Volume 624 Week 84 - Thursday 31 March 2005 
Volume 624 Week 84 - Thursday 31 March 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Thursday 31 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.56 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Malaysia—Prime Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Prime Minister of Malaysia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
The Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah accompanied by the Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and members might care to know that Lesley Soper’s maiden speech will take place following the general debate on Wednesday. If there is any time available priority will also be given to first readings on the Order Paper. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I promised the House I am now reporting back on the television coverage on TV3 News of a member of Parliament asleep in the House during question time on 16 March 2005. I have received a letter from TV3 that admits it was in breach of Standing Order 44(2) but states that the item was within the more recent liberal interpretation of the Standing Order and that the decision to screen the shot was made in the context of the debate over the decision to remove television news cameras from the Chamber when Parliament’s system was installed. 
In an acknowledgment of the concern of both TV3 and TVNZ over the decision of the Standing Orders Committee to replace their cameras with an in-house television unit I had met with both parties on the morning of 16 March and offered to meet with them further to discuss not only the issue of the cameras but also the rules that may be appropriate in those circumstances. I agreed that the new set of circumstances resulting from the decision to televise the House was an appropriate opportunity to revisit the rules. 
It was directly after this meeting that TV3 decided to breach the rules. I do not consider that the breach was within the claimed recent liberal interpretation of the rules. It was a gross breach of the Standings Orders and a direct challenge to the authority of the Speaker. 
Since a breach of the Standing Orders has been admitted by TV3 the question arises as to the appropriate action to be taken. I have looked for any precedents of similar incidents and note the then Speaker’s action in a similar case in 2000 involving the  
Evening Post 
 publishing a photograph of a member yawning in the Chamber. The  
Evening Post’ 
s 
still photographers were excluded from the Chamber for a week in that case. I consider the breach by TV3 similar to the case of the  
Evening Post 
. It is a serious and deliberate breach of the Standing Orders.  I have therefore decided that TV3 television operators shall be excluded from televising in the Chamber for 1 week commencing on 4 April. 
On the question of whether the Standing Orders should be changed in any way that is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. I shall raise the matter at the next meeting for consideration by members. 
A copy of this ruling is being delivered to all members through their bill boxes. 
Points of Order 
Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had time yet to give us a ruling on the question of whether a description of a political party necessarily includes members in the House. You did say at the time despite Mr Prebble’s protestations that you would consider it. I am asking you to look at the precedent set by Speaker Hunt when the Alliance had a significant dispute which was effected in this House by Mr Anderton claiming to lead the parliamentary party and being separate from the party as a whole. It is pretty important because the rule that you relied upon was set in 1914 and I think that Mr Hunt’s ruling overrides it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look at that for the member and report back. 
Questions to Ministers 
Policing South Auckland—Dairy Owner's Complaint 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that Sergeant Fogarty’s letter to the south Auckland dairy owner stating “Due to the sheer volume of complaints and limited resources … I am left with no alternative other than to record and file this matter.” was ill-advised; if so why was the letter ill-advised? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by the statement because the letter does not appear to have indicated the extent of the follow-up inquiries that had already taken place into complaints made by the dairy owner over a period of time. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister have any sympathy for Sergeant Fogarty who has the Minister of Police saying that he has all the resources he needs when in fact he has only two staff when he is supposed to have six; that his three-man Papakura inquiry team has 80 assigned cases to investigate and 300 unassigned as at the beginning of this week; and he now has the Prime Minister dumping on him for managing to get out a letter to a dairy owner stating that he simply does not have the resources to investigate the case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the police in the area had a good deal of contact with the dairy owner and indeed have made considerable efforts to follow up on his complaints in the past. In recent days following the publicity that the member has assisted in giving the matter the police have been talking with the dairy owner again and I am satisfied that they are doing their best. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Prime Minister explain to the House how she reconciles her statement in the House yesterday that both she and the Deputy Prime Minister have been at pains to uphold the operational independence of the police with the fact that her officials have been phoning the Counties-Manukau district police commander Superintendent Steve Shortland regularly over recent days to discuss that case; and could she explain why those activities of her office are not an expression of no confidence in both the Minister of Police George Hawkins and the Commissioner of Police Robbie Robinson? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No doubt if such calls have been made they have been made in order to elicit information to answer questions being posed by Opposition members in the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Prime Minister’s officials were contacting the Counties-Manukau police and asked how many assigned cases there were in Counties-Manukau what was the answer to that request? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not been asked precisely that question so I would not have been seeking information about that nor do I seek from my officials every detail of every inquiry they make trying to follow up questions from the Opposition. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Prime Minister allowed the police force to become so under-resourced that rape complaints in Counties-Manukau have been left lying idle and unallocated for months on end and a pile-up of over 1000 other complaints that were not actively being investigated; where the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police are trying to justify their traffic policy on the basis that women fear dangerous driving more than they fear rape; or where for example two child rapists were allowed to be placed on home detention and then were able to go on to create five more female victims? How come she has allowed the police force to become so under-resourced in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over five Budgets this Government has increased police spending by just under 20 percent. That is very significant resourcing. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: When the Prime Minister’s officials this week contacted the district commander Superintendent Steve Shortland did they raise the fact that prior to Christmas Superintendent Shortland went into the Papakura Criminal Investigation Bureau office where detectives had just finished an 18-hour shift and berated them for being “lazy” because they had not issued enough traffic tickets; if so is the Government not satisfied with the number of tickets going from 5000 4 years ago to 17000 last year; how many speeding tickets does this Labour Government actually want? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea as to the veracity of the various statements the member has made. She had a number of questions wrapped into one. But I will say that after the sadness of the Easter road toll I am surprised that anybody thinks speeding is not a problem in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister thinks it is a laughing matter that the police are so under-resourced as evidenced by the Commissioner of Police immediately pointing to further resources going to Counties-Manukau to try to solve the problem; why does she not admit that she has failed to resource the New Zealand police force properly? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I say with some pride that under this Government police spending is up almost 20 percent. I say with pride that the total numbers of police are up 12.3 percent. I also say with pride that the number of sworn officers is up 7.5 percent after years of under-resourcing and plans to cut the number of police officers under a National Government. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s reaction to the fact that similar letters to Sergeant Fogarty’s letter have been sent by many other district sergeants stating that recording and filing can be their only response to serious crime at this time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What concerns me is that ACT has been so keen to publish those letters that in effect they act as an incentive to commit crime if the impression is around that people can be caught on a video surveillance camera and never apprehended. I would recommend to ACT the editorial in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “A dangerous message to criminals” which ACT took part in giving. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If crime is down as her Minister keeps saying it is and the resources are up as she and the Minister keep saying they are why do we have all around this country cases of uninvestigated crime—for example rape complaints in Counties-Manukau left lying idle and unallocated for months; how can both those contentions by the Government be remotely true and is it not a fact that she has failed to properly resource the police force around New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the member cannot argue with is the spending increase of 19.7 percent over five Budgets; what the member cannot argue with is the lowest rate of crime since 1982; and what the member cannot argue with is the statement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is far too much noise. I cannot hear the answer to the question. That is the last warning for today. Please continue. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What members cannot argue with is a 19.7 percent increase in police spending over five Budgets; what they cannot argue with is the lowest rate of crime in 23 years under a Labour-led Government; and what they cannot argue with is the statement made by the president of the Police Association Mr O’Connor who said only on 2 March this year: “It is worth noting that again the injection of sorely needed frontline police in the Auckland and Counties Manukau districts have had a huge impact on bringing crime down.” 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that it is your intent to bring a little decorum to the House and therefore you focus on reducing barracking— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: It is. It is a request— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could you please come to the point of order Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: Well my point of order now is your impatience and intolerance in allowing Opposition members to complete their points of order before you chip in. Can you rule on that please? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker you were perfectly right to intervene. The member as usual was making a series of comments that had nothing to do with the point of order he wanted to raise. It is quite appropriate for you Madam Speaker to get people to come to the point of order quickly and tersely. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling on the point of order is that members know that they are not to make statements. If they want to make a point of order they should make it clearly and succinctly. So would you please make your point of order Mr Mark. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it in connection with the previous point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. Madam Speaker you were prepared to hear out Dr Cullen claiming that my colleague was making a series of statements. He had not got even halfway through his first sentence— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He had got through his first statement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect he had not got through his first statement at all—unless you are clairvoyant which you are not. That is my point. At least he is entitled to try to frame in general terms what his point of order is. Would you please hear him out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I want him to make his point of order now. 
Ron Mark 
: I am looking for your guidance Madam Speaker. When Opposition members hear statements from a Minister that they violently disagree with it does incite the House to respond. The question is: what is fair barracking given the inflammatory nature of what the Prime Minister is saying and which a member can prove in writing—and I will in my supplementary question—is clearly untrue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have said several times in this House that the odd intervention and comment across the House when a Minister is answering a question are acceptable. However when I and other members cannot hear the person who is giving an answer or on occasion the person who is asking the question then that is unacceptable. I could not hear what was being said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it speaking to the same point of order? I have just ruled on that point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes I know. This point is similar but different. It is similar inasmuch as there would not have been that interruption from Ron Mark or from anybody else who has chipped in here if Standing Order 370 had been properly applied. I know that the previous Speaker said that he allowed some latitude and suggested that if we were too tight then the atmosphere of the House would not flow. However in recent days some of the responses coming from Ministers particularly those from the Prime Minister today have been so wide of the restriction under Standing Order 370 that there will naturally be members expressing some upset that this House’s Standing Orders are not being upheld by the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did address the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any more advice on that particular point of order but if this is a new one I will be happy to hear it. Ruling on that point of order I say that the Prime Minister did address the question. As I have said her answer was relevant to the question asked. It may not have satisfied the members but that is all that is required. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is to seek guidance. When the Prime Minister answers a question or responds to a question and she accuses the ACT party of inciting crime by raising a question it is tending to disorder because no party will sit and be accused—when it is concerned about and is acting on behalf of victims of crime—of actually inciting the crime. I suggest that although we will accept your rulings about barracking when we have been barracking to the extent that the debate cannot be heard the incidents will keep occurring if Ministers are not directed or steered towards answering questions instead of abusing the questioner. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The problem I think with that statement is firstly that it is essentially debating material the member is concerned about and secondly the thrust of the Opposition’s questions has been that there has been crime because the Government is failing to provide resources. Of course we are supposed to sit here and smile gently in response to that but when we suggest that there might be some fault on the other side of the House suddenly it is totally unacceptable. I think it is time for people to realise that this is a debating chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order was whether the Prime Minister addressed the question. The Prime Minister addressed the question. Could we now move on. 
Ron Mark 
: When the Prime Minister answered by saying that the Opposition cannot argue with the Government’s increase in resources allocated to the police can she also concede then that the Prime Minister cannot argue against the report from the Commissioner of Police to the Minister of Police dated 21 November 2002 which stated that: “Of the 365 newly funded sworn staff allocated to strategic priority the main beneficiaries have been road policing.”—285 of those positions; counter-terrorism 33—and it goes on to state that: “The increase in resources has been welcome. However the task-specific nature of these allocations has been eroding the flexibility historically available to me and to district commanders to distribute resources across emerging problem areas in a timely and responsive manner.”? Does that statement not prove that the resources given are all around traffic and not around investigation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that that somewhat lengthy question contained within it a statement that he was quoting from a 2002 document. Over 5 years this Government has continued to increase the numbers of police and the resources that they get prompting even the Police Association to issue a statement stating that the injection of sorely needed front-line police in Auckland and Counties-Manukau has had a huge impact in bringing crime down—and it has. 
