Volume 641 Week 52 - Wednesday 15 August 2007 
Volume 641 Week 52 - Wednesday 15 August 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Wednesday 15 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that members of the German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany led by Ms Nina Hauer are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Tuesday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order about the accountability arrangements for questions for oral answer. Standing Orders 369 and 370 are quite clear: questions can be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Questions may be put to other members relating to a bill motion or public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has charge. Dr Smith’s question yesterday related to public affairs for which only a Minister is answerable during questions for oral answer in the House. Question time is primarily an opportunity for members to hold Ministers to account. 
The member in his point of order sought a widening of this accountability to reflect the Government’s support arrangements with parties not in the Government coalition on the basis that questions may now be put to Associate Ministers. The member is correct: Associate Ministers may be asked questions but only where the Speaker has been informed by the Government that there is a delegated area of responsibility. The arrangements that the Government has with other parties concerning the development and announcement of policy do not affect the application of Standing Order 369. It is for the Government to decide which Minister is responsible. We already have Ministers from outside the Government coalition but in the particular instance the member raised no such arrangement is in place. The Minister of Energy remains the responsible Minister. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order at the earliest opportunity because I want to know whether there has been a printing error in the questions for today. Given all the hoopla and ballyhoo regarding diplomatic appointments that the National Party has engaged in all morning I was certain there was bound to be a question on the Order Paper today. Or is it just another case of all grim when it comes to the media and no substance when it comes to Parliament? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. As he is aware that is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mean to try your patience; I realise this is also not a point of order. But I would take the opportunity to signal to Mr Peters that should he like to ask himself a question and give us an answer then we would be more than happy to allow such a process to take place. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This will be the last contribution to the non - point of order and then we will get back to the business of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the National Party at this belated time to ask me a question on that matter that has caused them such great concern all morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be an additional question and indicate that if leave is granted it will be given to the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Finance Bill—Select Committee Changes 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Which aspects of the Electoral Finance Bill prompted her to make the statement that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The bill is a complex piece of legislation and the role of the select committee is to recommend desirable changes. 
John Key 
: What motivated the Prime Minister to say there are obviously going to have to be changes to the bill if she appears to have no idea what has to change or why it has to change? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday this is very important legislation and the select committee is the appropriate place for a range of issues to be debated. For example the National Party might like to debate clause 103(2) because that deals with the GST issue; and during the last campaign it was clear the National Party did not understand anything about GST and this bill is a chance for National to clear up that matter. 
Darren Hughes 
: Any there any overseas precedents for the major provisions of this bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an important question because it goes to the heart of the fact that this bill is simply an effort to try to draw New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom. If we have legislation that matches those jurisdictions I think we will be part of the mainstream. I am sure Mr Key and Mr English and others will be looking forward to the opportunity of being part of the mainstream because they place a lot of emphasis on that. 
John Key 
: Has it always been the view of the Prime Minister that there were significant issues that would need to be sorted out by the select committee; if so why was the bill introduced in its current form? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the Prime Minister has always been aware that this is a complex area and that there would be input from all parties once the bill reached the select committee. I repeat I imagine the National Party is anxious to debate clauses such as clause 103(2) because it did not understand the old law around GST and this is a chance to get it clear. 
John Key 
: Is it not the situation that the Government got the bill completely wrong in that it was trying to pull a fast one over New Zealanders but now having read the editorials around the country and realising the backlash from many people who actually support the Government it is trying to distance itself from the bill and that is why it will not explain the obvious differences? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. I know that the member would not have spent a lot of time in select committees because of his meteoric rise to the front bench and the busyness that brings to his life. But select committees are the appropriate place to have this kind of in-depth discussion about complex legislation which of course impacts on all parties. So the Prime Minister has always been aware that the select committee was an appropriate place to have that discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Seeing the issue of fairness has been put into question are there any reports thus far on this bill that suggest that the legislation should prevent one political party from advertising on radio or television at the expense of a $100000 fine on each and every occasion such as was put into law by the National Party against New Zealand First in 1993? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Simply going to the heart of the question so I do work within the responsibility of the Prime Minister I say that this bill is very much about fairness. That is absolutely right. There is the notion that people for example may be able to spend a lot of money trying to drive an election in a particular way as the Exclusive Brethren appeared to be trying to do. This bill is aimed at ensuring that everyone gets a fair deal that a vote counts and that people do not feel that someone with a lot of money is stealing an election from them. 
John Key 
: If it was obvious to the Prime Minister on Monday that changes were needed why can she not answer the very simple question about what is obvious that needs to be changed or is the situation that Cabinet simply cannot work out what is wrong in the same way it cannot work out what to do about rising interest rates rising crime and falling education standards? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the latter issues I imagine the member is simply waiting to adopt our policies at some time since they seem to be working as well as they are. On a previous question—the issue of change—I imagine the Prime Minister was very aware of the National Party’s discomfort around the GST issue for example and she would know that it would want to debate that and get it clear in the legislation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the Government’s view as to the role constitutionally of a select committee of this Parliament: is its job to rubber-stamp everything that Cabinet does or is it to hear public submissions on proposed legislation and give a fully competent report back to Parliament—which of those two roles does the Government support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is the Government’s view that select committees are a place where people go to do real work and make real changes to legislation particularly under MMP where of course select committees have become increasingly independent and have made real changes to legislation on the way through. In the case of this legislation we have a range of parties that will have strong views in relation to it; the select committee is a great place to debate those. 
John Key 
: What sort of Government is it that talks tough brings in a bill that is about one-quarter of what it promised cobbles together a majority by the most slender of margins on an Electoral Act that is something that should have bipartisan support and then when it finally gets the legislation into the House it realises it has so rapidly lost control of the whole process that it is backing away from it; or is it what all New Zealanders know—a hopeless outgoing Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is an excellent Government. It is one that wants legislation that will ensure fairness and one that wants to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to raise critical issues such as why they do not understand GST. I imagine the National Party is really keen to get that issue sorted out. 
John Key 
: If the Government has not lost control of the process and it is still sure it has the numbers why is it that on Monday the Prime Minister said that the changes needed to be made to the bill were obvious but on Tuesday and Wednesday she has not a clue what those changes are even though they were so obvious on Monday? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister has an open mind but not a vacant one. In other words she is ensuring that there is debate around this very serious subject and the member opposite I am sure is looking forward to making sure this legislation is as good and as fair as it can be. 
