tax code and people cannot find their way around it. If we had a simple flat rate of taxation I say to the Minister we would then have a simple tax code. That is true in New Zealand and it would be true in Australia as well. 
I want to make another criticism and it is this. We find that those who are interested in civil liberties have set out what good principles are for the law but when it comes to taxation law they completely ignore all civil liberties. One of the provisions of the bill which is actually put forward as though it were a more liberalising measure states that the amendments to the Tax Administration Act limit the right of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to require taxpayers and their tax advisers to provide documents that give instructions to the tax adviser or give tax advice to the taxpayer. Well in a sense that is true because the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with his police State powers—and they are police State powers—has been able to force people to actually talk about private conversations they have had with New Zealanders who were trying to organise their affairs. If one is a civil libertarian and if one does believe that citizens are entitled to organise their affairs why is the State able to reach in with the sorts of powers that Nazi Germany would have been pleased to have? They are actually called Danzig laws and they run right through our tax code giving enormous power to the State. 
It is true that in this particular bill in some ways that power is further limited. But I just invite members to look at what the Government now claims it has the right to do. A person must disclose tax-contextual information from a tax advice document. So if people have documents—private documents—about their private affairs that no one has the right to look at the Government is now saying that they must give those documents to the Government even if they do not want to. Even if a document has nothing to do with tax a person still has to tell the Government why he or she wanted to obtain tax advice. A person may want to have tax advice because his wife is leaving him. He does not want to tell everybody that that is happening but he must tell the Government. A person may want to get tax advice for personal reasons to do with a partnership he or she is in. That person has to tell the Government and then has to trust it. Well the Inland Revenue Department has a pretty good record of holding confidential information but that still does not remove the personal embarrassment that people feel about having to disclose that sort of information. Why are we passing what we would regard in any other part of the law as an outrage and a violation of our rights as citizens? How can we call ourselves a free country when we have a code that states that people must hand over personal private documents that have nothing to do with tax just in order to convince the tax department—so that it can see the context in which a person was getting tax advice? 
I say to the House that that is the inevitable result of the Government having an escalating taxation rate. If there is an escalating taxation rate we have to have police State powers. If the Government takes 40 percent—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister that they are police State powers. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Russians had police State powers with a flat taxation rate. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well that is true but it does not—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says that the Russians had police State powers with a flat taxation rate. I am not saying that the only reason— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Russian tax police. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister is capable of better logic than that. I am not saying that if we had a flat rate of taxation it follows that we would not have police State powers. What I am saying is that in this country there are only two areas where we have— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Sub-machine guns. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Police State powers have nothing to do with sub-machine guns. Police State powers exist when a citizen is deemed to be guilty and has to prove himself or herself to be innocent. That is the situation right through the tax code. The State has the right to take information from a person when that person has broken no law has been perfectly law-abiding and has been going about his or her own personal private affairs. Despite that the Government can say it requires a person to disclose information and if he or she does not do so there will be very very heavy penalties. That is a police State. 
If we look at our tax code as a whole we see it is a violation of all the proper principles of civil liberty. There are another 113 pages of that in this bill and the solution I say to the Minister is to have a low flat rate of taxation. We would then not need all these measures—we would not need to have special laws for banks. One of the advantages of a low flat rate of taxation independent of the economic advantages that I believe are there—the Minister does not believe that although he cannot dispute this—is that if we had a low flat rate of taxation New Zealand would be a freer country. We would have more civil liberties. We would have the sorts of things that I heard him and his colleagues talk about when they spoke so eloquently in favour of the Civil Union Bill. They talked about how people should be able to make their own choices but when we come to 40 percent of the economy which is the amount that the Government takes in tax then all their concern about civil liberties goes out the window and the Government assumes that everyone in New Zealand is a criminal. That is why the ACT party will oppose this bill. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Outside of the somewhat artificial arrangements we have in this House today’s date is 17 December. Therefore it is the 17th anniversary of 17 December 1987 on which date it was announced rather breathlessly to the nation that we would be adopting a flat tax rate. One of the other messages that was conveyed on that very notable occasion in the Beehive was that charities would start paying tax. Charities had not paid tax since 1601. It was notable from the point of view that suddenly an established position that had gone on for hundreds of years was to be overturned. I am very delighted to report today that the Charities Bill is being reported back to the House and it will confirm going forward the tax-exempt status of charities. 
It is also a very notable date for me personally because the day after those announcements were made on 17 December 1987 I became involved in a rearguard action to try to prevent charities from having to pay tax in New Zealand. I am very very pleased indeed that we won that battle. It has taken a long time. I hope we will see as a result of today’s events the taxation benefits for charities improved. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble that I look forward to seeing another bill come to the House—sometime next year hopefully—that will create better tax conditions for that very very important part of our society. 
The principal thing that strikes me about this bill is the new rules on thin capitalisation for registered banks. I must say straight away that I was very disappointed indeed to discover that overseas-owned banks operating in New Zealand were not paying their fair whack of income tax. I always look at these positions from the point of view of say nurses who are working long hours in say the intensive care ward at Wellington Hospital to save people’s lives and to improve the quality of people’s health and so on and who pay their fair whack of tax in accordance with our tax laws. Quite frankly I believe that on this occasion the overseas-owned banks working in New Zealand have displayed very very poor citizenship. 
Mr Prebble made the point yesterday that we welcome overseas investment in this country and I do as well. He then went on to say that there was no problem with overseas investors investing in New Zealand because they are the people who abide by the law. Generally speaking I think that is probably true but this is a significant exception to that rule. I am very very surprised indeed—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble that I have had the advantage of going through what has happened with the banks in this country in the last few years and the way in which they have avoided paying their fair whack of income tax. It is a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue. It is as simple as that. It has no moral or ethical justification and I am not prepared to come to this House and pretend that it has. 
I congratulate the Government and the Inland Revenue Department on getting hold of this beast which had got right out of control—and it is simply intolerable to have that happening while nurses schoolteachers and others pay their full whack of tax. By the way they have no opportunity to do otherwise—because of the PAYE system they do not get to see the money in the first place. Nevertheless they have earned it. Yet at the same time we have what I would call rather clever but somewhat—I am searching for a polite word to describe them—misguided people in an industry as big as the banking industry in New Zealand deliberately setting out to arrange their affairs in such a way that they do not pay their full rate of tax in New Zealand. So I am delighted that this bill will bring that situation to an end. 
I also want to wish the Inland Revenue Department all the best in recovering the situation that has occurred over the previous years because as we know from various snippets in the press there are also back taxes that are owed by the banks. I understand that negotiations are continuing between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department to address those problems and to see some more— 
Rod Donald 
: What a very soporific speech! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I say to Rod Donald that on this issue we are in probably in agreement for once which is rather rare. On the other hand I completely disagree with the Green Party when it comes to tax breaks to encourage people to undertake seismic work in New Zealand to find more oil and gas. I thoroughly applaud those moves. I think it is extremely simplistic to come to the House and say: “Why should we bother to encourage people to find oil and gas in New Zealand? After all we have plenty of wind.” It is possible in a logical universe to have wind gas oil hydro and coal as part of the energy mix that drives our economy. To think that we can just somehow sit back and let wind power drive our cars—I mean it blows a lot in Wellington but I have never had my car blown anywhere so there is no chance whatever in Nelson or some other calmer spot in the country. So I think that is extremely simplistic. 
I want to say though that I do agree with one important point that the Hon Richard Prebble made. He is quite right when he says that truth is not determined by popular vote. We need to remind ourselves from time to time— 
Rod Donald 
: That applies to civil unions my friend. That’s why we should not have had a referendum. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Exactly! I was not going to bring that up but the member is exactly right. Just because something has been passed by Parliament does not mean that it reflects truth in the absolute sense of that word. I believe that such truth does exist. Whether we vote for it or against it it does not alter the fact that it is the truth. 
We need to move on in terms of what the bill does. I think that the deductions for expenditure incurred by businesses in avoiding remedying and mitigating detrimental effects to the environment from the discharge of contaminants is likewise a good move forward. An unfortunate situation has arisen in Mapua where I used to swim at Grosee’s Point right alongside that piece of land. I knew the people who worked there. A situation has arisen there where it is not clear who should be paying for the remedying of such sites and what the tax situation is. Obviously we need to ensure that sites of that sort are cleaned up for the sake of our environment. 
I also took some interest in what Richard Prebble said about the new non-disclosure rules in respect of tax advisers other than lawyers. I think it is very fair and good that the situation that has applied historically to lawyers in this country concerning non-disclosure of information given to clients on their tax affairs will now be extended out to chartered accountants as well. That is a very very fair outcome. I do not know what the mix is but I imagine that the majority of tax advice in this country is probably given by chartered accountants rather than by lawyers. These days there are an awful lot of people who have a BCom/LLB combination so both professions are involved in giving tax advice. I think the new rules concerning privileged information are good. I find it surprising that the ACT party finds some fault with that provision because it actually reduces the police State; it does not increase it which is the claim that was made. Those brief comments are probably enough at this stage. It is a signal that United Future will be voting for the bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is probably obvious to anybody who has managed to listen to the speeches this morning that it is Friday in the week before Christmas and some strange speeches have been made as a result. 
We are dealing with a bill that seeks to make the taxation system fair and just and recognises the fact when that the profits of foreign-owned banks go up their tax should not come down. But New Zealand First is utterly opposed to that. The party that says it is here for all New Zealanders says that the tax paid by foreign-owned banks should come down when their profits go up. We do not happen to agree with that and that is why we have brought in this bill. We have included in the bill measures that place restrictions on the Inland Revenue Department but the ACT party says that is terrible. I am not quite sure how that fits in with its liberal policies. Maybe it is just too early in the morning for those members to have read the bill. 
I think that most New Zealanders will be pleased that this Government is reducing compliance costs to business and protecting the revenue base. I note that John Key is fully supportive of this bill but David Carter has not talked to him this morning to find out what the line is. I can tell him that on 16 November John Key said that National was going to support this bill because it is a sensible measure. It is just too late in the year for the Opposition to be thinking at all let alone thinking straight. I utterly support the bill as every right-thinking New Zealander would. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak on the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I am struck by the gall of Dr Michael Cullen which appears to know no bounds. Last night at a quarter to 12—just about on midnight—he dropped in unannounced and surreptitiously tabled yet another tax bill in the House. When will we ever satisfy the insatiable demand from the Minister of Finance for more tax revenue? Dr Cullen is sitting on a massive surplus of $7.4 billion but it is not enough for him. He has been busy with his officials beavering away to see whether there is any more tax revenue he can get out of anybody who operates in this country. The question that needs to be asked is why we need these massive tax surpluses. It is all about next year when Dr Cullen and Helen Clark need the ability to get out there and buy every vote that is around. That is what this tax bill is all about—more money into the tax coffers which is more money then available to Labour to spend with reckless abandonment next year as it attempts to salvage another term in Government. 
The bill certainly deals with the issues of banks operating in New Zealand and whether they are paying the correct amount of tax. Dr Cullen is on record as saying that banks are dodging their legitimate tax burden. I am not in a position to know whether that is true or false. I would have thought it was a matter entirely between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department. I question whether it is appropriate for Dr Cullen during question time even to raise the issue of whether one specific bank is in breach of its own tax arrangements but that is for Dr Cullen to sort out. I certainly acknowledge that the issue is complex. Banks have the ability to structure their affairs so that the amount of money they borrow from their overseas owners creates an interest liability to the bank operation in New Zealand and that can be structured in such a way that may minimise tax. But I am simply not in a position to say whether that is a legitimate dodge. 
The issue is highly complex. I recall regarding talks with both banks and significant overseas companies like for example Microsoft that it was suggested that those large international conglomerates are in a position regardless of the rules established to structure their affairs to be then paying what they see as a reasonable rate of tax. I say to Dr Cullen today that if he puts yet another tax bill to a select committee then those banks and companies like Microsoft will still have their best legal brains poring over any legislation that is finally passed and that they will do their level best to make sure they minimise the tax burden to this country. The issue then is for the select committee to work through what will inevitably be detailed legislation and I wish it well in those deliberations. 
The next issue I raise is the surprising move by Dr Cullen in this legislation to give away some tax revenue. Dr Cullen is adopting the Jim Anderton attitude to tax exemptions and is starting to favour one industry as opposed to another. This bill proposes to exempt overseas-owned companies involved in seismic surveys and offshore drilling. Clearly the Government has finally acknowledged that there are significant oil reserves offshore from New Zealand and that we are not achieving significant investigation from overseas companies in both locating those reserves and then extracting them. We need more oil exploration and I fully accept that. But I question today whether it is appropriate for the Government now to try to signal its desire to see more exploration by in effect giving a tax break. That is what this legislation proposes to do. In that regard we are seeing Dr Cullen who to date has been reasonably prudent fiscally adopting a far more reckless attitude. It is an attitude that we see from his colleague Jim Anderton whereby a Government picks winners in its mind and goes out there with legislation that then gives a tax advantage to that particular commercial activity over and above another. That is a further role that I implore the select committee to look at very closely. 
I move to the third and final point that worries me with this legislation. In two cases that I can see from reading it there is an element of retrospectivity. Dr Cullen has just taken a gasp because he had been hoping that I had not noticed that. But I was sitting in the House till 12 o’clock last night after he had surreptitiously tabled this tax legislation so I had an opportunity to read it carefully. Dr Cullen is proposing to make the significant tax break with regard to overseas seismic exploration and investigation companies retrospective to the beginning of this year—to 1 January 2004. 
Rod Donald 
: That’s terrible. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am not quite so sure of that but Rod Donald as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee should watch that matter carefully. If Rod Donald is particularly concerned about the retrospectivity of that particular aspect of the bill—it goes back to 1 January 2004—let me take this opportunity to tell him that there is a bigger concern he needs to put his mind to. I am talking about the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund. For a reason that is completely unclear to me that particular fund may now be liable to pay New Zealand tax on its worldwide income. Dr Cullen is equally surprised by that obviously. He is preparing to change the legislation presented to the House today to provide an exemption for the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund so that it will not have to pay New Zealand income tax on its worldwide income. 
It is surprising—and I implore Rod Donald to listen to this—that if that provision successfully goes through the select committee process it will not be retrospective to 1 January 2004. It will not even be retrospective to 1 January 2003. What Dr Cullen is doing for the Cook Islands National Superannuation Fund is making the legislation retrospective right back to 1 July 2001. We have seen a lot of retrospective legislation brought into this House but I do not recall any legislation being so retrospective as to propose to pass so large a tax break to any particular entity to go as far back as 1 July 2001. 
So the select committee will be busy in the new year. It has a lot of work to sort out. If it needs further assistance I will be only too happy to volunteer to help. But I ask the select committee to look carefully at the significant amount of retrospectivity that Dr Cullen slipped into this legislation in the dead of night at quarter to 12 last evening. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 This is very interesting. Here we are at quarter to 10 on a Friday morning arguing down to the wire with the National Party about something Labour and National both agree on. That is quite an interesting tactic being employed by the National Party. 
I want firstly to congratulate the Minister of Finance. Of course I am not the only one to do this. I understand that on 95bFM recently John Key when asked who his politician of the year was said it was the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We all agree on that. I say to John Key that the Labour Party membership fee is only $11 and all is forgiven. He would be a good Labour Party member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Good State house boy. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he is a good State house boy so he would understand Labour’s very good housing policy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Income-related rents. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes of course he understands income-related rents. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s how he got here. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is indeed how he got here. We share John Key’s enthusiasm for the work the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has done in the finance portfolio and we support John Key in his support for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
This is a good measure in a good bill. It is kind of understandable that the ACT party opposes it because it just does not like tax full stop. It is hard to understand New Zealand First because sometimes those members do like tax and sometimes they do not. 
Darren Hughes 
: They’re not even members of the Kiwibank. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is right. It is sometimes hard to understand what their position on tax is. They are very enthusiastic about having a lot of tax go into things like inquiries. They call for inquiries virtually every day of the week. They call for inquiries on this royal commissions on that and investigations into the other—taxpayers’ money going into those kinds of things—but they have a strange and odd view when it comes to other matters. 
This is really an important measure as part of the Government’s tax policy work programme. As members will know part of that programme—it is not just about tax—is about promoting growth and innovation. I hear a bell; I think it is a message from Auckland that my time may be up. There are lots of things I would like to talk about on the fabulous work that this Government and this Minister of Finance have done but I think it is sufficient to say that this is a thoroughly good bill. It is well supported from outside and I look forward to its speedy progression through the House through the select committee and ultimately through Parliament. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I start by saying that I may have been a little presumptive in wishing you a merry Christmas last night. If this urgency keeps going the way it is I may well be wishing you a happy New Year from the same seat. National will be supporting the progress of this bill to the select committee. The bill raises some pretty interesting issues. It will be interesting to see the work of the select committee in this area. I do not think it takes very much for people to understand in one sense why the Government has chosen with this bill to look at a major policy shift around thin capitalisation and conduit rules. I think it is worth looking back just for a moment at the history of why thin capitalisation rules were put in place in New Zealand. My understanding is that they came about because of entities like I think Carter Holt Harvey that were owned by a foreign parent but had offshore investments—the rules around investments held by the New Zealand entity but owned off shore. The real question that arises in relation to New Zealand banks owned by a foreign parent is whether they have been undertaking transactions related to their thin capitalisation and undertaking structured finance conduit deals for legitimate reasons or whether they have been doing so for some other reason to reduce their tax base. That is ultimately the question. 
There are a number of views one could take. The first is that it may be a mixture of both—that in fact some of the deals have indeed been totally legitimate deals that the banks have looked to undertake and to house in New Zealand because of the nature of New Zealand tax rules. But I think it is also worth noting that some of the deals may well have had a structured component. It is interesting that the Minister of Finance has made it clear that he thinks the revenue impact post the passing of this legislation—assuming it goes through the House—will be of the order of $360 million. He has indicated to the public that that $360 million is likely to be poured back into growing his tax base which would allow him to fund more spending initiatives which we know this Government loves to undertake. 
On a number of fronts I think he is wrong on that count. I do not think the Minister will get $360 million of additional revenue. I say that for a number of reasons. Nor do I believe that the Inland Revenue Department is likely to be successful in its claims against the banks to the extent it is arguing. I say that because from what I can see every bank in New Zealand has a different accounting firm and a different legal firm advising it in relation to these conduit deals and despite the fact that they all have different legal opinions and different accounting advisers not one bank in New Zealand has chosen to put a provision in place for the relationship around these conduit deals. To put it in simple terms the Inland Revenue Department is telling the Minister that it will win and that it will deliver $360 million of revenue which the Minister of Finance is very gleefully happy to accept bank and spend. Not only has he banked the future revenue he thinks he will get; he has banked the post revenue he thinks he will claw back from the banks. 
I make this statement in the House today: he will not be successful to anywhere near the extent that he thinks he will. I think he knows that because many of those banks are sitting on rulings from the Inland Revenue Department that say that the deals they undertook in New Zealand were legally correct. If the banks have a ruling that say that the deals are legally correct and the department is telling them that they are somehow not correct and that it will get that money off them then that will be an interesting legal tussle. 
If it was one of the banks in New Zealand with one set of accountants and one set of lawyers then I might have a bit more confidence that the department and the Minister might be successful. But it is not. It is every bank in New Zealand from what I can see or all the major offshore-owned banks. They all have different legal opinions and different accounting treatments. The first recommendation I would make is that the Minister stops banking the money that he thinks he will get from the department because he is very unlikely to get it. 
Secondly I think he needs to take a very close look at these rules. The thin capitalisation rules will essentially look in very simple terms at the way outward-bound and inward-bound investment can be deducted and at what the base level of registered equity needs to be for a New Zealand bank. That will be determined to be 4 percent. In effect a large number of the conduit deals that had outward bound investment were used to effectively reduce the banks’ equity in New Zealand and therefore their registered New Zealand income. 
The interesting question is whether these rules will work. The answer in some part is that they will. But it was equally the case when the thin capitalisation rules were brought into New Zealand on Carter Holt Harvey’s request. They were never deemed to be used for things that ultimately the registered banks may have done. I think the select committee should have a very good look at this. No one is arguing that if the New Zealand banks are not paying their fair share of tax they should be. The banks have been well consulted on this issue and have been engaged in the process. They understand the issue. I am just very sceptical about what it is likely to achieve. 
I will make some comments about why I think it is very unlikely that the $360 million that the Minister has argued for banked and pre-spent is likely to arrive. I do not think that it has dawned on the Inland Revenue Department that a number of the transactions that were undertaken in New Zealand were in relation to the conduit deals here. But quite a number of transactions were done because with the New Zealand tax rules it made sense to park those transactions in New Zealand. The moment that those thin capitalisation rules change under this bill some of those transactions will simply not take place here. One cannot do a linear calculation and say that just because the rules have changed one can now apply this income tax treatment to every deal that took place in New Zealand because they will not be here. The reality is that a lot of them will not be here. 
So the banks will pay more tax. The banks will change their activity around thin capitalisation. Whether or not it was legitimate they will change their treatment and pay more tax as a result of this bill I have no doubt. But I make the comment that it is very unlikely that it will be anywhere near the level that the Minister thinks it will. 
I will move on to the relationship to the 6-year income exemption for offshore systemic surveying undertaken. We welcome that move— 
Rod Donald 
: Yes. 
JOHN KEY 
: —unlike the Greens who do not think it is a good idea to try to recognise that New Zealand has a major energy issue. New Zealand is running out of energy. The Green Party thinks that a really good idea is to get pensioners to turn off their heated towel rails. That will not fix New Zealand’s problem. We have a growing economy that is using more energy. Our No. 1 gasfield is running out of gas. This Government has not done nearly enough to get out there and make sure that New Zealand does not run out of energy. The Minister of Finance knows there are two major reasons that foreign companies state that they do not want to come to New Zealand in a hurry and No. 1 on that list is energy. They are worried about running out of energy in New Zealand. This move if it does anything to encourage more drillers into New Zealand is welcome. 
I will make a final comment which is not about the issue that Mr Carter raised in relation to Cook Islands superannuation. I will leave that to the experts. But it is in relation to the statutory privilege around tax advisers. That is a welcome move. It makes sense for that information to be privileged as it has been for some time. I will make this comment. The rules are incredibly technical with many caveats. They require the advisers to sign away their life in blood and that seems to be a function of much of the legislation being passed under urgency by this Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise on the first reading of this bill to support its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It has been a very interesting debate. We had a 10-minute contribution from Mr McNair of New Zealand First who railed against foreign-owned banks only for us to find that New Zealand First members do not belong to the New Zealand - owned bank—Kiwibank—that a number of New Zealand’s members of Parliament are members of. So for all the criticism that New Zealand First had about foreign-owned banks we could not get a clear answer from the member about what bank he belonged to. 
We had a 10-minute contribution from John Key who as is always the case when it comes to National Party tax policy flip-flopped. He could not work out where National stood on it or what it was doing about it because when it comes to tax his party cannot make up its mind. Don Brash is still rolling him in the caucus room. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 106 I raise an issue regarding the speech given by the member who has just spoken. He said that I said that no New Zealand First members were members of Kiwibank. I never said that and that is not true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Education Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee at the conclusion of this reading. This bill is another good example of this Government’s commitment to raising the standard of our education system. Unlike the Opposition the Government moves with the times. Current education legislation has been amended considerably and some of it is out of date. This bill starts the process of tidying up and streamlining our education legislation to make it easier to follow and more efficient to implement. It is the first stage in a process to reform and improve the state of education legislation. I expect there will be further legislation in 2006. 
The bill has two areas of significant policy change. These are to establish a new regulatory regime in the early childhood education sector and to extend the national student number to both the compulsory and early childhood education sectors. Early childhood education has been a key focus for this Government. We want every child to get the best start in life. Research has shown that those who participate in quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed later in life. The new regulatory regime in early childhood education sets minimum standards that will help us drive up quality. 
It also gets rid of ambiguities in the current system of licensing of early childhood education centres so that it is easier for services to understand what is required of them to meet licensing standards. I see that even in some of our more affluent suburbs there are problems with getting the categories right in making applications for licences or for discretionary grants. This bill involves a simplification in that area. 
Our approach to early childhood education contrasts starkly with that of the Opposition. Dr Brash has already said that he would do away with the policy of 20 hours’ free education per week. He did not say “by lunchtime” he did say “after the next election” but I think that one thing is for certain: children will be getting their 20 hours’ free education—and Dr Brash will be gone. [ 
Interruption 
] Paul Swain will be working to keep our early childhood centres full of children. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I will be on the pension! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He will be on the pension and they will be getting their free early childhood education. The thing we know is that after the next election there will be a change in the spokesperson on education in the Opposition. We think that Bill English will go back to being leader again. Thankfully though the chances of Opposition members being involved in setting policy will not happen for a very long time. 
The extension of the National Student Number throughout the whole education sector will allow much more efficient collection and collation of information. The National Student Number is already used in the senior secondary school and tertiary sectors to keep students’ academic records and to ensure the efficient and accurate funding of our education institutions. An offence provision is included for any instance where the National Student Number is misused. The maximum fine is $15000. Other amendments in the Education Amendment Bill are designed to improve administration efficiency to transfer and update some sections of the older legislation still in use in the Education Act 1989 and sections that are no longer necessary are repealed. We do need legislation for the 21st century to support an education system that will provide us with the skills and knowledge required to be an effective nation. Legislation needs to be easy to access and to understand. This bill does not totally achieve that but it is a step in the right direction and I commend the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill 2004 to the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Well that was a quiet valedictory from that Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do you want a bet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I would not bet on it. I just hope like anything that we get Steve Maharey. That would be great we are really looking forward to it! This legislation is quite uncharacteristic of that Minister in that some of it is useful. Some of it is actually quite good. I do not think that anyone would want to stand in the way of simplifying the regulatory regime for early childhood education. 
I just want to draw attention to some of the issues that we will be looking to debate in select committee when it goes through the detailed provisions of this bill. We support a better regime for early childhood education regulation. It is too complicated at the moment there are doubled-up requirements and it is time it was tidied up but the way this bill approaches it does play with fire. I want to draw some of the risks to the attention of the Minister as well as to the attention of the House. The Minister may do well to listen to this regardless of whether he or someone else will see this legislation through. 
There are some real lessons from going down a similar path to the path taken in the health sector. What this legislation imagines it will do is focus on outcomes—not health standards prescriptions—to set some very broad principles and then allow officials to determine by regulation just what the requirements will be for setting up and running an early childhood centre. That is a path we went down with the legislation in the health sector in the mid to late 1990s. I can tell members that there are many potholes on that path. For instance if we do not have much prescription in the legislation there is no constraint on officials. What health providers have discovered is that we can end up with more prescriptive regulations because officials feel free to lay down by regulation anything they like. They have no particular reason to be careful or economic about it. The legislation gives them a free hand. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that out of courtesy to the speaker there is far too much talk and people have their backs to the speaker and are not sitting down. I just give that final warning. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would have thought that the Government would have— 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s so washed up he’s not worth listening to. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a direct challenge to the ruling you have just made. I take offence at the way the Government members are treating the Speaker in the Chair by turning their backs to her and defying a ruling straight away and I suggest you ask them to withdraw that interjection. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that the member is quite right. I ask the member to stand and withdraw. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: So I hope the Minister will pay attention to the problems that have been created in health by a regime of the type he is proposing. Also in this bill is a change in the way early childhood education will be funded. The legislation sets off down the path of permitting funding to be related to the type of service and to the cost of that service. I say that this is the bit I am most concerned about because the legislation allows the Minister a free hand to determine the entitlement of New Zealand children and we have seen how he is using that free hand at the moment. What the Government should be doing is taking the approach that every New Zealand child has an entitlement to early childhood education. It is not compulsory so parents are free to choose whether to take up that entitlement. 
