Volume 622 Week 75 - Wednesday 1 December 2004 
Volume 622 Week 75 - Wednesday 1 December 2004 
[Volume:622;Page:17293] 
Wednesday 1 December 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Conflicts of Interest 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he have confidence in the ethical judgments and management action taken by Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology Chief Executive John Scott with regard to conflicts of interest at that polytechnic; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The Auditor-General has concluded with regard to conflicts of interest relating to the Computing Offered Online Programme that it would have been prudent for the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology management to have excluded Ms Vicki Buck from anything other than the most peripheral involvement in the COOL IT programme and declined to consent to her appointment to the joint venture committee as a representative of Brylton Software. I accept those findings. Moreover John Scott himself has publicly stated that if a similar situation arose in the future the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology would be more cautious and the council chair has accepted the Auditor-General’s criticism of the polytechnic’s council saying: “In hindsight we should have looked more closely at this situation.” [ 
Interruption 
] But then of course the National Party in hindsight would also look more closely at a number of situations. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that it is consistent with his so-called strong ethical framework that Ms Vicki Buck was party to a commercial arrangement whereby $320 was paid to her private company for every one of 18000 students she enrolled as the promoter of the COOL IT course and if that is not ethical who is accountable for this breach of public service standards? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the Auditor-General’s report explicitly looks at the issue of the ethical standards of people who are dealing with public money. What they find in the report— 
Hon Bill English 
: What’s your opinion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If Mr English would like to shut up for a while I would be happy to give him the answer. I know what he is going to do. So what the report shows—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind interjections but they are not to be addressed to me or to be in the second person. The member knows that; he has been here long enough to know that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The report shows that they did look at the ethical issues. They found that in Ms Buck’s case the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology placed her in a position where she could have misused that position. But they are explicit in their report in saying: “We wish to emphasise that there is no evidence that Ms Buck acted to misuse her position.” But in response explicitly to the question of what my own views might be about this I say that my own views are that I agree with the Auditor-General that it was not appropriate to place Ms Buck in that position. Her polytechnic-funded time should not have placed her in a position where she could have used it for her own advantage. The fact that she did not protected both the institution and herself from claims about ethics—but that situation should never happen and no institution should place a person in that position. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Did the problems associated with the computing programmes come about as a result of the management lapses identified by the Auditor-General with regard to managing conflicts of interest? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They did not. The critical stage of negotiations between the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and Brylton Software was from June to early August 2003. The Auditor-General states in paragraph 4.14 that there was no conflict between Vicki Buck's polytechnic duties and Brylton Software interests during that period. Even if Ms Buck's involvement had remained peripheral as the Auditor-General advises that it should have the COOL IT programme would have essentially been the same. So the following three problems associated with COOL IT would still have existed—that is inducement issues engagement issues and concerns about the level of funding per student. 
In relation to the last point the Tertiary Education Commission funding guide for 2005 which was released yesterday imposes tougher rules on contact hours and calculation of equivalent full-time student values as it should. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that the Auditor-General's report records that although the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology has a code of professional practice that was adopted on 30 November 2001 there are no documented procedures for ensuring compliance with the code and does he find this situation acceptable? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that. It is not acceptable and it is one of the things that the polytechnic will have to change. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister does get around to considering accountability for this whole debacle will he take into account that the judgment of the chief executive John Scott may have been impaired by the fact that these issues came to light publicly while he was taking several weeks' sick leave in China or because he has a shareholding along with Ms Vicki Buck in a company called Creative Thinking? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was an interjection made by one of Mr English's own colleagues while the question was being asked. That is the only warning today. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot speak on what is in the mind of Mr Scott; I will leave that to Mr English. I am relying on the report that Mr English asked for and which he has to accept that states that there was nothing illegal and that the organisation does need to review procedures such as the one raised by Brian Donnelly. Those are things that it must take into account. I am sorry; I know that Mr English is disappointed. I know that he would like to be back being leader but he cannot get that from this. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he intends to exercise no accountability for this $13.6 million scam with taxpayers' money or can he tell us how long it will be before he agrees with the Christchurch  
Press 
 which states The Auditor-General has suggested changes to CPIT's rules on conflicts of interest. For damage of the scale that has been caused in this case that will not be enough." 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I too have been very clear that I think the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology has caused itself quite considerable damage in the way that it has handled this issue as the Christchurch  
Press 
 editorial suggests. Mr English suggests that the Government ought to sack John Scott. I am afraid as Mr English well knows that Mr Scott is employed by the council. The council is of course responsible for his behaviour. It has a report in front of it. Hector Matthews has said that he will be taking this into account in the way that the council holds Mr Scott accountable and that is the way it should be done. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell this House today—the House that allocated the $13.6 million to the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—whether he will take any measure of accountability for this $13 million scam? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows the issue of the COOL IT programme itself is now being evaluated by the Tertiary Education Commission. They are the people who hold the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology accountable for this money. They are evaluating it and no amount of shouting by Mr English to try to return to being leader will speed that up. The members of the Tertiary Education Commission are the people who should make that accountability work. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the official company record of a company called Creative Thinking which demonstrates that John Scott and Vicki Buck both have a shareholding in that company. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Proceeds of Crime Act—Review 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is he proposing to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Cabinet has agreed that the existing Act should be replaced by new legislation to introduce both a new conviction-based regime and a civil forfeiture regime. Civil forfeiture will allow the proceeds of crime to be taken away from organised crime where there is clear evidence of benefit having been derived from criminal activity but where the evidence falls short of a very high threshold required for a criminal conviction. The High Court will be able to order civil forfeiture where the Crown can show on a civil standard of balance of probabilities that a person has benefited from criminal activity. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Why is it necessary to allow confiscation of proceeds of crime on the civil standard of proof? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Experience both in New Zealand and overseas shows that conviction-based regimes are not effective at disrupting organised crime. Gang bosses who direct organisations such as drug production operations do not actually have a hands-on role and therefore there are real difficulties in securing a criminal conviction against them. Because we cannot get a criminal conviction the profits stay in the hands of the gangs which are then free to reinvest them in criminal activity and lifestyles. A civil forfeiture regime will enable us to make inroads into organised crime by targeting the profits that fund it. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister taking such a soft approach to this issue and refusing to accept the Western Australian model which is clearly the most effective way of dealing with drug barons and gang bosses and has proven to be totally successful in Western Australia; why is he being so soft on law and order? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong in just about every fact that he tried to raise there. Firstly this is the regime that is supported by the New Zealand Police the administration and the police union. Secondly this Government happens to believe that before we confiscate somebody’s assets the onus in the first instance should be on the State to prove on the balance of probabilities that those assets have been criminally derived. Thirdly when I look at the track record of Western Australia I see that it has raised less through its proceeds of crime legislation in 4 years than New Zealand did with its old legislation in 1 year—last year. The Western Australia model simply has not worked. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How does the Minister justify this significant attack on the principles of justice when he intends to allow police officers who lose a case just to have another crack at a lower standard of proof after restraining the assets of the defendant? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This bill does not breach at all the principles of justice that the member is referring to. The civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities is the standard that we have used for a century in this country. What we are doing in this bill is not getting a criminal conviction that will allow us to deprive a person of liberty; we would do that if we had the standard of proof for that. Under this bill it must be demonstrated that on the civil standard of proof this property has been wrongly acquired by the individual does not belong to the individual and should be taken over by the State. That does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or any other principle of justice. In fact it operates in countries that have high respect for civil rights like Ireland the United Kingdom and Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. [ 
Interruption 
] I was not commenting on the noise or otherwise of the answer just the length. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister also intend to include the concept of stripping those who engage in criminal activity of unexplained wealth whereby they lose all wealth that they cannot legitimately explain as being lawfully received and not just that directly connected with criminal activity to send the clear message that living off a criminal lifestyle will not be tolerated in this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that this legislation does send the message that living off a criminal lifestyle will not be tolerated and that those people will be cracked down on in a way that has not happened in this country to date. But there are three stages. First one has to show a reasonable cause to believe that the assets have been criminally acquired. That allows one to freeze them. Then one has to show on the civil standard of balance of probabilities before the High Court that the assets are more likely than not to have been criminally obtained assets. Thirdly the defendant is then able to say: “Well I’ve got a million dollars’ worth of property but not all of it was criminally derived and I can prove that a part of it legitimately belongs to me.” I think those three stages are absolutely appropriate. They are based on best practice across the Western World. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain why it is better for the criminal for New Zealand and for the justice system to have a process that requires the criminal to show that his or her assets and lifestyle have not been criminally acquired than to have a process that requires the criminal to demonstrate how his or her assets and lifestyle have been legitimately gained? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What the member is proposing is the Western Australian system. The Western Australian system says that the individual must prove to the state that the assets were legitimately acquired in the first instance. No individual should have to do that until the police have met the requisite standard of demonstrating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the assets were criminally acquired and then that on the balance of probabilities they were so acquired. 
Ron Mark 
: Soft. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member says “soft”. I tell the member that for every 100 cases that the Western Australian police have brought on their standard only 25 percent have proceeded which shows that the other 75 percent were insufficiently based. The Western Australians have acquired less money under their system than we have under our old system which we will improve upon. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that any regime for stripping assets from gangs should be accompanied by a system to reinvest those assets back into initiatives that will prevent such offending in the first place or at least into initiatives for victim reparation; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The money that comes in that is confiscated proceeds of crime will go into the consolidated account just like fines and other things that the Government raises. In New Zealand we do not have a tied system of saying that X dollars have come from Y sources and will go to Z outputs. That has proven to be inefficient. It is a fact and it is on record that this Government has the largest ever police force in this country which is more highly resourced than ever before with the highest ever resolution of crime rate. That is not a bad record. 
Labour Department of—Employment Policies 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is he satisfied that the Department of Labour sets a good example for New Zealand employers; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister of Labour who I note has recently been taking his labour and productivity responsibilities very seriously I consider that the department does perform well as an employer in a number of ways. But as a result of changes to its structure currently being implemented it will perform even better. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Acting Minister seen the Department of Labour’s 2004 staff satisfaction survey which shows only 39 percent of the department’s staff were happy with their workplace; if so what does she think that says about the department’s ability to develop policies that promote its stated goal of helping New Zealanders to “achieve higher-quality working lives”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have seen the survey and I commend the department for providing an opportunity for its staff to comment honestly on issues that they are facing at work and to give their views about the department as a place to work. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she still have confidence in the Secretary of Labour Dr James Buwalda in light of the fact that during his watch the morale of the department’s staff has plummeted the Community Employment Group’s grants allocation regime has been so badly discredited that it has been disestablished and its whitewash of the “lying in unison” scandal has been roundly discredited by the Ombudsman; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do have confidence in James Buwalda and I note that even in the area of the department with the highest turnover of staff it would only be comparable to the turnover of members of the National Party caucus if the  
New Zealand Herald  
poll were the election result. 
Civil Union Bill—Election Manifesto Commitment 
4.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she satisfied with her Government’s handling of the Civil Union Bill in light of her 2002 election manifesto commitment to introduce such legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm notwithstanding the fact that this bill was originally introduced as Government legislation that the Government members of Parliament will be able to exercise a conscience vote on this matter and vote according to the dictates of that conscience free from any undue influences? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I can confirm that. It is similar to the situation of the Human Rights Commission amendment legislation in the 1990s which was also a Government bill but a free vote was available on that. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that this bill is creating quite some anguish in New Zealand society and if she does acknowledge that will the Government support a New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper that would provide for New Zealanders to decide whether they want such legislation by way of a binding referendum; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes it is clear that there are divided views in society on this issue. No we will not support a binding referendum. We had divided views on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in the mid-1980s. I doubt there are many members of this House who would want to go back to revisit and reimpose criminal penalties in that respect. 
Dail Jones 
: What discussions took place between United Future and the Prime Minister with regard to the Labour Party’s stated position in its election manifesto that it would introduce a Civil Union Bill and what steps were taken by United Future to ensure that its support would be given only if there was to be no Civil Union Bill brought before the House a bill that is continuing only because the United Future party supports the existence of a Labour Party in Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Party the Progressive Party and the United Future party have a 3-year confidence and supply agreement which has given stability to this Government and to the MMP system. The United Future party was well aware that the Government’s position was that a bill would be introduced. The United Future party of course also has a conscience vote on this issue. It is not a matter of a collective vote by the party. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the agreement between National and New Zealand First in terms of their coalition which states that they would provide stable government for New Zealand for a 3-year term concluding with the 1999 general election. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: In order to add balance I seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First coalition agreement with the National Party which is a considerably bigger document than the coalition agreement between the “Poodle Party” and Labour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member knows that he cannot use that sort of language. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I seek leave to table an exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and me on 29 November this year regarding the Civil Union Bill. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any other incident in New Zealand’s history when a member has pledged to fast to change the mind of the Government on such a bill and can she advise whether withdrawing confidence might be a more effective way by which a member of Parliament might persuade the Government that this is not a route to proceed down? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Acting Prime Minister has no responsibility for the first part of the question. The second part of the question is in order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Progressive and United Future parties entered into a confidence and supply agreement with a clear understanding that there were policy differences and that there were conscience issues but that it was desirable to have a stable Government for 3 years. On the other matter I could refer to the fact that it is a very good reason for taking some urgency next week so that Mr Adams who is a good person could be allowed to eat again. 
Taxation—Increased Taxes Levies or Duties 
5.  
KENNETH WANG (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How many new taxes levies or duties or increases to taxes levies or duties have there been since he became Minister of Finance and how many more are planned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am advised that no new taxes levies or duties have been introduced since 1999 other than specific levies in areas such as horticulture and agriculture which are usually the result of requests from the industry involved. We have introduced six increases of any significance to existing taxes levies or duties since taking office. We are of course planning an increase to excise duty and light road-user charges on 1 April next year. The carbon charge is assumed to come in on 1 April 2007. That will be revenue neutral. That will simply take me through to the end of my next term in office. I am not looking out beyond that at this point. 
Kenneth Wang 
: What taxes levies or duties has he reduced and by how much has he reduced them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have to say that the new member has found a better question to ask me than any other member has done so far in this Parliament. I cannot think of a single one that I have reduced at this point. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister ruling out a cut in the nominal company tax rate in Budget 2005; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nothing is ruled out at this stage but I draw the member’s attention to the latest OECD report which congratulates the Government on its fiscal management and points out that there is not room at the present time for a fiscal stimulus. Structural changes in taxation are a fiscal stimulus. 
Peter Brown 
: How much windfall tax has the Government collected in the time that the Minister has been the Minister of Finance by fiscal creep or whatever such as by way of example the $289 million he collected in the 3 months ended 30 September last? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have a breakdown in front of me of the exact division between bracket creep—the 39c in the dollar rate for example—and changes to excise duty and so on. I tell the member that over 80 percent of the increase in taxation revenue since 1999 is simply due to the change in GDP without any bracket creep. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is he prepared to give an undertaking that the cost of the 5c per litre petrol excise increase planned for next year will be offset by a decrease in income tax so that New Zealanders will not face a net increase in their tax burden; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot because that money will be spent on new roading. If it was accompanied also by a decrease in income tax that would be a fiscal stimulus. I refer members again to the OECD report which is very important in a period when we face severe capacity constraints. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does it not concern him as Minister of Finance that he can rattle off a long list of new taxes and tax hikes but cannot think of one thing that he has done to lower the tax burden or the charges of Government on hard-working New Zealanders; if not why does it not worry him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the Government has produced 230000 new jobs the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years and strong growth in household incomes. Going by the latest opinion polls the public does seem to approve of that record. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister of Finance forgotten that he has reduced taxes in New Zealand—that he reduced taxes on Maori trusts to 19.5 percent which will give a lower cost of capital to amongst others Aotearoa Fisheries when competing with other companies that do not have a lower rate of company taxation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member well knows had the 33 percent rate been applied it would have been necessary to have a large number of individual tax adjustments at the end of the year a large proportion of which would have cost more to process than the actual level of the rebate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister explain with regard to his proposed tax on petrol why it is a good idea to index the taxes on petrol and cigarettes but it is not a good idea to index the thresholds for income tax; and is not the result of his policy that the Government is now inflation proof and that citizens and business are having to suffer the effects of inflation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first part of the question clearly what happens is that there is declining real revenue in relation to the demand for new roading etc. On the latter matter if the member cares to look at past Budget documentation he will find that the long-term assumption is that tax revenue remains constant as a proportion of GDP. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Is there anything that would convince him that New Zealanders are overtaxed; if so what would that be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It would be if we had for example substantially higher tax rates than Australia—which we do not—and if we had an average tax take that was higher than that of the rest of the OECD as a percentage of GDP. We are below the average of the OECD and way below the average of nearly all countries that have higher per capita GDP than New Zealand and certainly I will not be convinced by some strange argument that people will work harder if they are slightly lower taxed at the margin. I have not noticed anybody except for the National Party working less hard since the 39c in the dollar rate went on. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a list prepared by the Parliamentary Library of the 30 changes in taxes and levies since November 1999 that have gone upwards. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Early Childhood Education—Quality 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to lift the quality of early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Funding rates have been changed so that early childhood centres that employ qualified teaching staff are rewarded financially. An estimated 1370 non-profit and private services will benefit from the first stage of rates that flow out of a $307 million 4-year package. Those increases have been welcomed by the early childhood sector especially by private providers. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that an adequate supply of places is available in quality early childhood education centres? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Over the last couple of months I have announced an extra $12 million of investment to create places in early childhood education centres. Since 2000 we have funded places for an extra 4550 children to take part in early childhood education at a cost of about $35 million. A new funding pool of $4.2 million will also help cover start-up costs such as equipment teachers’ resources and beginning time for teachers. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister have to say to those 30000 New Zealand families whose lives will be thrown into chaos from 1 January next year when up to 400 childcare centres could be closed because they do not meet his unreasonable regulations about registered teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have said on a regular basis not to listen to Tory fibs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having heard that answer—[ 
Interruption 
] Do not talk to me like that. That answer implies that a member of this House is not telling the truth. The Minister will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The figure of 400 actually came from the Minister’s own advisers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps now the Minister should address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address the question. He made a comment at the end of it which was out of order but he most certainly did address it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I have said that the Minister did address the question. The last word was out of order and he had to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No offence would have been taken at what the Minister had said if in fact he had addressed the question. He simply said that he had advised people and then used the phrase that you have now ruled was inappropriate. That cannot be addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it can and I have ruled that it is. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can the Minister claim to be improving the quality of early childhood education when last week the Kawhia pre-school which had received a glowing Education Review Office report and has the full support of the community had to go to the Hamilton High Court to stop the ministry from closing it down? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member should probably catch up with the facts. The judge in that case indicated that the ministry had followed proper procedures and that it was appropriate for quality of service to be improved—that that is a role for the ministry. If the member had read the judgment she would not be silly enough to have asked the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last comment was not really within the terms of the Standing Orders. It was unnecessary. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the childcare subsidy continues to be an appropriate mechanism to increase participation in early childhood education when it goes directly to the provider with no guarantee that the savings will be passed to parents in the form of reduced fees—a potential flaw in the Labour Party Government’s voucher system? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not a voucher system because it does not go to parents. Most people involved in the industry are aware that the ministry has increased the monitoring of early childhood facilities by Statistics New Zealand to make sure that the charges do not move in that way. If they do then regulation will be introduced. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Will he in light of Justice Young’s decision to throw a lifeline to the Kawhia pre-school centre assure the other 400 early childhood centres around New Zealand that they will not be closed because they cannot within the ridiculously short time of January next year comply with his draconian legislation which requires them not to employ primary school teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Early childhood centres were given notice in 2000 of this change. They had an inordinate amount of time to prepare for it. As the member is aware the rules around provisional licensing are very flexible and they will be used. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Reserves 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice if any has he received from his department on the proportion of the foreshore and seabed that is expected to be set aside as foreshore and seabed reserves as a result of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I have not received any advice from my department on that matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Which of these two statements is correct: the statement made at a press conference of Maori MPs prior to the bill’s passage at which the Minister was present when John Tamihere said that at least 10 percent of the coastline would be set aside in foreshore reserves or the statement made by Ministers after the bill was passed that the legal test was so hard it would be a “very small fraction”—or is this another case of the Government speaking with a forked tongue telling Maori one thing and the rest of New Zealand something different? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In relation to the first point yes that is possible because around 10 percent of the land adjoining the coastline is in Maori ownership. However in response to the second question it will be up to Maori to apply to the High Court and then for the court to decide whether the tests have been met and a territorial customary right exists. Ministers have been very clear on that point. 
Mark Peck 
: What is the purpose of a foreshore and seabed reserve? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The concept of a reserve is not new to Maori and is in fact practised every day of the year on marae around the country. The purpose of a foreshore and seabed reserve is to acknowledge the practice of kaitiakitanga by the group but the reserve is held for the common use and benefit of all New Zealanders. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is it not correct that the Maori members of Parliament have been duped into voting for this legislation on the basis that 10 percent of the coastline would be set aside in reserves for tangata whenua when in reality the legal test is so tough that only a few areas will qualify; and now realising that will the Minister publicly dissociate himself from the new law? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Most certainly not. The foreshore and seabed reserves will give real and meaningful redress to those who have successful claims for territorial customary rights. They will also give powers to hapu and iwi to administer the foreshore and seabed reserve with local and central government and to play a significant part in coastal planning. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that the foreshore and seabed legislation in fact carries out the provisions of the NgatiApa decision with regard to territorial customary rights and that all Maori claimants will receive that which they would have received if the NgatiApa decision had remained in the common law? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Now that the Minister has recalled the 10 percent figure being used by Maori caucus members prior to the passage of the legislation will he accept that Labour has failed Maori if that 10 percent figure is not subsequently delivered? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Most certainly not. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm that a large proportion of concerns around coastal areas are still under historical treaty settlement claims? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister explain how the reserves set aside as a result of the foreshore and seabed legislation may have an adverse impact on the establishment of aquaculture management areas? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: They will not have an adverse impact or effect on that situation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister clarify for the House what he meant when he said “Most certainly not.” in response to my earlier question which was quite simply: the Maori caucus having told Maoridom that this legislation will deliver over 10 percent in foreshore and seabed reserves if it does not deliver that will Labour accept that it has failed Maori? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not too sure what the member wants to discuss in relation to what but this is what the report in the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated. It was written by one of the great journalists up there and I want the member to note this: “… but it is understood the Maori caucus believes they could yet cover more than 10 percent of the coastline.” I do not hear Mr Tamihere mentioning it; I see a journalist writing it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Listener 
 of 27 November in which it states that John Tamihere said that Maori would be able to get 10 percent of the coastline—and was Jane Clifton the great reporter he was referring to? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act—Entitlements 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What new entitlements are available to parents effective from today under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2004? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 From today the period of paid parental leave rises from 12 weeks to 13 weeks. This will rise again to 14 weeks from 1 December next year. Also eligibility for the leave has been broadened. An employee now needs to work for the same employer for only 6 months for at least 10 hours a week down from the previous 12 months. 
Helen Duncan 
: How many women so far have accessed paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Over 40000 new parents have accessed paid parental leave since it was established in July 2002. The latest changes mean that a further 3400 new parents will benefit from this initiative. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why are 70000 self-employed women still not able to access paid parental leave and why when self-employed women are entitled to benefits under accident compensation can they not get them under the paid parental leave legislation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Consideration of the extension of paid parental leave to self-employed people is a high priority and work on that issue is progressing well. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is it true that a highly paid woman employee can get paid parental leave but a modestly paid self-employed woman cannot; is that what the Minister is telling us? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Correct. 
Contaminated Sites—Identification and Remedial Work 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When will the Government identify register and ensure the clean-up of contaminated sites around New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Our policy is to have implemented remediation or instituted a clear management programme for all high-risk contaminated sites by December 2015. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the Minister doing to remove the lingering stigma attached to properties in Auckland that have been publicly identified as potentially contaminated even if that is now removed from the Land Information Memorandum reports and when will the Government fund the testing of these potentially contaminated properties to remove the uncertainty surrounding them? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government has committed to helping local authorities pay for soil testing and remediation of contaminated sites and of course that funding is available from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. In relation to the first part of the question I think the important issue there is the clear reaction of property owners to the placing of conditions on Land Information Memorandum reports and I think the way to work through that is by not being alarmist but by developing strategies jointly with local government to carry out appropriate sampling regimes. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm whether Auckland properties built on land previously used for horticultural purposes are in fact sitting on high-risk contaminated sites? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That is most unlikely. Some sites might have elevated levels of contaminants but they are not considered an immediate risk to human health. Auckland City Council has reversed the decision to include such information as was discussed earlier on Land Information Memorandum reports and the Ministry for the Environment and my colleagues the local Auckland MPs are working with local government to clarify the council’s responsibilities in this area. 