Schools—Enrolment Schemes 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to school enrolment schemes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report stating: “We would like to relax the school zoning”—effectively abolishing a child’s right to attend his or her local school. However I have also seen a report arguing that the removal of a child’s right to attend his or her local school would be “morally reprehensible”. The first quote comes from John Key and the second from Katherine Rich. The question is: who is calling the shots in the National Party or is this another case of “a different day a different story”? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on possible changes to school enrolment schemes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have seen a report suggesting that school enrolment schemes should be abolished to give parents more choice. However I have also seen a report suggesting that in areas where the school population is growing there may have to be limitations on choice. Both of those reports came from Bill English—another example of the National Party’s policy of “a different day a different story”. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the geographical zoning of overcrowded schools was re-legislated for in November 1998 by a National Government supported by ACT because of the disastrous outcomes of the removal of such zoning by Lockwood Smith in the early 1990s? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that it was the then National Government that introduced school zoning and that the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech was the responsible Minister. Now of course National appears to be against it. I think we have an expansion of the National principle “a different decade a different story”. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the Minister is on a maniacal crusade to uncover the truth why does he not monitor his own utterances because he was the one who promised the parents of 3 and 4-year-old children that they would “definitely get 20 hours’ free early childhood education in July” and that by the end of this year all junior classes would have no more than 15 students in them; or is this just a case of a different story on a different day? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is an excellent question. Anybody who goes back and checks will find I said that 92000 children were eligible if they were 3 to 4 years of age and in a teacher-led centre. He or she will find that our policy says that by the end of 2008 the 1:15 ratio will be in place. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports suggesting that parental choices should be limited when it comes to education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. I have seen a report suggesting that Labour’s 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy should be retained because “we want all these kids to be able to have 20 hours’ free”. However I have also seen a report suggesting “we won’t keep it”. Both of those reports came from John Key—another case of “a different day a different story”. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Definition of Electoral Expense 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Can he confirm that the definition of an election expense in the Electoral Finance Bill excludes anything done in relation to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; the bill makes it clear that where a member of Parliament is acting in his or her capacity as a member of parliament and undertaking activities consistent with that position that action falls outside the definition of candidate or party activity. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under existing law legitimate parliamentary expenditure by a member of Parliament can count as an election expense in the 3 months before the election and therefore counts as a contribution to total party campaign expenditure? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that clauses 58 and 59 of this bill are entirely consistent with the current approach taken in the Electoral Act. The member might like to refer to section 213(1)(c) for that reference. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that the changes in the law regarding the definition of an election expense as it relates to MPs will make the issuing of a pledge card quite legitimate in the next election when it was illegal in the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I ask the member Dr Smith to just for once listen to the answer before commenting on it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now tell us how his proposed bill will deal with the pledge card that was issued by the Labour Party at the last election using parliamentary money and that was found to be illegal and a breach of the spending cap because it breached current law? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill does not deal with the Parliamentary Service Act. It has nothing to do with the Parliamentary Service Act or with the spending of parliamentarians. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister so unfamiliar with this bill that he does not realise that it excludes from the definition of election expenses those expenses incurred by members of Parliament in carrying out their duties; that that is a significant change in the law; and that it is designed to allow Labour to issue a pledge card this time legally when it was illegal to do so at the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill clearly enables members of Parliament to continue to go about their rightful business as members of Parliament. Any activity undertaken as a candidate counts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the definition of political advertisement so sweeping that if someone wants to run a meeting on dog control in his or her street and invites five neighbours to it that person has to make statutory declarations in order to comply with the Act but the bill has the effect of making the Labour Party pledge card a highly political piece of propaganda legal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The first part of the question is a nonsense and the second proposition that the member raises has simply nothing to do with the scope of this bill. This bill is about election candidates and parties participating in an election campaign. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the bill propose to allow or thus far have any of the submissions made to the Minister as the Minister in charge of the legislation suggested that it is right for a political party to secretly hide away in trusts and other financial devices millions of dollars to be used in a campaign with that party’s full knowledge—of the type that saw National take $1 million from Fay Richwhite in 1990—which is totally against the spirit of the Electoral Act of this country? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have to admit that no submissions I have received and no advice I have received from anyone have sought to defend openly that practice. But it is interesting that the so-called main Opposition party seems intent on trying to distract attention from the central purpose of this bill which is the prevention of the rorting that we saw from the Exclusive Brethren with the full knowledge of Mr Key and the National Party at the last election. I am sorry to say that no amount of smokescreening will distract this Government or the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders from ensuring that that does not happen again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will it be permissible under this legislation for a third party outside of this House by the use of its electoral donation money to a political party to buy that political party’s policy-making machine the nature shape and character of which happened in 1990 with the industrial relations policy of the National Party? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise the same point of order today as I did yesterday which is that it is outside the Standing Orders for a member to allege that any member in the House has been influenced in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker before we rush to the idea that just because some members do not like the truth it is therefore a matter that cannot be raised in this House I remind you that I was on the front bench of the National Party when the Business Roundtable not only bought the policy but put two people in the National Party organisation to write the industrial relations policy. Those are the facts. Mr English can disguise the truth but the reality is that is a political party being bought off. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as the member in his question—and I was listening carefully—was not making a personal reflection then it would seem that the question was in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to be given the opportunity to explain why he sat in that group for over 2 years knowing what he knew and never bothered to resign. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given what Gerry Brownlee has said I now seek leave to give a personal explanation of precisely what I did back then. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As a member of that caucus I take personal exception to the slur; therefore under the Standing Orders it is out of order. What is more the member is not telling the truth—he was not on the front bench. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I say it is hardly credible for Dr Smith to get up and make that point when his own shadow Leader of the House prevented Mr Peters from making the very explanation that the member is now critical of not having. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. There was no personal reflection at the time and I did listen really carefully. It is time to move on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Anyone around this place with half a memory knows that I was on the front bench of the National Party sitting right there until October of 1989. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. As a member quite rightly says that is not a point of order. Most of the points of order have not been points of order and members will be accused by me of creating disorder in this House if they raise similar points in the future. It is time to move on to the substance. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member heard what I said. I have ruled on the point. It has to be a new point of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The Standing Orders are perfectly clear: if a member takes offence at an allegation made in this House then it is outside of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are perfectly clear on that. As a member of the caucus at that time I take personal offence at that outlandish allegation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Madam Speaker I submit to you that there is no such Standing Order. On occasion a Speaker’s ruling—in my view a very marginal Speaker’s ruling—has allowed one member’s word to be taken over another. There is a clear factual reference in this case and there is nothing in the Standing Orders that says that just because one member disagrees and takes offence the remark has to be withdrawn or not proceeded with. There is no such Standing Order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To clarify the matter back in 1987-89 there was a front bench of 12 members in the National Party; Lockwood Smith— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated all of you. I listened very carefully to the first question. There was certainly no personal reflection; there might have been a general statement made about a party but there was no personal reflection. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is right that members have a right to object to reflections on them but there is not a right to have contestable statements automatically ruled out of order in this House. I think the best way to proceed at this stage is for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to please rephrase his question in a way that makes it within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the member asking the question was actually on the front bench of the National Party which in those days included talks with the Business Roundtable but not with the rest of the caucus which included Dr Lockwood Smith—and that is why he does not know—is it the case that the bill will not allow a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of this place— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop living in the past old man! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who looks old over there? That member looked geriatric when he arrived. Have a look in the mirror! [ 
Interruption 
] And slightly zany and slightly nutty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please continue with his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does such a provision in the legislation allow for a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of here for money of the type shape character and nature that was behind the National Party’s industrial relations policy in the 1990s? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 371(1)(c) and ask you to reflect on that question. I think you will find that the entire content of that question breaches that particular Standing Order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I rule the question out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Seeing as the people raising the protest—namely the front bench of the National Party—were not then part of the process as they were not then on the front bench of the National Party how can they argue against my word? I was there and they were not. So Madam Speaker with respect I think you are wrong to rule me out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You may well do. Would the member please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have now had four or I think five interventions from the member none of which has been a point of order. I know that this puts you in a difficult situation because he calls for a point of order then gets up and makes a speech but I would suggest that because you have discretion over the call you have the ability not to take the member’s call if he continues to abuse the process. I do not really care what he says but no member should be able to use the point of order mechanism as a way of making a series of speeches. That has happened and I would be interested to know what action you intend to take to ensure that it does not continue or we could be here all afternoon listening to the same speech over and over again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. His point has considerable force. I tell all members in this House—several of whom on other sides of the House have also raised similar points of order that are not points of order—that I will not take any further points of order on this issue. If points of order are raised I will be asking the member who raises them to leave the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On this matter? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to raise a point of order that is new and I think I am entitled to put it. It is simply that you ruled my question out of order and I am asking now whether I can ask the question in a different way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I gave the member that opportunity and he abused it. I gave the member an opportunity to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. You get one chance. I used my discretion to do that to assist the member. You do not get another chance to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is nothing in the Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders that suggests that just because someone protests at the truth and feels personally upset by it the truth is ruled out of order. I used the phrase “the National Party” and I was talking about a front bench of the National Party of which not one member there was a member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated—[ 
Interruption 
] No the member will leave the Chamber. The member has challenged my ruling. I explicitly said we would have no more on that issue. I have ruled on it and the member is now creating disorder in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
State Services Commissioner—Ministerial Briefing 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it the case that the State Services Commissioner has a “no surprises” obligation under Public Service protocols to brief the Minister on any matters that might draw political comment; if so how can she reconcile this obligation with her previous statement that she was first informed on 3 July of employment issues involving Ms Setchell at the Ministry for the Environment that would have been known to Dr Prebble in late May? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 As I advised the House yesterday the State Services Commissioner has convened an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act 1988. This investigation will establish the facts of the matter including how well the commissioner has met his obligations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by her assertion to this House that she knew nothing of this matter until 3 July and that even though Dr Prebble Mr Logan Mr Rennie Mr Benson-Pope the Leader of the Opposition’s office Mr Hurring and whomever he might have reported to on the ninth floor of the Beehive all knew about it in late May she apparently did not hear about it until 3 July; does she stand by that advice to the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister expect us to believe that although this matter was known obviously to Mr Benson-Pope was quite clearly known to Mr Hurring and to whomever he discussed it with on the ninth floor and was known also to Dr Prebble to Mr Logan to Mr Rennie and to numerous people inside the Ministry for the Environment and numerous people inside the Beehive she as Minister of State Services had not heard of this matter and knew nothing of it until Mr Rennie told her on 3 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do because it is the truth. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister then confirm that the matters relating to Ms Setchell’s employment were never discussed in any context at any time around or near a Cabinet meeting? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no knowledge of this being raised at a Cabinet committee meeting. If other members do they can certainly say so but I have no memory of that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Further to her response to my question yesterday has she now inquired as to whether Mr Prebble kept file notes on this issue and whether those file notes were handed to Mr Rennie prior to him producing a report that she publicly endorsed on 20 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because I will wait for the outcome of the inquiry where all the facts will be looked at. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to accept that the Minister knew nothing of this matter for the entire 5 weeks between the Benson-Pope outburst and the report from Iain Rennie to the Minister what inspired her after that to ask Mr Rennie to investigate this matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: At no time did I ask Mr Rennie to investigate the matter. 