Rodney Hide 
: What was the inaccurate statement in Sergeant Fogarty’s letter of 25 February to the dairy owner that led her to conclude that the letter was ill-advised? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have never used the word “inaccurate”. I said “ill-advised”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can the answer we just had from the Prime Minister comply in any way with Standing Order 370 which states that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest? Rodney Hide’s question specifically used the phrase “ill-advised” but the Prime Minister simply repeated part of it and did not make any attempt to answer the member’s question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point is of course that that is not what the question asked. The question referred to a term that the Prime Minister had not used. If the question had been: “Why is the Prime Minister over 6 feet tall?” the answer to that question would have been: “I’m not.” 
Rodney Hide 
: The Prime Minister’s answer to my supplementary question as I heard it was that the letter was ill-advised because it did not present an accurate picture. My next question was: “Well what was the bit that was inaccurate?”. Then she said that it was ill-advised so I do not think she addressed my answer. The reality is that Sergeant Fogarty’s letter was bang on the money. That is why he is in trouble. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I rule that the Minister is entitled to disagree with the premise or statement made in the question and that was what was in the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You should just think about that; you cannot let that go. You cannot offer that as a ruling for the House because the Prime Minister would be commenting on her own advice. By your ruling she would be saying that she disagreed with herself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What the Prime Minister answered was that she did not agree with the statement made by the member who had asked the question. That was her answer to the member’s question and the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to make that answer under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have ourselves in an interesting situation here. We have a primary question which asked why the letter was “ill-advised”. The Prime Minister then got up and said it was ill-advised because it was inaccurate. Then a member got up and asked why it was inaccurate. Then the Prime Minister said that she did not say that. Well I guess if the Prime Minister wants to do that she can but it makes a mockery of question time does it not? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the fact that it is obviously a complete relitigation of your judgments and rulings Madam Speaker—which I think is a matter causing some concern to the House—I quote the Prime Minister’s answer: “Yes … because the letter does not appear to have indicated the extent of the follow-up inquiries that had already taken place into complaints made by the dairy owner …” There was no reference to the word “inaccurate”. If members only listened to answers they might ask accurate supplementary questions. 
Stephen Franks 
: What does the Prime Minister think of the frontline police description of the current policy they are forced to follow as “band-aid policing” instead of “zero-tolerance policing”; and if she is inquiring directly why does she not ask whether the six officers lurking on the Desert Road waiting for the Hon Chris Carter’s lahar might not be able to assist in looking into crime? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that member would be the first to get on his feet and accuse the Government of criminal negligence if a lahar actually killed people. That is a clear example of a word I cannot use in this House and of the opportunism that is sometimes practised by Opposition members. I further put it to the House that it can hardly be a band-aid to have reduced the rate of crime to the lowest level in 23 years. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand from the Prime Minister’s earlier answers that her position—on the fact that approximately 1400 crimes in south Auckland are not being investigated by the police including seven rapes that were not being investigated at least not until Tuesday—was perfectly satisfactory until the leader of the ACT party Rodney Hide raised the matter in Parliament and revealed that situation; if that is her position does she have any understanding at all of how a woman in south Auckland would feel who was not being protected every day by members of the police diplomatic corps; and if she does have that understanding why was her position satisfactory until Tuesday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the numerous questions that formed part of that statement two things were blurred. Firstly my reference to ACT publicising the matter was with regard to the letter which unfortunately has given the impression that one can be caught on a video surveillance camera and the police will never do anything about it. That is why the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorialised very strongly on the subject and I agreed with what it said. The police have yet to be able to identify clearly who that person was. Secondly there is the issue of the currently unassigned cases. Cases that are currently unassigned have often had considerable work done on them and the House was given details yesterday about forensic evidence and other evidence being collected. I might say that of the rape files that have been identified as currently unassigned two of them are historic and go back to 1974 and 1993. 
Student Debt—Medical Students 
2.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House earlier this month that “Student debt may be a reason for some people to leave but as far as medical students are concerned it is a relatively minor one.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: Yes. There is a long tradition among New Zealand doctors of spending several years working in overseas hospitals early in their careers. There are also some areas of specialisation for which doctors have to travel overseas to complete further study. The overseas experience is good for the New Zealand health system. Of those who graduated with a medical degree in 1997 26 percent were overseas in 2001 but by 2003 that number had decreased to just 12 percent. They are clearly coming home. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: How does the Minister reconcile his answer with the findings of a survey of first-year doctors by the Medical Association that was released today which show that 48 percent of respondents considered moving overseas specifically because of their student debt? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am not familiar with the Medical Association survey that was released today but I would make the assumption that the graduates’ intentions do not match up with the subsequent performance of those intentions as has been demonstrated with regard to the New Zealand University Students Association survey which had similar information. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the average student loan repayment times for medical graduates? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen a report that confirms that despite having generally higher debts when they graduate medical students repay their student loans a lot faster. Of those who graduated in 1997 40 percent had completely repaid their loans within 5 years and 60 percent had repaid more than half. This compares very favourably with graduates in other areas who have smaller loan balances but take much longer to repay. 
Craig McNair 
: Does the Minister have any concerns about the roles student loans are playing the fact that more than 44000 New Zealanders immigrated overseas in the year that ended in January and that our most educated are being driven away in greater numbers than ever before; if he is not concerned why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I am concerned as is the Government. That is why we have taken the actions we have. Fees were frozen in 2001 2002 and 2003. We have abolished interest on loans while students are studying and we have ensured that half of all repayments go towards reduction of the principal balance of a graduate’s loan. We have increased eligibility for allowances and introduced Step Up Scholarships that provide very generous financial support for medical students from low-income backgrounds and so on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has just made a statement that is demonstrably untrue. Half of the repayments going to the principal is a 1998 policy and nothing to do with the Labour Party at all. Why did he not own up to it? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We did it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We did it not those guys—in 1998. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House why New Zealand medical students pay more for their education than they would if they studied in Australia France Austria Greece Finland the Netherlands Germany Sweden or Ireland; and how does he justify the exemption from the fees maxima given on medical student fees? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of the unfavourable comparison with Australia but I do not believe that the claim that such a comparison exists in relation to those other countries is in fact accurate. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answers that he does not think there is any problem whatsoever with the debt that medical students take on and with its effect on maintaining an adequate health workforce in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not believe that that assumption can logically be drawn from my answers. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister not think it absurd that at the same time as the Minister of Health is having an inquiry into rising general practitioner fees first-year doctors are clearly saying: “My student loan means I’ll charge more for my services.” and “My debt deters me from becoming a GP.”; and will he helpfully provide this information to the Minister of Health for that inquiry? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think the issue of subject specialisation is one for both the medical practitioners concerned and the Minister of Health. I am happy to engage in conversations with her on that matter. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree with comments by Medical Association deputy chair Don Simmers that because of mounting medical student debt “Specialties that are perceived as lower paid such as general practice and psychiatry are much less popular with graduates.”; and when 40 percent of respondents said that debt affects their choice of medical specialty does the Minister have any concerns about how this impacts on the health workforce in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: One would naturally have to be concerned by that statement and I can assure the member that that will the subject of the conversations with my colleague to which I alluded a moment ago. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that when medical graduates increasingly report that they do not see general practice as a viable career through which they can pay back debt and the general practitioner workforce has shrunk by 8 percent since 2002 the success of this Government’s much-lauded primary health strategy which hinges on having sufficient numbers of general practitioners is being jeopardised by its blind attitude to the realities of student debt? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am of course concerned by the issues raised by the member. I would say that on issues of workforce supply this Government has a very successful record and I would expect our attentions to bear no less fruit in this regard. 
Police Case Allocation—Sex Offending 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many cases are awaiting allocation in police districts and how many involve sexual offending? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that apart from the files in the Counties-Manakau district 610 other files across remaining districts remain unassigned. I am further advised that of those three have been identified as rape cases two of which are historic. Inquires have commenced in each of these three cases. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there has been no attempt to assign a whole lot of files in the last couple of days because of Beehive pressure? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What I can say is that far more files are being assigned than would have been assigned if National had carried out its cuts—540 staff and millions of dollars in funding. The police are doing a good job in New Zealand. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am actually interested in the Minister’s answer and apart from the first three words even though I had my ear as close to the speaker as I could get it I did not hear a single word that the Minister said. Outrageous as it may be I would still like to hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his support in this matter. Would the Minister please repeat the answer for the benefit of the House. If anyone interrupts this time that person will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I can tell the House that there are far more files being attended to than would have been the case— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are two things. Firstly for the Minister to say or speculate that something might have happened or might not have happened had he not been part of the Cabinet is unacceptable and well outside the Standing Orders and you could see that quite clearly. Secondly he was asked whether he can give a guarantee. If he can he should give it; if he cannot he should say no. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member should finish his answer and not be interrupted before he has had an opportunity to say everything he wants to say in response to the supplementary question. Would the Minister please continue with his answer. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There are far more files being attended to than would have been the case— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are not going to sit here and tolerate a Minister speculating about what might have happened if he had not been in Cabinet. What he is doing is covering up his own incompetence. We want a simple answer from him. He owes it to the House. He either gives a guarantee on the supplementary question he has been asked or he says: “No I can’t give it.” in which case we will know that Helen Clark has climbed all over him and made the police get rid of some of these appalling statistics. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker I suggest to you that the first part of that point of order was itself totally out of order. It is out of order for a member of this House to get up and say: “We will not tolerate certain things happening.” Anybody in this House tolerates whatever you rule to be in order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Standing Order 370(2)(b) is very clear. It states that a reply to any question must not contain “arguments inferences imputations epithets or ironical expressions”. George Hawkins’ answer about what might have occurred or might not have occurred is quite clearly a breach of the Standing Order and members on this side of the House will disrupt the House if you do not enforce the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker that last point is repeating this attempt to bully you in terms of the nature of your rulings. It is totally out of order for members to state that they will not tolerate your rulings and that they will take the law into their own hands in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the Minister of course should address the question but there is no reason in the course of addressing that supplementary question that the Minister cannot speculate on any matter. Of course members cannot stipulate what answer a Minister should be giving. Would the Minister please repeat the answer. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The problem that we now have is that if Ministers are allowed to speculate at length on particular issues that they might want to raise in the House. That limits us as the people who are raising the questions because we have to put our questions down in written form or if we are allowed to speculate in questions then the ruling you have made is quite appropriate. But what you are telling us is that it is all right for the Minister to speculate but that it is not all right for the Opposition who are asking the questions to speculate. It has to be the rule either one way or the other but you cannot allow one side to speculate without the other side being allowed to do so. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You have ruled—and I appreciate that because I wanted to hear the answer—that the House must listen in silence. Speakers have traditionally then said that that puts a responsibility on the person who is speaking not to speak provocatively. Why I was interested was—probably everyone has forgotten now—that the actual question the Minister was being asked was basically: “Have the police force suddenly reallocated a whole lot of files and if they did can he give an assurance that there was no influence by the Government?” There was no question asking: “Would you like to compare your wonderful performance with that of the terrible National Party?” He was not asked that question. He was asked: “Have the police suddenly reallocated a whole lot of files and if they have could he give us an assurance that it was not the result of political pressure?” That is the question that the House would like to hear the answer to. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think Mr Prebble is absolutely right. If you have asked the Minister to give an answer with the House in silence then it is incumbent upon the Minister to be less provocative than might otherwise be the case. In response to the point raised by Mr Carter I point out that we long ago removed the ban on asking hypothetical questions and I am afraid that it therefore does work both sides now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it does and that is what I was going to rule—that that is precisely the position. Of course Ministers must address the question but in doing so they can in fact speculate as much as they like on it as long as it is relevant to the question that was asked. Would the Minister now please address the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is the police that allocate and assign files not the Minister and of course the police are doing far better now than ever before. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister give an assurance that there has been no pressure or attempt to shift hundreds maybe thousands of files from one pile to another? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Files are assigned by the local police commander and of course they will carry on doing that. I can say for the Counties-Manukau area that help is on the way. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Which advice from the National Party is the Minister going to take: the advice today that he should not interfere in police activities at the operational level or the advice up to this point that he should? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a question that the Minister should address. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the assurance that George Hawkins just gave that help is on the way I seek leave for him to make his valedictory speech now. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order. 