Keith Locke 
: How is it that the Government can come up with $30 million-odd to fund an America’s Cup yacht campaign virtually overnight yet it is procrastinating over funding the testing programme—beyond the very small amount in the remediation fund—that would enable householders to actually find out whether their sections are contaminated? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I see no link between the two events that the member raises and nor do I agree that the Government is procrastinating. Our Government is working and making good use of its very productive collaborative relationship with local government to reach good outcomes on this matter. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why 11 years after New Zealand was described in the  
New Scientist  
as a “poisoned paradise” and 5 years after Ms Hobbs became Minister for the Environment do we still not have a national environmental standard for defining contaminated sites or national standards for testing subdivisions? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As the questioner knows the ministry is working and has provided advice to local government on the second matter. The development of the appropriate environmental standards is also being worked through by the Ministry for the Environment. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the contaminated site clean-up fund provides only $2 million a year although the cost of cleaning up our worst contaminated sites was estimated in 1993 to be $2.6 billion; and does that not mean that it will take 1300 years to deal with the problem? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Not necessarily. The figure of the annual funding is accurate but regional councils have since 2003 been granted funding from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund for the investigation and remediation of 13 high-risk contaminated sites so we are clearly making progress towards our 2015 goal. As the questioner will also be aware $10 million for two projects has been approved—for the clean-ups at Mapua and the Tui mine. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with Pete Hodgson’s 1993 comment about contaminated sites—that “New Zealand is sitting on a time bomb.”—if so would it not be better to act now and rather more quickly than at the rate of the 13 properties a year he is boasting of than fiddling until the time bomb explodes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I certainly do agree with the comment attributed to my esteemed colleague and I think that members of the House would agree that this Government is working productively and hard to control the ticking. 
Drugs—Public Forums 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
:What response has he received to the public forums that he has chaired on “P” alcohol and other drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The feedback I am receiving is that many members of the public who have attended the meetings held so far in Tauranga Waitakere Manukau and Morrinsville have found them helpful because the panel of officials from various agencies including customs police health and education agencies are able to outline where communities can get help in the campaign to minimise harm caused by alcohol and drugs. I have found that the meetings so far have led to a good two-way dialogue between the officials of various Government agencies on the one hand and members of the public on the other which has resulted in information and ideas being shared on how individuals and communities can move forward. 
Darren Hughes 
: What substances have members of the public who work on the ground identified to him as causing them most concern; and if substances have been identified what recent reports has the Minister received on those? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Without question alcohol—or should I say the misuse of alcohol—is in the view of most independent agencies such as the police far and away the single biggest cause of pain suffering and ill health in our communities. The ministerial committee on drugs and alcohol which I chair received a report at its August meeting advising that the international evidence relating to raising the minimum legal drinking age from 18 or 19 years to 20 or 21 years showed that lower alcohol consumption reduced traffic injuries reduced non-traffic injuries and probable sexual health benefits for young people would be the most likely result. 
Judith Collins 
: What response has the Associate Minister received in his public forums to police instructing their front-line staff not to actively hunt for P laboratories? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: None whatsoever. Every senior police person whom I have spoken to has denied absolutely that that is true. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the public particularly parents have good reason to be concerned about the proposal to develop a fourth regulatory class under the Misuse of Drugs Act as this leaves the door wide open for cannabis to be slipped into this category and be controlled only by age-limits and marketing requirements; or will he give a guarantee that cannabis will remain a class C drug? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This coalition Government has an absolute agreement that no such step would be taken in its term of office. 
Aquaculture Reform Bill—Treaty Settlements 
11.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Will the Government continue treaty settlements giving iwi preferential tender rights to aquaculture space; if so why is that when all iwi will get up to 40 per cent of new space under the Aquaculture Reform Bill anyway? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes if there is a breach of the treaty and the outcome of negotiations is that the appropriate redress is a right of first refusal to coastal space. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister aware that 81 separate iwi are listed in the Maori Fisheries Act which means that possibly 81 iwi can line up for further aquaculture space from a pre-1992 settlement as well as getting up to 40 percent of new space under the reform bill and what does she have to say about 81 iwi lining up for more space? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I will take the member's word on the numbers but I think he is confusing the process post 1992 and pre 1992. The claimants for a historical breach are not determined by whether they are on the register of iwi that he referred to. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will every treaty settlement incorporate a right of first refusal to coastline provision? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. There is no automatic inclusion of that clause. It will depend on the nature of the breach and the redress negotiated. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Which words in article 2 of the treaty give Maori preferential rights to aquacultural space and what clause in the 1992 settlement gives Maori preferential rights or tender rights over their fellow New Zealanders? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The nature of the breach in any particular case obviously depends on its circumstances but normally those breaches are found to be in article 2 of the treaty. As to the second part of the question the whole point really is that it was omitted from that settlement and it became unfinished business as the record has shown. That is why this settlement was required. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that some of these 81 iwi will get 50 percent of aquaculture space based on 10 percent from pre-1992 settlements and up to 40 percent through the reform bill—up to 50 percent altogether—if so why should iwi get a 50 percent stake in an industry that is only 40 years old and cannot possibly be regarded as being protected by the treaty? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member makes the assumption that there is an automatic allocation under the historical breaches. It is a right of first refusal. In fact if Maori wish to buy more than that they would also be able to do so if there were a willing buyer and a willing seller at market rates. 
Stephen Franks 
: With reference to the Minister’s answer to my colleague exactly what record showed “unfinished business” until the Government revived this a year or so ago and exactly what words in the treaty give one race an entitlement in preference to their neighbours to something nobody owned or could own in 1840 or until a few years ago? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If I understood the question correctly the answer is that the reason why the matters relate to Maori is that the treaty was negotiated with Maori; they were the people in New Zealand at the time. That is why there is “preferential treatment”. In terms of why and evidence which is what I think the member was asking about I am very happy to provide that evidence to the member in terms of statements made by Ministers at the time to the effect that this matter was not to be considered as part of the deed of settlement of fisheries. It was all just too difficult. As we know these problems do not go away. They keep on coming back because there is a legitimate grievance that is a breach that has to be addressed. It is this Government that cleans up the mess of the Governments in the past that did not have the courage to do so. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will be seeking leave to table deeds of settlement over and above the 40 percent given to them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection to their being tabled? There is not. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I’ve got to list them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been given leave to table them. He asked to table them all I asked for leave and he has been granted it. 
Phil Heatley 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member asked for leave. He got leave. He has done it. He does not have to go any further. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you check the  
Hansard 
 you will see that when I raised a point of order and you called me I told you that I was going to ask for leave; I did not ask for leave. What is more when I do ask for leave I will be listing the date and what the document is briefly. I hope to get leave for that. As it is I have not asked for leave yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I took it that the member was asking for leave. I asked the House for leave and it was granted. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the answer the Minister just gave the House she said she was very happy to provide to the member Mr Franks evidence of documentation that would help us with this issue. I am wondering whether there is a procedure for that because the select committee has been asking for this information from the officials and to date it has not been made available. So the select committee would certainly find it useful if the Minister is prepared to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Minister to do that if she wishes to. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Ngati Tama settlement of 2001 the NgaiTahu settlement of 1998 giving preferential rights to 10 percent of allocated space— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I had already asked if there was any objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: No I haven’t asked— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Ngati Awa settlement of 2002 giving Maori 5 percent of aquaculture space. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Nga Rauru Kitahi and NgatiRuanui settlements giving an open-ended settlement of aquaculture space to Maori. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an interesting situation. It appears to me that the member actually was anticipating asking for leave to table those documents when you first put it to the House. He then specified what he wanted and it was turned down. Am I correct in assuming that in fact once leave is given by the House it cannot be taken away and so he can still table the documents even though if we had known what it was he was asking for we would not have given to it him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is as usual perfectly correct. I call question 12. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called the next question. It is obvious to me and it should be obvious to members of the House if they read the Standing Orders and listen to my rulings—they are pretty clear. 
Tauranga Harbour Link Project—Funding 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is the total amount that the Government is prepared to contribute towards the Tauranga Harbour link project under what has been reported as being the preferred package representing a “collaborative funding approach”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I raised the possibility—the possibility—of a special funding arrangement when I was in Tauranga in September and that is still its status. 
Peter Brown 
: So is the Minister telling us there is no truth in the rumour that such an arrangement is being considered this very afternoon or tomorrow afternoon I think by Transit and Transfund; and is there no truth to the rumour that a specific package is being considered? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know what the rumour is so I cannot verify it. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What reports has the Minister received on transport funding for the Bay of Plenty? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have received two reports recently. The first said that the future petrol tax take should be used to fund the Tauranga Harbour Bridge. The second said that the legislation to allow this was garbage and it was voted against. Who promised the money and then voted against it? It was Peter Brown whose behaviour is I think hilarious. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm that my colleague Larry Baldock has already approached him regarding this issue and that a practical policy solution is currently being worked on as a result? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Mr Baldock has approached me on this issue on a number of occasions. I have told him and the region’s leaders that the Government is not saying no to a funding deal being reached. We will be looking closely at the Bay of Plenty’s regional land transport strategy and the funding issues associated with it. 
Peter Brown 
: Why does the Minister not come clean and recommend a more businesslike approach to road funding in this country and by that I mean identifying the project specifying the costs determining the time frame and using the appropriate funding methods—borrowing if necessary—to fund our roading? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may not be aware that I am statutorily barred from taking project decisions on which roads are built. The member may not be aware of it so I will tell him—and I will tell him what coming clean is like. Coming clean is not going back to Tauranga and asking: “Can we please have some petrol tax to pay for the bridge?” and then returning to Wellington and voting against it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that Tauranga has the highest number of household car trips in the country and has he told the people of Tauranga that additional funding for roads will depend on them taking a more balanced approach to transport with a greater use of public transport rail travel demand management cycling and walking in accordance with the New Zealand Transport Strategy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Bay of Plenty regional land transport strategy has some good things in it and it was the first to be written under the new Land Transport Management Act. For example it has very very good targets for public transport but it is a little bit light on how they will be achieved. I am confident that any approach made to the Government will focus on the achievement of a multimodal and integrated transport solution for the Bay of Plenty. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. There was a 19th century US presidential candidate who ran on the slogan “Forty-four forty or fight”. Well for National the poll is now 50:30 and there is still no fight from the members opposite in the National Party. It is not often that a major political leader gets to write his own epitaph but Dr Brash did just that earlier this year when he said: “I’ll be leader until the ratings go down.” Well the ratings have gone down and the time has come for Dr Brash to move along and for there to be another leader of the National Party—no doubt Mr Gerry Brownlee. Why—[ 
Interruption 
] Indeed whenever Mr McCully is not actually— I cannot quite say that but when he may be somewhere else it is usually because he is counting the numbers for the next leadership coup. 
Why has National got into the parlous state that it is now in? In one word it is weak—weak as a party and weak as an Opposition. In two words it flip-flops. It has flip-flopped on every issue of any significance. In three words it has no new ideas. And so in four words it is time for a change. National’s strategy has combined five fatal ingredients: firstly the moral strength and purpose of Murray McCully secondly the firm hand of Tony Ryall thirdly the stability and reliability of Nick Smith fourthly the intellect of Gerry Brownlee and finally the oratorical skills of Dr Brash himself. With all that the wonder is that the party still had 30 percent support in the latest opinion poll. Of course Dr Brash took solace in the fact that the latest poll indicated what he called “volatility and fluctuation”. He almost sounded comfortable with the result. The problem is as his great hero Sir Roger Douglas once said it is volatility around a downwards trend. That is exactly what is happening to the National Party. The National Party now reminds me for the benefit of those of us who watch such things of the latest Steriogram video—the one where they are driving along in a Triumph 2000 and bits keep flying off the car. Eventually all the passengers float out of the car as well and disappear and float around in the air in a purposeless fashion. That is what the National Party is up to. 
Now that National has a clear record of flip-flops it is trying to avoid further damage. Firstly the National members had the great speech programme. In January there were to be five main speeches on five main topics. By September there had been one and they decided to wait until next year before having any more of them because the speeches were so good we had to wait for them. The truth of course is that those members cannot agree on the content of the speeches. Secondly there was the superannuation flip-flop. What a doozy! It was a better retreat than Rommel ever organised in the North African desert. National’s leader said the Superannuation Fund was all smoke and mirrors and that it was a serious mistake. Nothing has changed as Mr Hide rightly said—except for the National Party’s position. The National members now support a mistake that is all smoke and mirrors. Well if those members support Dr Brash of course they support a mistake that is all smoke and mirrors! What they meant was that their leader has been rolled by John Key. On the Civil Union Bill only a week ago Dr Brash was saying firmly on Radio Rhema that he was not willing to prostitute his conscience for any vote and that if that meant voting for something that was unpopular or against something that was popular then so be it. One week later Dr Brash’s only reason for changing his mind was that he thought his position may be unpopular. He had no other reason at all for that and he did not even tell his caucus that he was going to make the announcement in that particular respect. So much for the strength of purpose that Dr Brash was supposed to represent! 
The National members are all over the show on tax cuts. They give the impression in their body language that they will have tax cuts—but for whom? It used to be for the rich but then John Key said that was not good politics so he persuaded Dr Brash to say it would be for middle-income earners.” Then John Key said the tax cuts had to be for the rich. They both then said there had to be a cut in the corporate tax rate. Next they both said that tax cuts had to wait until they saw the numbers from me and then that they would have them anyway. Then they tried to have it all ways—that they would pay down debt have tax cuts and have extra expenditure on health and everything else. National is a disaster as a party at the present time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a speech from the Acting Prime Minister—the most Acting Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history. Dr Cullen is the Acting Prime Minister who has stepped into that role 47 times in the last 60 months. 
Opposition Member 
: What? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is right—47 times in the last 60 months as the Prime Minister has continued her travelogue around the world. What an interesting speech we had from the Deputy Prime Minister today. Once again there was not one hint from Labour of where it wants to take this country because of the embarrassment it has about the real agenda it is producing for New Zealanders. Labour talks about flip-flops but it should look at the flip-flop on the closure of schools. There was a little bit of public pressure and Trevor Mallard buckled like a cripple and gave up on that policy. Members should look at the reaction to Dr Brash’sOrewa speech earlier this year. The Prime Minister in complete panic announced that once again Trevor Mallard was to conduct a review of all the Government departments. Then there was a further flip-flop by not actually doing that at all and then finally there was a retreat to some sort of special constitutional matters select committee in order to take the issue off the agenda. 
This is not a Government that has a clear idea of where New Zealand should be heading. It is a Government that is massively overtaxing every worker in this country and Dr Cullen can say what he likes. In the last 5 years those guys have taken an extra $34 billion out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders and even Jim Anderton the great champion of the people knows that it is time to put something back. Alongside that there has been absolutely no significant movement in household income throughout that time. Labour members may sit in the House feeling secure at the moment but they should know that in suburban New Zealand their agenda is not going down well. Households are struggling in this country—everyone knows that. Everyone who has an electorate office—Mr Samuels in particular—knows that and furthermore it will not be long before many of Labour’s other deceptions are found out. 
I just think that we need to look at a few things that are happening in this country. We have no choice in schools—no choice in where we can send our kids. We have a Government that wants to tell us where we can do things when we can do them and how we can do them and we have a police force that is much more interested in focusing on minor crime than it is in solving some of the big issues that are out there. It does not matter how much Dr Cullen may like to attack the National Party; the reality is that Labour stands for very very little that ordinary New Zealanders identify with. If the Labour members think that one poll result will somehow be enough to put us off they are seriously wrong. I remind Mr Mallard that no one in the Labour Party was making bold claims for polling being so accurate in April of this year. 
We say that this country will soon wake up and realise that we have a Prime Minister who never faces up to the big issues and never wants to be around on a day when something is going to happen. Where was Helen Clark during the whole of the foreshore and seabed debate? She was off having shots taken in front of the TajMahal. Where is Helen Clark during the debate on the Civil Union Bill? She is nowhere to be seen. Where was Helen Clark during the speeding incident from Waimate to Christchurch? What were she and Jim Sutton doing in the back seat that did not let them understand that the car was going at such horrendous speed? How can a Prime Minister sit by and watch five policemen go before the courts for doing her business and a civilian driver be dragged before the courts to pay the same price? When she got out of the car and knew that she would be able to get to the rugby test I wonder whether she said to the driver: “Thanks very much.”? I bet she did! She was quite happy to have been driven at high speed and then to dump on those police officers. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 For those folks at home that was Mr Gerry Brownlee the Hardy of the Laurel and Hardy team that currently leads the National Party. Writing in that outstanding journal the  
New Zealand Herald  
John Armstrong recently said to the National Party: “Don’t panic yet—that is my advice.” I have some quite different advice for the National Party today and my advice is: panic now. My advice is to run screaming through the corridors. My advice is to start wearing a placard that states on both sides: “The end is nigh”. My advice is: panic now. What else is there for the National Party to do? 
Labour is now 50 percent in the polls and National is 30 percent in the polls. Helen Clark is 57 percent in the polls and Don Brash is 20 percent in the polls. Even if the party and Mr Brash are put together they still cannot add up to more than the Labour Party’s rating. Unemployment is 3.8 percent growth is over 4 percent we are in the top half of the OECD for the well-being of our people every single region is growing in this country and New Zealanders like living here. They like it. 
It is not just the achievements of New Zealanders that we ought to be proud of and note that they are the reason Labour is doing so well. The reason we are doing so well is that National is doing so little. Its leader especially is doing so little. He does little to lead but he does a lot of “er”. I have seen him do that part of the leadership role but he does not do much leading at all. The only bit of so-called leadership was the Orewa speech which was one of the most disgusting examples of trying to calculatedly divide New Zealanders over the race issue that this country has ever seen— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why have you changed policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —and I tell Nick Smith that New Zealanders have now rejected that thinking resoundingly. It did not pay off. People thought there was something going on but there were no policies to back it up and no arguments to follow through. Nothing happened after that calculated speech to divide New Zealanders against each other. 
So now what does he do? He goes to the provinces but no one is interested. He comes back here and no one is interested here either. So he disappears from one place to the other unable to foot it unseen and as a result he is plummeting in the polls. He himself said: “When my ratings drop I’ll go.” National members need to panic as they did when the once-great National Party put a person into leadership who had been in this House for only 16 months. They are now paying the price. They should panic over policy. 
We were promised policy and on this side of the House we kind of looked forward to it. People like Pete Hodgson eat policy for breakfast. We love policy. We want to have a debate. We like it. But what did we get? We got the promise of race economy welfare education tax and security but we do not have one single policy to argue with. In fact the National Party has become so desperate about policy that it has taken to announcing our policy. So now it has announced that its superannuation policy is our policy. What we can expect from now on from the National Party is that on the economy on welfare on security and on tax its members will just get up and resoundingly announce Labour policy. That will be the position they will take from now on. 
John Key 
: You’ll be waiting a long time. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Looking across the House I see John Key who is the great hope of the National Party. He is supposed to be delivering his tax package on how the National Party will have superannuation policies like ours and cut taxes. We cannot wait to hear what he has to say. 
National has become so desperate that Don Brash has shown how low he can go. Don Brash has demonstrated in relation to the Civil Union Bill that not only does he have no leadership and no policy but also that he has no principle. He had said that he wanted to vote for the Civil Union Bill on principle. The reason that he now will not vote for it is that he does not like the procedure by which the bill is being passed through the House. He is gone. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 In case anybody is wondering that speech was made by Steve Maharey who was enhancing his reputation for approaching every issue in this House with an open mouth rather than an open mind. 
For the last 4 weeks or so I have been touring the heartland of New Zealand in ACT’s bright yellow bus and I have been talking to the real New Zealanders who want to listen—but not to the claptrap we have just heard from that Minister. My journey has taken me all over this country where rural New Zealanders heartland New Zealanders and peri-urban New Zealanders want a party to stand up and fight for their property rights and goodness me they have that in the ACT party. 
The people of this nation are outraged at this Government’s proposal to steal their property rights. Their personal security will be gone biosecurity will be gone and property security will be gone when that legislation finally reaches the House. 
I tell the Government that the farming community property owners and the forestry community are not prepared to stand back and see their property rights taken by this Government. Even the mild-mannered people out in the provinces are now saying that there will be civil disobedience. They say they will not allow this to happen. These people simply want to retain their property rights. They want the right to say no to a busload of tourists or whoever it might be. They want the right to say: “No you cannot enter my property for these reasons.” The Government is hell-bent on taking that right away. 
I learnt one thing very quickly on that tour: this issue will be a major vote-loser for the Government. It is absolutely certain that David Parker for example who is the constituent member for Otago—not that anybody knows that—is toast. If the legislation is passed he will be toast. In Ashburton for example we hosted 80 people who turned up at short notice to voice their opposition to the legislation. Not one Government member would dare surface to attend those meetings to give the Government’s point of view although one of its lackeys did attend and told the meeting: “Well we are going to exclude Maori land from this land grab because we don’t want another Maori land war.” Eighty or 90 people heard that woman—Julia somebody or other—say that that was the case. 
In Blenheim 200 people lined up to hear what I had to say. I asked members of the public whether they would care to give us their views over the microphone on the yellow ACT bus. People lined up. There must have been a dozen of them and half of them were women. The legislation will impact on rural women more than anybody else. It was rather poignant to turn up to a meeting and see Mrs Agnes Nicholas sitting in the audience nodding her head in approval. She was nodding her head about the outrage coming from this Government. 
There was a nice little incident at the A and P show in Christchurch. This fellow said to me: “Gerry rural New Zealand now believes in the ABC of politics.” I said: “What on earth is that?”. He said: “Anybody but Clark.” That is the attitude in the provinces. We will get rid of her. We are delighted to support the people who believe that socialism has to go. 
In Taumarunui—a small town in the King Country—175 people turned out to hear what the ACT party had to say and they applauded us. Just a couple of days ago in Masterton 100 people turned up and they condemned the Government. Their representative the new candidate for the Wairarapa said that she did not believe in property rights. 
Let me tell the House what the Government is about to be called. During the war years there was a man called Quisling from Norway. He was regarded as a collaborator and a traitor. The people of rural New Zealand are calling Jim Sutton a quisling. They are telling me that he has collaborated with the Government and no longer stands up for the people he should be supporting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That word has been ruled out previously and the member should withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I was calling for order. The member will please withdraw and apologise. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I am merely repeating what rural heartland New Zealand has said. I did not refer to the Minister as a quisling; I am merely repeating what has been said out there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The fact is that it was said in the House and I on behalf of the House take objection. The member will please withdraw and apologise. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I mean no disrespect to you Mr Assistant Speaker nor the Chair but I cannot withdraw and apologise for speaking the truth in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes the member can. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I guess that is my choice and my choice is to say “No sir I cannot.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not a matter of whether it is the truth. It was clearly offensive in the House in the way that the member said it. That is the way I took it and that is why objection has been raised to it. I simply ask the member to withdraw and apologise please. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I regret Mr Assistant Speaker I cannot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has a number of seconds left but I am not willing to allow him to have them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This is a sad occasion. I will not comment further on the member but I think it is sad that he cannot find it in his heart to follow the Chair on the matter. 
I want to refer to the person whom I expected to be leading the National Party in this debate. That is Dr Don Brash. I am tempted to use the words of the senior Government whip and say: “Bring out your dead.” but I will not do that. I will use the words Dr Brash said only a month or so ago: “If I deliver I am secure; if I don’t deliver I’m history.” He is history. He said that when his ratings dropped he would go. I suggest for the sake of National Party that it is now time for Dr Brash to go. 
In fact the speculation around the country is now not “if” but “when” and “who”. I am tempted to agree with the sign that my colleague from New Zealand First has put up which states: “Bring back Bill”. That is one of the options for the National Party. I want to canvass a number of options because I am contemplating running a sweepstake with a couple of legs. The first leg would be to pick the leader and the deputy. The second would be to pick the timing of the National Party change. I think the timing is still likely to be September or October of 2005. There are odds of about 3:2 on that particular time but the odds are still 8:1 for this year and 4:1 that the National Party will get its act together before Parliament is fully going next year. 
But the most interesting thing in all of the debate around the gallery and around the caucuses is who it will be. I agree that one of the clear favourites is Bill English—“Bring back Bill”—and the sweepstake will have Mr English coupled with John Key as his deputy at 5:2. That is the equal-favourite combination—the other is Mr John Key with Mr Brownlee as his deputy which will also be at 5:2. While I appreciate Georgina te Heuheu’s suggestion that she might be included in the odds I think that might be stretching realism a bit. 