Casinos—Loans Sharking 
5.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Will he call for a broad-ranging inquiry into casinos and gambling in New Zealand following last night’s One News investigation which uncovered a loan shark operating in Skycity Casino? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that the man identified in the One News item last night has been known to the department for some time. It has been investigating his actions already. As part of Sky City’s Auckland standard operating procedures Sky City is required to report to the Department of Internal Affairs on any undesirable behaviour and specifically loan-sharking behaviour. An inquiry is under way already and officials are engaged with Sky City to establish whether the casino has met its operating requirements; if it is found that it has not swift action will be taken. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why on earth has action taken so long to take place then if the department and the police have known about this gentleman’s activities for such a long time? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The matter of conducting an investigation is left to officials not to me. They are the appropriate people to do it and they do it at a time and in a manner that they feel is appropriate to the information they have. 
Dianne Yates 
: What specific work is under way to prevent behaviour like loan sharking and money-laundering in casinos? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have directed officials from the Department of Internal Affairs to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the issues around loan sharking so that we can take a Government approach to discontinuing such predatory behaviour. The Department of Internal Affairs has been working with the police with justice with commerce and with health to ensure that we have appropriate laws and appropriate operating procedures to do our utmost to stamp out this reprehensible behaviour. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. How does the Minister explain the fact that his department’s own reports of 13 July released by him on 26 July identified that there have been numerous allegations leading to a call for a public inquiry that loan sharks were operating in casino toilets and that there was prize-draw fixing and skimming from gaming machines; and in the months since those reports were released why has he not announced an independent public inquiry to fully scrutinise any concerns related to the licensing establishment management and supervision of casinos? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The allegations about skimming and game fixing have been investigated thoroughly by the department. It has gone through all the computer records and files and found no evidence to substantiate that. Loan sharking is set down as one of the specific behaviours that is seen as undesirable and casinos are required to report on that behaviour to the department. Casinos that are in breach of that will have actions taken against them. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Are there existing laws and penalties sufficient to put an end to loan-sharking operations in conjunction with casinos; if not surely it would be more efficient to impose such a ban with appropriately stiff penalties rather than having the broad-ranging and expensive inquiry into the entire casino and gambling industry which is proposed in the principal question? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member asks whether more can be done; I think more can be done. The Department of Internal Affairs has made submissions to the Gambling Commission to require Skycity Casino for example and other casinos to have in their policies on host responsibility training specifically for staff on the detection of loan sharking a requirement to specifically exclude anybody they believe to be a loan shark and to have in place programmes to assist people who are affected by loan sharks. I am looking forward to the Gambling Commission making those requirements on casinos in New Zealand. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister whether there were existing laws and penalties to ban this activity and I do not believe that he in any way shape or form addressed that part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister addressed the question at length. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the public have confidence in the Minister and in the department when the Minister and the department say they know what is going on but loan sharks continue to operate with impunity inside the casinos flagrantly breaking the law seizing passports and causing immeasurable pain to New Zealand individuals and families? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do have confidence in the Department of Internal Affairs. The department has genuine good people to ensure that the law is enforced. If people have evidence that the law is being breached or Skycity Casino is in breach of its conditions they should report that and the department will take swift and effective action against that. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that his proposed Gambling Amendment Bill which contains only small policy amendments and many technical amendments will stop the widely known longstanding illegal behaviour in our casinos and around our pokie parlours? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The soon to be debated bill on the gambling legislation will be a vehicle if it is necessary to amend the current legislation to do exactly that. 
Question Time 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification actually. When you send a member from the House it is normal that he or she is invited back or allowed to come back after question time and I have since been informed of that. But I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that earlier on this afternoon leave was sought and agreed to that any question that I think the National Party in particular wants to put to the Rt Hon Winston Peters about events in the media this morning can be put. Can he come back during question No. 12? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If the extra question that has been given does relate to Mr Peters’ ministerial responsibilities of course he can come back. It does not necessarily have to relate to him; it could be on anything as I understand it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I am making is that if the question does come he cannot possibly answer it if he is outside the House. He needs to be here a little bit before. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree and we will all wait until he comes. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Official Information Act Request 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action if any did the Ministry of Health take when it received documents relating to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s failed community service RFP in response to an Official Information Act request to the board last year; and did any of those documents include material related to the handling of the whistleblower’s disclosures? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the ministry examined the documents around the process of cancelling the community service request for proposal. It concluded that the process had been handled in accordance with the district health board’s legal advice. The ministry has described the documents to me as being “unremarkable” and it gave them back to the district health board at the request of the district health board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that those documents in fact included matters relating to the whistleblower’s disclosures plus recollections of the various parties involved in those disclosures; and what were the conclusions of the ministry in respect of the whistleblower? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot conclude that because to the best of my recollection I never saw them. They were returned to the district health board at the request of the district health board and were not copied. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any reports regarding a statement made in the House yesterday: “lo and behold the whistleblower was the only person in the entire district health board to lose her job;”; is that statement correct? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have received a report. When I heard the statement made by Mr Ryall yesterday I decided to check it out. Through the ministry the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has advised me that there was more than one person made redundant in that staff restructure; throughout the entire district health board not one person lost a job and left the organisation but 28 of them. Seven of those 28 were in management and administration. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister refusing to answer the question of whether the ministry papers included disclosures by the whistleblower by the acting chief executive and what conclusions were drawn about those? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will just repeat gently but firmly to the House that the best of my recollection is that I did not myself see the papers. As far as the ministry is concerned it became aware of the whistleblower issue not in June or July 2006 which is the period of time this question is about but in January 2006 when the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board rang the ministry to tell it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that those papers that were made available to the Ministry of Health included matters relating to the whistleblower and the way in which she was handled; and does the Minister think that this woman was dealt with appropriately—in that she was the one person who blew the whistle on what was going on there and then she was eventually moved on by the very people she had blown the whistle on? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I just draw to the attention of the House that yesterday the person who asked the question of me—the same person who is asking it now—framed the question in order to leave a misleading impression with the House. It was in order to leave a misleading impression. The truth of the matter is that the whistleblower issue is being looked at by the independent review team. That team has spoken to the whistleblower and has spoken to other people who interviewed the whistleblower. They have examined— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How do you know that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —because they told the director-general who told me—they have examined the papers around the issue. They will report in a fair reasoned and considered manner in due course to the director-general who will report to me and I will make that information public. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can this be an independent inquiry when the panel chosen by the Director-General of Health will report to the Director-General of Health and when the same Director-General of Health in looking at all the papers has already said that there was “nothing remarkable” about the events surrounding this? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It would be a good idea for the member not to impugn the integrity of senior health players in this country at random. It is not a good idea. 
Hon Member 
: He does it all the time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes exactly—one after the other. The member says: “This corporate lawyer” “That DHB chair” “That person who used to be a chief executive at a district health board in an earlier time” and so on implying that these people somehow are not independent. They have very free and open terms of reference. They are people who have been appointed to various positions by both Governments in some cases. Therefore it seems to me that a good thing to do might be to leave them unmolested and see what they come up with. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an email from David Ritchie the chairman of the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Document not tabled. 