Simon Power 
: He sought leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A member cannot seek leave for another person. I am sorry; I should have made that obvious. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What are the number of unassigned cases in each police district and when was this data collected? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In Northland there were eight; North Shore/Waitakere 266; Auckland City 410; Counties-Manukau 1134; Bay of Plenty 16; Waikato nil; eastern 7; central nil; Wellington 100; Tasman six; Canterbury 96; and Southland nil and that was as of today’s date. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister of Police telling the House that he is not aware of the fact which I know as a former Minister of Police that since Rodney Hide raised the question of unallocated cases on Tuesday a large number—hundreds in fact some have told me it is thousands—of cases that were unallocated as of Tuesday have now been dumped on detectives’ desks and in fact there is no chance of those cases actually being able to be investigated by those over-worked detectives? If he is aware that that is actually the situation does he not think that he has a duty to this House to tell us and the country that that is the situation and to do something about it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am not telling the member that. The police allocate and assign the files according to their workloads— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is not right. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No that member is not right and he was not a very successful Minister of Police. Crime went up when he was the Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It appeared to me that the Minister of Police was quoting from an official police document which he pledged would be made available to me as soon as he had received that information. It has not yet and I would ask him to table that document. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is quite a tricky point of order because firstly when a Minister reads out a list of numbers in police districts it is I think stretching the point to say that that is “quoting” from an official document at that point. Secondly the member cannot require the Minister to table it unless he has quoted from it. Thirdly I am sure the Minister is happy to make the document in terms of the numbers available to the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister was quoting from an official document in answer to a supplementary question he does not have to table that document. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What if he wasn’t? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If he was. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: At the end of the question I am quite prepared to table the information but I may need it later on to answer any further supplementary questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are there any more supplementary questions? Therefore leave is sought to table that document. 
Hon Member 
: He doesn’t need leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The ruling is that supplementary information that Ministers have with them are not official documents so therefore the member does need to seek leave. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Working for Families Package—Accommodation Costs 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How will the Working for Families package assist families with their accommodation costs from 1 April 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From tomorrow housing will be more affordable for thousands of New Zealand families. The maximum allowable rates of accommodation supplement will increase in areas with higher housing costs and a new accommodation supplement area with new higher maximum rates will be created in northern and central Auckland. This completes the Working for Families changes to housing assistance that began last October. They involve almost 100000 people having their accommodation supplement increased by an average of $19 a week at a cost of $480 million over the next 4 years. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can working families expect any further assistance beyond tomorrow’s changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They certainly can. In October this year families with young children will see a further increase in the rates for childcare and subsidies for out-of-school care and recreation. This time next year the new in-work payment replaces the current child tax credit and pays at least $60 a week for each working family to ensure that the move from a benefit to a job is always financially worthwhile. Families will also be able to earn more before their family assistance is reduced. Finally from April 2007 family support will increase by another $10 for each child in the household. 
John Key 
: Why is the Government going to pay an accommodation supplement to 41 single people who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year and 30 couples who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Obviously I would have to check the figures but to put this in context an estimated 133000 families will be eligible for the accommodation supplement including nearly 15000 who are eligible due only to the Working for Families package. If there are a small number around the edges who have gained it as the member described I will find out who they are. 
John Key 
: As the member has asked for the information I seek leave to table an answer to question for written answer No. 8943 from the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that indicates that not only are 80 New Zealanders going to be earning up to $80000 and receiving an accommodation supplement but over half of the 266000 people who are receiving the accommodation supplement are not families; they are singles. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is an objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was initially addressed to the Prime Minister because it asked about a speech the Prime Minister had made and what she had said in that speech. It has been transferred to another Minister. I know that Speakers have often ruled that the Government has the right to transfer questions to other Ministers but should that be the case when the question is directly about a speech made by a particular Minister? Is it the case that another Minister should have to answer on behalf? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member indicated the Government can assign the question to whatever Minister. In this instance the question does relate to the environment and I notice that it has been assigned to the Minister for the Environment. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling but I am asking for some guidance. Perhaps you would like to give some consideration to the matter and come back to the House with a ruling on whether there are any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for the Government to reassign a question. The reason why it is an important question is that we are getting into a situation whereby the only way of assuring that a question will go to the Minister to whom it is addressed is to ask increasingly inane primary questions which lowers the quality of the debate. In this case to ensure that the question went to the Prime Minister my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimmons would have had to ask whether the Prime Minister had confidence in the Prime Minister and that clearly would be absurd. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would like to assist my colleagues from the Greens. Speaker’s ruling 130/2 does support Mr Tanczos’ contention where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject at hand. In this case we are referring to the Prime Minister’s statement presumably prepared by the Prime Minister which only she would be in a position to comment on. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 If the question is about the number of times the word “environment” appeared in the Prime Minister’s statement as that statement was published and given in the House I assume that all 120 members of the House would actually be capable of answering the question. It would only require one to go through the speech and add up the number of times. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The member asked for some guidance. Could I suggest that he tuck his shirt in and get a haircut. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is an abuse of a point of order. Speakers in the past as I understand it have on only two previous occasions refused to transfer questions to another Minister. The member might be referred for guidance on this to Speaker’s ruling 130/1 which sets out the grounds on which that can be done. 
Prime Minister—Use of “Environment” 
5.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How many times did the Prime Minister use the word “environment” in the Prime Minister’s statement at the start of this year? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The actual word does not appear but actions speak louder than words. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s speech and the Government’s economic strategy are risking the future of our children and grandchildren by ignoring the importance of maintaining environmental services given the findings of yesterday’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No. 
David Parker 
: Could the Minister name some of the environmental actions this Government has undertaken that do speak louder than words? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: In the interests of brevity I will name just some. In relation to air we have approved the first-ever national environment standards and we are undertaking the warm homes programme. In respect of water we have the Water Programme of Action under way specifically working on water quality issues in Taupo and Rotoiti. There is the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord the flood review the Waitaki water allocation plan the contaminated sites clean-up as in Mapua the Agrichemical collection in almost all regions and 21 contaminated sites in eight regions being funded. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with the report’s author Dr Walter Reid that: “There are steps we could take that really would reverse the degradation of some of these services but they are very significant steps and much more than the action that is being taken today.”; therefore does she agree that her Water Programme of Action which contains no actions and her waste strategy and packaging accord which are entirely voluntary are woefully inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I do agree that there has to be some solutions. In terms of one of them I take note that in a speech that the member used in response to the Prime Minister’s speech she said: “Look at the solutions that there are out there. I went to a sustainable living expo in Christchurch where there was clean-burning wood fires.” Why is somebody exhibiting clean-burning wood fires? It is in response to a national environment standard established by this Government. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister see any similarity between the millennium report’s finding that sudden and unprecedented releases of nitrogen and other nutrients have triggered massive drops in freshwater quality and our own Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report  
Growing for Good: Intensive farming sustainability and New Zealand’s environment 
 which documented a 160 percent increase in nitrogen fertiliser application in just 6 years and what is her Government proposing to do to limit the amount of nitrogen that runs off into the freshwater we all depend on? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I do and in terms of actions speaking louder than words we have committed $36.7 million to Taupo to address the question of nitrates flying into water. We have allocated $7 million to Rotorua lakes and on both occasions we are involved in negotiations with the landholders there so that they can grow their economies and their farms and reduce nitrates. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report that the value of ecosystem services provided by free-flowing rivers and intact wetlands is often greater than their immediate economic value such as for hydro and irrigation; if so how will she change provisions for water allocation in the Resource Management Act to reflect this? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I refer to a question asked previously by Jeannette Fitzsimons when she said that all we are doing in the Water Programme of Action is talking. We are talking prior to developing the policy so that we can work out the property issues around water allocation and water re-allocation because they are severe and serious issues and also issues around hydro-electric planning versus irrigation. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In light of the report’s finding that the biggest cause of the problems is growth in economic activity beyond what the planet’s resources can sustain when will her Government reorient its primary economic goal away from simplistic growth in GDP and towards improvement in human wellbeing within the limits of the planet? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are a number of reports on these issues and I refer back to Agenda 21 in the Rio accord which argued for growth in economics growth in social development and protection of the environment. It is not a question of “either or”; it is a question of “both and”. 