It is effectively what is in place now but what this legislation will do is validate the approach the Minister has taken. He has decided he likes some kinds of early childhood centres and does not like others. He will bring in a regime that provides a much more significant entitlement for some New Zealand children than for others. That entitlement will not be determined by the need of the children the socio-economic status of their parents social or educational need or citizenship but by which childcare centre the parents decide to send their child to—and that in our current society is pretty much random. Parents have no particular say or choice over whether they have access to the Minister’s preferred early childhood centres which are community-led or teacher-led services. 
He does not like private providers so he will use the flexibility in this legislation to determine that children who go to private providers have a lesser entitlement. That is ridiculous and we will oppose that right through the passage of this bill. We want this legislation to constrain the Minister’s and the bureaucrats’ opportunity to discriminate amongst New Zealand children. I never thought we would need to do that because I thought all politicians in all parties would have the view that if someone is 2 3 or 4 years old that person cannot be blamed for the ideological predispositions of a Government. Those children should have an entitlement that they can access anywhere anytime that is consistent with parents’ choices and preferences about early childhood education. But because of the way the Minister is behaving as it is discriminatory and unfair we believe that this Education Amendment Bill will have to be changed to ensure that every child under the age of 5 has a reasonable entitlement to early childhood education and that every child is treated fairly. 
It does not mean the funding has to be exactly the same for every child but it does mean we want a provision that will prevent significant discrimination on no basis other than the Minister’s personal preferences. We see this exhibited in a story on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
today where a playcentre in Kelburn was refused funding by this Minister personally to repair its playcentre building clad in raw asbestos. If people rub their hands on it they get asbestos on them. The Minister refused that application for funding at the same time as he funded two centres in his own electorate. One application from his electorate got $70000 more than it applied for—it got $730000 instead of $660000. The Kelburn Playcentre which applied for only $70000 the amount of that difference was turned down. So if he had simply applied fairness to his own electorate the Kelburn Playcentre could have got the money. The playcentre did not get the money because the Minister does not like playcentres. He does not like parents collectively providing early childhood education for their own children. That is why there needs to be some constraint in this bill. 
I want to refer to a couple of other issues. Clause 29 introduces a new provision to the Act about the intimidation of teachers: every person commits an offence and is liable for a fine if he or she intimidates any teacher or member of the staff at a school. I am very worried about this provision. Of course teachers should have the protection of the law in the workplace the same as any other worker but bullying has become a fashionable accusation against school principals who demand performance of their staff. This provision is going to be wielded by the Post Primary Teachers Association in particular as a threat over any senior management in a school who have expectations of their staff and that is a step backwards. In fact that could end up being a huge step backwards and the most significant problem in this legislation and we will want to examine that very closely. We believe that this provision is far too broad that it will be a major constraint on the successful management of schools and that it will have to be changed. 
Finally I want to talk a bit about the National Student Number. We support a National Student Number but the House needs to bear in mind that this will create data about individual pupils on a scale that has never been possible or imagined in New Zealand. The intention of it is that individual pastoral and achievement information can be passed between schools and between schools and the ministry. 
There are many advantages from that but when we ally it when we put it alongside the Minister’s strong preference for the asTTle achievement tool which is all good and quite successful and the accreditation process for information technology systems in schools those who have always opposed testing of pupils and the use of that information need to be aware that this amounts to the infrastructure of any kind of testing anyone could possibly imagine. The information will certainly be created and it will be potentially available to anyone at the level of the individual student. We want to make sure that that part of the legislation is also well scrutinised. It will be an offence to misuse it but the definition of misuse will need a great deal of discussion because it can be used positively or negatively. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to extend my support for the bill. The bill’s main feature for me is that it implements the outcomes of the early childhood regulatory review by establishing a new scheme that gets rid of ambiguities in the current system of licensing early childhood education centres. Therefore it will be easier for early childhood services to understand what is required of them to meet licensing standards. The regulatory review was part of the Government’s 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. I extend my support for the bill. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill traverses such a wide range of areas that one could speak on it for hours but given the particular circumstances I am not too certain my colleagues would be very impressed if I planned to do that. The bill does range over a wide area although most of it is nuts and bolts stuff. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the Education and Science Committee but we will also be guaranteeing that when it reaches that committee there will be very close scrutiny of the issues it traverses. 
I want to take the House back to the days prior to the education reforms when there was a Department of Education education boards and things called brown cards. The brown cards contained the record of attendance of a child for every year and there was a 1 to 5 assessment system based around the normal distribution curves of the school population. The brown cards provided a system that enabled the tracking of students. If a student left a school the brown card was not passed on until a slip was received from the new school saying the child had been enrolled. Then the brown card was sent on. If after a certain amount of time the school did not receive that slip one went to the truancy officers at the education board who would then track the child down. 
When Tomorrow’s Schools came along and the Government got rid of education boards obviously there were no truancy officers any more and no one to employ them so the answer to the problem of “What are we going to do?” was to leave it over to boards of trustees. Well that has to be the stupidest solution to that problem that there could have been because the last thing boards of trustees wanted was to use scarce resources in hunting down those kids who were not in the practice of attending school on a regular basis. They were not the kids that schools necessarily wanted so we ended up with large numbers of students slipping through the cracks. It was a real problem during the 1990s. 
I can tell members that as a principal of an intermediate school I used to hold on to all the cards of the students going on to various secondary schools and wait for those schools to ask for them. The cards were kept in my office. One year I had cards in my office for over 6 months and they still had not been collected. We did not have a clue where the students were whose cards remained there. After a while we thought: “We’ve got all these cards packed up. We don’t know where the students have got to. We will send them to the Ministry of Education.” Do members know what the ministry did? It send them all back to us. That was how good the system was. 
Now the Greens will argue that it is an infringement of human rights to give people a unique identifier. I would suggest to the Greens that it is an infringement of human rights not to provide an education for the young people of this country and that too many of them in fact have been slipping through the cracks. So we believe that this legislation is a move in the right direction. 
The Greens will ask: “Why don’t you just give them a name?” Well I will use another anecdote. I was in Titikaveka in the Cook Islands and over the Christmas break its school changed from what was basically an area school into a college. I did not find out until the day before that that change was going to be made. We even had the infants’ desks still there and we had to start arranging things. But after trying to track down all the cards and who was at the school we ended up with 20 cards that had no kids for those names. But there were 20 kids who did not have cards. They had gone to Takitimu school the year before. Then it dawned on us that the kids had changed their names over the Christmas period which was quite a regular occurrence over there. 
Given the number of Pacific Islanders in our Auckland schools and in New Zealand schools one would assume that that is occurring on a fairly frequent basis here. This legislation will overcome the problems associated with the changing of names which is quite literally what some people do. 
I want to go into another area of genuine concern but I really see the clause in question quite differently from the Hon Bill English. Up in Northland many schools are small isolated schools with only one two or maybe three staff and most of them are staffed by women. The principals of those schools are expressing real concern about one of the things happening—that is people who are tanked up on P are coming to their schools during the daytime over issues relating to kids and the schools are too far away to get any help. I myself have been in a school where a distraught father threatened to shoot me but that was under a very different circumstance. 
I think that we do need to send out fairly strong messages from this House that we will defend our teachers protect them and give them fundamental protections from that sort of behaviour. I can assure members that there is genuine fear amongst many of the staff up in the far north about the sort of bullying behaviour that some parents take in association with the unfortunate increase in the use of P. So we are very happy with section 139C inserted by clause 29. If anything we would like to see section 139C amended upwards so that the penalties are greater than what they are in that provision. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh no. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: So we have people over there who do not want any protection for teachers. That is the National Party. It does not want to protect its teachers in rural areas yet it claims that it is a rural party. 
There are some minor changes to the way in which the New Zealand Teachers Council will be able to operate. We have to say at this point in time that the New Zealand Teachers Council has been a real disappointment. It was supposed to do wonderful things and be the professional body for teachers but it has had a very unfortunate history starting off with a very unfortunate appointment to its head position by the Minister of Education. 
We do not believe that the council is doing a wonderful job. We believe that if it could get its work going properly that would be very important. In fact Dr Nick Smith will tell members that the National – New Zealand First Government was working along a policy in the same direction. However the actual practicality of that has not been good. 
Certainly the changes that are reflected in the bill will enable the council to do its job better. There is some tidying up of matters around boards of trustees and annual general meetings. Once again it is sensible stuff in the light of practical experience. When people designed the framework around which boards of trustees operated they were not fully aware of everything that would take place but in the light of experience we can see that it is now necessary to make some changes. 
Another feature of this bill that we see as positive is that it gives the potential at least for the Minister of Education to create some form of bonding around a scholarship system or an upfront reduction of fees for students at tertiary level. We have seen what I believe is a scandal—the increase in fees by the University of Otago for medical students of I think 10 percent on top of its current fees. Neither National nor Labour have treated our would-be medical practitioners very well at all. Medical students are the cream of the bunch; they are taken off the top. They have the longest training programme of virtually anyone and they have such an important public-good function when they come out yet we are lumbering them with huge amounts of debt—debt much higher than that of any other level of students. That really is unforgivable in terms of a society. 
This bill would enable a Minister to inject some common sense into the funding of our medical students by upfronting the reduction of fees on the basis that students are bonded for a certain number of years. Those people who trained in teaching back in the time I trained as a teacher will know the benefits of the bonding system particularly for people from working-class areas as I was. 
I will round off by saying that Bill English raised some very serious concerns about the early childhood sector—concerns that are reflected in this bill. We have to concur with Bill English on those concerns and on what he said. There is a very unfortunate situation occurring where the Minister seems to have been sucked in by one particular teachers’ group and he has built policy all around one particular set of providers who are not necessarily the best providers—or the worst. They are just historically linked with Governments going back to 1948 I think when Peter Fraser first started paying kindergarten teachers. 
Kindergartens have morning and afternoon sessions because the women the philanthropists etc. who first put them in place to look after the children of the poor did not believe that mothers should work. So the early childhood education provider—the service—has those sorts of anachronisms within its structure as the preferred provider. Kindergartens largely teach 4-year-olds and so many of the provisions in the early childhood sector are built around the delivery of education for 4-year-olds. 
I heard about a case last night of a staff person with a degree in relation to a baby in an early childhood centre. The person realised that the baby was hot but when someone said to take its temperature she did not know how to do that even though she had a degree and was being paid at huge rates. I will bet if my teaching of students is anything to go by that that person will know the theories of Karl Marx. Students know the theories of Karl Marx and they get their degrees but they do not know how to use a thermometer or take a baby’s temperature. Unfortunately that is the direction in which the Minister’s policy priorities are taking us so we will certainly be scrutinising that part. 
That is the negative side of this legislation. Other than that we will be supporting it going to a select committee and going through the select committee process. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee but we have grave reservations about this legislation. It has wide-ranging reforms especially to do with the early childhood sector and we look forward at the select committee to receiving what will be some very good submissions from the early childhood sector. 
The Minister has almost decimated early childhood education in this country. Yesterday he would have received—as would some of the members sitting over there—a letter from a woman who has been running early childhood care centres for 27 years and has loved it but is just fed up and is now putting her centre on the market. The end of her letter states: “Many who have brought their children to us and those children now are grown up and bringing their children to the centres confirm what joy they have brought to childcare over the years. The pleasures I have experienced educating and nurturing preschoolers through the years has been snuffed out by over-regulation and bureaucracy.” That says it all. 
The serious concerns we have revolve around having things like a national identity number. There has been a call for years now for the Government to do something about truancy and the number of children in schools who just disappear. However I do not see that having a national identity number will do anything to get children back into education. Many children are just resistant to school—they are not necessarily resistant to education—and if we keep dragging them back in front of a classroom with 30 other children and doing things the same way we will get the same results. I seriously question having a national identity number for under 5-year-olds children who are not in the compulsory education sector. I do not believe that I am being hysterical here or over-reactive and I am sure that the Greens have serious concerns about this too. 
For years we have seen Governments try to bring in national identity numbers. We saw it with National with drivers’ licences with Maurice Williamson and Jenny Shipley. Is this another Trojan Horse for a national identity number for everyone? Will babies get a pin number when they are born so that we can trace them through the health system and through the education system—so called? Those sorts of State interferences are always brought in in everyone’s best interests and when it is in the best interests of children that is when people’s antennae should go up. 
Early childhood education in this country used to be the best example of how parents could exercise choice in their children’s education. We have a huge amount of competition. There are kindergartens kohanga reo playcentres private centres and community-owned centres. Most parents can choose where they want to send their children—or they could until recently with the distortion of funding and the free hours for community-owned centres which the Minister brought in against Treasury advice. Just this week I received Treasury papers that warned the Minister that that would cause distortions. Treasury gave other warnings which I will come to later. 
The Minister does not like private education centres or early childhood centres. He has called them “Kentucky Fried childcare”. I have been to numerous conferences on the early childhood sector. Those people are extraordinary teachers. They take children probably at the most difficult time but the most receptive time when children are little sponges and are the most vulnerable to good or bad education. There is the old saying that whatever one has put into children by the time they are 7 will make the adult later. These people are not nappy changers. They are educators and teachers. None the less it is not a one-size-fits-all sector of the education system. One can go to a kindergarten where kindergarten teachers give 3 hours or 2 hours of intensive education then go down the road or next door to an early childhood centre that is open for 8 or 10 hours and has two or three shifts of teachers where they are catering to a vast variety of needs of children some intensive education some just play education and all sorts of issues. None the less this Minister has driven through a new regulatory scheme whereby all so-called persons of responsibility in an early childhood centre need a minimum qualification of Bachelor of Education in early childhood education—not the qualification of Bachelor of Education in primary teaching or of being a mother and not even of being someone who has had 30 years’ experience. 
I have four children the youngest of whom is 19. Clearly I was a danger to children because when all my children were under 5 most of the time they were at home with me. They were on unlicensed premises with an unlicensed teacher—a teacher who did not have any tertiary qualifications. Clearly those children should have been removed from my care just as I should have been removed from my parents’ care and just as a lot of the people in this House who were brought up in the country where there was no early childhood education should have been removed from their parents’ care. Goodness knows how we grew up to be as sane as we are! Thank goodness this Minister is riding to the rescue and saving children from having such a dreadful upbringing! At last every person of responsibility in an early childhood centre has to have the right piece of paper to wave in front of his or her employer. 
Treasury advised the Minister that there would be serious risks to bringing this measure in. It advised the Minister that up to 400 early childhood centres throughout New Zealand would close. That is exactly the case because 400 centres are now under threat of closure by the end of January. This legislation does amend that by introducing provisional licensing that can go up to 18 months but those centres have to comply by January in a month’s time. This bill will not do anything for them. 
If the Minister knew this legislation was coming in why did Kawhia Early Childhood Learning Centre—which is 90 percent Maori is attached to the Kawhia Primary School and has total community and parent support—a brilliant centre have to go to the High Court in Hamilton to remain open? Why was the Minister in his bullying way going to close it? Was it because the children were not safe? No. It was because the person of responsibility had a Bachelor of Education in primary teaching. She was also fluent in te reo totally bilingual and perfectly suited to the centre because 90 percent of the children attending are Maori. But despite all of that she did not have the right piece of paper to wave in front of the woman who was running the centre and the centre had to take its case to court. 
I want to mention briefly the other concern I have and that is the Teachers Council which is to get extra teeth with this legislation. The Teachers Council has been a complete and utter failure. What we had the Teacher Registration Board was not broken. But bowing to union demand the Minister brought in the Teachers Council which now passes people to teach despite their being red-flagged by the police. I will tell the House what that has meant in England. Obviously the Teachers Council has never heard of 190-page report called the  
Bichard 
 Inquiry 
 which was published in June this year. That inquiry investigated how Ian Huntley the man who was convicted of murdering schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells was able to be employed as a school caretaker when he had a history of allegations of rape burglary indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse. Here was a man who had been red-flagged by the police in England yet he was still able to be passed as someone who could work in a school. This bill will not do anything to improve the Teachers Council. It should be dumped and we should start all over again with checking teachers. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support this bill going to the select committee but we make no promises after that. There are two issues I would like to raise in the first reading debate. The first is our concern—shared obviously by Deborah Coddington from ACT—with the extension of the student number system from the secondary sector into the primary and early childhood sector. Currently these numbers are used in the secondary and tertiary sectors to collect and combine data for policy and analysis purposes to enable the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to record credits and qualifications gained by learners on the national qualifications framework and to allow tertiary education providers to use information on the National Student Number system to verify enrolling students’ identity. 
On the face of it the National Student Number system is used for fairly benign purposes but the Greens have always been concerned that these unique personal identifiers could be readily misused. The only other existing national ID number is the National Health Index number which is an identification number given to all children at birth. We are tracked for our entire lives. To that extent there appears to be very little information about the effectiveness of these numbers in the secondary and tertiary sector and virtually no checks on whether the numbers or the data have been misused. That is something we want to examine closely at the select committee to ensure that there is scrutiny of how the numbers are used and that there are mechanisms to ensure that the data is not abused. 
The bill provides for these numbers to be extended to the primary and early childhood sector primarily for the purposes of attracting students to minimise non-enrolment and to ensure no double-dipping. I point out to Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First that he has misrepresented us. We are not against numbers. We are not saying that everyone should have only a name because there is a need to ensure that children are enrolled and attending schools. But although there may seem to be a laudable purpose in this the capacity for the misuse of this data is very high. We want to know whether this information about non-enrolment will be shared with other State agencies such as Work and Income. We want to know whether it could be used to financially penalise beneficiary families for example. We want to know whether any other agency or body can be authorised to have access to this data under the bill. Without more information about the current misuse of the numbers already in use and concrete provisions to prevent unjustified sharing of information for punitive purposes the Greens do not think that these numbers should be extended. We look forward to assurances about that at the select committee. 
The second issue concerns clause 4 which amends section 14 of the Education Act. Section 14 concerns the suspension and exclusion powers of principals. The clause 4 amendment put up by the Government is merely a tidy-up which is hugely disappointing for the vast number of families from all walks of life who suffer from the abuse of these provisions. The 2003 report on stand-downs suspensions exclusions and expulsions shows that stand-down cases increased by 1946 from 17912 to 19858 while suspensions dropped slightly to 4887. Some programmes like the suspension reduction initiative are having an impact for some children and that is great but still we have nearly 20000 students being stood down every year. Nearly 5000 are suspended and the ministry confesses that a suspended child is away from school for 62 days on average. I see that Mr Carter is smiling. I do not know whether his partner is involved in any suspensions. 
Suspensions are a behaviour management tool used by schools but it is supposed to be used only as an absolute last resort. Sadly for thousands of families that is not the case. In suspending children a principal and a board exercise a statutory power of decision making. The only appeal for such a decision is to take a judicial review action to the High Court. The Ombudsman the Children’s Commissioner and youth advocates are inundated with complaints from parents who argue that their child has been wrongly unjustly or unlawfully excluded from his or her school. But where can they go to have their children reinstated? The only place they can go to is the High Court and only at considerable expense. Court fees increased again only 6 months ago and only two such cases have ever been taken in New Zealand. The fact is that the best way of keeping kids at school is to engage them in learning not kicking them out for stupid or unlawful reasons. The proposed change in clause 4 will do nothing for those children. 
My colleague MetiriaTurei has a member’s bill in the ballot that would establish a school review authority. That authority would be able to review the statutory decisions of boards and principals and make binding decisions on both the families and the schools. The costs would be minimal for families so justice would be accessible to all. The authority would provide legal guidelines to schools on how to properly use the statutory powers they have available to them which would provide a sound legal platform for schools. Such an authority would ensure that all our families have access to justice and that all our kids get the best possible protection of the law. 
The Greens are very disappointed that the Government’s bill does not deal with the real problems inherent in section 14 of the Education Act and the misuse of the suspension and stand-down provisions and we will pursue the matter further in the select committee. There are a number of other significant issues in the bill. We look forward to dealing with them during the select committee process. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take a call in the debate on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. United Future will vote in favour of the bill going to the select committee. We have a number of reasons why we want to do that. 
We are very conscious that the bill is a mixture of clean-up material—minor policy changes—and some major policy initiatives. That is why we are very happy to vote for the bill to go to a select committee—so that we can deal with the wide range of items on offer in the bill. It is there that we will hear the submitters put to us their questions on and their solutions for some of the elements in the bill and it is there that we will be able to find out first-hand from the appropriate submitters on the various wide-ranging parts whether the proposed deletions and transfers from each of the Acts listed in the bill should occur in the first place. 
For example as a select committee when the bill comes before us we will need to reflect on the expertise of the School Trustees Association in terms of some of the old regulations that are modified discounted or folded into the present legislation. I will also be interested to hear from the experts on school property. I hope they will share whether the proposed changes hold any water at all. 
On top of that as I said United Future will want to be satisfied that the proposed significant policy changes or new additions to education in this bill are kosher. We will be listening and wanting to hear from the stakeholders in those areas whether they favour those matters. I am sure that most of the education sector stakeholders will want to give us their wisdom their knowledge from their workplaces and their opinions. 
I am convinced that all Kiwis or most of us have an opinion about education. After all it is a subject we all think we are experts in—one of the criteria being that we all have had an education of sorts. If we are married and have children we have seen our children go off to be educated as well. I have got to the stage now where I am seeing my grandchildren go through the same process and I now have a sharper keener perception about education my grandchildren’s growth and learning. 
United Future takes a proactive position on this bill based on the fact that there are many general components within it. We do not see in it many policies that present problems but there are some provisions that we need to scrutinise and that is why we will be very happy to see it move forward. As the Minister of Education knows and as is no secret in the House it is really hard philosophically for us to agree with some of the education policies that have been proposed in the past by the Minister. They are normally so socialistic and ideologically driven that we have always disagreed and have acted more as a brake on his madness than anything else. So for United Future to say that the bill should be scrutinised in a select committee is a step forward in that we recognise that we should work together with the Minister so that we can see something achieved in that committee. However the Minister should note that he is on notice that we will still be very inquisitive and will ask the hard questions in the committee to ensure that no social engineering takes place or is sneaked in under the radar. 
There are a few areas that we will definitely be tracking down on. One has already been mentioned by a number of speakers in the debate and that is the ID number that is being proposed for every student. The idea is that every child will be tracked through his or her school life from the age of 3 from early childhood right on through to his or her tertiary education. Possibly I imagine it would go on through to lifelong learning programmes. Children will be given a unique identity number. I have feedback that some mums and dads will no doubt see that as the most controversial part of the bill. After the huge outcry which we are all very conscious of that blocked a national ID card being introduced in New Zealand some are suspicious that this measure could be an under-the-radar-screen attempt to get a similar process going. We believe that public discussion and agreement are critical to this issue. We ask whether it is a sneaky back-door way to introduce a lost cause of earlier Governments. 
I want to touch on two or three of the advantages of the ID number provision that is laid out in the bill. One is that we are told it will make it easier to trace truants. We know that the issue of tracking truants was one of Mr Mallard’s proclaimed great centrepieces when he was in Opposition. He has ultimately failed to do anything about the issue and I am wondering whether this measure will achieve it for him at all. I have read the bill and I have no assurances that that will be the case. 
Another argument that is touted as being in favour of an ID number is that it would trace students who have dropped out of the education system. I do not know about that but I am a little bit perplexed to be honest. Would it really find such a student who is living under a bridge and smoking P? I have no idea how a number will trace a student who is hiding somewhere. So I have questions about that and it needs to be looked at in the select committee. 
Another aim touted is that it would administer the Government’s 20-hour-a-week free early education programme from 2007 onwards. The thought is that there is a possibility of double-dipping taking place or rorts going on and that by having a single number the Government will make sure it eliminates that. I have questions around how effective it will be. 
The early childhood education programme elements that are set out here are another area that we will certainly scrutinise. Education as we all know is about children learning and that is certainly not in this bill. That seems to me to be a major omission. 
Our questions do need full and complete answers. United Future recommends that the bill go to a select committee so that the committee can hear from submitters and so that we can make our assessments and modifications if necessary and bring those back to the House in 2005. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I take this call to support the Education Amendment Bill and its committal to the Education and Science Committee. It is a good bill and it underpins the direction that this Government has signalled since coming into office and that is that it cares about education. This Government wants all kids to have a good start in life. This Government wants to ensure that all kids reach their full potential and to ensure that investment in education makes sure that that happens. So I support this bill and I want to speak to the particular parts that underpin a lot of the Government’s thinking. It is about children getting a good start from the very first point of entry into education and that is in early childhood. 
In September 2002 the Government released its report  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. That was a 10-year strategic plan that set out an agenda for early childhood education. That plan foreshadowed a review of the regulatory system. Parts of those findings are in this bill and that will ensure that we work towards a good-quality early childhood education system. That is what this bill is all about. 
I am particularly excited that for example in Pukekohe in the Tainui electorate we have opened the first purpose-built early childhood education centre. Eighty percent of the students are Maori and all those tamariki are keen to wake up every morning and go to that centre. Why? Because they are excited about learning. That is what we want to see happen more often in our communities. 
One of the earlier speakers commented on issues in Kawhia. The regional office of the ministry has worked very hard alongside the Kawhia Educational Trust to make sure that early childhood education is provided in that community. Yes there have been issues around the qualifications of the teachers there and yes the matter went to court and yes the Government is still committed to working with the trust to find a solution. What might that solution be? The Minister has raised in the House in response to questions brought up by members of the Opposition that if the Kawhia Educational Trust wants to apply for a provisional licence from the regional office it is quite able to do that and find a solution and a way forward. I can tell members that all parents in that community are committed to working with this Government to ensure that the centre stays open. They want to see a quality education delivered to their children. They want to see that the teachers deliver good-quality education and bilingual at that—and I want to see that in all education centres. They know they can work through their issues with this Government and they know we are committed to these types of things. 
I think that when the bill goes to the select committee a number of issues may be raised in terms of what is happening across the broader sector of early childhood education. In terms of Maori participation it was only with the introduction of kohanga reo that we had the first surge of increased participation in early childhood education. Now we are seeing another increased level of participation. I hope those issues are raised at the select committee. I think they are all important issues to be considered by the select committee. I commit the bill to the select committee for consideration. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It speaks volumes about the lack of commitment from this Government to education that in a mad rush before Christmas under urgency we are introducing major education legislation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: National would never do this! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I highlight for the member who has just suddenly perked up—he did not want to contribute to the debate— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Remember benefit cuts? I remember those. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member may want to reflect on the fact that in visiting schools in my electorate this month I have gone from one school to another that has a huge deficit. Nelson College and my other major colleges have huge deficits at the same time as this Government sits on a surplus of $6.3 billion. That is the priority the Government gives to education. 
We hear from the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard and from members about early childhood education and about how much they supposedly care about it. We read on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
today: “Rotting playcentre faces closure”. The Government has turned down the Kelburn Playcentre for a grant of $71000 because the Minister says he is not clear about what the issue is. Well one need only look at the picture in the paper of that disgusting facility in this very city and that situation exists because of this Government’s early childhood education policies. Is it not interesting that the Minister Trevor Mallard can find $755000—$75000 more than was asked for—for a kohanga reo in his own electorate but cannot find $71000 to fix this appalling early childhood education centre? That is a disgrace. That is the sort of policy we get from this Labour Government and that is one reason why New Zealanders will next year change the Government. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We hear from the arrogant members opposite. That arrogance is also one of the reasons there will be a change of Government. We hear so much from the likes of Chris Carter about how Labour is opposed to discrimination yet in this bill we see the Government’s early—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I apologise for calling the member a bigot. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that. The member knows he cannot repeat what he has been called to order for. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The problem with the Government is that when we attempt to hold it to account for its appalling early childhood education policies and what those policies mean for New Zealand the best we can get from the Minister is a phrase that I will not repeat—just some personal abuse. What a disgrace to this institution of Parliament! Again that is why there will be a change of Government next year. People have had a gutsful of that sort of arrogance. 