 I will say that the outside odds in my poll are a relatively unusual combination: Pansy Wong as leader and Winston Peters as deputy at 10000:1. I think we are relatively safe as far as that combination is concerned. I have speculated on the possibility that the National Party will forgive and that Winston Peters will forget and go back to be its leader. It would be a good thing for National although I have suggested that it is much more likely that it will reach out to the very experienced the very able rejected Mayor of Auckland John Banks in order to get him back into the House to provide some leadership. 
I have indicated that Bill English could be 3:1 when coupled with Gerry Brownlee. I think that going back to some brains and some brawn or some brains and activity and some brawn on the National Party leadership bench could be a good idea. I have suggested that Katherine Rich in fact could be at 3:1 the deputy for Bill English. I think the National Party is a liberal group and although it will be very hard for it to think of the idea of having two women within a decade even if not in the same millennium in a leadership role in its party it is not beyond the realms of possibility. I considered the possibility of putting Mr Prebble in there but he has assured me that he is not available for the role and I took him at his word. We contemplated Simon Power but he has floated out to 5:1. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Is that the best Labour could do—that little pathetic effort just now? It was not even funny. I want to know why we have not heard from any Maori members today. Why have we not heard from any Maori members today? Because the latest poll shows that they will be gone. Of the seven Labour Maori members the Television One 
 Marae 
-DigiPoll showed that five of them will be gone. Now I suspect that is why we are not hearing from the Maori members. We heard Dr Cullen gloating and Mr Maharey gloating. But of those Maori members the poll shows that Mr John Tamihere over there may be OK—that is providing the inquiries into what he has been up to are OK—and that Nanaia Mahuta may be OK but the rest of them are gone. 
Now what makes them more grumpy is that Helen’s favourite Shane Jones will be put higher on the list than those other Maori members so those other Maori members are very very grumpy. They are very grumpy because the poll shows that they will be gone. 
It is all very well to have members of this Labour Government today gloating over a good poll result; I accept that it was a good poll result for them. But it was not a good result for its Maori members of course. It was a good poll for the white members of the Labour Party today but not so good for the Maori members. What they should remember is this. Polls go up and polls can go down very fast. Remember one little word—Orewa. Orewa is in my electorate. I was there. I saw what happened and I saw this Labour Government not just flip-flop after Orewa but this Labour Government turned damn somersaults after Orewa. It turned somersaults. It thinks it has conned the public of New Zealand that it will no longer have racially biased legislation. It thinks it has convinced the public of that. Well the public is not stupid. With the foreshore and seabed legislation gone through and as we start to see the claims for iwi reserves or whatever they are going to be on the foreshore the people of New Zealand will see the con job that has been hatched on them. 
The people of New Zealand will get tired of this controlling Government not allowing parents to choose where their children go to school. They will get tired of this Government controlling how much money middle-income earners can earn. They will find that effective marginal tax rates on families and middle-income New Zealand are up around the 80 90 and 95 percent mark. This Government controls the amount of money that middle-income earners in New Zealand will get in their pockets. People will start to see that and get tired of it. They will get tired of this Government taking so much in taxes. 
People in rural New Zealand will get tired of the challenge to their property rights. It has just been revealed to me regarding the big controversy over access across rural land that where the Government has not been prepared to say exactly what the final policy will be it has come out of a meeting in Blenheim in the last couple of weeks that the Prime Minister’s office has been asking people from the Fish and Game Council—an agency funded by State regulation—to write letters to the Prime Minister supporting the outrageous land access issue the Government is pushing. It verges on being corrupt when a State-backed agency is encouraged by the Prime Minister’s office to write letters to the Prime Minister’s office to show huge support for the property rights issue across rural land. 
That will be made public. It was revealed at a public meeting in Blenheim. The Prime Minister is being asked to explain herself right now. That is the kind of thing that New Zealanders will finally grow tired of. They see that when the Labour Prime Minister is in trouble she will not even take accountability for herself. She let the police carry the can for her own speeding offences. That is the measure of our Prime Minister. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 There is a man who thinks that if one yells louder one is listened to more. That has never been the case with Lockwood Smith. He has never managed to attract a lot of support from this side of the House because he tends to get his facts wrong. 
Here are a few facts that he got wrong in the last 5 minutes. He said that all the Maori electorate members would lose their seats. That of course is a matter of opinion. I am a student of polls of Maori electorates and my opinion is that all current Maori electorate MPs will retain their seats. That is my view. Secondly the Fish and Game Council does not get any money from the Government and members should reflect on that. 
Let us talk not only about the member’s mistakes but about the member’s party. The member’s party is now undecided it is divided and it is derided. In fact the leader of the National Party used to be indecisive but now he is not so sure. That goes right across the party. Indecision is absolutely throughout the party. That is why it is derided. The U-turn on superannuation was surprise enough; the U-turn by the leader of the National Party on civil unions was remarkable indeed. This is a man who said a week ago that he would not cast his conscience vote on the basis of public popularity—that if his vote was unpopular he would cast it anyway. Within a week he turned and said he would not be supporting the civil union legislation because there was a bit of a problem in the National Party heartland. The National Party heartland is small enough as it is so one can assume that the leader was keen for it not to be any smaller. That is how he has deployed his conscience vote. I do not think that is a good look. There are a whole lot of words for it but I had better not dwell on them. 
The National Party used to be a little more sure about how it would roll out policy. It did the Orewa speech for brown people then it did the law and order speech for bad people. Then it was going to do the education speech for young people the health speech for sick people and the social welfare speech for poor people. It got the brown people done—it does not like them. It got the bad people done—it does not like them either. Then it stopped. It could have done the sick people whom it would like and the young people whom it would like and the poor people whom it would not like. It could have done that but it stopped. It did two out of five then stopped. Then the National Party said it would get started again then it changed its mind. Then the National Party said it would get started again then it changed its mind. Recently there were hints that it would get started again but it had better hurry up because it is 1 December already and people are getting ready for the beach. 
So why did National stop? What happened? What was the big strategic decision? It seems to me that the best answer is that Don Brash needed to keep his powder dry because if the powder got wet and he was still doing no good he was gone. 
John Key 
: Let’s talk about the energy crisis. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let us talk about energy. I ask whether the National Party has delivered an energy policy yet. In April this year Roger Sowry the National spokesperson on energy said it would have one this year and it is now 1 December. Where is it? It is 1 December this year and still there is no energy policy even though the National Opposition spokesperson on energy said in April that National would have an energy policy this year. Is that indecision or is National simply divided? Can it not make up its mind or is it divided? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr Key is getting distressed. He does not like being told the truth. I tell Mr Key that the long and the short of it is that I have just had a look at the options Trevor Mallard has put for the future leadership and deputy leadership of the National Party. Mr Key should not be so harsh on me. I have voted him as deputy leader to Gerry Brownlee. He should not yell at me because I might change my vote. I do not think that member should look a gift horse in the mouth. What is more that particular combination is paying 4:1. It looks quite popular. The member should reflect take a look at his future behaviour and make sure he does not yell too much. He might find himself in a leadership position. There will be a change soon. There has to be a change sometime. A person whose party now polls 30.8 percent him having said: “If I go down in the polls it is my fault.” cannot then say as quoted in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 
that it is just volatility. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The preceding speaker mentioned something about leadership. There is absolutely no doubt about the leadership coming from New Zealand First. It is consistent strong and effective. Currently we are seeing New Zealand First lead the issue on the Civil Union Bill. We are prepared to ensure that all New Zealanders have a say on the Civil Union Bill. We want a referendum on this issue. We are prepared to support a referendum. All 13 New Zealand First members support a referendum. Where is Labour on a referendum? It does not want the people to have a chance. Jill Pettis does not want the people to have a voice. No way does Labour want the people of New Zealand to express their views on the Civil Union Bill! 
Of course United Future gave the game away. When it signed the agreement with Labour it should have made it clear that the Civil Union Bill which was a Labour Party election manifesto promise was not to be included in this year’s legislation. However we will debate the Civil Union Bill later on because United Future has let it happen. 
On the question of leadership the Civil Union Bill is one issue today. The other issue of course is the debacle over Zaoui. Labour will be carrying the can for Zaoui. Two years ago it put that man in Mount Eden Prison. Two years ago it said that man was a danger to the country. We know that as long ago as 29 November 1997 CNN.com and ArabicNews.com reported: “Ahmed Zaoui a leader of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group which is largely blamed for massacres of civilians in Algeria has slipped into Switzerland and requested asylum.” 
That man is a known Armed Islamic Group (GIA) leader and terrorist but could the Labour Party Government run a case to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to have that guy declared not to be a refugee? No it could not. Its handling of the matter was appalling. Could the Labour Party Government win even any section of the court cases that have gone through the courts? No. It says that it has all this information. Helen Clark as Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service has said that she has all this information about Zaoui. Has she succeeded? No she has been an utter failure in so far as those cases are concerned. 
Yet in all that space of time Zaoui has accumulated $1.5 million in taxpayers’ expenses as he has sat in jail. If the Labour Party Government was any good at its job he would have been on the next plane by December 2002. Instead the Labour Party Government has let this person hang on in New Zealand interminably. 
We have an incompetent Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service but we have had an even more incompetent succession of Ministers of Immigration. They have allowed 966 refugee-status claimants to enter New Zealand despite the fact those people’s travel documents were false or had been lost or destroyed. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Since when! 
DAIL JONES 
: Since 1 January 2001 to 19 November 2004. The member interjecting was a Minister of Immigration. I received that information just in the last few days in answer to a written question. No wonder Lianne Dalziel is on the back benches and no wonder Paul Swain is going to join her shortly! 
It is no wonder Helen Clark is not in New Zealand to face the music. When the Supreme Court lets Zaoui out on bail he possibly will go to the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre where there are other Muslims—young Muslims. All they are looking for is a leader and Zaoui a GIA terrorist leader will be put in their midst. What an explosive mixture! It will be allowed by this Labour Government’s failure to represent New Zealand’s interests in any court even in the Court of Appeal but especially in the Supreme Court. 
Helen Clark is hoisting the white flag on this issue. We can all see it now. She is an incompetent Minister in charge of the SIS. New Zealand First has tried to give some leadership on this issue. We have said to her that there is a deficiency in the Immigration Act and that we are prepared to support the Government under urgency to amend it immediately. But the Labour Party Government is not going to amend the law now; it will do so after the bird has flown. Then it will amend the Immigration Act. What is the point of that? The Government should take the opportunity to change the law while we still have the bird in the hand while the horse is still in the stable. Once it has bolted—once Zaoui is free—the Labour Party Government will change the law. What a ridiculous means of running this country! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was this member a lawyer? 
DAIL JONES 
: I was a lawyer but that member was never a teacher—that is for sure! I ask whether the Government will supply the classified information to the Supreme Court. Will it find out what has happened to the 500 missing refugees whose documents were lost? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Mr Speaker we have just heard from the party that leads the Opposition in this House and as you would say: “It’s a bit of a worry really isn’t it?”. 
I think it is important to concentrate on what has been happening through the past year. After all we are getting to that time of the year where it is probably sensible to take a review of our performance. I know that certainly the Government is doing that and has been reviewing it and in our excellent conference we gave to the country an accounting of our performance and we also set out how we are going to lead it in the future. 
I know of course that National must also be doing some accounting of its performance. Certainly it is obvious from not only the latest poll but now a series of polls—and all serious politicians know that one does not take notice of a single poll; we certainly do not and we are serious politicians—that a certain trend is developing. The trend has obviously been that the people of New Zealand have made their judgment for this year certainly on the National Party. 
They have also made their judgment on its leader and the decision that has been made on the National Party comes as no surprise when one reflects upon the leadership of that party. Apart from the fact that some people still do not quite know who the leader of the National Party is because there have been so many changes those who have focused on it have been I think assessing what in fact is required to lead a political party. I say to Dr Brash that I am afraid that his end-of-year performance is wanting. I know he would take these matters seriously being a man of the past and in particular one who enjoyed the economics and the management performance regimes of the 1980s and 1990s. He will be taking a good honest hard look at his own performance as I am sure the party of which he is leader is also doing. 
In terms of that reflection I think it comes down to an understanding of what political leadership is really all about. The fact remains and it is sad to say it that Dr Brash simply has not got it. He has not got it on many many counts but one of the most important counts is that he lacks courage. He lacks the capacity to make the hard decisions. He lacks the capacity to front both his own colleagues and the people of New Zealand. 
It is seen in this House by the fact that his appearances here are so rare that on occasions one is not sure who the leader is. We know that he is out there in the electorate meeting the declining number of members of the National Party. He is not meeting the real people of New Zealand. They have made their choice. They have made their views known on the type of leadership style that Dr Brash is showing in the series of polls that we are going out on this year. 
The other thing that is apparent to some of us who observe politics both from within the House and outside is that Dr Brash was ill-prepared for leadership. He came in thinking it was like running a company. He did not seem to understand that in politics a leader has to engage with people particularly one’s colleagues on a one-to-one basis. A leader has to find time for them; one has to be able to conduct one’s caucus in a way that shows respect for the diversity amongst one’s own members while showing leadership and unity as to how to bring them together to act as a team. Anyone who observes what happens in this House on a day-to-day basis knows that there is disunity on the other side. There is no focus there is no energy and there is no strategy. The tactics are abysmal. I know that it is not the job of the Government to give an assessment and a report on how to improve his leadership rating in the polls but the state of democracy is such at the moment that I feel obliged to make at least a few observations as to what is happening in that direction. 
Leadership does not come only from the way that one interacts with people with one’s own colleagues but also people in the electorate—one does not talk down to them; one listens and uses language that people can understand; one relates to the issues that are real to the people not those highfalutin boardroom-type issues that seem important if one is the Governor of the Reserve Bank but are not so important if one aspires to be a serious leader of a political party. A person shows leadership not only through style but through substance. That comes through giving leadership on policy. There are no policies from the National Party and there are no policies that are relevant to the times at the moment because Dr Brash leads a party back to the future so to speak. He has all his experience centred on the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. Anyone who observes what is happening in this country today knows we have to look to the future. If in fact we look back if we go back to the Stone Age which is where he wants to lead us then we are doomed and the people of New Zealand know that. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 What has happened to Helen Clark? Where is that fiercely principled human rights campaigner we used to know and love? Why has she turned into a free-trade zealot? Time and again a cynical public tells me that once politicians get their hands on power they sacrifice their principles. I always refute that claim but our Prime Minister’s behaviour in recent times makes me a liar. Yesterday’s events at the ASEAN summit marked the low point. On the same day that Myanmar’s military regime locked up pro-democracy leader Aung San SuuKyi for another 12 months Helen Clark said that Myanmar’s human rights abuses should not get in the way of free-trade negotiations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member has been sitting next to Jeanette Fitzsimons too long. 
ROD DONALD 
: That I say to Mr Mallard is a far cry from the Helen Clark of old. Back in 1994 when she was the newly elected leader of the Labour Party Helen Clark delivered an excellent speech on human rights and foreign policy to the Auckland University Centre for Peace Studies. In it she said: “The maltreatment of citizens of other nations because they hold differing views from those of governing elites is obnoxious to us. Torture and other forms of physical and mental abuse are anathema to us. Most of us expect our Governments to represent our views on violations of human rights wherever they occur and to support appropriate international actions against the abusers.” She went on to say: “The collapse of apartheid did not occur by the 1990s without significant international pressure. In the 1980s in particular that pressure built within the Commonwealth and the United Nations leading to effective sanctions. The systematic violation of human rights in South Africa was eventually taken very seriously by the international community but it took many years for a combination of economic and other sanctions and diplomatic pressure to bear fruit.” Was she right then? Yes she was. Is she right now? No she is not. 
 I am sure that Helen Clark still holds by another excellent statement she made in that speech: “Respect for human rights is a widely shared value irrespective of culture. The fact that it is not shared by authoritarian regimes and elites which sustain them whether they be for example nominally communist fundamentalist Islamic or just plain autocratic does not detract from that. I cannot believe that it is only those with so-called Western values who find repugnant the lashing of a teenager with a rattan cane in Singapore or the years of house arrest of Aung San SuuKyi in Burma. Inhumanity including cruelty and unusual punishment is something which must always be opposed.” To her credit Helen Clark has continued to criticise the detention of Aung San SuuKyi but what impact will her diplomatic hand-wringing have when in the next breath she committed New Zealand to negotiating a trade deal with Myanmar’s oppressive military regime? Helen Clark should reflect on her own words to the 1998 Labour Party conference when she said of Jenny Shipley: “Like Sir Robert Muldoon before her she prefers to build links to oppression while democratic voices are silenced in jail.” 
The Green Party’s concerns about the ASEAN Thai and Chinese preferential trade deals go beyond fundamental human rights being sacrificed for free trade. We are concerned about the New Zealand manufacturing businesses that will go to the wall if they are forced to face unfair competition as a result of tariff cuts. We are concerned about the thousands of Kiwi jobs that will be sacrificed on the altar of free trade. I am not talking just about the end of the textile clothing and footwear sector—as important as that is. I am also talking about the likes of Fisher and Paykel—one of the elaborately transformed manufacturing businesses the Government champions at the forefront of its strategy. 
If Labour removes the last 7 percent tariff on whiteware and New Zealand is flooded with cheap-labour fridges stoves and washing machines from Asia we can kiss goodbye to one of New Zealand’s top manufacturers. Fisher and Paykel is not inefficient it is not bloated by tariff protection but it simply will not be able to compete against multinational corporations that pay Third World workers less than the cost of living and make them work in unsafe conditions. It cannot compete against regimes that tolerate slave labour or forced child labour. I ask Helen Clark to please reread her old speeches before she trades away her principles. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I like other members have become accustomed to the Leader of the Opposition flip-flopping on major policy issues but I want to welcome the flip-flop that he has made on superannuation because superannuation is so vital to New Zealand’s future. However to hear a National leader say that superannuation ought not to be a political football caught in my throat when I thought back to 1975 and the biggest electoral bribe this country has ever seen and also to the surtax—“no ifs no buts no maybes”; the surtax would go. But never mind we can be generous because the flip-flop is in New Zealand’s interests. 
To read in the paper this morning that a conservative backlash against the Civil Union Bill has forced a change of heart from National leader Don Brash in that he will now vote against it flies in the face of reason. It was only a week ago that he told Radio Rhema listeners that his conscience was not for sale and I quote: “I’m not willing to prostitute my conscience for any vote and if that means voting for something which is unpopular or against something which is popular then so be it. You can’t expect me—and I’m sure you wouldn’t because you’re a person of principle yourself—to vote for something I disagree with just because it would win me votes.” 
So what changed things? Why was there a flip-flop of conscience? I think he indicated why in a comment he made in October when he said: “If I deliver I’m secure; if I don’t deliver I’m history.” Coupled with this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
DigiPoll—50.1 percent Labour; 30.4 percent National—that is what this is all about. It is about polls and nothing more. 
Dr Brash also said that his change of heart was about process but Radio Rhema asked him whether he would oppose the bill simply because of the process. He did say he might and he does have a habit of doing that. Yet he ended his quote by saying: “But I don’t want to be in a situation of opposing something just because that might win me votes.” The only reason Dr Brash is changing his vote is that his political strategists— 
Darren Hughes 
: McCully’s way. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes they would call it “McCully’s Way” if they were writing a film about it. His strategist told him to do that and all Dr Brash has done is undermine the one trait that one would expect from somebody whose signature appears on our bank notes. 
The embarrassment is his because to vote against something he believes in in good conscience is something that will weigh on his conscience for the rest of his life. His own father was so concerned about the vilification of gays and lesbians by those who took a literal view of the Bible that he wrote a book as a church minister to help the parents of gay and lesbian sons and daughters be clear that the Bible did not vilify their children. If Dr Brash’s own father could bring that to the attention of church people—and I respected his father; I was there at the launch of his book and that meant so much to gays and lesbians in churches throughout the country—then to see Dr Brash change his vote for political reasons is absolutely the worst example of political expediency I have seen in my time in Parliament. 
The vast majority of New Zealanders will be appalled at the orchestrated campaign by the Destiny Church which did not even make a submission to the select committee and by the Maxim Institute. It shows that all we need to change the National leader’s policy is to have that orchestrated campaign of submissions and emails. 
I know that if Don Brash had been Prime Minister last year New Zealand would have sent combat troops to Iraq as part of the invasion orchestrated by the United States of America—there is not one single member of the National Party who can deny that that would have been the case—New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation would be gone the benefit cuts of 1991 would look benign and there would be no return to the Employment Contracts Act because National would scrap labour laws and leave it to the market. Privatisation of public health education accident compensation and housing would all be back on track. Don Brash’s unwavering commitment to a failed ideology is understandable; his giving up on his principles is not. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The public service of this country has a high reputation for integrity and honesty in its dealings with Governments of the day and with the public it serves. It therefore gives me no satisfaction to inform members of this House that a department under the stewardship of the Minister of Labour is placing this reputation at risk. 
During the past 2 months I have questioned the Minister about the activities of a private company Twywell Technology Ltd that is involved in the management of the department’s information technology requirements. Those questions have provoked a flood of deeply disturbing information from within the public service. My informants reflect two common elements—one is fear and the other is grave concern for the reputation of the department and its administrative practices. There is a fear of disclosure of identity intimidation unprofessional behaviour and retaliation damaging to their reputations their jobs and their ability to work in future with the department and other State sector agencies. They are concerned brave people. Even more disturbingly those informants assert that answers provided by the Minister to the questions I have asked of him have been misleading that they fall short of portraying the full picture of the relationships that have developed between Twywell Technology Ltd and officials of the department over the past 7 years. 
Members should be aware that the activities of Twywell Technology Ltd and its owner and director Maxine Margaret Welsh within this department do not involve small amounts of money. According to the Minister since 1997 the department has paid this company some $8.4 million—an average in excess of $1.2 million a year. Its staff numbers appear to vary between two and seven at any one time. During this period Twywell Technology Ltd has according to the Minister provided management and facility services and carried out numerous specific project management roles. The more projects it recommends and has accepted as necessary the more work it generates for itself across all these areas. 
 It holds therefore a powerful position requiring the utmost integrity. But the activities carried out by Twywell as described by the Minister demonstrate the existence of conflicts of interest that are difficult to resolve in view of the status of Twywell as a contractor to the department. 
It is not surprising in view of the list of activities the company is said by the Minister to carry out that there are claims it has cost the department on occasions more to have Twywell involved in a project than the cost of the services or products provided by contracted vendors. Members should also know that the director of Twywell Technology Ltd was involved in establishing nominee companies—so that the beneficial ownership of such companies was hidden—to carry out work for the department. The work undertaken in one case and set up for undertaking in another case according to the answers from the Minister involved Twywell in setting specifications assessing the validity of a tender process and managing the projects. So it was that the sole director of Twywell set up a company called Da Vinci Integration. In December 2001 Da Vinci Integration was a “request for proposals” recipient. Who was to evaluate those requests? It was none other than Twywell—a gross conflict of interest and breach of faith. So it was also that Knight Technology International Ltd another nominee Twywell company provided services to the department from April 2002 to June 2002. 
The department through the Minister has said it is not aware of reputable information technology companies taking steps to withdraw their services or refusing to become involved with the department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The time for the debate has concluded— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is very unusual but I noted that the member had not quite finished his speech which I think was a relatively important one. If he had only a minute or two to go the Government would not oppose his seeking leave to finish that minute or two. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. The member can finish his speech. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I was saying that the department through the Minister has said it is not aware of reputable information technology companies taking steps to withdraw their services or refusing to become involved with the department because of the activities of Twywell. I am advised of a number that withdrew their services and will have nothing to do with the department because of dissatisfaction with Twywell. 
Questions relate to the relationship between Twywell and providers of products and services over finders’ fees the handling of invoices and the extent to which the department paid the true costs of contracted work. I referred earlier to fear and intimidation. Members might like to know what those with a close knowledge of Twywell’s activities within the department have to say. They refer to greedy and unethical behaviour unprofessional behaviour while representing the department unprofessional relationships with senior members of the department and verbal abuse of suppliers and staff that becomes intimidatory. 
It is an ugly picture consistent with fraud and corruption. There is an urgent need for investigation of these issues and I suggest two courses of action. The first is an immediate inquiry by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Such an inquiry should show whether an examination of the situation by the Serious Fraud Office is appropriate. The second is an immediate investigation by the Audit Office. I am grateful to the House for giving me leave to complete those comments. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 259 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Electricity Act 1992 
. Standing Order 259 relates to omnibus bills and requires that except as otherwise permitted by the Standing Orders a bill must relate to one subject area only. I propose that the Standing Orders be set aside on this occasion so that the bill may be introduced as an omnibus bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to improve the Resource Management Act and to make two amendments to the Electricity Act. Changes to both Acts relate to decision-making processes for infrastructure and it makes sense to consider them together. There are no other obvious upcoming legislative vehicles for amendments to the Electricity Act and this is the most rational path to follow. 
