Volume 648 Week 79 - Wednesday 2 July 2008 
Volume 648 Week 79 - Wednesday 2 July 2008 
[Volume:648;Page:17097] 
Wednesday 2 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Rail and Ferry Purchase—Financial Return 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Government’s purchase of rail and ferry assets that “we are not going into this to make money”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: What is the Government’s best estimate of its ongoing financial return from the purchase of rail and ferry assets? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have that figure available. The member should put it down on notice. 
Tim Barnett 
: Which lines did Toll threaten to close if it did not get what it wanted in the rail access agreement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the services that would have been closed under Toll’s plan B in response to that situation included the Overlander passenger service the central North Island section of the main trunk line from Te Kuiti to Palmerston North the Northland line the Taranaki line the Hawke’s Bay line the Napier to Gisborne line the Wairarapa line north of Masterton Picton to Christchurch freight and passenger services the Greymouth to Hokitika line the Invercargill to Bluff line and the Invercargill to Wairio line. I take it from the reaction of National members that they would love to see all of those lines closed. Labour would not. 
John Key 
: What was the value of the premium that the Crown paid as indicated by Dr Cullen yesterday for the purchase of KiwiRail from Toll Holdings? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have a figure for a value on the premium. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports namely for example from Booz Allen and Hamilton that say that New Zealand Rail was making $36 million in 1993 and was down to make $100 million in 1994; and does she therefore not believe that taxpayers are entitled to some compensation for the 1993 sale of New Zealand Rail by the then National Government to its corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite and a foreign-owned company Wisconsin Central Transportation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member like the Labour Party opposed that sale. But there was one person who fully backed that sale and that was Mr Key a director of Bankers Trust which got the contract to advise the New Zealand Government on that sale. That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government—the National Government—in 1993. In that same year—the 1993 financial year—Bankers Trust of which Mr Key was a director pocketed $39 million in profit. Members should ask themselves who benefited from the sale of Tranz Rail. Mr Key and his friends. 
John Key 
: What is the expected cost of the rolling stock the Crown will need to purchase if it wants to run the assets at the level that it is proposing to the New Zealand public over the next 5 years? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister of Finance advised the House yesterday that to keep the rolling stock in its steady state—for example no improvement—would require an investment of around $80 million a year. He further advises that to actually invest in an improved service—modern container wagons and customer-specific wagons—he estimates will cost around another $300 million over 5 years. That is a very good investment in a sustainable transport system. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that those in this House who are critical of the purchase of KiwiRail would if they were in a position to do so sell KiwiRail if they had that opportunity? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure National would like nothing better than to sell KiwiRail. Indeed the National Party has opposed KiwiSaver. It has opposed Kiwibank. Now it opposes KiwiRail. What is it about Kiwis and the public interest that the National Party hates? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister have any reports that in October 1992 Fay Richwhite got itself made the financial adviser to New Zealand Rail and that on 26 April the next year it jumped across the table and said: “Hello Government; we’re the buyer.”; and can she confirm that Mr Key’s company at the time facilitated that arrangement which did not go to the market and did not go to tender but was just made with that Government’s corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding of the facts is the same as the right honourable member’s—that Fay Richwhite did indeed jump across the transaction. We know that Mr Key was a director of Bankers Trust which advised on that sale. We know furthermore that in 2002 Mr Key’s family trust bought 30000 shares in Tranz Rail— 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: —30000 shares in Tranz Rail. We know furthermore that as associate transport spokesperson for the National Party in 2003 Mr Key commented on whether the Government should be buying back the track. We can find no record of Mr Key disclosing his financial interest as a shareholder. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm her answer from a little earlier that she is saying that Dr Cullen indicated the cost would be $80 million a year and $300 million to bring the rolling stock up; so are we led to believe therefore that the total cost of the rolling stock over 5 years according to the calculations the Prime Minister has provided to the House will be $700 million? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That would be the simple addition of what I indicated the Minister of Finance’s advice was but the gentleman who is asking the questions has never supported the Government’s buying back of rail. Indeed Mr Key as associate transport spokesperson while owning shares in Tranz Rail at the time—which he never disclosed as far as we can see—said publicly that shareholders were telling him they supported Toll’s offer for Tranz Rail over the Government’s offer. Well he would would he not because he was a shareholder yet he purported to be speaking in the public interest as an Opposition associate transport spokesperson. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s earlier answers to the former director of Bankers Trust can she confirm that she shares the view of New Zealand First that taxpayer ownership of KiwiRail will enable the Government to take a more strategic overview of transport in this country and make decisions that are in the best interests of New Zealand our people and our social and economic well-being whereas private owners need only to make decisions that increase profits and satisfy their shareholders and in this case overseas shareholders? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The National Party members may be embarrassed but they should be required to keep quiet while a question is being properly asked about a very key strategic asset—or it used to be until they sold it. If they are embarrassed that does not mean that 10 of them are allowed to shout across the House while a question is being asked so that we cannot even hear even though we sit next to our colleague. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just ask members to keep the level of interjections down so that other members can in fact be heard. Would the member please complete his question. 
Peter Brown 
: Well I had got to the end of it but I do not mind asking it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think the right honourable Prime Minister understood it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I absolutely agree with the import of Mr Brown’s question. The fact is that the Government has decided to make a strategic investment in rail rather than pay ever-increasing subsidies to a private company. Bringing this rail company back into public ownership enables investments to be made in the public interest in a sustainable transport system. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does the Prime Minister not have sufficient confidence in her policies to stand up in this House and defend them rather than throw the dirt across to the leader of the National Party; and could she explain to the people of New Zealand why rail is deemed to be so sustainable when it cannot even cover its costs and she intends to use the taxpayer to put in hundreds of millions of dollars more funding—is that the Labour Party’s definition of sustainable? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member misses the point. Taxpayers were up for hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidise Toll. The Government has made a decision that that does not make sense when the opportunity for ownership is there. I would like to know what “Mr ACT” Mr Hide considers is dirt about telling the truth about Mr Key being a director of Bankers Trust when it advised on the privatisation in 1993 when it made a substantial profit of $39 million that year when Mr Key’s family trust bought shares in Tranz Rail and when no record can be found of him disclosing that interest when he was commenting on the sale in 1993 on behalf of his party. 
John Key 
: Can I encourage the Prime Minister to give the right honourable Michael Cullen a call when she leaves the House when he will probably inform her that he did not actually say it would be $80 million a year for the rolling stock but would be $80 million in total so the Prime Minister has got that bit wrong; and can we conclude from the rest of the Prime Minister’s answers today that she is actually telling the House that she has no idea of what the return from rail will be although she is pretty sure it will be negative and therefore will not talk to us about it that she has no idea of the premium that the Crown paid to Toll Holdings and that she actually has no idea how the rolling stock will be paid for or how much it will cost—that when it comes to this issue she has no idea? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course Mr Key had the opportunity to ask all those questions of the Minister of Finance yesterday and absolutely fluffed his questions. I am interested to know what the National Party’s real policy on rail is because I heard an interjection earlier from Gerry Brownlee which said in respect of the Government’s purchase of rail that the shipyards are back. Mr Brownlee if you think this policy is like buying Polish shipyards why do you not state what you really believe and say that National supports rail privatisation as it has always done and as Mr Key did when he advised on the privatisation in 1993? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is a senior member and knows that her use of the term “you” is out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am sure all members have been reminded of that and of course I am sure none have made that error before in this House. But I remind members to keep to the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister any reports that suggest a certain political party is running around the country saying that the railways in 1993 were running at a loss despite what was said in the Booz Allen and Hamilton report which was the most authoritative document at that time; and could it possibly be true that Mr Key and his company advised on privatisation and purchase to their client because the company was a loser and it was bound to cost them a fortune if they bought it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what the member has just said. I know that the National Party is so ideologically wedded to privatisation that if a State company is making money it says: “There you go; the State doesn’t need to own it.” If the company is losing money it says: “You should sell it to get rid of that liability.” Whatever the state of a public company the National Party has an excuse for selling it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order Rodney Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is a supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask members when they trade their supplementary questions to give me notice of that fact before they rise to their feet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Labour members may also like to do that. We see Mr Anderton and various other support parties take more than their allocation of supplementary questions on any given day. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be quiet. As Mr Brownlee knows—and I have ruled on this before—if members notify me of a change in the allocation of supplementary questions that is fine. If I am notified by parties of that before the member rises to his or her feet there is no embarrassment—everybody knows. I had not been notified of Mr Hide’s supplementary question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I apologise. Are New Zealanders to take it from the Prime Minister’s performance in the House today that although she has come here to answer questions about rail she does not know what it will cost taxpayers she does not know what the premium was that was paid by the Government and she does not know what the ongoing fiscal cost of rail is but that she has actually taken the trouble to research the various shareholdings of Mr John Key his directorships and pretends to know all about that when she does not know about the rail policy and the cost of it to New Zealanders; does that not prove that this purchase is all about politics and not the good of the country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know that the ACT party does not give a damn about sustainability or about having a sustainable transport system. I know that the ACT party is ideologically opposed to public ownership. That and nothing else explains Mr Hide’s hysteria. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very interesting to hear the hysteria of Helen Clark about me. I thought the issue was more about the hysterical response from the Labour Party to questions about rail. But frankly there is no way that personal remarks about me from the Prime Minister address the question that I asked—which proves the point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did address the question but if she wants to add anything more she is perfectly entitled to do so. 
Accident Compensation—Privatisation 
2.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on privatisation of the accident compensation scheme? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I have seen a report from Merrill Lynch that suggests that if National becomes the Government it would move quickly to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Merrill Lynch said that that will really benefit Australian insurers. It will lift their earnings by about $200 million. It goes on to say that although National is careful about its public comments it is “giving the insurance industry a strong message that privatisation is the likely outcome if it wins the next election”. John Key should come clean about what he is telling his old company as against what he is owning up to to the New Zealand public. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What else is revealed in the report? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Merrill Lynch report goes on to state: “While the National Party has made no formal statement on its plans for ACC informally however we understand the National Party has been very clear in saying it will privatise the ACC.” That sounds pretty much like the National Party of old that told American congressmen that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime while telling the New Zealand public that it had no plans to change the policy. It is also consistent with the advice followed by the National Party—as revealed in leaked emails published in  
The Hollow Men 
—that it not say anything in public about what its real agenda might be if it would frighten the public. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether it is any surprise to him that an Australian business might think that any New Zealand Government was a soft option when yesterday the Labour Government wrote out a $900 million cheque to an Australian company for a rail business that the Government itself says makes no money? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No but I am sure that that business expressed some amazement that National would want to privatise the New Zealand accident compensation system in favour of an Australian-style system when Australian levies are 2½ times those faced by New Zealanders. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has the Minister received any reports— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That guy was going to be our Mr Bolger. 
Simon Power 
: He’s our new chairman. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Never like the “Great Helmsman”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member start again please. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the direct cost of the privatisation of Government-owned operations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I have. In fact it was revealed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last month that when in Government Bill English spent $45.7 million in 1 year on advice on how to sell State assets—$45.7 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ money went down the drain. Again it is somewhat interesting that of that $45.7 million nearly $5 million went to Merrill Lynch. To do what? To help sell Auckland International Airport. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Insurance Council of New Zealand is a subscriber to a political party’s coffers and gains from it a commitment to privatise ACC after the next election what do we call that if not venal corrupt politics? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member is an experienced member and knows that it is out of order to imply that someone in the House is influenced by factors outside the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member certainly raised that as a possibility; he did not state it as a fact. I think there is room for the Minister to answer the question properly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Just because the truth hurts is no reason for someone to object in this House. Let me say this: the Insurance Council of New Zealand is a subscriber to the National Party’s coffers. Those members know it and I— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not speaking to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is not correct. The Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Peters raised. And Mr Mallard is wrong because if he were right we would be able to raise as a possibility that Mr Peters is a tired old drunk and we are not allowed to say that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders make it clear that members cannot state that someone is under the influence of someone else for profit. However if there is in fact an implication and a general question relating to that but not a direct allegation then if members look at our Standing Orders as to what can be asked in questions they will find that they can actually seek opinions etc. but they cannot make a direct allegation. I would like the member to think again and rephrase his question so that we can all be clear about it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of the money-for-questions fiasco and scandal in the British Parliament and what is the consequence of a political party taking money from an outside body in return for promising that it would deliver a specific policy—one that National has tried before when it was last in Government—and what do we call that? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the first place the Minister has no responsibility for the British Parliament but in the second place that is no different from our saying that because Toll Holdings gave Labour $25000 Labour wrote it out a cheque for $900 million. 
Rodney Hide 
: Of course we still have the problem of New Zealand First not explaining where all its money has come from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. In the context of the questions that were asked in the supplementary questions I think an opinion was sought. Although the Minister has no responsibility obviously for what happens in the British Parliament the question was not only about that; it related to the substance of the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware of the money-for-questions scandal in the United Kingdom and I am aware that New Zealanders would be totally hostile to the thought that the National Party would be paid money by donors who in return expected then were given a milch cow in the form of a privatised Accident Compensation Corporation. Let me quote something to the House because I notice that Pansy Wong has said the National policy is not secret. During the 2005 election the Insurance Council of New Zealand put out a memo that was leaked; the memo stated that the details of privatisation had been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the council. That is further evidence of the very allegations—the serious allegations—made in  
The Hollow Men 
 about corrupt practices including within the National Party and its policy of not revealing what its true agenda is. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is a long-serving member of Parliament and he knows he cannot make allegations of corruption about any member of this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I think the member should withdraw that allegation. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And apologise—withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Hide made a comment under the guise of a point of order that I expected you to pull him up on. I want to give him a chance now to apologise to me in this House. If he does not then I am going to tell the House the truth about him which I have hitherto kept to myself. He can laugh and giggle; this is his last warning. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am now unable to apologise because if I did it would look like I was being blackmailed and Mr Peters had something on me that was true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Some members are given to raising points of order that are demonstrably not points or order but points of debate. I warn members to desist from that because it does create disorder in the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was I think another more serious issue in the exchange you have just heard. It is a convention of this House that we do not allow members to effectively blackmail other members and what you have just heard is a very direct attempt by the leader of New Zealand First to get up in the House and say that if a member does not apologise he will reveal personal details about him. That is certainly out of order. Madam Speaker if you allow that kind of comment to stand then it opens the door to a whole range of coercive statements being made in this House that up until now have not been able to be made. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Madam Speaker you will see if you look at the  
Journals 
 of the House of Commons in the time of Winston Churchill that the threat that if someone continues to tell lies about a member the truth will be told about him or her is an honourable tradition in the Westminster system. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Some members in this House think they can have a free hit regardless of the facts and get away with it. All I am saying to Mr Hide is that he has a chance to apologise or take the consequences. The difference is that I will stop telling the truth about him if he stops telling lies about me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that in the context of the exchanges I did not take it as a blackmail threat in the way in which the allegation has been made. However I would say to members that what happens as I said before when interjections are made or when points of order are made that are not points of order but could be interpreted as points of abuse is that responses are made that are inappropriate. So I would ask all members to desist from that and to allow us now at half past 2 to proceed to question No. 3. 
ONTRACK—Audit 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What were the findings of the Auditor-General’s performance audit of ONTRACK? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: The report shows very plainly that ONTRACK still has more work to do to help manage the national rail network out of the mess it was in before the Government rescue 4 years ago. ONTRACK is taking the report seriously as will the new KiwiRail board led by Jim Bolger who will guide the reorganisation of the now fully public system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Auditor-General’s report concludes that after almost 4 years and the expenditure of $200 million of taxpayers’ money ONTRACK still cannot form a clear picture of the state of the rail network that its staff are confused about its accountabilities that it is running three different business units that cannot coordinate around the same railway track and that the Auditor-General therefore cannot determine whether the management of the track has been effective? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Further to that ONTRACK’s most pressing concern when taking over the tracks was to urgently address track safety issues. The failure of Tranz Rail to maintain the system left tracks unsafe throughout New Zealand. Fixing collapsing bridges had to be the No. 1 priority and that was all as a result of Tranz Rail’s only focus seeming to be on stripping the asset down closing lines and selling it off and not keeping it safe and planning for its development. The House knows that ONTRACK has never received the funding it needed from Toll due to Toll’s failure to agree to pay its required contribution under the National Rail Access Agreement and those years of battling with Toll have been an unwelcome distraction to ONTRACK. Now with the rail system fully in public ownership there will be significant efficiency gains. Jim Bolger and the Rail Development Group will study the Auditor-General’s report with interest. It is a very timely report. The one point I will make at the end is it is likely that with the rolling stock we will find similar problems as the Auditor-General has found in this area. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What does the Auditor-General’s report show about New Zealand’s experience with the privatisation of New Zealand’s rail network? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the main problems ONTRACK faced after the rescue of the rail network was that Tranz Rail had virtually zero formal asset planning. That was probably because of the approach promoted by John Key as an adviser and a shareholder. That approach was to strip it down and sell it off. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that his version is not actually what the Auditor-General says which is that when ONTRACK assessed the state of the network “the information was sometimes incomplete or used different or unclear assessment criteria. It was not always apparent what conclusions could be drawn from the information.” and that the assessment by ONTRACK “did not include a clear description of the rail network’s assets.”—which means that ONTRACK has no idea where it started no idea where it has got to and no idea what it has done in between? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that the bit up to “which means” is essentially accurate. But the reason for that is that ONTRACK quite properly took on board safety issues. It fixed the bridges that were going to fall down and the rails where trains were likely to be derailed at large risk to the safety of both drivers and passengers on some trains. Frankly heading towards that sort of priority is defensible. The fact that it did not get on with proper future planning is mainly a result of being far too focused on its battles with Toll around access fees. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell members why we should not be surprised that the Auditor-General’s inquiry into an organisation that regards itself as a Government department—which the Government pours hundreds of millions of dollars into hoping that something will happen—has found that the organisation’s maintenance and renewal work is short term and reactive that it has not identified the resources it needs or the constraints it faces and that one of the reasons the maintenance of tracks is delayed is that the hours that its crew chooses to work happen to be the hours when the train tracks are busiest so it is hard to get much done? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What is absolutely clear to everyone is that the privatised Tranz Rail system failed to deliver proper planning. We are through that now and I look forward to the National Party eventually folding on this one and saying that it will keep it too. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister claim that Labour is through the stage when there was no proper planning when the Auditor-General’s report of about 60 pages goes into great detail about how there is no proper planning after the expenditure of $200 million on ONTRACK which has turned out to be a very poor performer? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Spending $200 million stopping bridges falling over and straightening rail is not a waste of money. The member should read the report carefully and see that much of what it is in it is in fact dated. 
Accident Compensation—Alternatives 
4.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has she received comparing the accident compensation scheme with Australian alternatives? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have received one report from PricewaterhouseCoopers which states that accident compensation under its current Government monopoly “can be considered to be ‘best practice’ when compared to international schemes.” The other report came from Merrill Lynch which states that accident compensation costs have been “low relative to comparable schemes in Australia”. Despite the evidence National is still secretly telling insurance companies that accident compensation is up for grabs. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she seen any reports on how competitive accident compensation levy rates are? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. A report from PricewaterhouseCoopers noted that the average accident compensation employers’ levy is two and a half times cheaper than levies under Australian schemes. We also know that the average employers’ levy is now much cheaper under our public scheme than it was under National’s failed privatised model— dropping from $2.14 in 1999 to $1.26 currently. Again despite the evidence that the accident compensation scheme is cheaper National is still leading employers to believe that they will get cheaper levies under privatisation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the facts about the accident compensation scheme that are included in the 2008 Budget show that its future liability as assessed by the Government will increase from $17 billion this year to $26 billion in just 5 years’ time and that because the Government has been running the scheme inefficiently extending the coverage and keeping the levies down there is a huge cost problem ahead of all of us in dealing with a $9 billion increase in the future liabilities of the scheme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: What I can confirm is that if any part of the scheme were to be privatised there would be a cost explosion for every levy payer in this country. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about who stands to gain from National’s planned privatisation of accident compensation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes; it is certainly not the public. As noted by PricewaterhouseCoopers without the scheme roughly 70 percent of current accident compensation clients would have to rely on social security and the health system alone. The Merrill Lynch report noted that private insurers stand to make a huge profit. I recall for the benefit of this House that Murray McCully when accident compensation was being privatised in 1998 stated: “Insurers like everyone are in business to make a buck.” Just whose interests does National have at heart here? 
Peter Brown 
: Madam Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Except for the Government’s KiwiRail—they’re not in business to make a buck! 
Peter Brown 
: This question is about accident compensation I say to Gerry. Does the Minister accept that our accident compensation scheme is far from perfect when it comes to dealing with mature working New Zealanders—certainly when they become accident victims—and can she advise whether the Government has any plans to address the concerns of these people noting that they pay their taxes they pay their accident compensation levies and many are treated very unfairly? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I say to the member that there is always room for improvement. In fact he would recall that just last week we were debating improvements to the accident compensation scheme none of which the National Party supported. 
Defence Force—Housing Allowances 
5.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Why did he say on Sunday that he did not know anything about the practice of Defence Force personnel seconded to the United Nations double-dipping on housing allowances given that he approved answers to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that stated “it has become apparent that there have been inconsistencies … relating to housing assistance provided by the NZDF to personnel seconded to the UN.” and that “The NZDF has suspended the provision of housing allowances to UN-seconded personnel.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Because my answer was accurate. The core issue relating to the New Zealand Defence Force payment of housing allowances to officers seconded to the United Nations is whether it constituted a deliberate breach of the United Nations rules. That is a serious issue. Neither the questions asked nor the replies drafted in response to the select committee which the member referred to saw fit to make it clear that the real issue was a breach of the UN rules rather than simply a question of administrative practice. That was pure political gamesmanship by the member. When I became aware of what the actual issue was I acted immediately earlier this week to have it resolved and to ensure accountability for any wrongful actions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that it is “completely intolerable” for senior military staff to be double-dipping for both UN and NZDF housing allowances; if so why has he and the Prime Minister allowed this practice to occur since 2001? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I agree that if an action is deliberately taken contrary to UN rules by the New Zealand Defence Force or personnel therein that is quite intolerable. It is absolutely unacceptable and the court of inquiry that is being set up will determine what happened and who was responsible and the Chief of Defence Force will act promptly in response to the report of that court of inquiry. 