The Government is saying in respect of early childhood education that it is not the needs of children that matter—it is political ideology. It says through the provisions of this bill that it is the bricks and mortar of an early childhood education centre that matter not the quality of the care and not the needs of the children. We will see thousands of children in New Zealand discriminated against simply because their parents choose to use an independent early childhood education provider and that is a serious mistake. This bill further chips away at parents’ choices and rights. There is absolutely no respect in this Government for the fact that parents play an absolutely pivotal role in raising children and that they should be able to have a choice about where their children go for early childhood education. 
We also see in this bill further development of the mess in respect of the issues around the qualifications of people in charge of early childhood education centres. What the Government has done in that area is an absolute mess and as Treasury has rightly said it will see up to 400 early childhood education centres start 2005 in breach of the mad regulations that have been passed by this Government. The Government is so obsessed with regulation that it says of people who have served early childhood education well for 20 to 30 years: “No you’re not good enough. You can no longer be in charge of an early childhood centre.” The mistake it has made is although it is acceptable for the Government to say that a new qualification—a diploma—is required for someone to be in charge of an early childhood education centre it is wrong and it is insulting to say to a 50-year-old person generally a woman who has served in early childhood education centres has years of experience and is very good at the job: “Sorry for Labour you’re not good enough. We’re changing the rules. We’re going to dump you on the scrap heap.” 
Darren Hughes 
: What is National’s policy on that? Is it going to repeal that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell the member that National’s policy is very simple. It is the same policy that we had when we were in Government a good policy that had support and it is that it is OK to have a diploma requirement for new people coming into the sector. That is what we have for doctors. That is what we have for accountants. That is what we have for engineers. Why when it comes to the early childhood education sector are we going to throw away very experienced people by having a new requirement in that regard? 
I want to raise concerns specifically about section 139C inserted by clause 29. I will read what it says because it is quite bizarre. Again it shows the way in which this Government will screw the scrum to suit its own. The section states: “Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1000 who while on the premises of any registered school … and within the presence or hearing of any student of the school intentionally insults abuses or intimidates any teacher or member of staff of the school.” Members may ask what is wrong with that. Well I first want to ask what is different about a school. All sorts of personal relationships and tensions arise but why is this provision only in respect of a teaching staff member? It is true that there are parents who have abused and insulted teachers. It is also true that teachers have abused and insulted parents. But why does the law cover the relationship going only one way? Why do we have that special protection for the teacher but not for the principal? There will be many who see it simply as a provision—as so correctly pointed out by Bill English—that many principals who are trying to get a better performance out of their teachers will have used against them as they try to raise the standards in our schools. 
My real question is why we have to have this special provision regarding insults abuse and intimidation in schools alone. Why does it not apply to hospitals or to Parliament? Why do we not have it in all other areas? Why are we creating a specific law for teachers only when there is nothing for parents and when it is all about changing the power balance? This Government is determined to undermine the leadership role that principals play in our schools to undermine the role parents have in choosing which school to send their children to and to undermine the right of parents to choose where they send their children for early childhood education. This section 139C which is intended to make a criminal of a parent simply for questioning a teacher about his or her child is over the top. Even if our criminal law currently is not satisfactory there is no reason for creating a special law that applies just within schools and that provides for the protection of teachers alone. It suggests that it is only principals or parents who ever insult abuse or intimidate people. I say that it is just another dose of political correctness from this Government. 
Again I stress that it is a disgrace that Parliament under urgency is debating such important legislation in a mad rush. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 People listening to the contribution of that member from the Nelson area Nick Smith would have just been reminded again of something we hear so often from him—that is negativity negativity negativity. All we hear is whinge moan and whine. 
That member never acknowledges the fact that this Government has increased spending on education by 40 percent since 1999 and that there is not a school in this country that has not benefited from a massive burst in building. I know that every one of the 27 schools in my electorate of Te Atatu in west Auckland has had a new building project in the last 2 years. Principals have laptops there is extra staffing the operations grant has gone up and so it goes on. 
This Government is absolutely committed to education because we see it as the tool for improving the chances of every person in New Zealand to get ahead in life. We are the Government of education. No Government has delivered more for education than this Government and this Education Amendment Bill we are debating today is part of the package of resources that this Government under the very wise leadership of the Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard is giving to this country to shape a better education service. It is through the schools of New Zealand that we will change society give that chance for everybody to get ahead and build a strong economy and a better-educated nation. 
This is excellent legislation. It builds on the incredible progress we have made over the last 5 years in the education sector. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 That speech was made by a member who has been away from the classroom for too long. He no longer has any understanding of the classrooms of today. The speech was made by a Minister in a Government that has closed schools. In actual fact 2004 will go down as a year in which the Government closed more schools than it opened and even more ironically for a party that espouses the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the core components of its thinking a year in which the Government has done more to deny that reality in its day-to-day practice in relation to schools by closing down schools with significant Maori rolls. So as the Minister departs from the Chamber I say “So be it.” I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Education Amendment Bill that is before the House but I am confused about where I should start because in these omnibus wash-up bills there is so much elusive material. 
I will look first of all at clause 4 where a little slip states that the phrase “for an unspecified period” is to be taken out of section 14(1)(b) of the principal Act. There is no explanation given of that. Yet there is one because those who have been in schools know about the immense problems of stand-downs and suspensions. They know that the figures the Ministry of Education has in its database are not correct. I have been collecting figures from Northland schools throughout this year and I can say absolutely that the ministry’s figures for stand-downs in some of those schools are not correct at all. In fact many schools do not want to tell the wider world just how serious the problem is in their schools with robust children and robust communities. No one wants to be upfront but the figures are there in reality and the figures if they were real would show that a large number of schools have problems even in maintaining day-to-day order and discipline. In clause 4 there is a solution. For some strange reason we are to take out the phrase “for an unspecified period” which has historically been part of the wording of the provision since the 1989 Act and before that in regard to “gross misbehaviour or continual disobedience” or the situation of a student’s behaviour making it “likely that that student or other students will be seriously harmed”. 
But that leaves an issue. If the word “unspecified” is taken out which is the current term used by boards of trustees there is the lurking suspicion in my mind that boards will then have to justify a specified period. If they have to justify why there is a specified period that will introduce into the whole business of school stand-downs and suspensions a whole new category—a very interesting category for boards that are endeavouring to maintain fair order and discipline in the classroom and endeavouring to maintain that safety in the classroom room by room is paramount with regard to the operation of their charters in their schools. So I believe that schools ought to be aware of that major issue and I hope schools will bring submissions on it to the select committee. 
That issue is also behind the whole issue of truancy. If ever there was an issue that the Ministry of Education has not handled with any great ability I say it is the issue of truancy. Throughout the 1990s—at least in the late 1990s—there was a move towards dealing with truanting students and students who were not being recorded. And that brings me to the matter of the national truancy database. The issue is that there were thousands of truanting students in the 1990s. In Auckland an estimated 7400 students under the age of 16 were not in any school. They were unrecognised and unrecorded and the numbers today are not much changed. In other words after almost a decade of tracking and monitoring truancy in schools the situation has not changed and the moves in this bill will not make things any better. 
The other issues are these. Why would the Minister remove the function of requiring boards to provide an annual report to the community? Why are those reports to be no longer a requirement? Why would a board of trustees not wish to have an annual meeting at which it presents the annual report? Why would a board not wish to be scrutinised by the community and have dialogue with parents on the proper function of recognising whether a school is doing its job? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What have they got to hide? 
JIM PETERS 
: That is right—exactly. In this day of spin of public relations people working for schools it simply fits in with that that if boards can get away with not presenting their annual report and can send it off to the Minister of Education via the local regional office that will be it. That is what the suggested amendment will allow. It is just not good enough. We are living an age when schools that do not have favourable Education Review Office reports will not bother to publish their community report. They will now no longer be required even to meet with their community to discuss the annual report and the effectiveness quality and competence of their staff. 
That brings me to the next matter. If ever there was an organisation that has performed dismally with successive chief executive officers coming and going every year it is the Teachers Council. I can say that the Teacher Registration Board did a far far superior job working with limited staff and within the framework that it had. So here we have the suggested disciplinary functions of the board being enhanced when the board does not have a reliable database and when there are unqualified teachers who have just finished in schools—teachers who were not experienced in any sense. But worse than that many people are working beyond the 20 half-days allowed for unqualified persons to work in schools and the council has no ability to do anything about it. When applications are made to the council—and they were being made over the last year—the delay in processing them was not just days; it was weeks and sometimes months. So we have an inoperative system. The council ought to be out there scrutinising—and it should be in 2005—to ensure that every teacher is registered and qualified and that those who are not qualified serve for no more than 20 half-days. In fact that has not been happening and it will not happen after this bill is passed. Yet the board is demanding greater powers of discipline—to hear what? I hope that those who come before the select committee will demand an answer to that question. 
The other matter that I want to quickly mention is clause 32 “Preparing charters”. There is an underlying issue there about why there is and has been some disparity between the charters of industry training organisations and the acceptance of those charters by that fabulous group known as the Tertiary Education Commission. We all know that the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act of 2002 had many pains in its set-up period. It is no wonder that that was the case because the Tertiary Education Commission the Ministry of Education and those who are responsible tried to take a Skill New Zealand group and incorporate it into a group that had tertiary oversight of the polytechnics in a major way—and universities—and did not give it the required staff or funding. The set-up period of what was called reforming legislation has actually shown no ability for there to be reform at all. I find the final acceptance of the alignment of the tertiary charters with the needs of industry training groups to be quite interesting. That provision seems to have a history to it and it would be very interesting if one knew what it was all about. 
In summary in an omnibus sense the amendments in this bill may seem to be just a tidy-up but I want to come back to the first one. What does “unspecified removal” mean? It means problems for schools and boards of trustees. What does it mean when the annual reporting requirement is taken away? It means a lack of accountability on a face-to-face basis—parent to teacher and teacher to the community. And what does a change in the Teachers Council rules mean? It means more of the same: a supposed workload and a supposed ability to monitor effectiveness and the quality of teaching but in actual fact the reality that because of how that group has worked out in a practical way nothing will be changed from this day on despite the intention that there should be change. I look forward to hearing and seeing the submissions that are made on the bill because these matters are worthy of serious attention. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on this bill. The debate on it has been very good and very constructive. Research has clearly shown that children who participate in early childhood education get a better start in life and are more likely to succeed later on as they progress through the education sector. I am very pleased to support this bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theEducation and Science Committee.referred to Education and Science Committee 
Coroners Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister for Courts 
: I move  
That the Coroners Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act of 1988. The bill will enhance public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners’ investigations and decision making and by taking better account of the diverse needs of families. Coroners inquire into certain deaths in order to uphold human rights. Coroners establish so far as is possible the causes and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or explained deaths and of death in other special circumstances such as where a person was in the care of the State. Balancing the needs of families with the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths can be difficult. 
Although the Act included provisions to address cultural sensitivities those provisions have sometimes not had their intended effect. The Law Commission became aware of the concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Maori on its review of succession law and decided to undertake a separate project on the Act. Its report on the Act was tabled in August 2000. Many submitters to the Law Commission said that despite the high ability and sensitivity of many people involved in the coronial process the current system was haphazard patchy unsystematic and inadequate. That was partly due to having more than 70 coroners with different levels of qualifications and experience and no training programmes. Coroners mostly work part-time often in isolation and have limited administrative support. The Law Commission highlighted a perception that the coronial system did not take enough account of cultural beliefs and values especially those of Maori. There were also reports of some coronial practices being insensitive to the needs of families. 
A review of the Act based on the Law Commission’s recommendations contained a number of objectives. Those included enhancing public confidence in the integrity and independence of the system taking better account of families’ diverse cultural and spiritual needs maintaining the need to understand the causes and circumstances of deaths in an accurate and a timely way and promoting cooperation between coroners and other authorities also involved in the investigation of deaths. This bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. The key elements of the bill are establishing the office of Chief Coroner moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners ensuring families are notified at significant steps of the coronial process introducing a specific regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I will now talk about those elements in greater detail. 
The appointment of a chief coroner was the key recommendation of the Law Commission and it has been widely supported. The chief coroner will help to manage workloads improve coordination within the coronial process provide support to coroners and undertake a wider liaison role. There will be fewer coroners in the new system but they will be well trained and work closely together to deliver a consistent high-quality standard of practice. At present most coroners deal with only a small number of cases a year. Moving to a system of largely full-time positions will enable coroners to develop greater expertise and will improve the timeliness of inquests and the release of coronial findings. Full-time coroners will also have more time to undertake public education and develop closer relationships with other investigating authorities. 
The definition of “immediate family” has been broadened in order to better take into account the diverse family relationships in New Zealand. The coroner will be required to notify the family of significant matters in the coronial process such as the post-mortem examination the opening of an inquiry and the date time and location of an inquest. A family will be able to appoint a representative to liaise with the coroner on its behalf. With the coroner’s authorisation the family may be able to view touch or remain near the body although the coroner may impose some conditions such as requiring a police officer to be present. In certain cases the family will be able to object to a post-mortem and may also be able to have a doctor registered nurse or funeral director present at the post-mortem. 
The current Act is silent about the retention of body parts. Under this bill a coroner can authorise the retention of any body part or tissue that a pathologist considers to be necessary for a post-mortem but for no other purpose without the consent of the family. The coroner will be required to inform the family about the reasons for and the duration of the retention of body parts. Families will be able to specify how retained body parts are to be dealt with when they are no longer required. 
The bill includes new evidence provisions around inquiries and inquests. Coroners will be able to require people to provide specified information to assist their inquiry. If necessary a District Court judge will be able to issue a warrant for the police to search for that information. That will ensure that people cannot obstruct coroners by withholding information. Family members will continue to be able to attend inquests and to ask questions about a death and the events leading up to it. The provisions allowing a coroner to prohibit information from being made public in the interests of justice decency or public order have been extended to include personal privacy. The restrictions on the publication of self-inflicted deaths have been retained. However coroners may allow particulars about a self-inflicted death to be made public where that is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety. 
The provisions I have outlined today will make a major improvement in the coronial system. I would like to pay tribute to the many coroners who have served our communities over the years. Coroners deal with many of the saddest and most difficult aspects of death. I am confident that coroners appointed under the new Act will continue to show the dedication of their predecessors and that the new Act will enhance public confidence in the coronial system. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Maybe the Minister for Courts can advise by way of interjection which select committee he is referring the bill to. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Being the first Opposition speaker on this bill—my colleague Mrs Collins will be talking about a number of more technical matters associated with it—I want to draw to the House’s attention a matter associated with coronial services in New Zealand and that is the critical shortage of forensic pathologists. There is a critical shortage of pathologists who undertake forensic pathology work and who deal with coronial work nationwide. 
The Ministry of Justice has consulted widely on establishing a forensic pathology group in New Zealand but nothing has happened from the Government. Earlier this year it was reported that a Budget initiative was being worked on but the Budget this year was absolutely silent on any issue dealing with forensic pathology services. 
Forensic pathologists are the people who conduct the quite in-depth autopsies that for example have been popularised by American television programmes which predominantly are on TV3. The problem we are currently seeing in the system is a significant shortage of forensic pathologists in the country. There are retention and recruitment problems remuneration problems and an inability to attract overseas pathologists. Earlier this year there was no permanent forensic pathology coverage south of Auckland and today only five six or seven forensic pathologists are available for the whole country. Currently the coroner-directed pathology services in New Zealand are organised by the Ministry of Justice. It is vital that this Government moves to restore the capacity for forensic pathology in New Zealand. We need certainty in those services to ensure that we have a competent criminal justice system and coronial service system in New Zealand. Unfortunately I am sure there are no financial benefits in any move but it is something that needs to be done. 
I understand that the Government has been warned that public confidence in coronial services in New Zealand is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists. Would the Minister like to confirm that? The Minister will not say anything but I am 100 percent certain that the Government has been warned that public confidence in our coronial services is at risk because of the shortage of forensic pathologists. 
I will look at some of those risks. The public must be confident that suspicious deaths and homicides can be adequately investigated by skilled staff. The police need to know and coronial investigations may be severely compromised by the significant delays from not having enough forensic pathologists. There is a serious risk that the Government may have to contract in overseas pathologists at tremendous cost because of the shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. 
I do not think there is any doubt that New Zealand needs a coordinated and structured system with good recruitment retention training and quality standards for forensic pathologists. Such a move would certainly assist the New Zealand Police to deal with those matters. So I say to the Government that passing the Coroners Bill is fine but one of the fundamental jobs of coroners is to determine the nature of death and to do that they need top-quality forensic pathologists. So it is urgent in my view that police and coronial investigations are supported by upgraded forensic pathology services in New Zealand. 
When I first raised this matter in February this year the Government dismissed my concerns on the basis that it was preparing a Budget bid. A Budget proposal reportedly had been put to the Government that would ensure there would be enough people and resources to keep it that way. Well I have looked through the Budget documents and there was not one vote of additional money to address what has been described as a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. At that time a forensic pathologist in New Zealand said that the service was short of staff the overall funding was deficient and there was no allocation to train people properly. He said that until we know for sure that money is granted in the Budget there is not much point in claiming things are fixed. 
So the National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Coroners Bill. My colleague Mrs Collins the National Party’s effective health spokesperson will be spending some time looking at some of the more complex detail associated with this bill and at the impact that some of the issues requiring cultural awareness may have on coroner services in New Zealand. But in this lead speech we want to highlight to the Government that there is no point in reforming coroner services alone when there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in New Zealand. 
We understand that the Government has been warned there are significant risks associated with this lack of capacity. Those risks are around public confidence that unexplained deaths and homicides can be appropriately investigated and the police and coroners having a timely response in their investigations. There is also the risk of the cost of bringing in expensive overseas forensic pathologists to deal with deaths in New Zealand. This is a time when a Government that says there is not enough money for tax relief to reward hard-working New Zealanders should realise that there must be enough money to provide competent forensic pathology services in New Zealand. 
I would like a Minister to take the next call on behalf of the Government to advise the House whether the Government has been warned of the critical shortage of forensic pathologists and whether a Budget bid was put to the Government by the Ministry of Justice. We know that the bid must have been declined because there was no mention of it in the Budget documents. We ask what is going to be done about that. 
We know that the latest skills shortage list put out by the Immigration Service makes it clear that pathologists are on the list. The list came out on 13 December and we are still trying to get some confirmation of further details on the numbers. However it is clear that the Government’s skills shortage list which came out on 13 December—very recently—is an admission that there is a shortage of pathologists. Frankly I do not think the Government putting pathologists on a list of occupations that will be given priority in terms of immigration will fix the problem which it was alerted to earlier this year. We know that a Budget bid was being prepared but there is no mention of it in the official documents— 
Hon Annette King 
: This is tedious repetition. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It may be repetition to the Minister with the bouffant hairdo but it is important the Government knows that this is an important issue. 
This Minister of Health who is happy to have women with breast cancer go to Australia for treatment because she cannot get the money has a big problem. This woman Minister of Health is prepared to let women languish on cancer treatment waiting lists then send them to Australia for treatment. What sort of caring woman Minister of Health is she? I wonder whether that is the reason she will not be the Minister of Health on Monday. The Government which is dominated by women is prepared to let other women languish on breast cancer treatment waiting lists— 
Hon Annette King 
: You wouldn’t know what you are talking about. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I tell the Minister to come and talk to the people in my electorate who were forced to go to Australia forced to seek private treatment because the Government would not address the issue. 
I am alerting this Minister of Health—just for another 3 days—that there is a critical shortage of forensic pathologists in this country. She knows about it and she should do something about it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask both members involved to look at Speaker’s ruling 49/6. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 A lot of bills have been dealt with under this urgency motion and in the main the debate has been polite and constructive so I apologise for the contribution that has just come from Tony Ryall of the National Party. This is an important bill. It is about a very sensitive matter. It is about something that most of us do not like to consider which is the death of family and loved ones. 
My mother passed away just last month and because her general practitioner was not in town other services had to be involved at the time of her passing. The officers with whom I was required to communicate following my mother’s sudden passing were nothing but professional kind courteous and considerate. Coroners play a huge role in assisting family members at a time that is most difficult for them. 
This bill includes a provision for establishing the office of Chief Coroner. We will also move to having a smaller number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners and special steps will be taken to ensure that families are notified of the significant stages that occur during the coronial process. 
One of the other provisions will be that full-time coroners will have more time to undertake public education. I know from attending various courses in my own area long before I came into Parliament that coroners involve themselves in talking to groups involved in the community about their role and about how they might best assist families and other people in the community at a difficult time such as the death of a family member. 
This bill has been long awaited and I am confident it will go a long way to enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. I look forward to it passing through the select committee and being reported back to the House as it is a means of assisting the coronial officers themselves and the community at large. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Labour member who spoke before me had no answer to the matters raised by the Hon Tony Ryall. The Labour Government has totally ignored the need for forensic pathologists in New Zealand. It has done absolutely nothing about it despite protestations earlier this year and it is very clear that it is embarrassed about the whole situation; hence the member’s failure to mention it even once in her response. The Minister of Health—for the time being—was prepared to interject furiously on Tony Ryall but she was not prepared to take a call and give us an explanation for this deficiency that is so pertinent to coroners. 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s the Minister of Justice. 
DAIL JONES 
: I would have thought that coroners and forensic pathologists—while they might be forensic they are also pathologists—had something to do with the cutting up of people which might involve a health aspect as well. As far as these interjections are concerned I say they are wonderful but I hope the Minister will take a call at some stage rather than just interject in the debate on a bill that in a small way is yet another example of social engineering by the Labour Government. 
As I read the explanatory note and worked my way through the bill I was interested to see that once again there was a reference to the family. I decided to have a look at how the family was defined this time. The reference of course under clause 7 is to the “immediate family” which is defined: “(a) means members of the dead person’s family whanau or other culturally recognised family group who—(i) were in a close relationship with the person; or (ii) had in accordance with customs or traditions of the community of which the person was part responsibility for or an interest in the person’s welfare and best interests;”—that is pretty wide—“and (b) to avoid doubt”—which is clumsy drafting—“includes a person whose relationship to the dead person was or was through that of spouse or de facto partner (whether the partner and dead person were of the same sex or different sexes) child or step-child brother or step-brother sister or step-sister parent or step-parent or guardian or grandparent”. 
The Labour Government cannot help but bring in the same-sex situation once again in legislation. Here we are on what is allegedly the last day of this Parliament—I am told there is a rumour going around that we might be back here next Tuesday perhaps because of a failure on someone’s part to support urgency—Tuesday 14 December in parliamentary time pushing through yet another aspect of social engineering by this minority Labour Government. 
What is so important about this legislation? Well for example when we look at clause 31 “Right in some cases to object to post-mortem” we see that subclause (1) relates to a post-mortem on a body that a coroner proposes to direct. We can ask who can object to the post-mortem. Subclause (2) is a terribly wide subclause. It states: “Every member of the immediate family”—and I have just read out the definition of “immediate family”—“of the person who is or of a person who is suspected to be the dead person concerned has in the situation specified in subsection (3) a right to object to the post-mortem.” What a wide-ranging group of people we have there. Even someone who might have had a short-term relationship with the deceased person will have the right to object to the post-mortem. In subclause (3)— 
Judith Collins 
: It could be the person who murdered them. 
DAIL JONES 
: It could be the person who killed them; that is right. The person who murdered the deceased could have the right to object to the post-mortem. What sort of legislation is this? 
Subclause (3) states: “The situation referred to in subsection (2) is that the coroner is after having made all reasonable investigations satisfied that”—and various provisions are set out including of course the provision that the coroner must comply with “New Zealand’s international legal obligations”. 
So many United Nations conventions today are so airy-fairy that I pity the coroner trying to work his way through some international conventions. I can imagine that some of the many immigrants coming to New Zealand today who may have certain requirements as to the way in which deceased people should be taken care of etc. will raise a United Nations international convention that applies to some other unusual part of the world and the coroner will have to give recognition to that necessarily rather than to all the laws of New Zealand. 
There could be the situation of a mum and dad whose son or daughter has died—a son or daughter who had left home shortly beforehand and who was living in a relationship which was a same-sex relationship—and we have the same-sex partner saying: “I’ve got rights to object to a post-mortem.” What are mum and dad going to say about that situation? Their dearly beloved child has died and no matter how old the person is he or she is still a child as far as parents are concerned; he or she is still 6 years old and just going off to school which is something one always remembers. But in this situation there is some same-sex partner who can object to those parents having a post-mortem in what might be very unusual circumstances. That is what we get from this Labour Party. 
That is what we also get from the United Future party which obviously supports this bill. But it is not surprising that the United Future party supports something like this. I was listening to Gordon Copeland earlier this morning speaking on a tax bill and he referred to what is going to be in the report of the Social Services Committee on the Charities Bill. That report has not been tabled in the House as yet but Gordon Copeland was speaking on it earlier this morning. What is more he has even issued a press statement on it. Murray Smith can smile but that report had not been tabled in the House as at 10.40 a.m. yet we have Gordon Copeland speaking on it and issuing press statements on it and all that United Future member can do is smile. Gordon Copeland issued a press statement at 10.13 a.m. on something that has not been reported to the House. 
Well that is the United Future party. That is its standard on this particular legislation which includes same-sex relationships and it has issued a statement that is politically dishonest at least in commenting on a select committee report before it has even been tabled in the House. Needless to say that matter will be considered elsewhere as far as I am concerned. 
What we should be doing for example is taking a closer look at things like the report the Business Roundtable released today on having more regard for family life—not the sort of thing that is in the bill. In the report Patricia Morgan concludes that “using all of the standard indicators the family is now in a worse state in New Zealand than almost anywhere else.” The report states that her book “reports a large body of research that finds that the traditional family—the married couple and their dependent children living together in their own home—is generally best for children parents and society.” We would have thought that the Government might have learnt a lesson from what happened last week and before but no that type of situation still continues. 
Here we are on Tuesday 14 December but some people might think it was Friday. We should have discussed this legislation last week. Instead we are being forced to go through urgency on a bill that should be discussed at a better time when people normally expect Parliament to be on the air and when it is available to be visited as part of a trip to Wellington. But we are discussing this bill today on a Friday and we are delaying other bills. I am pleased to see that the Gambling Amendment Bill is up for discussion next. That bill could have been discussed last week rather than this week but of course the Labour Government wanted to ram all these first readings through now rather than doing them at a more leisurely pace last week. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee but the public of New Zealand can be sure that we will be doing our very best to make sure that the murderer of a person has no right to object to a post-mortem that is a vital matter of evidence in a court case. That is something we would have expected a Minister to take into account when preparing such a bill but obviously the Labour Government has no regard for law and order matters. New Zealand First will be making sure that these types of things are taken care of in the select committee. We support the bill going to the select committee and we will be looking closely at it there. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I have had a quick look at the Coroners Bill and at the amendments it proposes to make in terms of how coroners operate today. The National Party is supporting the bill going to the select committee but with some concerns. Some of these concerns have been noted by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall particularly in relation to the fact that no matter what we do about coroners and their work if we do not have enough pathologists a lot of what the coroners do is somewhat after the event or somewhat pie in the sky. We need the pathologists to give us the evidence that the coroners need. 
One of my concerns is the move towards having just a few full-time coroners. One of the things I particularly like about the current system is that so many coroners work independently as lawyers often in general practice where a great deal of common sense is required. 
Stephen Franks 
: Independent. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We do not want coroners who have always been hugely independent as Mr Franks has just noted and outside of the establishment to become part of yet another branch of the public service with possibly the same sorts of constraints that some judges and tribunal members now find themselves working under. We do not want coroners losing their feeling of independence and their ability to say what they need to have happen so that they can come to the right decisions. I do have some concerns about that. It is certainly an issue the National Party members of the select committee will be taking up. 
In addition I note with some concern the wider definition of “immediate family” and family generally. Like Mr Jones I have some concern about this particular provision. When I had a quick look through the bill its background and the Bills Digest I noted that there seems to be a huge amount of political correctness coming into the coroners’ court. It is a concern when we in New Zealand are so desperate in our need to be multicultural that we actually forget that we have a culture ourselves—it is called the New Zealand culture—and that some of the reasons some other cultures had for various burial practices have actually passed. We no longer live in an age without refrigeration. We no longer live in an age when people cannot be embalmed. We do not have the sorts of constraints that many other cultures had when they set up their burial practices. 