The changes to the Resource Management Act focus on improving the quality of decisions and processes by increasing certainty and by reducing delays costs and the incorrect use of process whilst ensuring appropriate public participation and meeting environmental objectives. The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act will simplify the decision-making process for electricity operators wanting to work on high-capacity electricity lines as the process will no longer be different from that for lower-voltage lines. The amendments mean that a road-controlling authority must allow high-capacity electricity lines—that is those greater than 110 kilovolts or 100 megavolt amperes—to cross roads or level crossings subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by the road-controlling authority. Currently the Electricity Act allows such access rights only to works operating at a voltage below 110 kilovolts and a capacity below 100 megavolt amperes. Associated statutory appeal rights and time frames apply. The amendments as drafted would not allow transmission operators to put pylons in the road corridor. That would still need to be directly negotiated with the road-controlling authorities. 
The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act together with amendments to the Resource Management Act will clarify that the environmental effects of high-voltage electricity works are better managed under the Resource Management Act than by road or rail-controlling authorities negotiating duplicate conditions with electricity operators under the Electricity Act. This approach is entirely consistent with the goals of the review of the Resource Management Act which are to reduce delay eliminate unnecessary costs and ensure full opportunities for participation by affected parties. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This is a case of the Government again cheating on process to try to advance its particular programme. It is a sign of arrogance from this Government that it is prepared to override the Standing Orders of this Parliament to advance these particular law reforms. 
What happened was that the Business Committee rejected there being an omnibus bill. Rather than accepting the decision of that committee the arrogant Mr David Benson-Pope has rolled into this House with a motion that says: “Let’s throw out the rules; let’s suspend the Standing Orders.” because this Government is not prepared to follow the rules of this House. Standing Order 259 which this Government wants to breach is very simple. It states that a bill must relate to only one subject area. Now if what the Minister said was correct and this is all just a matter of simplifying resource management procedures then he would be allowed to do it. But because the bill breaches the Standing Orders he has to bring this motion to say that we are going to break those rules. National is very clear: we should simply follow the rules of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] That is what we are saying I tell Mr Mallard who is not a member known for being particularly interested in doing that. 
Let us review this Government’s history in respect of the Resource Management Act—because it is a shonky history. Let us firstly look back to 1999 when National introduced a substantive reform bill—a reform bill that said there were very real problems with the Resource Management Act that needed to be addressed. But this Government said that it was going to throw that bill out because as Marian Hobbs said the Resource Management Act was “beautifully crafted and beautifully written” and not in need of reform. [ 
Interruption 
] I will remind Mr Benson-Pope of what occurred last year. Not only did the Government introduce a resource management bill but it bypassed having any public submissions on that bill at all. It fast tracked that bill through the legislative process. 
What was particularly arrogant of the Government was that not only did it bypass any submission process in going through the amendments to that particular bill but it rushed it through under urgency. At the end of the process Marian Hobbs—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister does not want to debate the issue does he. I am not surprised that he does not want to debate the Resource Management Act because on that bill his Government has a shocking record. Mr David Benson-Pope said that the resource management bill would be introduced in September but I have checked my calendar and I tell the member that the date is 1 December. I say to him that this Government simply cannot sort out its policy. Why is it that because the Government cannot sort out its policy we now have to fast track and break the rules of this House? 
Then we have the barraging member from Labour Mr Trevor Mallard who along with the Government wants to break the Standing Orders of this House in terms of this bill. Last year Marian Hobbs as Minister for the Environment said after the passage of the last resource management bill that it was now all OK. Yet within 6 months we have a new Minister rolled into the role and promising another reform bill and another lot of change. It is very interesting. 
Yesterday I attended a nationwide forum on the Resource Management Act. The Government’s very good friend Mr Dick Hubbard was one of the guest speakers. Mr Hubbard said that Mr Benson-Pope’s package of reforms for the Resource Management Act does not go nearly far enough to allow Auckland to deal with its substantive infrastructure issues. That is what the Government’s friends say about David Benson-Pope’s failed package of reforms that was due in September. We still do not know what they are. Now we are passing a motion in this House to breach the Standing Orders. 
We have to ask why the Government wants to change the rules to suit itself. One reason may be that normally all the electricity regulations go to the Commerce Committee but by packaging these two bills together the Government has been able to avoid that process and just hide these electricity provisions in its resource management bill. It is simply short-changing Parliament of its proper process of debate and scrutiny of the Government’s latest round of changes. 
National is not necessarily opposed to the changes—we do not know what they are. The Minister has not even given Opposition members the dignity of seeing the bills that the Minister wants to bring together. He will not even do that. I do not know whether he has provided other parties with them because there is a mates’ rates game played in this House but we have not even seen the amendments that the Minister wants to include. So we cannot honestly say whether we support or oppose those amendments. But we do say that we should not be fast tracking the process by which those changes are being made. 
The further point I would make based on the comments that the Minister has made is this: if there is a problem in respect of the major electricity lines—because we are assured that this legislation is only about those lines that are over 110 kilovolts—and it is only in respect of roads then this is an issue only between public authorities. Where has the Minister made any case for urgency? [ 
Interruption 
] Can Mr Trevor Mallard explain to the House why we need some special process and to bypass the Standing Orders about this issue? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should sit down and yield. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would be pleased if Mr Mallard would take the next call and explain this because there was absolutely nothing in the speech from the Minister that justified breaching the Standing Orders. If the Government had a competent Minister of Energy and there was a problem for Transpower in getting consents for new lines and it was only an issue between Transpower and Transit then because he is the Minister of Electricity and also the Minister responsible for transport surely those issues can be resolved without abusing the process of this Parliament. 
National’s position is very clear in respect of the Resource Management Act. I heard Labour members ranting on earlier and asking where National’s policy was. We have had three very specific statements of policy about the Resource Management Act. There have been so many flip-flops from the Government in respect of the Resource Management Act that it is remarkable. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s your Act for God’s sake. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr David Benson-Pope’s latest burst of energy his sudden tweak in the cheek has led him to say that somehow it is National’s fault because the Resource Management Act was passed by us in 1991. That member forgets that in 1999 his Government rejected the substantive amendments that were introduced by National and that would have resolved many of these issues which nearly 6 years after the Labour Government was elected are still outstanding. Labour does not know how to fix the Resource Management Act. The only way that New Zealand will see addressed the substantive and important issues with electricity the issues with roading and the issues with added-values industry within the Resource Management Act is through a change of Government. 
For 5 years Labour has failed to make the reforms that are required. Even Dick Hubbard one of the best friends of the Prime Minister is saying that the Government is incapable of delivering in this area and no amount of fast tracking the process or cheating on the Standing Orders will do in terms of that process of reform. Again I tell the Minister to follow the rules. He does not need to cheat to be able to make substantive changes to the Resource Management Act. It is not Parliament’s problem that he is 4 months late in his programme of reform. Parliament deserves better. This is just another step by an arrogant Government that is treating this Parliament with disrespect. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My contribution will not take terribly long. I will make it quite clear that when I came into Parliament I made a personal commitment to do my best for the people of this country. I know that that is a commitment my colleagues share. I know we have not always got it right but we have always tried our best. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve failed. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to say to the honourable member who spoke before me Nick Smith that that commitment takes priority over the Standing Orders in our view. I had never heard of the Standing Orders when I came here in this context. If this bill will do something for the people of this country or for this country as a whole then I say that that is the priority. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Has the member seen the bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: No I have not seen the bill but I have seen some notes on the bill and I believe it can take a positive line. I will see the bill in due course. I gather from the Hon Nick Smith—and probably from Ken Shirley—that he has seen nothing. I have a one-page summary that gives us the impression that this legislation might be some improvement in the situation. 
The Minister has said that he wants to improve the Resource Management Act—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member wants to have a look he should come and join New Zealand First. He is on a sinking ship so he should come and join New Zealand First—actually I might be in trouble with my leader now for saying that. I hope my colleagues do not report me. 
I want to stress to this Government that the Resource Management Act needs to be looked at issues need to be addressed and the process needs to be transparent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Of course it does. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says “Of course it does” yet he is denying an opportunity at least to look at it in part. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am saying: “Follow the rules!”. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to the honourable member: do something for your country. Do something for the people out there who want something done. They do not understand with all due respect your standing here and saying that the rules of this House take priority over everything. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: Not you Mr Speaker. I was referring to the honourable member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not very honourable. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not getting into that! I want to remind the Government that the Resource Management Act needs to be looked at objectively and transparently. 
I also say to the Government that when it comes to electricity there are three issues it has to address—and it has not thus far. The first is security of supply and the Government has gone some way to addressing that. The second—and Mr Shirley might like to take note of this because I know he is a free marketeer—is that New Zealanders on the whole want stable prices at a reasonable and fair level. That is what they want. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s what they deserve. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is exactly what they deserve but I have to say to that member that the ACT philosophy will not deliver that. The third in terms of electricity is that this country needs more investment and encouragement for more investment. 
I have not seen the bill—I confess before the honourable member starts with me—but the notes that I have seen on what this bill may or may not contain lead me to believe that it is a move albeit a small move in the right direction. So New Zealand First will support this motion for the good of the country—and to hell with the Standing Order! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I believe that the Hon Nick Smith has summarised the situation: it is an arrogant disregard of due process in this Parliament. Quite frankly I cannot think of a precedent in my time in Parliament for the Government having to introduce a bill as a notice of motion. This is an omnibus bill and irrespective of its content from what I understand of it I believe the ACT party would have supported it. I believe from what I have seen—which is very limited and I will come to that—that the bill is probably very important for the country and I am sure the whole Parliament would have supported it. 
The matter did go to the Business Committee—I sit on the Business Committee—and that committee said properly: “If this is what you want to achieve let’s see your proposal.” But the Government had no proposal. It just said it wanted to do this that and the other and wanted to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act. We said: “If it’s so important let us see the bill—it is quite a short bill.” There was no bill. So the Business Committee properly said: “No bill; no approval.” That is the way this place should work. We are not going to write a blank cheque for the Government to slip something in without our knowing what it is. 
So the Government went away having being denied at the Business Committee and has now brought this motion to the House. I saw it on the Order Paper first thing this morning. I immediately rang Minister Benson-Pope’s office and said: “You’re looking for our support for your notice of motion so that you can introduce the bill because it’s an omnibus bill. Let’s have a look at the bill. If it’s what you say and looks reasonable we’ll support it.” Then we probably would not even have needed this debate. 
But the Minister’s office said no the bill was not drafted yet. That was at 9 o’clock this morning and the bill was not drafted. They are out in the back rooms now cobbling something together. The bill is not on the Table. Parliament is being asked to address something—effectively to write a blank cheque for the Government—and the Government has not even had the courtesy to show Parliament the bill and to consult with Opposition parties as to its detailed contents. 
I had a very helpful discussion with one of the people in Mr Benson-Pope’s office and I made some notes. I have no doubt that the one-page sheet Mr Brown referred to is actually a result of my telephone call this morning. The Government still had not prepared the bill but it thought it would give us this one page of notes—which of course is not a bill. I have been in Nelson and have just got back. I missed question time as members might have noticed and I picked up this one sheet just when I got back. I am horrified—and Mr Speaker you should be horrified too quite frankly—that a Government should abuse the processes of Parliament in this way. 
As I understand the issue it is about access for power lines of more than 100 megavolt amperes and more than 110 kilovolts—that means all the arterial routes in essence. We know that the infrastructure of our country’s transmission system is in a very parlous state indeed. Much of our vulnerability in relation to electricity security rests with the inadequacy of our transmission system. For 10 years investment in this country’s transmission network has been neglected. We have a very serious tight constraint between Whakamaru and Auckland in the northern half of the North Island and we know about the publicity surrounding the north of Christchurch situation in the South Island. We are very vulnerable. 
The Public Works Act provides for works on private land. That Act can be invoked to put major public utilities like power transmission across private land—with compensation I might add and so there should be. But what we are talking about here is crossing roadways and railway crossings. There is a procedure to do that with minor power lines—that is those of less than 100 megavolt amperes and 110 kilovolts. They can cross roads and there is a process for negotiation with the road utility that involves appeal rights and appropriate compensation. 
But there is in essence a vacuum of procedure for arterial routes above 100 kilovolts and the proposal is to provide a process so that we do not have just an impasse. As it stands now there are time constraints on those negotiations. Time constraints are needed. Parties will come to a joint agreement only if there is a time constraint; otherwise one party will just wait the other party out. The legislation is to bring about a common process for the major arterial networks so that there is a process with a time constraint rights of compensation and so on. 
On face value the ACT party would be likely to support that but we cannot support this motion. This is a terrible way of proceeding with legislation and it is really just a reflection of the arrogance this Labour Party has adopted. I think we have seen a pattern of second-term Governments developing terrible arrogance and we are seeing more and more of it from this Labour-Progressive alliance or whatever it is these days. The Government’s second-term gross arrogance is epitomised by its gall in coming to Parliament and saying that it is going to use the tyranny of its majority—obviously with the support of one of its doormats be it New Zealand First or United Future—to have the numbers to override the Standing Orders over a matter I sense the House would actually have supported if the Government had followed due process. I have no doubt in my mind that if the merit of the Government’s argument is such— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That member stopped it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Where is the bill Minister? Minister Benson-Pope is chirping away. Where is the bill? Here you are breaching the Standing Orders and flaunting your breach of the Standing Orders. All you had to do was come to Parliament with a bill—and you have not done that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please don’t bring the Speaker into it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: All Mr Benson-Pope had to do was come to Parliament with his bill but he has not done that. It is a constitutional outrage and I fear that if we let the Government get away with it in this instance it will become a routine pattern of behaviour. I have no doubt about that. It is unnecessary—it is procedurally unnecessary. There are better and more appropriate ways within the Standing Orders by which the Government could have brought this legislation to the House. 
I reiterate that I suspect we would not have opposed it. We probably would have supported it once we saw the detail—because with all legislation the devil is in the detail. 
There are some real issues with transmission lines because most of our power lines were put in during the days of publicly owned utilities and locally owned power boards. Often they were put in over private land on a grace and favour basis because a valley of farmers for example wanted the electricity on. Now that those companies are privatised we have some serious property rights issues. I want to see the detail of how property rights are protected by the bill—the bill we do not have. 
That is the point. Parliament is debating something and we do not know what it is. Therefore the ACT party will certainly oppose this motion although in essence we may well have supported the substance of the Government’s intention. 
I say in conclusion that we do not want to see this behaviour repeated. It is an outrage that the motion is on the Order Paper today. I know that Minister Benson-Pope is new to Parliament. He has been elevated through the ranks perhaps too quickly has not learnt parliamentary procedures and is struggling in his jobs. We do not like this arrogance and we will be voting against it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Parliament this afternoon is being asked to suspend the Standing Orders in order to smooth the path of New Zealand’s next “think big” project and it will not surprise anybody that the Greens will not vote for that. This may look like a rather small amendment to the Electricity Act to allow big power lines to cross roads but it is part of a much bigger suite of measures—some of which we understand will be revealed tomorrow when the Resource Management Act amendment is tabled in the House—to facilitate a totally unnecessary totally unsustainable and totally unjust 400 kilovolt ampere transmission line imposed on the whole length of the country and on the people who live underneath it. 
It is totally unnecessary because there are many other ways of making sure that the lights stay on in Auckland—and I will go into those later. It is totally unjust because it will interfere with the quality of life the health and the property values of many people on the route. It is totally unsustainable because if this line is built it will undermine everything this Government has been trying to do in sustainable energy in terms of energy efficiency distributed generation renewables and a sustainable future. 
So let us look first of all at what it is. This 400 kilovolt ampere line will be far bigger than any transmission line we currently have in the country. The towers are planned to be 70 metres high; that is three times higher than the largest we have anywhere and is more than 20 storeys high. The initial stage of it is just the 200 kilometres from Whakamaru to Auckland but the long-term plan is for it to traverse the whole of the country. That 200 kilometres affects 1400 people who live underneath that line. The lines will go directly over people’s houses. The towers will stand in their gardens and on their farms. The electromagnetic field caused by that very much more powerful line will create a much greater health risk. Science is still divided about the health risks from electromagnetic fields but quite a number of countries require there to be a 100 metre - wide strip underneath high-tension power lines where there are no houses because there is quite a lot of evidence accumulating about increased risk of cancer and particularly things like leukaemia for people who live near them. We ought to take a precautionary approach until more of that science is known. 
This little amendment will actually prevent the councils that control those roads from protecting the health of their communities by asking for additional protections to what currently exists and what they can do for the 110 kilovolt ampere lines. Well people are getting organised and the Government and Transpower will find that it will not be an easy line to drive through the Waikato and south Auckland. It goes through some rather well-heeled and well-organised sections of the community who are already getting organised. 
OK but do we have to do this just to keep the lights on in Auckland? Auckland is short of power we all know so do we have to sacrifice 1400 people in order to make sure that Auckland gets its electricity? Well the news I have today is that this power line does not produce a single kilowatt of electricity. It is just a pipe along which we send things. So that line will not do anything for Auckland until somebody builds large generating stations away to the south and then loses a lot of that power in transferring it along lines on the way to Auckland. 
This is yesterday’s technology. This will keep us in the 1950s. The new technology where energy systems are moving worldwide is towards small power stations built close to demand distributed generation energy efficiency load shifting and load management. Those are the ways of the future. That is Government policy under its sustainable energy policy and it is turning its back on it with this crazy project. So it will take half a billion dollars just for that 200 kilometres which will have no effect until somebody builds massive new coal-fired power stations on the South Island lignite fields and then sends that electricity along the wires. 
What alternatives are there? The first thing to note is that the power lines we have now are inadequate only at peak hour—that is between 4 and 7 on a winter afternoon. So all we have to do is find some alternatives that deal with power between 4 and 7 on a winter afternoon in Auckland and the existing lines will do for quite a lot longer. They can also be upgraded themselves to carry a higher capacity than they have without having to build that new monstrosity. 
So what could we do to deal with the peak? There are a number of smaller generation options that could be built close to Auckland. There are some good wind sites there and to cope with the variability of wind there could be diesel sets in Auckland that come on only during the top of the peak when the wind is not blowing. So there could be a complementarity there with just occasional back-up from a diesel set and a wind farm for the rest of the time. There are a number of other options for generation that we could build around Auckland. 
Let us look at the supply side of things. What is it that people are doing between 4 and 7 on winter afternoons? They are cooking their dinner and turning on their heating. We can do both of those things perfectly well with gas. Gas is used far more efficiently directly than it is through power stations so if we shifted some of the load of households for cooking and space heating on to gas in Auckland we could lop that electricity load in the winter afternoons. There are a lot of things that we can do to shift industrial load off-peak by giving people tariff incentives to have their peak demand at a time when the lines do have capacity rather than at a time when they do not. Then there is the whole demand side of energy efficiency. A complete lighting retrofit up to cost-effective levels of efficiency right through Auckland would make those lines unnecessary for a long time. Anything that we can do to improve the efficiency of our lighting and heating in Auckland and Northland will create more capacity on the lines. 
So here we are. The Government has an energy efficiency and conservation strategy that requires us to improve our efficiency by 2 percent each year. That target it seems is not being met. The Government has a target for new renewables which tend to come in small packages spread around the country. It has a target to meet our Kyoto objective and therefore to use all our energy more efficiently. But what is it planning to do? It is planning to panic about the electricity situation in Auckland. It wants to go back to the old technology of the 1950s to impose those gigantic monstrosities on the landscape the environment the health the homes and the properties of 1400 people between Whakamaru and Auckland and in doing so to completely undermine its whole strategy of taking us into a new era of energy where it is used more efficiently where it comes from renewables and where we have enough. The Green Party will not support this. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Having listened to the last three speeches which were somewhat long I struggled to find the connection between a lot of what was said and the motion before the House which is simply that Standing Order 259 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act. 
I want to speak briefly to the motion rather than about all the rather extraneous matters that members have just heard previous speakers mention. The first thing I want to say is we are looking to amend the Electricity Act in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Electricity Act currently provides that road-controlling authorities have to be involved in granting permits conditions and so forth when electricity-generating lines cross over roads or level crossings or go under roads or level crossings. If Jeanette Fitzsimons for example did object to overhead lines another possibility is to put them underground. But either way the central point is that the Electricity Act imposes a duplicate unnecessary level of compliance cost when we seek to upgrade our transmission grid. 
 I certainly agree with previous speakers that we need to do that and we need to do that quickly we need to do that efficiently and we need to do that with a lowering of compliance costs. If those are one’s goals—and they are United Future’s goals—then obviously one would vote in favour of this motion which is exactly what we intend to do. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I put it to the House that in a single-House Parliament like we have here the Government must treat Parliament with some respect. We do not have a Senate here to keep this Government accountable—a Government that wants to run roughshod over convention. We do not have a second layer in Parliament to keep this Government accountable as it runs roughshod over the country. Therefore the Government must treat this Parliament with respect. Has it done that? No it has not. It has treated this Parliament with contempt and it has been a comedy of errors. I understand from the member Ken Shirley that first of all the Government treated the Business Committee with contempt: it went there cap in hand to see this legislation presented to the House and would not even present it in written form so that the committee could have a look at it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was suspicious. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It made the Hon Ken Shirley suspicious and it made our colleagues in the National Party suspicious and to this day we have not seen one written word formalised in legislative form to tell us what this Government is up to. We find that appalling. 
Normally we would be quite nervous about supporting the Greens in opposing the Government running this legislation through the House. I have to say though that the speech from the Greens gave me some hope. The Hon Ken Shirley will correct me if I am wrong but I think I heard the Green Party member Jeanette Fitzsimons say that she believes that at between 4 in the afternoon and 7 at night Aucklanders should be burning gas and that in order to get efficiency in this country those who own wind farms should burn diesel during the times those wind farms are not in operation which is roughly 66 percent or two-thirds of the time. So in the House today the Greens are advocating for some reason the burning of fossil fuels—gas in Auckland and diesel along with wind generation. They are also joining the National Party in opposing this Government running roughshod over this House. 
David Benson-Pope has arrogantly put to this House that we should set aside Standing Order 259 which has been in existence for some time now—for many many years before I entered this Parliament. It states: “(1) Except as otherwise permitted by Standing Orders a bill must relate to one subject area only; (2) A bill may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts affected by its provisions.” There is a good reason for that Standing Order. There is a good reason why we have due process in this House—not least of all that it is a single-House Parliament. It is a mystery to us why the Minister wants to run roughshod over this Parliament and what is more why it has all came to this. It is not as if the whole country does not know and has not known for many years that our transmission lines needed upgrading. In fact when it comes to energy in New Zealand particularly electricity there are some top issues in relation to that. The Resource Management Act needs serious amendment so that generation and transmission can be done efficiently in this country. 
Our approach in respect of the Kyoto Protocol needs addressing seriously so that generation and transmission of electricity in this country are more efficient and more beneficial to New Zealanders. Not least of all we need upgrades to the transmission lines. We in this House all know that as do the punters on the street and all those who spend no time at all studying electricity have a sense that that is required. Certainly Aucklanders know. Those 1 million people living in the Greater Auckland area know that we need an upgrade. So why is it that in the last 1 year 2 years 5 years or decade has it not sunk into the Hon David Benson-Pope’s small brain that he would require this legislative change in order to see an upgrade to the transmission system? We understand that there are changes in this legislation and I say again that members of the House are supposed to pass this request to suspend the Standing Order without having seen the bill. Instead we are supposed to do it with a nod from David Benson-Pope with a wink from David Benson-Pope and with a slap on the backside from David Benson-Pope. 
We are under the understanding that the legislation will make processes around access to road corridors for high-capacity lines possible. The National Party knows that is necessary that we need to upgrade those lines and that we need high-capacity electricity lines that cross over or go under roads or level crossings when it comes to railways. We support the need for that and if a bill came into the House we would undoubtedly support it. In fact there would be support right across this House—except from the Green Party members who oppose everything. So why does the Minister not just do that? We would support it as I am sure ACT would. ACT likes to see the fine print just as the National Party does. We would generally support that. But this arrogant Government is abusing the rules of Parliament to limit debate and the scrutiny of these law changes. 