Jill Pettis 
: Is the Minister confident that a court of inquiry is an appropriate means to deal with this issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. Courts of inquiry are used by the New Zealand Defence Force to inquire into serious matters relating to conduct involving Defence Force personnel. They are established by Act of Parliament and they exercise significant powers not unlike those of a court of law. The court of inquiry has the power to summons witnesses to give evidence under oath and a failure to cooperate with a court of inquiry is punishable as contempt. In my view therefore a court of inquiry is appropriate for this task. That said if after the court of inquiry reports I am not satisfied that it adequately answers the issues I have the option of referring the matter to the State Services Commission. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why did the Minister sign off an answer to a question stating that personnel are required to declare to the UN any salary or allowance from New Zealand given that the Defence Force allowed seconded officers to the UN to falsify documents telling the UN they were not getting allowances from New Zealand when in fact they were? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am informed by the Defence Force legal staff that the answer I signed off is accurate. What the answer did not express and what the member in setting the question—having been primed to do so by the aggrieved party who has just suffered a conviction and a court martial—never pointed out was that the issue was allegedly that the New Zealand Defence Force had deliberately acted contrary to the rules set out by the United Nations. The court of inquiry will establish the truth there and having established the truth the Chief of Defence Force will act appropriately in response to that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why did the Chief of Defence Force allow the prospect of court martial charges against Colonel Heaton relating specifically to the housing allowance issue to proceed for at least 9 months—it was finally dropped a few days ago—when it was clear that five other New Zealand Defence Force officers had claimed the same housing allowances and their actions had carried the full endorsement of senior officers of the Defence Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Very clearly the New Zealand Defence Force did not proceed with the charges relating to housing allowances because the New Zealand Defence Force acknowledged that it was its own policy or the carrying out of that policy that was at fault. The member this morning on radio was at pains to defend the person who was court-martialled. I have to say that he pleaded guilty to the charge of deliberately and illegally not paying tax on alcohol and cigarettes. You might think that that is acceptable Dr Mapp. It is not acceptable to the Defence Force nor is it acceptable to me— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is an experienced member and he should know that he cannot address you in that way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think members are getting carried away with themselves. I ask that they please address just the questions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Did the New Zealand Defence Force let New Zealand down by knowingly and deliberately breaking UN rules given that a New Zealand Defence Force spokesman has stated publicly: “We were aware that there was a difference between how the UN wanted to apply the rules and how we wanted to apply the rules.” yet despite this the New Zealand Defence Force continued to allow the double-dipping? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The court of inquiry will determine the answer to that question. That is why it has been set up. If the answer to that question is that various personnel did deliberately act in breach of the UN rules I will expect disciplinary action to be taken against them. However in this House or anywhere else until that court of inquiry reports these are allegations that will be inquired into. When there is a conclusion on that that conclusion will be acted upon by the Chief of Defence Force. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So the member knew about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member who interjects is wrong. I did not know about that. He is therefore misleading the House and he is challenging my word in answering that question. I have been here long enough to know that Ministers mislead the House at their own peril. I have never done that and I am not doing it now. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister telling the House that Defence Force officials failed to brief him on the double-dipping issue despite their providing answers to his office and to the select committee on precisely the UN housing issue knowing that a high-profile court martial was on the way; and if that was the case was it because they were incompetent—or were they trying to set up the Minister? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is getting really carried away now. I was not briefed on that issue nor could I tell from the carefully disguised questions put in by the member who raised this question what the actual issue was. He was raising that question because it was taken up with him by the person facing the court martial. I was not even aware that the housing allowances had anything to do with the court martial charges and in the end they did not. The person convicted by the court martial who pleaded guilty was guilty of defrauding the US Treasury of more than $1000. The US Treasury raised that with the New Zealand Government and said that given that this person had immunity it expected New Zealand to respond to that breach of its law with our law and that is indeed what the court martial did. The member should not continue to defend the person who knowingly broke the United States law. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table answers from the Minister’s office to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee firstly in response to questions asking what arrangements in relation to salary and allowances of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Members will be heard in silence on points of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table a question asking what UN rules apply to the payment of housing allowances. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table questions to the Minister’s office asking what New Zealand Defence Force rules apply to the payment of housing allowances to seconded officers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table a question and answer in relation to what informal guidance had been given to seconded Defence Force officers in relation to the receipt of UN housing allowances. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate for a member to ask to table documents that are already on the Table of the House because they are written answers to questions? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately members do it regularly. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to statements raised by the Prime Minister in question No. 1. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I call question No. 6 the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well we did tell National. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes tit for tat now. My question is to the Minister of Finance— 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just heard the leader of New Zealand First explain by way of opening his question the refusal—which is pretty extreme; to have a series of allegations made against the Leader of the Opposition who then came down here to make a personal explanation and for him to be refused to be allowed to do that by New Zealand First member Ron Mark. The leader of New Zealand First—who happens also to be in charge of the country’s diplomacy—has just stood up and said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand; I am sorry. Please be seated. That member knows that every member is entitled to object when leave is sought. Leave was sought. There was an objection made. That is the end of the matter. Anything else is a general debate which is coming up. All members will have an opportunity to debate the matter there. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was not my point of order. My point of order is that Mr Peters said the objection was somehow tit for tat so what you are having is actual blackmail being used across the House— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Rubbish! Sit him down Madam Speaker. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well they can interrupt on the point of order as much as they like but that is exactly what it is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point but emotive language is not a question of blackmail. It might have been an inappropriate comment but members are free to deny leave—every single member. What flows from that is another matter but members have that right. It was exercised. That right is therefore not challenged in that context. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Because we need to make some progress on this the reality is that my colleague Ron Mark sought leave the other day to make a personal statement— 
Ron Mark 
: A while back. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —a while back rather—and the National Party denied him leave. It was told then the consequences of doing that sort of thing. National members never sought a reason why he wanted to speak; they just did it. We are not like them but we are prepared to say: “You come and talk to us and we’re prepared to go along with it.” But they were told that that is what happens in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all very interesting Mr Peters but it is not part of question time and it is not a point of order. There is a general debate coming up and you can talk about it there at your leisure. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You of course will be more familiar with the Standing Orders than the rest of us—and I am sort of scratching around trying to find my copy—but there is a provision although I cannot find it at the moment that if a member has been discredited in some way then the member need not seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation because the personal explanation process is about someone explaining something about what he or she has done. But if there is a misrepresentation or other—and I know that you will be familiar with it—my understanding is that a member has a right to respond to the allegations inappropriately levelled at him or her by another member. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 This is by no means a precedent. It has certainly happened in the past in the House and it has happened to me when members of the National Party refused exactly what they are now objecting to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We do not want reminisces of personal experiences about being denied leave but I thank the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Misrepresentation as Mr Brownlee raised arises in debate. This is question time though it is turning into more like a debate. Could we please return to question time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. May I take the opportunity to point out an opportunity for you because although this most certainly is question time it is not uncommon that debating matters are introduced during question time. The point that I would also make to you is that anything that is put into the record by way of a question for oral answer from this side has to be verified at the time it is lodged in the morning and then when the supplementary questions come you are very very cautious and contain the House to speaking about matters that relate only to the question. Now where there has been clear misrepresentation made in an answer it would take only a ruling from you to apply Standing Order 106 to the question time situation and that would not be bad for order in the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 106 is about misrepresentation taking place in the debate. As you are trying to point out to the House we are meant to be having question time right now and that does not apply in this situation that the member is referring to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 For the benefit of the Hon Darren Hughes I know. But I am saying that the Speaker has the role of interpreting the Standing Orders. If the Speaker rules that this Standing Order 106 can apply to question time it can. So it is an appeal to the Speaker to do that in the name of fairness otherwise the lies perpetrated by the Prime Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would all members please be seated. Now what in effect Mr Brownlee is asking is for the Speaker to usurp the decision of the House. This is not a Speaker who is going to do that. The House has spoken it is your House the Standing Orders are yours I am merely here to apply them. If Speakers start working independently on that then goodness knows where it will all lead. So we have interpreted that and as I said the—[ 
Interruption 
] If that member wishes to remain in the Chamber he will desist until I am seated and have finished speaking. That goes for all members please. Now that Standing Order does relate to debate and it is a serious issue and I can understand why Mr Brownlee raised it. However today there is an opportunity for a general debate and I am sure these matters can be appropriately and fully aired then. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press release I issued on 18 June 2003 which is the press release that the Prime Minister referred to. I assure her that neither I nor my family trust was an owner of shares in Tranz Rail at that time and she has misled the House. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In light of that maybe the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to issue an apology. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. One more intervention that is not a point of order and that member will be asked to leave the Chamber because he is creating disorder. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can understand your frustration about points of order being raised that are not points of order but I must say that I think almost the whole House would regard it as somewhat unfair if that member were ejected when it is the habit of this House to tolerate an endless stream of non - points of order from Winston Peters. I am just asking that as you consider the next point of order Rodney Hide may make you take into account the way Mr Peters has been indulged. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will take into account all members who are in the habit of raising points of order that are not points of order. I will operate fairly on that basis. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When you gave your ruling to Rodney Hide he sat down and said: “One rule for some another rule for others.” 
Anne Tolley 
: He did not. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what he distinctly said. We heard him. Now he can tell you the truth or he can behave as he always does. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 That is a total lie from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are not getting anywhere with this. Could we please continue with question time—[ 
Interruption 
] I could ask many people to leave the Chamber at this stage for making points of order that are not points of order. We would certainly get through question time more quickly if that course were followed. So members—all members—are on their last warning. 
Reserve Bank—Monetary Policy Instruments 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will the results of the Reserve Bank initiative to pursue “options for alternative instruments” for monetary policy be made publicly available; and at whose behest was the addition of this initiative in the Reserve Bank’s latest statement of intent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: Yes; and the addition of the initiative arose out of discussions between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that this is new and will the options for alternative instruments include taking into account the balance of payments exports GDP growth and full employment as equally important elements as controlling inflation as identified in a Business and Economic Research Ltd study of June 2008; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is too early to anticipate what will be included but what is clear is that when it was introduced the inflation target was appropriate for the newly independent Reserve Bank of New Zealand to have a single inflation-focused objective. However the economy has changed a lot in the last 20 years: the major sources of inflation are different and we have a much more open economy. Over recent years the Reserve Bank has been faced with two quite different monetary policy challenges. For a number of years under both governors inflation has been driven by increased domestic demand that stems from a buoyant housing market fuelled by cheap foreign capital attracted by a stable economy and relatively high interest rates. Now we have inflation challenges driven by record high international prices of food and oil. In both cases the tools available to the Reserve Bank have not been able to address those problems. In fact in the first case it could be argued that they exacerbated the problem. The Government is open to looking at alternatives that best serve the modern New Zealand economy. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the Government open to proposals to improve the operation of monetary policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. That is why we commissioned the  
Supplementary Stabilisation Instruments 
 report from Treasury and the Reserve Bank. When it became clear that it would not be possible to get political consensus around any of those proposals we invited the Finance and Expenditure Committee to conduct an inquiry into monetary policy involving all political parties. But at every step the National Party and especially Bill English have done all they can to derail and disrupt attempts to obtain political consensus around this very important economic issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister confirm what New Zealand First has said for a long time: that the Reserve Bank Act simply does not work for this economy; and is he aware that the Bank of England recently allowed inflation to exceed its targeted range stating that an attempt to counter a rise in food energy and import prices would result in “unnecessary volatility in output and employment”; and given our Reserve Bank estimates that 90000 New Zealanders must lose their jobs over the next 3 years if we are to meet the inflation targets by using tight and high interest rates does he accept that 90000 job losses with possibly 250000 dependants losing their income and 1 percent to 1.5 percent GDP growth are merely collateral damage? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My position on this is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act has not worked as well in the last decade as it did in the first. 
District Health Boards—Changes to Services 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why are lower North Island district health boards planning a drastic proposal to downgrade regional hospitals in the lower North Island and to “cluster” acute services in Wellington and one other site? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The lower North Island district health boards are not planning drastic downgrades to regional hospitals as the member suggests. They are simply working together to think about how they can better ensure that everyone in the region has the best possible health care. I note that the National Party’s own health discussion document argues that “Better networking and cross-boundary DHB cooperation can concentrate expertise and improve efficiency and quality.” That is exactly what the district health boards are considering doing. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not be open with the public of New Zealand when Labour promised never to downgrade a hospital yet here is a secret Labour plan to axe health services in the lower North Island and make people travel for hours to get even basic care—or is it all a “factual misunderstanding”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is one thing for the National Party to copy popular Labour policies like regional shared services and clinical networks; it is quite another for it to invent unpopular policies like closing entire district health boards which is not the policy of this Government but instead comes from the member’s own discussion document which states: “It is inefficient and inhibiting to have 21 DHBs …”. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can he assure us that any moves to regionalise services will not further disadvantage Kenepuru Hospital and the more than 100000 people who live in its catchment area; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that no proposals have been received by me for the Cabinet process following the consideration by the district health boards so I have not yet been briefed on what recommendations are coming through. But it is my view that Kenepuru Hospital plays a vital role in the regional network of primary and lower-end secondary-care facilities. 
Lesley Soper 
: What alternative approaches to the provision of health care services has the Minister seen? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen a proposal to return to the privatisation of health services model that failed in the 1990s and to something other than the current accident compensation scheme. Under this proposal “There is actually no reason why the State couldn’t contract to the private sector all of the say cataract operations required or all of the hip operations.” Surprise surprise those are the exact words of John Key and are proof if ever more were needed that National’s true agenda the one that it has hired Crosby/Textor to hide from the public is to privatise public services. Rail accident compensation health energy—where will it stop? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When did the Minister first receive a draft copy of a central district health boards’ plan that listed the number of services that would be cut from regional hospitals in that region; and what other secret plans is Labour working on to axe hospital services in other parts of the country while the public is being kept in the dark? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm to the member that I cannot afford to hire Crosby/Textor so I do not know what tactics that firm suggests—and I do not use them. If the member thinks the district health boards are all cronies of the Labour Party he should have visited the previous Hawke’s Bay board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that the report says that across the six lower North Island district health boards 35 clinical departments face staffing shortages maternity services are in crisis most boards are deeply in debt and costs are spiralling out of control; and that Labour’s only answer after 9 years in Government is a secret plan to axe health services in the lower North Island as was revealed today on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Repeated assertions of the fantasies of the member do not make them facts. There is no secret plan. The district health boards are consulting on some internal workings and they have not yet gone through the Cabinet process. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has Labour ignored the repeated warnings about the crisis in maternity services in Wellington and around the rest of the country and how many more tragedies will there be before the Government realises that what is needed is action not another report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is somewhat ironic to hear the member opposite describe the Government’s actions as too little too late when it took him the best part of 24 hours to put out a rather stupid rehash of a press release on the matter. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise that in the last 9 years there have been endless reviews of maternity services and that setting up another review will do nothing to reassure the mothers of New Zealand that they and their babies will be safe? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On the substantive point which was not part of the member’s primary question I am happy to repeat to the House that the purpose of the review that I have set up is to investigate whether the interface between district health board - provided in-hospital maternity services and those provided outside district health board hospitals by non - district health board lead maternity carers is an issue that requires action. The purpose of the review is to ascertain whether we need to take further steps to ensure public safety and confidence. I would have thought the member would join with Labour members in thinking that that was an appropriate thing to do. 
Agriculture and Forestry Ministry—Draft Water Safety Standard 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry make a submission to Horizons Regional Council opposing a draft standard requiring all rivers and streams in the Manawatu-Wanganui region to be safe for swimming? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did no such thing. Its submission to the proposed plan of Horizons Regional Council was very supportive of the restoration of waterways. The section the member is concerned about starts by stating: “MAF supports the sustainable water programme of action outcome to improve the quality and efficiency of fresh water by building and enhancing partnerships.” Further on the submission did state opposition to one clause in schedule D of the proposal because of a concern that the ambition was unrealistic. These were technical measures that the ministry was commenting on. The submission was withdrawn some months ago when this issue first came up. It was withdrawn because it was clear that this one clause was being misinterpreted as opposition to a general ambition—an ambition supported by the ministry—to make all waterways clean. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Minister confirm that the ministry’s submission was withdrawn only after pressure from the Green Party; and can he also confirm that its submission was identical in purpose to the Federated Farmers submission both of them aiming to knock out exactly the same clause of the draft plan—that is the clause that aimed to make rivers and streams safe for swimming? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I cannot confirm that—in fact I can confirm otherwise. The ministry’s submission was withdrawn after senior officials of the ministry determined that that particular clause was not being interpreted properly. I have here the full submission by the ministry. If there is any relationship between this submission and the Federated Farmers submission I would be very surprised. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he received any advice that not only were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Federated Farmers both singing from the same song sheet but also Landcorp the Government’s own company made a submission also trying to knock out this exact clause—the clause that is aimed at making our rivers safe for children to swim in? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have received no such advice and if the member is going to be here for a little longer he will discover that it would be surprising to any member of this House and equally to the ministry and Federated Farmers to know that we are both singing from the same song sheet. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he received any advice that the Landcorp submission stated “The values management objectives and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.” which seems remarkably similar to the submission from the former Federated Farmers president Charlie Pederson which states: “The values management objectives and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.”; and has the Minister sought any advice as to why Federated Farmers and a State-owned enterprise are using exactly the same words in their submissions against clean rivers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a surprise to the member but I have no ministerial responsibility for Landcorp nor do I have any ministerial responsibility for Federated Farmers. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of this evidence of cooperation between Federated Farmers Landcorp and possibly even the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry does the Minister stand by his statement of 31 January: “Claims by the Green Party that the Government has been ‘hijacked’ by Federated Farmers over water policy are simply ridiculous”; and does he agree that if something looks like a hijack smells like a hijack and reads like a hijack then maybe it really is a hijack? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It would come as a complete surprise to Federated Farmers that the ministry has been hijacked by them or they have been hijacked by us. I suggest to the member that he takes a little bit of quiet time after getting into Parliament and breathes through his nose for a while and stops making cheap political points. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the submission from Landcorp on the Manawatu— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a remarkably similar submission from Charlie Pederson— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Education Ministry—Confidence 
9.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Education; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Generally yes. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why after 3 years of complaining to the Ministry of Education $24000 being spent on consultants three different plans being submitted and 25 meetings with officials is Tiaho School in Wairoa still in such a state of disrepair that classrooms leak there is no boiler to heat those leaking classrooms sewage floods the kids’ playing areas when it rains and the kids are so disgusted by the smell of their bathrooms that they will not go anywhere near them? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The situation at Tiaho School is not acceptable. I am advised that the delays are due in part to lengthy negotiations between the school and the ministry over the scope and cost of a wider school redevelopment project and they were caused at least in part by the inability of the school board to source contractors to get and assess the necessary information. The health and safety issues were first drawn to the attention of the Minister’s office on 14 June. At that stage neither the local council nor the district health board was aware of the sewage issues at the school. Nevertheless the Minister of Education has today phoned and written to the school to express his concern about the situation and he has directed the ministry to give immediate priority to addressing the critical health and safety issues. As much of this work as possible will be completed over the school break which begins on Friday. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why was the plan that the school submitted several weeks ago— with assistance from the ministry’s local Hawke’s Bay office—for $1.5 million worth of work to make the school a safe and healthy learning environment rejected; and in light of the Minister’s statement can he confirm the comment of Paul Burke from the Ministry of Education on television last night that the ministry would not be signing off a cheque for improvements until the end of July which means another 4 weeks of sewage leaky buildings no boiler and disgusting bathrooms in the middle of winter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member had given the Minister the courtesy of listening to my answer she would know that her latest question is just stupid. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you might want to consider whether the Minister did address the question. Simply abusing the questioner hardly constitutes addressing the question. The content of the question was well-thought-out it was a reasonable question and it would be reasonable to expect the Minister to attempt to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I listened very carefully. In fact the second question contained the answer that the Minister had given as to when it was. But if the Minister would repeat his answer we can then make some progress. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect the second question pointed to a contradiction between what the Minister had said and what had been said on TV. The Minister should at least have the courtesy to address that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have addressed the point. I have asked the Minister to address the question again. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will try to make it simple for the member. The Minister has directed the ministry to make as much progress as possible during the school holidays. The school holidays—for members who are out of touch—start on Friday. One of the differences between the approach taken by Nick Smith who was ruled by the ministry and the approach taken by this Government is that when we say “jump” it will. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Does the Minister have any criticism of the ministry’s budgetary performance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I do. The ministry grossly underestimated the popularity of the Labour-led Government’s policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education. The latest information shows that funded hours have increased by 7.5 percent since September 2007 and that requires unplanned Government investment of well over $20 million. Meanwhile I note that the National Party’s latest position is that it would dump that policy of 20 hours’ free education. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377. It is something we have seen from the Minister answering for the Minister of Education. Ministers are not allowed to answer a question with “arguments inferences imputations epithets or ironical expressions”. We have seen a lot of that today from Ministers but to suggest that someone asking a question is stupid surely is out of order given Standing Order 377. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have dealt with that point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I was wrongly advised that the Minister’s office had first been told on 14 June. I am now advised that it was on 24 June. 
Anne Tolley 
: What sorts of systems and procedures does his ministry have when a school without a viable form of heating with sewage on the kids’ playing fields and in their courtyards with leaking classrooms with walls that one can poke one’s finger through and with toilets that are so stench-ridden that kids will not go near them has to jump through hoop after hoop after bureaucratic hoop for 3 years before it gets the money—and only after it went on national television to broadcast its plight? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I repeat that the first occasion that the school brought the sewage issue to the attention of the Minister’s office the local council or the district health board was 24 June this year. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did the Minister wait 10 days after receiving a letter from the board of trustees and why has he not visited this school which is in such dire straits; is it that the Government is much more interested in spending the thick end of a billion dollars on a rail system than it is interested in the learning of kids at a school with running sewage on the fields no heating leaking buildings and an electricity system that blows out when the school tries to run heaters? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a really interesting question and I just wonder whether if the electorate had a half-competent local MP it would have been drawn— 
Hon Member 
: She is the MP! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Who is the local MP? Anne Tolley. I wonder whether if the electorate had a half-competent local MP the matter would have been drawn to the Minister’s attention. The other point I will make is that I will take that comment as support from that member for the Toll NZ plan to close the Napier-Gisborne line. 
Anne Tolley 
: How many more meetings will there have to be how many more plans will have to be submitted how much more red tape will the school have to wade through and how many more hoops will this school of 240 children have to jump through before it gets money from the ministry to fix its leaking classrooms its broken boiler its faulty electricity system and its overflowing sewerage pipes which are a health hazard or is the Minister saying that any school with a problem with sewage need only ring either the Minister or Television One? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have indicated to the member on a number of occasions that the very effective Minister of Education upon the matter being drawn to his attention caused the problem to be fixed as soon as possible. If she was half as effective as he is she would have told the Minister about the issue a couple of years ago when she became the local MP—if it was an issue then. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does she have to do it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Most members of Parliament visit schools in their electorates when they have issues and they bring those issues to the Minister’s attention if they are not satisfied with the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order Anne Tolley. 
Anne Tolley 
: A supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A supplementary question Anne Tolley. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. The member was on her feet to I thought raise a point of order before the Minister had finished answering the question. I remind members that however anxious they may be to ask or answer a question the courteous thing to do is to wait for the person speaking to finish. 
Anne Tolley 
: My apologies Madam Speaker; I thought he was just insulting me. Is the Minister now saying that the three separate sets of plans that this board has submitted to the ministry—it having worked on them with the Hawke’s Bay district office of the ministry over the last 3 years—and the $24000 that the board has spent on consultants have not been considered and that all it took to have the drains fixed was for the school go on national television last night with its problem which resulted in the Minister telling his ministry to act; is that the way that education services in this country are going to be run? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No; I was complimenting the member when I made the earlier comments. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Any further supplementary questions? We move to question No. 10 the Hon Tariana Turia. [ 
Interruption 
] The member asking a question is entitled to members having the courtesy to listen. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How long are you going to put up with being insulted by Gerry Brownlee while he is sitting in his seat? You made a ruling and you asked for order so that the honourable co-leader of the Maori Party could ask her question. We can hear insults being thrown in your direction. I ask you to do something about it with respect. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I know that it has been a long question time and I would just ask members to show a little courtesy to each other so that we can get through it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I have created the impression in the House that I have been disrespectful to you I offer you my apologies. But your presiding over a series of answers from that Minister that were very very personally and insultingly directed at another member does not help order in this House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think challenging a member to be an effective local MP is not insulting. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is not— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is Ministers who are held to account in this House during this particular time of the day and it is Ministers who should be giving answers to constituent MPs’ questions asked by a spokesperson. It is that Minister who could not answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. I have said this before but I will say it again. If members want different answers and a definition of that then I invite members to please change the Standing Orders. At the moment a Minister must just address a question. I listen to the questions. Often they are long and involve several thoughts and ideas. Members and Ministers are judged on the questions and the answers that are given. That will be the case here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to give a considered ruling as to the Minister’s answer to the question from my colleague Anne Tolley about the desperate situation of a school in her electorate. We had an answer that told us about the member’s pedigree and the last two answers made no reference at all to the question. How does that possibly comply with Standing Order 377 which requires that answers must be given in the public interest? I am not necessarily asking that you give an immediate ruling but I do think you have a duty to Parliament to ensure that question time is relevant; otherwise it effectively results in a debacle of which none of us can be proud. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Be quiet please all of you; sit down. It is getting ridiculous. I am very happy to give the member a considered ruling on public interest. Now can we move on? 