Iraq—New Zealand Troops 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What new reports has he received on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have seen the transcript of a Radio Dunedin interview last Friday with Mr Key. In the interview Mr Key explained his statement of 11 February 2003 where he had said he was prepared to commit the SAS and combat troops to Iraq in response to a request from the United States as follows: “The comments they are referring to were comments of me saying effectively ah as I might add a junior—the 27th out of 27; the most junior backbencher in 2003—to my local community newspaper.” That may have been the excuse but it does not explain why he told  
Campbell Live 
 on 28 May 2007—and continues to say—that it had never been his personal view to support sending troops to Iraq. That denial is obviously untrue and misleading and he should simply come clean and admit that. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House of what else the report states? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report quotes Mr Key as now claiming that even though he supported the war in Iraq he would not have sent troops there. Again that statement last Friday contradicts his earlier statements and that statement must be misleading and must be untrue. But he also said in the  
Rodney Times 
 on 11 February 2003: “New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values it believes in.” He is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence. Will the Minister please now complete his answer as succinctly as possible in silence so that we can all hear it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Key having said that New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values that it believes in is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. That position would be regarded by friends and allies of New Zealand as a rather gutless one as opposed to not being there for reasons of not supporting the war. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table two relevant documents. The first is a media release this afternoon from Air New Zealand explaining that the mainly Government-owned Air New Zealand sent two charter flights of Australian troops to Kuwait. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I also seek leave to table a release also of this afternoon from  
Investigate 
 magazine saying that the Government was consulted on the sending of Australian— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] My question is to the Minister for Building and Construction— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Show some guts. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Get a life Trevor! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members you will both be leaving the Chamber with this chipping going on. Please be quiet. Would the member please continue with his question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. There is too much disorder with these comments from all sides which then create disorder. We will hear the question in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is always a starting point to disorder and the comments made by Trevor Mallard are just totally unacceptable. They are extremely out of order. We cannot expect that someone standing up to ask a question should have to listen to that sort of comment and make no comment in return. It is unreasonable. Mr Mallard should be asked to apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. It has been going on all afternoon so it now finishes. Would the member please ask his question. 
Housing—Affordability 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What if anything is the Department of Building and Housing doing to improve housing affordability? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 The Department of Building and Housing is working in partnership with a number of agencies in developing a range of housing affordability proposals including the investigation of shared equity. This is part of the Government’s wider work programme on housing affordability. Specifically the department has introduced changes to the building code on energy efficiency. It will save families in new homes between $760 and $1800 per year on their energy bills. The department is progressing a suite of reforms to transform the building sector. The reforms include occupational licensing for building practitioners the building code review and the accreditation of building consent authorities. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the example of sustainability that the Minister has given why under his policy has Mr Leigh Marshall an Auckland architect who wants to install a standard $5000 solar water-heating system in his home been billed $3800 for consent costs; and does this not confirm that building compliance costs are completely out of control? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Firstly the building consent costs the member refers to are determined by local authorities but recently I announced new compliance document guidance information that means that installing solar water heating technology will be made easier. In the past building consent authorities—that is local councils—had to examine each project on its merits leading to delays and unnecessary costs. We have published the new compliance document on solar heating installations. This in turn will lower the costs of installing the technology by as much as 10 percent or $500 and will remove an important barrier to the adoption of the technology. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How has the new Building Act and the new department helped home affordability when according to the Registered Master Builders Federation in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 it has increased compliance costs levies and fees by a whopping 30 percent or $42000 per house? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The new rate of building levy from February 2005 is $1.97 per $1000 of building work. Formerly it was 67c per $1000 of building work. That means that a levy on a $250000 build is under $500 and on a $1 million build it is under $2000. I say to the member that it is a requirement and I want to quote that member’s comments in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 25 September 2006: “We need to develop a programme for systematically reviewing all building standards to ensure they represent best practice. We then need to make these standards far more accessible to the public and building sector. The sensible way to fund this exercise is the building levy charged on all building consents.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it any wonder that building costs have gone through the roof when the Wellington City Council stated in Monday’s  
Dominion Post 
: “A typical house plan four years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 supporting pages. Developers are now required to file 12 A3 pages and up to 300 pages of supporting documentation.” and with that sort of paper war is it any wonder that homeownership rates are falling through the floor? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: One of the reasons why we require auditing and accrediting of local authorities is that firstly we have a buoyant economy which means more builds; secondly that means an extraordinary number of consent applications; and thirdly it means that we need to ensure that local authorities have the staff—as in the Palmerston North City Council which almost doubled its staff from 12 to 20—to meet that demand to ensure that their processes are efficient and to ensure that they have resources and their inspectors are doing their jobs properly. That is simple organisational reform. Rather than simply saying we should do something about it we are ensuring councils are up to speed and are actually meeting those demands. That comes at a cost and councils are charging that cost. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should the public have any confidence that this Government can improve home affordability when the latest census data shows it has dropped by 1 percent in every year that Labour has been in Government and a report today predicts that under current Government policy homeownership will tumble over the next 10 years to the lowest level in the OECD? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am very proud of what the Government has done to assist home affordability unlike that party previously in Government. The facts are these: income-related rents for State houses an increased accommodation supplement KiwiSaver the Welcome Home Loan scheme the shared equity scheme to be examined and the Home Ownership Education Programme. They are facts and programmes that are now in place. The member should also recall that we are in a buoyant economy and that is why we have a large number of consents. People are embarking on house builds and house purchases because they have money in their pockets. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table an email from architect Mr Marshall stating he has still not received his consent. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To illustrate the burgeoning paper war I seek the leave of the House to table a building consent for a standard house prior to the Minister’s Building Act. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Practitioners—Fees 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the average annual cost of visiting a general practitioner? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have and the costs have all gone down: from $940 a year for an average family to $440 a year. In other words they have halved. The question that is unanswered however is whether under National they would then double. 
Maryan Street 
: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care under Labour? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes they certainly can. I can assure the House that under a Labour-led Government from 2008 access to a general practitioner or to a prescription will remain at the affordable levels that we have now achieved. I repeat that the unanswered question is whether under National the costs of that would then double. 
Crime—Prevention and Reduction Initiatives 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House earlier this year that since 2005 “A number of significant and long-term crime prevention and reduction initiatives have been put in place”? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can he confirm that the crime reduction Ministers group which in his words established priorities for Government action to reduce crime last met on 23 June 2003—in the midst of youth violence up 44 percent youth sex offending up 23 percent and all robberies up 49 percent? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that the work that was done by that group was then implemented and is continuing to be so. I give the member an example—the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design programme in which 27 councils have received funding for projects including one in Wanganui. I am surprised the member is not familiar with it. The Vehicle Crime Reduction Programme in Rotorua is a good example. The member for Rotorua has told me herself about the success—a 22.4 percent reduction as a result of that programme. The community and youth at risk programme has 40 projects funded. The sexual violence task force has a raft of initiatives under effective interventions. I do not think Madam Speaker will allow me to go on through the rest of my list. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury has slammed the crime reduction strategy as having “no particular focus on stopping intergenerational crime or consideration of the role of early interventions in areas such as education health income support and housing”; and what good is a crime reduction strategy that does not try to reduce crime? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm to the contrary that the various aspects of the crime reduction strategy are in fact working. As the example I gave him just a moment ago in Rotorua there has been a 22.4 percent reduction in offences around vehicle crime in that city as a result of that particular intervention. The sexual violence task force is important work. The community and youth at risk programme has 40 projects. We have seen massive reductions as a result of the Crossroads initiative in Whakatane—just one of those 40. There are many many examples and it is sad that that member is not prepared to back them and acknowledge the good work being done in our communities. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can he confirm that one of the seven priorities under the crime reduction strategy is organised crime and that until the shooting of Jhia Te Tua the last paper he received relating to gangs was entitled  
A Stocktake on What is Known About Organised Crime 
 dated March 2005 before the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot confirm that I received that paper; I was not the Minister before the last election. However I can confirm that this Government has done extensive work within the criminal justice system around the whole area of organised crime. It is certainly the initiatives that have been taken by this Government despite the failed efforts of the previous National Government that have made a positive difference but the new initiatives will make many many more. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the Law Commission is responsible for seven bills that have recently been before the House plus another seven bills in the pipeline; if so can the Minister tell the House what he actually does all day? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member should put questions on the Law Commission’s work programme to the very busy Minister responsible for the Law Commission who of course is also me. So one of the things— 
Simon Power 
: Then answer it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well the member Chester Borrows put the question to me as Minister of Justice but I will tell the member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear. I have had interventions to make sure that order is maintained in the House. I ask members on the National side of the House also to please do so. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Despite the member being confused as to whom he should address his question I can say that it is sort of asked and answered. If he is so impressed with the workload of the Law Commission he should understand that as the responsible Minister I am directly involved in the creation of that work programme and the management of it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is appalling if you allow that to stand as an answer. It addressed the question but to simply try to confuse ministries and defuse an answer that way is trifling with the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I should have enforced the Standing Orders and said the question was out of order because it was not addressed to the Minister in his capacity under that ministerial responsibility and that is what is required. However I thought the House might wish the question to be addressed and the Minister was pleased to do so. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows that the crime reduction— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows the last paper he received— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question that shows youth offending— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well they don’t want to have private— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that member wishes to stay in the House he will not interject during points of order. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table three documents: the recommendation of the 2004 Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence to establish inter-agency— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table a paper to the Minister of Justice stating they had failed to get funding for the original inter-agency group— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the announcement 3 years later of the establishment of an inter-agency group on sexual violence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table two documents: the recommendation for the 2004 Safer Communities Action Plan— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s announcement 3 years later explaining— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table a quotation from the Minister of Women’s Affairs Lianne Dalziel last year stating that the Government has taken its eye off the ball— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Treasury report that slams the crime reduction strategy as having no— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Minister’s office that states: “There is no Government funding”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the Law Commission— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: Could the measure of the Minister’s success in long-term crime reduction initiatives be well portrayed by the fact that serious youth offending—that is offending by 14 to 16-year-olds—is up 39 percent almost 40 percent and that latest statistics show that of all apprehensions nationwide 43 percent of them are of young people aged 10 years to 20 years of age; is that the measure of success in his crime reduction initiatives? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the proper measure of success is the outcome of the many initiatives being put in place or that have been put in place already. Those will each in turn be properly evaluated. That will be the proper measure of success. 