This Parliament may not have been around for many hundreds of years but it has been around for many many decades. The processes in Parliament are there for a very good reason and they should not be set aside just because it has not occurred to David Benson-Pope that we would need legislative changes to see upgrades to electricity generation in this country. As I have said the Government used its majority to overrule the Business Committee when a deal should have been done there. This Government is running roughshod over this process. It is not the first time the Government has done that. We saw it do it when it rammed the 2003 amendment to the Resource Management Act through Parliament with no public submissions—and we wonder why it got it wrong and we are back in the House today with the Minister cap in hand asking us to let him ram through these further changes. 
Just because this Minister’s Resource Management Act process is running late just because he has not grasped the fact that the electricity transmission industry needs serious attention and just because he does not understand Standing Order 259 or many other Standing Orders we are being asked to agree to Parliament being held in contempt and we oppose that. The National Party supports upgrades in this country for transmission lines but we do not support this Parliament being treated with contempt. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the majority of Parliament has passed the motion can we ask the Minister who is in the House where the bill is? Is he prepared to table it? If not when will it be available? We have reluctantly signed a blank cheque against the wishes of those parties that opposed it but as I understand it there is still no bill available. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a procedural matter. I am through you seeking an indication from the Minister who is in the House as to when the bill might be tabled. We have suspended the Standing Orders which is a matter of concern to the House and can be the subject of a point of order to grant leave to the Government to introduce legislation yet we have no indication as to when it might do that. Presumably it will be passed under urgency before Christmas but when will we see the legislation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Now that the Standing Order has been suspended for the purpose of the introduction of the bill the bill can be printed. Because it is now able to be introduced it will be tabled at the earliest opportunity. 
Electoral Amendment Bill 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Rick Barker (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: I am pleased to move  
That the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
The Electoral Amendment Bill does three things. It amends section 55 of the Electoral Act to ensure that a New Zealand member of Parliament must demonstrate an ongoing commitment to New Zealand and to the people he or she represents. In particular section 55 will clearly set out that a member of the New Zealand Parliament must be a New Zealand citizen at all times and the circumstances when an MP must vacate his or her seat. Secondly the Electoral Amendment Bill cures an anomaly in section 55E of the Electoral Act that could see the Governor-General or a senior judge take a role in the party-hopping procedure. Thirdly the Electoral Amendment Bill implements a regime to manage certain aspects of electoral signs. 
The practice within local government is for election signs to be governed by a local authority’s district plan and bylaws. That approach has resulted in differing requirements between individual local authorities and it is difficult for political parties to conduct coordinated campaigns on a national level for the party vote under MMP. In accordance with the unanimous select committee proposal the bill amends the Electoral Act to specify national standards to manage certain aspects of electoral signs. The maximum size of electoral signs is 3 square metres. Electoral signs that meet the specifications may be displayed for a period of up to 2 months before polling date. In addition regulations may be passed to standardise the design of electoral signs and procedures to be followed by any person before displaying an electoral sign. Extensive consultation will be held with interested and affected parties before any regulations are finalised. 
The Electoral Act is the cornerstone of New Zealand’s democracy. The Electoral Amendment Bill includes extensive safeguards to ensure the integrity of those sections of the Electoral Act are maintained. Safeguards include obtaining the consent of at least half the leaders of parties represented in Parliament whose members make up at least 75 percent of the House before regulations can be passed. Discussions with the representatives of local government suggest that local authorities want to continue to have the ability to control location and density of electoral signs fees payable and actions in relation to non-complying electoral signs. I agree. Local authorities are in the best position to take into account local conditions and manage these matters. 
I wish to thank the Society of Local Government Managers and Local Government New Zealand for their efforts and assistance in developing the regime to manage electoral signs. I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of other parties during the Committee of the whole House in agreeing to include the provisions to manage electoral signs. 
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) makes a number of procedural and technical amendments to the electoral broadcasting regime to allow the Electoral Commission to allocate funds for electoral broadcasting for the next general election more effectively. It does this by removing some of the well-recognised anomalies and administratively burdensome processes of the current broadcasting regime. These amendments have been recommended following inquiries into the 1996 1999 and 2002 general elections. 
The major changes to the electoral broadcasting regime proposed in the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) are that the bill will repeal the outdated requirement for the Electoral Commission to invite broadcasters to provide free or discounted time for electoral broadcasting and secondly the bill amends the provisions of the Broadcasting Act so that only registered parties will be eligible for allocations of time and money. 
In conclusion the main objectives of the Electoral Amendment Bill are twofold. This bill amends the Electoral Act to clarify when a member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat to ensure that MPs demonstrate an ongoing commitment to this country. The bill will also assist political parties to plan nationwide campaigns for the party vote during general elections. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) makes procedural and technical amendments to the electoral broadcasting regime to enable the Electoral Commission to allocate funds for electoral broadcasting for the next general election more effectively. I commend these bills to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The legislation that is now in its third reading raises a number of issues some of which National supports and some of which it does not. It raises issues of broadcasting and whilst we support those issues for the upcoming election as necessary changes some broader questions have been raised that I referred to last night in the Committee stage which I will deal with further today. The second point is the rules around new section 55AA—the nationality rules—and I will deal with those also. Finally there are the matters to do with hoardings. Our concern there is fundamentally one of procedure and I will deal with that issue as well. 
In relation to broadcasting there has been a long tradition in New Zealand that there is State-funded broadcasting for political parties. That in large measure reflected the way we had for a long period in our history what were effectively monopoly channels. Then there was a modification whereby we had a very small number of channels and a limited number of radio stations. The whole issue really comes out of a traditional way of campaigning. I suggest that we might be in the twilight of those kinds of rules. I believe that it is time for the Justice and Electoral Committee to take a first-principles approach to this matter. 
For a number of years now serious questions have been raised as to whether it is practicable or reasonable for this Parliament to be setting out detailed and comprehensive rules in the contemporary broadcasting environment. We are no longer in an environment in which we just have three free-to-air channels. We now have huge numbers of radio stations. They go in and out of business on a regular basis and no one is surprised at that. And of course we have the explosion of the Internet. Who could doubt that in the world’s largest and most important democracy the role of the Internet was very significant in that country’s last election? We have virtually no rules on the role of the Internet—and frankly neither should we. After all one of the foundations of our society is free speech. As long as the general requirements of the law on defamation and so forth are met then freedom reigns. Yet today we are passing law that seeks to tightly circumscribe how parties use the State broadcaster. Whilst I recognise that it is necessary for the coming election which is why National will support it I do say that it is time for a fundamental review. If we are to allocate public money for broadcasting maybe a fairer and more reasonable result would be to allocate it using a fair formula around proportionality and a whole variety of indices which has been discussed so that the parties themselves then choose how to spend it. They will choose in different ways according to the way they think is most effective. That I believe is an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee will have to address after the election. 
The second issue I turn to is the rules around nationality. One cannot help but note that Mr Duynhoven is present in the Chamber today. He is in the invidious and somewhat unfortunate position of being the only member of Parliament who is present here by way of a particular Act of Parliament. I know he was elected in 2002 and I know he had a substantial majority and I have no doubt that had there been a by-election he would also have been returned with a substantial majority. That should be the lesson. If this kind of event ever occurs again then a by-election should be the natural and proper course because that is the way it is done in other democracies. 
We have the extraordinary situation whereby legislation will be passed that would not actually cover the situation that Mr Duynhoven found himself in 2 years ago. Section 55AA does not cover that precise situation. It is unfortunate that in essence there has been an affirmation of the old legislation with some modification but there was a special law for Mr Duynhoven. The Government has never satisfactorily explained that situation. It did not take the opportunity through the Ministers in the chair yesterday to explain why it was OK to pass special legislation for Mr Duynhoven and in effect not repeat that in the new legislation. After all the Government by dint of its majority could have done that and it chose not to do so. 
Serious questions have been asked and never answered. My colleague Simon Power raised the question of whether there were other members of Parliament who were effectively being protected by that legislation. Every whip other than those of the Labour Party was able to say clearly to the House—and a member’s word must be accepted in the House—that no one in their parties was in that situation. Mr Benson-Pope the Labour Party whip at the time when invited by other parties to make that declaration chose not do so. The question has to be asked: why did he do that? We will never know the answer I suspect so the question therefore remains hanging. Now one can actually do something of a work of deduction. It can apply only to people who could possibly be eligible for nationality. That rules out quite a large number of members of the Labour Party but it does not rule out all of them. It is a particular issue actually for list members because the consequences for a constituency member would have been a by-election whereas for a list member it would have been removal from the House completely. So one has only to go down the list of Labour list members and ask oneself which one was possibly covered. Was it Dr Cullen? Was it Mr Choudhary? There are no doubt others that I have not mentioned. We will never know the answer to those questions I suspect. 
The third issue I want to deal with is the matter around hoardings. Now this is not so much a critique on the fact that there are to be national standards but rather the way they have been introduced. In essence Parliament is seeking a special rule for itself—for its members and for the political parties I guess as well—which is not being extended to anyone else. Now the Government has claimed on numerous occasions that it wants to have national standards on a variety of issues—a fundamental reform of the Resource Management Act. I keep hearing that from various members of the Government. They say it from time to time in this House. As yet that legislation has never been produced. So what is the Government’s response instead? Its response is to do a special deal for the benefit of political parties and members of Parliament generally. I suspect that does not go down well with the public. They do not like seeing Parliament making special rules for itself that other people cannot take advantage of. 
A more principled approach would have been for the Government to front up with a resource management amendment bill that would have dealt with not just issues of hoardings for members of Parliament but with a whole variety of national standards. That is not being done in this case and that is why we voted against that particular provision which is procedurally and constitutionally a flawed procedure. Members of the public will not be impressed by the way the Government is seeking a special rule for members of Parliament. So I want to conclude on this point. National only reluctantly supports this bill. It has raised a number of issues and questions remain hanging especially around section 55AA. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is very straightforward. The amendments were unanimously supported by the parliamentary select committee that considered the bill—now split into two bills for its third reading—in its original form. It is hard to believe that anyone could object to any aspect of the legislation when all parties had unanimously supported it. There was even a reference to the question of hoardings in the report back of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The last sentence of the commentary on the bill states: “We note this proposal corresponds with a recommendation in our Inquiry into the 2002 General Election report; namely that: Amendments to electoral legislation for the 2005 General Election include national guidelines on hoardings.” That was said in the report on the 2002 general election and it was said generally in so far as this bill was concerned. It is hard to believe that anyone could have opposed those unanimous provisions although as the previous National Party speaker indicated his party decided to oppose something that had been part of a unanimous approval. 
The change to the hoardings requirement is so logical that it is difficult to believe that anyone could possibly have opposed it. Often at a general election when one’s electorate covers three or more local authorities one might have to design three or more types of hoardings to meet those various local body requirements. That just creates more tension around regulations and more work for bureaucrats. This legislation gives one an opportunity to have one type of hoarding if one so wishes up to a certain specification. This bill also provides that 50 percent of the number of parties—or half the number of parties—or 75 percent of all the parties must be involved in discussions with the Government of the day if any changes are to be made. It is a very simple requirement that every other party in the House but the National Party has supported although the National Party did support it at the select committee. There is really nothing else to say about this legislation. New Zealand First supports it and I look forward to it being passed. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to support the passage of this electoral legislation. It is excellent legislation as far as it goes. The most important aspect is the one that is least contentious and that is to fix up the rules around election broadcasting so that the Electoral Commission does not have to write to every single broadcaster in the country asking them what discounts they will give political parties only to get letters back from them stating that they will not give any discounts to political parties or their candidates that are any different from any commercial discounts that they already give. It will be of some relief to the Electoral Commission that we have finally tidied up this bureaucratic nightmare. 
I would have to say that it has taken this Parliament far too long to fix up this nonsense. I happen to have been on the inquiry into the 1996 general election where we recommended sorting out this matter then. A bill to sort out that problem was subsequently introduced into the House on 29 September 1998 under the former National Government. It had its second reading on 12 November 1998 and the committee reported back on 6 May 1999. For reasons that I cannot fathom the bill languished on the Order Paper throughout the remainder of the National Party term of office and right through under the Labour Party’s governance until 18 February 2002 where inexplicably the Labour Government at the time discharged the bill for no apparent reason. There could not have been any apparent reason given that all the provisions in that bill have now come back to this House in today’s legislation. So thank goodness the Government has finally seen sense and sorted out this particular nonsense. 
The other nonsense that the Government has wisely sorted out is the issue around the creation of vacancies for people who are entitled to dual citizenship. It is an excellent move that members in this House not only Harry Duynhoven but as he said during his speech in the Committee stage perhaps up to 30 members of this House who are entitled to dual citizenship or who hold a passport of another country will now be able to maintain that citizenship and renew those passports without any fear of being evicted from this Parliament. 
On behalf of the Green Party I have no regret saying that we did the right thing in supporting the legislation to stop Harry Duynhoven being kicked out of this Parliament. It would have been an outrageous injustice for him to have had to relinquish his seat even though he had not broken the law and even though he would certainly have won a by-election. But now we have fixed the law we have tidied up that particular anomaly and it sits alongside the other amendment that was made several years previously I understand for the benefit of another member of this House either current or former who married someone from overseas and therefore was entitled to dual citizenship. A tidy-up was made perhaps given Mr Mapp’s interjection for the benefit of someone in the National Party at that time. So I guess it is a case of one all on that particular matter. 
However the major anomaly that still exists in relation to electoral matters that this legislation does not address despite my moving an amendment yesterday that I am sure was supported by both the ACT party and the United Future Party is the issue around the old two-party club having representatives on the Electoral Commission. It is an absolute outrage that National and Labour each have a person on the commission representing their interests. Those two people allocate the broadcasting funding to all of the parties not only in this House but those outside this Parliament and allocate the time for opening and closing addresses to all of the registered parties contesting an election. That is simply not acceptable. It is archaic part of the first-past-the-post era and should be done away with. Without wishing to offend any of the people who have represented National and Labour I say that they simply cannot also represent the other parties in this Parliament simultaneously. 
At the moment we have the ridiculous situation of the United Future Party which has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government being represented by the Opposition member on the Electoral Commission which just shows how foolish that current provision is. So I do look forward to the day when that anomaly is removed and the Electoral Commission is a genuinely independent body that is not subject to any party political pressure. 
I also look forward to the day when the Government will proceed with its wider review of electoral legislation. That is something that should have taken place and should have been part of this particular legislation. Sooner or later we do need to grapple properly with the issue of State funding for political parties. More important we need to deal with the problems that we currently have around our rather woeful and inadequate donation disclosure regime. It is so inadequate at the moment that parties can merrily set up front organisations to launder donations without those donations having to be declared. 
To give members one example there is the Free Enterprise Trust which seems to give money only to the National Party. It does not even seem to give money to the ACT party although some would claim that those party’s members are more free entrepreneurs than National’s these days. Notwithstanding whom the trust should be giving money to the fact is that whoever gives money to the trust should be required to declare those donations so that party political funding is transparent and so that voters can see exactly who are the puppeteers for those parties that receive donations. I hope the Government will proceed with the donations disclosure regime amendment soon. 
Partly for the sake of ACT but partly because it deserves debate I also would want that inquiry to look into the full issue of the broadcasting funding regime. On the face of it there is an anomaly at the moment that the two old parties get the bulk of broadcasting funding which is self-perpetuating whereas every other party is barred from spending its own money to match the spending of the two old parties. Personally I do not think that that is fair although it is a matter of some debate within our own caucus. 
So in closing I look forward to the passage of this legislation. I am pleased that the Government was able to get it through before the cut-off date which I think was 8 December. If this legislation had lingered any longer the Electoral Commission would have had to send letters out to all those broadcasters for no apparent good reason. So let us hope that the legislation gets the royal assent in time to save them all that paperwork and all those postage stamps. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to also comment on the two bills—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Electoral Amendment Bill. First the Electoral Amendment Bill: we will support it on the basis that it is an improvement on where we are but not nearly as much as might be expected. We think that it could have been done a lot better. There is an embarrassment for Parliament in that bill. The principal amendments to the Electoral Act deal with the Duynhoven scandal. When Harry Duynhoven a very popular member discovered that he had taken a step that had apparently renewed his Dutch citizenship he fell foul of a provision that appears in the Electoral Acts of most similar countries that means the voters get a chance to decide whether they still want to be represented by someone who has signed allegiance to a foreign prince monarch or power. They are very old provisions. As I said they are in the electoral laws of a number of countries and they are pretty easy to understand. The voters can decide that they want to be represented by someone who might have divided loyalties by someone who has citizenship of another country as well as that of New Zealand or by someone who has a relationship with a foreign power as long as they know about it. 
 The voters can make that decision elect the member and so long as that position does not change the member’s entitlement to sit in this House should be unchallenged. But for very good reason the Electoral Act had a provision that said that when a new foreign allegiance is created the voters should get a chance to decide whether they still wanted to be represented by someone who might have a funkhole to bolt to—who had another country he or she could dart off to when they had made a mess of this one by their voting or party support in Parliament. 
Harry Duynhoven was in that position. He no doubt knows that the “Cullen Superannuation Fund” is smoke and mirrors; it is not going to give him in his old age a cent. So he decided he needed to qualify for the Dutch Government superannuation scheme. He renewed his citizenship which was a very sensible precaution I would say given he probably knows more about the Labour Government’s superannuation provisions than we do. 
However that action triggered the Electoral Act. So the Speaker failed to apply the law and held off for long enough for the Electoral Act to be changed. Well the Electoral Amendment Act will reverse that change. Yes it has what Rod Donald called “cosmetic tidy-up”; it now states expressly that if a member acquires citizenship by reason only of his or her birth in another country the member does not automatically trigger that re-election requirement. But that was the position anyway because the previous law required some positive step. So we have now fixed it up for Mr Duynhoven and all of those who are hiding behind him and reverted the law to the status quo ante. 
However it is really plain what we have been doing there; we revert it to the status quo only as from after the next election. So the Government did not want to risk any more of its folk being found out. This applies only after the next election. The Electoral Amendment Bill does not cover what should have been the other side of consideration by the Parliament of nationality and citizenship in relation to members of Parliament. It does not cover entitlement to vote. I believe that the bill should have made sure that only New Zealand citizens could vote for New Zealand representatives. It is long overdue that we require people to show their loyalty to New Zealand their long-term interest in being here by becoming citizens before they are electing representatives to govern this country. 
The other bill that we are debating in its third reading and for which I put the ACT position strongly is the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). We have 11 pages of amendments to the Broadcasting Act to govern the broadcasting of election programmes. Now most New Zealanders probably find those about as dreary as anything that one gets on television. In fact most New Zealanders probably never come across it. Because if one does not watch Television One or listen to National Radio one will not see anything of an election nature that has not been filtered by the media establishment. The two old parties decided a long time ago that they were not going to risk any challenges to the status quo getting direct access to the voters through the electronic media. TVNZ and Radio New Zealand will be the only ones that we can speak to directly and that is only in the allocated time given by the Electoral Commission and for the parties other than National and Labour that is only in the fractional moments that they get. As I said yesterday it would not be enough time to launch a decent dog roll in a supermarket advertising campaign. The time that New Zealanders expect to learn about the issues facing their country and where the parties stand on them would not launch a new bus timetable on radio. It is utterly pathetic and that is New Zealand’s excuse for free speech at election time. 
The consequence of the amendments to sections 70 72 and 73 of the Electoral Act is that New Zealanders hear about their politicians only what the media establishment wants them to hear—that is what news editors decide is appropriate. If we want to think about what that practice has meant over the last 20 years just think how often people have said: “Why hasn’t someone been speaking for us about the treaty industry? Why wasn’t some politician arguing why didn’t we hear at election time the sorts of things that Dr Brash said at Orewa early this year?”. 
Well the answer is that parties were. The ACT party has had a one-law-for-all policy since 1998 but how will people know what their politicians are standing for if the only access to the media that most people use—the radio and television—is filtered first through the Electoral Commission and secondly through media editors and journalists? Actually those people do not share the views of most New Zealanders. They think they are so much better than the rest of us so much more noble and unselfish that they had better filter out those ugly individuals who speak directly as Dr Brash did in January this year. That sort of discussion gets filtered out by the elite who dominate our media. So we have an impoverished form of democracy and this Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) simply cements that in place. 
We had an opportunity in the Justice and Electoral Committee to make a timid change which would have said: “OK we have spending limits in New Zealand on political campaigns so that people can’t go out there with big money and buy an election.”—although there is not any evidence that that can be done anyway. The spending limits could have been applied very simply across all the expenditure that parties make in an election campaign; and parties could have chosen whether they spent it on radio television direct mail postcards hip-hop gatherings or whatever else they wanted to do. The Greens could have been advertising directly on youth radio if they think it is only young people who vote for them. The National Party could have gone only on gardening programmes and those that appeal to the elderly. Winston Peters of course could have gone to the people in the rest homes and elsewhere where his support comes from. But we could have chosen who we were going to. Instead the parties in the select committee ganged up to make sure that once again this Parliament did not get a chance to vote on a proposal to allow free speech on— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Uncharitable. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: That was the effect. They would not allow free speech through radio or television for fear of disturbing the status quo for fear of upsetting the applecart for a Government that has maintained a very tight restriction on the realms of permissible political debate in polite society and on radio and television for many years. The ACT party will support the bill because it is a slight improvement on where we are but it is a woeful bill compared with where this country should be in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of debate around elections. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 It is pleasing that what was originally the Electoral Matters Bill is passing with the unanimous support of the House. This is legislation that although dealing with fairly minor matters does tackle the fundamental nature of our constitution in so far as it looks at the way that we run our elections and elect our Parliament. It is therefore important that it is not passing on just a majority vote as we have seen happen with quite a lot of legislation over this last year but rather is getting the unanimous support of the House. 
The disappointing part of the legislation is that it deals with only a very few technical matters when some more significant issues even some that could easily be resolved have been sitting around for election after election and have been the subject of report backs from select committees but have yet to be addressed. Despite the promises of the Government to address them in its response to the select committee’s report on its inquiry into the 2002 election we have yet to see any discussion papers on those more fundamental matters. There are two in particular that need comprehensive review—one relating to donations to political parties and the other with regard to the funding of political parties. 
 In respect of donations the threshold for disclosure the ability to have anonymous donations and any cut-off points as far as anonymous donations are concerned are matters that at the very least ought to be part of the debate at this time. They have been hanging around for years and years. It is time we got on to debating those publicly in terms of the sort of election we want and the protections that should revolve round it. We have had three MMP elections and the public have had a chance to look at those factors. Some of these issues have now quite clearly become issues that are contentious. 
The funding of political parties is another issue that since MMP has become important. The memberships of political parties have all reduced. There are not very many New Zealanders now as a proportion of the general population who are actively involved on a regular basis with political parties. But political parties do provide a very important part of our democratic system and it is important that political parties are strong and that there is the opportunity for a wide variety of viewpoints to be recognised in elections in particular but also in the House. I think the time has come when we should be seriously considering as a nation the funding of political parties to allow them to operate between elections and have at least some level of resources with which to do that without their being reliant on membership fees and on going cap in hand. That leads to distortions in terms of sector groups that have funds being looked to for the provision of funding—in particular the business community. If there was some funding from parliamentary resources it would take a little bit of pressure off that at least. 
It would also be part of providing a level playing field. Parties that are in Parliament have a distinct advantage as far as funding is concerned over those that are outside because of the parliamentary resources that all parties here have and their ability to use those resources on the promotion and recognition of their political points of view. They are effectively campaigning in terms of their points of view under the guise—quite legitimately—of going to the public and getting feedback on a situation. Certainly the line is very blurred there. Everybody would admit that there is a grey area as to when the legitimate role of a political party in Parliament to use funding to promote its point of view turns into campaigning. So parties that are not represented in Parliament face discrimination as far as that matter is concerned because they do not have any access whatsoever to that funding even though they may have a reasonable level of public support. 
There is also the question of the funding for broadcasting which I addressed in my speech during the Committee stage. We are well overdue for a significant increase in that funding. It has been many years since it was increased. I sincerely hope that in the next Budget particularly with the money that is available to the Government there is a substantial increase in the funding that is provided to political parties for broadcast advertising. Broadcasting—in particular television—does pay a very central role in helping people to determine what political parties believe and whom they should vote for. It is therefore critical that that information is provided and that there is adequate funding for that—recognising that the only funding that can be used for broadcasting at this stage is the funding provided by parliamentary resources. So I would encourage the Government to look at that seriously. Again it is part of our whole constitutional democratic tradition that the public are well informed about what political parties are offering and that means using television and radio to do that and that means using parliamentary resources. 