It seems to me that we should not in our rush to embrace all cultures forget the fact that the coroners’ court is there for a reason. It is primarily there to find the cause of death when the reason is not particularly obvious or when a death is sudden and unexpected. So in relation to people who murder other people—and Mr Jones took up this point—the last thing that we want is a system that is so PC where we bend so far over backwards to take into account every person who might ever be interested in someone’s death that a murderer is able to prevent a post-mortem. That is a really big concern that we have. One of the reasons for that concern is that most people who are murdered are murdered by the person they were living with or someone they once lived with. Strangers very seldom go around murdering others. So I think we need to be very careful about that. I am sure it is something the select committee will look at and get further advice on. 
Stephen Franks 
: Come and help us. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Franks wants me back on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I am passionate about health unlike the Minister who is leaving the health portfolio on Monday. 
Burial practices and deaths are something that particularly concern people. There is one thing that is certain—more certain than the fact that this Government will never come up with a decent tax policy—and that is that we will all die one day. I always come to this House thinking that every day is a wonderful day because it is a day I am not dead and it is a day I will be able to stand up for the ordinary common-sense people of New Zealand. I certainly would not want to give anyone on the other side of the House any pleasure by dying early! Death is not a laughing matter but we do tend to have a bit of humour about it because we all know that it will come to us. 
It is important when we have unexplained deaths that we have a coronial system that takes into account people’s sensitivities but does not and must not bend over backwards so far that the truth is lost. I am not sure where the call for this bill has come from. But I see in the bill’s explanatory note that Maori had some concerns about coronial practices. The explanatory note states: “… while undertaking consultation with Maori for its review of succession law the Law Commission became aware of concerns about coroners.” I am not quite aware of why we need a whole new bill and why any genuine concerns cannot be dealt with without impinging on the coroners’ role by way of practice notes or those sorts of matters. By putting through a bill like this we are having this whole area looked at again. In particular I am concerned about the cost of it given that we do not have enough pathologists—so the whole thing could be a bit of a moot point. 
We do not seem to be doing anything about getting more pathologists and I am concerned that by making a coroner’s position a full-time job we will lose the top people we currently have in the role. It will not be a hugely career-enhancing role I would have thought to become a full-time coroner. It might be something that some Labour MP who has been tossed out of Parliament and who once had a practising certificate would want to be. But the reality is that I do not think it will be a career-enhancing role. There will not be many people coming out of law school in their 20s saying “What I really want to be in life is a coroner”. Even someone who is successful in practice probably will not want to move into that particular role in their 30s or 40s. At the moment the current system allows people who are very experienced very good and into common-sense solutions to be able to take on that role. 
I am also concerned that it will be anticipated that the coroners will now operate in the smaller centres as well. One of the reasons I am concerned about that is not that I do not want smaller centres to have the benefit of coroners but that I know that one of the problems judges have at the moment is the way they are traipsing around the country trying to fulfil their particular roles in relation to all the different districts. The High Court judges have the same issue. Of course one of the problems with trying to get good people into those jobs is that many people who have families and commitments in their own homes do not want to be traipsing around the country for weeks on end for these sorts of hearings. It is certainly one of the issues that coroners or those who wish to become coroners will take into account when they decide whether to take up positions. 
So I have some concerns about the bill and the National Party has some concerns and we will be looking at those and teasing them out during the select committee process. Hopefully we will be satisfied after some changes have been made. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking some guidance from you. I understand from correspondence that has just been passed to me that a problem has been identified with the system for lodging questions for written answer. I am advised that the system is presently refusing to accept questions when they are signed electronically by members. The text completely disappears and repeated attempts to enter the questions have ended in the same result. Bearing in mind the very vague possibility that this could be the last day to lodge written questions two issues arise. Firstly what remedy is available to members who are presently and have previously been involved in lodging written questions for the next sitting day which presumably will not be until February? Secondly what consequence does that have for the time limits around lodging those questions prior to the House rising—whether that be Saturday Tuesday or Wednesday of next week? The question arises as to what remedies are being made available to members particularly as we are nearing the end of the year. I seek the Speaker’s guidance to members who are presently attempting to lodge questions as to how that process will pan out. In particular I seek an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged by what appears to be from the correspondence I have seen a problem with the system. I seek your guidance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It is a technical issue and it is being worked on right at this moment. The intention is not to inconvenience or disadvantage members at all. As to my advice to members I think they should just proceed along their normal course. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the Speaker to advise the House when that process has been remedied and in particular to emphasise the fact that no member will be disadvantaged as a result of the glitch. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Absolutely. That information will be given as soon as we can which will be in the not too distant future. 
Coroners Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The Coroners Bill deals with a matter that may seem very remote to most people and nearly everyone would want it to stay remote. But it touches one of those assurances of probity in public and private life that a country like New Zealand has taken for granted for many years. I think of the contrast with for example the Ukraine where the presidential candidate who might have been the successful candidate if there had not been electoral irregularities had to go to Austria to find people who could be trusted to investigate his poisoning. My concern about the bill that has come before us is that it may be part of a trend to centralise and streamline—as the proponents of the bill think it is—functions that have been powerful simply because they are distributed because they have been on occasion amateur or quirky and because there is room for coroners around the country to pursue matters that might not necessarily have been seen by a central authority as the priority as popular or even as desirable. 
My concern about the bill is that the appointment of a Chief Coroner which is seemingly an efficiency measure to provide someone to coordinate and represent coroners as a body and the reduction of the number of coroners to 20 full-time equivalents could end up giving us—I will not say a coronary—a system of coronary inquiries that would be less reliable than what we have now. That is not because the system is not technically improved by the bill and I am sure there is room for that but because that quirkiness that independence and that character of having been drawn from the community and being part of the normal networks of gossip of social contact that coroners have at present may not be replicated if coroners become professional and much more clearly agents of the State. 
In particular I am concerned that the bill represents a triumph of political correctness and that that may be a foretaste of the kind of approach that coroners will be directed to have by the Chief Coroner. The position of Chief Coroner will be very very important because it appears on the drafting as I read it that it is the Chief Coroner who decides whether there is an inquiry. Therefore coroners are subordinate to the Chief Coroner in a way that I think could be dangerous to our liberties at some stage in the future. While it may seem extremely remote at the moment the question of whether a coroner’s inquiry is held could be central to the satisfaction of people that there is not something untoward going on. 
The Chief Coroner’s function is described in clause 5(a) as being to oversee coroners’ investigations. So it is not simply an organising and case allocation role; it looks as if there is a supervision function. It is not clear whether the Chief Coroner can terminate an inquiry and assign someone else—in effect take over if he or she wants. Clause 5(a) provides that the Chief Coroner facilitates the provision and coordination of support services and other services but it does not give the Chief Coroner a budget as I read it. That is held by the relevant department. This bill follows the modern drafting convention of not stipulating the department itself and the relevant Minister that being left to the whim of the Prime Minister from time to time. 
In a country that has such a long tradition of public integrity and lack of corruption in these matters it is easy to say that fears might simply be paranoia. It is easy to say that but in the last few years we have been going headlong into abandoning some of the institutional constraints and protections that we have had against it being worth our even considering corruption. We lost the Privy Council as our obvious independent umpire and now we have our Chief Justice raising concerns about the subordination of her office and of the judicial office to the Ministry of Justice through its control of their budget their communications and their computer systems. Well it seems that coroners are intended to be in every way as subject as the courts and perhaps even more so. The Chief Coroner is to perform the functions of a head of bench. The Chief Coroner authorises coroners to open and conduct inquiries. I hope the select committee will look at that centralisation with a very suspicious eye indeed particularly as it is allied to the absence of any apparent budget for the Chief Coroner. The Chief Coroner could be simply a toady for the department. It is not at all clear that there has been a sensitivity to the risk of that happening. 
I also give notice that the select committee ought to look very closely at the sand being thrown into the gearbox by this bill in its exaggerated respect for so-called family. The definition of “immediate family” in clause 7 is: “(a) … members of the dead person’s family whanau or other culturally recognised family group who—…had … an interest in the person’s welfare and best interests;”. Well who would not be able to satisfy that requirement? That could be an enormous group of people. Paragraph (b) of the definition then goes on to say that to avoid doubt it includes brothers stepbrothers stepsisters step-parents or guardians grandparents and so forth. That definition of so-called “immediate family” will impose on coroners an obligation to try to identify what could be a very large group. 
The bill then goes on and requires them in essence to seek objections to the carrying out of a post-mortem and gives 2 days for those objections to be made. If the objectors then go to the High Court to pursue their objection it could take at least another day and probably more. So we end up with a situation where before a post-mortem can be ordered the deceased person might have been dead many days. Is that safe? What objective is being satisfied by allowing that kind of delay when post-mortems are really a protection against foul play? For example with many poisons with many causes of death the post-mortem should be done immediately for it to be satisfactory. The longer the delay the harder it is to identify exactly what the cause of death was particularly with substances that decay. 
When I look at these provisions I can see that the intent is to encourage more respect for and less brusque treatment of family concerns. But I think that in this country it is competent for a Government to say that irrespective of someone’s superstitions natural feelings towards the deceased and unhappiness about interference with a body the community for decades has had an interest in overriding those concerns in order to make sure that everyone knows that a death is unlikely to be covered up for want of a post-mortem. Just introducing these provisions reduces that certainty. A potential wrongdoer might be able to bank on being able to delay—or even avoid entirely—a proper investigation into the cause of death. 
So I want to know exactly what evidence the promoters of this bill have that post-mortems are a major cultural or spiritual problem; that these delays are not seen as problematic by the few pathologists that the country has managed to keep; and that the process of delay will not end up being overridden anyway so that all we would have done is raise false hope in the minds of family members—that their wishes will be overridden and a post-mortem ordered anyway. In other words this bill may be a solution looking for a problem that hardly exists and it may create more of a problem than it deals with. The kind of political correctness that infuses this bill is a worry as to the quality of the thinking behind it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Coroners Bill replaces the Coroners Act of 1988 and seeks to reform the coronial system to increase the effectiveness of that system and to enhance public confidence in it. The Greens consider that to be a very welcome move indeed because there has been enormous inconsistency in the past in the quality of work done by coroners. It may be that that is a legacy of the history of the coronial system. It started off as a very non-professional service and it has evolved over time in various ways. I think this bill indicates that this Parliament is finally giving some real respect and status to coroners which is something that is most welcome. 
Most of the work done by coroners has been extremely good valuable and important and we welcome that work. However I think it is fair to say that in this country we have seen some coroners view their position as a platform for airing their personal views on political matters that are entirely unconnected to the case before them outside their area of competence and unsupported by evidence. They are matters that are entirely outside their area of expertise or their jurisdiction. 
In particular I think back to some of the comments made by Coroner Mate Frankovich in Auckland. He made a number of bizarre statements over time and was never able to be effectively held to account for them. In May of 2000 he was investigating the death of Jamie Langridge of Whangarei following the taking of Ecstasy by that young man at a dance party. If I remember correctly the death was related to his water intake as a result of loss of heat control due to taking Ecstasy. At the time the coroner attacked what he called pro-cannabis politicians and challenged them to attend inquests to better understand the damage caused by it. I am sure he was referring to people like myself and other Green MPs who have a strong policy and position on cannabis law reform. He thought that somehow our attending inquests of people who had died of Ecstasy might dissuade us from our opinion. 
It was interesting at the time that Professor Sally Casswell of Auckland University one of the most pre-eminent researchers in this area said there was no evidence that cannabis had ever killed as Ecstasy has. That indicated that Mr Frankovich almost certainly had never presided over a cannabis-related death. She said that studies showed that most cannabis users did not go on to try Ecstasy that she did not know of any deaths directly caused by cannabis and that it was extremely unlikely that there had been any fatality directly related to its use. So cannabis use is a very different situation from the Ecstasy fatality that he was discussing in the Coroner’s Court. 
Really it is not the role of the coroner to use an inquest to vent personal views about unrelated policy matters. I consider that to be abuse of the coronial position so I hope this bill will help to steer coroners away from that kind of abuse. 
Stephen Franks 
: That’s what the bill has been about. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Well I think it is fair to say that coroners should stick to their job which is to determine the cause and circumstances of death and to make any recommendations about how such deaths could be avoided in the future. It is not the job of coroners to spout on about unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the case before them. I think it is entirely right that New Zealanders should expect that behaviour from coroners just as we expect other professionals to deal with the matters before them and not to use their position to make known their political views about other matters. 
So the role of the coroner is to determine the cause and circumstances of death and if appropriate to make recommendations about how deaths might be avoided in similar circumstances. I think it is likely that our having coroners who are legally qualified and well trained will help to enhance that role that having a Chief Coroner will help to enhance that role and that having a complaints process will also help to enhance that role. Coroners will now be subject to the Judicial Complaints Commission and I think that is right because coroners as with any other quasi-judicial office should be held to account and made to fulfil their function effectively competently and professionally. 
It is especially important because the role of coroners is increasingly important in this country. Workplace risk is increasing in some professions and it is important that we have people who are able effectively and competently to determine cause of death and recommend ways of avoiding it in the future. If anything one of my reservations would be to do with the enforceability of recommendations from a coroner. I have had meetings with a woman who came to see me in great distress because her husband had died in prison due to a lack of medical facilities in the prison. She told me that in the past coroners had made recommendations about essentially the same kinds of matters and there was no indication that the Department of Corrections had picked up on those recommendations and actioned them. We need to make sure there is a process so that the recommendations of coroners are taken seriously and are actioned particularly by Government departments when the investigations are of deaths in relation to functions of the State. 
This bill has taken on a number of issues raised by the Law Commission in its 2000 report on ways to improve the system. We hope that they will improve the operations of the coroners themselves and the processes by which they work. Much has been said about the new office of Chief Coroner which will provide leadership coordination and consistency. We welcome that. There is a move to a small number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners. We think that is a good thing. It is important that as I said what is an increasingly important role is actually done professionally by people who are appropriately qualified. There is a specific regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples and that is good. Inquiry and inquest processes are enhanced in a number of ways including regulations about who can attend inquests. 
A key thing which has been mentioned by members already in the debate is the relationship between families and coroners. It is not just a recent issue; it has actually been raised in the past a number of times by many different people in our community—Maori in particular perhaps but other people as well. I was really amazed to hear Judith Collins say that she had never heard of any of those complaints—that she had never heard any concerns raised about the way that coroners relate to families and practices around bodies and such. If that is true I think it probably says more about the member than it does about the issue because it is clear that a lot of concern has been raised about it over time. 
I think some members are being a little bit uncharitable when it comes to this issue. When we look at the clauses in relation to family members—those from clause 20 on—we see that most of these things are fairly straightforward. They are about facilitating effective liaison with the immediate family. The coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives necessary to represent fairly the interests of all the different members of the immediate family and that stands to reason. Families are not always united in their views and the different views should be represented but the coroner may recognise only the smallest number of representatives. That is all straightforward stuff. One would think it was fairly basic. I do not see why members object to it. Clause 21 “Coroner must give family representative immediate family and certain others notice of significant matters” is fairly straightforward. 
Some members referred to for example the right to object to a post-mortem which Mr Franks talked about. Clause 31 “Right in some cases to object to post-mortem” states: “(1) This section applies to a post-mortem of a body that a coroner proposes to direct under section 29 be performed unless the coroner proposes to direct that the post-mortem be performed immediately … because … any delay would or may limit the pathologist’s ability to determine the cause of death.” Well surely that is the crux of the matter. People can object but if the coroner considers that any delay may limit the ability to determine the cause of death then the post-mortem will go ahead. I do not quite understand what the member is objecting to in that case 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future welcomes the introduction and first reading of the Coroners Bill and we will be supporting it to select committee. I must say that it is one of a number of pieces of legislation that have been hanging around for far too long and I cannot help but reflect on the fact that if the Government spent less time on social engineering legislation and more on substantive law reform the country would be better off. 
In terms of delay I note that in November 2001 Phil Goff told the annual coroners conference that he hoped to have the new legislation in place by “next year”. Now 3 years later we are seeing it introduced with a view to it being passed in about another 6 months. Coroners play an important role in our society and the State’s role in getting involved in the whole area of suspicious deaths is to ascertain as far as possible the cause of all deaths. However it is limited to deaths where there has been some suspicion of foul play homicide or neglect and the role of investigating and determining whether any of those were the case; and secondly looking at dangerous or negligent practices with a view to trying to modify or eliminate the loss of human life. 
The State plays an important role in overseeing those issues and it is quite appropriate that we have a rigorous well-financed and well-resourced Coroners Court so that we can keep on top of those issues. It is notable that it looks only at some deaths under section 4 of the Coroners Act. It is only where there is no known cause an unnatural or violent act suicides where there has been some fault of medical procedure and where deaths have occurred in prison or in a mental hospital. 
There has been extended criticism of the 1988 Act—and the Law Commission in its succession law project carried out in 1995 or 1996 noted the issues and the particular issues of cultural sensitivity were raised. That prompted the commission to issue a discussion paper in 1999 where it identified and recorded a number of concerns in that area which it listed as the procedures for the appointment supervision and removal of coroners; the failure of Government departments to act on coroners’ recommendations; the lack of uniformity of coronial practice throughout New Zealand; the absence of a method for systematic appraisal of coroners’ reports to ensure that patterns of sudden death or factors predisposing to sudden death are identified and accorded an appropriate response. There were a number of factors with regard to the conduct of the office—in particular the insensitive handling of the body and/or body parts by coroners and pathologists despite provisions in the Coroners Act that required coroners to have regard to cultural values or spiritual beliefs; practices that failed to take account of or which conflicted with different cultural values such as leaving the deceased unattended at a mortuary; the failure to inform the family when body parts were removed or samples taken; the absence of a specific provision requiring the return of organs or limbs removed during a post-mortem examination; and the consequent failure in some cases to return a specific body part with the body or to notify the family that a body part had not been returned; and the unnecessary delay in the return of a body and/or body parts. 
There is an irony that the 1988 Act was passed in order to address concerns that the 1951 Act was culturally insensitive particularly with regard to delays and the release of bodies. Clearly parts at least of the reasons for passing the 1988 Act have been unsuccessful and that reflects poorly on the drafting of the 1988 Act. 
The report of the Law Commission which was issued in August 2000 identified a number of concerns that it felt needed to be addressed. I am pleased to see that most of those have been picked up in the bill. The ones that the commission particularly identified were that coroners tended to be the poor relations of the judicial system and that had flow-on consequences obviously with the self-esteem of coroners through to their perception in the public’s eye. Coroners were paid pitifully and were often senior partners whose firms subsidised the State in allowing them to attend to coronial duties. Because of the variable quality of coroners the commission recommended that there should be legally qualified coroners and that the appointment process and criteria ought to be far more specific and that there needed to be ongoing training of coroners. It also recommended a chief coroner who would oversee the process and provide some degree of consistency and would have a duty to inquire into the implementation of recommendations that were made and endeavour to ensure that they were carried through and that there ought to be more diversity of cultural recognition in the appointment of coroners particularly Maori coroners. 
It also recommended that there should be a regionalisation of coronial districts and a reduction of the number of coroners and the appointment of full-time coroners and that salaries ought to be fixed by the Higher Salaries Commission. In that regard I know that clause 100 provides for the Remuneration Authority to make that decision. I guess it will achieve the same ends in terms of raising the standard of pay. The commission recommended that there be no change to the JP role and that is something that has not been implemented in the legislation. Indeed the role of JPs will expire. It recommended that there ought to be an annual report to Parliament. That again is something that is not in this bill. There should be greater involvement by family with regard to the retrieval of body parts and retention of body parts and the retrieval of the body. There should be prior notification by coroners where there will be some adverse comments concerning the dead person or indeed persons who were living so that there was some warning of that and opportunity to comment prior to it becoming public. 
The commission also recommended guidelines as to the publication of suicide details and a national database so that there could be consistency. As I said I am very pleased to see that most of those things have been picked up in this bill and this does appear to be quite a thorough attempt to overhaul the whole coronial process. 
However there are a number of issues that I can see we will have to deal with in the select committee and I am looking forward to that inquiry and the debate that we will have albeit it being relatively dry law as far as the public is concerned. The first one is that whole area of the reporting of details of suicides. Clause 61 does provide a prohibition in terms of that reporting and there has been quite a lot of debate in the media over the last few years as to the extent to which that should happen. Certainly the media—not surprisingly—are against the whole idea of a restriction on the reporting. No doubt they will be making fairly weighty submissions to us to try to free that up. We will have to look at some sort of balance there once we have addressed both sides of the question. 
I note in 1999 the Government released a document  
Suicide and the Media 
as part of the New Zealand youth suicide prevention strategy. I was pleased to see that Canterbury University embarked on some research in March this year to look at how the media had picked up on that and adopted it. No doubt that will also come before the committee and it will be interesting to see the extent to which there has been a voluntary picking up by the media of those suggestions. I note that England Wales and Australia do not have a ban on the reporting of suicides and that may be of some influence to us. 
Other areas include the specialisation of coroners and particularly their relationship with the air accident investigation authority and other similar authorities that have specific jurisdiction in terms of deaths. I know that the latter are a little apprehensive about the idea that coroners will have an overarching jurisdiction that will cover their patch. However at this stage my view is that we do need coroners to have the overall responsibility and that is something we will have to work through. Coroner appointments of lawyers with 5 years’ standing instead of 7 years’ standing in my view sends at this stage the wrong signal that we undervalue coroners. I cannot see any reason why they should be any different from all other judicial appointments because it appears to me that they are very similar to Family Court judges in the sensitivity that they have to apply. 
Just very briefly the whole idea of JPs being excluded and the need for an annual report from coroners I think is important. I picked up Judith Collins’ comment about full-time coroners and whether part-time coroners do provide advantage. There are a number of issues that we will need to deal with. Certainly I look forward to the debate and the discussion we will have in the select committee. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Coroners Bill. Coroners inquire into certain deaths to uphold human rights. Coroners seek to establish the cause and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths and deaths in other special circumstances such as where the person was in the care of the State. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Maori for its review of succession law and wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000. This bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. I suggest that the House should support this through to a select committee. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I am intrigued by United Future members. They stand in this House and say that this bill should have been given higher priority than some of the social engineering bills the Government has pushed through. Well what are they doing about it? Why do they not use a bit of their clout and tell the Government that if it wants supply and confidence from United Future it should at least put some of these bills higher on the Order Paper? What have those members signed up for? When they leave this House in the next few months legislation on prostitution law reform on civil unions on a smoke-free environment—which they all voted against—and on gambling will have been passed. They voted for the Gambling Bill but they did not attend the select committee or read one submission on it. As a result of that bill being passed more and more people will be involved in gambling. That will be their testimony when they leave this House. When they leave the Government will have got through everything United Future does not want. They will have sat there waving their stake in the air. I cannot actually see United Future members from here but I suppose they are there somewhere! 
New Zealand First will support this bill. I am personally pleased to support it and I will tell the House why. My support centres principally on five clauses: clause 53 “Decision whether to open and conduct inquiry”; clause 54 “Duties of coroner who decides not to open inquiry”; clause 55 “Coroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision”—and I hope that is retrospective and can go back a few years; I will explain why in due course—clause 108 “Coroner may call for investigations or examinations or commission reports”; and clause 109 “Coroner may refer death to other investigating authorities”. 
I will illustrate my reason for wanting to speak about those clauses with an example. This is a very serious example. It moves away from the bill but I think it will illustrate my concerns very very vividly. It was 29 December 1996 on a calm night on a flat sea that the  
Sydney Express 
 left the harbour and ploughed into a fishing vessel the  
Maria Luisa 
. Five men died. The police held an inquiry the Marine Safety Authority of New Zealand held an inquiry and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission held an inquiry—all in theory independent. But the police told me—and were straight upfront—that they were heavily dependent on the Marine Safety Authority. They told me to my face: “Convince the Marine Safety Authority that we’ve got it wrong because the assertion of the family and the experts giving the family advice is that the findings of those inquiries were wrong.” 
The local coroner delegated the responsibility to the deputy and quite rightly so because of conflict of interest. The deputy coroner in this city of Wellington said no inquest would be held because there had been several inquiries—those of the Marine Safety Authority the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the police. His adviser was a qualified master mariner who had been a harbour pilot in Auckland but for many many years had been a senior executive—indeed the president—of the Merchant Service Guild which is the officers union. That is the scene. 
That evening personnel on the  
Sydney Express 
 the container vessel that left the port saw the  
Maria Luisa 
 in plenty of time—some several minutes before the collision. We believe that for a number of reasons the  
Maria Luisa 
 did not see the  
Sydney Express 
 not least because of the backdrop of lights when coming into the harbour. The  
Maria Luisa’s 
 radar was not working. 
On board the  
Sydney Express 
 was the captain a fully qualified master mariner and a third officer who was also a master mariner. They did not take a bearing of the  
Maria Luisa 
 to see whether it was on a collusion course. They did not even plot its course on the radar. They did not even look at it on the radar. They did not even lift the binoculars out of their case to see what kind of ship they were approaching and they did not use VHF or the beacon head. The  
Sydney Express 
 hit the  
Maria Luisa 
 and five men died. 
I have found out since that the investigations between the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority were not as independent as they should have been. We found out that the police admitted they did not hold an independent inquiry. We know that evidence given by the master and the third officer of the  
Sydney Express 
 to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission was passed to the Marine Safety Authority months before the authority made a ruling. That smells like collusion. 
I can see that you are signalling me to get back to this bill Mr Speaker but I am suggesting to you that these clauses will capture what I am trying to outline. We found out that there was a flow-on of evidence from the commission to the authority and the Ombudsman is at this moment in time—and has been for some months—trying to determine for me who passed that evidence. He has now told me he cannot determine that or how or what the evidence was. I have asked for a look at it. 
The clauses in this bill will I hope ensure that the family or any family in future in a predicament like this will get an inquest. I hope that clauses 108 and 109 will empower the coroner if he or she says there will not be an inquest because of an inquiry to determine for himself or herself that any inquiry was totally independent and above board and—when five men die—that it was open to public scrutiny. By that I mean that the witnesses will be subjected to cross-examination from in this case the family. I hope these clauses will do that. 
In my view they are not strong enough to achieve that and my one little hope is that the select committee will toughen them up. I know that my colleague on the committee will do his best in that endeavour. I hope that clause 55 “Coroner may decide to open inquiry despite initial decision” will be retrospective. I hope at the very least that when this bill passes a coroner in Wellington will listen to the concerns of the families and of the experts who have been helping them and determine that the matter should be inquired into. 
Five men died and those families have not had closure. Five men died and those families are still suffering. Members should think about how those families will be feeling on 29 December this year and on that date in future years. If we cannot do anything else for the people of New Zealand when death occurs in these sorts of circumstances we can at least ensure that they get justice that they get listened to and that we get to the bottom of the matter. In the issue I have raised the ex - harbour master and one of the senior pilots in the port concerned have been advising the families and they have advised me and the families that the inquiries held by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Marine Safety Authority got it wrong. That is not good enough and I hope this bill will help us fix it. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theJustice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Gambling Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I acknowledge the support of New Zealand First for the bill. New Zealand First did not approve of its content going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4); I acknowledge that and I also acknowledge Dail Jones’ support for it now. 
This short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow elected members of licensing trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act. Licensing trusts themselves are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However some gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Some of those societies have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and the operation of gaming machines. 
The Gambling Act which came into force on 1 July 2004 prohibits this type of arrangement. It imposes a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the gaming-machine proceeds from those venues. This separation of functions is designed to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest. 
The potential for conflicts of interest is considerably lower in the case of licensing trust members. That is because they are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust. To reflect this the bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members from the provisions that require the separation of functions. This will enable those members to be involved in gaming-machine societies’ decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and the operation of gaming machines. 