Immigration Act—Custody 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many people who have been held for more than 3 months are currently in custody under any provision of the Immigration Act 1987 broken down by country of birth? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that there are currently four persons who have been in custody under the Immigration Act for more than 3 months. I am advised that Immigration New Zealand does not collect statistics on a person’s country of birth but does collect them on nationality. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in his answer to written question No. 8500: “Where the duration of custody is longer than three months this is due to the non-co-operation of the individual concerned in obtaining the required documentation.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the answers to parliamentary written questions that were given to the member certainly were correct at the time they were given. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister comment on the likely consequences of upholding ad hoc humanitarian appeals to the Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The likely consequence would be nothing less than a dismantling of the entire immigration system. New Zealand has a world-leading refugee appeal system which is strengthened in the new bill that I introduced last week. New Zealanders understand that there is no point in having a clear independent appeals process if we then act to undermine it. Of course one can have the utmost sympathy for individuals but these cases are extremely complicated and they are best decided not in the court of public opinion but by the appropriate appellate body which is in possession of all of the facts. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Government trying to deport some of the people referred to when the Government admits that those people will be persecuted back home—namely Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity—and does the Minister agree that it was totally inhumane for one of these men Ali Panah to be handcuffed in Auckland City Hospital while gravely weakened after 33 days of a hunger strike? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are a number of questions in that question; I shall answer a couple of them. Firstly in respect of handcuffs I am advised that Immigration Service officers do not carry handcuffs. Secondly in respect of the reason why people can be held in custody I am advised that there are two reasons why people can be held in custody for longer than 3 months pending removal. The first is failure to cooperate with a lawful removal process and the second is making a refugee claim after being served with a removal order under section 66 of the Immigration Act 1987. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before we have another supplementary question I remind those members who have shifted from the back row to the front row that they will not use that position to interject; otherwise they will be leaving the Chamber. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm—did I hear him correctly—that only four people have been held in custody here for over 3 months; if so will he advise the House of what happened to the others who were in custody because his answer to written question No. 8500 referred to a good deal more than four; can I take it that those people have been deported and if not will the Minister advise what has happened to them? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that the number that the member was given in an answer to a written question was accurate at the time it was given to him. I do not have a case by case breakdown of the changes but I am advised that a number of those people have indeed been deported some have been removed and some have had a change in their status as a result of judicial action. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a speech made by the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations Rosemary Banks. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Biosecurity New Zealand—Confidence 
12.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Does the Minister have confidence in Biosecurity New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yes and at a much higher level than any confidence I or this House could ever have in the spokesperson on biosecurity from the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that last comment was necessary. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does the Minister support the proposal to allow chilled pork meat into New Zealand or will he listen to international expert Professor Roger Morris who has strongly opposed that proposal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: For porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome to infect our local commercial pork industry an almost impossible chain of events would have to occur. It is so unlikely that the risk to New Zealand pork producers is considered to be negligible by reputable national and international scientists. 
Lesley Soper 
: Why does the Minister not intervene in this matter? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Under the Biosecurity Act passed by a National Government in 1993 it is quite properly inappropriate for me to influence Import Health Standards. Decisions on such standards are properly determined by the director-general of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry following expert scientific evaluation and a public consultation process. Political interference in the objective decision-making process on Import Health Standards is totally inappropriate and is completely contrary to our broader trading interests. If the member is suggesting that there should be political interference in our biosecurity apparatus then New Zealand’s agricultural and horticultural exporters have everything to fear from a National Government if that is what National is proposing. 
Shane Ardern 
: At the conclusion of my questions I will seek leave to table section 63 of the Biosecurity Act which was amended in 1998— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can do that at the time. Would the member please ask his supplementary question. 
Shane Ardern 
: I will give the Minister a chance to check it out. Why would the Minister play Russian roulette with the potential of importing porcine reproductive respiratory disease when Professor Morris who is recognised internationally as an expert in this field and is currently seconded to the UK to help it with its foot-and-mouth outbreak has stated that this is a very high-risk proposal with a high probability of importing this disease which to the pork industry is the equivalent of foot-and-mouth disease? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: With respect to Professor Morris I say that he has a long and close association with the pork industry. There is nothing wrong with that but the import risk analysis conducted on this issue was peer reviewed by seven independent New Zealand and international experts. I understand that Scott Dee professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota and Scott Hurd the director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification in Foods of Animal Origin either agreed with the risk analysis or indicated that we had overestimated the risk. There are expert views of course on all sides and Biosecurity New Zealand has had to make a rational decision after balancing all of the views and risks. I support it in doing so without political interference. 
Lesley Soper 
: Why is the science-based approach to biosecurity important to New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is strongly in the interests of New Zealand’s primary producers that we support a risk-based approach to trade based on sound science. I suspect that National MPs such as Lockwood Smith David Carter and Tim Groser support a science-based approach to trade but every few months they let Mr Ardern have question No. 12 in order to run some kind of alarmist shock horror story—as he did when he drove up the steps of Parliament on a Massey Ferguson tractor. 
Shane Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will allow the Minister a chance to correct his last statement because I think he may have misled the House. It was actually a Ferguson tractor not a Massey Ferguson tractor. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his question. 
Shane Ardern 
: If the Minister thinks the risk is low then is he prepared to put his money where his mouth is and cover any costs that may be incurred by the industry if this virus were to be accidentally imported and if that is not the case why is it reported that the Minister or his officials have stated to the industry that it will be the industry’s problem or issue to police the feeding of raw pork meat to pigs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Firstly this is not a decision of the Minister’s and whatever the Minister’s opinion may or may not be of it we have a science-based evidence-based process for biosecurity in this country. I would like to hear from the leadership on the front bench of the National Party as to whether those members propose to change that at the whim of Mr Ardern from the backbenches. There is no such thing as no biosecurity risk; that is quite simply unachievable. The closest we could come to that is to close our borders entirely but even then biosecurity risks would come by the oceans or the wind. If Mr Ardern has some way of stopping those two elements I would like to hear from him. 
Shane Ardern 
: I seek leave of the House to table section 63 of the Biosecurity Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. Leave has been denied. 
Air New Zealand—Australian Troops 
13.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Can the Minister confirm that following consultation with the Government Air New Zealand which is 80 percent owned by the Government has recently been flying Australian combat troops who are on deployment to Iraq and how does that fit with Government policy to have nothing to do with combat troops in Iraq or is this some kind of covert foreign policy of plausible denial? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a question for which the Minister of Defence has no responsibility; it is wrongly addressed. 