Maori Land Court—Government Policy 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Is it the Government’s policy to retain the Maori Land Court; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes because the Maori Land Court is an integral part of the court system providing registry land record archival and advisory services to Maori landowners. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Government’s view been influenced by the Maori Land Court Chief Judge seeing fit to act outside the law in respect of an application for guardianship under the Foreshore and Seabed Act and his acceptance of kaitiakitanga in relation to a customary rights order when kaitiakitanga is relevant only to a foreshore and seabed reserve application in the High Court and the claimants’ failure as well to supply any evidence to link their application to a customary rights order? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not prepared to speculate on whether an action of a judge is lawful or unlawful or to comment on a matter that is currently before the bench. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that rather than changing the Maori Land Court because of this one case it would be better for the Government to amend the flaws in the foreshore and seabed legislation which according to an Eastern Bays newspaper today is going to see not only Whakatohea but also Ngati Apa going to the Maori Land Court to claim a customary right over the same stretch of coastline; does he not think that that is a bit tough for the Maori Land Court to decide and does he not think it also makes a joke of the protections that his Government claimed the foreshore and seabed legislation would give New Zealanders’ rights in the coastline? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are several questions there. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are about four or five questions there. Firstly I do not think there is any reason to consider changes to the Maori Land Court. I do not accept there are flaws in the foreshore and seabed legislation and the guarantees this House has given about the ownership of the foreshore and seabed will I am sure stand the test of time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the work of a court that has allowed a guardianship claim for claimants who are disowned by the elders of the tribe they purport to represent and whose elders said this of them: “This is an under-prepared knee-jerk case with no consultation and no support from the hapu.”; where on earth is the mandate for that court to have accepted that in the first place and given that the Maori Land Court’s jurisdiction over customary rights orders was accepted by Parliament because of the court’s experience with the history of Maori land and Maori customs is this the type of action he expects to continue from the Maori Land Court? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because a case is filed it does not mean to say that it will in fact succeed. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Will officials produce an assessment schedule that ensures New Zealand Scholarship students are ranked with marks or grades; if so will students be permitted to see the marks or grades that they are assigned? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes and I expect so. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that what the Scholarship Reference Group called for was a return to traditional assessment through marking or grading and does he agree with reference group member Graham Young who said it was nothing more than “spin” for the Minister to claim that these changes could be achieved through standards-based assessment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The exact terms used by the reference group were a ranking of candidates produced by marks or grades. That recommendation has been accepted in that form by Cabinet. Mr Young is one member of the group. There are many other voices that disagree with his position. I am certainly not responsible for his views. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has the Associate Minister received from the teaching profession about Cabinet’s decision to endorse the recommendations of the Scholarship Reference Group? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I heard the president of the Post Primary Teachers Association Debbie Te Whaiti say on the  
Breakfast 
 programme on television this morning: “We think it is a pragmatic solution and that teachers and students will gain certainty from it and be able to work through the scholarship scenario for the remainder of the year confidently. Ranking performance is what teachers have to do when they are marking assessments so I think the idea of determining a system within each subject for ranking is entirely do-able. It’s what teachers are used to doing. They’re used to exercising professional judgment and that’s what the panels will be asked to do. It’s workable. It’s not foreign to teachers or standards-based assessment.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Associate Minister guarantee to this House that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will be able to produce standards-based assessment items in scholarship exams that will clearly define the top 2 to 3 percent of students in each subject area; if he can do that will he also point out to members of this House where the flying pigs might be? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure that the authority working with the examining panels will achieve that target in some subjects—[ 
Interruption 
] If I could finish. Clearly because it is difficult or impossible to guarantee that 100 percent the two interventions that have been recommended by the review group have been agreed to by Cabinet. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Associate Minister aware that members of the Scholarship Reference Group have said that his stubborn desire to stick with standards-based assessment at scholarship level is “bizarre” “absolutely illogical” and “incomprehensible”; and why will he not just admit that no matter what one calls it this year’s exams will use a fundamentally different assessment system from that used at other levels of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement ? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not think there is a great deal of productive purpose in making the sorts of comments about individuals that Mr Morris has made in that regard. What I do assure the member about is that the Scholarship Reference Group recommended and Cabinet agreed to the following: firstly that student performance could be assessed in the way that was earlier described; and secondly— 
Simon Power 
: It’s completely different from what was originally intended. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: If the member would listen it might help. Secondly that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister will be heard in silence or members will leave the Chamber. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Secondly that inter-subject moderation or scaling be not used. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 370(2) requires that a reply to a question must be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question. I listened to Mr Power’s question very carefully. He made no mention at all of Mr Morris yet we got a response from the Minister saying that Mr Morris was wrong because of this. How can that possibly comply with Standing Order 370(2)? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In ruling on the point of order I say the Minister had not completed his answer. Would the Minister please complete his answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The two points I raised which were accepted by Cabinet are not inconsistent with a standards-based approach as can be confirmed by any discussion with all the members of the secondary review group. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Associate Minister pay anything more than lip service to the Post Primary Teachers Association’s demands that the Government “immediately address complex problems with the NCEA including a lack of consistency in exams and inadequate moderation” or does he need another scholarship-type debacle to raise him from his slumber? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is exactly to provide the community parents and students with the certainty that they expect and are entitled to that the State Services Commission is conducting the reviews it is currently conducting I say to Mr Power. 
Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study—Conclusions 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What are the main conclusions of the Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 There are three main conclusions: firstly that the charges paid by road and rail users do not cover the costs of those networks and that some costs especially environmental costs are not paid by anyone; secondly that rail users pay a higher proportion of their costs than do road users; and thirdly that users of urban local roads pay a lower proportion of costs than users of either rural roads or State highways. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How much money is paid into the Crown account by road users and how much is paid out from it to cover road-related costs? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In 2001-02 the year that concerns the study about $550 million of fuel duty was paid into the Crown account while over twice that amount was paid out from it to meet transport-related costs. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Could the Minister tell the House whether the public have a right to be cynical about the time frame for the announcement of this stuff given that back in 2003 the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen said: “I expect the results of these to be released early in the new year.”; that at the beginning of 2004 the then Minister of Transport Paul Swain said: “I expect to announce the results of these reports within the next couple of months.”; and that now the report is magically available the day before the new 5c petrol tax kicks in? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No the member is not entitled to be cynical. As the Minister of Transport I required the Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study to be subject to a peer review and then to be subject to a second peer review. Both peer reviews support the findings of the study and it is important that the nation knows about it. 
Peter Brown 
: In light of the Minister’s response particularly to the questions of the Hon Mark Gosche can I take it that in addition to the April Fool’s Day tax which comes in tomorrow; the inflation tax which comes in next year; the storage tax which is likely to come in next year; and the carbon tax which will come in the year after the motorist will have to face yet another tax as a result of this Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study? Am I correct in that assertion? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No the member is not correct. There are no policy implications from the study. There are no decisions to be derived from the study. It is for information. It will inform future policies of this Government and of future Governments I am sure. It is not however the Government’s intention to raise petrol tax again. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the environmental and social costs evaluated in this study are conservative and incomplete and that diverting money out of the Crown account and into roading would simply result in road transport paying even less of its true costs? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that. The environmental costs are conservative. The social costs are non-existent. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that United Future has been constantly asking the Government to complete this study for at least the last 18 months and can he explain what the study shows about the costs incurred by the transport sector met from the Crown account that are additional to the funding provided by petrol excise tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that it shows that the cost to the health and social welfare system of vehicle accidents that is not met by accident compensation is around $670 million that the health-related costs caused by vehicle emissions are around $442 million and that those costs alone are around double the amount of fuel excise duty that goes into the Crown account each year. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does this statement in the study: “Rates are fixed charges based on property values and bear no relationship to the use of the roading network by property owners. While it can be argued that most ratepayers use public transport and/or drive cars using rates to contribute to the cost of roads creates equity issues particularly as the demography of New Zealand’s population is changing.” indicate that the Government may consider adjusting the financial assistance rate which is a heavy burden upon urban councils across this country and particularly upon farming? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The financial assistance rate is due for a review and the member makes a good point. The study in general hints that the future should be less fixed charges and more variable charges. 
Building Act—Department of Building and Housing 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What errors if any have been identified in the provisions of the Building Act 2004 that come into force today and is the Department of Building and Housing knowingly breaching any sections of the new Act? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 There are some errors additions and inconsistencies many of which are of a minor drafting nature. The process for fixing them is well under way. Yes the department is technically in breach under section 410 of the Act with regard to copyright but we are addressing that problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the new Act prohibits any building work without a building consent but erroneously defines building work to include design so that New Zealand’s 15000 architects engineers and designers will today be designing buildings in contravention of the Act; if so when will he fix this embarrassing flaw? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My officials are working rapidly to address these problems. 
Mark Peck 
: Why was it necessary to rewrite the Building Act in 2004? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is a very good question. It was because the regime established by the 1991 Building Act enacted by a National Government failed comprehensively and delivered New Zealand a terrible legacy of leaking homes and other problems with building design and construction. What was needed was an Act that ensured that buildings were designed and built correctly the first time. The new Act introduces a quality assurance framework that provides effective protection for building owners and users—very good news for all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I know that it is normal to seek leave to table documents at the end of a question but given the answer that the Minister has just given and to help the answering of future supplementary questions I seek leave to table a  
Hansard 
 from 1991 in which George Hawkins said that it was quite wrong for National to claim credit for the 1991 Building Act that it was introduced by Labour and that Labour claimed the credit for it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How are building owners to comply with new section 108 which states they must have a warrant of fitness issued by a licensed building practitioner when the Act makes no provision for the appointment of a licensed building practitioner until 2009; and does the Minister understand the serious implications that this has for building owners in respect of their insurance? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This fault in the Act has been identified and will be corrected. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not saying that the Minister has not addressed the question but the second part of the question was about insurance and the Minister must know that people building buildings who do not comply with this Act are in danger of having their insurance removed. There must be people in that situation right now and I think the Minister would do the House and the country a service if he let us know whether the House was addressing that insurance question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Enforcement of the legislation is in the hands of territorial authorities which I have to say have adopted a very responsible approach to it. With any piece of legislation with 451 clauses there are bound to be problems in drafting. I would like to remind members that the 1993 Companies Act which was passed by a National Government has been amended nine times. The 1991 Resource Management Act has been amended 13 times. Mistakes do occur but the important thing is to fix them up. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is not my question; it is a question from Nick Smith but it is a very good question. The Minister must have been told by his officials that it is standard in insurance policies that if a person has not followed the law that person’s insurance is invalid. The Minister has been asked whether he is addressing that matter but all I am getting is waffle about the Companies Act. Does the Government know about that insurance issue and if it does what is going to happen? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If it is the advice of officials that these problems were drawn to the attention of the Minister in January when there may have been time to ensure that people were able to comply with the law why is it that now on 31 March when this very flawed legislation comes into effect he still has not introduced a bill to correct his botch-ups? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member’s question again makes assumptions that are not correct. Section 410 was drawn to my attention in January soon after I had become Minister for Building Issues. Issues relating to section 363 and other matters that the member has referred to today and yesterday were not drawn to my attention until 9 March. On 10 March I instructed officials to begin the process very rapidly of addressing these problems. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member has raised some very important points which clearly need addressing urgently. I would like to seek leave for the ability to include within the Legislation (Statutory References) Bill which deals with the other matter a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with these issues and to take that bill through urgency the week after next. Obviously I would expect the Minister to consult with Dr Smith about the content of that Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is the member seeking clarification? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes indeed. The Legislation (Statutory References) Bill was referred to the select committee on Tuesday and was required to be reported back today. It includes amendments to the Commerce Act and to the Health Act that have nothing to do with building laws yet we are being asked to rush it through the House. The problem the Opposition has is that it is rushed legislation that ends up with these sorts of botch-ups in the first place. So we will deny leave but I invite the Minister to consult with the Opposition so that we can ensure that this very serious problem is repaired as quickly as possible. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It seems difficult for the Opposition to argue that urgent action is necessary then to refuse leave to address that urgent action. As I said before I would expect the Minister to consult with the member on the content of the Supplementary Order Paper. I am seeking leave because such a Supplementary Order Paper would be outside the scope of the bill normally although the legislation deals with some issues within the Building Act. 