Moko Skinks—Relocation 
10.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What assurances can she give that relocation of the moko skinks from Whangamata marina site will not affect a species categorised as “sparse” in the North Island skink recovery plan 2002-12? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I can assure the member that any relocation of the moko skinks will enhance their protection. Although the species is categorised as “sparse” it is widespread with at least five mainland populations and around 33 populations on offshore islands. There are a number of options for the population discovered at Whangamata in February. My department is in consultation with iwi and is working to ensure that we do the best we can for the skinks. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the Department of Conservation’s threatened species recovery plan for skinks which states that there should be “high levels of dialogue with iwi” and what dialogue has there been with Ngati Whanaunga and Ngati Kupenga o Ngati Hako who have opposed the proposed Whangamata marina from the outset? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am advised that because the Department of Conservation Waikato Conservancy approved an emergency translocation permit iwi were not initially consulted according to the normal protocol. However as soon as my department became aware of the iwi concern skink collection was immediately halted. I regret that iwi were not consulted. However I am satisfied that they have now been brought into the process. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware that at the same time yesterday that she was announcing success at saving skinks—for grand and Otago skinks—the tangata whenua of Whangamata began an occupation in a protest action opposing the destruction of the habitat of several rare and threatened coastal bird species and the removal of the moko skink; and when will the people of Whangamata also benefit from success at saving skinks? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am aware of the occupation. The occupation does reflect the strong feelings that iwi have towards the marina development as a whole. My department is focused on working with iwi as I said to develop an acceptable solution for the future of the moko skink. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What progress is being made in protecting New Zealand’s indigenous skink species? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: As the previous questioner noted in her comment about the announcement yesterday we are making significant progress on recovery plans for the most threatened skinks. Yesterday I announced a major recovery breakthrough with the grand and the Otago skinks and predator control has led to a dramatic recovery of around 94 percent for a managed population in just 3 years. It can be done. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is it possible that had the Foreshore and Seabed Act not been passed by the Labour-led Government the tangata whenua of Whangamata might have been in a stronger position to prevent the privatisation of the coast and to maintain public access and natural values including the moko skink and its natural habitat by virtue of having customary rights to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Recognition of iwi interests in the foreshore and seabed is a matter for the Attorney-General. As the Minister of Conservation I am responsible for decisions around restricted coastal activities. That decision has been made and my focus now is on the suitable protection of the moko skink. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Impact 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree that the statement made by the Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong “The introduction of emissions trading will constitute the most significant economic and structural reform undertaken in Australia since the trade liberalisation of the 1980s” also applies to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The transition away from both oil dependency and high emissions is a reality that the world cannot avoid—and indeed should not avoid. It will take some time but it has started. It is for Governments to ensure that the transition is well managed and affordable and that is why we are advancing the emissions trading scheme which has been widely consulted upon which will be phased in gradually and which allows 90 percent free allocation to trade-exposed sectors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister change his bill to address the $1 billion - plus in windfall profits to the State through Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power and the $22 billion that the Government will make from the sale of emission permits in light of yesterday’s announcement by Australian Treasurer Wayne Swann that Australia’s emissions trading scheme will be revenue-neutral with any profits to be distributed back to businesses and consumers; if not will this important difference not further increase the rush of businesses and talent to Australia? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The figures that the member uses count the balance in respect of revenues between Crown and emitters out to about 2030 and are highly speculative. The reality is that the Crown is unlikely to break even on the emissions trading scheme until about 2020. Whether it is positive or negative for the Crown after that point depends on 5-yearly reviews. By then we will have had at least three reviews and future Governments will determine where the balance lies. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the level of care being taken with emissions trading when at the weekend the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported: “It is an outrage that the select committee took a mere 16 hours to consider more than 60 reports … and was given just three days to consider more than 1000 amendments” when on the same day the  
Australian 
 reported that Cabinet has been sitting every day this week sometimes until midnight to consider the design of the Australian emissions trading scheme; and does this contrast not speak volumes about the cavalier way this Government is approaching this critical reform? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Not at all. Ministers including Dr Cullen and me have had over 150 briefing reports on the detailed issues here. There have been more than 100 public meetings in New Zealand. There have been well in excess of 100 one-on-one stakeholder meetings between officials and stakeholders. There have been processes that have involved the Secretary to the Treasury the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the head of the Ministry for the Environment the head of Energy the head of the Ministry of Economic Development and business leaders. There has been the Climate Change Leadership Forum. All of this has been in addition to the select committee process which heard many many submissions and gave an average of 20 minutes per oral submitter. It spent many many hours considering the detail yet we have calls for delay by National. I repeat what was said yesterday: “National’s call for further delay is illogical. The issues have been thrashed to death during consultation and submission processes. … The implication from National in its version of the emissions trading scheme is that we will give businesses and farmers an easier ride. If this is so then inevitably a higher cost will fall on taxpayers. National is simply trying to have a dollar each way.” That is what 
 New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week 
 said last week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister maintain that all the necessary analysis has been done on the impacts of this bill when his own Climate Change Leadership Forum has only just commissioned case studies on the impact of the scheme on Fonterra New Zealand Steel Fletcher Building and Pan Pac Forest Products; will he assure the House that these reports will be completed and made public before he asks this Parliament to further advance the bill and can he also explain why these reports were not done before rather than after the select committee process? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The depth and quality of analysis that lies behind this legislation is second to none in respect of anything that I have ever been involved in in this Parliament. It is a widely held view within this Government I think that the process has actually been very proper and very able. The Climate Change Leadership Forum to which the member referred in fact called for the emissions trading scheme to proceed as has the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and as have some other business groups. It is true that some oppose it but of course they want less cost on them and more for taxpayers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that the select committee process was both thorough and extensive when the committee had only 3 days to consider over 1000 amendments when it took just 16 hours to consider over 60 reports—one of which was over 400 pages long—and when the Government rotated over 24 MPs through the committee like a game of musical chairs? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Unlike some other parties in the House the Government membership of that committee was very consistent throughout—the senior members were there throughout. One of the effects when the Opposition tries to suppress progress on these things by collapsing quorums is that the Government has to make up the quorum and of course we do that. In respect of this bill the select committee heard from 161 submitters. It took over 58 hours to hear the submissions with an average of 20 minutes per submitter. The select committee considered officials’ reports throughout the process. At the end of the process after all of the submissions had been heard a further 16 hours was taken to consider detailed provisions of the bill. As a consequence the bill that has been reported back is in very good shape. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given the degree of integration of the New Zealand and Australian economies the Australian Government’s commitment to having emissions trading scheme legislation before its Parliament by the end of this year and Helen Clark’s own decision to defer the implementation of this legislation until 2010 why will the Minister not admit that it is politics and Labour’s branding that is driving the rush to pass this legislation rather than focusing on New Zealand’s interest in having a politically sustainable and sound emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Australians certainly are not waiting for us. They might have been a bit slow out of the starter’s gate but they are fast catching up. Last year the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that further delay was too late that this really was a defining moment and that the time for action is now. Where is the National Party in respect of this issue? All of the experts around the world are saying that the time for action is now but National’s answer is to do nothing. National’s answer is do nothing delay subjugate New Zealand’s interests to those of Australia not pursue New Zealand’s interests and wait wait wait—do nothing. 
Primary Health Organisations—Reports 
12.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on the success of primary health organisations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a report showing that under Labour Kiwis are benefiting from cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper prescriptions. July marks the sixth anniversary of primary health organisations in New Zealand and over 4 million New Zealanders are benefiting. Nationwide the average cost of seeing a general practitioner has dropped to just $26 and a million Kiwis pay no more than $15.50. This year’s Budget extended $3 prescriptions to hospitals which means that even more people will benefit. 
Lesley Soper 
: What evidence does the Minister have that the creation of primary health organisations is leading to better coordination at a local level? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In many parts of the country primary health organisations are leading to greater cooperation and more co-location of services—for example the Horowhenua Health Centre which I visited yesterday with my colleague Darren Hughes and whose first birthday is today. That community is benefiting from having general practitioners radiology elderly care and day surgery all co-located in the same place. That would go out the window if a National Government ever got the chance to reintroduce its disastrous free-market model in the health system. Alternatively National could just admit defeat and embrace our policy as Tony Ryall did in Rotorua recently when he said National would promote one-stop family health centres which is just what we are doing. 
Questions to Members 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2)—Submissions 
1.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: Will she request people to make submissions on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2); if not why not? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The committee will be hearing evidence at its meeting tomorrow. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the chairperson recall that 93 persons gave evidence on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and has she asked all 93 persons to give evidence to the select committee and will she give them an opportunity to be heard rather than agreeing to have the bill reported back to the House on 10 July thereby giving hardly anyone a chance to be heard on this very important legislation? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As the member knows or should know that is confidential to the committee. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I disagree; that is not confidential to the committee. The member herself has just indicated that submissions will be heard. I am just asking her a question which you have permitted. I was asking whether those people would be allowed to give submissions and whether all 93 will be allowed to give submissions or whether we have a situation where the Labour Government wants to drum this bill through the House for the benefit of the trade union movement which is really behind this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member will be on the committee tomorrow and the matter will be discussed then. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact a decision has been made by the committee on this matter then the chair is right: it is a matter that is confidential to the committee. 
Dail Jones 
: In that case has a decision been made on this matter by the committee? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has had his supplementary question but maybe for the interest of the House the chair of the committee can address that question. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As I understand it the committee business is confidential to the committee. The member will be at the committee tomorrow. If he wishes to he can read his papers and be quite clear on things. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that the member is trifling with you. You have just indicated that I can ask whether the committee has made a decision. All the chairperson has to say is “Yes” or “No”. Otherwise she is trifling with you Madam Speaker and I would ask you to deal with the member accordingly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is a matter of procedure as I understand it. But I will consider the question and give the member a ruling tomorrow because these are difficult issues. The questions that members can raise are quite narrow and certainly the calling for submissions is a matter for the chair of the committee. Everything else though as I understand it is in fact a matter for the committee that it comes before. So I will take that matter under consideration. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. When members of the board of trustees of Tiaho Primary School have been meeting this year over the sewage bubbling up in its school playground the lack of heating and the roof still leaking after 4 years three plans and $24000 worth of consultants—a huge amount of money for a school—they probably thought that the Labour Government for which many of them had voted was thinking about the education of their children. They probably thought that someone somewhere cared about whether their children were running through sewage after going out of cold classrooms with leaking roofs but they found out today that that is wrong. 
What was the Labour Government thinking about? Well the Prime Minister was thinking about how to smear the Leader of the Opposition. She got up in the House today after no doubt endless investigation and use of public resources to establish dates and shareholdings and she tried to smear the Leader of the Opposition only to find out that she was wrong. Both of the allegations she made were wrong. Did the Prime Minister do that deliberately in the hope of getting on TV while making some smear against a man who is subject to public scrutiny in front of I would have to say much larger crowds than she is getting every day? Did she hope that she could hit and run and that tomorrow it would be gone or did she just make it up? 
Either way the Prime Minister of New Zealand has no interest in the children of Tiaho Primary School because the other reason the children of that school and the children of Queenstown School—which needs five classrooms has spent 2 years trying to get them and has now been told that there is not enough money—cannot get funding is that the Government has committed $1.7 billion to buying back rail. There is no money to educate our children in decent facilities worthy of a developed country but there are hundreds of millions of dollars to pay a premium as Dr Cullen calls it to Toll Rail to line the pockets of its Australian shareholders just so that he can buy rail in an election year. 
You see the boards of trustees of Tiaho Primary School and Queenstown School know what it is like to go through the grinder. They have to justify every cent and go over it again. They had 40 meetings in order to get their concerns in front of the Ministry of Education which then said it did not have $20000 $30000 $40000 or $100000. But if one goes and spends $1.7 billion on rail then one does not need to know anything about whether it will make money what the return on capital is what the premium was or whether the last investment one made in rail in ONTRACK is even working because the Auditor-General says it is a mess. That is why Labour is going down the tubes. Every day hard-working New Zealanders are out there trying to keep to the rules in order to get the cash to educate their kids while those members opposite are spending billions on trying to garner a couple more votes and 2 more days’ worth of headlines. That is the reason they bought New Zealand rail. 
There has been no explanation of why the Government has bought New Zealand rail but I can tell members this. The plans for why Labour bought rail are less detailed less thorough and less well-thought-through than the plans for Tiaho Primary School to get its sewerage fixed. I challenge the Prime Minister to come to the House tomorrow and prove me wrong. The board of trustees of Queenstown School has tried much harder to be responsible over the use of $100000 of public money than the Labour Government has over spending $1.7 billion according to Helen Clark’s calculations today. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 That is the man who is so concerned about schools that he said 2 years ago he wanted to cut the funding to decile 1 schools because they were getting too much. Decile 1 schools have the kids who come from the lowest-income families in this country and Bill English is promising to cut their funding so that maybe he can put some more subsidies into private schools that look after people who are in the decile 10 category. That is the man who is so worried about the New Zealand public that as Minister of Finance he cut national superannuation from 65 percent of the average wage to 60 percent. 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s not true. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is on the record Bill English and you are on the record—your track record is known. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could take members through the rulings and the Standing Order about the use of the word “you” because today we have had I think four examples now of senior members— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right; enough. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well this member has done it twice. The Speaker has made it clear. The member is an experienced member who should know and he continues to breach that rule. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I understand that. I will keep an eye on it. I have to say that I almost pulled you up Mr English from the Chair for doing exactly the same thing. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes the member did and I almost pulled him up. I have sought not to. But I would ask members to please desist from using the word “you” or “your” as much as they can. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member does not like the truth—that is why he interrupted the speech. But the other truth that came out about Bill English last month was at the Finance and Expenditure Committee where it was found that Bill English in 1998 spent $45.7 million of hard-working New Zealanders’ tax money on privatisation and on getting advice on how to sell State assets and $5 million of that went to his mates Merrill Lynch to try to sell off Auckland International Airport. That is Bill English—so worried about the taxpayer’s dollar and the kiddies at a school that needs some more funding to fix a problem that he wasted $45 million of New Zealand taxpayer money. 
But it is worse than that because we found out from Merrill Lynch today that the National Party has a secret plan to privatise accident compensation. Merrill Lynch was very happy about that. Merrill Lynch—the same company that the Leader of the Opposition once worked for—is very happy because that will put $200 million of New Zealand money into the pockets of big insurance companies in Australia. Merrill Lynch raised the question of why the National Party would do this because the premiums in New Zealand are low and the service is better than that of Australia. In fact the premiums on employers are 2½ times higher in Australia which has the very system that National wants to adopt. Why does National want to adopt it? There is no economic logic. It is either ideology or it is to line the pockets of the party’s business mates and donors or it is both. I believe it is both. It is certainly not acceptable to New Zealanders. 
The National Party is fast developing a reputation for lack of openness and transparency. It will not even own up to the fact that it is now paying vast sums of money to Crosby/Textor to be its spin doctor. It will not even own up to whom it is employing to manipulate public opinion. Is it any wonder? Crosby/Textor is the company that got push-polling down to a fine art. It is the company that libelled Labor candidates in Australia and had to pay out because of lawsuits from those people. We are getting a picture of this National Party still doing exactly what  
The Hollow Men 
 revealed through the party’s emails. Do members remember what the party was told? It was: “The secret of success is sincerity and conviction. Once you fake that then you’ve got it made.” That is the level of the sincerity and conviction of the National Party. It is absolutely fake. 
Hon Bill English 
: That was Mike Moore! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I tell that member to read it in  
The Hollow Men 
. The paranoia of National members about leaked emails knows no bounds; they are claiming it again—John Key this time. For heaven’s sake we have just had a police investigation 2 months ago that found that there was no evidence that the National parliamentary computer system had been hacked into. In fact it concluded that no unauthorised or unlawful breach had taken place. That backs up what Nicky Hager said. The people who leaked those emails I say to Bill English are the people within the National Party who had had a gutsful of the deceit and the manipulation of public opinion within the National Party. There are still some decent people within the National Party who do not tolerate that form of politics. It is bad politics it is politics that lacks transparency and it is the politics of deceit and connivance. 
That is what we have got from the National Party once again on the accident compensation programme. In 2005 the Insurance Council revealed that it had been told what the National Party wanted to do. It did not intend to reveal it; it was another leaked memo. It said that the National Party had the detail but was not prepared to disclose it. National is not prepared to tell the New Zealand public what its secret agenda is. We know what its secret agenda is; we have seen it before. This is the party that says it is against buying New Zealand rail but will not actually admit to the fact that it will sell it. It is time the National Party came clean. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Yesterday we saw the most amazing confluence of two issues within the transport sector. We saw that on the very same day that this Labour Government became the owner of KiwiRail it fired up road-user charges to the trucking sector unilaterally overnight and with no warning. The trucking sector is furious about it. I have to say that if there is ever an example of a conflict of interest it is where a Government becomes the owner of a transport operator and on day one puts up the charges on the people who have to compete with it. 
The Road Transport Forum is known for trying at least to be balanced in how it deals with issues. It always has to stay onside with the Government on matters about how the road sector is worked. But yesterday the Road Transport Forum put out in bright red headlines on its press release: “Deliberate deception by Minister of Transport Annette King over increased Road User Charges”. That is what it says: “Deliberate deception by Minister of Transport Annette King …”. 
I want members to listen to what the press release from the Road Transport Forum said: “Trucking operators have been deliberately deceived by the Minister of Transport Annette King in announcing an immediate increase in Road User Charges says Road Transport Forum Chief Executive Officer Tony Friedlander. ‘The Forum was assured by the Minister after last year’s increases that operators would be given a month’s notice of any increases in Road User Charges in future. This was confirmed in writing by her officials. The Minister undertook to change the law to allow notice to be given. Clearly our members cannot rely on the Minister and the Government to keep their word.’ The Minister fully understands how much a Road User Charge increase without notice damages all operators Mr Friedlander says. ‘We explained to her last year how the lag between an immediate increase in costs and being able to raise charge-out rates to cover them can drive some operators to the brink. She said she understood. So she obviously doesn’t care.’ Operators are already struggling because of the downturn in the economy and historically high fuel prices. ‘For a number of operators this will be the last straw. The timing of this increase and the way it has been done mean the Minister could not have done more damage to our industry if she had deliberately tried.’ ” That is what he said: “could not have done more damage to our industry if she had deliberately tried.” 
The release goes on: “ ‘She should not underestimate how angry our members and the industry are.’ Mr Friedlander says as well as inflicting real damage on the trucking industry the increased costs of higher Road User Charges will inevitably flow through into higher costs for businesses and higher prices in supermarkets and for other goods.” 
There is a lot more to the press release but I want to use the few minutes I have to let members of this House know that on Friday morning in the central business districts of our main towns—Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin—the Road Transport Forum will use their power with their trucks and bring those cities to a halt in protest at the arrogant behaviour of this Government. I warn people that on Friday morning around 7 o’clock that is the plan. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Catch a plane; don’t use your car! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what will happen. If there is ever a conflict of interest it is from this Government that wants to increase the charges to those truck operators. Trevor Mallard seems to think it is funny but I can tell members that some of those truck operators are absolutely on the margin of being able to stay in business—absolutely. With diesel prices where they are and with interest rates on the cost of borrowing for their truck fleets where they are some of those Road Transport Forum members are right on the margin. 
Then they got an overnight announcement posted on the Minister’s website. That is how they found out about it; that is how secretly it was done—posted on the Minister’s website. There was no notice to the industry or the forum. It could not have been more deliberate deception. The Government could not have done more damage to the industry if it had tried. 
So now what is happening? The Labour Government is happy about it. It paid $1.7 billion—I think the number is up to that now—for a train operation that it cannot justify. Somehow Toll threatened the Government that if it did not spend that Toll would close some lines down. Well of course Toll would say that. Why not take it at its word? Why not let it get away with it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The “member for Telecom” has just become the “member for the road transport industry”. It is a very interesting transition. For most of his speech he was reading out one of the industry’s press statements. I think that shows how little original thought occurs in the National Party and how little the National members are prepared to say. 
I want to focus on the issue of the day and that is the Merrill Lynch secret report into National Party policy. I want to say that things are consistent. National members are not being inconsistent. They are taking the approach of deliberately keeping details of policy out of announcements and they have been consistent about doing that. Both my colleague Phil Goff and Maryan Street will be talking about the substance of the issue but I want to talk about the ethics of the issue. 
I want to know why John Key when he was in Sydney was talking about selling and leasing back State-owned enterprise assets. Why did he brief Merrill Lynch on that? John Key is a shareholder in Merrill Lynch. He is someone who has worked for Merrill Lynch. I want to know why it is appropriate for someone who is a shareholder in an organisation to give a briefing to that organisation—not even in New Zealand but in Sydney—and to say something he is not prepared to say in New Zealand. I just think that is wrong. I think it shows a tremendous lack of judgment on the part of someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I just do not understand how he could do that. 
I vaguely agree with Pansy Wong. In the House today Pansy Wong said it is no secret. She confirmed the National Party policy in this area. It is like the policy that the National Party is going to cut superannuation. Everyone knows that the National Party plans to cut superannuation or to put the age of eligibility up. Everyone knows that it plans not to sell the State-owned enterprises but to sell and lease back the assets. John Key has been involved in discussions on that. It is what we call an open secret. National’s plans in relation to accident compensation are an open secret. 
But the question I have is why when National was making an announcement it made it to a small group of mates in Australia who then did a report that shows very very carefully how they are going to make money from it and that advises a wider circle of mates how to make money out of it—it is just wrong. I think if someone did that in Zimbabwe we would call the person corrupt. We will not do that here because it is an inappropriate thing to do in this Parliament. But it reminds me more of politics in the United States where people are beholden to little groups of funders or to bigger groups of funders for large amounts of money and they make policy decisions on the basis of that and they make inappropriate commitments on the basis of that sort of approach. It is the sort of thing that we just do not do in New Zealand. We think it is wrong. We think people should be open about their policies. 
If there was one thing that was learnt from the period of the 1980s and the 1990s in New Zealand—and I had thought it was learnt by both sides of the House—it was that one did not promise one thing and do something else. This is a very very clear example of an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the vast majority of New Zealanders. It is a clear example of an attempt to hike up the costs and to transfer to private owners the profit of the accident compensation system. That system has generally worked very well for New Zealand. A previous attempt to privatise it was an absolute failure. 
I just go back to something that is not the key substance of the issue but is a question of the ethics of the method of announcement and the approach that was taken. New Zealanders will in the end if something is hard and we tell them it is hard—if we tell them the truth—back us. Why did John Key not take that approach? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. There are some moments of inspiration that cause us all to reflect but believe me that is not what happens in this House. But one of those moments happened this last weekend. Henare O’Keefe told a crowd of more than 2000 people: “My faith has been restored in mankind today”. The Hastings District councillor was reduced to tears by the outpouring of love that came from a community that cared a community that had had enough of violence and a community that had been shattered by the brutal home invasion of a young family in Flaxmere. 
The No. 1 issue facing Aotearoa today is not about KiwiRail KiwiSaver Kiwibank or any other aspect of Kiwiana; the question facing us all is what can we as everyday families do to transform our lives? What can we do to step up to the challenge put on our own walking shoes and take our streets communities and homes back? Last night in this House a lot of emphasis was given to the need for a moral code—the need for standards. I wonder whose standards we are being judged against and whose code of morality prevails. I recall a release issued by the Muliaga family that described what it called the strange silence from Blue Chip in failing to offer to repay one cent of the millions of dollars owed to New Zealanders who had lost their life savings. Their release concluded: “These people continue to live in million dollar mansions and drive luxury cars while the Muliaga’s struggle week to week living in a state house”. 
Every day the newspapers tell us of the grim reality of poverty and deprivation of violence of crime and of desperation. There is no denying that those are the defining issues of our time but they must not strangle hope. In addressing the rally in Hawke’s Bay Henare O’Keefe ended by saying: “no amount of legislation no number of social workers or policemen can substitute what has happened today”. And he is right. We must look to each other for our solutions. We must actively harness the strengths of whanau as an opportunity for the people to flourish. We must all search our collective histories for examples of courage truth justice compassion dignity humility and the power of service that we can draw on to inspire our next steps. 
We have many solutions within our reach. Pio Terei in his no-sweat parenting approach tells us that the essentials in every child’s school-bag are good sleep good food a hug and a smile when they wake up and a huge repertoire of encouraging words. Pat Ngata inspires us to raise our sons as gentle men. Project Mauriora tells us how we can draw on our kaupapa and tikanga as tools to help us to work towards a lifelong restoration of peace within our whanau. And that is just a start. 
The Maori Party believes that families are the foundation of any society and the value that society places on its people determines the quality of that society. We must promote the special role of the whanau the first educator in the well-being of this nation. Whanau must be supported to care for and make decisions affecting their own members and must be able to access all the resources that they need in order to thrive. We have to restore to ourselves the value of taking responsibility for the actions of the members of our families and for the impact that those actions have on others. Henare O’Keefe did exactly that. He stood and addressed the children and I quote: “To our children I want to say I’m sorry. If you have been hurt in any way shape or form I’m so sorry”. That district councillor that distressed dad and grandfather could have stood up and railed against the gangs and hyped up the crowd to get tough and to get even. But instead he practised what Mahatma Gandhi once said: “An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind.” Henare O’Keefe opened our eyes to a different way: a way of stepping up and creating community unity of inspiring hope of recognising injustice and of taking responsibility. That sort of action is what restores my faith too. Kia ora. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Well well well—another day and there is another shifty slippery National Party cover-up of another National Party attempt to sell off or dispose of our State assets. It is funny because a couple of months ago the leader of the National Party John Key told the public that National would not sell off State assets in its first term but what is he telling his Australian insurance company mates in private? He is telling them that he will dismember the accident compensation scheme—our $10.3 billion public asset—and sell it off or in the fudged and slippery language used now that he will open up parts of it to competition. So he has dressed this up as “providing New Zealanders with choice”. 
Today Mr Key has been compelled to spell out the National Party’s position which he says is to allow private insurers to compete. But I ask why he is being compelled to release the National Party policy on accident compensation today when he has not felt compelled to release policy on any other matter before this week. Has in fact Crosby/Textor told National to do this today because the strategy to date is not working and is backfiring? 
But let me get back to accident compensation for a moment because Crosby/Textor will no doubt have an interest in how this policy runs out as well. What is meant by opening up some of the accident compensation accounts to competition? It means that Australian insurance companies will be given the choice to decide who to cover and who not to cover. It will mean that a whole lot of people will miss out on accident compensation for wages physio bills paid caregivers and the like. This policy is not about giving injured New Zealanders a choice; it is about giving Australian insurance companies the right to play Russian roulette with our nation’s injuries and health. It would seem that the $200 million in profit these insurance companies will reap from New Zealand taxpayers—and people should make no mistake that that money will come out of New Zealand taxpayers’ pockets—will be handed to those companies by the man who wants to be Prime Minister of this country Mr Key. It seems to me that Mr Key is batting for the wrong country and what we have seen in the House today is one nasty underarm bowl. 