Hon Bill English 
: The Minister of Defence has already issued a press statement—several hours ago actually—covering this issue in some detail. When we were trying to work out who to ask there was no evidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs knew anything about it or knew what was going on and it is unlikely he would have remembered if he had been told. But the Minister of Defence had put out a press statement and we had no choice but to direct the question to the Minister who knew what was happening. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect that is not a point of order. If the member wants to bandy around insults well anybody can do that but Madam Speaker you should have stopped him in his tracks when he first started 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister of Defence has no responsibility he may transfer the question or he may address it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I was advised shortly before coming to the House that an article is to be produced tomorrow that suggests Air New Zealand undertook a commercial contract to transfer troops from Australia to Kuwait. I understand that if the Australian troops were going to Kuwait then almost inevitably they would have been headed for Iraq. It is not this Government’s position to support such an action by Air New Zealand and in fact Air New Zealand’s action I think is contrary to the wishes and to the views of this Government and maybe this House. However the member will be aware that under the Companies Act it is not within the power of the Minister of Finance to direct Air New Zealand on commercial matters. However it is within the power of this Government to make it absolutely clear to Air New Zealand that its actions as a flag carrier of New Zealand are inappropriate and I intend to do that this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are no supplementary questions. We have come to the end of the time for questions for oral answer. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult to hear. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to ask the Minister a supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought is there any objection? Yes there is. 
General Debate 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. One of the things we all learn very quickly in politics is that we do not set out an agenda that raises the hopes of people and then spend our time not delivering on those promises. That is one of the things we learn very quickly in politics. 
When members on this side of the House came into power in 1999 we came into the ruins of the National Government of the 1990s. It was like coming into a smoking city after it had been run across by tanks after the Second World War. There were just little bits of National members poking up here and there as they waved their little white flags saying: “We have had enough! We have been here for 9 long years. Please liberate us from Government because we have raised hopes so often and we have failed to deliver so often that the people of New Zealand want to see us elected to Opposition.” Of course that is what they got for their wishes. 
On this side of the House over the last very short 8 years we have been focusing on saying what we will do and doing exactly what we say. We have a manifesto-driven Government. If anybody wants to know what Labour is doing he or she can just go to the manifesto and look and the next promise will roll off the production line. We are a party and we are a Government working with our outstanding coalition partner Mr Jim Anderton and working with the wonderful support of parties like United Future New Zealand First the Maori Party and the Green Party. The only party that does not do the right thing of course is the National Party as those members sit over there on the other side of the House. But we have worked our way through success during that time. 
The National Party likes to say that it is luck—8 years of luck. National had 9 years of no luck whatsoever so I guess if you want to stick with the lucky party you support something over here. During that time we have built up a record of economic success social progress and a sense of national identity where people are bursting with pride for their country. Even John Key came home to be part of all this. Even John Key came home to be part of the huge success of our nation. We are committed now to the sustainable development of this nation. 
In the National Party panic is setting in. National has had the honeymoon. You hear the nervous laughter coming through. Panic is setting in from the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Here we go Mr Brownlee—panic setting in. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is far from panic setting in. This is actually a reasonable speech for that Minister but unfortunately it is being ruined by the fact that he appears to have forgotten in all these many years he has spent in this place that it is inappropriate to bring you into the debate. He has done it on no fewer than six occasions in the last 4 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes he has and for one of his experience I would not have expected it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I shock myself at times I know. 
The panic is settling in. As I look across to the front bench I can see the nervous shuffle going on and I can see the panic in what is being said. You know National members now cannot hold a story from one day to the next—talk about panic! Is it not amazing to watch Mr Key over there just about disappear into the leather every time the Iraq story is raised? He said one thing and then he said another. On the housing issue we have heard the same kind of thing. One day Mr Key said that first home buyers’ aspirations would be met and the next day he said there should be no development at Hobsonville. Members can look at the example of the therapeutics legislation. One day Mr Key said he has full support for the therapeutics bill the next day he said National would not support it and then he said: “If you give us a pen we will sign it.” 
National’s stance on the climate change story is an amazing kind of story. In the old days Mr Key said he absolutely did not believe in global warming and then we heard him on 6 November saying: “I firmly believe in climate change”— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: And always have! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —”and I always have believed in exactly that kind of thing.” He said that he did not want to change Working for Families then he did want to change it. He said of superannuation that he supported it then he said that he did not support it. On school zoning he said that he wanted it and then Katherine Rich said: “You don’t want it.” Then he said that he did want it and she said that that was morally reprehensible. Who is actually saying the same thing day after day in the National Party? 
I think that these questions have to be put to the National Party: what does National stand for? Will National members say anything to anybody? Do they say the things that they heard when they talked to the last person they met? Do they actually have anything to contribute? The chance to contribute comes today in this debate with a 5-minute speech. I challenge any of the National speakers to give us one idea—one concrete cost-able put-into-place idea that we can debate with them. [ 
Interruption 
] That will do. Mr English is eager to get up. David Carter over there is eager to rise but Gerry Brownlee is not so keen. I want to hear one cost-able real implement-able idea from the National Party today so that we know it stands for something. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Let us just review the last couple of weeks in the life of a Labour Government that believes it has the confidence of this House under apparently a Prime Minister who is on top of everything. Labour has sacked one of its rising-star Ministers after 2 weeks of damaging publicity about his dishonesty and the Government’s dithering. The head civil servant—the head of the New Zealand civil service—is now embroiled in investigating himself as well as other senior civil servants for questionable statements and articles made in respect of the sacking of the said rising-star Minister. 
Today we hear that the national airline which is 80 percent owned by the Government has been involved in carrying Australian troops to the Iraqi war—an Iraqi war that the Government is opposed to—with the knowledge of Government officials and perhaps Government Ministers. That is yet to be established. This is a foreign policy embarrassment on a scale we have not seen for years. 
They are only three things. We also have the Government facing humiliating defeat on its Electoral Finance Bill. After 18 months of aggressive talk about how the bill would change everything during which the bill has been considered in detail by Cabinet now that the bill is in the public arena no one supports it except New Zealand First and the Greens and now the Government is going to toss the Minister of Justice to the dogs and blame him. 
All of this has happened in 3 weeks and these are only the issues we know about. This has all happened in 3 weeks under Helen Clark. She is deeply involved with each one of these issues: the sacking of the Minister; the problems with the chief civil servant Mark Prebble and the others; the foreign policy to which she has pinned her name so strongly and concerning which she has been undermined by her Ministers officials and her own airline; and the Electoral Finance Bill which she pathetically tried to say on Monday was nothing to do with her. She chaired the Cabinet meeting. She issued the instructions to the Labour strategists who wrote that bill. On Monday she said that the bill obviously needed changes and after 2 days of questioning she cannot say one respect in which she believes the bill needs to change. 
I want to say to the Speaker and to the House that it is hard to believe that Helen Clark and the rotting Labour Party have the confidence of this House. Now that the Government has six different agreements it is reduced to sending a member of Parliament for New Zealand First—a competent member who will do a good job—off to be High Commissioner in the Cook Islands so that Labour can stay as the Government. That is what is happening. 
Then today the leader of New Zealand First wittingly or unwittingly is caught up in the biggest foreign policy debacle that this Parliament has seen. Foreign policy is actually almost all bipartisan these days—almost all bipartisan. The way that Helen Clark is going to deal with this is to muzzle all the criticism. She will cast a legal drift-net that will catch every single criticism even if it is from the parents’ committee of the local creche. If members of such a committee are campaigning for more funding for the next year they will have to make statutory declarations and/or register with the Government if they want to criticise Steve Maharey’s free early childhood education policy. 
Helen Clark saw that legislation. She ticked it off. She told her Minister to put it before Parliament and she is responsible. How pathetic is it that the Prime Minister who is meant to be on top of everything is now saying it is nothing to do with her? She said that Labour stands by the principle of a level playing field. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The previous speaker Bill English deserves all the support he can get from his colleagues because we have just heard a speech from the man who was the least successful National Party leader in New Zealand’s history. He led National to its worst electoral result since the 1930s. Such is the poverty of leadership in the National Party that Bill English has been put back on the front bench next to John Key the man whose vote saw him lose the leadership the first time and the man whom Bill English deeply resents and wants to remove. That is the truth of it. 
Let us dissect what Bill English had to say. The first thing he had the temerity to raise was the question of troops being sent from Australia by Air New Zealand. The debate that has been happening in this Chamber I say to Mr English has been about the National Party’s desire to send New Zealand troops to Iraq which is what John Key would have done if he had been in a position to do so 3 years ago. 