Stephen Franks 
: The Minister spoke of consulting with the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this matter. The ACT party has opposed the Building Act all the way through. We have not been in a position to consider these matters in detail but we did raise the issue of insurance. We certainly want a timetable that means we do not have the possibility of insurers taking advantage of this gap. Will that consultation be extended to us if leave is granted? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: To give a rough indication of the time I would expect from advice I have from the Minister a draft Supplementary Order Paper to be available in about the middle of next week. I suggest the appropriate Minister consult on these matters not merely with Dr Smith but with other parties including United Future. We would not be coming to the Committee stage of that bill until the following week. Obviously at that point it would be possible for any consideration to be given to amendments suggested by members opposite. But this is a vehicle that will be available at that stage to deal with the issue urgently. Dr Smith has made the point quite properly that there are a couple of matters within the bill that need to be dealt with quite quickly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I find myself in sympathy with the points made by Mr Smith. I say to Dr Cullen that it is really not appropriate to ask the House to approve leave for something that we have not even seen. Speaking for the ACT party we are extremely concerned about this matter. We think that people’s insurance will be invalid and that is not something that one wants to take party political advantage from. I suggest—and this will not make any difference to the timetable—that Dr Cullen works urgently on the amendments and circulates them to members of the House. We will facilitate their being able to go through the House reasonably quickly. We would like to suggest to him some other amendments that would rectify some other serious problems with the bill in the same cooperative spirit. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member makes a helpful suggestion. I will have to withdraw my seeking of leave at this point. But I would just gently say to the member having had some experience of him over a long period of time that I hope that areas where there may be disagreements on amendments will not hold up the amendments to the matters that require urgent attention such as the one that he raised. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has withdrawn his application for leave. 
Youth Offending—Parenting 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Has she received any reports recently concerning parenting of youths who have committed a crime? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. I have read various reports about the National Party’s proposal to punish parents of young offenders. 
Moana Mackey 
: What has been the response to those reports from professionals working in the sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Cindy Kiro the Children’s Commissioner said that the parents of young offenders can already be ordered by the court to undergo counselling or training. Such orders she said are imposed fairly regularly. On the other hand Dr Brash admitted on  
Checkpoint 
 on 21 March that he had not read about the UK programme on which his policy was based and could not provide any information on the specifics. 
Judith Collins 
: Why would the Minister deny help and support to parents of the hard-core 5 percent of young offenders who account for a quarter of all crime in this country when the same system trialled in the UK found that 90 percent of the parents would recommend the parenting orders and that offending by their children had dropped by a massive 50 percent? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The help and support that the member referred to in the opening statement of her supplementary question are exactly what New Zealand’s youth justice system offers to the entire family not just to the custodial parent. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that a key requirement placed on parents of youth offenders is to ensure that commitments made by the offender to the victim agreed to at family group conferences are actually carried out; and given that last year’s Ministry of Social Development report revealed that these commitments were largely being ignored what is her department doing to correct this deficiency—or is this now what passes for justice to victims? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that is a misinterpretation of the Ministry of Social Development report but I do agree that a primary role of the family group conferences is to make sure that the commitments made by all parties are adhered to. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a report from BBC News entitled “Parenting orders ‘success story’ ”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table another report from BBC News which states that a study has said that parenting orders work: “ ‘Going on the course certainly helped me’ said the mother”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Influenza Vaccine—Programme 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can she confirm that the Ministry of Health stated on 22 March that “From April 18 GPs and vaccinators will be able to offer one dose of Vaxigrip to the healthy population under 65 years.” and that “The full three-virus vaccine will be available for eligible funded groups from April 26 2005.”; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Health) 
: Yes. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can the Minister confirm that as of this afternoon Pharmac has made no order or commitment to purchase any quantity of the Vaxigrip vaccine; and if she does not know this fact is she displaying the same ignorance of what Pharmac is up to that she displayed between 28 February and 7 March thus repeating within 1 month the same inattention to a significant public health problem that affects thousands of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No I cannot confirm that. At this point this Government has a commitment to 1.38 million doses of Vaxigrip. We also have a commitment through Pharmac to purchase 518000 doses of other vaccines to cover both those at risk and those at less risk. The flu vaccine programme is in order. This Government is monitoring the situation and we have every confidence that we will be in control of any possible flu outbreak should it occur. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister read any media releases dated 23 March 2005 concerning a possible flu outbreak in several patients seen by an Auckland GP? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes the Minister of Health has seen two alarmist media releases issued that day by Dr Paul Hutchison referring to a possible flu outbreak. In both releases he said that Auckland GP Dr Nick Cooper had seen several patients that day with “classic flu symptoms”. The Auckland medical officer of health has liaised with the GP and checked with the lab which reports nothing unusual for this time of year. That member is wrong and he knows it. There is no evidence of a flu outbreak in Auckland or anywhere else in New Zealand. Given current concerns sensible surveillance of influenza in general practice will begin early this year on 4 April. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 368000 doses of flu vaccine that Pharmac is to purchase from Glaxo Smith Kline will cost almost $4 million which is twice as expensive as the original Sanofi Pasteur vaccine and is she aware that Pharmac may not have a good case for compensation against Sanofi Pasteur MSD because Medsafe indicated that it would approve the Sanofi Pasteur vaccine for use in New Zealand when the Minister and Pharmac were scrambling around looking for options? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I do not have those figures before me. What I can say is that it is an unfortunate situation that a mistake made by a commercial company has created this problem. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question and was heard in silence. I ask him to have the courtesy to allow the Minister to respond in silence also. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: What I can say is that this Government is committed to protecting the public of New Zealand and where necessary will spend the money to ensure that we have a flu vaccine programme in place. That is exactly what we have now and I am confident that Pharmac will manage that properly. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 dated Thursday 17 March 2005 “Flu vaccine debacle puts many at risk”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from  
InPHARMation 
 a Pharmac publication dated February 2005 which says that the Vaxigrip brand of influenza vaccine is subsidised for New Zealanders from March this year and that the subsidised vaccine shots would be available from 1 March of this year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker on behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a point of order with reference to both Standing Order 165 which is the declaration of pecuniary interest and Standing Order 395(f) relating to potential conflicts of interests of members. Although you may not be able to give a decision today I certainly would like a decision from you in due course. My question is whether a member actually gets out of a potential conflict of interest by passing a question on to a colleague. I raise this in the context of whether it is appropriate for a member to raise parliamentary questions about conflicts of interest of judges when that member has had costs of $3000 awarded against him as the plaintiff in a matter before the High Court and has failed to pay those costs to a defendant. Certainly as of 2 o’clock today those costs have not been paid. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I have not the faintest idea what Mr Shirley is talking about. All I am concerned about is asking a supplementary question on behalf of a citizen of New Zealand an 84-year-old woman who believes she has been badly treated. I am disappointed that the ACT party would want a citizen of New Zealand to be prevented from having her question asked in the House. Quite frankly as far as I am concerned I know nothing about it and all I am doing is asking a question perhaps on behalf of someone else but it is now in my name. The relevance of another court case really is quite outside the Standing Orders. The member is referring to judicial proceedings that are currently under process and clearly he cannot refer to them in terms of the Standing Orders. That is quite clearly excluded and Mr Shirley is committing an absolute abuse of parliamentary procedure in referring to a case that might be under process although I do not know about that either. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not think that point of order can properly be raised on this question because the question is phrased very generally. If of course a subsequent supplementary question impinged upon a matter that involved Mr Peters and the court then of course— 
Dail Jones 
: It doesn’t! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member cannot possibly say that until he has heard the supplementary question. This question is phrased very generally indeed and it is quite impossible to conclude from it that there is a potential conflict of interest. There might well be in a supplementary but the member will have to wait for that and then the point of order might be properly raised. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I sympathise with the position in which Mr Dail Jones finds himself in respect of the 84-year-old but in fact he rose in this House and said: “On behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters I ask the following question”. The conflict of interest runs back to Mr Peters who is in a position where he is in conflict with the courts. The courts have made an award against him of $3000 in a civil case. He has been told to pay it and he has not. It does not appear to me that it is appropriate then for an MP to get up in this House and start casting aspersions on the courts when it appears that he actually has a conflict as to why he is asking it. It may well be that he will try to take the question in a different direction but it would seem to me that it is extremely unwise for a member of Parliament who has had an award made by the courts against him and has failed to pay that award then to get up and start talking about conflicts of interest by the judges. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member has a conflict of interest in any matter at all then it is up to the member to declare the conflict of interest he or she may have. But I think the matter listening to the debate on the point of order is about declaring an interest as opposed to a conflict of interest—if I have understood that clearly. Standing Order 165 does not affect the validity of any question in such circumstances though the MP may commit a breach of privilege if he or she does not declare an interest in those circumstances. Given that would the member proceed. 
Judges—Conflicts of Interest 
12. DAIL JONES (NZ First)  
on behalf of  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Would he be prepared to introduce legislation to ensure that judges presiding over criminal and civil cases could not hear cases that involve them in a possible conflict of interest; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
: 
 No because I am advised that it is not necessary given that there is a well-developed body of case law on exactly this question. 
Dail Jones 
: What will the Attorney-General do and is he aware of the case in which Judge Nicola Mathers was apparently acquainted with the owner of malfunctioning medical equipment that caused 84-year-old Edna Brown to suffer extensive fourth-degree burns leaving her seriously disfigured when the surgical freezing machine malfunctioned but did not disqualify herself from presiding over this case where there was obvious conflict of interest between her and the owner of that machine—that case having been completed in the courts and no matter remaining before the courts on that issue? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made a reflection on a judge which is contrary to the Standing Orders so I ask the member to stand and withdraw that comment. 
Dail Jones 
: I am just quoting from the case with respect Madam Speaker. The judge in the case in a number of paragraphs stated that she was acquainted with the person. I am merely repeating what the judge said in the case. I am just asking the Minister whether he regards that as a conflict of interest and whether he thinks something should be done about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I heard the member he was alleging that there was a conflict of interest as a statement of fact which was in fact bringing that judge into disrepute. 
Dail Jones 
: Perhaps if I rephrase the question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That would be helpful. The member should withdraw the first comment however. 
Dail Jones 
: I withdraw and apologise to this person. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Now proceed. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister aware of the case which was referred to in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 18 March this year affecting 84-year-old Edna Brown who suffered extensive fourth-degree burns that left her seriously disfigured with regard to a surgical freezing machine that malfunctioned—a machine that was owned by a person with whom Judge Nicola Mathers said she was acquainted apparently in paragraphs 31 32 35 36 37 75 and 81 of her decision; and does he believe that something should be done about situations where judges indicate they are associated with people who own equipment to ensure that they do not deal in such cases? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No I am not aware of the case but I would have thought that near-acquaintance for somebody in New Zealand would not of itself necessarily create a conflict of interest. 
Dail Jones 
: In that case what can the Attorney-General say to this 84-year-old woman who believes that she was denied justice? She was left permanently and severely disfigured and no one accepts responsibility particularly the surgeon responsible who apparently offered Edna Brown $5000 in compensation providing she kept silent. Is the Attorney-General prepared to conduct an investigation into this case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Despite the obvious sympathy one has for the elderly woman involved I do not think it is appropriate for the Attorney-General to step in and carry out investigations into judgments of this sort. 
Dail Jones 
: I seek leave to table the report in the  
New Zealand Herald  
dated 18 March 2005 about this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Police gave a figure as being the number of other unallocated cases around the country—I think he said it was 680 or something. The document that he tabled shows that to be quite a different number and I wonder whether the Minister would be able to take the opportunity within the next hour to correct that information that he gave to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate not a point of order. The point has been made. 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the members of the Social Services Committee for their consideration of the bill for the report on the bill and for the amendments they have proposed. 