What must be particularly galling for New Zealand businesses is that Mr Key is telling them that they will pay lower levies under privatisation or a competitive model. Well let us look at the facts which are these: in 1999 when National privatised the work account—and let us call a spade a spade; the shifty National Party cannot call a spade a spade but I am happy to—employers were paying $2.14 per $100 of liable earnings. What are they paying now under a State monopoly? They are on average paying $1.26. So that means that employers are paying about half of the levies they were paying under the National Government’s last effort at privatising accident compensation. What are employers paying in Australia? On average they are paying about two and a half times more than our employers are paying. Yet Mr Key is going to allow Australian insurance companies to take over parts of our accident compensation scheme. Those are the facts and employers need to think about them. Mr Key may not spell this out; he may continue to be shifty to prevaricate and to be slippery about it. But the employers of this country know what the facts are because they have seen the average levies come down in the last few years. 
Employers also need to think about the fact that a significant amount of their levies will end up being wasted on regulation. In fact the PricewaterhouseCoopers report found that accident compensation administration costs were significantly lower than those of insurers in Australia. But the report stated that those costs would go up by an increase of well over 10 percent under privatisation. So levy costs will increase to pay for more red tape and that is an irony considering that the National Party professes to be the anti - red tape party. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Fancy hearing the lead chorister talking about a secret agenda! For at least 4 years now National has been saying it wants to see competition in the accident compensation scheme. That is hardly a secret; it is truly bizarre for the Minister to suggest that this is some secret agenda. All I can assume is that she needs to get out more and read the newspapers look at television or maybe look at the Internet and then she will actually find out what our policy is. If that member looked at what happened in 1998 she would see that competition brought the accident compensation rates down. Indeed that has been an enduring effect over the last 9 years. It would never have happened but for competition. 
I turn now to an important issue relating to the New Zealand Defence Force. One of the key hallmarks of defence is leadership. Those who have the duty and responsibility to lead have the responsibility to protect those who serve yet we have had the extraordinary situation of a senior decorated officer being brought back to New Zealand nearly 12 months ago and kept in uniform specifically for a court martial just weeks before he completes 38 years of service. What had he actually done wrong? The whole saga stems—as indeed the Minister knows—from claims made by seconded personnel for a housing allowance in New Zealand. The officer was told in fact by senior officers in the Defence Force to make precisely that claim—that it was normal practice. The Prime Minister has had to find that out only this week. That is why National has taken this issue so seriously because we believe that this has been an issue of a failure of leadership. The officer was led to believe he could make the claim then the Defence Force sought to court-martial him precisely on that issue. 
When the Defence Force could not get the officer on the housing allowance it continued to prosecute him even though there are other options available under military law to deal with the issues of cigarettes and tobacco. I understand that responsibility was required for those issues but I have to contrast that situation with the Prime Minister’s numerous transgressions of the law and ask what happens to her. The most she ever gets is a warning or maybe a letter but basically she is never held to account for those transgressions. 
The Chief of Defence Force has ordered an internal inquiry. It is a bit extraordinary really. Senior officers have known about this issue the whole way along so can we really say that an internal court of inquiry is the right process here? Given that it covers the senior ranks of the Defence Force surely an independent inquiry is required. At least I would acknowledge that the Minister may see the need for that. 
The other extraordinary feature of this whole event is that the Minister said on Sunday and indeed repeated in the House today that he knew nothing about this entire event. The Defence Force has only about 12 colonels; one of them was about to be court-martialled. The Minister was not told about that despite answering specific questions from members of Parliament on the specific issue. Those questions were not veiled questions; they were right to the point about the housing allowances in the United Nations of seconded officers. How many seconded officers were actually being court-martialled? The answer is one. Apparently members of the Defence Force took it upon themselves not to tell the Minister about that even though they had answered specific questions on the very points at issue. How is that for a no-surprises policy? I would have to say to members of the Defence Force they will need to account for that failure. National wants to be given clear answers on these issues. We want them to come from the senior officers. They are the ones who are responsible for this issue. We want there to be an independent investigation. Given that the issue is within the realm of the senior officers only an independent investigation can have the powers and the abilities to get to the bottom of it. 
The issue is really quite straightforward: the integrity and ethics of leadership are at stake here. This is not an issue to be lightly washed over and where one person is essentially held to be a scapegoat. There has to be accountability. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
:  
It was a very interesting question time today in the House. From all the barracking and from all the yelling and screaming from the National Party about what a terrible idea it is for the Government to have bought back rail and how it is the worst thing we possibly could have done since the last worst thing we possibly could have done—which National has now adopted as its own policy—one would be excused for thinking that National had said that it was not going to sell it. One would be excused for thinking that the National Party was going to hock off KiwiRail the first chance it got because clearly National hates it. National members were frothing at the mouth at the very thought of the Government owning a national rail system just as Governments all around the world own national rail systems because privatisation is in their blood. If it is not for profit they do not get it. If it is not for profit why would one do it? Even if it is good for the country and it is geared towards responding to the needs of communities why would one do it if it does not make money all the time? They do not get it. 
I think it is completely unreasonable for any New Zealander on hearing question time today to think for a second that a National Government would not sell off KiwiRail as quick as it could because that was clear from question time today. Of course we will never know because as Crosby/Textor has told the National Party: “Don’t release any policies.” The problem is when one releases policies one goes down in the polls because people do not like them. That is a real political problem. So the political solution is to just not tell anyone what one is going to do—[ 
Interruption 
] well Katrina Shanks does not know what National is going to do anyway—and then one will be fine. We are 4 months at the most out from an election and we have a National Party whose members arrogantly think that they are going to easily wander into Government. They are not going to have to do anything; it is theirs because after all they are born to rule. It is their natural place to be over here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not lately. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is quite right. Four months out from an election National members think that they can get away with releasing one A4-size two-sided piece of paper that they say is their policies. Well I say one thing to the National Party members: saying one is not going to do something is not a policy; saying “Me too!” is not a policy; and when one has absolutely no detail about how one is going to fund it that is not policy. 
The people of New Zealand deserve to know what the National Party would do with Working for Families. Can Dr Hutchison tell us? No apparently not—[ 
Interruption 
] National members are all yelling now but they will not answer the question. New Zealanders deserve to know what National would do with the KiwiSaver contributions and National members will not tell us that either. New Zealanders deserve to know which public servants would be fired and which provincial offices of Government departments would close because the National Party would be firing public servants. Maybe Mr McCully can tell us that now? No nothing. 
In fact any policy would be nice from the National Party because let us not forget this is the second election in a row that we have not had any policy from the National Party. At the last election National’s health policy was: “We’re going to review the health sector.” Well given that it would fire all the public servants in the Ministry of Health I do not know who National thinks would do that review. I think they think the pixies would go out and do all those reviews after the election. But it is absolutely unacceptable that a party that wants to be in Government and that wants to lead this country can go through two election campaigns with no policy. We can conclude two things from that. One National has policies and its members do not want to tell us what they are because they are really unpopular or two 4 months out from an election they actually have no policies. They actually do not know what they will do if they become the Government. 
John Key is sitting in his office thinking: “How can I please everyone?” because we know that he formulates all his discussions on his conversation with the last person to whom he spoke. It is very hard to come up with a stand on things when one does not want to offend a single person. But the fact is that that voters of New Zealand deserve to know what they will get with a National Government. If the National Party would follow Crosby/Textor’s advice and not tell New Zealanders what they deserve to know because they do not trust them or because they know that New Zealanders will not like their policies—which are exactly the same as their policies in the 1990s—New Zealanders will not trust them and we will see the Employment Contracts Act come back. They will probably give it a better name; Crosby/Textor will probably tell them to call it the “We Love Workers Act” or something like that— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Like they did in Australia—workplace reforms! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right—“Work Choices”. What a great name for something that is terrible for workers. Now maybe Mr Hutchison will give us some policy. He is a man of substance. I ask him to give us some policy. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am afraid to report that the Prime Minister has done it again. First of course there was “paintergate” where she did not sign the painting. Then of course there was “speedgate” where she sped across the Canterbury Plains at 180 kilometres per hour 80 kilometres above the legal limit and denied that she knew. Then of course there was “pledge card - gate” where the Labour Party overspent almost $1 million and refused to pay it back but now there is “disability car-park - gate”. 
It is ironic that the Labour Government introduced a bill only yesterday to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—ironic indeed when one reads the news from last Monday: “PM’s blocking of disabled carpark ‘unacceptable’ says pensioner.” That of course refers to an 81-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease who comes from Christchurch and who was forced to struggle down a wet Christchurch street last Friday night while Prime Minister Clark was sitting inside enjoying the soothing sounds of the symphony. Well what really did happen as Helen Clark’s motorcade parked over that disability car-park bay? Even if Prime Minister Clark feigned that she was shocked the real questions are: is she really shocked and what is she doing about it? Has she apologised to the 81-year-old? Have we heard anything about that? Well not as far as I know. I had a phone-around today and there were no apologies so far. 
No one in this House of course will ever forget 2004 when four policemen and one civilian were actually charged for conveying the Prime Minister across the Canterbury Plains at that extraordinary speed of 180 kilometres per hour. She of course not only denied the situation but was prepared to dub them in—fairly and squarely dub them in. And the Prime Minister to this day has denied that she was actually speeding 80 kilometres per hour more than the legal limit. But there is another irony to the fact that the Prime Minister’s motorcade blocked the disability car-parks last Saturday night which is that on the very day before her Government had introduced a $150 fine for using a disabled parking space without a valid permit. So bingo within 24 hours of her Government having increased the fine what should be found on a disabled car-park bay? None other than the Prime Minister’s motorcade! To make matters worse I think it is important to stress the discomfort of the 81-year-old Parkinsonian who with his wife had to struggle down the wet street helped by ushers from the Christchurch Town Hall. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why are you smiling? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I tell Mr Peters that it is a very serious matter. Indeed the only reason for smiling would be the great concern I have that the Prime Minister has failed to follow up the situation in the light that her Government this week introduced a bill that will ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and last week increased the disabled parking fine to $150. 
Once again has Helen Clark apologised to the 81-year-old man? Has she checked to see that he is all right? Has she bothered to follow it up and has she indeed made sure that the $150 fine will be paid? None of this we know—absolutely none of it. What Colin Waite of the New Zealand Parking Association has had to say is interesting. He said that it is infuriating for disabled people to see people abusing these special parking spaces and the tougher fines should significantly reduce the problem for them. But apparently the Prime Minister is relatively oblivious to what happened. What does the disability sector have to say? It has become cynical about New Zealand Prime Ministers. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 “Mysteriouser and mysteriouser”—what an interesting week it has been for the National Party. First of all we have had the confusion around rail and its response to that. I was expecting my good colleague Moana Mackey to ask a question about the rail line from Gisborne to Napier and I am sure she will get the chance to do that. If the Government had not intervened then that line would have been cut— 
Moana Mackey 
: Not good. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —not good—along with many many other lines. 
Today we found out that Australian insurers are getting ready to make a killing out of New Zealand taxpayers because they are expecting National to privatise accident compensation. It is all as we suspected. There was an innocent little statement on National’s two-page policy announcement that it would provide choice and now I hear the words “competition and choice for accident insurance in the workplace”. That is something National members were hoping to keep below the radar and now we know why. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We’ve been saying it for ages. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: They have been saying it for ages but they are still denying it. Their leader was denying it today. He said that there would be competition and choice but what is unclear is how it would happen. 
Moana Mackey 
: He said yesterday: “We haven’t released any ACC policy.” 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. And he said today that he would release it at the end of July. 
The insurance industry has revealed National’s plans to give its mates millions of dollars of new income through the privatisation of accident compensation should it ever become the Government. We are talking big money; it is something like $2.1 billion of new premium income from insurers and another $200 million going into the industry’s after-tax earnings. That kind of money motivates the buying of an election. The insurance companies tried it last time and I think they are at it again. 
You know every time John Key makes a bit of a botch-up National members hold their breath. Their dreams of the big time go on hold for a few hours. They beat up on the journalists they go into denial overdrive and they ring up Crosby/Textor—the professional manipulators. 
A typical cheap shallow National - Crosby/Textor line is “time for a change”. I want to talk about change because there is good change and there is bad change. Labour stands for good change. Let us talk about some of the changes that this Government has brought in: a change that has given workers jobs and taken them off the benefit; a change that gives workers more holidays and extra pay on public holidays; a change to having better wages particularly for low-paid workers; a change to the minimum wage which has increased it by more than 70 percent and tripled the minimum rate for young workers; a change called Working for Families which is lifting families and children out of poverty and helping families to get ahead; a change that gives us cheaper visits to the doctor and lower prescription charges; and a change that has introduced Kiwibank KiwiSaver and KiwiRail—and we still do not know what National thinks about them. 
This is good change. It is change that has made and will continue to make a difference for New Zealand workers and their families. It is change that has built a strong foundation to address the pressures of the day and the needs of future years. And there is more to come. 
Just last week there were more rights for seasonal and casual workers in respect of accident compensation as well as compensation for workplace injuries due to mental trauma. National voted against that. Yesterday paid parental leave payments were increased and on 1 October there will be tax relief for workers and families. We are bringing in rights for workers to have tea breaks and meal breaks—and I have to say having heard some of the submissions that one would think that that was the end of the world. There will be a change for the better to the rights of casual and temporary workers. The vast array of this Government’s programme is on show in this Parliament every day and National continues to vote against most of these measures. 
Let us talk about bad change. Bad change means the sorts of things we can expect National to do if it ever regains the Treasury benches. We know that from its record the last time it was in Government its voting record over the past few years and the refusal of its members to tell the public about their intentions. The changes I listed earlier—the good changes that Labour has brought in—were all opposed by National members. They stood up and voted against them time and time again. That is their record in this Parliament. 
National is short-changing the people of this country by refusing to own up to the treatment it dished out to ordinary working people the last time it was in Government. It continues to short-change people by voting against every single measure in this Parliament that will make a difference for them and it short-changes the workers and the voters by treating them as though they are stupid by not telling them what its policies are and what it stands for. Right now most of its 14 little policies—or is it 15 now that we know about Crosby/Textor—are slogans promising to undo the good job this Labour-led Government has done. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The National Party did not include GST in its election spending calculations in the last election. Its members later claimed it was a misunderstanding with media agents Rainmakers—the firm thought the GST was inclusive; it was not. National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce told police that he had informed Rainmakers the amount was $900000 GST inclusive. Rainmakers says he did not. The police file has emails that raise questions as to why Joyce did not pick up on the problem prior to the 17 September election. One email a month before the election from Rainmakers to Joyce warned they would overspend their $900000 allocation if they continued with their booked advertising. However the National Party went ahead with it and as a result received $112493 in free advertising: Television New Zealand (TVNZ) $57000 the Radio Bureau $24000 TV3 $20000 Prime $6000 and Sky TV $3000. To pay the money back would have been a violation of the Broadcasting Act in that the amount would have been over the cap. 
The National Party drafted a member’s bill unique to this Parliament to allow it to pay the outstanding GST. It was the only client that ever came along in seven elections and said: “We’d like you to change the Act not for our group not for our sector but just for us.” This means the National Party wanted Parliament—the highest court in the land—to validate an illegal action by a political party and that is serious stuff. The bill was blocked by MPs from New Zealand First the Maori Party and the Greens. The Electoral Commission referred the case to the police in January 2006. The police said they could not prosecute the National Party because they could not decide whether National or the media agency was at fault. Rainmakers and the National Party were at loggerheads over this but it appears the agency has the edge and is being used as a scapegoat. 
Instead of paying National’s GST debts to media organisations Judy Kirk the president announced on 22 November 2006 that the party would make donations of media advertising to charities. I ask members to hear that—to make donations of media advertising to charities! This is the party that wants to be the Government. This is the party that makes huge mistakes. This is the party whose deputy leader was a Minister of Revenue. This is the party whose deputy leader was the Minister of Revenue back in 1999 but in 2005 he and his mate Steven Joyce a prominent media baron could not work out the GST on its broadcasting allocation. 
But hang on a minute! Is not Mr Joyce somebody with serious radio interests and a long background in broadcasting? This is a party whose leader says he does condone push polling and then he does not all in the same 8-second sound bite—and people think Russel Norman is supposed to be the one with the clean green image! 
These are the facts: TVNZ is not a charity under the law; the National Party broke the law at the last election on three occasions: one it did not pay its GST; two it broke the broadcasting cap allocated to political parties; and three it thought it would get away with it by paying the money to a charity. But TVNZ and the other people it paid the money to are not lawful charities in the context of avoiding gift duty. They broke the law three times and I want to ask the media up in the press gallery how on earth they can get away with it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it’s rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Because it is corruption? It is corruption; it is the most corrupt act to seek to avoid the law on three counts. [ 
Interruption 
] He said it was not me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said it was rubbish and the members would know that the word he used repeatedly is not parliamentary. I suggest you bring the member to order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Which word is that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I do not wish to repeat the word that the member used repeated times. 
Hon member 
: Three times. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Three times. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I heard him say “It’s corruption.” It is corruption; I agreed with him. Now he says it is something else. If he kept his mouth shut and allowed the debate to go on he would not have heard the thing in the first place. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you continuing the debate? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am trying to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just hold on please. I will just satisfy the member here. Yes you did use the word “corruption”. In my view you did not say “Bill Smith is corrupt.” or the National Party was corrupt. There was an inference and it is getting a bit close but you did not say directly those words. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for a fine lawyer’s decision on what is a very narrow point. 
The National Party did a cover-up job with the media it owes the GST to but it still is not out of the loop. It is caught with gift duty. Why does it not pay the $15850 of gift duty it owes? It is not exempt and Mr Mapp who is a former law lecturer knows what I am talking about. It is not saved by the fact that it is a charity when we pay to TVNZ or TV3. We might think TVNZ is a charity. We might think that some of the behaviour of TVNZ represents a very much in-need charity but it does not qualify under the law—so pay up the money! If we are going to talk about New Zealand First we did pay the money in the only way the leading international published tax lawyer in this country said we could and that is the distinction. He said: “If you pay it back to the revenue it’s going to catch gift duty so pay it to a charity—a registered one.” 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Members of the New Zealand public who are listening to this broadcast from Parliament will be intrigued to know that the last address they just heard was from a man who holds a warrant in this Government that makes him responsible for the conduct of New Zealand’s relationships with other countries. It is a very important task in this Parliament and today we have heard him bring all of the attention to that portfolio which has become his characteristic. I say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to other members of the Government who have contributed to this debate that I have sat here and listened to it and asked myself one simple question: what planet are these people on? They imagine that there are people out there who are pulling up to the petrol bowser putting the nozzle into their tank and then when they see the dial tick over to $100 they are saying: “Those nasty people at Crosby/Textor are making me pay more for my petrol.” Those members imagine that people are going into the supermarket to buy their block of cheese and saying: “I wish those people at Crosby/Textor didn’t make me pay so much for my block of cheese.” 
Those members over there who have the warrants the new BMWs the chauffeurs and the flash houses have lost the plot. The people who are paid handsomely to discharge the affairs of State in this country can do no better than throw stupid inaccurate insults in the direction of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. Quite frankly the public see right past it. I have a message today for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues in the Government. If they think the next few weeks leading up to the election will be a good roll around in the political gutter with the members of the National Party I have news for them. They will be very very lonely. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will not buy into that sort of campaign. He will not have a roll around in the political gutter with the Prime Minister who demeaned herself and demeaned her office at question time in this House today. John Key is better than that. John Key has made it clear that he will front a campaign that is about the opportunities that this country has over the next few years. He will not be diverted by the grubs and the people on the other side of the House like the Minister of Foreign Affairs who cannot seem to focus on the issues at hand. 
In the couple of minutes I have left I want to endorse some comments made by my friend and colleague the National Party spokesperson on defence. We have a serious situation now in the New Zealand Defence Force. A senior officer has been brought back to New Zealand from New York and held here without undertaking any duties for many months in the expectation that he was to be put on court martial for the abuse of UN housing allowances. The Defence Force decided in the week ahead of the court martial to abandon that charge and bring some different matter before the Court Martial. But the fact of the matter is that for 8 or 9 months that has been the matter at hand. For those 8 or 9 months every single senior member of the New Zealand Defence Force must have known that the charge that was levelled against that officer was a charge in which all of them were complicit. Someone very senior in the New Zealand Defence Force decided in 2001 to knowingly try to rort the United Nations housing allowance. Someone very senior since that time has decided to continue the practice of rorting the United Nations housing allowance. Someone very senior has sanctioned and probably ordered officers—at least five of them—to fill in a declaration to the United Nations saying they were not getting any benefit from the New Zealand Government because that was a condition of the United Nations housing allowance being received. At least five officers were ordered by their superiors to lie in a declaration to the United Nations. It could hardly be more serious. 
But it is more serious. Behind that question of our relationship with the United Nations and the integrity of our conduct lies an even more important matter. This is the New Zealand Army we are talking about. These are people we send out to the trouble spots of the world to places where they take risks with themselves. These people are entitled to know that they will be backed to the hilt by those who sit in command over them not be stabbed in the back by those who sit in command over them. Lieutenant General Mateparae has some very serious questions to answer. Who knew about the receipt of these housing allowances under these suspect circumstances? Who gave the original order to knowingly try to rort the UN arrangements? Who renewed the decision to rort those arrangements when the change of command took place? Who else knew and was complicit in that process? What did the Minister know and when did he know it? These are important questions because these people need to be held to account. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. I thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the very prompt way in which they dealt with the bill and recommended back to the House that it be passed without amendment. I note that the select committee received only two submissions both of them strongly supporting the intent of the bill. No one expressed any opposition. 
Can I give some background to the bill. Nelson is very proud of its art heritage and the fact that Nelson’s Suter Gallery is the oldest art gallery in New Zealand. Art is a very important part of Nelson’s identity and the Suter Gallery has played an important role in our community for over 108 years. The problem that this bill attempts to address is the archaic structure provided in the old 1896 Act of this Parliament. It constrains the Suter Gallery and does not provide the sort of governance structure that 100 years later would enable us to move the gallery forward. 
The bill effectively does four things. Firstly it transfers to a new trust the Bishop Suter Trust all the property rights and obligations of the old Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board including its land and buildings in Bridge Street and its invaluable art collections. The new trust however is a standard trust under the 1957 Charitable Trusts Act and it also is a council-controlled organisation under the Local Government Act 2002. This change means that the Suter Gallery will have a very standard trust structure with greater legal accountabilities and a direct link with the people of Nelson through our elected council. 
The second legal effect of the bill is that it dissolves the old trust board removing it from the register of charitable trust boards. 
The third legal effect is that it makes quite plain that there are no legal obligations arising from donations that were given for recent redevelopment proposals and that means that the new board is free to postpone or proceed with major develop proposals. I know that at the first reading of this bill the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Judith Tizard expressed some concern about that third provision. The select committee satisfied itself that those provisions are quite proper will not remove any of the legal rights that those donors would have had and are quite appropriate. 
The last part of the bill repeals the old 1896 Act. 
This bill is not a controversial bill. It has the strong support of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board itself. I pay tribute to the trustees of that board and to Sir Geoffrey Palmer who as a former Nelsonian has provided good advice on the way forward and the restructuring of this organisation. It would have been easy for the old board to feel threatened by those who challenged the old structure and said it was unaccountable. In fact the board chose to set up a number of informal arrangements to try to put in place the greater accountabilities that will flow from this bill well before it was invited by the Nelson City Council to do so. In many respects the Suter has been ahead of its time. Many of our other local government units around New Zealand have established art galleries and they have established them as council-controlled organisations. The reality is that the Suter which was established 108 years ago was well ahead of its time and it is appropriate for us to bring it into a more appropriate structure. 
There has been some debate about the linkages between the city council and the trust board. I take the view that our local government representatives who are democratically elected by our community provide an important oversight for institutions like an art gallery. I do not advance the view that they should have hands-on involvement on a day-to-day basis but the risk with the old structure was that it was a self-perpetuating trust and if it became out of tune with the community that it was there to serve it was very difficult to put it back on track. It is my view that in having the trust board members accountable to and appointed by the Nelson City Council we have a structure that is more directly accountable to the people of Nelson. 
There are some people whom I want to acknowledge for advancing this bill. I particularly acknowledge David Farnsworth of Pitt and Moore who as an arts enthusiast has given hugely of his time to the drafting of this bill on a pro bono basis. The community is also indebted to the Nelson City Council Chief Executive Viesturs Altments who has saved ratepayers a considerable mint by doing a lot of the legal work himself. 
I also pay tribute to the original founder of the art gallery Amelia Suter who all the way back in the 1890s decided to found a public art gallery in Nelson in memory of her husband Andrew Suter. When we look back at the 1890s and all the stresses of day-to-day life then we can see that it was somewhat remarkable that the bishop’s wife decided that a gallery was something Nelson needed and that people worked vigorously to raise funds to ensure its development. I pay tribute also to other founders of Nelson’s Bishop Suter Art Gallery including Nelson’s member of Parliament at the time John Graham and the mayor who got in behind Amelia Suter’s vision. 