Then Mr English talked about honesty. What about the honesty of Mr Key who said and is on record as saying he would have sent troops to Iraq but now denies that he would ever have done so? That is dishonest and that is misleading. All John Key had to do was to get up and say: “I got it wrong. My judgment was absolutely inappropriate. I apologise to New Zealand and I’ve changed my mind.” But he did not do that. Why did he not do that? It is because that did not fit into National Party members’ contrived spin about how they want to place themselves. We have an Opposition that demands the resignation of people for misleading the public when their own leader has been caught out being dishonest and was as recently as last Friday on record as saying he never would have sent troops to Iraq when clearly he said he would. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been numerous occasions in this House over the last 4 years or so where the National Party Opposition has been pulled up for making a point about Helen Clark’s signing of a painting Helen Clark’s sitting in the back of a car going at enormous speeds across the plains of Canterbury— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point is that on all those occasions the Prime Minister took a position that we thought was somewhat dishonest and we often referred to her as a liar only to be told that such a comment was unparliamentary. In that regard quite clearly and regardless of the fact that actions have been taken by the Government in this matter Mr Goff is quite out of order in his speech. We should have an apology for those— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s because you can’t drive a car from the back seat. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Deputy Speaker is this a point of order or not? The shifty-looking Minister of State Services over there— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no—it might have been a point of order but you are fast drifting off it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point is that we think Mr Goff should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is probably a separate point of order afterwards because you did not pull up the member when he repeated some out of order statements himself as part of his point of order. Things would have been quite rightly ruled out of order previously. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. Mr Goff did I hear you mention the word “liar” just before you sat down? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I did. I withdraw Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Could you withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I apologise and withdraw Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. That takes care of that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: John Key had the chance this afternoon to stand up in response to the question asked of him and to explain himself justify himself and excuse himself. He did not stand up and not one of his colleagues took a call to defend the integrity of John Key—not one. They know that what John Key said last Friday yet again is untrue and deliberately misleads the public. They know that. It is very clear. There are double standards from Opposition members who demand resignations from everybody else but do not apply those same standards of integrity and honesty to themselves. 
What John Key has demonstrated in the last couple of weeks is his inexperience his lack of judgment and the fact that he flip-flops. He is the man who said climate change was a hoax and the next minute he said we need to do more to resolve it. I do not object to a member changing his mind over time and gaining a bit of experience and a bit more judgment. But John Key did it again on climate change did he not? He said: “I’m in favour of doing things to stop climate change. I’m against global warming and always have been.” We know that is not true. He said it was a hoax and now he says he has always been against it. Twice he has been caught out not telling the truth and this man would have the country believe that he is fit to be Prime Minister! 
I think that one of the most important judgments made by this Labour Government was to keep New Zealand out of being entrapped in the war in Iraq. I am proud of the judgment that was shown then. John Key is now saying that now he knows the way the war has gone he would not have wanted to be there. We do not want a man with the judgment of hindsight. We want as Prime Minister a woman who made the right judgment at the time together with her Cabinet. We knew that it was not appropriate to send troops to Iraq. The fact that we did not do so is probably respected by our friends and allies who did but what they will not respect is John Key who gets up and says we should fight for the values we believe in and who is now saying that well actually National believed in those values but it was up to the other side to send troops and they would not have done it. I know that our friends and allies would despise that comment. That is a comment that shows a lack of courage of one’s convictions. It is one thing to be against the war but it is another thing to say one is in favour of it but somebody else should fight it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. A member may not imply any member or party lacks courage and I think you did Mr Goff—not quite directly but just withdraw the remark please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this is a very unusual thing to do with you in the chair Mr Deputy Speaker but on many occasions the phrase “courage of convictions” has been used in this House and to the best of my knowledge it has not been ruled out before. It is a phrase that members do use. It is a challenge to people to stand up for what they believe in and I ask if you are making that ruling that it not be done in a precedent-setting way. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am not making a ruling; I have made my ruling. But I thank the member for his comments. I have made my ruling. I did not like the remark so that action is finished. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand way is that when we believe in something we commit to it. New Zealand under a Labour-led Government believed in stopping terrorism in Afghanistan and we made that commitment. It is not the New Zealand way to say: “I believe in it. We should be there.” then to say: “But we’re not going to be there. Somebody’s going to fight it for us.” I go back to what I was saying. What I really object to is that John Key misled the country. There is no doubt about it. He has not apologised or withdrawn for doing that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have a simple question for this House and I am sure— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge you—you will have an order of speakers in front of you—but it is most unusual that there are two Government speakers one after the other. It could be that that is the only way they can have any effect these days but could you advise us of the appropriateness of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You have raised a procedural matter but I think the Opposition might enjoy being able to rebut two Government members instead of just one. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I have one simple question for this House today. Is the problem with National one of credibility or is it one of confusion? Is it too much of one and not enough of the other? Well I think that is the answer. There is too much confusion and not enough credibility. We have heard for the last week how John Key has been totally and utterly confused about his position on Iraq. Did he support New Zealand participating in the war in Iraq and what indeed does he support now? We are totally and utterly confused—just as he is confused—but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. 
But it is not just Mr Key who is confused. On 1 May 2004 Mr Power said at the National Party conference as National’s spokesperson on defence: “The National Party has always been international in its outlook. Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain whenever and wherever our commitment is called upon.” Does Simon Power now support New Zealand being in Iraq? That is the question I ask of him. What is his response? Nothing. He is absolutely silent. Simon Power is also confused. Does he support New Zealand being in Iraq or does he not? 
But it is not just those two front-bench members. Last week in the House we had the Hon Dr Nick Smith confused as well. He got up in a debate and said: “What I really find interesting is the number of questions the then Labour Opposition asked me during my period of 18 months as Minister of Corrections. Do members know how many questions it asked me? Zero.” That is what he said in this House and he misled this House. I found his statement unbelievable so I went back and checked  
Hansard 
 and found that we had asked three questions of that member. Three is not zero. So the question is: was Nick Smith also confused just as Simon Power has been confused and just as John Key has been confused or is it an issue of credibility? 
I put it to members that the issue is one of credibility because nothing that the front bench of the National Party says can be trusted—nothing. National members cannot be trusted in what they say about Iraq or about housing. We cannot trust any policy statements from Mr Key or any one of his front-bench members second-tier members—including Anne Tolley—or backbench members. None of them can be trusted because not only do they not have policy not only are they unsure what they stand for but they do not know what they said and they do not know what to say. That it is total confusion I believe is the nicest thing we can say. 
In the end it is an issue of credibility. Labour will be quite happy to go to the people of New Zealand next year and stand on the issue of credibility because what we say is what we do. If the National Party and John Key as its leader continue to go around New Zealand and make statements do a U-turn on those statements and then be unclear about what was said what will the country think of the National Party? Well I think we will find out at the next election. 
I will take a brief moment to mention Simon Power the National spokesperson on corrections. He is the man who stated that he does not ever want to be the Minister of Corrections. We will be happy to know that he will not be either because National members will not get into those ministerial roles. The only thing that Simon Power has really said that I believe is that National will privatise corrections and the prison system in this country. I believe that—I really do—because National has tried it before. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We will do a better job than you do now. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh the member says that National did a better job. National claimed that the Auckland Central Remand Prison was cheaper to run when it was privatised. That was rubbish. Like most things National said that was rubbish. In fact that prison is a clear example of the public system delivering prison management in this country that is not only fairer and more ethical but also cheaper. I will ask Mr Power before he makes any other statements to look at the experience of Victoria over the Tasman where private prisons have been brought back into the public system. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 That contribution was from Damien O’Connor. With Benson-Pope gone the media are now running a sweepstake on who will be next to go. My bet is it will be Damien O’Connor and he will not only lose his job as a Minister but at the next election lose his seat of West Coast - Tasman which will be taken by Chris Auchinvole of the National Party. It has been a tremendously bad couple of weeks for Labour: the sacking of Benson-Pope; Mark Prebble under suspicion; the electoral reform legislation unravelling; and then today we heard that Air New Zealand has now become a military carrier for the Aussie troops. 
But I want to talk about something that I saw leading the news last night on Television One. It was of course the revelation that the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia has now reached 106 a day on average. I went back and had a look at some comments that the Prime Minister made when she was the Leader of the Opposition. She said this about the number of people crossing the ditch: “We can no longer stand back and watch our best and brightest leave and take their ideas and now even their business with them. … That means it is time to act.” That is what Helen Clark said in 1999. Then I recalled that remarkable night of the 1999 election. The then soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton came on TV and almost in a Martin Luther King model talked about those young New Zealanders overseas with talent and skill: “Come home and rebuild the nation.” 