The amendment also extends to elected community trustees where a licensing trust has reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee and that the committee present its final report on or before 1 March 2005. I commend the bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill had its genesis some time ago when the Government tried to bring a provision into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that was outside the time frame. In previous debates on statutes amendment bills I have stated that National would not support the inclusion of any late amendments that we had not had the chance to debate at a first reading and then examine at a select committee. So when the Government tried to introduce a provision to allow duly elected licensing trust members to be able to be involved in the distribution of gaming-machine profits—which is a concept that National supports—we were not prepared to support the Government trying to do so at the eleventh hour to rectify a problem that has been known for some time. In fact the issue came up when we debated the Gambling Bill. The key persons provision and the associated persons provisions were all part of the debates then and it was highlighted at that stage. 
The Government has had plenty of time and opportunity to rectify that situation but what did it do? It wanted to bring in those provisions by way of a late amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Of course that has caused considerable problems for some members—Labour members in particular. I know that in the area that David Cunliffe and David Parker come from where licensing trusts operate people felt that they were disadvantaged because the provision had not gone through. As an afterthought and with the pressure that has come on from licensing trusts the bill is now before us. The provisions in it are provisions that National is happy to support not just to get the Government out of a problem it has got itself into but more important because we believe that gaming-machine profits should be back out in the community where they are destined to do some good. 
What we are finding now under the Government’s regulations especially those gazetted with the Department of Internal Affairs is that the compliance costs now associated with the way gaming operators have to function—the site rentals that are being paid by the trusts to those site operators—are making it marginal as to whether it is worth their while being involved in having gaming machines on their premises. The return is not there but the other compliance costs such as harm minimisation and the other components of running machines have put an extra burden on them. In fact I have an internal Department of Internal Affairs memo which I got under the Official Information Act that states that there will be up to $100 million less in circulation to small to medium sized operators because of the regulations this Government has imposed. 
With that in mind we also have the extra costs that will be imposed by electronic monitoring. Those costs will be straight off the bottom line. Harm-minimisation programmes will cause huge compliance costs in terms of the money that will have to be expended in that area. While National supports the idea that there needs to be preventive care and that we need to look after those who have associated problems—we are not disputing that—the actual costs associated with this sort of programme are over the top. I have heard that when the charter clubs of New Zealand implement their harm-minimisation programmes at $118 per machine over 3 years the cost for them will be about $1 million which is money that should be going back into the community. 
It is interesting to note that in places like Australia one can buy harm-minimisation programmes virtually off the shelf for a very nominal amount. That could be adapted here to the venue policies because what we are seeing is that a format to cover a number of venues is not acceptable and that harm-minimisation programmes will be based on venue to venue. Once again it is not necessary and in our view it just shows how out of touch those involved in these programmes are. So we support this legislation not to help the Government out of a bind but to make sure that the money that has been collected from the machines goes back into the community where it belongs. 
I will put in perspective what the bill does. It will allow the licensing trust members who are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate their businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. This is not an argument about whether we agree with licensing trusts; it is about what will happen with the proceeds from the gaming machines that are there. That is why we support the bill. Let me make that clear. This is not an argument that says we agree with licensing trusts; it is an argument that acknowledges that they are in existence and says that the money coming in from the machines should be going back out into the community. 
Many charitable societies have allowed and want to continue to allow the elected licensing trust members—who have been elected—to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That was permitted under previous legislation. It was not an issue until 1 July this year—it only came in on 1 July this year. Licensing trust members are publicly elected and publicly accountable to their communities. They cannot benefit personally from being members of the trust and the risk of any conflict of interest is considerably lower. So with those points we are happy that those licensing trust members are involved in the distribution. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of “key person”. That will enable them to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier that was the position prior to 1 July this year. 
I finish by asking what will be regarded as we look at the Gambling Act as significant influence in management and as significant interests. I think those are key points in the legislation that need to be considered. A person must be treated as having a significant influence if he or she is a director of the board of an organisation that is a holder of or applicant for a licence—it could be the chief executive or a senior manager—or if he or she owns shares directly or indirectly. Those people may have a significant influence but the Act does not limit the ways in which one may increase one’s personal influence—that could be a person’s influence as a director or a result of a decrease or increase in the number of directors or trustees who may be involved. The appointing of associated persons to more senior positions within that organisation could change the influence. It makes no difference whatsoever whether a person acquires a significant influence or increases or changes the basis of that significant influence as a result of the person’s actions or the actions of one or more persons. I think that those are important factors in considering what interests are identified in the bill. 
The other area relates to financial interest and to dealing with trustees of licensing trusts. Trustees do not have a financial interest in trusts so are exempt from that but they still have an influence through the relative power of their positions. They control a huge operation. In some cases licensing trusts are very big business. We believe that those people who have been appointed from the community have the desired expertise. They are accountable to their communities and we should give them the credit to be able to distribute those funds that were available prior to 1 July this year. The Government made a mess of the Gambling Act. It is now trying to remedy it with this Gambling Amendment Bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A point of order was raised earlier concerning the lodging of written questions. I undertook to look into the matter and to bring information to members. A problem occurred yesterday in the offices of two members in the lodging of questions. That was caused by the importing of formatting that was not compatible with the questions for written answer system. The problem was successfully resolved yesterday and the members were able to lodge their questions. The questions for written answer system received all written questions lodged today and those are now being processed. A message was sent this morning to the users of the questions for written answer system to inform them of the problem that occurred yesterday and to provide members with some information about how to avoid that problem in the future. Unfortunately the message did not clearly identify that the problem actually occurred yesterday and has been resolved. 
Gambling Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Minister George Hawkins for taking the trouble to refer to the discussions that took place with the Waitakere Licensing Trust the Portage Licensing Trust and myself from New Zealand First and to clarify the misunderstanding that had arisen. The matter has also been touched on by the National Party spokesperson for this issue Lindsay Tisch. New Zealand First will support the Gambling Amendment Bill going to the select committee. I think the bill is a very good move. I was contacted with a view to trying to assist in expediting things under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) but I note that that bill still languishes at No. 22 on the Order Paper. It is more than likely the way the Order Paper is working at the moment that this bill may come back to the House and be passed at least simultaneously with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The move on the Minister’s part is a very good one and it should help to get this matter dealt with expeditiously. 
As far as the principle is concerned I want to see that the money gathered in the Waitakere Licensing Trust and Portage Licensing Trust areas is spent there. I was contacted by Edwin Perry who takes a close interest in issues in the Wairarapa where he is based and he drew to my attention the problem that the Masterton Licensing Trust was experiencing. A person there had contacted Edwin Perry about what appeared to be a delay but I think the Minister has clarified that issue now. 
Georgina Beyer 
: After hearing from me it appears. 
DAIL JONES 
: One always takes credit for every little morsel especially when one is a constituency member. I know that there is nothing like being a constituency member having been one for 9 years. Anything that happens in the area has to have been achieved by the constituency member even if he or she has only just heard about it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: With great help from New Zealand First. [ 
Interruption 
] 
DAIL JONES 
: I take the point being raised by those constituency members. 
In supporting the Gambling Amendment Bill I do so very cautiously. I have my own history on the issue of gambling. Way back in I think about 1983 Sir Robert Muldoon was looking to introduce Lotto. Three members were put on a select committee: Robin Gray myself and Pat Hunt. Sir Robert Muldoon chose the committee extremely well because there was a 2 to 1 vote against going ahead with Lotto. I was one of the two; I am a conservative on gambling issues. Subsequently Lotto was brought in by the Labour Government. Then we had casinos and the rest is history. 
The money that is now being spent on gambling has created all sorts of problems and I am concerned that in speaking on a gambling bill the public should not get the impression from me that such bills are being passed without any regard whatsoever for what is happening out in the community. I note the little message we received from GamblingWatch dated 14 December 2004 that referred to total gambling losses. It stated that although pokies have been legal in New Zealand for only 15 years they now account for 51 percent of gambling losses. Casinos have been here for only 11 years and they account for a further 24 percent most of which also goes on pokies. Gambling is a big problem in New Zealand. One would expect the licensing trusts to do more than anyone else to try to keep it under control. That is why New Zealand First will support this bill. The licensing trusts have duly elected members who are responsible to their community not only I suggest for the collection of the money and its distribution but also for the effect that that type of expenditure has on their community. 
In the days when we were looking at this matter in 1980 and 1981 Sir Robert Muldoon was a great supporter of the New Zealand racing industry and he wanted to make sure that it stayed alive and well. He was always concerned about the possibility that the spending of money in other areas of gambling would have a detrimental effect on the racing industry. New Zealand First for perhaps much the same reason is always concerned to ensure that the racing industry continues. I do not bet on the races. I perhaps take the occasional Melbourne Cup ticket. I do not even know the correct number of the horse I am betting on sometimes. But I now spend a little bit of money on Lotto ironically. I always lose at the end of the day; I can see that. If we look at the expenditure on gambling we see that in 1980 for example there was a total expenditure of $118 million. Now the expenditure on gambling in 2004 is $2.039 billion. That does not take into account the turnover on racing. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
DAIL JONES 
: In order to refresh people’s memories I say to members that the Gambling Amendment Bill according to the explanatory note of the bill: “… amends the principal Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts (who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust has reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989) from the definition of key person in section 4(1) of the principal Act in relation to a class 4 venue. This has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the principal Act that require the separation of functions and will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming machine proceeds.” New Zealand First supports this bill and as a member with interests in the west Auckland area—I am concerned with the Waitakere Licensing Trust and the Portage Licensing Trust—I am only too pleased to facilitate the passing of this bill. As I mentioned there was a suggestion that this legislation should be contained in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) but I see that that bill is still down at the bottom of the Order Paper in 22nd place. So I commend the Minister for bringing this bill into the House because it is likely to be passed before the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is passed. 
I have one concern about the bill which perhaps needs to be clarified. I understand that some licensing trusts are entitled to operate outside a licensing trust area. The concern that has been expressed is that that may extend the right of a licensing trust to be engaged in gambling activities outside its licensing trust area. That is a matter that I expect the select committee will be considering as it affects this bill. 
Before the House rose for lunch I also mentioned that a colossal amount is being spent on gambling now—$2.039 billion as opposed to $118 million in 1980—which takes us to the issue of the effect of gambling on the community. I was pleased to see the press release by the Department of Internal Affairs on 14 December which was Tuesday. Of course today is still Tuesday as far as this House is concerned because we are in urgency and are being forced to stay in this House by virtue of a resolution supported by the Government and United Future to proceed with bills that should have been dealt with last week. But the Prime Minister had to have her way last week and we did something else instead of looking at these many measures. The press release that I have referred to is important because it concerns the harm that is caused by gambling. The press release focuses on new rules for preventing and minimising the harm caused by gambling and summarises some of the research on which those rules are based. Although New Zealand First supports this measure it is concerned about how much is being spent on gambling and it is concerned about what is being done to prevent the harm caused by gambling. 
One aspect of gambling that few people are aware of is that about one in five New Zealanders who regularly gamble on gaming machines have a gambling problem. The rates overseas apparently are similar or even worse. In a newsletter the director of the Gambling Research Centre at Auckland University of Technology Professor Max Abbott summarised the 1999 research that led to the review. The research showed that the risk of problem gambling is highest with gaming machines and the risk is just as high whether the machines are in casinos pubs or clubs. So in supporting this legislation for the Waitakere Licensing Trust the Portage Licensing Trust and licensing trusts generally I wish to remind trust members that as elected representatives of the people they have an obligation to run their trusts well. In the context of licensing trusts especially and in considering their history of being started up and supported by the community for the community we want to see them benefit their communities. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill. ACT New Zealand will support this bill going to the select committee but we are disappointed to see yet another bill being debated under urgency to rectify legislation that really has only just come into place. We spent a long time debating the Gambling Bill in 2003 when it was passed. It came into force on 1 July 2004 and now just a few short months down the track we are racing yet another amendment bill through Parliament just before the Christmas break. 
As I said ACT will support this measure going to the select committee in order to hear the arguments and public submissions but we are very disappointed that as several members of other parties have said this legislation was first proposed to be part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The letter that came from the Minister of Internal Affairs was very brief and gave very little away as to the reasons this measure was to be put into place. For my part I answered the letter on behalf of the ACT party by saying that presumably the Government did have reasons for a law change that it thought were sound but that the letter did not indicate what those were. So there we were just meant to take in blind faith that the measure was the right thing to do. In my response to the Minister I invited the officials to come and meet with me and I asked for all papers on this matter that showed both the pros and cons as to why liquor and gambling should be mixed as the Minister was proposing. I said I would be perfectly happy to revisit the measure if that evidence was put forward to us. I am not quite sure what has gone on here. Either the Minister is not very keen on the measure or perhaps the officials are not but nothing has been forthcoming. 
I must say that I was disturbed by the number of organisations particularly licensing trusts in the community that contacted my office and asked for an appointment. I met with some of their representatives who told me that ACT was the only party opposing the statutes amendment measure but here today debating it in urgency I find that other parties have exactly the same story to tell. They have been approached told they were the only ones opposing the matter and completely misled— 
Hon Member 
: What other parties? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Apparently New Zealand First was told it was the only party opposing the matter. I had no idea that the National Party had also been told that but a member made a very strong speech today saying it had. I understand that the Green Party was also told it was the only party not supporting it. Anyway that is by the by. Things have turned out exactly as they should but it is disappointing that we have this amendment bill so shortly after the core legislation has been passed. 
Like Mr Dail Jones I too have several questions for the Minister. Mr Jones said that his questions were around the amount of money being spent on gambling. Mine are of a much more fundamental nature. I would like to hear from the Government just why it thinks that liquor provisions and gambling provisions should be mixed. It is not clear to me why that should be the case although it would seem that in many cases the licensing trusts that operate in very small communities might well have the bulk of expertise in both areas so perhaps there are good reasons for that. But those reasons certainly have not been put forward by the Government and promoted in any positive sort of way. 
The licensing trusts themselves are obviously very keen on this measure. It is important to look back on the history slightly. Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act and their role is to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts as we have heard are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act and the Government is obviously admitting now that there was an oversight when that Act was passed. So this bill has been put forward to try to rectify that matter. It is important to remember that there may well be some conflict of interest with licensing trust members making decisions about the provision and distribution of funds from gaming machines. That is something that should quite rightly be discussed in some detail. It is good that this bill is now coming before the House and will be passed on to the select committee where it will be debated in the right and proper way and where the public and those with interests in these areas will be able to put forward their submissions. 
So ACT New Zealand will support this measure going to the select committee. Beyond that we are making absolutely no commitment. We want to hear the arguments. I was hopeful that the officials for the Government might have been able to give us those arguments and as I said we were certainly prepared to revisit the issue in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). However I think that this course of action is probably the best one and ACT will support this legislation going to the select committee. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Gambling Amendment Bill aims to allow licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts to be involved in decisions about the operation of pokie machines and the distribution of profits. Although the Green Party fundamentally believes that overall we should drastically cut the number of pokie machines in our communities we do have some sympathy for the anomalous position licensing trusts have found themselves in after the passage of the 2003 Gambling Act which allows clubs and the TAB to run their own machines and manage the proceeds but not the licensing trusts. 
Although the Green Party did not back the Gambling Bill as a whole and voted against it at the time we did support those aspects of the legislation aimed at ending the power often held by pub management over the running of pokie machines and their control over consequent funding decisions. It was clear to many people in different parts of the country that some proprietors of non-casino gaming machines all too often allowed their own prejudices to determine who got what and who did not get anything at all. On top of that allegations of trade-offs and contra deals were fairly common from grants being conditional upon sports teams drinking on the premises or staying in certain motels through to one or two criminal cases whereby major outright corruption in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars was the order of the day. 
In rightly legislating to bring this situation to an end the passage of the Gambling Act also left behind a somewhat contradictory consequence. RSAs workingmen’s clubs the TAB and racing clubs could run pokie machines and use the proceeds pretty much as they chose for their own organisational purposes but licensing trusts were put into the same category as all those societies large and small that have been specifically set up to manage pokie machines and distribute the profits and in which key persons are not permitted to have any role in decisions about funding. 
Licensing trust members have made a good case to Parliament that they deserve to be treated differently from organisations like the Scottwood Trust the Lion Foundation and all the other charity gaming associations whose management and boards are unelected or certainly are not elected by any form of public ballot. Licensing trusts on the other hand are far more open entities whose board members are elected by the community every 3 years in elections conducted under the provisions of the Local Electoral Act. Those boards members are directly accountable to the people who vote them in and are thus in a significantly different position from gaming machine societies. The licensing trusts are also subject to a whole range of regulatory controls outside the purview of the Gambling Act such as the Public Audit Act and they are open to audit by the Auditor-General. Licensing trust accounts must be open to public inspection and licensing trust members cannot benefit personally in any way from the activities of their outlets. 
There appear to be only five licensing trusts that operate pokie machines in their own venues. It seems fair that they should be treated equitably with clubs rather than with charity gaming bodies as the public who vote for their boards would not continue to support them if they for example minimised gaming returns by using the funds to prop up a failing liquor outlet. The big worry the licensing trusts have had is that the new Gambling Act forces them to dismantle and replace the structures they have developed over a long period—structures through which they say they do their best to be fair to all applicants for funding and to maximise the return to the local community. The Invercargill Licensing Trust for example tells us that in 2003-04 it returned 57 percent of gaming profits to local organisations as opposed to most other returns around the country of under 40 percent. 
The bill we are considering for the first time today aims to allow licensing trust members and trustees to reinstate their involvement in decisions about funding from the proceeds of pokie machines on their premises. The Green Party believes that that is simply common sense and we will support the bill. We hope it can be dealt with at the select committee reasonably expeditiously for the sake of all involved. However in saying that I reiterate that our fundamental approach to the gambling industry remains unchanged. We would prefer to see a huge reduction in the number of pokie machines operating in New Zealand and a total revamp of the way the profits of those that remain are distributed. We would also like the many community organisations that now rely on the proceeds of human misery for their continued survival to consider other funding options and the Government and other non-gambling funders to better resource the sector so that groups do not feel obliged to depend on the addictions and desperation of some of our poorest people for the pursuance of their good works. 
However although we live in a country that not only allows a massive proliferation of gambling opportunities but actually endorses and promotes gambling in many forms it is logical that there is equity in the way different proprietors are treated. The Green Party hopes that this bill will be moved reasonably quickly through the House once the Christmas break is over so that the existing longstanding structures used by the licensing trusts will not have to be replaced and trust members can continue to distribute the maximum amount of funding back in their local areas. 
I also hope that I will still be around in Parliament when we pass legislation that will deal with the far more fundamental issues in the gambling sector such as taking the steps needed to reduce the harm done to so many people in our country. Recent figures from the Department of Internal Affairs show that gamblers lost a record $2 billion last year an increase of 9 percent on the year before. Roughly speaking that is $5 million a day much of it taken out of the homes of some of our lowest-income families. Eighty-seven percent of people who sought treatment from the Problem Gambling Foundation said that they have a problem with pokie machines. The figure for Maori women is up to 96 percent. The fact that the proceeds of pokie addictions are then used for the benefit of all sorts of worthy causes should not be an excuse for any values-based group to continue to endorse the industry as seems to be happening if the many letters coming into MPs’ offices at present are anything to go by. 
I look forward to the day when we have a Government with the courage to implement a truly responsible gambling bill unlike the only partially responsible one that passed last year. Meanwhile in the name of equity the Green Party will be supporting this minor amendment to what is actually a fatally flawed Act. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make a short contribution to this debate. But before I get to the bill I just make the observation that a few people have been talking about some of the detrimental effects of gambling. I do not think anybody in this Chamber could possibly put aside the detrimental effects of gambling but this bill does not actually deal with that. It deals with a very specific aspect. The Gambling Amendment Bill exempts licensing trust members from being treated as a key person under the 2003 Gambling Act. It was an omission that should never have gone through but it did. It was an oversight. The significance of this amendment bill is to allow licensing trust members to be involved as they previously had been in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. There should not be a conflict of interest because licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community. In other words they should not be able to benefit personally from the licensing trust and I think the provisions in this bill prevent just that. The rest of the amendments are technical in nature to give effect to the purposes I have just stated. United Future will be supporting this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 It appears the House is on its way to giving the support of all parties to this bill at least as far as its referral to the select committee and I would like to thank members all around the Chamber for that statement of support for this bill. If it is good enough for racing clubs and chartered clubs to be exempt from the venue persons rule under the Gambling Act on the basis of democratic elections then it is under this bill equally desirable for licensing trusts to be exempt. I support the bill. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 In beginning my contribution on the Gambling Amendment Bill can I just comment on the view of Heather Roy who talked about the fact that she was told that ACT was the only party opposing this legislation—as it appears New Zealand First was told it was the only party opposing the legislation and I think she indicated that the Greens were told they were the only party opposing this legislation. I must tell the House that the National Party was also told it was the only party opposing this legislation. When I was told that— 
Rod Donald 
: You ended up supporting it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —in the beginning about a month ago I said I did not know where the spin was coming from because we had not considered it. And I cannot imagine the ACT party wanting to support this privilege for licensing trusts. Whatever the shenanigans that have been managed out of the Minister’s office they have certainly antagonised the parties involved. 
The Gambling Act itself has been the subject of some interest in the Bay of Plenty in recent weeks. As the local member of Parliament I have been approached by a number of people who are disappointed with the proposals that the Government has passed to change the way in which pokie funds for example are distributed. Last Friday I met with people from Otamarakau School near Te Puke which received a $45000 grant from the Lion Foundation to put in a playground at their school. The school could never ever have afforded a playground other than through that generous contribution from the Lion Foundation. Otamarakau School fears that the Government’s plan to have grants centralised from a few Auckland-based authorities will mean that those schools at the end of the line miss out. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? The member is making it up again—mincing in the House and making it up. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister may say that but I have to say it is only 3 days until we have a Minister of Education without a speech impediment. The Minister can say I am making it up but he was not there on Friday when people from Otamarakau School came and talked to me about their concerns. I think it is a very important issue that those schools are concerned about their ability to provide services and facilities for their communities because of the changes to these plans. 
A month ago I accompanied the next member of Parliament for the Otago electorate Jackie Deans of Oamaru into Oamaru. Amongst the appointments we had was a meeting with the Oamaru Licensing Trust. The trust explained to me its frustration as a result of the changes to the Gambling Act that prevented it from being involved in the distribution of local profits. The trust explained the reason. Because the trust is an elected authority it has a level of democratic mandate. It is a community authority. From the applications made for the proceeds that the trust gathered from pokie machines it had a clear knowledge of which organisations were double-dipping or triple-dipping which organisations were legitimate and which were not. The trust was able to bring that local knowledge to bear in its allocation decisions. 
I challenged the trust on one of the concerns that the Government expressed when it passed the Gambling Act. The Government said that those who had input into the decisions on where pokie profits went—that is publicans—often had trade-offs and contra-deals whereby they might sponsor a sports group and expect it to buy beer as it were from its local establishment. I tackled the Oamaru Licensing Trust on that. The trust was clear that licensing trusts were much more considered in their sponsorship arrangements and the way that they got involved in the community and that no such deals were ever contemplated by those organisations. 
As I travelled around Oamaru with Jackie Deans the National Party candidate for Otago and the next member of Parliament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Jackie Deans from Oamaru. She is the former Deputy Mayor of Oamaru. More people in Oamaru have voted for her in her political career than have voted for David Parker. Jackie Deans the National Party candidate for Otago was able to demonstrate the important benefits to that community from the Oamaru Licensing Trust. I think she together with the trust made a convincing argument about why trusts should be entitled to maintain the right they currently have to approve those grants. 
I suppose it is testament to the lobbying power of the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Waitakere Licensing Trust that the Government would move so swiftly to introduce this legislation into the House under urgency. I am not sure whether anyone else in New Zealand would consider it is the sort of legislation that requires Parliament to sit on a Friday afternoon and maybe go into a Saturday afternoon. 
Dail Jones 
: It’s Tuesday afternoon. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are in the real world here. We are here on Friday afternoon and possibly the sitting will flow into Saturday afternoon if not Monday morning. I do not think this bill is relevant to an urgency motion because there is no definitive date by which the bill has to be passed. It will just mosey its way through the select committee process. There is no great sense of urgency from the Government on it. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever from it being included in the urgency motion. I think it is equivalent to the amendment bill dealing with Tokelauan coins which was one of the centrepieces of the urgency motion during the “mother of all Budgets” in 1991. 
A number of members have given contributions on why people should be prevented from gambling and on why people should be denied the right to play a pokie machine. I think this House often loses sight of the fact that adults should be able to make those sorts of choices in their own lives. They should be allowed to decide whether they want to gamble their money. They should be free to choose how they spend their discretionary income. This fact of poor people spending a lot of their income on gambling is nothing new. In years gone by people would rail about the amount of money spent at housie halls in Christchurch. They would rail about people who went to the trots or to the races and spent their pay packets on the horses. They would rail against people who spent their money on for example Golden Kiwi. There have always been gambling choices for New Zealanders. It is a good part of entertainment and New Zealanders should be able to expect to continue to have those choices. If Green Party members for example are worried about low-income people spending their money on gambling then I have to tell them that if they close off one opportunity people will exercise their freedom of choice to gamble somewhere else. Really what Parliament should be doing is regulating in the way that we are doing currently without being extensive and denying people’s rights. 
The National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Gambling Amendment Bill. I know that Jackie Deans who I am sure is out knocking on doors in Oamaru and Alexandra today will be pleased to know that we support the progress of this legislation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 with regard to my speech impediment. In 1969 as a schoolchild I suffered a relatively serious accident that resulted in four teeth and a large part of my upper jaw and nose being removed. As a result I have a speech impediment. It is something I do not mind at all. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I support the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill and its referral to the Government Administration Committee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments on this bill because I have some views about the way in which the administration of pokie-machine funding in particular is being handled in this country. I want to state at the beginning that the National Party supports this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. However I have some personal reservations about the bill—not because of the way in which licensing trusts operate or because of the fact that licensing trust trustees who are also part of the trusts that distribute the funds will be excluded from the “key person” provision of the central legislation but rather because the sensible approach that is being taken with this amendment should in my view apply to every organisation around the country that is set up to distribute the funds where trustees are also the owners of the premises in which the gambling machines are located. 
It seems to me that the Parliament is being asked to give some sort of preferential arrangement to people who sit on licensing trusts yet those same arrangements are not available to individual publicans bar owners or cafe owners who pay the money from the machines into trusts for distribution. One of the worst aspects of this is that by allowing trustees of distributing bodies to become— 
Rod Donald 
: Who funded the National campaign? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker but am I going to be subject to this terrible assault from the Green Party? 
Rod Donald 
: We want to know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is coming out of the member’s time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No the point of order cannot come out of my time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is. I ask the member to carry on. I know what the point of order is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I wish to make a personal explanation about the allegation made by the Green Party member that I received funding. To save the Green Party member from continually interjecting along those lines I make it clear that it is a matter of public record that in 1996 my election campaign did receive a modest donation from a trust that derived its funds from pokie machines. Might I also say that a number of other parties in this House received considerably larger donations from the same source than the National Party. 
I want to refer to a perfect example of the stupidity that is being exercised by bureaucrats in the Department of Internal Affairs. What is wrong with trusts distributing money to the community for community purposes? Why do the Green Party the Labour Party and a number of other parties in this House which seem to get upset by the fact that sometimes political parties have received money from that source seek to remove the political process from the community? 
This is exactly the sort of issue we were talking about last night in respect of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill—a desire to see that only central government can have a say in these matters and that no community effectively can be influential in choosing to put funds into a political campaign in order that its best interests may be represented. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with that. However what we have in this bill is a situation where someone is elected to a licensing trust and he or she becomes part of the management of a number of hotels that come under the auspices of that trust. Then that same person is elected to the body that receives the funds from the trust’s hotels bars cafes or pokie machines for distribution to the community. If that were a privately owned outfit that person could not be one and the same. However this bill will allow that exact provision on the basis that the person does not personally benefit. I think it is a very thin argument to run. A person in that position could advance funds to a particular sports club that he or she was involved with to a school that his or her children attended or to a travelling sports team that perhaps he or she was a part of. Seemingly there would be no problem with that because the person was elected by the community at large to administer the trust in the first place. 