I thank Parliament for its indulgence in allowing the second and third readings of the bill to be advanced together. With 1 July having just passed the members of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery board which is to be led by a Nelsonian of whom we are very proud Craig Potton who is famous for his photography—he offered to be the new trust chair and it has been agreed that he shall—are champing at the bit to get on with the important work of entering this new chapter in the life of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery. I acknowledge the support of all the parties that have agreed to the combining of the second and third readings to allow this bill to be advanced as quickly as possible. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I rise also to support the second and third readings of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. The Suter is New Zealand’s third-oldest public art gallery and it is a regional treasure in the Nelson-Tasman area. It was in fact the first building in New Zealand to be constructed solely for the purpose of displaying art and it has been an intrinsic part of the cultural fabric of Nelson and the area ever since. The Suter was created as a memorial to Andrew Burns Suter who was the bishop of Nelson for a long time from 1866 to 1891 and it was built to house a gift of his paintings donated by his widow Amelia Suter to the people of Nelson. It has been governed by a trust established under an Act of Parliament ever since then. 
The Suter houses some extraordinary artworks and art collections of which the Nelson people are extraordinarily proud. It houses wonderful collections of work by Sir Toss Woollaston and John Gully famous artists who have added to the identity not only of the Nelson region but also of this country. The idea of national identity is embodied profoundly in the arts and the creative industries and those very arts and creative industries are facets of the Nelson and Tasman communities and part of what makes the area a really lovely place in which to live. It also makes the area a unique place in which to live. The cultural and artistic contributions of Nelsonians are famous throughout the country. The Suter is also known for its ceramic collections. It has played a big part in—cementing I suppose—firming up Nelson’s reputation as an arts centre and together with Nelson’s natural beauty it has turned the area into a tourist Mecca which is not to put too strong a point on it. 
The trust that now governs the Suter is independent of the Nelson City Council but both the city council and the Suter itself have been seeking support for a change to be made to the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trustees Act and this bill provides that change. The two submissions that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard came from the same person Sari Hodgson representing two different capacities and she is to be congratulated on making those submissions. She made her submissions as the chair of the Suter trust as it was under the existing legislation and as somebody with a passionate interest in the arts communities in Nelson and neither of her submissions attracted any contradiction from anywhere around Parliament. 
This Government has been an active promoter of the arts and the creative industries and if we were to ask anybody in the Nelson arts communities whether that is true he or she would say yes. Those people give a constant and ringing endorsement to this Government’s promotion support and enhancement of the arts and the creative industries across the board. 
This legislation modernises the structures under which the Bishop Suter Art Gallery will operate. It makes them not only more modern but more fitting. It applies a level of democratic accountability to the structure for the governance of the art gallery by incorporating it as a new trust board registered under the Charitable Trusts Act that is a council-controlled organisation of the Nelson City Council. I congratulate all of those who have been active in the promotion of this modernisation of the governance arrangements around the Suter Gallery. I too wish to pay a tribute to David Farnsworth for the work he has done to promote this bill and make it a reality. I commend the previous speaker for bringing the bill to the House. It was never going to be a contentious issue because it was something that seemed to be appropriate for the time and a good thing to do not only because it was supported by all the significant players around the Suter but also because it does bring the gallery into a much more modern framework. Through the connection with the city council the framework underscores a level of democratic accountability and the new trust board will be ably led as the trust has been in the past. In its new guise it will continue to be chaired very ably by the wonderful Craig Potton. I look forward to the Suter and the new trust board going from strength to strength. 
This bill follows a review that was initiated in 2005 and had as its purpose a view that local councils and therefore the public should be given greater involvement in the Suter’s governance and decision-making processes. That is I suppose the angle the direction from which democratic accountability can be inferred. The bill will vest the assets and liabilities of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board in the new Bishop Suter Trust and that will be a new Nelson City Council - controlled organisation. 
The Suter Gallery is a jewel in Nelson’s crown. It is a lovely place. It is a place where I must say I spend increasing amounts of time because any number of functions openings and events are held at the art gallery and apart from that it is simply a lovely place in which to spend time meet friends and look at the carefully curated and I must say beautifully presented exhibitions. If people have not seen the current one they might take my reference to Sir Toss Woollaston to heart. If people are passing through Nelson I suggest they do stop at the Suter and look at the very significant collection that is there currently. This bill is non-contentious; it is a desirable and a good thing to do. I congratulate the select committee on returning the bill unharmed and I congratulate the House on allowing it to proceed to its second and third readings in one stroke. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 What a dull contribution that was from the soon-to-be failed Labour candidate for Nelson! Regional art galleries and museums are something we should all be really enthusiastic about and one of the real pleasures I have had since I became National’s spokesperson on the arts has been to travel around the country and see the depth and excellence of regional art galleries. 
I am sure there are some people in Wellington Central excluding yourself Madam Assistant Speaker—not that I am bringing you into the debate—who would very much think that Te Papa is the centre of civilisation when it comes to art. There could well be some Aucklanders who think that the Auckland Art Gallery is the very centre of civilisation when it comes to art. But I have to tell members that Aucklanders or Wellingtonians who think that would be wrong because the regional art galleries around New Zealand are simply excellent and they have some wonderful collections. 
I see my friend the member for Invercargill in the Chamber. The Anderson Park Art Gallery is an example of a superb gallery. My friend Jo Goodhew the member for Aoraki has a wonderful gallery in her town of Timaru called the Aigantighe Art Gallery. If one goes up the east coast of the North Island one sees a fantastic gallery in Hawke’s Bay. It is in need of expansion but it plays a major part in the cultural life of Hawke’s Bay. When one goes to Gisborne the home of my friend Mrs Anne Tolley again one sees an excellent gallery. If one goes to Wanganui the home of my friend Mr Borrows one sees a tremendous gallery that has a great deal of potential. The gallery that perhaps I love most of all is the gallery in New Plymouth the Govett-Brewster and the tremendous work it is doing to build the Len Lye Centre. 
Those galleries play their part in the cultural life of New Zealand but particularly I want to refer this afternoon to the Bishop Suter Art Gallery which has been around as my friend Dr Smith said for many years. It is an excellent gallery. It houses a wonderful collection of the paintings of Toss Woollaston perhaps one of the finest New Zealand artists. I really enjoy his watercolours and the Suter has an excellent selection of Woollaston works. As the previous speaker has said there are also some Gullys but I have to say that one of the things that really worries me about the Bishop Suter gallery is that it lacks adequate storage and particularly adequate air conditioning for its storage. I have seen the state of some of its works and it is a source of concern and that is why it is important that this body be properly structured and properly funded so that it can undertake this very important work. 
As one can see I have enthusiastically travelled around New Zealand looking at art galleries and museums. I see their potential and I particularly see the potential of the Bishop Suter gallery. Now I wonder whether the current Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has had the same enthusiasm for travelling around New Zealand that I have had. Probably not; I think she has probably been too busy down in the sewer trying to dig up dirt on John Key. I have to commend her this afternoon for her excellent imitation of Richard Nixon smearing his opponents. It was a performance par excellence. But let us get on to the bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please do. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well I am getting on to it but I am allowed to make some comments in passing. Surely freedom of speech is not destroyed yet although with the Electoral Finance Act we are well on the way. 
But I want to say something about the structure of the bill because the bill has a couple of essential purposes. The first one—and it is self-evident if one has been dealing with the introduction of this legislation—is that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trustees Act 1896 will be repealed and that is a positive development as long as it is replaced with something and indeed it is. It will be replaced with a new governance structure which is set out in this legislation. The second purpose of the bill is to transfer all the property rights and obligations of the current trust board to a new organisation called the Bishop Suter Trust and flowing on from that there is another purpose which is to dissolve the existing trust board and remove it from the register of charitable trust boards under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. When those rights and obligations are transferred to the new body it is necessary that the persons who take over those obligations should have no legal liability for donations that have been given to the soon-to-be dissolved trust board for the redevelopment of the Suter gallery. 
Those provisions are contained particularly in Part 3 of the bill and I do not need to go through those in any detail because there have been plans for some time to upgrade the Bishop Suter Art Gallery and indeed as I said in the earlier part of my speech that upgrading is an essential task. I am very concerned that if the body does not get on to upgrading some of its precious works will be destroyed. 
I also commend the member for Nelson for his careful sponsorship of this bill. It is an important bill. It does not simply deal with boring legal structures but it also lays the foundations for modernising this gallery which plays such an important role in the cultural life of his wonderful city. I have to say—and one obviously does not want to upset other representatives of provincial electorates in this House—that Nelson is one of the real centres of arts and culture in this country. Every couple of years it gives me huge pleasure to go down to Nelson to enjoy the Adam Chamber Music Festival. I am a trustee of Denis Adam’s foundation and I know what a huge contribution he makes to Nelson and to Nelson cultural life. I really enjoy my sojourns in Dr Smith’s wonderful electorate to go to that particular festival. When I am there I too like to spend some time in the gallery because it is an exciting gallery. It has wonderful work a very good curator and a very dedicated and caring group of people. 
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak on the bill. It is a local bill that deals with particular issues but the backdrop to this bill is very important indeed. It is all about looking after a real cultural gem in New Zealand and making sure that the wonderful city represented so ably in Parliament by my outstanding friend Dr Nick Smith—and there will not be any change there—has an excellent gallery that can play its part in the cultural life of not just Nelson but beyond throughout New Zealand. I know that people go to Nelson for its cultural life and the Bishop Suter Art Gallery is very much part of the cultural life of Nelson. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. I made a number of comments in support of the gallery in the first reading debate and I will be reasonably brief compared with some of the other speakers. I understand that the gallery is now into its 110th year and that it was the visionary concept of Bishop Suter. 
There is really very little that I can add to all the wonderful comments that preceding members have made. However I want to exercise one note of caution. New Zealand First is very concerned about the pressures faced by elderly people when it comes to the payment of rates. I see that the vesting of the assets and liabilities of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board in the Bishop Suter Trust which is a Nelson City Council - controlled organisation and a charitable trust will give permanent protection to the collection of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery and suchlike. 
I want to find out for sure from the local member and I am sure that Dr Smith can give me an answer about the effect that running this gallery has on ratepayers in the Nelson area. A correspondent has expressed concern to me that rates in Nelson have jumped by around 18 percent. This particular correspondent said that in 2002-03 his rates were $1656 excluding the cost of water. His rates are now $2423 which does seem a little bit high in the space of a short time. 
One of the areas where he raises concern is with regard to increased expenditure on the arts. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not take too long so if the member resumes his seat he will be able to answer my question shortly. I raise the point generally that New Zealand First is concerned as I am sure all other members are that when we have new art galleries new sports stadiums and suchlike around the country which we require the councils to support the burden can fall unfairly on elderly people on a fixed income. I just make that point and very shortly the member may answer it. 
I repeat that New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the Bishop Suter Art Gallery. As I mentioned in my first reading speech I have been to Nelson I have spent money on art in Nelson which is hanging on the wall at home and I look forward to being able to do so in the future. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to briefly answer Mr Dail Jones’ question in respect of the implication of the bill on rates. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Mr Dail Jones from New Zealand First quite correctly raised the question as to what the implications are for ratepayers in establishing the Bishop Suter Art Gallery as a council-controlled organisation. The first point I wish to make in response to that fair question is that there will be no increased obligation on the council to financially support the art gallery from what there was previously under the old trust board. But there is an important change which is that with the council providing the bulk of funding for the trust there will now be greater accountability because the council will be appointing the trustees. The important issue for ratepayers is not just that rates are kept under control but that there is accountability for the expenditure of those rates. Under the previous structure if the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board had been reckless with its finances—and that did not happen but potentially it could have happened—there would have been no means by which the Nelson City Council could make a correction on behalf of ratepayers. In my view the bill supports the council by providing direct accountability of the trust board back to the democratically elected council. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. There is a special reason why I will speak to the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill in my capacity as the MP for Waiariki. That special reason has everything to do with the relationship between Bishop Suter who has been spoken about today and Te Matamua o nga Pihopa Maori the first Maori Bishop Frederick Augustus Bennett. That relationship developed at a little place called Te Mu at Te Wairoa in the Rotorua district. My research tells me that in 1886 Bishop Suter of Nelson while returning from the General Synod in Auckland decided to visit the Pink and White Terraces around Rotorua. While he was there he conducted a service at Te Wairoa a village that would be destroyed later that year by the eruption of Mount Tarawera. During the course of the service so the story goes a beautiful voice was heard singing the traditional Maori hymn “Whakarongo ki te kupu” with its repeated verses “oti rawa!”. 
The voice of course was that of a young Freddie Bennett and so impressed was Bishop Suter that he insisted that he would track down this young singer. Upon finding him Bishop Suter asked this young boy to come with him to Nelson to be educated and to train for the ministry. It appears that without too much hesitation this young lad walked to Ohinemutu from Tarawera asked his parents for permission and took off to Nelson. And so began a lifetime of dedication from this young leader from Ngati Whakaue who would in December 1928 become consecrated as the first Bishop of Aotearoa and further on the Bishop of Waiapu. It was a position he held for 22 years. It was part of the total commitment that Bishop Bennett gave to his Maori people a commitment represented also in his support for the Young Maori Party at the time. 
And so here we are the Maori Party in 2008 connected through this bill to a relationship that developed some 122 years ago. I might add that one of the houses of my former school St Stephens which some of the members of this House attended was also named after the bishop—Bennett House. Unfortunately that House did not win too many competitions so we will leave that aside. What it does say though is that Bennett’s name is set amongst the same category of Maori leadership as Pomare Ngata Te Rangi Hiroa Timi Kara and the like. 
This is just one of the many distinctive relationships and achievements that characterise the link to this person Bishop Suter and the place that gives this bill their name. The Bishop Suter Art Gallery—Te Aratoi o Whakatu—is aptly named to represent art as the pathway to Whakatu to Nelson. It has been shaping out this pathway for over 109 years I understand since it first opened its doors as a provincial gallery in 1899. As the third oldest art gallery in Aotearoa it can pride itself on an outstanding collection of classics including artworks from John Gully C F Goldie and Sir Toss Woollaston as other speakers have already said. It is also passionately devoted to sketching out the future horizons for art in Whakatu hence the reason for the bill. 
The Suter gallery has set its sights on becoming a state-of-the-art gallery for the 21st century by seeking to revise the original 1896 Act of Parliament to now become a council-controlled organisation with the Nelson City Council. Alongside internationally recognised artists such as Jane Evans or photographer Craig Potton the new Bishop Suter Trust also includes a nominee representing Ko te Pou Arangi the group representing each of the six mana whenua iwi trusts of Whakatu Maata Waka and Nelson kaupapa Maori artists. The transfer from the old board to the new board that is effected by this bill creates a more publicly accountable governance structure—as was spoken about by Dr Nick Smith—which is appropriate given that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatu now depends on local authority funding and support. This is all good and the Maori Party is happy to stand with other parties to ensure that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery can move promptly to take up its new governance structure. 
Our only other call at this stage is to ensure that priority is indeed given in advancing Te Aratoi o Whakatu to the relationships with mana whenua. I will return to the beginning again to think of the impact that Bishop Frederick Augustus Bennett made in the lives of Te Arawa and indeed tangata whenua. You see Bishop Bennett was our first Maori missionary in Rotorua the vicar of the Ohinemutu pastorate and he played an important role in advocating against the damaging effects of alcohol abuse on Maori which was a problem he described as imported by the Europeans. His son Manuhuia became the third bishop of Aotearoa in 1968; another son Paratene was the first Maori to obtain his commission in the Royal Navy; and another son Lieutenant Colonel Charles Bennett was the first Maori diplomat was for some time in command of the Maori Battalion and later was an Assistant Secretary of Maori Affairs. 
When Bishop Suter picked out from the congregation the young Freddie Bennett on that fateful day at Te Mu it was the start of an incredible legacy of leadership and community passion in Te Arawa in the Anglican Church in Maori affairs in the armed forces and in politics. Bishop Andrew Suter and his wife Amelia also emblazoned a pathway forward for the community of Nelson that will outlast even the most distinctive of the artworks collected in the Suter gallery. From even the most humble beginnings with the Bishopdale Sketching Club which was established in 1889 by Bishop Suter and friends it was always the intention that through art the community would grow. That has indeed become the case in Nelson and in the wider top of the southern region. 
The legacy of pride generosity and community spirit that the Suters sowed over a century ago lives on in the hearts in the people of Nelson of mana whenua and of the people that we might call Whakatu. We are honoured to help them to achieve their aspirations by our support of this bill. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and take a call on the third reading of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. This is a good bill this is a great bill and I am very pleased to follow my colleagues from around the House in supporting it in its third reading. I am very pleased too to support my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Nelson community of which he is part to enable them to make certain changes to the way the Bishop Suter Art Gallery is structured and managed in order to bring it into the 21st century. That is why it is a good bill—it is a great bill. 
I understand that this gallery—and my colleague confirmed this for me after the contribution made by the Hon Maryan Street—is the oldest and first dedicated gallery in New Zealand. It has played an important role in the life of Nelsonians and Tasmanians for over 108 years so this is a real institution a taonga for that region. It is part of Nelson’s identity; indeed it is part of New Zealand’s proud cultural heritage. It is an institution of great value great history and tradition. 
As my colleague Chris Finlayson has said we have across New Zealand a wonderful grouping of regional and provincial art galleries. They are tremendously important in the communities in which they sit. I too like Chris in the short time that I held the arts portfolio as spokesperson for the arts for the National Party back in 2004-05 was greatly privileged to be able to travel to a number of these institutions and galleries: Wanganui Puke Ariki in New Plymouth Gisborne and Whakatane and even to the smaller ones. I went to Nelson as well to visit this gallery. I was always absolutely impressed and moved by the fervour and the pride that those communities have in their galleries—and in their museums as well when we look at the bigger centres. I think that that underpins exactly why it is a good thing that Dr Smith has done to bring this bill to this House and to make sure that this gallery is structured and managed in a way that brings it right up to the modern day. I have one wee regret not having had that spokespersonship for the last 2 years which is that my ability to visit these places and see progress has been somewhat diminished. None the less it is a matter of great pride no matter where we are from in New Zealand for us to be able to see the fervour and creativity of the communities that nurture institutions like this. 
I say again that this is a good bill and I am pleased to support it. As has been said by colleagues the bill does four things. It transfers to a new trust the Bishop Suter Trust all the property the rights and the obligations of the gallery including its land and buildings in Bridge Street in Nelson and its invaluable art collections. The new trust is a standard trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and it is to be a council-controlled organisation under the Local Government Act. This means that the gallery will have a standard trust structure with greater legal accountabilities and a direct link with the people of Nelson through the democratically elected council. That makes sense. It is their resource that supports it so greater accountability is right in line and in keeping with making sure that this gallery is managed well both now and in the future. 
The second legal effect of the bill is to dissolve the old trust board and to remove it from the register of charitable trust boards. The third effect is to make it plain that there is no legal obligation arising from the donations given for the recent redevelopment proposal for the gallery so that the new board is free to proceed with or to postpone that major development proposal. 
The fourth and final part of the bill repeals the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trustees Act 1896. I was interested in looking at some of the papers that accompanied the bill as they had a bit of the historical background. As I said the gallery was opened in 1899 under a trust established by Amelia Damaris Suter the widow of Bishop Andrew Burn Suter of Nelson. He was the bishop from 1830 to 1895. She conveyed certain properties to the trust and also donated a collection of paintings to form the nucleus of the gallery’s collection. Further land was vested in the trustees on the same trust under the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trustees Act 1896. 
Amelia Suter’s trust deed created a self-perpetuating board to manage the endowment. It has been suggested that a self-perpetuating body of any kind may become ingrown and complacent; it has no constituency to represent and so no other body has a natural stake in its existence. Obviously that is a big part of the reason why we see this bill in the House today. No other financial endowment or income was provided; every generation of trustees and latterly of professional directors has struggled to find an adequate secure living to keep the gallery afloat and extend its activities. I give all the more commendation to that community and to the people who have nurtured and kept the gallery going up till now. The properties would have been of more use on a shorter lease which would have allowed for revaluation. However extremely long-term leases were customary at the time especially for educational and charitable purposes. The member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell in the tenor of his speech referred to some of this particularly in relation to the Wakatu Incorporation and other Maori interests there. In any case the leases had been entered into almost 40 years previously and could not be altered. 
As I said at the beginning this is a good bill. It is not controversial as has been stated already. It has the unanimous support of the Nelson City Council the neighbouring Tasman District Council the existing Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board and the new board and it has the strong support of the wider Nelson arts community so it is no wonder that it has support right across the House both from the Government side and from Opposition parties. I am pleased that Dr Nick Smith stood to respond to the concern that was raised by Dail Jones of New Zealand First because in that way we know that absolutely nothing is standing in the way of the passage of this bill. I suppose that underpins the appropriateness of what we are doing as parliamentarians this afternoon. 
I am not sure there is much more to say. Those who have not been to this gallery might at some future stage set some time aside to visit. Nelson is a vibrant creative arts community. I was truly impressed with that community when I went down there as our party’s spokesperson on arts culture and heritage at the time. Of course they were so proud as well—absolutely proud—and well they should be. Each community of course always thinks their gallery is better than the others. One of our speakers has already referred to that possessive feeling we all have about our galleries. I come from Taupo where we have a very small and compact museum. We are very proud of it; there has been quite a lot of development around it over the last few years and the treasures being placed there are increasing. I am very pleased to support the bill. The creativity of our communities says a lot about the kind of people we are as New Zealanders. It says a lot about how we want our youngsters to be as they move into the future and that is the importance of institutions like this. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise also in support of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill. Tonight’s debate has the air about it that one has to confess whether one has visited the art gallery; alas I have not—yet. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We might forgive you. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I am already forgiven. That is good; I can continue. The very excellent member for Nelson Dr Nick Smith has forgiven me. I am sure on the next occasion I am in Nelson it will be the very first thing I do. 
I have experience and a great love of provincial art galleries. The Forrester Gallery in my own town of Oamaru is a council-controlled organisation and is a thriving and nationally recognised and loved gallery. So I am basing my comments—ignorant as they are as I have not actually been to this gallery—on my knowledge of the Forrester Gallery; I suspect the Suter to be a similarly excellent art gallery. This local bill which I assume is enjoying the support of all the members in this House does some good things as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has said. This restructuring bill reforms the antique legal structure of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board. It was interesting in listening to other speeches on this bill in the House this afternoon to hear some of the history of the Suter family and their philanthropy and contribution to the visual arts in early New Zealand. 
To address the provisions in this short bill I will go to Part 2 which addresses the transfer of property rights and obligations from the old Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board to the new board. Clause 5 “transfers the property rights and obligations of the old Board to the new Board and provides for the continuity of legal proceedings.” So the Bishop Suter Art Gallery can in effect carry on its business. Clause 6 “provides that the transfer of the property rights and obligations from the old Board to the new Board does not constitute or trigger certain adverse events for example a breach of contract or trust.” If we go back to the explanatory note of the bill it notes: “It is desirable that the Bishop Suter Trust and the Nelson City Council be free from certain potential claims arising out of the payment of funds to the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board by the Suter 2000 Appeal Trust in connection with the public appeal for funds for the redevelopment of the Suter Art Gallery.” So the new trust board will be unfettered if you like in its plans for the redevelopment of and reinvestment in the gallery. 
Clause 7 “provides for the transfer of employment agreements from the old Board to the new Board”—that is quite straightforward—“and for the continuity of terms and conditions of employment.” Clause 8 “provides for the dissolution of the old Board and its removal from the register of charitable trust boards.” Moving on clause 9 “provides that after the commencement of the Bill references in certain documents to the old Board are to have effect as if they were references to the new Board.” Clause 10 “provides for recording the change of name to the new Board by the Registrar-General of Land and any other person charged with keeping any records or registers.” Finally clause 11 “repeals the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trustees Act 1896.” This is a short uncontested and well-supported local bill which will bring the Bishop Suter Art Gallery trustees and governance well into the 21st century. 
I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee that looked at this bill during its passage through Parliament. The committee received only two submissions both in support. One was from the chair of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Trust Board Sari Hodgson who noted that this restructuring is long overdue and will be welcomed by the board and the people of the Nelson-Tasman region. That was one of the two submissions. The second submission was on behalf of Sari Hodgson—the same but in her capacity as director of Savage and Savage Ltd chartered accountants—which noted that to the knowledge of the writer the Suter is the only public art gallery museum that is not owned by local councils. I guess the Bishop Suter Art Gallery has been feeling the disadvantages of not being associated very strongly with or owned by a local council and the submission noted that it is appropriate for it to now pass into public hands. 
On that point Dail Jones of New Zealand First asked the very valid question of what the effect would be on rates. Well that is a good question. The amount of rates is an issue that always greatly concerns members of the National Party. Those of us who are electorate MPs and have a very close association with our local communities are always very concerned about the effects of any activity by the local authority on the issue of rates. It was a valid question answered very fully by my colleague Nick Smith. 