The bill makes three main amendments to the Social Security Act. Firstly the bill extends eligibility for an accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure and who meet the other qualifying criteria for an accommodation supplement including the income and cash asset test. I expect 200 to 300 retirement village residents will benefit from this change by qualifying for an accommodation supplement of on average between $37 and $54 per week. That will be very welcome. 
Secondly the bill changes the benefit stand-down rules in order to improve the incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal work and other short-term employment. The stand-down is calculated on the applicant’s income in the 26 weeks before becoming entitled to a benefit on his or her marital status and on the number of children in his or her care. At the moment some seasonal workers who work for part of the year can be disadvantaged by the 26-week assessment. The bill will now allow from 1 May 2005 benefit applicants to elect to have a 26 or 52-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. That change will advantage approximately 4500 benefit applicants a year by reducing the length of their initial stand-down. That will reduce the disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work or temporary work and may also reduce the need for recoverable assistance. 
Thirdly the bill will put into effect as part of the broader package of initiatives changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to name the other parent of their child in law and to apply for child support. Sole parent families in New Zealand make up around 29 percent of all families with dependent children. For those families the State will step in financially to help them where they cannot financially support themselves. But in doing so the State also expects the other parent to contribute to the cost of the child as well. It is not unreasonable for the State to expect that both parents of a child will contribute to the cost of caring for the child or to expect sole parents to take the actions necessary to bring that about. It is not unreasonable to financially penalise those who do not do that. We actively encourage single-parent beneficiaries to name the other parent in law and to apply for child support and the majority do. But around 17200 beneficiaries are letting the other parent get away without providing for their children because they refuse to name him or her or they refuse to seek child support. 
This Government’s policies on section 70A of the Act are already having the effect of discouraging that. When the Government came into office the number of sole parents and beneficiaries who were not penalised because they had failed to name the other parent or apply for child support had increased by over 40 percent since 1993. The numbers were increasing by around 1000 a year and the trend was not abating. However between June 2004 and March this year the number of beneficiaries who were receiving a penalty because they had not named the other parent in law or had not applied for child support has decreased by 15 percent. It is continuing to decrease. The additional reduction is not intended to cause hardship to families. The reduction is $6 per beneficiary not per child. The aim of the additional reduction is to provide a clear message that it is important to name the other parent in law and to apply for child support. 
I now wish to commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This is one of those amendment bills that the National Party will support because of only a couple of points. The first point that we agree with is the area that Mr Barker has just mentioned in relation to retirement villages. We accept the fact that the current situation in relation to them certainly needs to be tidied up and we are happy to support that. Of course there is the second issue and the main issue that this bill has been trumpeted around and that is to do with the requirement of a further deduction from the payments to domestic purposes beneficiaries where they will not name the other liable parent—in other words the father although in 250 cases the mother—of the child. The deduction that is to be brought in with this amendment is a total of $6 per week per beneficiary. So those beneficiaries who do not name let us say the father of the child for four or five of their children or in some cases six or seven of their children will simply suffer a $6 per week deduction. With the Government’s big payout to beneficiaries that is coming very soon out of the hard-earned— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Tomorrow! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Tomorrow as my colleague Dr Hutchison reminds me it being April Fool’s Day tomorrow. That money will come in and it will actually negate the whole point of this deduction because beneficiaries will receive a big bonus. 
In the National Party we accept that there are some mothers who will not name the father of their child because they do not know his name but we do not believe in the tooth fairy. We do not for a moment believe that there are 19000 women in this country who forgot to ask a man what his name was before they decided to make him the father of their child. We in the National Party do not for a moment believe that they did that not once but at least twice and in some cases 6 7 or 8 times.We actually believe that the taxpayers of New Zealand are being taken for a ride and we are not prepared to support that sort of nonsense. We know there are 35000 children whose parents are receiving a domestic purposes benefit and for whom no liable parent is contributing even a measly $10 a week—which seems to be the amount that most people who are liable parents contribute—towards the cost of their upbringing. That is an absolute disgrace. Although there is a temptation not to support this absolutely pathetic amendment bill—apart from the residential villages situation—we will support it. At least it is the first time this Labour-led Government supported unfortunately by United Future which should know better has actually accepted that maybe it is not very good that 35000 children do not have a liable parent—in other words another parent—even named so that the person can be asked to contribute towards the upbringing of the child. 
What we do know—and we know this because we do not wander around with rose-tinted glasses on not understanding what goes on in the real world—is that an awful lot of “boarders” happen to live in the same home as mum and the children and that somehow the children call him “Dad”. We do know that. We know there are women in their twenties—and I have met and dealt with some—who have had six children to six different fathers and who think it is something to be proud of. Well it is not because the poor old taxpayer has to pay for that. The Government does not pay for anything; the taxpayer pays every single time. It is a fact that those children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren after that are being denied the basic right to know absolutely where they come from. In this country in this century with DNA to carry on the myth that those women do not know whom the father of their child is and do not have any way of proving it is an absolute disgrace. 
Until that situation is fixed New Zealand will continue to have very very high youth suicide rates some of the worst in the world. We will continue to have very very high youth crime rates some of the worst in the world. We will continue to have that situation because we do not value fathers do not value parenthood and do not value our children. It is about time we took those things seriously because until we do we are not going to have a country that we can be as proud of as we jolly well should be. That is one of the reasons if for no other reason that at least this Government has finally said it is worth 6 bucks to name a child’s father. Well as I said my inclination is to say no to this bill because it is so pathetic but I will give the Government at least one point. I presume the Government has done something about the situation because someone told it that it had to do so but at least there is an acknowledgment that the situation is not OK. 
The worst thing is that with that acknowledgment have come all the exemptions. We see exemption after exemption in the bill. One of the ones that has been a cause absolutely praised by the do-gooders who live in another world is the one about a fear of violence. That is a reasonable thing if someone has a real fear of violence. But what is that fear based on? There is no requirement for there to be any truth in it. There is no requirement for the police to be involved. There is no requirement at all for there to be any evidence whatsoever of violence when every day violence is occurring against the children who are being denied knowledge of their fathers who are being denied knowledge of their history and whose children after them will be denied in exactly the same way as that. The children we are speaking about today are the children at the very bottom of the social heap. Those children are being condemned by a society that cares more about votes than it does about the truth. That is a disgrace. This Government has not taken the situation seriously. It is only willing to say that it is worth 6 bucks a week. 
It makes me very angry to listen in the select committee to people who are paid huge amounts of money supposedly to protect and look after children—there are commissioners for everything—but who are not prepared to come out and say that kids need dads mums and extended families who care about them rather than a bit of money. That is what they need. And it is the same people who are involved time and time again. In talking to the police in all communities we hear them tell us that a quarter of all crime in this country is committed by children who are children in the eyes of the law and that is also a disgrace. Where are the fathers? They are not there. They are in jail or they are off with yet another person. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or in Australia. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Or they are in Australia. It is about time we started to target the parents who do not contribute towards the upkeep of their children and it is about time we took that seriously. Unfortunately this Government does not. Its answer to the liable parents who do not take it seriously was given by David Cunliffe in about December last year—I hope I have that date right but I think it was around December—when he said the Government was going to write off the debts. Well that is a great signal to send out! It is a signal that says people should not bother to pay child support and that the blokes who are paying are just mugs. 
To the fathers and the mothers who are liable parents and do contribute properly to their children not just in a monetary sense but in terms of their upbringing I say: “Good on you!”. I know that sometimes families break up. I understand that but I also know that at the end of the day our children are our children for life no matter what else we happen to do. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak to the second reading of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I remind the member who has just resumed her seat that her party had 9 long years in Government to make some changes in this regard if it had so desired. At least this Government has taken some action. The member’s whingeing is quite intolerable and unnecessary. I repeat that National had 9 years to do something about the issue. At least we have addressed it. 
There are two other important points about this bill. Firstly it is expected that from 1 July 2005 several hundred retirement village residents will qualify for an accommodation supplement of $37 to $54 a week on average. Secondly the bill will reduce disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work by enabling applicants like seasonal workers to elect either a 52-week or a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. Soon 4500 people a year will benefit from a reduction in the length of their initial stand-down. 
I support this bill and hope it progresses quickly through the House. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 There has been a steady increase in the number of sole parent beneficiaries who do not legally identify the other parent of their child or who refuse to do so when applying for child support. The number has gone from 7965 or 5.6 percent of all sole parents in 1993 to 19467 or 16 percent in 2004. A growing number of liable parents are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to their children. This in turn creates financial inequity between the parents in respect of the costs of supporting their children. It reduces the child support revenue the State receives to help offset the costs of paying benefits to sole parents. It makes it financially harder for the custodial parent to move off the benefit as that parent will then not receive child support which may cause long-term financial disadvantages for the children. The bill’s purpose is to put into effect as part of a broader package of initiatives measures to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish paternity and apply for child support. 
New Zealand First’s minority report states: “New Zealand First strongly believes that there is an onus on mothers to name the fathers of any children for whom taxpayers are asked to contribute through the benefit system. The only exceptions should be those cases where it is absolutely impossible to identify the father but even then every scientific avenue should be explored including DNA sampling and in those instances where the security of the mother/child is endangered by such identification. It is unfair for taxpayers to contribute the sole cost of individuals who conspire or contrive to defeat the obligations of their own responsibility. With this reservation New Zealand First will support the bill.” 
The ministry has undertaken two studies of sole parent beneficiaries receiving reduced benefits to determine why they do not name the liable parents. The results suggest that the reasons for not establishing paternity in applying for child support are multiple and complex. The most common reasons given were that the other parent could not be found or denied paternity and that the beneficiary did not want the other parent to have guardianship rights over the child. The question I leave the House with is how the figure of 19000 people receiving the domestic purposes benefit can be reduced. There are now 19000 mothers receiving the domestic purposes benefit who refuse to name the fathers of their 35000 children. If that is the case can the Government tell me what kind of future those 35000 fatherless children will have? Will future costs escalate? Will the same pattern be repeated when those children become young adults or is there a plan in place to relieve the taxpayer of that burden? 
New Zealand First is not averse to helping people who are on the domestic purposes benefit but those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. Again with the reservation stated in our minority report New Zealand First will support the bill. Let us look at the pattern and the social structure of what is happening today in our country. As has been stated in the House today and at previous times the pattern is that those who are struggling and getting into trouble come from families who either have no fathers or have disputes in the home. The counsel is not there the priority is not there the education is not there and the ability to converse with one’s children is not there. So what is the result of that? 
When I hear that children are born to mothers who do not even know who the father is I think we are in cuckoo-land. In most cases if not all cases the woman would know who the father is. If she does not know we have scientific methods of proving who the father is. Fathers who abscond from their responsibilities of taking care of their children financially should be held accountable by the courts of this land. Parents who are responsible and are responsible taxpayers should not be left with the burden of supporting people who are in that situation. However from the goodness of our hearts we look at those people in that situation as other human beings who have made mistakes or who have fallen into this situation through no choice of theirs. 