That argument could be extended to say that someone who has licensed premises holds that licence by virtue of the community allowing him or her to hold it. The community has effectively through the licensing laws said that the person is a satisfactory individual to run the particular activity. What is wrong with extending that argument to say that the same person can be involved in the distribution of funds from pokie machines in the wider community not just that person’s own community but to organisations in the community? I say to Mr Donald and to those members of the Labour Party who find that idea somehow offensive that if it were not for this sort of distribution many sports in this country would not survive in the way they do today. I do not think that many of our children would have the sporting opportunities they have today. 
It bothers me a great deal that the Department of Internal Affairs has decided there is so much amiss in the system that it has to be involved to an extent that will chew up considerable amounts of money—money that might otherwise go to good purposes—for the administration of its own bureaucracy. Let us be clear about how this will work. The Department of Internal Affairs now not only is able to monitor electronically but is able to employ people to inspect these premises to make sure the machines are working. I would have thought that the best way to know whether something was amiss was to watch the electronic monitor and then monitor the flow of cash that comes from them. One does not have to be some sort of in-the-field inspector to do that. 
The National Party wants to see this bill progress to the Government Administration Committee but I want to say that a number of us are disappointed that the definition of “key person” is not being extended to allow many other operators in the business to also sit on the trusts that are part of the distribution of the funds. We can see that the bureaucracy that is growing up around the funds is starting to soak up far too many of the dollars that ordinarily should go to community purposes. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which has been put forward by my very good friend George Hawkins. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Government Administration Committee consider the Gambling Amendment Bill 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report the bill to the House on or before 1 March 2005 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
The bill has its genesis in Fiordland amongst people who live work and play there; people who care deeply about the health and well-being of the area’s marine environment. Rather than complaining about outside interference or outside rule-setting for Fiordland’s marine environment these people decided to pull together all stakeholders—fishermen iwi scientists tourist operators and environmentalists—and develop some proposals to better manage and protect the area. These people are the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment and members may have read their story in  
North and South 
. Their proposals for the management of Fiordland are contained in the  
Fiordland Marine Conservation 
 strategy. 
This bill is testament to the guardians’ vision tenacity and commitment to the sustainable management and protection of Fiordland’s unique marine environment. What is perhaps most remarkable is that they have achieved cross-sector support for their proposals many of which this bill gives effect to. For example the bill creates eight marine reserves in Fiordland totalling nearly 10000 hectares. That the guardians secured the support of recreational and commercial fishers and iwi for this is a remarkable achievement. 
The preamble to the bill sets out the history of the guardians and the development of their marine conservation strategy for Fiordland. Central to this history is their vision that: “the quality of Fiordland’s marine environment and fisheries including the wider fisheries experience be maintained or improved for future generations to use and enjoy.” This vision is reflected in the purpose clause of the bill. In recognition of the importance of Fiordland’s unique marine environment and the outstanding landscape and cultural heritage clause 3 notes that the bill implements a range of measures to assist in the preservation protection and sustainable management of Fiordland’s marine environment. 
All the provisions in the bill apply to the Fiordland marine area. This area is established by clause 6. The map included in the bill as schedule 1 and described in detail in schedule 2 indicates the boundaries of the area generally. As already noted a key aspect of the bill is the creation of eight new marine reserves. Clause 7 establishes the reserves. Each reserve is described in a schedule that also specifies any special conditions that apply. For example anchoring is prohibited within particularly fragile areas within marine reserves and in parts of others the storage of rock lobster pots is explicitly permitted. Allowing the storage of pots was crucial to gaining the support of rock lobster fishers for the creation of the reserves and I am certain that it will not have a detrimental effect upon the area. In fact they have lovely names for these reserves they call them “china shops”. 
The general conditions that apply to all reserves are set out in schedule 3. The bill places a moratorium on the creation of any further marine reserves in Fiordland for 7 years or until a review of the management of the Fiordland Marine Area is completed if that occurs earlier. Under clause 21 the review is to be initiated by the Minister for the Environment within 5 years of the commencement of the Act. Clause 10 amends the Southland regional coastal plan to give effect to management measures proposed in the guardians’ strategy relating to such things as anchoring diving biosecurity and the erection of structures in the Fiordland Marine Area. The Government is confident that the consultation which has been ongoing for 5 years—that is why the speed now—undertaken by the guardians with the public on these changes justifies making them without following the normal Resource Management Act process for plan changes. The changes have been included in the bill with the agreement of the Southland Regional Council. The detail of the changes is set out in schedule 12. 
Another key change to the management of the Fiordland marine area is the creation of Fiordland Marine Guardians. This body will consist of between five and eight members appointed by the Minister for the Environment one of whom is to be nominated by NgaiTahu. Under clause 22 central government agencies and Ministers involved in the management of the Fiordland Marine Area and the Southland Regional Council must have regard to any advice or recommendations of the committee. Clause 17 provides for the Minister for the Environment to pay the members of the committee for any work they undertake. 
The provisions of the bill along with several non-statutory initiatives this Government is progressing give effect to the main aspects of the Fiordland marine conservation strategy. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for their years of hard work in developing these proposals and seeing them through to this stage—a very impressive achievement that will ultimately benefit Fiordland’s marine environment. 
Of all the legislation I have ever worked on in this House I have enormous pride in this bill in particular because of the manner in which it has been developed. It was developed by the people who came to the Government for some financial support and some help to develop the strategy. We helped them with that money and this legislation has been generated from their work upwards—this is real people power. It is my commitment to those people that I will try to get the bill through this stage this year and finally right through by September next year. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The National Party strongly commends the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment for the huge amount of work they have done over many years going back to the period when National was in Government in bringing together the ideas that make up this bill to provide for an effective management regime for the very special and spectacular area of New Zealand known for so long as Fiordland. 
The National Party welcomes the fact that different groups coming from a wide range of interests—tourism interests commercial fishing interests and recreational fishermen as well as environmentalists and people from a number of industries—have come together and said: “We think we can work it out better ourselves.” and have come up with some quite exciting proposals for Fiordland. But I say to the House that this bill very much illustrates what is wrong with the whole legislative framework for the way in which we deal with the foreshore and ocean environment. This legislation shows that the only way we can bring together community groups to develop a comprehensive plan for an area of oceans is to do it by way of special legislation. I think the real challenge with this legislation is to use it as a model for the far wider reform that is required of the Resource Management Act the Marine Reserves Act our fisheries legislation and the Foreshore and Seabed Act because that package of law is an awful piecemeal mess that requires substantive change and reform. I must note my disappointment that the oceans policy work initiated by Simon Upton a former environment Minister and myself back in 1999 has completely lost its way. If the Government had done that work properly we would not now be requiring special legislation to do what is sensible. 
It is noteworthy that the volunteers of the Fiordland guardians with this bill propose eight new marine reserves in the area of Fiordland. That is more marine reserves than the Government has been able to achieve over the last 5 years. The Government despite being critical of National’s record of creating 15 reserves during the 1990s has created a mere three in 5 years. Its ideological legislative approach to marine reserves its unique capacity to peeve off recreationalists means that it has made very very little progress at all. It could learn some lessons from the way in which the pragmatic Southland and Fiordland communities have put this bill together. 
I also want to highlight the nonsense of the Government’s goal of having 10 percent of the marine environment in what it calls marine protected areas. Interestingly at the select committee last week we asked what “marine protected areas” meant and the honest truth was that the Government had absolutely no idea. I think it means marine reserves—because of course there is no such legal phrase as “marine protected areas” in any of our statutes. It is noteworthy that Labour’s strategy is to provide for 10 percent of New Zealand’s coast to be in marine reserves yet even with the very comprehensive approach that has been applied to Fiordland it has not been able to get 1 percent—and this would have to be one of the remotest areas of New Zealand. The Government does not have a bolter’s show of ever achieving the goal of 10 percent—nor should it because that is a dumb silly approach. The approach that is required is that taken by the Fiordland guardians. They have said that they want a representative sample of the different areas of coastline set aside in marine reserves. National supports that approach not the Government’s arbitrary percentage goal that is not backed up. 
I also need to point out that it is somewhat ironic that Labour has taken the view that marine reserves shall be absolute no-take zones. These are areas that are to be absolutely protected. There shall be no mining in marine reserves. Scientists shall not be allowed to take any samples in marine reserves. Recreationalists shall not be allowed to take any fish in marine reserves. But this bill says that if one is Maori one can still take greenstone. What sort of PC sop is that? Remember this is only 1 percent of the Fiordland marine area. Are we really depriving NgaiTahu of their treaty rights with respect to pounamu by saying that they cannot take pounamu or greenstone from these eight little marine reserves in Fiordland? Why do we take this absolutist view? Nobody shall take any—except a bit of greenstone for NgaiTahu. That again shows the Government’s sickly liberal approach whereby it will—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: You are belittling the guardians. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I ask the Minister just to take a deep breath for a moment. Under the Marine Reserves Act the Government has said that no exceptions whatsoever will be made to no-take zones in marine reserves. In the Marine Reserves Bill that the Minister has introduced into the Parliament she has reinforced the policy that there is to be absolutely no removal of any minerals or of any natural element from a marine reserve. 
What the Minister has done—[ 
Interruption 
] Could the Minister for the Environment just calm herself. I know we are under urgency. I know it is a long week and I know you are likely to get fired on Monday— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am not likely to get fired. Please do not bring me into the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We all know on this side of the House that the Prime Minister is likely to sack the Minister for the Environment. She has been sacked from every other job she has had so she should be sacked from this job as well. I simply say that from this side of the House it seems extraordinary that under the Marine Reserves Bill there is a process that communities are required to go through in order to create a marine reserve. It is a bureaucratic slow process. The Government has had a Marine Reserves Bill around for 2½ years that it has not processed and which is stalled in the select committee because the Government cannot get its ideas clear. Now we have to have special piecemeal legislation to advance those ideas. 
This bill contains very sound ideas that have been developed by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment but it really exposes the failure of the Government to develop any sort of comprehensive policy in respect of the marine environment. They have fudged and stalled—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I think your mother is in the gallery. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I assure the member that she is not but I thank the person for his or her support regardless. It shows a complete failure of the Government’s approach— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Doesn’t look like it. He’s been with Nick so it’s probably not his mother. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Will you allow that to be said Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise those in the gallery that the debate takes place inside the Chamber. There will be no comment whatsoever from outside the Chamber or else the person will be removed from the precincts. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think on reflection that the Minister of Education will form the view that his comments were inappropriate and that an apology is due to Dr Smith. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I conclude by saying that this is good for Fiordland. What we need though is a legislative framework that allows communities all over New Zealand to take this sort of approach so that different groups are able to come together and come up with the marine reserves and resource management plans that will see the marine environment managed in a local community way that delivers for tourism interests recreational interests and those who want to see properly protected marine areas in marine reserves. Again I commend the Fiordland guardians for their work. I congratulate Bill English the local member who has put a lot of energy into trying to make this happen. I look forward to the bill progressing. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which has excellent measures to preserve protect and manage the area in Fiordland. I am delighted that this bill has been put forward by a very good friend of mine Marian Hobbs. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Who would come to the House having read through the Fiordland Marine Management Bill and accompanying documents and not commend the bill? New Zealand First does just that. A locally based incorporated society has worked since 1995 to develop in consultation with the widespread community and with all the stakeholders involved a plan that has finally culminated in this bill. The motives are there particularly with regard to the integrated management of the area and the special features that make that area quite unique. 
But having said that one wonders why we have a piecemeal intervention into the whole marine reserves process. Some of us were involved with the Oceans Policy and worked through it many months ago. So where is that overarching all-embracing policy? Why is it not here to set out the indicators and determinants of where our total marine shelf marine life and coast should be with regard to their future and preservation? That is not here. We also have a Marine Reserves Bill on which submissions were heard many many months ago. There is no indication whatsoever that the present Government wishes to advance that bill. Yet at the same time the Department of Conservation is endeavouring to promulgate marine reserves elsewhere against local opinion. I refer particularly to Mimiwhangata Great Barrier Island and more important to those in the far north the projected Three Kings Islands reserve. Those are all examples of the use of haphazard systems to develop marine reserves and they are all in various stages of uncertainty because of local reaction. 
I will now draw the House’s attention to some issues that in perusing this bill I find rather interesting. The first one is why the local authority Environment Southland is not the determining body for this bill. There may be very cogent reasons for that not being the case but one has to ask whether it is part of the Government’s policy. Yesterday we heard in the debate on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill of interventions upon local authorities. We know that there probably had to be interventions with regard to Environment Canterbury. Is this yet another intervention upon the regional coastal policy which was created only in March 2004 and which—as far as I am able to see—is a very very sound proposed coastal plan? One would expect the local authorities to have a major role. I do not see that at all in this bill. 
Secondly when I look at the proposed regional coastal plan for Southland and at the various delineated boundaries and areas in the plan I see some strange omissions. One wonders and I hope that submitters will bring this issue to the Fisheries and other Sea-Related Legislation Committee whether there are cogent reasons as to why there is a fenced-off area. When I look at the coastal plan and see the delineation from Awarua Point southwards along that coast I wonder why a significant part of that area is not part of the plan. The coastal plan states that the values of the coastal marine area are very diverse and include ecosystems habitats natural character amenity open space landscape biodiversity and historical spiritual or conservation values. It states that those values are the heritage of future generations. One wonders therefore having seen that statement in the outline of the coastal plan why those values are not extended to a much greater area of the coastline particularly as when one goes through the attributes of those sections of the Southland coastline—and by the way it is a very significant one of almost 3000 kilometres—one finds there are other areas to the south that should be part of the plan. So I suggest to the Minister and to submitters that attention be given to why the fenced-off area is considered to be significant by the guardians and not a much larger area. 
The third major point I want to bring to the House is that behind this bill was a “gift and gain” concept. The gift and gain concerns commercial and recreational fishing—where the gift is through a reduced take—and tourism operators. I would like to be reassured that this bill will go out to each and every one of those stakeholders in order to make very certain that they really feel that the final version of the legislation represents a gift and a gain—that what they have given away will be a substantial gain to them and to the environment long term. In that regard I particularly notice in the coastal plan that special importance is given to the sheltered anchorage areas of Southland’s coastline. The single most important safety feature available to fishermen in Fiordland it states are the few sheltered bays and anchorages. I would like to believe that every one of those areas has been preserved in this plan. Not only are they of value to commercial and recreational fishers but also they are of value to cruising yachts to pleasure boats and to tourist launches. In fact they are of the same value today as they were to Captain James Cook so many many years ago. Although one would hope that those special features of the coastline are preserved in this plan on looking at the anchorages that are listed I am not altogether certain that they are all included. 
Last of all I want to draw the House’s attention to the issue of why this bill is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill has mixed features. It is a bill that concerns the Department of Conservation and also concerns the Ministry of Fisheries. There is a Marine Reserves Bill before the House that wishes to exclude fisheries totally from the oversight of that bill. Yet this marine reserves bill which is intended to incorporate into the national system probably the largest marine area in terms of size and capacity that has ever been incorporated into it is to be looked at by the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. I am not saying that that is the wrong way to consider matters with regard to the sea but it does send a mixed message as to what the Government really intends. I hope some submitters on the bill will come back to that matter particularly because when I look at the Southland Regional Coastal Plan I see one major submitter. One would not have to hazard a guess as to who that submitter is—it is the Department of Conservation which has attitudes with regard to coastal management that are sometimes rather perverse and rather strange but that cause ratepayers many many thousands of dollars in resolving the department’s local reference orders. 
The last thing that this bill may do is that if the Minister accepts—and the ministry does accept I hope—that the fenced-in area is too small then the same studious attention would be given to the wider area of Southland’s coast and particularly to the area to the south. That would mean that there is a truly integrated approach not just in the area set out by the proposed framework of the guardians but for the wider area of Southland. I am quite sure that the local authorities down there would be very pleased to be party to such an approach because the cost of preserving that environment long term would be shared—as it ought to be. I do hope the Minister keeps that point very much in mind because it seems to me that the fenced-off area is too small. The reasons for preservation are relevant to a much wider coastal framework than that—and they should be if this bill is to progress further with the widespread blessing of the wider community. Increasing the size of the area would be of far greater benefit than the currently proposed area and would preserve the essential core values that the regional coastal plan states should be the core values for the future. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This morning I spent a considerable period of time on the telephone talking to a number of people in the Te Anau district. Rather unusually for a politician I suppose in some respects I asked people what they really think about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. Those people are involved on the ground floor. But first of all I would like to thank Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson and to recognise the job they have done. I think it is important to give credit where it is due so I thank Marian Hobbs the Minister for the Environment and Pete Hodgson for their efforts and the fact that they understood what the locals were trying to do. I quote from a comment made by Pete Hodgson who was Minister at the time in  
North and South 
 magazine. He said: “What the locals have gone and done is what central government and organisations like Forest and Bird have failed to do. The lesson for all of us in the technocratic and bureaucratic age is that it’s entirely possible as a community to get it done.” That is absolutely correct. 
I will also quote again from the same article which I think is very good. It was written by Peta Carey—I assume that is a lady—who goes on to quote John Steffens. She states: “As much as the Guardians of Fiordland claim to have consulted all interest groups in Fiordland there was one voice expressly excluded in the first few years of discussions that of Forest and Bird. John Steffens admits they were simply not invited. ‘Personally I felt that from the behaviour I’ve noticed in other groups I’d been involved with that if Forest and Bird had sat around the table with the Guardians they would have tipped the group over. People would have given up in disgust and walked away.’ ” That is the group that controls the Minister of Conservation and I commend again Marian Hobbs and Pete Hodgson for their foresight and common sense. The comment was also made to me this morning that the Minister of Conservation has not even replied to those people. I think that is quite outrageous. So I am delighted especially at this time of the year to offer that little bouquet to those two Ministers. 
However on listening to those people this morning—and I do listen to them—I did hear them express some very very real concerns. I asked them whether it was possible that the whole process could be open to capture and one gentleman said to me that that was absolutely right and there was a concern that they had created a monster. As long as the process is controlled by the local people that will not happen but the concern is that through a political process Marian Hobbs may not be the Minister forever. Well it may last a few days—who knows? But never mind. Those people are concerned that Ministers who understand the process may be taken away in the future—whether it is next week next month next year or whenever it is. That is their very real concern. The bill allows for the Minister to appoint the guardians and that would be wrong in every sense. The appointments should come from the local people with perhaps one or two being appointed by the Minister to give some sort of outside perspective. But we cannot allow ministerial appointments to dominate the guardians in the future. As I say we open ourselves up for total capture of the absolutely excellent job that people like John Steffens and other members of the guardians have done. 
I must say that one thing that really concerned me was the appointment of Professor Alan Mark to the guardians. Professor Mark is well known to me and to the high-country community because he has alienated virtually every farmer in the high country over his top-down approach to the whole process. Quite frankly Alan Mark is a bad appointment to have made to that group. I concur totally that in order for these sorts of organisations to succeed there has to be a bottom-up approach which is exactly what we have in the guardians group at this time. But we cannot have people like retired emeritus Professor Alan Mark believe that people from Dunedin or Wellington are the appropriate people to have as the guardians of this most remarkable area of our country. Professor Mark stated in  
North and South 
 magazine that he was “marginally acceptable to Forest and Bird”. Well the only thing I can say to that is “Yeah right”. 
Professor Mark is well known as New Zealand’s foremost preservationist. I make the distinction between conservation and preservation because this bill should be about conservation not preservation. Conservation would be welcomed I am sure by everybody in this House including me and members of the ACT party. Irrespective of who it is conservation is what we are about—perpetuation of the species if one likes. Preservation especially in remote areas is all about creating a haven for poachers. If Government members and other members have not worked that out yet they should come and talk to me and I will point them in the right direction towards the people who understand that. 
Something I think I should also reflect on is the reason why the guardians group was created. I suspect it was that the egos of people in the southern regions are significantly smaller than the egos of the people concerned with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park for example where all sorts of problems and agendas occur. That is not happening in the far south at this time so I am delighted to see that we can proceed. In fact I listened to Dr Smith’s speech and I think he was quite correct when he said that this group offers a way forward for the future because it is a blueprint or template. The Romans had a principle they called usufruct whereby the locals controlled local resources. Sure there was an input from on high from the emperor—or in this case from Helen Clark. Such input is possible. However we want to be given no more than input. I think this bill is an excellent opportunity to show the rest of the country where our marine reserves are being depleted that it is local people—not the Department of Conservation certainly not the Forest and Bird Protection Society and certainly not Kevin Smith—who will show the way to ensure a sustainable future around our coastlines. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Fiordland National Park is the largest area of true wilderness remaining in New Zealand. It has a very special interface between land and sea. Its national and international importance are so great that in 1986 it was given world heritage status by the World Conservation Union. It has ecological features that are simply unique in the true meaning of that word. Because of the fresh water that runs on top of the saltwater which prevents the light penetrating through that lens we have extraordinary corals that are normally visible only at enormous depths where divers cannot go and they flourish in those fiords. It is an ecological treasure. But despite that and despite Fiordland’s long status as a national park and its many years as a world heritage park only two small areas of the sea are protected. There are only two small marine reserves. 
In addition to that need for additional marine reserves the fisheries have been in decline for some time. If we talk to old-timers we hear them say more than 10 crayfish pots were regarded as ridiculously unnecessary because they could not get around more than 10 pots before the first one was full again—they simply could not pull them in fast enough. That is not how the cray fishery is now. The blue cod fishery down there is so threatened that two whole fiords have had to be closed in a rahui while the fishery rebuilds. There is conflict between charter boats recreational fishers and commercial fishers who are competing for the same fish. 
I want to add my congratulations too to the local community which has sorted out an approach to deal with those issues. The local people have pulled off an extraordinary achievement and I congratulate them on it. But let us be honest that what initiated this process was the fear of a proposal for a Fiordland marine park and a determination on the part of local people to take matters into their own hands first. Initially they determined that there would be no representative of environmental or conservation interests on their group—no representative whatsoever. It was not just the Forest and Bird Protection Society and it was not just national organisations that were totally shut out; local people with a longstanding concern for marine conservation were also shut out. Initially the group called itself the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. It was entirely a fisheries resource-sharing arrangement that it was into. That is not to say that many of the people concerned did not have a real love of the marine environment and a desire to protect it but the fishing issue was of primary concern to them. When the group’s first discussion document went out for comment it was clear that it considered only fisheries and how to protect a few areas the group called “china shops” where the corals and other wildlife were so precarious that simply dropping an anchor in the wrong place was capable of doing a great deal of damage. 
Other members of the community looked at that document and said it was not good enough. They said Fiordland was actually an area that needed to have a balance between fisheries and marine conservation and there were other interests that needed to be in there. Minister Hodgson and I give him full credit for this and got Alan Mark put on the committee. Professor Mark is a person with the skills to work alongside people and the proof of Alan Mark’s skills in that area is the fact that after coming into that group at the last minute and negotiating with the community the group has provided an outcome that is very significantly better for conservation than it would have been. Alan Mark has brought all of that group on side. I object very strongly to the slanderous and ignorant comments about Professor Mark that were made by Gerry Eckhoff a few minutes ago. 
There are some very good outcomes from that process. There are restrictions on fishing methods that damage unique ecologies. There are reductions in take for threatened fisheries so that they can rebuild. Commercial fishers have been pushed out to the fiord entrances in order to protect the inner fiords for recreational fishing or biodiversity reasons. Codes of practice are to be set up to protect “china shop” areas dealing with things such as anchoring and ballast water. The outcome enshrines kaitiakitanga and not just for customary fishers but so that NgaiTahu can be fully represented for other management issues as well. The bill creates eight new marine reserves. They are small. There are no whole-fiord marine reserves so there is no complete representativeness. No outer fiords are protected as marine reserves and there is not a full range of protected eco-systems. But the result is a lot better than it might have been had Pete Hodgson not put Alan Mark on that committee. It is a concern that new applications for marine reserves are outlawed for 7 years no matter what needs may become apparent in the meantime. But there is a review process in place whereby that could change if necessary. 
The biggest outcome though—the biggest success—is the community buy-in. It actually does not matter what one does in law because if the community does not respect the law it will not accept it. Of all the places in New Zealand Fiordland must be the hardest place in which to get enforcement of fisheries regulations and conservation regulations. So this is a big success. It is not everything it might have been but it is a good compromise among those who have taken part in the process. It is actually an example to the Government of how to do things when there is great contention. Many times this year I have stood in this House and said to the Government over the foreshore and seabed legislation that it should just get around the table with Maori and see whether it could negotiate something that they would accept. 
I want to finish by quoting a comment made by Mark Solomon in the same article from  
North and South  
that Gerry Eckhoff has been quoting. Mark Solomon was shaking his head in amazement at the achievement in Fiordland and said: “If we dealt with the seabed and foreshore issue like this we wouldn’t have had a problem.” That is what Maori leaders around the country were saying and it is very sad that that opportunity was not taken. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. We welcome the introduction of this legislation to the House and will be supporting its referral to a select committee. I think it is a very good move to see it go to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee where we will have a combination of Maori members and others to listen to the submitters in this regard. I think that will lead to a very good outcome. 
This bill implements the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy a strategy that was developed by a local incorporated society called the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment which represents the major marine environment stakeholders in Fiordland. The development of the Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy was notable for its constructive balanced and inclusive approach. It was not marked by the degree of rancour often associated with decisions affecting large parts of the marine environment. It was very much a grass roots - driven process and it may possibly provide a model for future decision making on matters of this nature. 
We certainly congratulate those who have played such a significant role in the discussion that has gone on prior to this bill coming to the House. It really must be one of New Zealand’s best kept secrets. It has been going on since the incorporation of the society in 1995—an 8-9 year process—yet most New Zealanders become aware of it only when  
North and South 
 magazine did an article on it. Then suddenly we realised that there were some sensible common-sense constructive people in this country who were working through some very complex issues and coming up with some good outcomes. We certainly commend them for it. It is a very very good example of what is needed and how to go about it. 
I believe that many communities around New Zealand will look with envy at this legislation and the opportunities it will introduce for the conservation goals of the Fiordland area. I think of communities in Auckland right now in the Hauraki Gulf that would welcome this kind of approach to addressing the issues of marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf and of course the very controversial one right now at Great Barrier the Aotea Marine Reserve which is an example of a shambles of a consultation process. It is an absolute shambles. The thing that we will learn as we go through the select committee stage of this bill is that there has to be a shift away from the Department of Conservation approach to the introduction of marine reserves and towards a more local involvement a local initiation even in the process and definitely representation on meaningful consultation in the outcomes the community wants to see. The sooner the Department of Conservation realises that slow is faster the sooner it will achieve the outcomes that it very passionately wants. 
This has taken 9 years but what an amazing outcome we have. The establishment of eight marine reserves will take place and it is without the contention and the rancour of other communities around the country. I do not believe that all communities will take 9 years. I think they had significant issues to work through in Fiordland and I believe that some communities could achieve it in a much shorter space of time. But regardless of the time the Department of Conservation has to understand that it must listen to the people of New Zealand those who treasure their inshore marine environment and that it must engage them properly and constructively without secret agendas and without the involvement of the Forest and Bird Protection Society and its strategy to try to put a sham of consultation across. Again the issue going on in Auckland around the Great Barrier reserve right now is a disgrace I believe to any Government department. 