The benefit of this measure quite apart from reforming the trust board which is appointed by the local authority and which has the support of the wider community is that it has a higher degree of accountability for any of the funds expended by the trust board. That accountability should give the members of New Zealand First some comfort that the money given to the Bishop Suter Art Gallery by the local authority will be well spent. That accountability of course will be part of the Local Government Act 2002 long-term council community plan and annual plan process. You can bet your bottom dollar that if those people on low fixed incomes whom New Zealand First mentioned feel that their money is not wisely spent and invested in the Bishop Suter Art Gallery then they will certainly take the opportunity to say so. But it is my impression that this gallery is extremely well supported not only by Nelson residents but also by the residents in the wider Tasman area. With the council-controlled organisation being the governance structure of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery it has to be of benefit that the degree of accountability and indeed comfort can be pointed out to people who question whether that money is well spent. 
It was interesting to look at the activities of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery on the Internet. I was very pleased to see that although its governance may be ancient certainly its marketing is not and that is probably to its credit. It was interesting to see on the website that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery has a number of current exhibitions—the artists have been mentioned by some of my colleagues—but I am also very interested to see that there is an ongoing programme not only of current exhibitions but also of events. I will not read them out but those events involve floor talks which I know from visiting my own gallery are fascinating. When a member of the gallery goes through and says “I particularly like this work because it does this to me and I particularly like this artist” those become very inclusive community events. 
The Bishop Suter Art Gallery also has the Friends of the Suter and although this is not my personal experience of this gallery in Nelson I am a supporter of the Forrester Gallery in Oamaru. The friends of the gallery are those community people who love the gallery who love the artworks and who keep the gallery going. Together with those people together with the new trust board appointed by the local authority and together with the support of the Nelson district council—it is not a city council; I think it is a district council— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: City. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —Nelson City Council; I thank the member—this wonderful part of New Zealand’s history has a bright and assured future. Thank you. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to make a contribution on the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill because I think this local bill is very important. I need to acknowledge the great work that the local member Nick Smith has done in bringing this through from his constituents of Nelson. I have been in Nelson a few times lately and it is a wonderful place. It probably has an amount of sunshine hours in competition to the Kapiti Coast—would that be right? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes very similar. 
This bill is very very important because it will move the Bishop Suter Art Gallery into modern times. I was very interested to note when I was reading the bill—and I have listened to the contributions around the House this afternoon—that it will reform the antique legal structures of the Bishop Suter Art Gallery. Now Nelson is well known for art. When we think back about recent times the wearable art awards were founded in Nelson. It all started in Nelson and now it has grown to be the majestic event that it is held here in the capital city Wellington. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They stole it. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I am not sure whether they stole it but it has certainly grown from when it was founded in Nelson. 
I was interested to read in the bill that the Suter Art Gallery was established 108 years ago. The bill will allow this very good group of collective artists to move into the modern century. It will give permanent protection to the Suter Art Gallery collection to enable the communities of Nelson and Tasman to have more public accountability in the affairs and funding of the gallery through a charitable trust. I know that Mr Potton has put up his hand to lead the trust as its chairman. He has a very good history in photography down there in that neck of the woods. It has also been acknowledged in the debate this afternoon that the challenge for this trust going forward is to improve the air conditioning which I think will be one of its paramount issues and also to ensure that it has greater storage for some of the fantastic artworks that will be housed in that area. 
I also want to talk about clause 6 “Transfer of property rights and obligations” because it is very very important. I think that the fundamental issues lie with clause 6. It will allow for the property rights issue to be transferred which is a very very important object of this bill. I need to acknowledge that the members of the Business Committee from across the House agreed to allow this bill to progress through its second and third readings this afternoon otherwise it would still be floundering through another members’ day in 2 weeks’ time as we have the adjournment coming up. 
This bill will allow the Nelson community and the Tasman district to lay foundations in the art area. We all know that fantastic work comes out of Nelson. One need only walk around the city to experience the positive feel that people have. A lot of people choose to move to this area because of the arts and culture. It is fantastic. People are pleasant and friendly and they feel very passionate about this area because of its arts and culture. We have heard in the debate this afternoon that several members have gone around the country and acknowledged all the areas around Aotearoa New Zealand that are well positioned to be the arts and culture capital. Napier and Wellington are up there. We have heard an acknowledgment of New Plymouth and Wanganui but we have not heard from Palmerston North. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: But you will. 
NATHAN GUY 
: But we will very very shortly. I look forward to Mr Maharey’s contribution shortly when I take my seat. 
This bill is a very important bill for Nelsonians. I acknowledge the good work that Nick Smith has done in bringing this bill forward to the House today. I also need to acknowledge as I have already the work that has been done across the House whereby all the minority parties have allowed the second and third readings to be held this evening. I say “Well done!” to Nick Smith and to the very good passionate people of Nelson. This bill will move them into the modern times and allow the Bishop Suter Art Gallery to make substantial progress. 
Bill read a second and a third time. 
Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is a privilege always as the members who have been speaking over the past 5 or 6 hours—or it felt a bit like that—on the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill have reflected to come to the House and raise issues about one’s own local area. I notice that even people who are not of the local area and who have never been to the Suter Gallery—people who have wafted through Nelson on only the odd occasion—felt that it was very important to rise and lend their support to it. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for these precious moments. Before the dinner break the masses of people who were in the House were listening somewhat stoically to a very long debate about the Suter Gallery in Nelson. I was commenting in the few seconds I had before the dinner break that one of the privileges of being a member of Parliament is to be able to present a bill on a local issue in the House. It is a chance to talk about something that matters to one’s local constituents and on top of that to say a few things about the area one comes from. I noted that a large number of people on the National Party side of the House seem to have a very close affinity with Nelson. Some people who had not even been there felt they should get up and talk for a full 10 minutes on how deeply they felt about the Suter Gallery. Mr Power and I who feel equally powerfully about our own regions will probably take at least that amount of time to work our way through this bill. 
I will take a second to put this bill in context. If one has been to Palmerston North in the Manawatu one will know that a large arena complex sits in the middle of one of the finest cities ever to be put together in this nation. If one was to watch a Hurricanes game—if the Hurricanes would ever deign to go to Palmerston North to play a game though; I think they have been there twice— 
Simon Power 
: The first Super 12 game. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The first Super 12 game was held there. I can remember sitting in the stands—Mr Power was probably somewhere in the stands too—and looking across the verdant green field that is Arena 1 and across the wonderful tree-lined city called Palmerston North towards the absolutely gorgeous sun-kissed and wind-caressed hills called the Tararuas. It was a vision. If members of the House are wondering how to spend a weekend I suggest to them that they could do worse than to come and watch a game at Arena 1 in Palmerston North. 
Attached to that arena are a series of other arenas that make up I believe—and no doubt Ms Dyson being a proud Cantabrian will tell me if I am wrong—the largest under-cover sports facility in the country. 
Simon Power 
: That’s right. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Power who is an independent person—he comes from the Rangitikei not the Manawatu—has told us that I am exactly right. The complex is the largest indoor under-cover facility in New Zealand and possibly even further afield. If one wants to hold a conference—and I know that the Greens and the Maori Party hold very large conferences—that is the place to do so. If one wishes to come to Palmerston North then those grounds can hold any number of delegates. 
We have in front of us the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill 2008. It is very modest simple legislation. It does three things. The “Bill provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council …” which historically is the body that has largely nominated the people on the showgrounds board. Secondly the bill allows for the dissolution of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control—because the control has gone to the city council—and thirdly it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act 1974. 
The 1974 Act brought into being a partnership between the Palmerston North City Council and the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association known fondly around our area as the A and P association. The bill allows for the showgrounds to be managed by the Palmerston North City Council. The council taking the place of the board of control that I talked of earlier will use the grounds as a recreation reserve and manage them properly for the benefit of the city. The 1974 Act resulted from a deed of agreement between the parties under which the city council was to develop and improve the showgrounds and make them available to the A and P association for its show. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Hawkins says he wants to know a little more about that. As a keen inner-city person he probably does not go very often to shows like A and P shows. If he did have a chance to go he would find that a kaleidoscope—a smorgasbord really—of enjoyments are put on for the benefit of people in the region. The A and P show consists of a large number of agricultural shows. There is a lot of woodchopping and livestock is judged on site. As a young child a thrill I often enjoyed was to go on all the rides eat candy floss and do those kinds of things. 
Chris Tremain 
: You still love it don’t you? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I still love it. I still go there each year for my waffle cone. 
What has changed is that the A and P show has on the whole become more run down over the years. In a sense it is in the wrong place. Palmerston North is the wrong place for it in this day and age. Palmerston North used to be a major place for agricultural shows; actually Feilding is now a much better place. That is in Mr Simon Power’s neck of the woods. There is a very large and suitable area called Manfeild Park where large shows can be held. The A and P show will shift across to that other fine area Feilding which has won the award for being the most well-kept and prettiest town I do not know how many times— 
Simon Power 
: Thirteen. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Feilding has won the competition 13 times. It is a great place for the show to go and that will leave the showgrounds to be used appropriately under the control of the city council. 
The A and P association has made it very clear that it no longer wants to manage the showgrounds. It has spent many years thinking this through. It wants to transfer its rights assets and liabilities to the city council so that the council can look after the showgrounds. That is all that is happening and that is why the parties involved are comfortable with this bill. The bill does nothing other than to suit the wishes of the A and P association which does not want to manage the showgrounds any more and wants someone else to look after them. Under the 1974 Act the A and P association has to look after the showgrounds but it does not want to; it wants to move its show somewhere else. 
The rest of the bill deals with the dissolving of the board and makes sure that that is dealt with legally. It protects the interests of the parties it clarifies any taxation consequences and as I said before it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act. 
I thank the House very much for expediting the passage this bill. I thank the people from Cooper Rapley who are the lawyers for the Palmerston North City Council. This is another piece of good work from them. They have enabled the bill to move smoothly through to this stage. I look forward to a short but hopefully supportive debate on this issue. 
I close by saying that people can attend fantastic shows in wonderful amenities not only in Palmerston North in the middle of the Manawatu but also as I pass over to my friend and colleague Mr Simon Power in the wider Rangitikei area as well—in particular in Feilding. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before you take your seat could you indicate which select committee this bill will go to. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It will go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The House will be the poorer for the departure of the Hon Steve Maharey and his ability to put the case for Palmerston North on local bills and other legislation. No matter who wins the Palmerston North seat at the upcoming election the city will be losing an advocate who no matter how technical the issue has delivered passionate speeches on matters such as the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. 
To be frank there is not a lot to add; Mr Maharey has done a pretty good job of canvassing all the issues. But being a curious sort of character I phoned the gentleman who has been involved with the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to make sure he was happy with the legislation being promoted by the council—he was. As Steve Maharey mentioned Palmerston North’s loss will be Feilding’s gain as the A and P show moves to Manfeild Park which is a large expansive facility in the Feilding township. Manfeild Park also hosts the Central Districts Field Days and has had a massive revamp in recent years. Equestrian facilities and agribusinesses are now located on the property and it is going ahead with some vigour. 
As Mr Maharey said the bill provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the showgrounds. I used to frequent the Palmerston North Showgrounds for a waffle and candy floss and I not only played rugby there but also in later years after a severe knee injury on the mountain in 1991 refereed a fair bit of rugby there. So I know it not only from the air but also from ground level. I have a unique perspective to share—having had my face in the grass as well as having refereed under-21 rugby—on this particular park. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What did that do Simon? 
SIMON POWER 
: I tell Minister Dyson that it showed me I was incredibly unfit. It is very very difficult to keep up with under-21-year-olds who are playing very fast-paced rugby and to try to make it look as though one’s rulings and decisions are legitimate. For example one can get into all sorts of bother trying to judge a forward pass when one is 30 metres behind the play. But that is just the nature of the game. I do not have a lot to add; Steve Maharey has done a terrific job of covering it all. 
National will support this bill’s passage through the House. Members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have been advised that the bill is coming. I presume because the member did not seek a truncated select committee period that we will have 6 months for the hearing of submissions. I am sure it will not take as long as that but no doubt there will be one or two submissions I imagine from the Palmerston North City Council. National stands ready to see this bill progressed. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou kia ora tatou te Whare. I listened to the Hon Steve Maharey talking about other speakers this evening and their association with particular places and I am pleased to say that I will tell the truth. Up until a week ago I can say that my association is limited to scoring a try from about 20 metres out in the middle of the No. 2 paddock and playing on the No. 1 paddock when I was a young fella and from memory I think I set up about two tries as well not that we will dwell too much on that. My second association is with the Matatini festival which Steve Maharey will know took place at the beginning of the year in February and that was national kapahaka time. All the main groups of the country headed to the arena in Palmerston North to participate in the Matatini kapahaka festival. So I think it is a pretty good association: rugby kapahaka—what else can one add to that? 
We know that at the kapahaka festival about 35000 people were drawn to the arena I suppose overwhelmed with pride about their indigenous culture and arts. When it came down to doing a little bit of research on the bill I came across another association with this place which others—not that we have had many speakers—may or may not know about and it is quite important. 
What I would like to explain to the House is that Arena Manawatu for those who did not know was also the marshalling spot for the Maori Battalion before it went overseas. There are a number of photos around that show that that is where basically people would go to gather our people; and indeed any visitor to the showgrounds today will pass by the Maori Battalion Memorial Hall directly opposite the park. So that is an important association. 
This bill in its most simple form is about transferring the management and control of the showgrounds land from the current board to the Palmerston North City Council as alluded to by Mr Maharey. In essence it is pretty straightforward. We know from our members throughout Manawatu that the Palmerston North City Council and the Manawatu District Council have been working more closely together sharing services and promoting joint events and that is all pretty good. But as an independent Maori voice in this Parliament we are always committed to finding out a little bit more about what the influences and impacts are of any legislation on mana whenua. 
What we have found out is that the Palmerston North City Council has undertaken public consultation on the changes and during that process it appears that there were no submissions that were received in opposition. So that is a pretty good start. 
The Maori liaison officer of the council Mr Todd Taiepa told us that there has been public consultation process on this whole issue given that it is such a major strategic asset. We went further and talked with representatives of both Rangitane and Ngati Kauwhata about this bill. Rangitane is happy for the bill to proceed and also accepted the wisdom of maintaining sports recreation and the like in one centre namely the Arena Manawatu while focusing rural and agricultural activities such as the A and P shows and others at another site in Feilding at Manfeild Park as Mr Maharey also talked about. 
This of course is where it becomes a little bit more complicated because as Ngati Kauwhata would tell us the Crown record on Manfeild Park is not exactly exemplary. We in the Maori Party came into this House in late 2005 and throughout 2006 put the case for Ngati Kauwhata to be included on the representation for mana whenua on the Manfeild Park Trust board—not a major ask one would think yet it did not actually happen. The thing is that we know Ngati Kauwhata is continuing with its request for representation. We know that it has put to the Waitangi Tribunal the question about membership on the Manfeild Park Trust electoral college. We know also that it is pursuing its claims to lands at Manfeild Park through the Treaty settlement process including Wai 1461 the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block with Ngati Raukawa and other iwi. 
So all we would ask is that in this new bill the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill more care is taken towards ensuring that all relevant iwi are indeed satisfied with the outcomes. The key thing for us is that specific efforts are made to engage with iwi and that the terms of that engagement are determined together with iwi themselves. It is not just about talking with tangata whenua about cultural matters and matters of design it is about the environmental concerns related to this land. It is all about the best use of our economic assets for the well-being of all people who access this resort. It is all about kaitiakitanga and a sense of responsibility and ownership that tangata whenua hold for any land entrusted through the generations to their care. So we will support this bill at first reading in a spirit of optimism which we trust will enable full consultation to occur. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. This is a very straightforward bill that provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. 
I have listened to other members in this House talking about their association with the Palmerston North Showgrounds and I must add mine. I have been there on a number of occasions. I have sat and watched rugby games in the park and shivered in the cold wintry winds. But I must admit too that there have been some sunny days that were very pleasant. I have also watched the stock cars there so it is a venue that has a large number of events. We are very pleased to see that this very popular part of the city has at last received the recognition it deserves. We in New Zealand First are very happy to support this particular bill. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and support this bill and to listen to the Hon Steve Maharey wax lyrical about Palmerston North. My favourite Palmerston North story is about the Americans who went into the information bureau and said: “Say does it get hot over here? It’s just all those fans up on the hill.” A great story; I do not know whether it is an urban myth. 
The Palmerston North Showgrounds is a place that is not really all that close to my heart unlike for instance the Suter Art Gallery in Nelson where my father is a member and exhibits on a regular basis—maybe I should have made myself available to speak there. My son did have a flat about 100 yards from the showgrounds and when I was a police cadet I played a number of student teachers at a certain rugby tournament at the showgrounds. Mr Mallard may well have been there at the time; I do not recall. I did play in the same team as Mr Mallard at Karamea in the South Island in a game of netball I think in about 1976 or 1977—he was wearing a red nightie I think—during a certain teachers’ trip to the West Coast with some old friends. I think Paul Swain might have been there actually. Those were the good old days. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the memory is failing. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We will have to have a talk about that maybe later on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I drank a jug with a kaftan on but I never played netball in the 1990s. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could we please go back to Palmerston North? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Righto—back to Palmerston North. Well I think Palmerston North is a fine place to go. I was there on Saturday visiting Barry and Collette in their new first home. It is a great little place to buy houses raise kids belong to the army and do the psychiatric work that Collette does. I would encourage John Cleese to go back to Palmerston North and I dare him to make similar disparaging comments about the fair city that some of us hold dear to our hearts. If you live in a little place like Hawera—jewel that it is—Palmerston North has a lot to behold. There is a lot to do in the odd visit to the big smoke such as the odd Hurricanes game. 
It is good to see this legislation come before the House and for me it is good practice at speaking because in the next months I hope to put forward legislation that will vest land from the Patea Sports and Agricultural Society—the 10 acres it bought in Kakaramea in 1853—into the Kakaramea hall committee. It is amazing what one learns in this House and what one gets to speak about. It is always a privilege. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 It is worthwhile making a contribution on this bill that involves Palmerston North people Manawatu people Rangitikei people Horowhenua people and even Wanganui people because many of us will have very much an emotive tie with all of our regional shows that go on under the name of agricultural pastoral and industrial or just A and P. In fact when I was a lot younger I was able to show some of my animals at this particular showground in Palmerston North. I did not actually do very well but I have a strong emotive tie to this area in Palmerston North because as a youngster I used to go to watch the stock cars there and then as a student for 4 years I played a lot of rugby there. I do not think I actually scored a try on the main ground but I played for the varsity “A” rugby team a lot out the back in the mud and I played a little bit of representative rugby on the main ground. 
The important point I want to make in my contribution this evening is that I feel Palmerston North will be the loser with this Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. The reason I say that is that I am always mindful of the connection between urban and rural people. I know the show will continue at Feilding and I know that is fundamentally a very good thing but in the past it has been very easy and accessible for city dwellers to go along when the A and P show was on and understand exactly what goes on at the farm-gate level. They could walk around and see the pet animals and indeed in the past we have had very good bull weeks when prize bulls have been shown in that particular area. 
The National Party supports this bill allowing this organisation to move to Manfeild in Feilding. It makes sense in a way because on a Friday it is very much the rural hub for that area with the very well-known Feilding sale yards. I think it is good that it is going there but I urge a little caution and say that we need to be mindful of the fact that we have at times a disconnection between urban and rural New Zealand. The ground at Palmerston North will always be there and the stadium will be there. The stock cars will evolve and all the sports facilities will go on there because this bill enables the ground to be passed over to and be run by the Palmerston North City Council. I know all of those activities will continue but fundamentally the rural aspect that has been the hub of this organisation will move to Feilding. National supports this bill but I think we will have to do some ongoing work in this House to ensure that we have strong connections between our rural folk and our city dwellers. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill particularly because I have been a neighbour of this fine province of Manawatu coming from Hawke’s Bay. I have lots of recollections as a boy of games of rugby between Hawke’s Bay and the Manawatu—the green and whites—and of jumping in dad’s old Holden and driving from Hawke’s Bay through the gorge and over to the showgrounds for some mighty games of rugby. I remember that in the old days they used to hang magpies from the letterboxes as we came through on the other side of the gorge and went through Aokautere and some of the outlying towns as we came in. So there are many memories there. 
My family has a close connection with the ground. Obviously my father Kel played many games of provincial rugby there and there is now a tournament held between the Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay teams for a memorial trophy named for my father who passed away in 1992. More than that my wife’s family—Jeanette and Trevor Jurgens—are from that area and they have an association with the stock cars there with a son-in-law who is involved with those. I myself was at Massey University and I wanted to touch on that because like Nathan and a number of members of this House I played a lot of rugby out on the back ground there. I also have some pretty bad memories of some of the under-cover areas that Mr Maharey talked about—with the Massey University toga parties and things of that ilk— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ah! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: We will not go into too much detail on that. The National Party supports the bill but I want to make a point about the A and P society and how difficult it is for them. Even in Hawke’s Bay the society is having to rejuvenate itself as an organisation. It has had a fall off in numbers and has had to reinvent itself over the last few years. We are starting to see a rise in the numbers of people coming to the A and P shows but the organisation is having to look outside the square to promote itself and provide something that is of attraction to the wider public. So it will be interesting to see whether it can do that in Feilding and replicate what is happening with the Fieldays there. 
Essentially this is a non-controversial bill; it is of the flavour of Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay rugby whereby everyone is supportive of the wider game and we will certainly support the bill tonight. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. This bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is not a new bill. Many people think it came about because of the death of Mr Navtej Singh in Manurewa but this bill has been around some time. I tried to get it drawn out of the ballot with no luck. I tried to get it into the House during the Budget debate. I want to thank members of the House who have cooperated and helped me get this bill into the House at the top of the order paper. I am really appreciative of that and it shows that MMP is alive and well. I think one of the things about Parliament now that did not happen in the old first-past-the-post days is that people talk to one another and I think that is really good. It shows that there is a good spirit. 
For the last couple of years a young person Daniel Newman now a Manukau city councillor and I have been advocates for changes to the Sale of Liquor Act including the empowerment of communities to challenge licensing applications. As a result of the work the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill is being debated tonight. The key feature of the bill is that any persons may object to an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. However the objector must be able to provide evidence of adverse impact on the objector if the application were to be granted. An evaluation of the social impacts on the community if the licence were to be granted must be carried out on an application for an on-licence or an off-licence. The evaluation is subject to the same public notice requirements as the application. Where an application for an on-licence or an off-licence is opposed the bill provides for the Liquor Licensing Authority to take additional matters into account. The period of time within which objections must be lodged is altered from 10 working days to 20 working days after the first publication of the application. 
That is the bill in itself. It is not an ambitious bill. It is not a bill that wants to cure all the problems of drinking in New Zealand. If I was trying to do that I would not be speaking here tonight because there would be so much objection. Some people have asked me why I did not do something about the drinking age and why I did not do other things. I think it is simple and it is clear. Local people want to have a say over what goes on in their area. 
There have been a number of alcohol policy changes over the years since the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act. The Act relaxed conditions for obtaining liquor licences and allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. This was the start of a substantial increase in the amount of liquor outlets. In 1990 there were eight licences per 10000 people in New Zealand. That included on-licences off-licences and club licences. By 2006 there were 35 licences per 10000 people. That was almost a 100 percent increase and there is clear evidence that the outlet density is associated with alcohol-related harm which includes violence and alcohol-related arrests. In Counties-Manukau for example 90 percent of the crime that the police deal with after 11 o’clock at night is alcohol-related and includes drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes. The impact on low socio-economic areas is far greater than in affluent areas. Local councils and indeed successive Governments did not envisage the huge increase in liquor outlets and the impact they would have. Looking back when Daniel Newman was the community board chair he endeavoured to get the council to make changes to the district scheme so that liquor outlets would not be put into the poorer areas. That was all too hard for his council to do. 
Although this bill is narrow in what it tries to achieve it is timely given the violence that we have seen associated with liquor. The bill is not an attempt to solve all problems. The problems in Christchurch for example are different from the ones in my area and they are probably different in Havelock North perhaps and in other areas of the Hawke’s Bay. Each area has its own problems and it is very important when we are trying to get laws that work across the country that we remember the local differences. I am pleased that the Government will also have a bill that will empower councils to have a look at how many liquor outlets there should be in a certain area. Although that bill may be following on sometimes people think it is wrong to be the first one to be right. But I am certainly pleased that tonight we are debating this bill. 
I think it is important that I once again acknowledge the support and the help I have been given across the House. I know that the ACT party was not keen on the bill coming in and I had to wait until its members were not there. But I respect them for their view and for being very frank and direct with me. I thank New Zealand First members and also the National Party and Labour Party members. We do not have to take conscience bills to caucus to get permission to take them through the House but I have to say that there was a great spirit in our caucus of trying to do something. I have seen that reflected by the National Party New Zealand First and the Greens and I really appreciate that. The liquor problems in New Zealand show that members of Parliament are keen to work together to try to solve some of those problems. 
As I said this is not a very broad bill. It deals only with a precise area and that is because that is all I thought I would be able to get through. Thank you. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I am very pleased to say that we will support the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill going to the select committee. It is very unusual in a matter like this to have party support as opposed to a conscience vote but I think that most people in this House certainly appreciate the fact that as the Hon George Hawkins has pointed out over-consumption of liquor has become a severe problem in parts of the country. 