New Zealand First supports this bill with the proviso that those steps should be put in place and that serious consideration should be given to holding the fathers accountable. We support this bill with those reservations and if there is a possibility of looking further at how the problem can be solved we will also look at supporting such measures when they come to the House. So without further ado this is where New Zealand First stands. The country needs to know that people who are in that situation must be more accountable and more responsible for the activities they are involved in. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not support this bill and that is a shame because there are two areas in it that we strongly support—namely extending the eligibility for accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure—we think that is an excellent idea—and also the provisions that make sure that people like seasonal workers are able to elect a 52-week rather than a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of stand-downs. This will make it easier for people in industries such as meatworks fruit and vegetable picking and so on so we strongly support both of those measures. 
But we have a real problem with this bill around the changes to section 70A of the Social Security Act in particular the measures that increase the penalty for not naming the father of a child by a further $6 a week. Twenty-two dollars a week is already deducted for this. Once this bill becomes law a mother on the domestic purposes benefit with one affected child will loose $28 a week from her benefit and a mother of two children will lose $50 a week. The core domestic purposes benefit for a mother with two children is now $256 a week so if we strip $50 from that it leaves $206 to support three people. 
I notice that the National Party representative said a “mere” $6 but when we look at incomes like $206 a week that is a very substantial amount of money. The question is: who are we punishing here? Why are we punishing the children of single mothers when all of the research suggests that children of single mothers are the most disadvantaged in our society? Report after report has come out telling us that single-parent families are at the bottom of all socioeconomic indicators yet here we are deliberately increasing child and family poverty for the most vulnerable section of our society. 
Why is the Labour Party taking this punitive step against single mothers—a segment of society that the Government should strongly support? Why is the Labour Party joining with the National Party in the scapegoating and punishing of solo parents? 
It is interesting that ever since the introduction of the domestic purposes benefit single mothers have been the scapegoats and under constant attack from politicians. In 1990 Gordon Campbell noted in a  
Listener 
 article: “It’s election year. Politicians are already out DPB-bashing playing on the widespread hostility towards solo parents. It seems to be open season against DPB recipients. Why is it that single mothers are the subject of such vitriolic abuse?”. 
He might as well have been talking about today. The “DPB-bashing” has begun in earnest in the same pattern that has occurred for many decades. In 1990 the domestic purposes benefit action group said: “We’re sick of being election scapegoats and being used as a ploy or a diversion to take attention off the real issues.” I am sure that is how hundreds of single mothers feel today. I am sure they are as perplexed as the Green Party is as to why the Labour Party is joining in this scapegoating and attacking of single mothers. 
I would have thought that single mothers on their own trying to bring up a family would have the support and encouragement of this Parliament rather than being singled out for abuse and scapegoating. The domestic purposes benefit is never presented as a form of payment for bringing up children but rather is a sort of handout that is grudgingly given by society to enable single mothers to survive. Single mothers on the domestic purposes benefit are usually lumped together with the unemployed as if they are receiving a benefit for being out of work when what they are receiving a benefit for is for the most productive work that there is albeit unpaid work—bringing up children. They are receiving assistance to bring up the next generation of children. 
We know that the children of single mothers are amongst the most vulnerable in New Zealand. They are the ones in all the statistics. Why then would we seek to penalise and to punish those children? Why punish them for the sins of their fathers by increasing penalties on single mothers who do not or are unable to name the father of their child. 
There are all sorts of reasons why mothers do not wish or are unable to name the father of their child. Sometimes it is because the contact was so fleeting that there is no connection or reason why the mother would know or even want to know or see the father again. Sometimes it is because she simply does not know who the father is. The implication of the debate in this House is that this is all the fault of these terrible women who do not know who the father is—but what about the men? Where is their responsibility? 
We are certainly in favour of doing everything we can to make the fathers accountable and to help them to pay and contribute to the bringing up of their children.But we do not believe that penalising the single mothers who are struggling on the lowest of incomes in our society and their children is the way to do it. 
I am not at all surprised that the National Party is supporting this bill. It seems to have a policy of scapegoating and targeting single mothers. While glorifying motherhood and saying how wonderful it is for middle-class women to be mothers they seem regrettably to feel compelled to attack and scapegoat mothers who for various reasons find themselves on their own as single mothers trying to raise children in our society. 
Parenthood is the most productive work in our society. Quite frankly it is astonishing that it is unpaid work. Surely it is important that we acknowledge and support those women who are on their own who are often unsupported and who have no real encouragement or support in their efforts to bring up the next generation of New Zealanders. Surely we should not be punishing them and most of all their children. Surely we should not be joining in yet another scapegoating of single mothers. It has happened throughout history. It is tragic that it is happening under a Labour Government. In the 21st century we find it incredible and for that reason we will be opposing this bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave earlier today in response to question No. 3. I advised the House that apart from the files in the Counties-Manukau district there were 610 other files across the districts that remained unassigned. That number should have been 643. 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is opposing this bill as is the Green Party. However we oppose it for the exact opposite reasons which is an interesting situation in itself. The ACT party believes that every child has a right to know the identity of his or her father but as the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill will not require women on the domestic purposes benefit to name the fathers of their children except in exceptional circumstances ACT will oppose it. The bill was supposed to provide a solution to the problem of the increasing numbers of women on the domestic purposes benefit who refuse to name the fathers of their children. The harsh reality is that the numbers have escalated over the last few years to the point where one woman in six—one parent in six—on the domestic purposes benefit is now refusing to name the father of her child. I understand that some 19000 parents—more particularly 35000 children—are involved. 
The harsh reality is that people do respond to incentives. Some make the point that the penalty is only $6 a week. Think of the incentive provided by that. We have already heard from the National Party speaker about the many cases she is familiar with. She spoke about live-in boarders who are actually the fathers of the children. The kids call them “Dad” but officially they are boarders and do not make any financial contribution. The women of course receive taxpayers’ money. That is the point. It is not Government money that those people are getting; it is taxpayers’ money. Struggling battlers hard-working New Zealanders are paying too much tax for people who in too many cases are abusing the situation. That is why there needs to be an incentive for fathers to make liable-parent contributions. 
I agree with the Green Party spokesperson that far too many fathers are escaping their responsibilities. Unquestionably that is the case and they should be brought to account. A lot more needs to be done to bring those irresponsible fathers to account. But this bill does not do that. In fact it does the reverse. Six dollars a week is no incentive because although the bill will increase by that amount the penalty for not naming the father that increase will be totally offset by the additional assistance that domestic purposes beneficiaries will receive as a result of the increased assistance through the Working for Families package. That means that by the time the bill comes into force a mother who refuses to name the father of a child will actually receive a benefit increase rather than a decrease. So there is no incentive whatsoever and there does need to be an incentive. People respond to incentives. 
All legislation should concentrate on getting the principle right and the incentive right. The ACT party says that this bill gets not only the principle wrong but also the incentive wrong. Whenever legislation gets both of those things wrong there is a downward spiral. We can expect the escalation in numbers of mothers not naming the fathers of their children only to increase because that is what the incentive provides for and that is what this Government policy provides for. So ACT will be strongly opposing the bill. It does nothing to bring the fathers to account or to make parents more responsible for their offspring. 
I also make the point that with the new DNA technology it is now much simpler to determine who has parental obligations. Nothing in this bill addresses that issue so the bill actually fails to achieve the prime objective for which it was introduced. That is deeply regrettable and we have no hesitation in opposing it. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. 
The bill as we have been told has three main amendments. First it seeks to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish paternity and apply for child support. Second it extends the eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have “licence to occupy” tenure. Third it introduces some flexibility for seasonal workers so that they are less disadvantaged during off-season times by stand-down provisions. 
Two of those amendments—namely the second and third as I listed them—are something that we can go along with pretty well without exception. But it is the first one we do not support and I notice that other speakers have put some emphasis on it as well. 
Although supporting this bill United Future would like to signal that we believe much more work needs to be done on the issue of paternity. Clearly we are glad that Work and Income case managers now need to provide more substantial information about the issues regarding established paternity when dealing with pregnant single women applying for a benefit and that lead maternity carers will now be provided with information packs. I mean that is an advance of a minor proportion compared with what we have in terms of the issues before us. However further work needs to be done to investigate ways of providing clear legal pathways for fathers to establish paternity of their children. I want to devote a little time to that issue because I think we can skirt around it and miss the point but I think it is an important issue. Further commitment needs to be made to resourcing both the scientific and the legal mechanisms that would be required to give fathers an equitable opportunity to be named on birth certificates. 
There are a number of things in the bill that I want to draw attention to. United Future fully supports the exemption provisions proposed by clause 7(3) of the bill for women and children who would be at serious risk should they have to meet the section 70A requirements. I think that we are not heartless and nobody around Parliament has been heartless about this matter. However we must not buy into the myth that the exemption would apply to most of the 19500 current beneficiaries who have not legally identified the other parent or who refuse to apply for child support. The Social Services Committee was furnished with some very interesting findings and I want to touch on one or two of those. 
The Ministry of Social Development did an interview of 4035 sole parent beneficiaries who were subject to that section 70A penalty because they declined to name in law the other parent of their child or children or because they refused to apply for child support. I think it is rather significant that only 6 percent gave the fear of violence to themselves or their child as the reason for not naming the other parent. I think it is unbelievable that we allow the other 94 percent to go scot-free. I must admit that the rest of the reasons given in that survey were many and varied but in general they were excuses that considered the interests of the adults above the long-term best interests of the children. A number of speakers have addressed the issue that the child gets a very rough deal through this approach. If we have poor conditions for the mother to work with and no father then we have this problem looking at us. 
In this day and age of non-invasive DNA testing it seems absolutely outrageous to United Future that there are fathers who for instance can afford to fly to Australia to get away from everything yet we are unable to track them down when they are here in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and I think we should get into that one and discuss this issue further before this bill goes through. I think we should put this into law somehow. They can afford a trip or to go to a test yet they remain unidentified or unconfirmed because the power base for that decision rests with the mother and she is not being honest. 
By the way the select committee heard one powerful submission from a man who had completed a study of the impact on young teenage boys of becoming a father. The submitter commended the intention of the bill to hold fathers more responsible but he felt that it provided a very one-sided picture of unidentified fathers. Basically he believes that in many cases the blowtorch should be held at the feet of those young boys. He stated: “There are a notable numbers of fathers particularly adolescent males who have fathered children in short-term relationships. For a significant portion of such males the mother of their child has omitted paternal details when they registered the birth. Qualitative research suggests adolescent males are a particularly vulnerable group in this regard. Someone else has pointed out they are generally poorly educated have limited financial resources and lack a strong sense of self. As such many find themselves helpless in their wish to assert their paternity—and that is one of the big issues. He goes on to state this combination of factors causes many adolescent fathers to resign themselves to being precluded from their child’s life. They become shadow fathers unable to assert any paternal rights as they have been omitted from their child’s birth certificate.” 
I believe and United Future believes—and I am sure that other parties do too—that the Government should consider formulating facilities to assist males to declare their paternity where such a declaration has not been provided by the child’s mother. I think it is quite absurd that currently under New Zealand laws judges are removing children from their mothers’ legal care for a few hours so that a DNA test can take place to determine paternity then returning the children to their mothers in order to get around some inadequate legislative provisions that work to the disadvantage of fathers and their legal right to be named on birth certificates. I think this bill should make that issue clearer to get around that problem but it does not. 