The Department of Conservation should not be the lead agency and that has been one of the keys to success in this regard. A trust was established and people were invited to be on that and to begin to discuss the issues. That is the secret I think to the success that we see before us. We will now be looking into the situation with foreshore and seabed reserves around the country as a result of the foreshore and seabed legislation. I think that that will almost necessitate this kind of approach in future because where there are foreshore and seabed reserves with Maori management it will be absolutely impossible for the Department of Conservation to step into those areas and initiate marine reserves without this kind of consultative approach. I trust that not just Maori and the Department of Conservation will participate but that other stakeholders in the community will be invited to participate in the same way as has happened in the Fiordland issue. 
United Future welcomes this approach and this bill which establishes a geographic entity called the Fiordland Marine Area which delineates this bill’s geographical jurisdiction. The coastal marine area around the Solander Islands is adjacent but has been specifically excluded by negotiation and that is another good point—that it is possible for people to say no in these issues and be listened to and respected. Within the Fiordland Marine Area the bill creates eight special marine reserves covering nearly 10000 hectares in total. That is no small feat and it should be welcomed by those in the House who are concerned about the preservation or the conservation interests of our marine environment. I hope that Mr Eckhoff will excuse me for using the word “preservation”. I agree with him that that is not what it should all be about. It is about conservation and not preservation because human beings are allowed to participate in the environment. We are allowed to enjoy that which is being created for us and we do not have to be excluded from those areas in order to take good care of them. 
The bill also creates the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee which will be important in overseeing the management of the area. The bill amends the proposed Southland regional coastal plan as it applies to Fiordland for vessel anchoring diving activities location and construction of structures biosecurity Resource Management Act functions and marine reserves in china shop areas. “China shop areas” is an interesting concept. There are some very delicate ecosystems down there that we do not want bulls running around in—like in a china shop. I think they have coined a very good phrase for it. The bill also requires the Ministers and Government departments responsible for resource management fisheries marine reserves and marine biosecurity and the Southland Regional Council to recognise and have regard to the advice of the Fiordland Marine Guardians advisory committee. What sweet words those are! How sweet they would be to many many communities around New Zealand that look forward to that active participation with Government departments in the conservation interests of their local areas. Most New Zealanders want to see good outcomes in their marine environment. They have learnt many things in the last 20 to 30 years. So we welcome the approach that is in this legislation. 
I look forward to being on the select committee that will hear submitters. I believe that there will be concerns as Gerard Eckhoff has mentioned. Perhaps there will be people who have concerns about the appointment of the guardians. Perhaps that is one thing the select committee will look at if there is significant concern about it. This Government introduced district health boards in terms of local management of our health services. It would be entirely consistent for there to be in time elected representatives on the guardians committee and indeed on the conservation boards as well. They should not all be by appointments. So we will be looking into those matters in the select committee and paying close attention to the submissions. We commend this bill to the House and to the select committee process. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 This is a really good bill. I could spend a whole 10 minutes on this but I will not. This bill shows what creative and innovative Kiwis can do to keep New Zealand clean green and sustainable and I think it underscores what a precious international asset Fiordland is. This bill is an excellent way to manage that asset for future generations. I commend this excellent bill to the select committee. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 That was a substantial contribution from that member and more than we are used to. 
Simon Power 
: Which is a big call. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Which is a big call. I do compliment the Ministers who have brought this bill forward. I think the House does not understand how radical a departure it is from the usual vein of environmental policy. Both Pete Hodgson and Marian Hobbs have been involved and it is great that they have seen the wisdom of a proposal that has emanated from my electorate. I particularly congratulate John Steffens who has managed this process for a number of years with a mixture of patience insight and determination without which this bill would not be here. 
The reason this bill is such a departure from traditional environmental policy is that it treats the local people as if they have some understanding and sense of stewardship of the Fiordland Marine Area and the national park. The usual way that this Government in particular has done business is to sit in Wellington decide that it wants to lock something up for the good of the nation walk all over the local interests treat them as if they were environmental vandals and do not care push legislation through with the subtlety of a jackboot then sit back watch the controversy and hope it generates some support in metropolitan areas. 
I had to sit through exactly that process when Labour decided to deal with indigenous forest policy and its impact on my electorate back in the late 1980s and flowing through into the early 1990s. It ended up being a disastrous policy. It cost the Government tens of millions of dollars to get something it could have got for almost nothing if only it had enlisted the cooperation of the local people. Although people from the Forest and Bird Protection Society sitting in their offices and the Minister of Conservation sitting in his ivory tower— 
Phil Heatley 
: Same office. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —the same ivory tower—may think that people who live next to the Fiordland National Park have no idea what a glorious asset it is in fact they do. In this case it is the horny-handed fishermen who initiated— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well in every way the Minister might care to take that. They initiated the whole idea of the Fiordland Marine Area. The last speaker the co-leader of the Greens was right: they did it to head off a ridiculous proposal to turn the whole of the fiords into a marine reserve. That was always stupid. It would have ridden over all the local interests and existing users and the locals decided to do something about it. 
So this measure is a new model and it has a number of characteristics that are desirable. First it is localised. Professor Mark regards himself as a local. He is a man of much knowledge about the area but in the end he is a pontificating environmentalist from Dunedin and I hope from the positive contribution he has already made that the Government will not stay wedded to the idea that the success of the whole enterprise has depended on the parachuting in of some academic expert. But the proposition is localised. Local interests generated it and ultimately they will be the guardians of whether this legislation works. 
It is also more integrated and I must back up the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith. New Zealand does not have an oceans policy. The management of these coastal areas is fragmented and fractionated. This measure gives the opportunity for at least one part of New Zealand to operate under integrated management. 
It is also flexible. We will have the opportunity to shift the balance of interests as changes in use shift—and a lot of change in use is going on in the fiords particularly in respect of tourism. It is important that the governance of that area can react to changing circumstances. 
I want to contrast this exercise with what is going on with the national park plan a process run by the Department of Conservation. This exercise is participative and consultative; the various interests get a say and they all feel they have been treated with integrity. That is in sharp contrast to the way that tourism aviation and fishing interests are being treated by the Department of Conservation as it draws up the new Fiordland National Park plan. That plan has been in the making for at least as long as this particular proposal. But what happens after years of talking is that the Department of Conservation lodges a plan everyone submits on it and there are long delays while the department prepares its revised version of the plan. Then at the last minute the department makes proposals for drastic changes particularly in respect of Milford Sound. That has left many of the interests around Fiordland National Park out of the legal process but more important it has poisoned their attitude towards the Department of Conservation which in many respects does not do a bad job. But in this case when large-scale last-minute proposals are introduced—actually a rewrite of whole sections of the plan—and people are given 3 or 4 days to react and submit people have every right to feel they have been duped. 
If the Department of Conservation thinks that is the way it will continue to do business in respect of the national park then it is wrong. The department ought to pay attention to this legislation and to the attitudes the compromises the vision and the environmental understanding that lie behind it. The department is doing itself permanent damage in the eyes of many people who work in the national park and have regard for it. I would hope the Minister of Conservation would do better than to act with his usual dismissive arrogance and to take advice from people who have no particular interest in my community. He should intervene in the process of the national park plan and fix it up. Because not many changes were proposed in the initial plan people did not submit on it. Then when the department made major changes it took the legal view and told people that because they did not submit in the first place they could not submit now—even though the plan looked completely different from the original one. 
I have a final point to make about marine reserves. Although they are incorporated in this plan I think they are a concept that has had its day. This plan shows there is widespread willingness to get to grips with the management of marine areas. The idea was that the only thing one can do in a marine area is to have a marine reserve with all the attendant legal and policing difficulties but it is now becoming clear that that tool does not work. It is not the best tool to have and we will be having a scrap over marine reserves at Kaka Point. It is much better for the Crown to pursue the various management options available that take into account the balance of interests in the marine environment with the understanding that almost everyone has goodwill towards preserving and enhancing that marine environment. 
As the local member I certainly will be supporting the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. I congratulate the local individuals who have put it together. I do not think there is much that the select committee can do to improve on it and I hope that its hearings on the bill will not be an opportunity for the various bureaucrats and lobby groups who do not like it to come round the back door and try to pull it apart. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I found some of those comments irreconcilable. I too think this bill is good and it is good that the Government is bringing it to fruition. One of the outrageous statements made by the last speaker was his suggestion that it was this Government that had caused all the problems with native forests in his electorate. I remind him that it was his colleague Dr Nick Smith whose decision illegally to restrain logging in that area which was struck down by the High Court— 
Government Member 
: Denis Marshall. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No it was not. It was Dr Smith. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: As if you would know. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I do on this occasion because I was representing some of the neighbouring landowners down there. This is good legislation. I agree that it is a model we would like to see spread elsewhere in the country but I do not agree that there is no future for marine reserves outside this policy framework. I recommend the bill to the select committee and look forward to its progression through the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 We in the National Party support the Fiordland Marine Management Bill going to the select committee. We do so on the recommendation of the Hon Bill English who has been involved in this particular process from the ground floor. Over the last few years we in the National Party caucus have appreciated the updates Bill English has given us from time to time on how the process of establishing this co-management regime is going. He acknowledged those in the guardians group for their work and he mentioned their determination and participation. What he did not mention was their frustration with having to fight the ivory tower over the years and I would like to put that on the record. I thank Bill English on behalf of our caucus for his work there. 
It comes as some surprise to us in the National Party that the bill will be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee which is fast becoming the clearing house for the Government for controversial legislation. So it is with some trepidation today that we see that. We are wondering what sneaky tricks will come out of that committee that result in this bill and all its good intentions in some way being changed and made a little bit more sinister than they are today. We celebrate the bill. We are nervous about it going to that committee. We do not know what the Government has in mind. 
I suspect though that it is about avoiding the Green members who sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Government does not want the Green member who chairs that committee to be involved in the bill and the Government’s tenuous relationship with the Greens is reflected in this move. That is quite interesting. I reflect on the marine reserves policy that Labour espoused before the election—not the 2002 election but the 1999 election. It said that it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine area in marine reserves. That was a sop to not just the Green Party but to green voters right across the country. Before that election the Labour Party said it would lock up 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine space in marine reserves. Today Labour is saying that 10 percent of New Zealand’s marine space will be in marine protected areas. So it has done a U-turn there. Now it is saying that it did not mean that 10 percent would be marine reserves; now it says that that 10 percent includes shipping lanes cable protection zones taiapure and mataitai—any area that is locked up in some way and protected whether because of shipping or law to do with Maori customary rights or telecommunications or electricity generation. Those areas fall into the marine protected areas trap. So voters on the green side of life who supported Labour on its hardy marine reserves policy will be very disappointed by the U-turn in that policy that we are seeing espoused today. 
One of the good things this legislation reflects is the degree of consultation that has finally happened with the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. The announcement that the Minister of Conservation will be driving through some marine reserves in Northland has prompted moves to have guardians’ groups set up there as well—for example the proposal to turn Mimiwhangata Marine Park into a marine reserve— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is nowhere near Fiordland. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is fine but we are talking about a guardians’ group to do with— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are talking about the Fiordland Marine Management Bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We are. In due course we will see a bill relating to Mimiwhangata introduced to Parliament as well because the only way to make progress in the marine environment with the fractured approach to the marine environment that the Government is taking is to have that solution wound out throughout the whole country. We will see that in Northland. The consultation that has finally happened in Fiordland has to happen throughout the rest of the country and I hope it does. The local people in Fiordland know most about their local marine environment and the local people in Northland know most about the local marine environment there. 
Interestingly enough the Department of Conservation up north when discussing its particular marine reserve proposal like the one for Fiordland tried to do a deal with local hapu for quid pro quo support for aquaculture—the aquaculture interests of hapu would be supported by the Department of Conservation if local hapu would support the interests of the department in a marine reserve. Local hapu turned round and said no in that instance. They said that their aspirations as Maori are exactly the same as the local community’s and local recreational fishers’ aspirations—that there was no distinction and they should not be approached as a racial group to get some sort of support through the back door because they shared the same aspirations as everyone else in that marine area. 
I commend the bill to the House. We will support it going to the select committee. We will be sitting on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and watching very very carefully to ensure that the rules in the bill are not changed too much in order somehow to appease the Department of Conservation. We will be watching over its progress on behalf of the people in Fiordland and the Hon Bill English who represents that region very well indeed. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be referred to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee for consideration 
referred to Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
 that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 4 April 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be postponed. 
Motion agreed to. 
Adjournment 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 1 February 2005 and that the sitting days in 2005 be as follows:  
February 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 and 17;  
March 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 17 29 30 and 31;  
April 5 6 7 12 13 and 14;  
May 3 4 5 10 11 12 17 18 19 and 31;  
June 1 2 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 and 23;  
July 26 27 and 28;  
August 2 3 4 9 10 and 11.  
I begin by thanking the people who are so important to this place starting particularly with yourself Mr Speaker because if rumour has it true this may well be the last occasion on which you preside over an adjournment debate within the New Zealand House of Representatives. Indeed rumour may further suggest that you may be translated to another place which of course in the place to which you are going has another meaning to what it has in this House. 
That will be capping an extraordinary career that stretches back to 1966 some 38 years in the New Zealand Parliament. You have been here longer than a number of the people in this place have been alive though it is fair to say that some members opposite have never been alive at any stage during those 38 years. 
You have contributed to this place more than the vast majority of people who have ever been here. Your generosity your ability to understand Parliament your ability to allow matters to flow yet to step in when you need to step in and the way in which you know people’s problems and deal with them—not just those in your own party but those across the House—has been appreciated by many people over many years. It is an extraordinarily distinguished career. 
I thank also obviously the Table Office staff the messengers the Hansard writers the security staff the ministerial and parliamentary staff all my colleagues in Parliament and our long-suffering families. In particular I thank my Government colleagues. 
It has been a great but testing year for the Government. We have passed an enormous amount of legislation—by no means a record number of Acts but then we have not passed a Statutes Amendment Bill recently which is the usual way of getting the body count up rather cheaply in that regard. Of course we passed the Income Tax Act which is easily the largest single Act New Zealand has—although much shorter than some of its overseas equivalents I might point out—along with Acts such as the various Acts arising from the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. We have actually passed the largest number of pages in New Zealand’s legislative history which may come as a surprise to many people given that we have not sat very frequently under urgency compared with the many occasions during the 1980s and early 1990s. 
Regarding the economy we have seen a year in which the New Zealand economy has continued to outperform and surprise with the strength of its growth. As a result we have seen record low unemployment—the lowest for the last 18 years—at some 3.8 percent. The problem for National is that it does not know how to cope with that success. We have seen the Working for Families package which will deliver an average of $100 per week into the pockets of families earning between $25000 and $45000 per year—those families that really struggle to make ends meet within New Zealand at the present time. It has been a great year for the Government. 
I also thank some of the other parties in the House. I thank United Future which has voted against the Government more often than the Greens have. It has differentiated itself on a whole range of issues. But between United Future the Labour Party and the Progressives there is a form of civil union—if I can put it that way—whereby we are bound to each other by certain matters of agreement and agree not to step outside that. Even when the Government rejected amendments on the Income Tax Act 2004 nevertheless United Future stood by its word and voted on an issue of confidence with the Government. That has contributed now to the most stable Government under MMP that we have seen. 
Opposition Members 
: Soft! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: National members say: “Soft!” because they do not have a coalition partner in sight. That is National’s problem. The ACT party is disappearing off the face of the earth and nobody else wants a bar of it. Mr Peters has not wanted a bar of National ever since Mr Carter I think it was was stupid enough to suggest certain matters about a lunch. Ever since then negotiations between those two have never occurred. 
I thank the Greens for their support on a large number of important measures. We relied upon their support to get those measures through Parliament. They have always been reliable to that extent. 
I thank New Zealand First which perhaps is a little bit more difficult on occasion to deal with. But on the foreshore and seabed issue it put New Zealand’s interests first and assisted significantly in terms of the passage of the legislation particularly in terms of some of the content. In that respect I thank the House this week for correcting a minor drafting error in the Foreshore and Seabed Act with absolutely no debate at all except for a small comment from MetiriaTurei. It is nice that we have now handed back to local government the areas that run to reclamation which we had unfortunately nationalised by mistake. The National Party did not pick that up at any stage of the debate on the aquaculture legislation. 
My special big thanks goes to Dr Brash and his deputy Gerry Brownlee. Both Government parties owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr Brash and Mr Brownlee this year. There they sit the Laurel and Hardy of New Zealand politics. Let us just look at them. All Dr Brash needs is the hat and they would be the perfect imitation of Laurel and Hardy. They behave pretty much the same way as they carried on. The National Party now faces the question—and we have seen it during the last 24 hours—of whether Bill English is on the comeback trail. He has made more serious thoughtful speeches in this House within the last couple of weeks than Dr Brash has managed to make all year. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: His former deputy leader says: “Rubbish!”. That is what I call loyalty! He says that Mr English’s speeches are rubbish. No wonder Mr Sowry is retiring! I say to him that he will have to go quickly before he gets pushed out. That explains how Judy Keall beat him so easily in the past and why he will never face up against “Dazza” Hughes in the future. 
I say to Mr English to remember John Howard. He has been the Australian Prime Minister for 8 years. He was the leader he was tossed out he came back into the Opposition and he won government. I say to Mr English that there are examples there that he might care to think about over the coming few months. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Lazarus. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would not say Lazarus. I think he is missing the intermediate necessity in terms of Lazarus. 
The second great question that I think is being asked is whether the National Party’s finance team “Don” and “Key” will come together. That is the big question facing the National Party in that respect. Indeed will the National Party’s finance team “Don” and “Key” ever manage to agree on anything in terms of finance going forward? 
Above all what will Don Brash flip-flop on next? What else is left for him to flip-flop on? Could it be support for the Working for Families package? Could it be support for paid parental leave? That has to occur sometime. I suggest to Dr Brash that going into the election and saying that one will remove paid parental leave will not be a great winner. He came in here flushed up as the 10th member of the ACT party. He was going to put backbone into National. He was going to lead it back on the true right road—in every sense of the word “right”. What has he done month after month over the last few months? He has crawled back to some kind of populist position whereby he has abandoned every principle he ever held previously as the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Do members remember all those speeches he gave as the Governor of the Reserve Bank? He would abolish the unemployment benefit. We have not heard that one from Dr Brash for a wee while. He would basically abolish any kind of industrial relations law at all. He would cut the top tax rate for the rich. Indeed if one reads Dr Brash’s speeches one sees that the tax rate for the rich would be less than the tax rate for the poor. That flat tax stuff from ACT was wimpy woolly stuff! Dr Brash used to argue that we should not have that. 
So the year that started with great promise is ending in whimpering failure. More and more as the year has gone on National has resembled—I say National; I will not get personal—a kind of eunuch with a bunch of flowers if I can put it that way. It has a great approach but no capacity to follow through when it comes to the crucial moment. That really has been how National has looked right the way through the year. The bunch of flowers came out at Orewa. Everybody said: “What a lovely bunch of flowers you have Dr Brash.” Then they started looking more closely and focusing on the core of Dr Brash. At the end of the day they have presumed that he is not up to it when it comes to being the leader of the country. The flip-flops on nuclear superannuation 4-weeks’ holiday and the civil union legislation have unfolded one by one over the last few weeks. 
We wish Dr Brash a merry Christmas. He will sit there and think about whether that glint in the sun he can see is Mr Brownlee with a knife or Mr English with a knife. Or maybe it is the new young Lochinvar from the west Mr Key who was kind enough to name me politician of the year—which I have to say is a charming thing from one’s opponent in politics. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in supporting the adjournment motion. I do so for two very good reasons. The first is that this has been an awful year for the Prime Minister and she needs a good break. Yes the economy has been quite buoyant but every independent commentator knows that the economy has been buoyant—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! When I said: “Order!” I meant it. A reasonable amount of interjection is OK. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: Yes the economy has been quite buoyant but every independent commentator knows that it has been buoyant not because of this Government but despite it. It is because of the much deplored policies of the 1980s and 1990s the strong commodity prices the strong inflow of people following September 11 and the very low interest rates around the world. It is not because of the extra compliance costs imposed by the Holidays Act the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill the Government’s failure to fix the roading crisis or the Government’s failure to fix the Resource Management Act. 
What do we get for this buoyancy? The average after-tax real household income today is no higher than it was when this Government came into office. The real after-tax income of a household on average is no higher now than it was 5 years ago. The gap between the average wage after income tax of the New Zealand worker and the average of the Australian worker was just over $5000 in 1999 and is now almost $9000 today. Even on the economy the Government has been an abject failure despite the favourable external circumstances. 
Helen Clark has had huge problems with her own Cabinet. Where may I ask is Lianne Dalziel—the Minister of Immigration until she was caught telling something less than the total truth? Where is the Minister for Small Business who accepted a $300000 golden handshake after saying he would not accept it? Where is the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs who resigned because of the dishonesty of this Government over the foreshore and seabed legislation? What about the Minister of Education who had to be hauled back into line over school closures? What about the Minister of Police who totally failed to discharge his responsibilities? Then of course there have been all those Government policy U-turns. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are interjections on both sides and I am paying particular attention to the fact that members of both the Government and the Opposition were interjecting. I want to hear Dr Brash and I want now for there to be fewer interjections. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: Yes we changed policy on a couple of issues but we have always contended that at this time in our history we should be running a bigger than average fiscal surplus. The right thing to do with that fiscal surplus is to strengthen the economy with it and to retire debt as every householder would but we accept that most New Zealanders want a superannuation fund they can see. Only the Opposition can take the New Zealand Superannuation Fund off the political football field and we have done that. We offered to older New Zealanders predictability and certainty. We have accepted that 4 weeks’ annual leave is now being written into collective agreements but we want to give employees the choice and flexibility so that if they want to work an extra week and get paid for doing that then they can have that choice. 
But let me list some of the U-turns of the current Government. It did a U-turn on school closures and another on the policy of funding based on need not race. The Government said that did not exist; all policies it said were based on need not race. Well we have suddenly discovered that decile funding is not based on need; it is based on race. It was said that we did not need to fix the Resource Management Act and the Government scrapped the amendment bill to that Act that National brought in in 1999. But now it acknowledges that it needs to be reviewed. The Government wanted to decriminalise consensual sex for children as young as 12. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the time for Dr Brash’s speech is not being used up at this stage. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: Mr Goff said at one stage that he could sell that to the public. The Government decided to abandon the Social Entrepreneur Fund and to abandon the Community Employment Group. The Government started off with the concept of the public domain as I recall in relation to the seabed and foreshore but all of a sudden it is Crown ownership. 
Of course all of those changes have been brought about because the Government suddenly realised that it will face a challenge next year. The changes are not about substance; they are about form. Let us take the policy of funding according to need not race. What about those primary health organisations offering free taxi rides to Maori and Pacific Islanders but only to poor non-Maori? What about the special quotas for Maori at universities? And what about Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed? There are so many qualifications as to be meaningless. We know that secret deals are being done and that Crown ownership means nothing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough! I am not having interjections in the second person. That member will be going home early. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as you indicated to the member that he would be going home early and then turned to this side of the House the member muttered some very uncomplimentary remarks towards you. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was listening to the member and he was not referring to me. If he had been he would have been out. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The New Zealand public is increasingly fed up with the lack of vision from this Government the suffocating political correctness the nanny State mentality the way in which Labour is increasingly driving more and more middle-income New Zealanders to be beneficiaries and the way in which Labour’s failure to ease the tax burden on hard-working New Zealanders is putting more and more cash into the hands of the Government and the bureaucracy and driving more and more New Zealanders into debt. Next year New Zealanders will have a choice between a Government that is driving the country further into dependence and a Government that will drive New Zealand towards independence and self-reliance. That is my first reason for supporting this motion. My second reason is that Helen Clark will need a good break before the toughest fight of her political career. 
Mr Speaker let me finish by thanking you for your hard work both this year and for many years in the past. This has not always been an easy classroom to chair. I also give thanks to the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers the police who have accompanied me around the country my drivers the Parliamentary Library staff and all the other staff who have assisted the National Party and of course my parliamentary colleagues for their assistance throughout this year. Thank you very much indeed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I say to the House that my contribution will not generate anywhere near as much laughter as the last contribution—principally because it will be based on facts and not largely on imagination. But the honourable member did get one thing right and I warn the Government: it will have a very tough year next year because the leader of New Zealand First will be back and in full cry. Government members can sit there but Mr Peters will be here in full cry. 
I begin by paying tribute to your good self Mr Speaker. You might have noticed that we have from time to time made it a little tricky for you in that chair but we do wish you well. We recognise you as the father of the House and I think that that goes for everybody here. We think you have done an honourable job and we recognise that you have gone overboard at times to be exceedingly fair. We know that you are going to embark on a new career and I am sure that my New Zealand First colleagues will join me in saying that if you get the opportunity to go to the Dennis Compton Lounge in the Emirates Stadium I am certain that if you need someone to accompany you I could find someone to fill that position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Arsenal forever! 
PETER BROWN 
: I also wish to thank the staff who work around this complex. They do a magnificent job. Believe it or not MPs are not the easiest people to work for and the messengers security staff administration staff parliamentary staff select committee staff and Office of the Clerk staff service—if that is the correct word—our needs very very well indeed. I think it is appropriate at this point in the year that we remember their efforts. 
I must also thank New Zealand First’s office team. We are fortunate enough to have a team of very competent people. I do not wish to be boastful but we have a team of very competent advisers researchers press staff and secretaries. 
Rodney Hide 
: Name one. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would be here all afternoon if I named them. I must also thank the many workers both paid and non-paid who work outside Parliament on behalf of New Zealand First. Without them we would not be here and we would not get significantly bigger come the next election without their efforts. 
I also wish to thank my parliamentary colleagues. They are an excellent bunch to work with. Many of them are first-term MPs and I can honestly say that they have performed exceedingly well in this House. I do not want to say any more because they will not get their heads outside the building; but they are a great bunch to work with. 
This has been a somewhat unique year principally because it was the 150th anniversary of Parliament. That is the very special year in the parliamentary calendar. That fact was recognised but we probably could have done a little bit more to sell the celebration to the public. During the year we witnessed not one but several large protests on Parliament’s grounds—from the hikoi on the seabed and foreshore through to the Enough is Enough march recently. We have had pretty much every world view presented to us and I think the MPs have listened to a very large extent with an open mind and have been very fair. 
We have passed in the House over 100 pieces of legislation this year. That is quite a lot and it represents a lot of hard work by many many MPs. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about the poor people who have to live with them? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Hide that we have passed laws that ensure that the seabed and foreshore are in public hands and will remain there. I wish to thank the Labour Government in particular for working with New Zealand First on its idea to pursue that. We have passed laws that allow for civil unions and I suspect that we will see a few of those after the next election. We have seen the resolution of the allocation of the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries assets after more than a decade and New Zealand First in particular welcomes that. 
I cannot let this occasion pass without a making comment on the Supreme Court. I have to say to the Labour members: “We told you so.” That is not a phrase I use very often but we told the Government that there would be problems if it did not listen to us on the Supreme Court. The court has already demonstrated why its lack of experience on some issues makes it a perilous place as our final court of appeal. We have opened Pandora’s box and now we will have to live with it. 
Next year is election year and it will be a dynamic year as far as New Zealand First is concerned. I have some words of caution for people on both sides of this Chamber. I say to my ACT friends— 
Rodney Hide 
: Name one! 
PETER BROWN 
: I think I might have one. But so that I get it right I say to my ACT colleagues that they should not attack the Government’s social welfare policies too much next year because come September they will need them. I say to United Future members that they should pay close attention to the national anthem because if God does not save them the worm sure will not. I have a message for National members. They have pinched one or two—or three or four or five—of our policies but we will not divulge any more. They can watch the next election and pay careful attention. 
That brings me to my final point. I am putting this Government on notice. Winston Peters will be back here in full cry. Our team will be refreshed and willing to go and Government members will feel the pain. So I hope they have a happy Christmas because they will have a darn hard new year. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I wish all members a merry Christmas. I promise them that it will be tough next year so they should have a good break. I say to all New Zealanders on behalf of our leader in particular and the parliamentary team that I wish them a safe and happy Christmas. Let us hope that next year we can do better for them. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support this adjournment motion and to thank heaven that the year in Parliament is ending because as my colleague Peter Brown from New Zealand First has just said 100 pieces of legislation have been passed by this Parliament this year. Peter Brown said it was hard work passing them. Well he should try being one of the people who is trying to live with the legislation that this Government has passed this year. 