Both George Hawkins and I are constituency members of Parliament for the South Auckland region. Randwick Park where a shooting recently occurred in a liquor outlet is currently covered by George Hawkins’ Manurewa electorate; with the boundary changes it will become part of the Papakura electorate. There is an area of South Auckland where there is an abundance of liquor outlets. There are probably not nearly enough childcare centres—only about 20 percent of young children in South Auckland go to early childhood centres. We have an abundance of very good people who live their lives the very best they can. We also have an abundance of graffiti taggers and we have an abundance of crime. But as I said we also have an abundance of people who do not indulge in those sorts of behaviours. 
The good people of our areas have told us that they wish to have a say in what goes on in their neighbourhoods. I know that some people feel that if we have liquor outlets all over the place then eventually they will run out of business or they will sort themselves out. It is very easy to take that sort of line unless one actually has to live with those businesses. Many of the people we see do not get much of a choice as to where they live. They do not have the ability to say “Look this area is getting a bit tough now. I think I’ll move out.” They often live in State houses or other accommodation in areas that are not nearly as advantageous as other areas. Their children go to decile 1 or decile 2 schools. For those who do not understand what that means I tell them that those schools are in areas where the population is made up of our poorest New Zealanders. 
They do not have much choice. What they do want a choice about is whether they have a liquor outlet in their area and what that liquor outlet will actually be like—whether it will be selling a bottle of wine or basically pushing alcohol on to young people who do not know how to handle it or themselves. I understand that some people do not appreciate that not all people have a choice about where they live. All of us here in the House can choose whether we drink. We can probably choose whether we live next door to people who wish to overindulge in alcohol but as I have said most of the people I am talking about do not have that choice. Good people in South Auckland often do not get those choices. 
When I first became the member of Parliament for Clevedon I visited the Counties-Manukau Police District Commander Steve Shortland. I asked him about the issue of P and its effect on our young people gangs and everything else. He told me that the worst issue he and the police officers in our area of Counties-Manukau deal with is alcohol and its abuse. Many of us can think back to the times when as students or whatever we did something silly because of alcohol but we are talking about people who kill others. We are talking about people who bash children and others who not only indulge in P but drink alcohol with it and who think that they should do whatever they wish to and blow anybody else. The police have told us that they would like to be able to have a bit of a say in this issue too. 
In the area I represent in Papakura the local council and the mayor Calum Penrose have been very forthright about wishing to have a say in what happens in their town. So they should because people will complain to them about a liquor outlet that sells alcohol to 16-year-olds and they will complain to them about a liquor outlet where street gang members hang around outside and terrorise the shopkeepers. The councillors cannot do anything about it yet they are blamed for the fact that we have laws that allow it to happen. 
Although we can always argue that it is against the law to sell alcohol to 16-year-olds I think we need to be a little bit realistic. Our police cannot even respond to burglaries. Just the other day one of my constituents had a home invasion where she and her husband had people come into their house and steal property. Fortunately the invaders left—they did not actually bash the couple which was something. My constituent rang the police who turned up 3 hours later apologising for the fact that they had been at two other calls and were not able to get there any earlier. She was very appreciative of the fact that they turned up. Frankly we cannot expect the police to wander around the streets checking people’s IDs to see whether they should be sold alcohol. 
Another concern that has arisen is that alcohol is now used as a loss-leader to get people into supermarkets. We have supermarkets in this country that currently sell alcohol at well below the price they pay the wholesalers for it. They do that because they want to get people into their shops. Well it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that if they are underpricing alcohol they are probably overpricing something else. The way I see it we need to say to the people who sell alcohol that we expect them to act responsibly and we need to be able to tell the communities that would like to have their say to have their communities back what they can do. 
I am fully aware that this bill is not perfect and I am sure George Hawkins would be the first to admit that. But we have a great deal of hope that the bill will be improved when it goes to the select committee—and I believe that with the support of the House it will. It will attract a great many submissions and it should come back to the House in a form that most members can support. This area is very difficult for people who feel that anyone should be able to go out and buy a legally obtainable product. It is actually not about that; it is about being part of the community. We talk a lot in this House about being part of the community and about expecting community involvement and the communities are saying they would like to have some more involvement. Many communities will not mind whether there are liquor outlets on their streets; they will not mind at all as long as people conduct their business properly. But there are certainly areas where people feel that their communities have been inundated with alcohol outlets and that they have never had a chance to say what sort of community they would like. 
I hope this bill will get the support of the House to go to the select committee that the select committee will have a good and robust discussion about it that it will get lots of submissions and that the select committee will not be dismissive of the communities’ needs but actually will take them very seriously. I commend George Hawkins for having the courage to bring forward a bill that to many people is not politically correct but frankly I think we need it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I just make the comment that the remaining eight speeches are 5 minutes in length. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that New Zealand First will support the passage of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill through its first reading and I can tell the Hon George Hawkins that I am pretty confident we will support it all the way through to the third reading. 
It is interesting to cast our minds back to when a number of us came into this place in 1996 to see how in those 12 years the sale of liquor legislation has moved. In fact with this bill in particular it is quite pertinent to reflect on the changes that occurred in 1989 with the liberalisation of the sale of liquor legislation at that time. Some people would argue that in fact along with a whole bunch of things that happened in this country with the opening up of the free-market approach in governance and administration liquor licensing was just one other area where the free market was able to be unleashed. People such as Roger Douglas David Caygill and a number of others who advocated such things so forcefully got their way. In 1999 we saw a number of other changes led by Mrs Shipley. Interestingly Bill English was her deputy and I recall that he voted against the bill introduced then to lower the legal age at which people could purchase alcohol. But Mrs Shipley was very adamant that we lived in a caff-bar society as she said and that New Zealanders had grown and matured in the way in which they handled alcohol and beverages. 
Of course most of us who lived in Christchurch—David Carter being one and Gerry Brownlee and I—only had to pop down to The Strip on a Friday night to see that that was not true and down to Manchester and Colombo Streets and look at the activities and goings on outside many of the clubs pubs and hotels. We also witnessed a morphing that was occurring between 6 p.m. 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. the next morning when the same establishment would move from being a restaurant to a bar to a nightclub. The establishments by moving tables and changing the way in which they operated to fit within the compliance requirements of the different licences held simply stayed open all night. Then of course we started hearing the problems from the police. Mr Hawkins was the Minister of Police at a time when we were hearing in Christchurch of the problems associated with a couple of pubs—I will not name them—on Victoria Street close to the casino. They were still operating at 6 in the morning and they were the problem. They were problem spots for the Christchurch police because the police knew that people would be pouring themselves out of those places at 6 in the morning and the resulting incidents and fracas that occurred outside were not to anybody’s good or benefit at all. 
The 1999 legislation went through with a lot of controversy and I remember Nick Smith standing over there in the Chamber with a line-up of ready-to-drink drinks on the top of one of the tables telling the House that those drinks were the alcopop drinks that were available and quoting the prices. A number of us who spoke from the same side of the debate as Mr Nick Smith agreed with him that that was the opening of the door and that this would see 15 and 16-year-old girls plied with alcopops which were specifically designed and produced to target that end of the market. The predictions from people who opposed the passage of that legislation were that we would have trouble. One of those predictions was that we would see a trickle-down effect and that 18 would not be the legal age of purchase but that we would see a de facto age as 18-year-old men passed their alcohol down to 15-year-old girls. 
We also saw the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill in 2005 which was Martin Gallagher’s bill. I think it is quite pertinent to point out that many of the submitters who came to the Law and Order Committee—which I chaired for Martin as he was the member in charge of the bill—and were members of the liquor industry said that the licensing regime was too loose too slack. I quote one submitter a publican who said: “It seems these days all you’ve got to do is have a car park and a urinal and you’ll get a licence to sell alcohol.” He made the point but this House voted that bill out. It is a tragedy that the messages that were passed on by the good constituents and the good submitters who took the time to come to Parliament were ignored. It is a tragedy that 3 years later we have done nothing. It took unfortunately the death of a man to bring this House to its senses. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate George Hawkins on bringing it to the House and on achieving the level of consensus on it that he has. The Greens—and I in particular—have been quite critical of some of the alcohol-related bills that Mr Hawkins has brought to the House but I think that this one certainly meets all the criteria of the Green Party policy. 
We are particularly concerned about eliminating the advertising of alcohol on television and in broadcasting that is aimed at young people. We are particularly concerned about reducing the proliferation of liquor stores that arose out of the 1999 amendment Act and we are concerned of course about increasing community decision-making which is what Mr Hawkins’ bill does. Communities have a right to decide how these issues are managed in their own communities and that was missing from the earlier legislation. We have paid a very severe price for that and in fact it is not really those of us here in this Chamber who have paid that price but the community itself. Young people and vulnerable families have paid that price. 
We would also like to see a great deal more community decision-making in other areas where social ills come out of recreational activities. Gambling is a classic and obvious next example and we would very much like to see more community decision-making in that area as well. 
Otherwise I just reiterate that the Green Party will be supporting this bill in full. All our MPs support it and we are very pleased that it is progressing quickly through the House. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 It is an interesting irony that while we are debating this bill here today in Waitangi the Public Health Association conference is debating strategies to reduce alcohol marketing and promotion at the local level. The association between alcohol-induced harm and health effects is a significant one. In fact one of the key deficiencies in the Sale of Liquor Act has been the lack of a public health profile. The Act promotes a predominantly business focus assuming alcohol to be a mere commodity to be bought and sold. Yet the reality that we all know too well is the traumatic and catastrophic costs of alcohol-related harm right across the public health spectrum as experienced in physical and sexual violence road accidents criminal offences and other negative impacts. Maori are particularly concerned about the way in which we drink. Although the overall rates of consumption are about the same for Maori and non-Maori Maori are experiencing disproportionate harm from drinking. Put simply as the advertisement says it is not what we are drinking; it is about how we are drinking and the “how” is all about drinking too much at one time. 
The Maori Party has consistently raised its concerns about the impact of unregulated access to alcohol. We believe therefore that this bill from George Hawkins is an important step towards taking some responsibility for the harm that has resulted from alcohol consumption. But I want to make one point clear: it is not just the prerogative of the Parliament to make a stand. I think of my own tipuna Niniwai Te Rangi a woman who led Te Komiti Wahine-a-Hine-ahu-one an organisation that aimed to get rid of alcohol in Maori pa. Niniwai was the eldest surviving daughter of Heremaia Tamaihotua also known as Ngapuruki a leading chief of Ngati Hikawera of Ngati Kahungunu. Her abilities as a speaker her knowledge of genealogy and tradition and her force of character and forthright outspokenness gave her a particular status. So when she spoke out against alcohol use at Papawai Marae which is the political centre that would host the Maori Parliaments of the Kotahitanga movement she made quite an impact. 
Other tribes have also had an impact with their haka waiata moteatea and various strategies to address alcohol-related harm and that is very common today amongst culture groups. Earlier today for instance Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned the impact made by Bishop Bennett in Rotorua advocating against the damaging effects of alcohol abuse on Maori. 
This bill is an important way to put barriers in place to address the impact of alcohol upon communities. But no matter how honourable the intention of the bill is we must all as communities also seek to challenge the way in which the sale of liquor has taken such an adverse toll on our people. When we can intervene at a community level to correct and when we can challenge without anger hatred or fear behaviour that is harmful and destructive we will truly be on the pathway towards solutions that will make a difference. I am reminded of the Maori word “hoariri” which is often translated as “enemy” but which in fact means “a friend with whom I am angry”. I must confess to occasionally having friends whom I have been angry with especially those associated with the enactment of the foreshore and seabed legislation. But perhaps what we all need to consider more deeply is how we support our hoariri those who are under the influence of and who are adversely affected by the availability of alcohol. We can all learn from the example of Niniwai Te Rangi who stood up and challenged her peers to address the impact of alcohol use. 
We will support this bill in that it will enable any person or party to stand up and object to an application for a liquor licence and to raise concern about the social impacts on the community if an on-licence or off-licence is granted. But we also advocate that we all take far greater responsibility for taking up the role of hoariri in reminding those who partake of alcohol of the disproportionate amount of harm that continues to flow from increasing alcohol consumption and disturbing patterns of behaviour. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill and I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins on putting this bill forward. 
I want to relate to the House a story that this bill may have been the solution to had it been around. A couple of years ago an appointment was made at my office in Whakatane by some concerned citizens. The suburb in which they lived had the traditional corner dairy. I myself had lived in that suburb at some stage over the 30 years I have been in Whakatane and I had been down to that dairy. Over the years it changed hands many times. At one stage one of the owners divided the wee shop in half reduced the grocery stock and put in a takeaway bar. So now we had two opportunities for business within that one little corner dairy. 
At this point in time the shop was changing hands again. An Auckland businessman was coming into town and he wanted to get rid of the takeaway bar and put in a liquor outlet next to the grocery outlet. The neighbours were outraged—and for very good reason. First of all I noted that the police completely agreed with them. In this neighbourhood within walking distance of each other there were already five liquor outlets but all the others were contained in a strip of shops that was easily patrolled by the police. This shop was at the other end of the walking distance and therefore was going to be more difficult for them to keep an eye on. So the police were against it. The neighbours were very against it for very good reasons. Directly across the road was a playcentre and in walking distance there was a large primary school and an even larger intermediate school. Within walking distance again was a residential men’s drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre and so the story goes on. 
As we set forth to try to object to this application for a liquor licence we all discovered that the only thing we could do was to discredit the applicant. Unfortunately—or fortunately for him—he was an upstanding citizen and nothing could be pinned on him. Therefore we were literally powerless to do anything about it and it was obvious that the licence would be approved. At that point it made me realise the little say that local people have on some extremely important issues facing them that impact on the quality of life that they enjoy. 
I was interested to hear the Hon George Hawkins talk about the fact that there is consideration at central government level for a future bill to reconsider the powers we give to local government in determining how many liquor outlets an area can have. I think that that is an extremely good idea. I have some questions around some of the provisions in the Hon George Hawkins’ bill but I am sure it is the job of the select committee to sort that out. The most important thing is that it is the only thing on offer right now; it is the only strategy before this House that attempts to make some dent in the binge culture that unfortunately characterises New Zealand. 
United Future is very keen to see this bill taken to a select committee. I imagine that by the third reading many parties may have allowed their members to vote according to their conscience. We have not even made a decision about that other than that we agree completely that the bill should proceed to a select committee and that discussions should be held. 
One of the things I also like about this bill is the fact that it talks about something that is very important and dear to the heart of United Future in terms of the principles we operate under. We operate under the principle that local communities should be making a lot more decisions for themselves than they are often currently able to make. On this particular issue there is huge support for local people determining whether they have enough liquor outlets. We could do a lot of things around the number of gambling opportunities that a community has to offer. A whole lot of areas need to be relooked at here in Parliament and we need to devolve the say on those things to local communities so that they have much more direct control. United Future is very happy to support this legislation and we also congratulate its sponsor. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is up to the ACT party again to stand up and ruin the party we are having here tonight because we will be opposing the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I certainly consider the abuse of alcohol to be one of the most serious problems that we face in terms of behaviour. Interestingly it is far more serious than the abuse of illicit drugs. Members should think of all the outrage over cannabis yet there is no doubt that alcohol abuse kills far more people causes far more personal despair and upset and indeed does more social damage than for example cannabis. Alcohol abuse is in our culture and members do not have to go very far from this place to see it. Indeed I think there is some irony in members of Parliament lecturing New Zealanders about the abuse of alcohol and about how it should be prevented. 
Let us get back to the fundamental issue: we have a problem with the abuse of alcohol and the social consequences of that abuse. I do not believe there is a member in this House who believes that this bill will make one jot of difference; I do not believe there is one. But we are all standing up here to vote for it because we want to be seen to be doing something about a serious problem. I think members of this House have travelled to countries that absolutely restrict the sale of alcohol. I am thinking of the former Soviet Union where alcohol was State-controlled and very very hard to get. No one would have seen drunkenness there unless he or she had been to Moscow in the bad old days. 
People can go across to countries like France and Italy and get alcohol in every street at all hours of the day at every outlet known to man and we do not see any drunkenness. What is the difference? It is not the number of outlets or whether a social impact assessment has been done; it is actually the attitude of people to alcohol and indeed their respect for themselves and for others. The number of outlets and the mechanisms we go through for that number of outlets makes no difference. 
I will give members another example from right here in New Zealand. We can jump up and down all we like about cannabis and we can pass all the laws we like to oppose it but that will not stop people using or abusing cannabis. In fact we find that cannabis can be easily obtained in most of our jails. So how can we pass laws to stop people abusing alcohol? We had Prohibition and we had terribly restrictive laws with 6 o’clock closing. Are people telling us that back then we did not have alcohol abuse? Of course we had alcohol abuse. The problem is within us. The problem is within our attitude to alcohol. The problem is that we are bringing up our young people to look forward to a Friday night where they can get “wasted”. That is the difficulty that we have—the idea that the best thing that people have to look forward to is getting wasted. 
We cannot pass a law to change that behaviour by saying we should restrict the number of off-licences or on-licences or we should restrict particular drugs. We need to be addressing the social problems and the underlying attitudes that people particularly young people have. We are just creating another complicated process with more boxes to tick and more arguments to be had over whether a particular person can sell alcohol in a particular place. We will have a thing called a social impact analysis. Consultants will be employed to do a social impact analysis and say that yes the social impacts are positive and others will be employed to say that no it is negative. We will have a bunch of people trying to work out what the truth of it is because there is no objective measure by which one can do a social impact analysis. 
The ACT party opposes this bill because it will not make a jot of difference. I commend George Hawkins. He is a very good local MP. He probably has more respect on this side of the Chamber than he has in his own caucus and the measure of the man is such that he has support for this bill. But I am afraid that that will make no difference. The ACT party opposes pretend laws that are designed to have no effect other than a political one. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in support of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge the contribution made by the member who has just returned to his seat Rodney Hide. All members of this House share a motivation to ensure that the harm caused by alcohol in our society particularly in respect of our young people is minimised while at the same time respecting the fact that people make their own decisions about how and whether they consume alcohol. 
There is no question about the member’s motivation which I think is shared by the whole House. Where I think many of us differ from him is that although none of us would pretend that this bill is a complete solution most of us feel that it is a step in the right direction. We owe a great deal of thanks to the Hon George Hawkins for this bill; he has done a fine job as a local MP in an area hard-pressed by this problem. The step that the bill takes is to give the communities concerned more of an opportunity to have a say in the licensing of alcohol-selling premises. 
It is my understanding that the number of liquor outlets in South Auckland has increased from 80 to more than 220 over the last couple of years. We are finding ourselves in the situation where alcohol is literally being sold in corner dairies as well as in superettes and major liquor chains. That makes it not only harder for the authorities to police the sale of alcohol but more tempting perhaps for under-age purchasers or their friends to support an under-age drinking habit. 
I cannot get past the statistic that I read in the recently released New Zealand Health Survey which is a comprehensive survey of 17000 New Zealanders. Great progress has been made in many areas of the health system but the statistic that jumped out and hit me was that 54 percent—more than half—of our young men aged between 16 and 25 consume alcohol in a way that is likely to be injurious to their health. Fifty-four percent of our young men consume alcohol in a dangerous way. I was shocked by that statistic and I am still shocked by it because it shows that this issue is not just about a few young people getting wasted on Friday night; this is about a wholesale social failure to deal with a very deeply ingrained issue in our society. 
I agree with Mr Hide that we have to look very hard in the mirror and ask ourselves what it is about New Zealand society that we allow this problem to go on. We have not confronted the alienation the need for escapism or whatever it is that is contributing to so many young people indulging in alcohol in a way that is dangerous to them and dangerous to others. The social cost is frankly immeasurable. It goes so far beyond the cost of treating the direct victims through liver damage or domestic violence; it is measured in terms of children’s opportunities being forgone marriages being destroyed and lives never reaching their potential because a drinking habit becomes a disease. 
I recently attended a meeting called by the leaders of the South Asian community in response to the tragic death of a young man who had a liquor outlet in South Auckland and who was shot in cold blood by someone seeking to steal alcohol from those premises. The message from the Sikh and the Indian communities was: “Enough already. We have had enough deaths of store owners.” In a small way this bill is part of the response of the people of New Zealand through our Parliament to that tragedy too. It is a way of saying that we need to think as a community about how many liquor outlets are allowed to open and about how they are run. That is not a substitute for better education it is not a substitute for thinking more about the means by which alcohol is purchased—and I expect that more work will be done around this bill—but let us commend this bill and the work of its sponsor as a step forward in making our society a somewhat less hazardous and dysfunctional place. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 We have just heard a very dejected speech from the Minister of Health the Hon David Cunliffe who sounds like he has given up. It was quite interesting actually that at the Asian meeting he attended along with Chester Borrows and me he thought that the cause of the violence problem in South Auckland lay with Maori and Pacific people and I am just surprised that he did not offer that up as part of his solution. It is interesting that after 9 long years this Labour Government is always quick to claim the credit when things go well but when the Government is faced by a problem that problem somehow is always the problem of society. Whenever things go wrong somehow it is always everybody else’s problem—it is amazing! Who is the only person the Government can reach out to for a solution to the graffiti and alcohol problems in South Auckland? It is the Hon George Hawkins. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am hesitant to interrupt the speaker who has only just managed to take a call after such a long wait but I wish to clarify a point of procedure. Is this bill a conscience issue with a conscience vote—as I understand it—or is it a matter of Government policy? If it is a conscience vote then I wonder whether the preceding comments criticising Government policy are in order. I ask whether you could advise on that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The point the member is making is actually a matter of debate. But to clarify this is a member’s bill. 
PANSY WONG 
: Nothing the Minister does can stop the flow of a good speech. 
I will just mention the good member the Hon George Hawkins. He apparently is the saviour of the Labour Government whenever it is in trouble but somehow he is not good enough to be in Cabinet. But I say to Mr Hawkins that we are supporting his bill. We know that there is no silver bullet. National would prefer to have a full select committee inquiry into the drinking practices in New Zealand. Like many people we are finding it difficult because some young people admit that when they go out for a drink they want to get drunk. So there is an issue but there is no silver bullet. However doing nothing is not acceptable and we think that this bill is a first step in the right direction to start the debate. 
I want to share a practical experience. I attended one of the Botany Community Board meetings and coincidentally the board happened to discuss the liquor licensing issue at that meeting. One of the people from the Manukau agency of the Liquor Licensing Authority made a presentation. He pointed out that there is a problem because there is a conflict between the Sale of Liquor Act and the Resource Management Act. Some of us would believe that the Sale of Liquor Act would have enabled the authority to put some restrictions on the number of outlets in one location but the Resource Management Act apparently has a higher threshold. I hope that the select committee will take that on board. 
I also acknowledge Botany Community Board member Roy Bootle who was at that meeting. He is a very hard-working local personality. He understands and has worked very hard on the alcohol licensing issue. He was demonstrating how difficult it was for individuals like himself—even as a community board member—to object to and to negotiate opening hours. Sometimes the problem is not just with the number of outlets; it is where they are. The opening hours can also be a problem. It took Mr Bootle hours and hours to argue that it is not necessary for a certain bar to open right up until 4 in the morning. 
I hope that the select committee members will travel up to Auckland—particularly South Auckland—because a lot of good hard-working local people there have been wrestling with this problem for a long time and they will have a lot of practical suggestions and down-to-earth solutions to this issue. I reiterate National’s position: National would have preferred to have a select committee inquiry to address the issue of drinking practices but this bill will certainly be a first step on the journey to address this issue which is confronting New Zealand and especially Auckland. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to add my support along with other members of this House to this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate this House on being able to bring this bill forward at this time. I have noticed that when we have problems in our communities we have a tendency to be very quick to point the finger around at our police at our Government departments and also at Government Ministers. But I would say that the most significant contribution to many of our present problems came when our liquor laws were loosened to benefit the liquor industry by allowing alcohol to be sold from stores on suburban streets where schools and neighbourhoods exist and in fact normalising in the psyche of many of our young people the freedom and accessibility of liquor. That has been a social disaster for communities like Manukau City Mangere and other similar suburbs which are reaping the severe and tragic consequences. 
Today in Manukau City the number of liquor outlets has fluctuated between 300 and 500 across the city. Some retailers are unscrupulous and sell alcohol to kids as young as 12 and 13 years old. Some nightclubs continue to flout these laws by serving children under the age of 18 and by serving those who are already intoxicated—and yes there have been uncontrollable brawls afterwards. Yet the process for getting their licence suspended or revoked is so frustratingly taxing on people’s time and energy. The community where I come from in Manukau City has sought to control and limit the number of liquor outlets for quite some time. Two options have been presented to the community through the Manukau City Council. The first is to change the district plan. Our experience there has been that it is a costly time-consuming process which opens it up for debate with the liquor industry. The second option of course is what this House is now embarking on. 