There is one other option and again I alluded to it in the Committee stage. Given that elections are meant to be level playing fields where all parties go back to square one with zero seats and have to campaign to win their seats effectively there should be the ability for parties that do not get so much public funding to top up their funding for broadcasting purposes. This would help to level the playing field as it ought to be levelled when it comes to election time. It would mean that a party that did not get public funding would have to go out and solicit funding from the public in order to have that funding provided from private sources and that in itself would provide indications of the level of public support for parties. Certainly United Future does not believe that it should be open slather. There should be caps on that level of funding but nevertheless we believe that the opportunity should be there for parties that do not get funding or that get limited funding to increase their resources. 
One of the critical issues covered in this legislation is members of Parliament creating vacancies. While I do not want to go back and relitigate the Harry Duynhoven situation which has been thoroughly chewed over I would say that the way the Government handled it at the time was very disappointing. I am sure that if it had been a National MP we would not have seen that legislation. I am sure that if it had been a National MP we would not have had Government members of the Privileges Committee denying what was the obvious—that is that Harry had indeed taken steps that vacated his seat. The way that the Government handled that situation brought the whole institution of Parliament into disrepute and brought partisan politics into something that is fundamental in terms of our constitution and that should have been addressed at that time. I know that Harry was willing to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to members by their first name—the member has done it twice. Members must use their title their portfolio or their whole name. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I was referring to Mr Duynhoven. Nevertheless the Justice and Electoral Committee has now been able to look at the situation and to determine the basis on which an MP would lose his or her seat. I think the fundamentals of there having to be a positive act and an act that creates an allegiance to a foreign power or State while that person is an MP is the right balance. Ceasing to be a New Zealand citizen and accepting nomination as a candidate for an election in a foreign country have been added. But we have the exceptions that one can become a subject or citizen of a foreign State by reason of it being one’s country or place of birth or by reason of descent and that one can renew a passport issued by a foreign State. I think those are welcome. The existing exception is still there—that if someone becomes a citizen of another country by marriage that person is not disqualified. 
I must say I was very disappointed that the House did not agree to the amendment to clause 18 that would have amended section 74B(2A) of the Broadcasting Act to give the Electoral Commission discretion with regard to the payment of late invoices. As a party secretary I believe that is short-sighted and inevitably will result in unnecessary financial harm to broadcasters. The Minister and the Government will have that on their heads. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the legislation. I would like to say that the debate on this legislation has been constructive. Electoral law is important in this country. I think that largely all members across the House have done their level best through the select committee process and through the debate in the House to improve the legislation as much as possible. We cannot expect everybody to agree on every fine point but I would say that members in the majority have worked constructively to ensure we have good electoral law in this country. We have to remember that New Zealand has a very open democracy. We have general elections that are conducted in a sophisticated and effective way and this legislation will help to ensure that situation prevails. While the public at large may not necessarily always be happy with the outcome of each election the way that our elections are conducted is the envy I suggest of many other countries. I am very pleased to support the legislation and thank all members for their contributions. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when a substantive contribution is made by a Labour member to a debate and from that member who just spoke we had such a contribution. I also express the hope that Mita Ririnui who is seated in the House may be tempted to add to the Labour contribution on these particular bills which National supports. I say bills because of course these two pieces of legislation started off life as one bill the Electoral Matters Bill. Now that bill has been transmogrified or perhaps there has been a secular transubstantiation to produce two bills: the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). 
It is invidious to rate the performance of particular speakers in the course of this debate and I do not wish to do so in any detail. But I have certainly reflected on the very thoughtful contribution that Dr Wayne Mapp made earlier in this third reading. There is no doubt that he brings to this House a real ability to contribute on constitutional issues. He certainly is a hard-working and conscientious member representing so well the interests of the people on the North Shore but added to that he has constitutional insight that is almost second to none amongst members in this House. I say that of course against the background that he has a doctorate from Cambridge University in a very specialised area of constitutional law the Iran - United States claims tribunal work. That was an amazing piece of work and it has been followed through with continuing research by him in the constitutional law area including of course election law. 
When speaking to these two bills which National supports I would like to make the point that the electoral framework and its integrity is the hallmark of a constitutional democracy. I am sure that if Dr Mapp had an opportunity to contribute in this debate even further he would make that same observation but sadly he may be denied that opportunity. New Zealand has no written constitution and we must be very careful that in making piecemeal changes in a non-constitutional setting we do not affect the integrity of the framework. It is a strong framework but it is a framework that is not wrapped together in the way that occurs in the many countries that have written constitutions. Indeed it is the case that there are only three developed countries in the world that do not have a written constitution. They are— 
Simon Power 
: Israel. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The member behind me reminds me that Israel is one and that is quite correct. The other illustration apart from New Zealand of course is the United Kingdom. That is not to say we do not have a whole lot of written constitutional material and members may suggest what in fact comprises those constitutional materials. It is fair to say that they are an assemblage. They would include the Constitution Act the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Electoral Act the Human Rights Act and I guess the parliamentary Standing Orders and conventions and various writings. 
I would like if I may to turn now to some critical aspects of the legislation that have caused National some concern. The one that has caused the most concern is now enshrined in the Electoral Amendment Bill with the insertion under clause 7B of new section 267A concerned with the making of regulations relating to advertisements of a specific kind and section 267B “Requirements before Minister can recommend that regulations be made”. What we are talking about is the placement of hoardings during the period beginning 2 months before polling day and ending at the close of the day before polling day. National’s particular gripe with these provisions centres on the process that has been followed—a process that only yesterday saw these far-reaching changes documented in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper and delivered to the National caucus. If there is to be considered debate on issues of constitutional importance then it is critical that time be afforded for consideration to be given to the merit of particular proposals. 
I have heard the complaints that members of minority parties in this House have made about aspects relating to electoral legislation. I have heard Mr Franks with the background of all his experience say that the fate of a minor party is similar to the fate that confronts a proprietor seeking to launch a new dog roll. I would not so quickly dismiss the contribution of ACT and other minor parties in that way because in the MMP environment all players have an opportunity to contribute—albeit not equally and albeit not with equal funding. But there are some who in respect of these hoarding provisions have expressed the hope—and I do not put it higher than that—that the Regulations Review Committee may well be able to deal with anomalies or deficiencies that arise in the regulations. That is not so because the Regulations Review Committee is constrained by the Standing Orders in what it can look at and one area that is a no-go area is the policy area. I believe we are probably in the context of the shape of any regulations—unknown as they are at this present time—to be confronted with a raft of policy decisions rather than regulatory content that would give the Regulations Review Committee some jurisdiction to intervene. 
In the Electoral Amendment Bill as it hits its third reading there are amendments to section 55 of the current legislation. Fairly or unfairly the finger was pointed at Mr Harry Duynhoven and the actions he took that it is asserted led to the need for this legislative change. But it is a fair point that New Zealand law tolerates and even encourages dual nationality. That is clear from the Citizenship Act. Double nationality frequently occurs by descent as it did in Mr Duynhoven’s case. Dutch nationality has to be governed by Dutch law so there was an argument that the retrospective nature of the law that was passed in the Parliament of the Netherlands meant that Mr Duynhoven always had Dutch nationality. In New Zealand of course the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that every New Zealand citizen who is 18 years or over qualifies for membership of the House of Representatives. Members here present may recall that at the time when the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was passed it was asserted that some 20 members of Parliament might have been captured by the current law. Those issues are now matters of history in the context of the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. 
There have been some significant changes—Mr Franks spoke about this—to section 55 of the Electoral Act and the Justice and Electoral Committee itself made certain changes that I would assert are reasonable changes. The phrase “foreign Head of State” which has been included in clause 5 with reference to swearing allegiance to a country is akin to swearing allegiance to king and country or queen and country. The other change that has been made and that I think is also reasonable is a change to provisions by addition in that a member of Parliament will have to vacate his or her seat if he or she accepts nomination to a governing body that might not fall within the definition of a country. One can think for example of a territory such as the Northern Territory in Australia. 
There was an opportunity for the select committee to say that it is not really on to be both a mayor or councillor and a member of Parliament in this country at the same time. That is an issue that has drawn the attention of the media of course in the case of one of the members of New Zealand First. How one can discharge responsibilities as both a local authority councillor and a member of Parliament beggars belief! 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call in respect of the third readings of the two bills that are before the House at this time. Most of the matters addressed by members have referred to the Electoral Amendment Bill but I want to make a very brief comment on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) because I think it assists political parties in their planning for general elections and streamlines the process by which this matter is treated particularly the part of the bill that repeals the requirement on the Electoral Commission to invite broadcasters to provide free or discounted time for electoral broadcasting. What will happen now will be a far quicker process for political parties to register the fact that a general election is about to occur and for broadcasters to respond in a way that is favourable to both parties so that political broadcasts can begin. 
The other important change made by the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) will be that only registered political parties will be eligible for the allocation of time and money. I think that is important because with the move to MMP under which registered parties with 500 members or more are the formal parties in our political system this just means that the legislation is catching up with that fact in that regard. 
There are two bills before us at the present time. I of course support both. I wanted to make a few brief remarks about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I am sure that the Hon Tony Ryall will be able to expand far more on these important points given his 14½ years of experience in the New Zealand Parliament. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 That sort of speech proves that members can come to Parliament when they are far too young. 
Darren Hughes 
: But you were 25. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Has the member ever heard of irony? With regard to this legislation that the Government has introduced I would like to report on a point that the National Party in Opposition raised continually throughout the debate. It related to Mr Harry Duynhoven the member for New Plymouth. The Speaker will recall that an issue arose about Mr Duynhoven and an application he made which he says was not an application. Mr Duynhoven did something that in essence saw him pledge allegiance to a foreign power and thereby disqualify himself from being a member of Parliament. The matter was referred to Mr Speaker. While he was spending some time in considering the matter the Government announced that it would introduce legislation to regularise the actions that Mr Duynhoven had taken. At the time the Prime Minister dismissed Mr Duynhoven’s actions as a technical breach of a minor nature related to some archaic legislation that had never been considered by Parliament and that was completely out of touch with the modern world. So changes were to be proposed to the Electoral Act in the electoral amendment legislation. 
What is interesting about the legislation that has been returned to Parliament—and the National Party drew this to the attention of the House in the Committee stage—is that contrary to what the Prime Minister said this legislation does not change the circumstance that would have existed with regard to Mr Duynhoven if it had been law. That is to say that if Mr Duynhoven did now what he did then he would be out. Mr Speaker you would be required by this legislation to have his seat declared vacant. I think that is very clear and I do not think it would take the number of days that it took previously for you to draw that conclusion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker cannot be brought into the debate. I warn the member. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I accept that. But the legislation makes it clear that if Mr Duynhoven was to pledge allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands today as he did then he would be out of Parliament. So how can the Prime Minister claim any consistency or moral authority for her earlier statements? Where does she stand given that she said what Mr Duynhoven did was a minor breach of no consequence whatsoever and the law should be changed? The Prime Minister is the woman who is supposed to be on top of everything in this country—except for her speeding motorcades it would seem—yet she has delivered legislation to this House that does nothing about the situation that Harry Duynhoven was in. 
I consider it to be a long-lasting stain on this Parliament that Mr Duynhoven’s seat was not declared vacant because any reading of the Act made it clear that he had breached the law. There was only one consequence of his breach of the law and it should have been immediate—he should have gone. But the Government bailed him out with nasty cynical legislation that was covered in the Prime Minister’s rhetoric that the breach was something that did not matter that was inconsequential that was archaic and that would be fixed. If the breach of the Act was inconsequential archaic and of no relevance to New Zealanders or Parliament why has the Prime Minister left the rules exactly the same? I will tell members why. The Prime Minister was too scared to have a by-election with the seabed and foreshore issue swirling around at that time. She knew that the Government’s plan to give Maori a veto over the operation of and access to the seabed and foreshore is deeply unpopular with the people of New Zealand. She knew that if she had a by-election in New Plymouth Labour would lose the safest Labour Party seat in the country. 
Where is the Prime Minister in this debate? I ask her to take a call. I know the Prime Minister has been overseas 48 times in the last 60 months at an extraordinary multimillion-dollar cost to the New Zealand taxpayer. I know she has been running her campaign for a UN job for after the election but why is she not taking a call in this debate? I will tell members why. Because she knows that she cannot stand up in this House and defend what she said about Mr Duynhoven. If the Prime Minister is so confident about what she said why is she not taking a call in this debate? The point is that the Prime Minister said that what Harry Duynhoven did did not matter and that the law could be changed. Yet she has brought legislation to Parliament that does no such thing. She accepts that if Harry Duynhoven pledges allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands again and if all the other Labour MPs who kept their mouths shut during that debate renew their passports they will be out. I wonder whether a Government whip could take a call and give an assurance to this House that no other Government member has breached that provision of the Act. There is silence which proves just what we have always thought. 
This legislation contains a major stain on this Parliament and I suspect that in years to come people will look at the way that the Harry Duynhoven matter was handled and realise that it was a cynical manipulation wrapped up in deceitful rhetoric. It was just appalling that the Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand that what Harry Duynhoven did was of no consequence but has left it as an offence on the books of this House. We simply cannot have members of Parliament pledge allegiance to another country or to another queen while they are members of Parliament. That is simply appalling. If Mr Duynhoven did it again I would expect him to be out within 24 hours because if that was good enough for Donna Awatere Huata it should be good enough for Harry Duynhoven. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 What a disappointment it is to hear a speech like that from the member who has just resumed his seat. That was a mean-spirited lacklustre attack on one of the finest Prime Ministers we have seen in this country for many many years. It betrays the real depression that is descending upon the Opposition as it slides in the polls and slides into oblivion. Tonight we are dealing with the third readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I would like to focus very briefly on the Electoral Amendment Bill. It amends provisions in section 55 of the Electoral Act relating to when a member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat. It also cures an anomaly in section 55E of that Act that could see the Governor-General or a senior judge take a role in the party-hopping procedure that would be inappropriate to their constitutional functions. It also implements a regime to manage certain aspects of electoral signs by amending the Act to specify national standards for the management of those signs. Those are just some of the matters that are encompassed in the Electoral Amendment Bill which is one part of the bill that has been split in two. The other bill of course is the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I support the bills. 
Bills read a third time. 
Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 30 November. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I find myself taking a keen interest in the bill and an even keener interest in Part 2—which of course is where we are up to at present. I note that Part 4 the three schedules and of course the title clause still have to be debated prior to the conclusion of this matter. Turning specifically to Part 2 it seems that the Social Services Committee spent some time on proposing minor amendments to the principal Act relating to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Part 3. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes quite right—but in Part 2 of the bill. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson would like to take a call and clarify the issue for me. This part makes minor amendments to the principal Act relating to new Part 4 which is as the Minister rightly points out now in new clause 3A. Specifically and interestingly it repeals paragraph (c) of section 61EA(4) of the Act and substitutes a paragraph that unequivocally states: “is a resident assessed as requiring care (as defined in section 136)” of the principal Act “in respect of whom a funder (as defined in that section)” which is presumably section 136 of the principal Act “is paying some or all of the cost of contracted care services (as defined in that section)”—which is presumably again a reference to section 136—“under section 141 or section 142;”. To the uninitiated in respect of this bill that amendment may at first glance appear confusing. That would be understandable but legislation such as this needs to be if nothing else clear unambiguous and easy to follow. 
I noted last night that when we were debating this bill in Committee the Minister was reluctant to take a call although members of the Opposition who have extensive knowledge of these matters were contributing to the debate on Parts 1 and 2. I do not fit into the category of being a member who has extensive knowledge of these matters so I ask the Minister directly to take a call and explain the impact of the new provisions in Part 2 to the uninitiated—in other words to all the members of the New Zealand public who are not intimately involved in this industry and who at some stage in the future may well need to have matters relating to their long-term residential care clarified as they reach the magic age at which they have predetermined they will seek such care. There will be members of the public who find this legislation very confusing indeed. 
The Minister to be fair is regarded as a fair Minister although she is one who has clearly been beaten down by her Cabinet colleagues on the issue of asset and income testing with regard to this bill. I think that is disappointing and I have said so prior to the Committee stage; in fact I may well have said so during the first or second reading debates on this bill. I get around the sector a bit and I know that the Minister is regarded as if not a bit left wing somebody whose words can be relied on from time to time. And now the Minister finds herself in the situation where that is not actually the case. The Minister has been trampled by her Cabinet colleagues into backing away from a pre-election promise on asset and income testing and a pale imitation of that campaign promise is what the Committee now has before it. 
It would help the Committee if the Minister would rise and do us the courtesy of clarifying for the benefit of those members who are less informed on these matters—such as me—the impact of new clause 3A in a way that leaves those who wish to take up long-term residential care at some stage in the future in no doubt as to their entitlements and their obligations and more important their own responsibilities when moving into such care. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in relation to Part 2—which of course is slightly confusing to anyone listening because this part actually inserts a new Part 4 into the principal Act so we have a Part 2 and a Part 4 together. I note that the National Party is supporting the amendments in Part 2 in order to assist where we can in this area—an area of course where we have some extremely vulnerable people. I am sure that all of us here either have had or do have very elderly parents so I think we understand that they are people who need to be looked after—and for some the relationship between parent and child is somewhat reversed in the process. Obviously we are very pleased in many ways to be able to support these particular amendments. 
A few issues have been brought up in relation to the report back to the House. In particular there is an issue about conjugal status. The Social Services Committee made a comment about the wording of section 152 inserted by clause 4 in relation to whether it is actually sufficiently clear. 
 There are also issues in relation to the change in asset value and maximum contribution and in particular to the cap of $636 per week. That sounds like an awful lot of money—and of course it is—but when we look at the cost of looking after someone in what is really a hospital situation we see that it is not that much more. In fact that cost is often cheaper than the cost of a lot of motel rooms over a weekly period. So to have that cap put in legislation like this I think can be very very difficult particularly for the providers. 
I am very concerned that there are people in this industry who have indicated they will exit the industry because they feel that they just cannot make ends meet. One of the problems in the industry is that it has a lot of groups of people operating in it who comprise not-for-profit organisations. Normally we would say that that was a good thing and that they are organisations such as The Salvation Army who are able to provide a good standard of care. But the trouble is that The Salvation Army is now getting out of that provision of care because it cannot make ends meet. 
The irony is that the people who can just survive happen to be the bigger commercial operators because the smaller commercial operators are certainly finding that there really is not enough in the rates that are paid to make it worth their while. Not only are they in the situation of having to provide a good standard of care but they are also in the situation where they care for people who are often in great need and who are now coming into this sort of care much later in life. 
About 20 years ago elderly people would often live in the situation of long-term residential care for maybe 15 or 20 years before they died. So they were going into care in a much better physical mental and emotional state than the state they are often in now. As I recall from the Social Services Committee hearings on this bill people said that the average time the elderly now stay in residential care is I think about 6 months. I am sure the Minister will know that more precisely than I do but it is a much shorter period of time. I ask the Minister whether that is right. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Eighteen months. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Eighteen months is it? It is certainly not what it used to be. I am sure that many of the members of the Committee like me were trotted around by their parents to go and visit elderly great-aunts and other relatives who had been living in rest homes for many many years. Certainly that is not a situation we tend to have now because people are more often staying in their own homes. There are caregivers coming into those homes which I think is a very very good thing but we do need to have better services and wages for caregivers. I think we here can all agree that caregivers are people who help our elderly to stay in their own homes. It takes a huge weight off their families to know there is someone going in every day or every second day to make sure that something is happening for them. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to make some comments on Part 2 of this bill and in particular I want to look at schedule 27 “Means assessment under Part 4” substituted in schedule 1. It takes us through the changes that will be effected until the year 2026 and shows the progressive increases in the threshold. 
But what I really want to talk about is whether this legislation is good legislation. The initial cost of the bill will be about $110 million. I understand that that amount will increase by about $15 million a year as the threshold increases and more people retire. I also understand that in 30 years’ time the cost of this legislation could be as much as $1 billion a year and I ask the Labour Government whether it has the right to put in place such a small bill—which it is; there are only two parts to it—that will cost this country so much when the important point is that the cost burden will fall on families who are struggling to get by. Those families will be forced to pay higher and higher taxes as the years go by and to pay taxes for people who can afford their own care. I think that that is the important point. 
There has been a means-tested regime in place and although not everybody thinks it is fair it has forced New Zealanders to look at the fact that if they can afford to pay for rest home care then they have been asked to do so. This bill changes all that and it will force poor struggling families to pay for people who could well afford to pay for themselves. 
I say that that is poor legislation. It is ill-advised and it is not based on real need but simply on the need to buy votes. That is what this bill is—vote-driven legislation. I say shame on the Labour Government for doing that because of the huge cost burden that it will put on New Zealand. In particular it is what we call inter-generational theft where one generation has to pay for another generation. 
I say that the answer to the problem of elderly care is to make sure that people can save up and have resources in their retirement. Then if they have some unforeseen event they have the financial means to be able to cope with it. 
However the second point about this bill is that most of the submissions made to the Social Services Committee talked about the fact that this was a broken promise of the Labour Party. Labour charged into power in 1999 promising to abolish asset testing and all submitters including many elderly submitters from Grey Power essentially asked: “Why have you broken your pre-election commitment to the elderly? Where have your principles gone Labour Party?”. They went on to say that they believed that this bill was a breach of faith and they strongly opposed the Government’s move to bring this bill into Parliament. They said it was simply not good enough. 
I concur with them that this is a Government that tries to pretend it is doing the right thing but we see with this bill that it is not. It is simply making a sop to that elderly vote. The Government has not abided by its election promises and as a result I think that members are sitting here tonight voting on poor legislation. 
A more worrying part of this bill has already been brought up in this debate. It is the fact that many of the social service providers who have been in this sector are essentially saying that unless the Government does something to assist them to make ends meet they will have to quit the sector. We have already seen that with The Salvation Army and that situation is not good enough. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 2 of this bill. As I was beginning to say last time when I ran out of time and the bell rang it is interesting to hear the voting record of all the parties on this particular bill. Even though there have been adverse comments against the bill most parties are supporting it. 
I think that when we are caring for the elderly we need to be well aware of the shortage of staff in rest homes. I also think that in a busy society like we have today we all tend to want things to be done instantly; yet people running rest homes and care centres for the elderly are really being totally frustrated at the present time by the Government’s inability to make a decision on things that are basically essential for those people to be able to continue running their homes. They need to employ staff for a 24-hour facility and with holiday pay amendments and all those things their costs are increasing; yet they are hamstrung by being unable to recoup those costs. 
 In rest homes that cater for the elderly there is obviously a lot of difference between one that has been established for many many years and one that has been built today. With the current costs of building a rest home and putting all the facilities into it it would be nigh impossible to be able to get one under way. That is a shame when we consider the elderly. Many of them would want the more comfortable facilities that are perhaps available today yet because of the delays in addressing the major issues that continually came through in the select committee process people just cannot do it. 
When we see The Salvation Army pull out of providing a service we know that we are dealing with a serious issue because The Salvation Army would be one organisation that would fall over backwards to try to cater for this group of people. Yet sadly we heard just recently that it is no longer able to continue with one of its services and a rest home has had to be closed down. 
The owners of one of the rest homes I visited—and rest homes of course have numerous rooms in them mostly catering for just one person per room—told me that they are now looking very closely at the viability of turning the rest home into student accommodation. That has to be a major concern for us. We have to address the concerns that the submitters have brought to us. I believe—and we have been told—that it is squarely in the Government’s quarter. It is not anything to do with this legislation; it is a Government decision. I again encourage the Government to make these decisions quickly because it is a very very important issue. 
I think that when we come into those twilight years as will happen to us all if people have the ability to pay for a better type of care then they should be free to do that. We have to look seriously at how we are dealing with these people. We have a growing sector of the population coming up here. It is an increasing market and United Future believes it is well time that the Government addressed this issue very speedily. That is all I will say on this particular clause. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask for clarification. When the debate resumed in the Committee stage following the dinner break my recollection is that Mr Paul Adams the member who has just spoken had some time left on a call from when the Committee previously met to discuss this bill. For one reason or another Mr Adams was not available to take up that call at which point I took the call. I just wonder how the apportionment of calls is to operate in an environment where National had two members seeking the call yet the call was handed to United Future in a situation where on only two calls prior to that Mr Adams had the opportunity to complete his call from the last time the Committee met but did not take that opportunity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is completely wrong. It is my responsibility to give the call as per the Standing Orders. Mr Adams was quite entitled to the call. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As the debate resumes on this very important bill I think it is important to talk about honesty. Members opposite when in Opposition travelled from one end of New Zealand to the other talking about how they would abolish asset testing for the elderly. Helen Clark kissed and hugged a lot of elderly folk all over the country then said that the Labour Party would abolish asset testing—not get rid of it not partially remove it but totally abolish asset testing. How it has changed its tune now it is in Government! 