I would like to thank on behalf of the ACT party the hard-working business people in this country who have had another year of being under unrelenting attack from the Government. Last year it was estimated that the average medium-sized business in New Zealand was confronting an extra $43000 in costs. One might ask where those costs came from. Actually they came from the Government. The Government piled on another $43000 worth of costs. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that David Cunliffe has not done a thing in this House until now the last minute when he wants to have his say but I say to David Cunliffe that he should think about that situation of business—$43000 of extra costs. 
It has got worse this year. On top of 30 new taxes new levies and excise duties there has been the employment relations legislation and costly health and safety requirements and now we have business attacked by the Holidays Act. There are more costs being borne by business. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen was asked in this House about all the taxes he had put up. He could list a few of them. Then he was asked to name one tax or levy he had dropped. He could not think of one. Well I will tell him one that he did drop and that was the tax rate on Maori authorities. He conveniently forgot the fact that under this Government there are now two tax rates one if people are Maori and one if they are not. I think this House should wish a very merry Christmas to every small business in this country because my heavens those businesses have been struggling under this Government. 
And we should not forget every working Kiwi and household in this country who actually pay our way. We should think about them. New Zealand householders continue on with good cheer when as Michael Cullen admitted in this House last week after 5 long years of Labour—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I tell Mr Cunliffe to think of this—they are no better off in real terms. Michael Cullen said there was a 10.1 percent increase in net income. What was the inflation rate over that time? It was exactly 10.1 percent. Yet the average household is having to pay an extra $2910 in tax. I know that David Cunliffe does not like to hear that but it is true. 
What is Michael Cullen’s response? He says they are getting a social wage. What have we learnt about the social wage? We have discovered that under Annette King the health waiting lists are longer than they have ever been in our history. That is the truth about the health waiting lists under Labour. It pours in money at the top and there are longer waiting lists. We have learnt this about Annette King: there are more people dying on our waiting lists than ever before in our history and that is a direct response to this Labour Government’s policy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Phil Goff laughs; he thinks that people dying when on the waiting list because of his Government’s ideology is funny. I say to Mr Goff that the ACT party does not think that people dying when on the waiting list is anything to laugh about. 
I would like to wish Michael Cullen a good Christmas but he has had his present already from each and every taxpayer in New Zealand. This Government is awash with cash. I can see Michael Cullen sitting there like Scrooge this Christmas swimming amongst that money—all paid for by hard-working New Zealanders who struggle to make ends meet. 
To the Prime Minister I say: “Take it easy on the roads this summer. You don’t know what sort of maniac could be coming towards you at what speed. So please Prime Minister slow down take it easy and be careful on the roads.” 
I see that Mr Winston Peters has taken his holiday early. I understand that he really has not recovered from the fact that we now have in our Parliament not one Chinese member but two—one on each side of him. He has had to retreat to the hills early because he is upset that there is an Asian takeover—not only of the country but of this Parliament as well. 
I understand that Margaret Wilson has asked for her stocking to be filled with copies of the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and that she will be spending the summer studying them. 
I wish the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia a good Christmas. As he said to me yesterday it is only 59 sleeps for him until Christmas. For Parekura Horomia there are 59 sleeps until Christmas. 
I wish the Greens a happy Christmas but I do not quite know how it will work. We have heard from the Greens that we are not allowed to eat strawberries this Christmas. We will have to have pavlova without strawberries because every time we eat a strawberry we are making the ozone hole bigger. I say to the Green members that I hope they get the presents they want but they must be pretty miserable presents because I know that this year they want presents for New Zealanders to be smaller and unwrapped. I have to say that wishing that all New Zealanders have small presents that are not wrapped and not too many of them so as to save on wastage does take the fun out of Christmas. Well it might be a happy Christmas because Mike Ward said that he hopes people’s Christmas stockings are stuffed with vouchers promising special favours to indulge a fantasy or a passion to love or to picnic in the park. I have to say that is a kind wish but I say to Sue Kedgley and to Jeanette Fitzsimons: “Please no vouchers in my stocking!”. 
I wish United Future party members a good Christmas. I hope it is a gay Christmas for them. I hope they have a gay time of it. [ 
Interruption 
] No I say to Mr Dunne that I want him to have a gay Christmas. I hope it is a very gay Christmas and that he does not take down in disgust the fairy on top of the Christmas tree. 
On behalf of the ACT party I say that it is good for us to end the year with a full complement of nine MPs and to have Mr Kenneth Wang join us. I want to thank all the MPs on our side and I particularly want to thank Richard Prebble who has been a stalwart in this House and particularly good to me as the new ACT leader. 
I want to thank you Mr Speaker. This is your 38th adjournment debate and I understand that you are not going to have a 39th so we wish you a very good Christmas and we will see you in the new year. 
We want to thank all the messengers the clerks the staff of Bellamy’s the library staff and all the people who work in Parliament especially the executive secretaries who work beyond the call of duty. I want to wish all the family members of MPs an especially good break. I sometimes think they suffer the most through the year. I especially want to thank the ACT team of staff who this year have performed well beyond the call of duty. I wish everyone in this House and everyone in our Parliament a good Christmas and a safe Christmas. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The House has sent a very mixed message to New Zealanders this year. We have passed a number of measures that have shown New Zealand to be a tolerant and fair society—a number of measures of which I am proud: the Civil Union Bill the Care of Children Bill the employment relations legislation and legislation relating to the decriminalisation of prostitution. Those pieces of legislation which protect people who are not in the mainstream and are not in the majority went through only because of the Green Party’s support and we are proud to have supported them. We are proud that New Zealand is a better place because of those pieces of legislation. 
At the same time we have damaged our reputation of being a fair and tolerant society in a number of ways. We have driven a wedge between Maori and Pakeha because of the processes that were used to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We have kept an overseas-elected member of Parliament and scholar in prison for 2 years with no charges despite his having refugee status. The Greens welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court—created last year with the help of our vote—to treat Mr Zaoui in a more decent and civilised manner. Parliament has introduced the Charities Bill an attack on the voluntary sector which threatens to shut down most of the voluntary sector by setting completely unreasonable expectations and by threats of complete impoverishment if that sector involves itself in advocacy. 
I think the Government should take note of today’s judgment of the British law lords who wrote: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of people living with its tradition and laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.” With that in mind we appeal to the Government not to proceed with bills and projected bills to toughen up the onerous security risk certificate procedure and the Terrorism Suppression Act and proposals to give a Cabinet Minister rather than a judge the right to take away a New Zealander’s passport on national security grounds. 
The Greens have had some highlights this year. Nandor Tanczos’ Clean Slate Bill introduced some 5 years ago and renamed and put in the name of the Minister has now passed into law thereby giving many people who committed some indiscretions years ago a new start in life with a clean slate. We are proud to have initiated that change and we are proud that it has passed through Parliament even though in a somewhat different form. We now have the ability to go into pubs and cafes without coming out smelling dreadful. The smoke-free legislation was not a Green bill but it passed only because of our vote. I particularly acknowledge Sue Kedgley’s hard work on the select committee and on the bill and of course I also acknowledge Steve Chadwick who introduced the bill. That is progress in terms of having a healthy atmosphere for people to breathe. 
The year began for us with a big campaign to protect New Zealand’s largest braided river from proposals to take away 73 percent of its water for 60 kilometres. Project Aqua was in full cry a year ago threatening the Waitaki River and on 30 March after more than 6000 submissions from ordinary people on the resource consent said “Leave our river alone” finally Project Aqua was withdrawn. I think that marks the end of the major “think big” projects that destroy rivers that are essential to the well-being of New Zealanders and of our wildlife. 
We have watched the gradual implementation of the new transport strategy and Act. The Government took our advice after 2½ years to get back the rail track and it has put $200 million into repairing it and building it up. We welcome that decision. It is already starting to bear fruit. New lines are opening and Fonterra is making a commitment to use it. Some logs are moving from road on to rail because of assistance from the new Transfund rules. We have seen a big increase in public transport use over the last few years as well. 
I want to end by extending my thanks and Christmas greetings to you Mr Speaker for your work through the years you have been in the Chair. I recognise that this will be your last Christmas in this particular job and I wish you well for the holidays and for your new position. I also thank the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers. To all my parliamentary colleagues I wish you a good Christmas and a good holiday. To the Green Party staff and volunteers who are totally dedicated and have kept us going this year to the select committee staff the people from the library the people from the Clerk’s Office to all of those who feed us clean our offices deliver our mail and look after our security I wish all of you happy times with family and friends rest and recreation and time outdoors away from air conditioning and computers. 
Finally I want to remember those for whom Christmas is the most desperate and miserable time of the year—all of those for whom other people’s joyful families and high living make their own lack of family and their own poverty seem even more extreme. I recognise those women and children for whom Christmas means more violence and abuse because of the stress of the Christmas season and the abuse of alcohol. For them I wish that Christmas may treat them less harshly than usual and that we may all watch out for them. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin by placing on record what I consider to be a very severe constitutional outrage perpetrated by our new Supreme Court. It is appropriate that I do so now because this is the first occasion to raise this outrageous matter. The court by ruling in the way that it did in restoring the ACT party to its full membership at the general election has changed the speaking order in this House which means that United Future and other parties now have to follow the Greens. The outrage of that is that because of the grimness of that message from a party better known as the “Groans” most New Zealanders will have switched off the debate by now. That is an extraordinary assault on democracy perpetrated by our Supreme Court. This is supposed to be the time of happiness and goodwill. I think that by and large this debate has shown some of those traits in some degree of moderation. The last speech was the exception in that regard. 
This is Mr Speaker—and I do not like the phraseology that some have sombrely referred to—your last Christmas in this place. I think that has a degree of horrible permanence about it. I prefer to see it in the light that the Deputy Prime Minister did. This is the last Christmas you will have here before your translation to another place. In the context of where you are going that translation may mean elevation to a Chamber not dissimilar to this where the carpet is red rather than green. We on this side of the House applaud your contribution over 38 years. We applaud the way in which you have guided the affairs of this House as its Speaker since 1999 your friendship and your counsel to so many members at so many different times and your astute taste when it comes to the finer things in life. We look forward not only to your very successful execution of your new duties in London when they are eventually announced but also to having the opportunity to call upon you and share with you in the facilities that will make it possible for you to carry out those duties to your usual and accustomed standard. New Zealand will be seen in a truly new light as a result of your translation to London and maybe even the cricket team will improve accordingly and perform better next time it is at Lords. 
This has been as many have observed an extraordinary year and this has already been an extraordinary debate. The Government is criticised by the Opposition for changing policies. On the other hand the Opposition says that its policy changes are all part of a refinement and a careful appreciation of what New Zealanders actually want and are part of an ongoing policy development. New Zealanders are trying to find out where the balance lies between the two. The reality is that we are now in our most stable period of Government ever under MMP because we have a Government with a reliable support partner. When I hear Mr Brown say that we should wait for next year because New Zealand First is on the way I think that those few New Zealanders who are listening to the debate will recoil in horror. What they are reminded of is Brava cafe a 9-week coalition circus a whole lot of irresponsible incompetent and idiotic members and Ministers some of whom are foolish enough to show their presence in the House this afternoon and then— 
Ron Mark 
: I wasn’t a Minister. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No the member was not a Minister. He was not even good enough to aspire to that low level and he will not be again. A member whose best achievement in life is to parade his kneecaps and his parliamentary rugby blazer emblem has little to be proud of. 
Ron Mark 
: The poodle of New Zealand politics. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Then he resorts to animal insults. Better a quip. The next time Mr Mark goes around the racetrack he should just remember that. 
Rodney Hide 
: And merry Christmas! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is a very merry Christmas. I want to pay a tribute to Mr Mark. We are grateful at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for having the wisest military analyst and strategist since Montgomery serving amongst us. 
What I was saying was that the warning from Mr Brown that New Zealand First is on the way back scares most New Zealanders. What they do not want to repeat is the worst period of Government under MMP the shortest period of any administration under MMP to date when New Zealand First was in the loop. That is the last thing New Zealanders want to go back to. It is no coincidence that the economic performance of the last couple of years the growth that has occurred and the fact that New Zealanders are feeling more positive about their future than ever before occurs because they have a Government that is stable and reliable. There is no debate as there was when Mr Mark and his cronies were in the loop about when the plug would be pulled. That was a daily occurrence and eventually the prophecy came to be true. 
I want to say on this occasion that we often forget many of the people who contribute to making this Parliament work effectively and we should take time to acknowledge them and give them our thanks for the work they do: the messengers the security staff the catering staff the library staff our own research and political staff all the people who do the routine things the maintenance staff the people who make this place run well. They are the people we ought to think of right now. 
I pay a tribute to my own colleagues. Judy Turner is my new deputy leader and I congratulate her on that move. I thank our whip Gordon Copeland for the work he has done and all of my team for what has been an extraordinary year of effort. The select committees have worked well because of our intervention. Our presence in the House on many many matters has been the difference and we have ensured that this place operates smoothly and in the interests of good government. 
I say to Dr Brash that I listened to his speech with some interest. I am sure he will acknowledge that if he is to become Prime Minister of New Zealand at some point in the future he will need a stable and reliable partner. He needs to think about what his options are. Dr Brash will know what I mean. He is sensible enough to know as are his colleagues who support him—Mr Brownlee I see smirks eerily—that in fact under this system of Government we have developed good partnership arrangements. The important thing—[ 
Interruption 
] The member talks about his own potential excitements. The ACT party’s obsession with political and other prostitution demonstrates why it has never been near a Government and never will be. That is because what a proportional system of Government requires—and this was the point that I was making to Dr Brash—is a centre party that can work reliably and constructively and can provide good Government to whichever of the major parties it is working for. 
Rodney Hide 
: Reliable doormat! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member says “reliable doormat” and others laugh at that. The reality is that if we listen to what New Zealanders say at election time—and they have said it ever since New Zealand First came on the scene—we hear that the last thing they like— 
Ron Mark 
: You’re hurting me. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not talking to that gentleman. He does not matter. [ 
Interruption 
] I am happy to wish the member opposite a very happy Christmas. I am sure she will enjoy it. 
The point I am making is that in this environment a stable moderate reliable centre party is what the country requires. New Zealanders do not like the notion of small parties holding Governments to ransom; they want to see them work constructively to achieve positive outcomes. The boorish heckling to my right demonstrates why those parties will not get the chance. 
As Christmas approaches this year I also express my best wishes to all those who will be suffering this Christmas—families who are divided people with family members who are overseas serving in our armed forces or in other working environments widows the lonely and people who have sad memories at this time. One group of people in particular who have sad memories— 
Hon Member 
: The National Party. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —apart from the National Party—are those who have lost loved ones in accidents at Christmas times past. I think it is important for us to think about those people as we go about having what I am sure will be a good celebration with family and friends. 
This place can be rigorous. I want to end by wishing all members from all sides whatever divisions we have had during the year a very happy Christmas a peaceful New Year and the best of luck in 2005. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is now a few short days before we will be with our families and our friends for the summer holidays. We in the Progressive Party particularly want to thank our colleagues in the Labour Party for helping to provide a stable and effective coalition partnership. We have found them at all times to be reliable and thoughtful. We have resisted people wanting us to use the term “Progressive-led Government” in our brochures. We are insisting that they give it the proper name: the Labour-Progressive Government. We also want to thank United Future for being there for confidence and supply making this minority Government—which was unfortunate enough to lose one of its members—a stable Government during this period. 
I would like to thank my co-whips in the Labour Party. They have learnt a lot while I have been their co-whip particularly my different phone numbers at different locations around the country. 
This is a time to talk read and reflect for 4 long weeks. It is also a time to thank our lucky stars and the sacrifice of the generations before us for the robust democratic and vibrant society we enjoy living in. I chose this as my home many years ago—although I must report that the Minister of Internal Affairs did ask me when he gave me my citizenship whether I had checked that I had signed every part and whether I could perhaps give him a look at it. I thank Mr Burton for advising me of that. 
Each and every one of the eight parties represented here is a direct descendant of the Magna Carta and a child of the Glorious Revolution whether 1688 or 1689 is put as the date of that revolution. Once the wheels of liberty and freedom start in motion they are unstoppable. It is fair to say that all eight parties in Parliament have at one stage or another contributed to making New Zealand a better place over the past 12 months. We all carry on our shoulders the responsibilities of protecting the inalienable right to liberty to freedom to be protected and to be secure on these shores. We have a robust system of law and so it is that we have freedom and liberty. We have a proportional representation voting system that delivers a Parliament to reflect the diverse dynamic society we are. 
For the six parties that are not called Labour or National mixed-member proportional representation offers us so-called third parties an opportunity never enjoyed before MMP to make a positive difference to the day-to-day government of our nation and the well-being of our people. The challenge before all of those who are third parties is to seize the opportunity and embrace the responsibility as best we can. 
As I reflect on the past 12 months I feel proud of the Progressive Party’s role in ushering through the process of the Budget 2004 round programmes that are today offering meaningful practical assistance where needed. The half a billion dollar growth and innovation package in Budget 2004 is deepening the ability of Kiwi companies to compete in the world economy as part of a creative optimistic and technologically advanced country. Budget 2004 allocated an additional $39 million to tackle the illegal methamphetamine trade and organised crime over the next 4 years. Progressive initiatives in the coalition Budget included policies aimed at reducing the demand for drugs. We have made provision to care for the victims of the drug peddlers with nearly $15 million over 4 years on drug-related health initiatives and $5.5 million over 4 years dedicated to supporting suicide prevention measures. 
In practical terms that means residential treatment services in the central region for those suffering from alcohol and other drug problems. It means funding for secondary prevention training which is relevant to those working in the criminal justice system budgetary advice social services and in primary health organisations. 
Progressive sought funding for a pilot programme of alcohol and other drug clinicians at court. We also sought and got funding to provide independent evaluations of the 15 Community Action on Youth and Drugs sites established in the 2003 Budget round because even the best programmes in the world need evaluation and auditing. The Progressive Party sought in the 2004 Budget a new discretionary fund to provide money for new projects to promote our campaign for safer drug-free communities. We secured new funding to institute one-for-one exchange in the needle and syringe programme and significantly boosted funding for the independent New Zealand Drug Foundation. 
So it has been a busy 12 months. It has been a busy year for the Prime Minister who I believe will create New Zealand history and become the first-ever Labour leader to win three general elections. A centre-left Government has had not even the remotest hope of winning a third consecutive election for three generations—not since 1943. It is a great tribute to Helen Clark that we are on the threshold of seeing history made next year. 
The most unexpected highlight for me personally happened last week when the National Party endorsed a minimum 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers. Minimum 4 weeks’ annual leave for working families which just 2 years ago was but a hopeful vision outlined in a Progressive Party member’s bill is now absolutely cemented in as a key piece of New Zealand’s cultural framework. I thank Labour the Greens New Zealand First and now National for making that so. 
Next year I will be praying—to use that word advisedly—that fate again favours families and that my member’s bill on tackling alcohol-related harm is drawn from the lottery known as the members’ ballot process. I am a member who has changed his mind on the policy of setting the drinking age at 18. I have done so because of the evidence of public health experts. I would rather lose the votes of 18-year-olds—my own son amongst them—than see young people on morgue tables. I am told that even if my bill is plucked from the ballot next year I should not hold my breath—alcohol-induced or otherwise—that the bill will ever get the support it needs to become law. But I cannot get it out of my mind that that was precisely what I was told when my member’s bill on 4 weeks’ leave was selected from the ballot on 7 November 2002 just 2 years ago. 
There is a set of constitutional issues hanging over New Zealand. I have heard my colleagues speak on the question of judicial activism. I say with deep respect to Dr Michael Cullen that it is a mistake to say that the clash is between Parliament and the judiciary. I believe that the judiciary of this country has been interpreting the law faithfully and accurately. The clash is between those members of the executive who do not like the decision. That is very different from a clash with Parliament and the executive. I would ask that when we have a look at the constitutional review we make sure we look at the deepest and most sound principles of constitution-making in a democracy. Judicial activism is not a phrase that we can accurately use about our judiciary. 
I said to my good friend Steve Maharey that I would give a speech he would like. He and I both have admiration for the Italian theorist and leader of the Italian working class Antonio Gramsci. In 1924 Antonio Gramsci was sentenced by Mussolini’s prosecutors. The prosecutor asked him to shut down that great brain for 20 years. I believe that that is what we tried to do in this country to the Algerian MP Ahmed Zaoui. I ask members of Parliament to read the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision during this holiday. I wish them a very very merry Christmas in doing so. 
Lastly may I say that I also hope that when we come back to the new Parliament the new Speaker following in your great footsteps will be able to reflect on the fact that the opening of this Parliament should be an appropriate opening for all members of New Zealand’s public whatever their religion their culture or their beliefs. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It did not take long before the Government caved in on the urgency motion. It was very tough to start with. Dr Cullen stood in the House a week ago and proclaimed the legislation that would be passed under the urgency motion. But United Future had said that it was too soft for that. It agreed to go only to 6 o’clock on Friday. So what happens? The lawyers wait again as the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill is thrown to one side and the soft Labour Party caves in ready to go home for a holiday that is not well deserved. But before making a contribution— 
Darren Hughes 
: You voted against the urgency motion. 
SIMON POWER 
: That was a great interjection from “Farrah Fawcett” Hughes! I thank you Mr Speaker for your guidance. I thank the Assistant Speaker and Deputy Speakers the Clerk of the House the select committee staff the messengers the security team the Bellamy’s staff the travel office and the Hansard staff. I thank the National leader’s office staff and researchers my staff and the Opposition whip’s office very much for their contribution this year. 
But sitting across on the Government’s side of the House is a hopeless old tired boring Government. Let us look at what could happen on Monday in the Cabinet reshuffle. The Hon Steve Maharey is obviously heading to be the next Minister of Youth Affairs so that he will finally understand the COOL IT programme. Trevor Mallard’s subtlety and intelligence will be welcomed as the next Attorney-General. Margaret Wilson was not a popular choice for Speaker to be fair. Nevertheless the taxi drivers around town in their discussion about that appointment will drive down the numbers that the Labour Party currently enjoys in its poll rankings. 
Phil Goff will be the next Minister of Health with particular responsibility for those who are hearing impaired. Mark Burton will be the next “Minister for the Terminally Misled and Disappointed”. He was promised the job month after month year after year after year but he was pipped at the post and will now be the next “Minister for the Terminally Misled and Disappointed”. 
Steve Chadwick will be the next caucus chair for the “Committee for Those Who Missed Out Again”. I invite Steve Chadwick to the Cheltenham Tavern which is 20 kilometres out of Feilding because I want her to be in the room—and I want to be with her—when she tells a shearer who has just shorn 300 sheep and is about to have his first pint with a roll-your-own that he cannot smoke. I want to be in the room when Steve Chadwick says that to the shepherd. 
Does anybody remember Judith Tizard? The “Minister for Champagne Flutes”! What a mess this Government has been in. Steve Maharey has had a nightmare in tertiary education. Bill English has emerged triumphant in the tertiary education debate this year. George Hawkins is holding on by the skin of his teeth. He was completely duped by Tony Ryall from the start to the end of this year. Lianne Dalziel is gone. John Tamihere is gone. The Prime Minister was gone at 180 kilometres per hour through the Canterbury Plains. We will see whether she gives evidence in February. That will be the most interesting question of the new year. 
But the highlight of the year for me was when David Cunliffe who had not been in the media for 6 months did what any good New Zealand man would do and bleached his hair. He arrived in the Chamber with bleached hair to get more media attention. 
So this Government goes home at the end of this year soft on the urgency motion caving in at the first sign of pressure with TVNZ in an absolute mess resignations demanded then not accepted and the Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen on this issue or on the foreshore and seabed issue. Where was she instead? She was doing an impersonation of Lady Diana outside the TajMahal and what an extraordinary sight that was! 
I just say to my friends in United Future that making amendments to drop tax rates then voting for a bill that does the opposite is not smart politics at all. In the end that party will be starved of political oxygen for longer than 21 days. I say to Mr Adams that they are in big trouble. 
National on the other hand has had a great year. Don Brash single-handedly rocked the political landscape of New Zealand with one speech. That is the Brash phenomenon. This caucus is united behind Dr Brash and we will see him elected Prime Minister next year. This Government is old tired and boring. Its time is up. Merry Christmas to you all! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Fellow members of Parliament as the second session of the forty-seventh Parliament comes to a close I wish to pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of this House. I particularly want to say how proud I was to be here in the 150th year of our democracy. I want to pay special tribute to the work that was done by Michelle Janse Beverley Cathcart and others in helping that to be such a wonderful occasion. I must acknowledge the support of my colleague and Deputy Speaker Ann Hartley and congratulate her on a very good year’s work. I also thank Assistant Speakers Clem Simich and Ross Robertson both of whom have the respect and admiration of the House. As a team they have been very great to work with. I extend my profound thanks to Clerk of the House Dave McGee QC. Mr McGee is widely respected internationally for his profound knowledge and in my time as Speaker I have come to value very greatly his sound advice and support to me personally as well as his role in the efficient conduct of the House. 
Thank you also to the Deputy Clerk of the House Mary Harris and to all members of the staff of the Clerk’s Office for their professional and administrative skills in servicing the Table of the House compiling  
Hansard 
 records processing legislation questions and petitions and serving select committees. 
I thank the general manager of Parliamentary Service Joel George in this his first full year for the excellent job that he has done for his professional advice and effective administration of this essential area. To all the senior managers of the Parliamentary Service members of the support staff including members’ executive securities support staff of the various parliamentary parties staff of the Parliamentary Library—and I think the library staff this year have been extraordinarily good to work with—Chamber and gallery officers security staff building services staff telephonists travel office staff and the reception and visitor services staff I give my special thanks. 
Thanks to Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith and to all those who work with him to uphold the traditions and propriety of the Chamber and to welcome visitors to the parliamentary galleries. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament. Thank you to Chief Parliamentary Counsel George Tanner and his staff for their role in processing legislation. 
My thanks to all those who have worked to support the committees that I chair—the Business Committee the Parliamentary Service Commission the Standing Orders Committee and the Officers of Parliament Committee. I would also like to thank the Controller and Auditor-General Kevin Brady and his staff for the highly professional services they provide and thank you also to the Chief Ombudsman John Belgrave his fellow Ombudsman Mel Smith and their staff for the valuable role they play. 
I wish also to acknowledge today the sterling contribution of Judge Anand Satyanand who recently resigned his Ombudsman role. Thank you also to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams. 
To the leaders of parties in this House their deputies the Leader of the House Dr Michael Cullen—who does occasionally even cause me to have to stop and laugh—and the party whips I give my thanks. I acknowledge the efforts of all members of Parliament. I am one of those who believes that during all the time I have been in Parliament just about every member of Parliament does work enormously hard in the interests of his or her constituents—and with different views but that is part of a democracy. 
A special thankyou to the research services for their work on behalf of MPs in sometimes making the speeches that MPs give vaguely intelligent. I extend a personal thanks to my own staff Sean Rota Pam Reader Roland Todd—who keeps count all the time for me—Bethney McLennan and Nury Olivares as well as to Helen Kennelly from the Deputy Speaker’s Office and Jill Forbes from the Chamber and gallery staff for additional support during the year. Thanks also to my electorate secretaries in west Auckland Christine Schuster Margaret Sutton and Shibo Zhang for their important efforts on behalf of constituents. I thank you all again for all your support and work throughout the year and for the contribution you make not just to this House but also to New Zealand and its peoples. 
I would like to thank the various leaders who have spoken today and I thank them very much for the very kind comments they have made about me. As I draw this session of Parliament to a close and you go to join your friends and family for the coming break I wish you all well until we meet here again in February 2005. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 5.03 p.m. (Friday)