I will support this bill but I also want to say that I think we really need not only to entitle the community to have a greater say in where these liquor outlets are located but to go beyond that. There is a strong link between the violence that is experienced in some communities and alcohol. There is a strong link between domestic violence and alcohol. Quite a bit of research has already been done on that. I do not think anybody really wants prohibition; I think the horse has certainly bolted. But it is about looking at being responsible with regard to where alcohol is available in our communities. Some outlets and some businesses are responsible but some are not. Those are the people we have to be concerned about in our community. 
I simply want to support this bill acknowledge the member who has brought it forward George Hawkins and acknowledge all of those who support it. I look forward to some robust discussion in select committee with regard to this bill. Thank you for the opportunity. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank all those people and parties who have spoken tonight. I want to thank Rodney Hide for his contribution; it is not one I particularly agree with of course. Perhaps laws do not change behaviour but as he pointed out the marijuana laws are ignored by people yet that is no reason for us not to try to do something about it. I think that hoisting up the white flag is never a solution that is available to parliamentarians. 
I thank the parties for letting the bill come into the House—it actually jumped 20 other bills. I really appreciate being given that opportunity. I thank the other parties—United Future the Maori Party the Greens New Zealand First the National Party and Labour. It is very unusual in South Auckland and Counties-Manukau that the MPs get together and talk to each other. I am finding that it is a very good way of making progress for one’s constituents. Yes there are things we have differences on and we get up and fight over those as hard as we can. But we look around and see what is going on in our communities—that we can buy beer cheaper than bottled water and that we can go to the local dairy and it sells more grog than milk. People come to their local MPs and they want something done. Is it not really very reassuring that we have a Parliament where parliamentarians will work for their communities as the first priority? 
I have to say that some people may find it a little hard to understand what actually happens in South Auckland in much the same way as I find it difficult to believe what goes on in Christchurch with boy racers—I have no idea about these people going and getting tanked up and as Ron Mark said going to a restaurant a nightclub or a bar. I think that really shows that there are large differences around the country. 
I want to say that I am no expert on liquor. I probably consume less of it than some others here; I do not have the experience. Nevertheless I do have a lot of experience of listening to people. I hear people who are hurting who feel helpless that they cannot do something about it and who look to their local councils and Parliament. I will be able to go back and say to people in my own area that the MPs from South Auckland have come together and indeed MPs in Parliament have come together to try to do something about a problem that is serious. It will not solve the drink problem. It will not solve young people being out on the street. What it may solve is that when people run out of liquor they just pop around to the dairy and load up with some more. It may make it safer for dairy owners who sell liquor. It may be in the end that New Zealanders get up and say that they have had a gutsful of what liquor is doing in their community and that they will be very hard on it. 
I conclude by thanking everyone who has spoken tonight. I thank Rodney Hide for having a different view and for standing up for it. I thank my South Auckland MPs like Su’a William Sio Ross Robertson Judith Collins Pansy Wong Pita Paraone from New Zealand First and Dr Sharples who has some of his electorate in Counties-Manukau. I also acknowledge the support of United Future. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
Anderton (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Jones S (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Dean 
Key (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Auchinvole 
Dunne (P) 
King A (P) 
Sharples 
Barker 
Duynhoven 
King C 
Simich 
Barnett 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sio 
Bennett D (P) 
English (P) 
Locke 
Smith L (P) 
Bennett P 
Fenton (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Smith N (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Soper (P) 
Blue (P) 
Finlayson 
Mahuta (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Blumsky (P) 
Fitzsimons 
Mallard (P) 
Street (P) 
Borrows 
Foss 
Mapp (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Mark 
te Heuheu (P) 
Brown (P) 
Goff (P) 
McCully (P) 
Tisch 
Brownlee (P) 
Goodhew (P) 
Moroney (P) 
Tizard 
Burton (P) 
Gosche (P) 
Norman 
Tolley (P) 
Carter C 
Goudie (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tremain 
Carter D 
Groser (P) 
Okeroa (P) 
Turner 
Carter J (P) 
Guy 
Paraone (P) 
Wagner (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins 
Parker (P) 
Wall (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Hayes (P) 
Peachey 
Wilkinson (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Peters (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Henare (P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Clarkson (P) 
Hereora (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Wong 
Coleman (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Collins 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich (P) 
Worth (P) 
Connell (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Roy E 
Teller: 
Cunliffe (P) 
Jones D 
Ryall 
Fairbrother 
Noes 2 
Roy H (P) 
Teller: 
Hide 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party supports the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In speaking to this bill I will first comment that prison is no place for a baby to be. Actually many of us would think that prison is no place for many people to be. Certainly the children whom we are speaking about are children at their most vulnerable—our very young children who are being breastfed by their mothers. Breastfeeding mothers who are in prison are in many cases some of our most vulnerable adults. In many cases they are people who if they do not have their babies with them have very little to live for. I cannot think of a worse thing as a mother than to have a baby taken away. I just cannot believe that that could happen in a civilised society. 
I know full well that this bill will certainly impact upon the Department of Corrections and I note that Mr Goff the Minister of Corrections has asked for certain provisions to allow the provision of facilities able to cope with young babies. However when this bill first came to National members we decided that we should give it a try that we should see whether the Law and Order Committee could come up with whatever changes were necessary to make it a workable bill. I know that there is a great deal of scepticism out in the community about just how this bill will work how it will operate for the children and whether we are being unkind to little children by having them be in prison. 
As I started off by saying prison is no place for children. But let us think practically about where many of these children come from—where they live and what their homes are like. If mothers are in such trouble with the law that they are in prison is it not better that their children are with them in a place where they are supervised their Well Child checks happen and somebody makes sure they are looked after and cared for? Many of these mothers have multiple challenges and difficulties to overcome and they will be in a place where they can be supported helped to be good mothers and encouraged to do the right thing for their children. As a mother when I think of the Kahui children Chris and Cru I would rather that those babies had been with their mother in prison under guidance and care than out in the community with their mother. I am not making any judgment about what happened to them and by whom. It is extraordinary that until today we have not acknowledged the fact that often babies live in places where they are not so much brought up as dragged up. Not all of us look after our children in the way that we should. 
This bill provides an opportunity for a mother to learn to be a mother. It provides at least an opportunity for children to be fed properly to be looked after and to have Well Child checks—to have an opportunity. It is also a chance for rehabilitation. If one thing will rehabilitate adults it will surely be the love of and their love for their child. I cannot think of anything else that would rehabilitate many of the people we are talking about. A woman who ends up in prison with a young baby will have committed some pretty nasty crimes. 
I think the concerns that people have about the safety of the children have been dealt with by the select committee. There is enough in this bill to ensure that. I know we are taking a risk by passing this bill but we take a risk every single day that we live. We take risks when children are born to parents who are not ready to be parents—yet they are parents. We cannot always judge situations by our own situations and certainly not by the way in which we were brought up. This bill is something we can do; we can give these young mothers and their children a chance. If this bill becomes law and it does not work we will look at it again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I bring to the attention of members that we are debating this bill clause by clause. I am sure that members were very pleased to hear the contribution of the last speaker but the debate is narrow. We are debating clause 1 “Title”. We are not to go outside that at all. The next clauses to be debated are clause 2 “Commencement” clause 3 “Principal Act amended” clause 4 “Purpose” and so on. That is the way it is unless someone would like to seek leave to do otherwise. Someone may do that. I am not suggesting that members should do that but it is possible for any member to seek leave that we have an overall debate then have separate questions on the clauses. That may be acceptable to the Committee. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 That is a remarkably good suggestion. My understanding and I think the understanding of the earlier speaker was that we would debate all the clauses together. That would be quite sensible. There is a strong degree of unanimity about this bill and it would make sense to do so. I seek the leave of the Committee that we debate all the clauses together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members will confine themselves strictly to the clause under discussion. We are debating clause 1. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the title of this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the title is in many respects possibly the best title for the bill. It deals with the corrections system it deals with mothers with babies who have been incarcerated and it is an amendment obviously to the Corrections Act. 
The title indicates that the bill is about those mothers and their babies under 24 months and what it means for those babies to be with their mothers at that most critical time. It says to people that this bill is about more than women who have done wrong being jailed; it is about more than the punishment that society—certainly our courts—has deemed they need to receive; it actually talks about the babies. I think that that is what is most important about the title of this bill. It talks about our babies and it says that the bill is about our young ones under 24 months. At the end of the day I think this bill makes it pretty clear that it is about what is best for the children and certainly what is best for babies under 24 months old. 
The Law and Order Committee could have looked at other titles for the bill and there are a number of options that it could have looked at but I think it has chosen a title that describes the bill quite well. The title talks about mothers and it talks about their babies. Those babies are to be with their mothers while they are under 24 months. I wanted to stand up and take a quick call in support of the title of this bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the title of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House. It is a compassionate bill. The title says it all basically. The bill is all about mothers and babies and it is all about doing our best for mothers and babies. It is not about punishing the babies; it is about supporting the mothers and doing our best for the babies by letting them stay with their mothers. It is about bonding it is about any type of feeding—not just breastfeeding which is obviously the preferred way of feeding—and it is about continuity of care. 
Members will be interested to know that under the current law—until Sue’s bill does pass—mothers can have their children with them in prison until they are 6 months of age but that has not been feasible because we do not have the infrastructure. 
I think the title of the bill—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very appropriate. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a good title. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. Under the bill babies can be with their mothers up to 24 months of age. No mother wants to have her children taken away but at 24 months one can have staged management of the removal of a baby that is still with the mother if the mother is still incarcerated. It is really in the best interests of the children that they are with their mothers. They should not be punished for the mothers’ crimes. It is all about reducing recidivism and intergenerational crime. 
This is a fantastic bill. It has the support of National members. The title—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very apt and we certainly support it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a short call on the title of this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First believe that the title is most appropriate and we believe basically that it says it all. It is relatively short and it is very specific. It is very easy to identify what the bill is about—the title tells one exactly: mothers with babies who are caught up in the justice system. So we believe that the title is very appropriate. 
We identify babies as being those young young children under 24 months and we believe to have babies with their mothers in prison is a win-win situation. We know too that most mothers actually want to be with their babies and to be in the justice system and away from one’s baby could be very traumatic. We believe the bill is in the best interests of children and we will be looking forward to following it through the Committee stage. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this clause because I agree with the previous speaker that the title of this bill actually says it all. If we break it down the bill seeks to define a mother who is entitled to apply to have her child under 24 months of age with her in prison. I do not plan to take any future calls during the Committee stage so I will take my opportunity to speak now. 
I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee sought to check and adjust the definition of who can consider herself to be a mother and apply to have her child with her. Obviously the concept of a baby is well clarified as to the length of time of the accommodation and at what age it would cease. I think the interesting word in the title is “with” because the rest of the bill determines under what conditions an application can be made for a child to be with its mother and also what might happen during this 24-month period in terms of parent education and a whole lot of other areas that can be covered during the time that a child is with its mother. United Future is very happy to support clause 1. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises too to support the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In fact it is surprising that it has not been a requirement before now. I think that is the only thing that amazes me because the concern clearly is with the best interests of the child. The idea that when we incarcerate a mother we think that we are somehow adding to either her punishment or her rehabilitation by keeping her apart from her baby and her baby apart from her has to be muddle-headed. Surely the concern should be with the child and how can any child be best cared for by being apart from his or her mum? 
The bill allows the opportunity for the authorities to consider what is in the best interests of the child so the issue of the facilities in the prison and indeed the issue of whether the mother is a suitable mother—irrespective of the fact that she is in prison—will be taken into account. I think personally it is astonishing that that has not been the case all these years. 
Might I just add that I find it a bit disappointing following Mr Goff’s suggestion and the bill’s support that we are not debating the entire bill because it is members’ day and that is an opportunity—particularly for the Opposition—to make a point. I thought it was very generous of Mr Goff to make the offer. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the National Party whip who denied members on this side of the Committee the opportunity to debate the members’ bills and indeed to test the will of Parliament on their respective bills. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take a call and I am disappointed that we cannot take a call on the content of the bill because although the title is self-descriptive its contents are the fundamental drivers of why we are having this debate tonight. We are trivialising it actually by sitting here and talking about mothers and babies or mothers with babies—whether it is an apt title. The content of the bill is what matters in this debate. The Opposition’s refusal of Mr Goff’s request to take the debate as a whole has actually trivialised the debate tonight but that does not surprise me. I also heard Opposition members talk about mothers and babies so they even got the title wrong; it is mothers with babies. 
But I think the sad thing here is that we have had to look at a bill in total and entitle it. The issue that concerns us on this side of the Chamber is that this bill is trying to encourage the bonds of attachment by making the child central to the bill not the mother and that the child’s best interests are at heart. When we are looking at offending at repeat recidivist offending and at incarcerating mothers in prison we are forgetting the outcomes of people who have lost their way in life. We have not supported strong attachment and bonding at birth—that absolutely critical stage—so there is no moral compass as those children grow up. 
I think this is a fantastic bill and it is interesting that Sue has had great success in getting her bills pulled out of the ballot. The title is apt for the bill. I look forward to better debate on the bill’s content the reason why we need it and of course why we support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just make the comment that I do not see how the debate can be taken too much further because there is nothing new coming from contributors. I am willing to take another call but I have no intention of seeing this Chamber being made fun of as it were. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of the bill is appropriate. When we see that the title is Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill we can appreciate that we are talking about a change here; it is definitely an amendment bill. No doubt those people who are employed within the Department of Corrections will have to undertake training and make changes in their approach when this bill is introduced into law. No doubt there would have been an initial concern. This bill with its title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will add a cost but when we look at it from that point of view we will see too that there is tremendous opportunity to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. 
It is of significance that New Zealand should be one of the last of the OECD countries to have an ability to accommodate mothers with babies inside our corrections system. There is a lot of history and a lot of material around this legislation. The people who will be administering the Act will see that the intent of Parliament has to be to disregard the cost of what needs to be built to make adequate provisions regardless of the security risk of perhaps the mother so that the corrections system can carry out this activity in the appropriate way. On that level I certainly support the title and I look forward to the bill becoming law as the debate progresses. I think that the title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is very appropriate. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will now deal with the commencement part of the bill. When this bill went to the Law and Order Committee the commencement clause stated that the Act would come into force 90 days after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I realise now on reading the bill that has come back to the House that the legislation might never come into force. There is no reason at all for us to presume that the commencement date will ever actually happen—certainly not on what we have heard so far. I say that because the commencement date in the bill presented back to the House has been amended and is now “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” Why has this happened? 
I can see from the report back to the House that there is concern that new facilities need to be constructed and that they obviously have not been constructed yet from what I can see in the report back to the House. There is a recommendation to the Government from the select committee that the work to make the necessary improvements should be made as soon as possible. I am not sure whether those facilities have in fact been built and I would be very interested to hear from the Government or even from the proposer of the bill whether they have been built. I see that a lot of people are shaking their heads that no they have not yet been built. So the commencement date to the bill is completely in the future. We are not working to a particular date and we have no particular reason to believe that the facilities will be in place because the legislation is not actually in force. 
That is something we should be concerned about—that we could be leading people down the garden path into thinking that there will be this provision and that we will have these facilities when the facilities have yet to be built. Certainly it does not seem to me on the face of it that there is any provision whatsoever that this needs to take place by any particular time. I would be very interested to hear from others on this matter. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I concur with my colleague Judith Collins regarding the commencement date. As reported back to the House there is an amendment to clause 2 that the actual date be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council because there has to be the infrastructure in place so that mothers with babies under the age of 24 months can be catered for. There are three women’s prisons in New Zealand and the current situation is that mothers can keep their babies up to the age of 6 months but that has been a rare occurrence simply because we do not have the infrastructure for that as it stands let alone for babies up to 24 months. I think that is an indictment on our current prison system. 
There are also a lot of strings attached to this deal for mothers to be able to keep their babies for 24 months. They have to have access to facilities for counselling and for treatment. They have to undergo drug testing and participate in parenting education programmes. It is quite a big deal and those facilities might not already be in place at the current time. Time is needed; the provision has to be planned for carefully. There is nothing worse than bringing something in when we are not ready for it—it will all just fall to pieces. That is not good for morale. It is not good for anybody—certainly not for a mother with a baby up to the age of 24 months. I think it was appropriate that the select committee took that into consideration and made the amendment that the date should be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That is the way forward. Hopefully the commencement date will not be extended by a very very long time. Hopefully it will be done in a matter of months. But it is certainly the right thing to do to make sure that the right infrastructure is in place so that when mothers in prison can keep their babies up to the age of 24 months everything is set up and is there to be successful and to work. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am grateful to the member Judith Collins for raising the point about the commencement date. I would like to seek some assurance from the Minister the Hon Phil Goff—because this is a member’s bill and it is a slightly different situation from normal—about those parts of the bill where there are provisions that do not require the building of new facilities. I know there will be debate about this under clause 5 when we deal with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Substantial parts of this bill relate to what happens with mothers with babies in prison now without any necessary reference to the building of new facilities. I would hate to see as the member Judith Collins said the rest of the bill delayed indefinitely. I seek some assurance from the Minister that that will not happen. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In response to the question raised by the sponsor of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford given that agreement has been amicably reached on the amendment to the bill that deals with the problems of affordability of the provisions and about making final decisions when the impact of the new sentencing regime—hopefully keeping more women with children out of prison—is known I do not see a problem in bringing this bill into effect quite early on in the piece. I do not personally have responsibility for that so I cannot commit the Government but I think that given we have reached agreement on support for the Supplementary Order Paper in my name there are no particular reasons that I can see that would delay bringing this bill into effect other than the obvious efforts of the Opposition tonight to delay getting the bill through its Committee stage. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The commencement date has been well covered and canvassed from the aspect of having adequate facilities funded and resourced so that they can meet the needs of mothers and their babies regardless of what security status the mothers may have. There is one other thing that needs to be seriously considered which is that it is quite appropriate that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” from the point of view of the special needs and training that Department of Corrections officers will require in order to care for these babies and their mothers. 
We have to remember that all too often this House sees things in high-dimensional terms and when it comes down to providing a service sometimes our plans go awry. So from that point of view it is very appropriate that the commencement date be built around the level of ability to provide to a very high standard the training facilities needed by the staff who will be caring for these babies and their mothers while they are under the control of the Department of Corrections. I must commend the Law and Order Committee for obviously taking on board the submissions that would have pointed out that situation. The change the committee made was quite appropriate. 
I think it will be quite a challenge to attract train and retain those specialist people. It will be very important as that process goes forward—not only as we build the facilities to look after the babies and their mothers adequately but also as we make sure we have the best-practice model of how that should be conducted. Again there is a little bit of time as we see in clause 2 which states: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” I think that is very appropriate and I congratulate those people who made submissions. The select committee took them on board and we look forward to having a well-trained staff to provide that care. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take only a very short call. It is very rare to see a bill come into the House with this type of date requirement in it. It is rare for a commencement clause to state: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” rather than mention a specific date. We know why this is happening. It is because the facilities are not built. But we have to be aware that these facilities do have to be set up and they have to be managed extremely well. These facilities basically have to meet the criteria and the standards required of any other institution that currently cares for children. 
The prisons will need resources such as qualified and trained staff for when mothers are attending programmes and we know that staff resources are usually fairly rare in this particular area. The prisons will need rooms that meet the size requirements. We have to ensure that babies are kept separate from toddlers as they are in other institutions. We also have to provide some indoor and some outdoor play areas and of course there will be many other areas that have not been mentioned. These facilities will need to be added to the existing prisons and we want to see them set up and managed extremely well. This is an area that cannot afford to fail through inadequate resources and we were pleased to hear the reassurance from the Minister that those resources will be available. New Zealand First will be very keen to follow this debate through the Committee stage. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Clause 3 states that this Act amends the Corrections Act 2004. Clearly this clause is important; otherwise the bill would become an Act that would exist outside of the corrections system and that would not be of any use at all. I was pleased to hear the Minister Phil Goff deal with the issue I raised as to when this amendment to the Corrections Act would actually come into force. I was very pleased that he took the opportunity to let us know that we and the submitters were not simply wasting our time in relation to legislation that might never come into force. It is certainly a situation where I think the Corrections Act itself has had a great deal of work done on it and it is an area that is incredibly important. 
This bill is yet another step forward for the Department of Corrections in terms of the humanisation of some of the situations people find themselves in—certainly in relation to the Corrections Act which deals primarily obviously with offenders and those who are imprisoned. I think it is important to realise that although—as Mrs Chadwick said—this bill is primarily about the welfare of babies it is somewhat foolish to think that it is about only the welfare of babies. The Corrections Act itself acknowledges that this has to be not just about the welfare of babies but also about the longer-term benefit to them as children. When their mothers are incarcerated and dealt with under the Corrections Act 2004 and now its amendments their situations will be changed because they have had a better situation with their mums. Also their mothers will be changed because of the bonding and the love they have received from their children. That is really all I want to say on this particular clause. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Clause 3 of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill says that it amends the Corrections Act 2004. I experienced one of the many firsts that happen in the House when I got to speak on the same side of a debate as Sue Bradford the member in charge of the bill. I actually got to sit on the same couch as her and speak in favour of this amendment to the Act and say what it would mean for mothers and their babies. I have not spent even 3 years in the House but I have had a series of new experiences and surprises—and I hope that my future years here will see more—and one of those has been to sit with Sue and the Greens and to see the merits of this amendment to the Act and what it would mean. 
At the end of the day I saw that the bill was a good thing for babies. I took a little bit of grief from a few people who were surprised that National was actually in favour of and supporting something Sue Bradford had proposed. But I can say that we on this side of the Chamber saw it as being quite an easy thing to do. We very much saw this legislation as being not about punishing the mothers—the prison system does that in its own way—but about doing what was best for babies. 
Every piece of evidence we saw supported this amendment to the Corrections Act. It was not a hard decision to make to stand up and recognise that this legislation was about something bigger than those women being imprisoned; it was about their babies getting the best possible start. That was our feeling about it and why we are supporting it. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Clause 3 is titled “Principal Act amended” and it is appropriate that it is. The Corrections Act 2004 is not in isolation any longer because it is our intention to include babies being accommodated in prisons while their mothers are incarcerated as long as certain conditions are met. On that basis there is not such a facility within the principal Act at the moment and it is therefore quite appropriate that that be done. It is also quite relevant that this Act be amended because it keeps us in line with a lot of other Western countries. 
I pick up on a point that Judith Collins made which was very very appropriate I thought and that was the humanisation of the Corrections Act. I think that is something we need to keep foremost in our minds as we look at that principal Act as amended because as it stood there was no provision or ability to go forward and do all the things we are talking about which needed to be done around making this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill a reality. We do not actually have those facilities available. We do not have the trained staff available. Therefore it makes that much more sense that the principal Act is amended so we can look forward to this provision becoming a reality so that babies can get the best possible opportunity and so that we continue to grow as a caring and loving society. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Purpose 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is something I have spoken about a little bit already in this debate but I think it is quite worthwhile to have a look at how the purpose has actually changed as the bill has progressed through the select committee. Certainly when we first saw this bill the purpose was “breast-feeding and bonding provided that this is in the best interests of the child and that certain other conditions are met.” So it was quite clearly about breastfeeding and bonding. After the course of the select committee the purpose has been changed to being “for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met.” 
We do not have to look very far to realise that there has been acceptance that breastfeeding is not actually being promoted by this bill now; it is about feeding. It does not actually say “breast is best” which is what those of us here who are mothers were always taught. So I am a little bit concerned that breastfeeding facilities and clearly breastfeeding assistance and support need to be available. I know that some people say that that is being a bit too tough on the Department of Corrections. But I think it might also be a reality—and we accept the reality—that many of our mothers today are kicked out of hospital after only one day and in fact they never get breastfeeding established. Certainly I recall that it took about 4 or 5 days for breastfeeding to get established when I was a young mother and that is a really— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mastitis! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh do not talk to me about mastitis I say to Mrs Goudie; I could tell the member about that and the House really does not want to hear about it! 
I think it is extremely important that we acknowledge that breastfeeding is one of the problems. Clearly it is better for babies to be breastfed— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And for the mother. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —well I am not sure about that—and all the statistics and all the evidence tells us that. I think it would be so much better if we could encourage breastfeeding much more for mothers in prisons but let us be real here. If these mothers come into hospital have a baby and are kicked out within 24 hours—in other words they are moved out somewhere—how are they ever supposed to get breastfeeding established? The mothers we are talking about here are mothers who have multiple challenges in many cases so it is probably unrealistic for us to expect that there will be this push in support of breastfeeding for our mothers with their babies in prison. 
However the purpose of the bill is quite clearly to assist young children who are the children of female prisoners. I think it does not hurt to acknowledge that those young mothers will also benefit from the opportunity to continue to be active mothers to breastfeed if they can and to be actively involved with their babies. One day those mothers will come out of prison and if they have had no bonding with their babies how can we expect them to suddenly become good mothers? How are their babies supposed to react to the stranger they have not seen or if they have have seen only once a week? That is not the way in which we bring up children and clearly that will not establish bonding. So it is incredibly important that we accept that this bill is not about punishing people; it is about helping babies. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.