Today the debate started with Government members talking about honesty. They gave us a series of lectures on honesty. One could say: “If only they would listen to their own advice.” If there is one thing that New Zealanders crave from Governments it is honesty. There has been an honesty deficit from this Government. If Government members were to turn up at any public meeting that was not organised by their own party they would hear from members of the public about honesty. Guess who said: “People want some honesty about asset testing.”? It was Annette King when she was the Opposition spokeswoman on health. Throughout  
Hansard 
 Annette King has made comment after comment not about partially removing asset testing not about kinda sorta nearly or almost getting rid of asset testing but about totally abolishing asset testing. If Labour Party members want to talk about honesty one would think they would do it while they were in Government. But no they have changed their tune since they were in Opposition. 
Judith Collins 
: The “h” word. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The “h” word as my learned colleague Judith Collins has said They have changed their tune because they know they cannot deliver on that election promise. It is just not possible at this point. 
We are debating a bill that is very complex but in reality I think we will create a few problems out there in the residential-care sector. We have already seen The Salvation Army pull the pin. Members of The Salvation Army came before the Social Services Committee and told us they were having difficulty. They told us that they would have to reconsider their investment in the residential-care market if they were unable to cover the basic costs of looking after the elderly in their care. Some of the select committee members scoffed and said: “This is just posturing designed to convince the Government that they are serious.” Unfortunately some of the Government members did not take The Salvation Army seriously and we read in the paper only yesterday that The Salvation Army is to exit the residential-care market. It is putting 12 of its facilities on the market—one of them Red Roofs happens to be in Dunedin—and will get out of that part of the business altogether. 
One of the things that the Government should be concerned about is what will happen if there is a mass exodus from the residential-care market. Who will provide all those beds? Of course more and more New Zealanders will look to the hospital system to provide that care. If we talk to any carers out in the community—any nurses who are out there working on the ground—they will say that too many people spend too long in their own homes these days. It is almost as if the pendulum has swung too far. That is why some of the residential carers say that when people come into their residential-care facilities they have more extreme conditions than perhaps they did 10 or 20 years ago when people used to drive to the care facility as opposed to being brought in by ambulance. That is why the facilities are seeing people who need longer stays people who have more extreme health conditions and people who require a higher standard of care than perhaps was the case earlier. 
With that higher standard of care comes of course a cost. One of the things that is of great concern in this part of the bill is the fixing of the pricing cap—the $636 cap that people talk about. One of the strange things about this bill is that the Government is saying that it will determine not only what the people who are funded by the public system will pay and be asked to pay but also what the private sector can ask private payers—people who contract and make their own decisions—to pay. That in a sense is price fixing. The Government has not attempted to do it in any other sector but it is doing it in the residential-care market. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 We left this debate last night of course but I think it is worth reminding ourselves every time we stand—and my colleague who spoke previously did this—that in 1999 this Government promised to remove asset testing. This bill does not do that. What this bill does is lift the levels at which those requiring long-term care cannot be assessed on but we think it has lifted those levels far too high. Actual care in rest homes is only part of this whole scenario. One would have thought that after 6 years the Government would be a lot more intelligent about the way it reordered this whole area. Of course what we have is providers feeling that they cannot hack it any more. It will be worse even for those who think that they can. 
But there is an issue about the carers as well. As the Government puts more money into this area as provided for in the bill one has to ask about the carers. As we know there is only a certain amount of money to go around in any particular area. This is a Government that has previously said that it stands for carers but there is no increase in funding at all for carers. There is none for those who care for the elderly so that they can stay in their own homes. In 5 years there has been no increase in the earnings of carers. We all know just what a job a task a mission it is for those wonderful people in our communities who care-give to those of our senior citizens who remain at home. They do things like giving them a shower helping them with their dressings or medications and cooking them a meal. Carers do not get funded even for transport. 
A National Government would have increased the amount that people can keep before liabilities kick in. We think that is certainly justifiable but on the other hand this Government has basically chosen to put all its eggs in one basket. The total long-term care scenario has been neglected. This is a Government that has continually said it cares for all sectors of this industry. The Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson is sitting there with her chest puffed out and no doubt feeling very proud of herself for what has been delivered in the bill but there is a whole side of this issue that is not being taken care of or being addressed. 
Steve Chadwick 
: We’ll get there bit by bit. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is OK. Getting there bit by bit is one thing but the Government will find that the cost structure that has been built in will be so high plus a number of barriers and hoops are being put in place that increase the bureaucracy. It will be unmanageable. Getting there bit by bit is OK but the Government has to be sure that as it gets there bit by bit it is able to meet the bits by bit. 
How long will the bit be? It has taken 6 years for a Government that promised all sorts of things when it was in Opposition and it certainly is not delivering them in this bill. We will see what the senior citizens think. No doubt they will feel let down again by a Government that made out the previous National Government to be hard and uncaring. It turns out that this Labour Government is much the same in any event even if that were true of the previous Government which of course it was not. We can see that it is justifiable to increase the level of income that a person requiring long-term care can keep before the liabilities kick in. But we think that this legislation has gone too far to the detriment of other parts of the sector. 
The other point I want to address briefly is in Part 1 and Part 2. Clause 3(d) in Part 1 states that one of the purposes of the bill is to clarify the funder’s obligations to pay for contracted care services associated with long-term residential care. New Part 4 “Long-term residential care in hospital or rest home” in clause 4 provides a definition of what contracted care services means. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. Yesterday the debate on Part 1 was truncated after a fairly short-lived debate. The Chairperson at the time said that on Part 2 which is clearly the larger part of this bill members would be given the opportunity to debate it widely. The Government has already moved one closure motion to try to stop this debate. I ask you because this is such an important bill and this is the main part to ensure that Opposition members are given an opportunity to speak on it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is wrong in his first premise. He stated that the debate on Part 1 was truncated. Debates are not truncated. Members move a closure motion and it is up to the Chairperson whether that is accepted. The Chairperson last evening decided to accept the closure motion on Part 1 because he had heard the arguments and Part 1 was short. We have had a long debate on Part 2 but the key point is that it is not appropriate for members to raise points of order to give you the value of their opinion on how long they believe the debate should run. You are the sole judge of that Madam Chairperson. If a Government member moves a closure motion only you determine whether that should be taken into account. Although we value Dr Hutchison’s opinions on other matters on procedural ones we do not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is no debate on the closure. Members should know that by now. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. With respect to the previous speaker the Chairman did take the unusual call of explaining to the Committee that he had accepted a closure after one closure motion having been moved by the Government because he felt that the Chair would then allow a far wider debate on Part 2. If Mr Hughes is trying to pretend that the Chairman did not give us that assurance then he is misrepresenting what happened last night. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is at the discretion of the Chair whether to accept a closure motion. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I was interested to hear Darren Hughes say just a short while ago that tonight the Government is delivering. There is no doubt that what it is delivering in this bill is a legacy of broken promises. Part 2 is testimony to that when one goes into its details particularly in new section 153 in clause 4. 
I see the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson is smirking. We have repeatedly asked her to take a call to explain to the Committee why she and the Labour Party went around the country for a decade campaigning on abandoning asset and income testing. They modified it towards the end of the decade to abandoning just asset testing. All that this bill does is modify or change the amount that the elderly have to pay. We must again remind the Minister in the chair what the Prime Minister said about asset testing. She said: “We say asset testing older people is wrong. It will go.” 
What do we have in new section 153(1) in clause 4? It states: “The maximum contribution is the amount to be prescribed by an Order in Council made by the Governor-General that is $636 per week adjusted by an amount that reflects the movement in the All Groups …”. The concern about this provision is that it is totally unrealistic. As I pointed out in the debate yesterday it was The Salvation Army spokesperson Major Alistair Herring who said that The Salvation Army believes that this bill should at the very least commence with the adjusted figure of $757.14 which adjusts the rate back to 1994 when Jenny Shipley set the initial figure of $636. The effect of this has been the absolutely unrealistic stance that the Labour Government has taken towards the elderly and elder care in the last 5 to 6 years. 
 I will go back for a moment to a comment on the Ministry of Health’s response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which was that since receiving the final report on residential care pricing implementation in June 2000 the ministry has attempted first to change the report’s intended purpose and second to selectively use the findings to suit its own cost parameters. In Port Waikato the electorate I so proudly represent I know that rest homes up and down the electorate are closing because of this Government’s absolutely unrealistic pricing policy. It goes further than that because it extends throughout New Zealand. 
Of course we have heard the news that The Salvation Army is closing its residential units. It is an indictment on the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson that during her watch The Salvation Army is exiting residential care. It is one of the trusted organisations in New Zealand and an organisation that the elderly do trust. Why is it exiting? It is exiting because of the refusal of this Government to acknowledge just what it costs to run residential care homes. Every time I have spoken in the debate I have asked the Minister to come and tell us why the Government reneged on the promise it campaigned on for 10 years. Is she prepared to front up and explain that to people of New Zealand particularly the elderly? 
There is no doubt that National supports improving asset testing for the elderly but we support it being done in a realistic way. We support this bill but we are deeply concerned about the absolute inconsistency that the Government has displayed in bringing the bill to the House. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 and Supplementary Order Paper 307 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 307 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see Minister Maharey sitting in the Chamber. This bill epitomises to a tee what we in the Opposition like to call the “Maharey principle”—that is and I am taking his own words: “That’s just what you say when you’re in Opposition”. Clearly since the Labour Party has been in Government it tends to do things other than what it said it would do when it was in Opposition. As I said this Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill epitomises that principle to a tee. The Minister should not take that as praise being heaped on him at all. Obviously it does him no credit that he made that comment. It does him no credit whatsoever. 
What Labour said when it was in Opposition which has already been referred to but which I think deserves being said again is that it would abolish income and asset testing. It was saying that at the beginning of the 1990s and throughout most of the 1990s although by the end of the 1990s that had been watered down to asset testing. This is a Government that says one thing in Opposition and does something else when in Government. Minister Maharey admitted that; he seems to be proud of that. I do not know why he is proud of it because I would not be proud of that myself. [ 
Interruption 
] It would be great for Minister Maharey to take a call because the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson has not responded to any of our requests for her to take a call. Maybe Minister Maharey might oblige us and take a call to tell us why he thinks it is OK for this Government to feel very proud of what it is doing. I do not think that Grey Power members out and about in communities around New Zealand are feeling very happy. The Minister should tell us why he thinks it is OK for Labour to say one thing in Opposition and do exactly the opposite when in Government. 
It is not good enough. This Government was elected with a pretty clear mandate in 1999 so one would think that it felt that it had a mandate to keep the promises it made while it was in Opposition. But disappointingly no it did not do it. So here we are in the Chamber tonight debating the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill which basically delivers something but falls far short of what this Government said that it would deliver when it was in Opposition. 
In the rest of my time available I want to express my concerns and worries about the definition of “contracted care services”. The select committee made a change. Those services were originally defined as “specified care services”. For some reason the select committee thought that “contracted care services” would make a better description. Last night one of my colleagues Dr Lynda Scott who has huge experience in this area raised the issue of what were the basic services that fall under the definition of “contracted care services”. I want the Minister to tell us what those services are. She should give us and those who are already in long-term care and those who will be going there shortly some peace of mind and reassurance that what would normally be regarded as a fair provision of services will still be available once the legislation comes into force. Probably Steve Chadwick could give us some peace of mind on that situation. 
A couple of senior citizens have dropped me a note to express their worries about what that definition actually entails. The problem is that the funders themselves the district health boards are under huge funding pressures anyway. We all know that. So we will have a situation whereby the services to be delivered which fall under the term “contracted care services” are not defined. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to give a contribution on the title of this bill. The title that springs to mind is “Another Labour Party Broken Promise Bill”. This bill is a Labour Party broken promise and a half-hearted attempt to try to get it through before the election. However we know that this legislation does not come into force until July and also that the asset testing that will be addressed is simply a minimal part of what Labour promised at the 1999 election. I do think that a more appropriate title for this bill would be the “Crippling of the Aged-Care Sector Bill”. We heard from many submitters that if this bill goes through it will cripple the sector and drive many of the providers out of business and that there is already a crisis in the sector. This is a crisis for those organisations that one could call social providers. They are the churches the charitable groups—I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What appears to be rather a robust conversation is going on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: When members are speaking from the cross benches it is really difficult for the speaker. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The social providers are being crippled by this Government. The interesting thing is that a healthy society needs a vibrant and flourishing civil society. Social providers like The Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support New Zealand are organisations that are absolutely fundamental to the strength of civil society and the Labour Government wants to close them down. I do not think that anyone would mind if it did it in an open and honest way and just shut them down but Labour does it by stealth. It stabs them in the back and crushes them by stealth. How does it do that? It squeezes them out. 
We heard from organisations that told us about the costs involved such as $36000 for an audit and $100000 for certification. They talked about the increases in accident compensation levies that had been introduced by Labour the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Service the costs of the Employment Relations Act the Holidays Act and so on. It became very obvious that the sector which did not have any increases at all at a time when Labour was increasing costs was caught between a rock and a hard place and as we know it had nowhere to go. 
The Labour Government is squeezing those charities and organisations—which have been there for years—out of the sector. It is nationalising aged care in New Zealand by stealth. I believe that the Government should at least be honest. This bill should be called the “Nationalisation of Aged Care in New Zealand Bill”. If it had a title like that then every Kiwi would understand what Labour is trying to do. The fact that the Minister has not taken even one call in this debate during the Committee stage means that we have hit the nail on the head. So the thoughts we have been promoting about how Labour wants to close down those social service providers are correct. Maybe the Minister in the chair will take a call to correct the record. Otherwise what we know is that Labour intends to nationalise aged care in New Zealand and all those other providers will just have to wait. Their time will come and they will be squeezed out as well. 
It is a sad day when members have to take calls in debates like this. This is poor legislation. It is not good law. It will be incredibly costly to taxpayers in New Zealand. Many of them are already struggling. They do not need legislation that is designed to buy votes for Labour at the next election. That is not what the House should be all about. We should be passing good laws that are needed by our community and our society. We should not be passing laws that are simply aimed at trying to give the Labour Party another term in office. This is a sad day for New Zealand. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I still have some questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson and it is very interesting that she has not taken a single call during the Committee stage of this bill. The Opposition has asked a lot of questions about this legislation—and they are not just our questions; they were raised by most of the submitters to the Social Services Committee—for example Age Concern Grey Power Presbyterian Support the Anglican Methodist Family Care Centre and The Salvation Army. Yet not one of those questions has been answered by the Minister. If this is such good law why did almost every aged-care provider tell the select committee that the Government was doing the wrong thing? Why did almost every submitter—groups that are normally very supportive of the Government—tell us that this law was a recipe for disaster because of the continued underfunding of the aged-care sector? Why did submitter after submitter tell us they would be getting out of the provision of aged care if some of their concerns were not addressed? 
We began the Committee stage of the bill yesterday and interestingly one of the major providers of aged care The Salvation Army told the New Zealand public that it was getting out of aged care and is selling 12 facilities. The Salvation Army has been involved in the care of the nation’s elderly for 70 years but now it is getting out washing its hands of it saying that it has had enough cannot cover its costs and is sick of cross-subsiding aged care from other areas of its business. The Salvation Army has said it is getting out of running facilities and will concentrate on caring for people in their homes. The Government still remains silent. It has not explained why that is the case. It has not explained why there has been a broken promise. While in Opposition Helen Clark travelled this country from 1990 onwards telling the New Zealand public that asset testing would be abolished under Labour. Labour spokespersons on health told the then National Government that the New Zealand people wanted some honesty about the health system. 
Annette King said while in Opposition that people wanted some honesty about asset testing and the health system. In the same speech she went on to criticise the Government for sending people to Australia for health care but that is a matter for another debate altogether. 
Has the Labour Government not changed its tune? Now it is not interested in talking about honesty about asset testing any longer. 
Steve Chadwick 
: We inherited big deficits when we came into power. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting that new members are piping up but they were not here in Parliament when the promises were made. The Labour Government has given up on talking about its goal of abolishing asset testing and is not talking about broken promises any more. It pretends that this partial removal of asset testing shows it is keeping its promise. But most of the groups that came before the select committee had seen through the Government’s clever talk and realised it was breaking its promise. 
This bill is very complex law. Some submitters said they did not quite understand what the implications would be and who would be covered—what was meant by “eligible person” or “contracted services” and what would be covered. They found the price fixing of their business totally abhorrent. They saw this legislation as just another opportunity for the Government to meddle in their affairs and make it increasingly difficult for them to get on with the work they want to do: looking after the elderly and frail New Zealanders in their care. The Minister will have received many hundreds of letters on this issue—as I have—from a lot of residential care facilities in her own electorate. I have heard from Taieri Court Rest Home and from Redroofs Rest Home—one of those to be closed down as a result of this legislation. People are worried about their jobs and families are worried about the people in their care. People are worried about the continuity and quality of the service yet the Government has not said one word about this bill. Not one Government member has taken a call to defend this bill and to talk about some of its complexities. Is that not interesting? The Minister in the chair has sat there call after call without listening to the concerns reflected by the Opposition—which are the concerns of Age Concern Grey Power and a lot of the other groups that are interested in the care of the elderly. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 My main concerns with regard to this legislation are not so much about what it does as what it does not do. As the previous speaker Katherine Rich said the Government has been amazingly quiet during the whole of the debate on this legislation and that is what the submitters told us at the Social Services Committee all the way through. They asked what the Government would do about the serious concerns that we are addressing. I received letter after letter from rest homes and other aged-care facilities and I have also been getting letters from those who look after the disabled. I realised the bill does not cover that sector but the disability sector faces very very similar challenges in the care of disabled people and we should also be very concerned about that. I implore the Government to become involved in the plight of those older people and their families who are dependent on the services of rest homes and private hospitals. As I understand it since 1977 the rest homes have had only a 6 percent increase in the fees they can charge which I believe happened in about June 2003 and the hospitals a mere 0.25 percent increase. 
There have been additional costs coming upon those institutions every day especially when one considers a lot of the compliance costs that have been put upon them which they have had no control over. Many of them have said the cost of doctors’ visits can be $70 to $110 per visit and many of their residents need to have those visits if the facilities are to truly care for residents. They have pharmaceutical costs which have increased with the introduction of the pharmaceutical schedule change as well as with the normal cost increases. Medical supplies and all those things have gone up. Health and disability sector standards compliance costs require significantly more time to be spent on documentation and reporting than has ever been required before. Many aged-care facilities have been telling me that they now have to employ extra staff just to deal with those particular issues not to mention the occupational safety and health compliance costs involving the widespread purchasing of various types of lifting equipment. All those costs have come on and been forced upon rest homes and they have had no choice but to comply with them. 
I urge the Government to address that issue. As we heard time and time again at the select committee as submitters brought up those issues it is a Government policy issue. Well if it is a Government policy issue as it obviously is then I would urge the Government again to pay serious attention to making changes in its policy at the earliest time because there are challenges in the aged-care and disability sectors. I do not think it is acceptable when it is a core business for those people—and yes they do have a genuine heart for those they care for—that they are virtually hamstrung with things they have absolutely no control over whatsoever. The aged-care facilities do not want to close putting the elderly back into unacceptable living conditions. They want to look after them. But it came through clearly at the select committee through all the submissions that the aged-care facilities are not able to do an adequate job. They are unable to do their job effectively and give residents the care and attention that most of them desire to give because of Government policy. United Future would again strongly encourage the Government to deal with the policy issues and put in place a regime that pays reasonably well so that elderly people can be cared for correctly. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clause 1(1) states ironically: “This Act is the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act”. The emphasis should certainly not be on “long-term”. I think the title should be changed to the “Social Security (Short-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill” because that is exactly what will happen to the elderly people who at present live in The Salvation Army’s residential care units. I go back to what Major Herring said regarding the fact that the money for that has not been adjusted since 1994. He said back in May of this year that if such an adjustment were not made it was likely not-for-profit providers like The Salvation Army would have difficulty in remaining in the residential care market. Well that prediction has certainly come true and Major Herring gave exactly that warning to the Labour Government which ignored that very very excellent organisation. Instead the affected residents are to be moved into alternative care. 
Major Herring went on to say: “Not-for-profit providers are in the residential care market out of concern for older people and a desire to provide high-quality care.” That is the sort of person whom the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson—who has stayed silent throughout this debate—has totally ignored. That epitomises the promises that Labour members campaigned on for 10 years while in Opposition during the 1990s but that the Labour Government has since broken. Since the Minister will not take a call maybe the Hon Steve Maharey the master or the archdeacon of the flip-flop—the U-turn—may be prepared to take a call to explain his principles and explain why the Labour Party campaigned for a decade that it would remove asset and income testing and then absolutely changed its mind once it came into Government thereby defrauding many elderly people. 
Perhaps other names for this bill could be the “Labour Government’s Broken Promise to the Elderly Act”—that is one title we have talked about—the “Labour Government (Let’s Help The Salvation Army Exit Elder Care) Bill” or the “Labour Government (Let’s Dupe the Elderly) Bill”. I have seen in Port Waikato up and down the electorate the smaller rest homes predictably just not being able to survive because of the totally unrealistic way that the Labour Government has supported the elderly despite report after report. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Spend spend spend. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Minister Cullen says: “Spend spend spend.” He has spent $3 billion more on the health system yet productivity has gone down. There are fewer operations now and he is spending more than previously. He and this Government have presided over the creation of the most complex bureaucracy in health that this country has ever known and clearly productivity has gone down as shown by report after report. Talk about spending! Dr Cullen would be the champion of spending—and spending poorly when it comes the health sector. He cannot for one moment talk about spending effectively when we talk about the health sector or about the very very important area of elderly care. We have had the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which the Government totally ignored. In fact just a little while ago in June 2000 a report stated the Ministry of Health had attempted to change the report’s intended purpose—that relates to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report—and to use the findings selectively to suit its own cost parameters. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 November. 
Part 4 Amendments to other Acts and Regulations ( 
continued 
)  
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 4. I have taken calls previously on this bill and I have to say that components of it have left me feeling extremely uneasy. But to be fair to the Minister there are some components of Part 4 that I want to talk about and I refer to section 45 “Refund of excess tax” inserted by clause 134. I think this is rather meritorious. However I find it a little ironic especially after listening to Mr Cullen getting flummoxed at question time today when he was asked by the new member Kenneth Wang whether he could think of anything he has done to reduce taxation in this country. For the first time I heard him say: “I don’t know.” It was the first time I have found him short of a word. 
 It was ironic I thought that someone from the National Party had to stand up—Mr Key in fact—to say that there has been something which is the Maori rates of taxation. We will come to that in Part 5. The argument I am building relates to the matter of the refund on excess tax and the question I have for the Minister which I am hoping he might be able to help out with is: will interest be paid on the amount of the payment that is given back to the taxpayer? The provision may be there but after a quick glance I could not see any reference to it in this part. I think it is only fair and reasonable if someone is assessed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as having overpaid—if he judges that someone is due a tax refund—that that person should also be due the interest that has been carried on overpayment. I think the Minister is conferring with his officials in order to take a call and respond to that because it is a very fair question. 
The other concern I have is that having dealt with the Inland Revenue Department as a business person over the years and having mounted arguments with the department that there has been an overpayment of tax I the taxpayer have incurred the cost of proving my position. So although I feel it is meritorious that the Minister is now framing legislation that will refund excess tax paid I also want to ask him whether the costs incurred in proving that someone has paid too much tax will be reimbursed. I think that is a fair position. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There’s nothing in this part about that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: There is nothing in this part about that? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s the wrong part. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No it is not the wrong part. If we are talking about a refund on excess tax and if we are proven— 
Hon Member 
: Page 117? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Page 119. If the commissioner is saying that someone is due a refund because he or she has paid too much tax and that taxpayer has to incur the cost to prove that position is it not fair and equitable that that person also has his or her costs refunded for proving the point? 
Now over the last 2 or 3 years the Minister has struck me as being a fair man so I do not think that is an unreasonable question to pose. If he is saying to me that I can find an answer to it in another part then I ask him please to take a call and point out where that is. If not I ask that he takes advice from his advisers and tells the Committee what he intends to do about the issue. I remind him of my first question—that is: if there is a refund due on excess tax will the Inland Revenue Department put its hand in its pocket and pay the interest on that money just as any other taxpayer would have to do had the situation been reversed? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The Minister owes the Committee the duty to respond to more than just Brian Connell’s question regarding the issue of whether interest will be paid. A more important question arises out of clause 134 with regard to the refunding of excess tax. That refund is available if taxpayers can go to the commissioner and prove that they may for one reason or another have paid an excess of tax but they must do so inside a period of 4 years. I ask the Minister: why 4 years? I think I am right in saying that taxpayers currently have the ability to apply for a refund of excess tax within an 8-year period. But here we have a Government so intent on overtaxing New Zealanders that it is making a further attempt—that is how this looks to me—to close down any possibility for taxpayers who make a genuine mistake to be able to approach the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and demonstrate that they have made a genuine mistake. Now the Minister is so tight and so keen to obtain that money that he is halving the time available for those particular taxpayers to realise they have made a mistake and to make application. 