This bill is a step in the right direction. But it is really only one small and faltering step on a matter that is a serious foundational family issue—that is the right of every child to have at least access to information about who his or her mother and father are. The child ends up fatherless. Both the studies mentioned in my speech are worthy of serious consideration and United Future would like to signal that we are not prepared to limit our efforts on this matter to supporting this bill; we will not be shying away in the Committee stage after this debate from the hard work that remains to be done on this vital parenting issue. 
Finally I say that United Future will support the second reading of this amendment bill but with the provisos I have laid out. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take an exceptionally brief call in strong support of the second reading of this bill because of the three significant changes it makes to the social security system. 
Firstly there are changes to the accommodation supplement. Secondly we can ensure that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged. That is very important in terms of the seasonal workers that a number of our electorates cover. Thirdly there are changes in the area of child support that will make a big difference to children in sole parent families. 
I support the second reading of this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this somewhat dubious Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. 
The National Party will support this bill but with deep reservations. There is no doubt that the rest home provisions are appropriate; however the only real purpose of this bill is to attempt to indicate that fathers should be named. This is the first time that this politically correct socialist Labour Government has actually made an attempt to address this situation and to acknowledge that it is important to name the father. But I think that this bill is undoubtedly dubious and deceptive because here we have the extraordinary situation where the Minister is suggesting that $6 be taken away from the mother as a punitive action for not naming the father of the child when the reality and irony is that from tomorrow 1 April—April Fool’s Day—the Labour Government will be rewarding those mothers by substantially increasing the benefit almost to the order of three times the benefit for the first child and something like double the benefit for the second child. 
That is the way this socialist Labour Government politically correct as it is tends to work. If ever one could identify a political party that sends mixed signals it has to be the Labour Party in Government between 1999 and 2005. It is extraordinary that it has lined up with a party that purports to call itself the Progressive Party yet we see here perhaps some of the most mixed confusing and regressive legislation that we have seen for a long time. In fact the situation where on the one hand a penalty is imposed on certain people and on the other hand within 24 hours of our discussing it a reward three times over is given to those same individuals is just nonsensical. But it is typical of the confused signals that this Labour Government sends to people with the politically correct social engineering it cannot help itself from doing. 
As both Judith Collins and Muriel Newman pointed out last year it has been under this Labour Minister’s watch that the number of fathers who have gone unnamed has risen from 14000 to a massive 20000—an increase of 40 percent. Three women per day are choosing not to name the fathers of their children. Thirty thousand women are affected and one in six of those is on the domestic purposes benefit. 
The genesis of the situation goes back a long time. Back in 1993 for instance there were in the order of 7900 women who chose not to name the fathers of their children which was about 5.6 percent. But under this Labour-Progressive coalition—call it what one will—that figure has risen to the extraordinary number of 20000 women who do not name the fathers which is about 16 percent of all the 107000 women on the domestic purposes benefit. It really is a most extraordinary irony that the Minister on the one hand is taking away the $6 and on the other hand is tripling the amount he is putting back. He is rewarding the mothers who do not name the fathers. 
Last year the House passed the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act and one of the basic tenets of that legislation was the very important benefit to and natural instinct for a child to know the name of its father. Surely the right of a child to know its father is fundamental and one of the most excellent amendments to that bill happened to be brought up by the member for Port Waikato— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—the excellent member from Port Waikato; I am too modest to name him. But undoubtedly from all over the country there were people saying that that was a great amendment and that it demonstrated that huge instinct of children to want to know who their fathers are. Funnily enough the opposite situation occurred in relation to some of those fathers because at that time they were actually required to be anonymous. 
 Yet what we have in this bill under this waffly politically correct socialist Labour Government is an extraordinarily mixed set of incentives. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Minority Government. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is quite right. It is absolutely a minority Government and is becoming more and more so as time goes on. 
It is extraordinary also that the Government has failed to supply any evidence in the background notes to this bill as to why there is a huge number of beneficiaries who do not name the fathers of their children. One must think it is only because this Government actually encourages them. That is what we are very much seeing today. The Government is tripling the benefit yet providing a pathetically small disincentive that has really become totally meaningless. 
Some people have asked whether there is collusion between parents who make their own deals. I remember in the debate last year that the senior Government whip came out with an example in which one parent might say: “If you go me for child support I’ll go you for custody.” Clearly that is an intolerable sort of attitude. The sort of thing that was suggested by the Government whip is totally inappropriate. I agree with Hon Ken Shirley who said how absolutely vital it is to be crystal-clear with incentives otherwise we will get a situation such as the 20000 women are not prepared to name the fathers of their children spiralling on. A perpetuation of this Government’s social engineering will see that number increase. 
This is no way to break the cycles of disadvantage that we see in New Zealand. I have been down to Huntly West and heard the headmaster of the local school say that on any one day 25 percent of the children will be truanting. I am told by the Work and Income office that on any one day the children who turn 18 will be brought into the office by their parents to sign up for the dole. This is the sort of atmosphere that the Labour Government is perpetuating—intergenerational dependency. With this bill it is again incentivising something that will not help children to aspire to be and be independent and proud of the very basis on which they were born. 
We reluctantly support this bill for some of the very minor benefits that it may have and in the hope that it will incentivise women to name the father of their children. But we have been absolutely appalled by the fact that one day after we speak about this the Labour Government will disincentivise the naming of fathers. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 In question time today I said that I had learnt about issues under section 363 of the Building Act 2004 on 9 March. I have subsequently realised that I misread my notes and I would like to correct myself. I learnt about issues under sections 410 and 363 in January and subsequently learnt about issues relating to other aspects of the Act on 9 March after the Department of Building and Housing had done further investigative work on the new Act. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a pattern developing here and I seek to know what remedy Opposition members may have recourse to. In the last half-hour two Ministers of the Crown have come down to an empty House and fessed up to having given incorrect answers in question time when we had a very robust packed House. This is becoming a pattern. It is almost too much of a coincidence and I seek some assurance that Ministers are not just escaping when they are under pressure then returning to an empty House to fess up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not need any assistance on this at all. The Ministers are fully entitled to do exactly what they have done. I do not see any need to question it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is more a request for clarification. We appreciate that the Minister has come down here. He mentioned that he was advised about sections 410 and 363 in January. Then the Minister said that on 9 March he learnt of other aspects. I would like clarification of what the other aspects were because that is a pretty wide statement. Is the member able to tell us what other aspects he became aware of on 9 March? 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Standing Orders require the Minister to clarify the answer but it is not an opportunity for a second question time. The Minister has come in and stated his case and that is where the matter lies. 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill with some reservations as my colleague Bill Gudgeon has already pointed out. 
Although this bill makes changes to the eligibility of retirement village residents so that they can apply for accommodation assistance and also adjusts the way in which stand-down periods are calculated for seasonal workers who move on to the benefit it is inevitable that the focus of today’s debate has largely been on the changes to the penalties for domestic purposes benefit recipients who fail to name the father of their child when applying for child support. 
 In New Zealand First we believe that the mother should name the father of her child if at all possible particularly if taxpayers are asked to contribute through the benefit system. It is unfair for taxpayers to contribute the total costs that should be paid by individuals who conspire or contrive to defeat the honouring of their responsibilities. We have been told this afternoon by many speakers that 20000 mothers cannot or will not name the fathers of their children. It is difficult to believe that none of these 35000 children that we have heard of know who their fathers are. This does not make good listening—it is a totally staggering number. One in six of the people who are on the domestic purposes benefit do not name a liable parent. This is an issue that raises many questions. 
It is a child’s right to know the names of his or her parents. It really is a child’s right to know his or her father and mother—both of them—and of course his or her wider family or whanau. No one should deny a child that right. 
We do realise that some mothers live in abusive relationships and do not want to place their families at risk by naming the fathers of their children. While I do not wish to devalue the severity of domestic violence or the need to ensure the safety of a family that appears to be totally separate from the issue of ensuring that the father contributes to the financial cost of raising a child or children. Those fathers do need to be held accountable for their criminal behaviour and reminded also of their obligations to their children. I believe that many fathers’ rights groups would argue that the new exemption would actually strengthen the ability of mothers to shut fathers out of their children’s lives by making false allegations of abuse and violence. 
We must acknowledge the efforts of Mr Peter Hughes from the Ministry of Social Development who has initiated a number of measures to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish the paternity of their children when they apply for child support. We are pleased to see that there has been a reduction in the number of people with a section 70A deduction—a decrease of 11 percent. That does need to be acknowledged but we would like to see further decreases there. 
New Zealand First realises that the reasons for not naming the father of a child are very many and very complex. It is to be hoped that the reduction in this bill will reinforce the message that establishing paternity is important. 
It is very interesting to note that paternity testing is not dealt with in any way in this bill or in any other proposed Government legislation. With today’s DNA testing—and I know that this was pointed out by Mr Ken Shirley—there seems to be little reason why 35000 children should have no legally recorded father to contribute to their lives financially emotionally or with their time. It is unfortunate that in those cases children will ultimately be penalised for the actions of their parents. That is most unfair because the penalties in this bill will not rectify the problem in any way. In fact they will do little to help. 
We hope that the Ministry of Social Development continues its work in this particular area. Ultimately it may be that the whole system of child support should be reviewed. For instance perhaps raising the minimum amount of child support to better reflect the cost of raising a child would be better than reviewing the financial situation of the liable parent. We in this House all realise that children can be disadvantaged in the long term if they do not receive financial support from both parents. We all know that raising a child is expensive in today’s world. I have first-hand experience of that and I know how expensive it can be. So we will be watching this area with great interest. 
New Zealand First can see real tangible advantages in this bill for older New Zealanders living in retirement villages.  I think the Minister has said that up to 300 retirement village residents will be better off and we hope they are. That money can be spent on essential items as we can expect further price increases on all commodity goods with the increase in the price of petrol on 1 April. 
This bill also reviews the calculation of the stand-down periods for seasonal workers. This amendment should allow a person to elect to have his or her average income calculated on the basis of either a 52-week or a 26-week period for calculation of the stand-down period. We are only too aware that there are serious shortages in many seasonal industries and it is to be hoped that the option of a longer assessment period will encourage beneficiaries to work in seasonal occupations without fear of a significant stand-down period when they require income support. 
We will be supporting this bill. We do believe that fathers are an important part of the family and we do believe that they should be identified and named for the sake of their children. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 15 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Appointments 
Ombudsman—Melwyn Purefoy Smith 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to reappoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of 6 months commencing on 5 June 2005 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party and I am sure of other parties also we have much pleasure in supporting this motion for the reappointment of Mr Mel Smith to be an additional Ombudsman for the period of 6 months. My understanding is that Mr Smith was first appointed Ombudsman in December 2001 then was reappointed for a 2-year period commencing on 5 June 2003. As the current appointment terminates in June this motion extends the appointment for another 6 months until 5 December 2005. We on the Opposition side of the House certainly acknowledge the work expertise and commitment of Mr Smith as Ombudsman and we have much pleasure in supporting this reappointment. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.