I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I fully accept that I may not be interpreting the law properly. Tax law by its very nature is very complex. But it seems to me that I am interpreting it properly and if that is the case the Minister must realise that a taxpayer—perhaps in a business where he or she is not deeply involved in the letter of the law regarding tax—or a taxpayer’s accountant may take some time to pick up the fact that a genuine mistake has been made with a tax return. If that is the case the taxpayer can then go to the commissioner and say: “In all honesty I have made a mistake and I’ve paid about $10000 in excess tax.” and can demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the commissioner. But now Dr Cullen has come into the Chamber and said: “Aha you had 8 years to do it but we’re going to halve that opportunity.” Not only does Dr Cullen want New Zealanders not to get their excess tax payments back but he is also intent on building magnificent and huge resources on the back of hard-earned tax. I wish the Minister would answer that. 
The other issue that intrigues me is contained in clause 145 an interesting clause that was unanimously struck out by the select committee. In the bill as introduced to the House that clause stated: “Section 57 of the Partnership Act 1908 is repealed.” 
Brian Connell 
: That’s simply the issue. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well I think there is a fixation in the House at the moment with partnerships and that is the very reason I raise the question of why that particular clause was ever there and what it actually meant. It had obviously existed without complication for the tax system since 1908 but along came Dr Cullen and it was probably another means of making sure he extracted every last dollar out of the poor suffering taxpayers of this country. So it was proposed that it would be taken out without any explanation. I thank Dr Cullen who looks as if he is seeking advice for the basis of that. There may have been a very legitimate reason but certainly when I look at the commentary on the bill I cannot see any notice of it. We now see that the select committee perhaps decided to toss it out but there are not many members of the select committee here in the Chamber from whom I can seek advice. 
Those are the two important points that I want the Minister to address. I would like an answer on the first point in particular which I feel very aggrieved about because it looks to me as though the Minister is trying to close down an opportunity for taxpayers who have made a mistake and made an overpayment of tax to be able to prove that genuine mistake to the satisfaction of the commissioner. Here is Dr Cullen closing down that opportunity in an attempt to drag more and more money into his coffers as he prepares himself for next year and the biggest electoral bribe we will ever see. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of points. Regarding the partnership point the member has actually got it around the wrong way. The repeal of the provision was in order to remove the requirement to go back to the High Court every 4 years in relation to a special partnership. The select committee decided in the end to take that out because on the advice of the Ministry of Economic Development a fuller review was taking place on special partnerships. So probably we will come back to that issue later. It was designed in here to simplify things—not in any way at all as a tax grab. On the other matter I refer the member to subsection (4) of section 45 inserted by clause 134. The 8-year period remains where the overpayment is the result of a clear mistake or a simple oversight. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The Minister when he got up could have answered the question that my colleague Mr Connell raised about clause 134. I think the answer to the question may be that new section 45(1) in clause 134 states in part: “the Commissioner must refund an amount that a person has paid as tax if—(a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the amount represents an excess over the amount properly assessed”. I presume that the proper assessment does include the interest rates that apply on tax unpaid or tax paid according to the normal Inland Revenue Department schedule. I think that we would both be grateful for that clarification because one can easily imagine a situation where the taxpayer made a mistake and paid too much tax and over a 4-year period—or as the Minister is suggesting perhaps an 8-year period—there would be considerable interest accrued and I would hate to think the department had the use of the money and was not paying interest when it should have done. 
I would not have thought that intent when the tax is paid is relevant to whether interest is calculated as part of the assessment. If I overpay because I overestimate my provisional taxpayer’s income it should not make any difference that I did that because I or someone else made a mistake. I hope the Minister can get up and tell us a bit about clause 134 because the amounts involved could be very significant and I would hope that the intent or the reason for the overpayment is not relevant to the interest calculation. I might come back to that. 
There is another section for which I want to indicate support for a change but again I would like the Minister to explain the rationale for it. That is clause 141 where we see an amendment to the Taxation Review Authorities Act and a change to the small claims jurisdiction of authorities. The shift from $15000 to $30000 which looks to be extending the scope of a small claims jurisdiction is almost certainly the right thing to do. But I wonder whether the Minister can relate that shift to his general tax policy because this shows an understanding that for relatively small amounts of money a whole great big process is not needed to sort out the claims. The fact that the threshold for the jurisdiction has been doubled seems entirely inconsistent with the Government’s policy that it will not move any other tax threshold. 
So here we see the threshold being moved from $15000 to $30000 in recognition not just of the procedural efficiency that can be gained but I presume in recognition of the fact that people are simply paying more tax. Smaller claimants find themselves paying more tax. How does it fit with the overall approach to thresholds in the tax system? The Minister’s own coalition and confidence partners have put it to him that he ought to be shifting tax thresholds in recognition of the same kind of phenomenon. GDP has grown incomes have grown—they have to because that is how GDP grows—and more people have moved into higher tax brackets. It is reflected in this particular change but not reflected in the rest of the tax policies. So the Minister could explain that. 
There is another clause that I am interested in—and I have to say that I have approached this as a layman and the Minister may be able to help explain. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I’m a layman too. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well we pay the Minister to know about it so he can show us whether he does. I am interested in clause 136 regarding people who are treated as registered. I thought someone was registered if he or she was registered. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I will ask the Minister a question. I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee the changes that are being made in clause 125 “Zero-rating of services” because it is quite an interesting new clause. The clause states that the present section 11A(1B) is replaced by the following: “(1B) Subsection (1)(j) does not apply to a supply of services that is treated by section 8(4B) as being made in New Zealand unless the nature of the services is such that the services can be physically received at no time and place other than the time and place at which the services are physically performed.” I have been nutting that out and thinking about it and I figure there must be some rort that somebody has worked out. Is this when people are providing services to people in New Zealand from outside and they are deemed to be within New Zealand? It is an amendment to the present section which seems to be quite straightforward: “(j) the services are physically performed outside New Zealand or are the arranging of services that are physically performed outside New Zealand;”. That is zero-rated. Now we have this peculiar sentence. I have been trying to think what the nature of a service is that is physically received at no time and place other than the time and place at which the services were physically performed. It would seem to be logical that all services must be performed at the time they were performed. Logically a service can only have been performed at the time that it was performed. If it was performed at a different time then it was not performed at that time. 
Hon Bill English 
: The member doesn’t understand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not. I freely admit that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: It could be in different places. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Metaphysically it might be. But it was either performed at the time that it was performed or it was not. Here we are— 
Hon Bill English 
: The key word is “only”. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Does the member mean that it could be performed only at that particular time and at that particular place? I would like to know what services those are—[ 
Interruption 
] The member cannot think of any? I am having difficulty myself. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I can think of a few. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The United Future member says that he can think of a few. That would be interesting. I suppose hot cross bun making can only be done— 
Hon Bill English 
: It is paying a credit card bill while you are flying with an airline over the Internet. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The suggestion is that it is paying a credit card bill while one is flying with an airline. The Minister is getting advice and I would be interested in that outcome. 
That brings me to another point which the Minister might like to comment on. When the goods and services tax was introduced it was said that it would be a nice simple and easy tax to introduce. If one now looks at the sheer complexity of the amendments that we are making and then one looks at what is being amended and the sheer complexity of that it would appear to me that GST is becoming rather complex. Is that the situation? If so is there any solution other than introducing these incredibly complicated amendment bills that we now introduce every year? I wonder as the Minister is part of a reforming Government whether he has had a look at that and whether there is any great solution or every year are we to pass clauses that are almost metaphysical in their nature? When one looks at some of the other clauses they are almost police State in their nature. They declare things to be and people must provide information in a way that would be totally unacceptable in any other legislation introduced into this Parliament. So if the Minister has been looking at GST generally given the sorts of problems I can see from the zero rating clause I would be interested in the answer. If it was a rort that we are fixing here I would quite like to know what it was. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 4 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I pick up where the Hon Richard Prebble left off in his contribution. New Zealand Governments—not just this Government—have just spent a lot of money on rewriting the Income Tax Act in language that people can understand. In the amendment bill going through its Committee stage tonight we have language that is extraordinarily difficult to understand. Mr Prebble was just focusing on clause 125 and the new unanimous clause 125(1B). I note that that refers to a section 8(4B). I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 140 “Supplies of services made before insertion of section 8(4B)”. That would imply that this bill is presumably inserting that section because if some previous legislation inserted that section it sure does not tell us. I looked back in the bill to try to find what the insertion of section 8(4B) is all about. When I look at clause 8—which would become section 8—I cannot find any insertion of section 8(4B). 
But then the subclauses under clause 140 refer to section 84B. I would like the Minister to assure the Chamber that there is no typographical error in this clause because it may be purely coincidental that we have in the one clause references both to section 8(4B) and to section 84B which has subsections numbered in brackets. It is difficult to understand exactly what is being done in this clause because I can find nothing in the bill that inserts section 8(4B). If it was inserted by some other legislation this clause should say so. How is anyone meant to understand what this clause means if the title of the clause “Supplies of services made before insertion of section 8(4B)” does not indicate what legislation inserted that section? I cannot see where this legislation inserts it. To me the clause is somewhat meaningless as it is currently written. 
What troubles me about this bill in its Committee stage tonight is that it is extraordinarily complex. There is a risk with this complex legislation. I would not mind betting that not many members of the select committee—I was not one of them—understood all this stuff. I would be prepared almost to bet my last dollar that not many of the members—certainly the Government members—understood all of it. I think that understanding is important if we are passing important tax laws—and Part 4 is as I understand it to do with amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act which are hugely important. I just think we deserve further explanation from the Minister of what some of these clauses that are so difficult to understand exactly mean. The Chamber deserves that because the danger is that errors made in these clauses have huge consequences for people. 
Here we are talking about supplies of services made before a certain action and the insertion of a certain section and goodness knows what that means. It is businesses that are paying GST. By and large businesses do their own GST work and the Act needs to be pretty simple for them to understand. I do my own GST returns for my own business and goodness knows what some of these things mean. So I think it is only fair and reasonable that the Minister should explain to us what on earth “Supplies of services made before insertion of section 8(4B)” means and when that happened. It certainly does not appear to be happening in this legislation. If it was inserted by some previous legislation I ask the Minister where that is clarified. Presumably the previous legislation would simply contain section 8(4B). I think we are owed an explanation from the Minister. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to revisit some of the previous speakers’ calls particularly on clause 125 “Zero-rating of services”. I think all members would agree that the GST component of our law is very complex. I will not try to work my way through section 11A(1B) in clause 25(1) because I do find it complex and I freely admit that. I thought it might be useful if the Minister provided some examples of when these services actually would be zero-rated. I would find that particularly useful and I am sure other members would also. Three speakers—and I am the fourth—have got to their feet and said they are struggling to understand this clause. I think it would be useful given that the Minister’s advisers are here for him to take a call and supply some examples. 
Another area I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention is clause 129 “Calculation of tax payable” particularly new paragraph (b) in clause (1): “the failure of a registered person to make the deduction in the earlier taxable period arises from …”. Paragraph (b) goes through to subparagraph (iv): “a clear mistake or simple oversight of the registered person.” I am really struggling with how one could make a clear mistake or oversight because I would have thought that GST was payable only on the presentation of an invoice or in the case of buying or selling property on a settlement statement. I know from having run my own business and having done GST returns that it is a guiding principle—almost one that is set in stone—that one does not pay unless there is a GST invoice to pay on; otherwise one is putting oneself or one’s business in some jeopardy. So I pose another question to the Minister whilst he has his officials here. I ask the Minister whether he could take a call and give some insight into what this definition—“a clear mistake or simple oversight of the registered person.”—really does mean because the way it is written now strikes me as being very vague. Some unscrupulous person could probably drive a bus through it if he or she wanted to. It strikes me that as we are spending time in the Chamber now framing legislation we should get it right the first time. So if the Minister could take a call on that issue also I would be grateful. 
Finally I turn my attention to clause 141. My colleague Mr English has already raised this but I was also intrigued by this clause “Small claims jurisdiction of authorities”. I think this is a good initiative. I think it reflects the fact that as New Zealand becomes more prosperous and as individuals in New Zealand become more prosperous they are paying more tax. Once not so long ago $15000 was probably a big amount. I think $30000 is now more realistic and I am very pleased to see that we are framing legislation that allows the man in the street to go to small-claims jurisdiction rather than having to go through a very expensive court process. To take the IRD to court proceedings and pay for that is almost impossible for the average punter. So I think this is a very good initiative and I commend the Committee and the Minister for it. 
 If though my reading of this is correct does it not raise an issue or two in the Minister’s mind about how much tax New Zealanders are now paying? Does it not start to register somewhere that it is about time that he and the Government started to reflect on the fact that New Zealanders are now being overtaxed? 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to know why the ACT party vote is being called for after the Green Party vote. Parties should be called in order of precedence and we are a larger party. I am deeply offended at our being asked to vote after the Greens. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I apologise to the member. He is absolutely right and the Clerk has apologised. I think in that case we should run through the order again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2004 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to the debate on Part 5 clauses 146 to 235 which includes a debate on the schedule. The Government has issued a veto certificate under Standing Order 315 in relation to the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland set out on Supplementary Order Paper 284. Therefore the amendments are out of order and no question will be put on them. The veto certificate may be debated in the context of the debates on this part and on clause 2. Copies of that certificate are available for inspection at the Table. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to go straight to clause 194 “Refund of excess tax”. I want the Minister to recall the earlier questions that I raised in the debate on Part 4 with regard to the change—to 4 years—in the time limit on the commissioner’s ability to consider whether excess tax had been paid and if it had to refund it. The Minister helpfully considered my question and sought advice. As I understand the answer he gave he said that I could rest assured that he was not as tight as I thought he was and that if the commissioner considered that a mistake had genuinely been made then the taxpayer still had the 8-year period to lodge an application with the commissioner have it considered and provided that it was within the 8-year time frame have the commissioner refund the excess tax paid. 
I have considered carefully that explanation with regard to the question that I raised in the debate on Part 4 and I am now raising it again with regard to clause 194. My concern is that I am struggling to find a reason why the 4-year limit would apply. It seems to me that if after the event a taxpayer is in the position of finding that he or she has paid an excess amount of tax then quite obviously a mistake has been made. Where else could a situation arise where a taxpayer subsequent to the event is able to consider—presumably with professional advice from an accountant—that he or she has paid an excess amount of tax to go back to the commissioner and to prove it through a due process? Where else would that not be because a mistake had been genuinely made? So I simply ask the Minister for a more fulsome explanation. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Which clause is this? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I tell the Minister that I am talking about clause 194 and I am happy to rearrange the argument again for him. I would certainly also ask him to elaborate on the answer he gave earlier on the clause in Part 4 that I spoke to. My point is that the answer the Minister gave was that I had nothing to fear and that if a mistake was genuinely made then the taxpayer had the 8-year period in which he or she could satisfy the commissioner that it was a genuine mistake and receive back the excess tax. The very point I am raising is when does the 4-year limit apply. Why else would a taxpayer go to the commissioner and say: “Sorry we have a mistake here. We have paid an excess amount of tax and we want it back.” if it was not a genuine mistake? I am struggling to think of a situation. There may be a legitimate explanation from the Minister and I am thankful that he is now seeking advice but why else would a person ever find that he or she had paid an excess amount of tax if that person had not made a mistake? It just defies logic. 
I see that there is a lot of activity around the officials’ desk so it is certainly something that is worrying them. It is important that we get tax law right; it is so important and I see Steve Chadwick is agreeing. The Minister’s explanation on an earlier part is relevant to Part 5 because of clause 194 but it does seem as if the explanation which was genuinely given may not have fully answered the questions I raised. If the Minister is prepared to take a call now I need not outline the argument yet again but we simply want to know the situations where the 4-year limit applies. I consider that the 4-year limit can apply only in the situation where the taxpayer has made a genuine mistake but the Minister in his explanation to the Committee earlier this evening said that if a genuine mistake has been made then the taxpayer has 8 years to pursue it. It seems incongruous. The Minister has an answer and if he is prepared to explain it I am happy to receive it. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for not raising this at the time that the vote was put on Part 4 standing part but after receiving advice from the Clerk I have only now had an opportunity to look at the Standing Orders. 
The Clerk has advised me that the vote on Part 4 standing part was 59 all. Standing Order 298(1) indicates—and this is the advice that the Clerk gave me—that where a question is proposed that each clause stand part or as amended stand part in the case of a tie the clause part schedule or any other provision stands part of the bill. In other words it progresses at that point. The question I have is this. Standing Order 154 makes it clear that in the case of a tie on a vote the question is lost. The question for you to rule on Mr Chairman concerns which of those Standing Orders takes precedence in this case. It would seem to me at first glance that as Standing Order 154 was obviously a Standing Order before Standing Order 298 it may carry substantially more weight than a latterly agreed to Standing Order. I see the Leader of the House who is also the Minister in the chair shaking his head. He is probably offering the alternative view that a later Standing Order clarifies an earlier one. But from the point that that vote was taken and the 59-all draw was called on the part there has been some confusion on these benches as to what that means for the progress of that part. I would seek your clarification on that particularly in light of Standing Order 154. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The old Standing Order which Mr Cullen will remember was that in the event of a tie there was a casting vote—that the Chair should vote to enable the Committee to consider the question again. So if the matter arose during the Committee stage the Chair would vote with the Government which was proposing the bill or with the proposer if it was a member’s bill. However when we get to a third reading the principle reverses if there is not a majority of MPs—that is how it used to be. When looking again at the voting we have now now that we have multiple parties the House decided that it did not want to have casting votes by the Chair. In fact the Chair’s votes are cast at every stage by the whips. So the principle is that if a vote in the Committee stage is 59:59 in fact the vote does stand. But it is an interesting situation because—and the Minister of Finance will be aware of this—if there is the same result in the vote on the third reading members had better be ready for an early election because this is a confidence measure. All tax measures are confidence measures and speaking for the ACT party I say “Bring it on!”. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed having been a member of the Standing Orders Committee that wrote those particular Standing Orders let me say that Mr Prebble’s recollection is absolutely correct and the Standing Order was written in precisely this form. In other words a tie in the Committee stage keeps the matter alive. Clearly if the vote is repeated at the third reading the bill is lost. Mr Prebble is also completely correct: because this is a taxation bill particularly one that confirms the annual rates of taxation it is a confidence measure and if it is lost the Government would have to proceed to an election immediately or the Governor-General could be invited to find an alternative Government which is most unlikely in the current situation. When I look at the latest opinion poll I could possibly say “Bring it on!” from our perspective as well but I think 3 years is a better term of rigour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Power for raising that and it has been so well explained I do not need to deal with it. Yes one is a general Standing Order; the other one is specific and relates to the Committee. Standing Order 298 relates to the Committee. Standing Order 298b has precedence. But I thank the member for raising it. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a point of clarification. So the ruling is that we—I guess it is the standard rule of statutory interpretation—follow the more specific clause rather than the more general. Is that the case? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is how it can be read yes. But Mr Prebble and to an extent Dr Cullen more fully explained the issue. I thank all members. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 284 in my name which inserts new clauses 185A and 229A in Part 5. As is well known to the Committee now my Supplementary Order Paper adjusts the tax brackets for the effects of inflation between 1 April 2000 and 1 April 2005. The current rates of income tax were introduced to Parliament on 1 April 2000. They were affirmed every subsequent year by Parliament including this year. Accordingly the first opportunity to change the rates will be 1 April 2005. It has been estimated that inflation between 1 April 2000 and 1 April 2005 will be about 13 percent. If the tax brackets are not adjusted for inflation taxes therefore are increasing in real—that is in purchasing power—terms. That fact was confirmed to the House by Dr Michael Cullen in answer to a question on 3 November 2004. He agreed that that was factually the case—that if we do not adjust the brackets for inflation then in real terms taxation increases. The present brackets were established at $9500 for the low-income rebate and then at $38000 and $60000. My amendment proposes that the figures be changed from $9500 to $10750 from $38000 to $43000 and from $60000 to $68000 just to ensure that New Zealanders pay the same real rate of taxation as they did on 1 April 2000. 
I brought this matter to the Committee in my Supplementary Order Paper now because this is the last opportunity we will have to adjust the basic rates of income tax prior to the 2005 election. The next opportunity will be 1 April 2006 the other side of that election. Dr Cullen has not indicated to the Committee at this stage any intention of adjusting the income brackets for the effects of inflation at any time. He has specifically said that he has no time horizon in view for that and that he has no movement in inflation in view before he would take such a step. I worry very much therefore—and current polls indicate that the Labour Government may well be returned in the 2005 elections—that we may wait another 5 years before we see any adjustment whatsoever to the basic rates of income tax in New Zealand. By that time I would sincerely hope that most New Zealanders would be earning $60000 or more at which point we would all be paying tax at the rate of 39c in the dollar. That is the logical outcome of doing nothing. Therefore I believe it is an unacceptable position for the Minister simply to say he will do nothing. Dr Cullen agrees that the situation is wrong and agrees that income tax is going up but says he has no idea when he will adjust the tax brackets—if at all; if ever. The people of New Zealand need to understand very clearly tonight that that is the position of the Minister of Finance and that he has indicated no other position in spite of various attempts in the House in question time by both myself and members of the National Party New Zealand First and ACT to get some indication from the Minister as to whether he will move on this matter. 
I think it is pertinent given those realities to remind the Committee of the commitment that Prime Minister Helen Clark made to the nation in 1999. I want to read from the so-called credit card. Item No 7 stated that the commitment was that there would be no rise in income tax for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60000 a year. By the Minister’s own admission income taxes have in fact increased for people earning less than $60000 a year. Because he has not adjusted the brackets more people have shifted from paying 19.5c in the dollar to paying 33c in the dollar and of course a lot more people have moved from paying 33c in the dollar to paying 39c in the dollar. It is also true that more than 5 percent of people are now earning more than $60000 a year. I just do not think it goes down at all well with the people of New Zealand for the Labour-Progressive Government aided and abetted by the Greens to say that my proposal is just a tax cut for the wealthy. That simply does not cut any ice. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 This part includes the early payment discount of income tax which I guess sounds a lot better than it actually is when one goes through it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh be generous go on! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well if one gets a 6 percent discount one has to pay the other 93.3 percent a year earlier than one is liable to pay it. So it is not a measure that I think too many small businesses are going to take hold of. But there is one interesting point under clause 193 which inserts new subpart MBB. In MBB 4 “Some definitions” it states that a small-business taxpayer means a taxpayer who is a sole trader or partner and “does not use a company or a trust in the conduct of the business”. Now why is that? Why is it restricted to sole traders who conduct business on their own account or as a partner and it is not available to anyone who uses a company? Using a company has become less expensive and easier since the abolition of stamp duty because the Companies Office got its act together and now runs a very low-cost register of companies and it is actually popular even for sole traders. So I would be interested in why that is. Why are small businesses who operate as companies excluded? 
In fact I would have to say that I was surprised to see how narrow the definition of a small business is. This was sold as a major step forward in small-business compliance. We find though that it is restricted to quite a narrow group of business owners and I would like to know just what that is. The group is narrowed even further by saying that the small-business taxpayer is someone who derives assessable income that is predominantly from the business so that cannot be someone who is paid a wage or a salary I presume even by the business. If one is a PAYE taxpayer—more than predominantly I suppose means more than half—then that person does not qualify and it is not allowed to include dividends royalties rents or beneficiary income. That is a bit more understandable. But I would like to know why companies are banned. That is what I would like to know. 
I also have another question for the Minister and maybe officials can answer this. In the commentary on the bill there is a whole page on the use of the colon. I thought I would try to find an example where that commentary was warranted; and about why colons are so important in tax legislation. We find that New Zealand is unique in the world in the way that it uses colons and colons in tax legislation in New Zealand mean “not ‘and’ nor ‘or’ ”. That is what they mean. In clause 180 we see a colon being put in where there was not one before. So I would like the Minister to explain the difference in respect of clause 180 “Distributions by Maori authority” when it states: “In section HI 4(1)(e) `consideration.’ is replaced by `consideration:’.” 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You have the point. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: So I have the point of it? So it is not “and” nor “or”  after “consideration”? Well given that there is a whole page of commentary on it I presume that that must be significant because it is unusual to see tax officials discursive on punctuation and given the other weighty matters in here I would like to know just why— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m. 
"