Have we heard Mr Anderton utter much since then as the number of people who leave this country permanently and go to Australia has continued to increase? They go for a number of reasons. Some of them probably go to dodge the Minister of Foreign Affairs “Bauble” Winston Peters. But a good number go because they earn substantially more money over there and because the tax rates here are too high. For seven Budgets in a row Michael Cullen has effectively increased tax rates in all of them. Compare that with what Peter Costello has managed to do in Australia. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You were told all that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: In one of Winston Peters’ numerous trips overseas he should find out what is happening. Peter Costello has driven taxes down for the last five Budgets so New Zealanders who choose to go on a flight of 3 hours to settle in Australia can earn 50 percent more than they do here. It is now getting to a crisis point. 
The other topic I want to cover briefly is of course the way the Labour Government is gerrymandering into this Parliament electoral reform legislation expressly designed so that it can have access to taxpayers’ money to spread its message but more specifically to make sure that the National Party has trouble getting its messages out to the voters. It is hitting not only the National Party but also organisations like Federated Farmers which have already had to campaign against the “fart tax” the microchipping of farm dogs and Helen Clark’s plan to open up private land to public access. Every time Labour has embarked on those campaigns it has had to spend considerably more than the $60000 that Labour is now trying to impose on any organisation sending its message out to New Zealanders in an election year. 
The electoral reform legislation is about gerrymandering the system. It is a desperate effort by a Labour Government that knows it is in the death throes. Its stench of decay is something that is measurable right around the country so its last effort is to wheel in this legislation. When the editorials in the country start noting how bad it is Helen Clark says: “Well it might need some changing; it obviously needs a few changes.” Then when we asked her in the House during this parliamentary week what those changes were she suddenly seemed to have amnesia as she is inclined to do on a very regular basis and we do not know now what job the select committee has to do with that legislation. We had Mr Maharey in Parliament today saying: “Leave it to the select committee process; that’s where these things need to be ironed out.” Yet I recall many pieces of legislation the Employment Relations Act probably being the primary one where there were thousands of submissions saying the legislation was wrong and Labour rammed it through ignoring the select committee process. We had the quote from Michael Cullen: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. That is what Labour thinks of the select committee process. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 In contrast to that loud rant where metaphors were mangled vocabulary was lost and the rest of us were gagging until it came to a suitably fitful end I would like to bring our attention back to what must pass as either the most dismal or the most useless party conference that we have had the displeasure of seeing in recent times. Usually National people like to convey to voters and to members on the Government side of the House that they are match fit and that there is an actual game about to take place. Now on the back of that conference the leader—and I admit that leaders do from time to time feel great pressure—Mr Key not only got the name of his own party wrong but came back here showing hubris arrogance and boy did he fall a long way off the horse that he believes he is riding unchallenged to victory! That showed how timid disorganised and actually disunited the front bench is on that side of the House. 
 Not only has there been not a single idea or anything that is fresh—not a single fresh idea—from National but there is a deep abiding belief in its born right to rule. The National members are not going out to the nation to capture the minds of young people and reassure old people. They are not doing that because their leader is saying two different things about retirement savings. Mr Key is saying two different things about superannuation in his short and no doubt to be unsuccessful reign. He has also spread deep fear amongst the toiling families of Aotearoa as to what is to become of student loans. 
What was evident in the last election was the unstinting courage of Labour’s leader. Without a sliver of doubt Helen Clark made the most amazing call and all children and parents came flocking to a leadership that was going to deliver reassurance and security in terms of the future of education. But none of that has been shown by Mr Key. Yes I did say that I thought he was dyeing his hair—I did say that. I think it is because of the pressure the man faces in his seat. But the pressure does not really come from the media. It comes from the fact that Mr Key has tried to climb too quickly with ideas that are too shallow and with a belief that he does not have to fight—that he does not have to go out there and capture the confidence of the people. That is why National will not be successful. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
SHANE JONES 
: That is why National will not be successful. Yes despite the clamour there will be no success. 
I turn to all the nonsense about a select committee not being able to receive submissions and refine a bill to do with such a vital area as the funding of elections. Of course our Labour Party does not want to see ongoing destructiveness take place through shadowy forces being unwilling to stand up and own their own funding etc. The opposition to addressing that issue comes from the National side of the House. Every voter knows that religious destructive shadowy forces joined up with Dr Brash and that they were caught out many millions of dollars later. The country knows that democracy cannot be bought; democracy has to be earned. Despite Mr Key’s great wealth he actually has to go out there in order to enjoy the confidence and trust of the people. That is what needs to happen. Of course the conference demonstrated that the National Party is miles away from that—it has not a hope; not a single sliver of hope—which is why it fears Labour’s attempt to bring transparency openness and fairness to the matter of how elections should be funded. 
The Electoral Finance Bill is very simple but why does National fear it? That party knows it must continue to bring bucket loads of money to the next election. But you see the average Kiwi is not overwhelmed by that. The average Kiwi saw the mounting amount of dough thrown in all sorts of directions by shadowy commercial forces and by religious destructive exclusive divisive forces all of which were commandeered by Dr Brash. Did that lead to victory? No it did not then and it will not now. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Everyone knows that there is one party in the centre of politics in this country between the economic and social extremes of politics and that that party is New Zealand First. The first thing I want to say today is that certain commentators are predicting what will happen in 2008 and again they are demonstrating their ignorance of politics and of how the people of this country think. 
I have been in politics for a little while but I have never seen an Opposition front bench as weak as the one we have today. Tony Ryall was not a competent Minister. He was not and would not be one if he was ever given the job in 2008. Judith Collins was best described by Bill English as someone who had been promoted way above her ability. That is a fact. She has no experience whatsoever. Then we go to Bill English. Bill English cannot handle the pressure of politics; I know that because I was in Government with him. Neither as a former Minister of Health nor as a former Minister of Finance was he up to the job. The media can write all the puffery it likes and we can have all the pro-Treasury rubbish we like but Bill English simply was not up to dealing with the crisis in the economy in 1997 1998 and 1999. As for John Key well he is a nice enough guy—he has a nice smile—but he has no experience in his job whatsoever. Worse still he has no experience of recent developments economic and social in New Zealand. 
Then we go on to Gerry Brownlee Parliament’s heaviest lightweight and Katherine Rich. Again Katherine Rich is a nice person who looks good in a photograph but those people have no experience or capacity to be where they would be if they were ever chosen by the public—that is to be front-bench Ministers. We have proven failures as well as the ones I have just mentioned. Nick Smith is not capable of being a Minister again; every parliamentarian knows that. Then we have Maurice Williamson. Maurice is not a bad bloke but in terms of singing from the same hymn sheet he has never been in the choir—he has never been in the choir at all. You see it showed today. There the National members were last night and this morning all over TV about diplomatic appointments. They had the chance to come to this House and front up but they shrank from it. They cannot even take on the contest. So all the passionate drive and emotion that is required in politics in order for a party to be successful those members simply do not have. 
And those commentators out there who perpetually make fools of themselves will do so again in 2008. They just read their stupid silly polls. But those polls have not been right and they have not been right for a long long time—in fact for the last 20 years. So why does the public have to be so grossly and massively misinformed in the period between elections? 
The National Party today is about either blind opposition or “echo-politics”. Do members notice that—”echo-politics”? What is National’s immigration policy? It now claims to have the same immigration policy as New Zealand First even though it called us racist. When it comes to law and order and the gangs National has the same policy as New Zealand First. It is called an “echo-policy” when a party does not have one—except that National will not go the whole way. 
When it comes to questions of climate change all of a sudden National has done a somersault. On the question of why Australia has been comparatively much more successful than New Zealand I say that is because in the last 20 years it has followed different incremental policies from those we had. And the National Party has been substantially responsible for that. But what does it do now? National repeats the comparison that New Zealand First has been making whilst refusing to take responsibility for the economic policies that brought the situation about. That is simply “echo-politics”. 
In regard to the racing policy National’s is just a total steal. National went one day to our website stole the whole thing put up Lindsay Tisch and said: “Here is the National Party policy.” On the question of foreign policy and of making the Pacific the No. 1 issue in our foreign policy that policy is what McCully now speaks about. Where did he get it from? Well he did not get it from the National Party; he got it from “echo-politics”—that is from hearing the announcement of what New Zealand First thinks. The list goes on and on. 
But I say the reason why National will not make it in 2008—and every country needs a strong Opposition in Parliament—is that National does not have any integrity. The National members are raising the issue of electoral law and the financing of elections. Well what sort of party would have the temerity to rise in the House and make an issue of that when its background and record is to try to squash another party by banning it totally from advertising on radio and TV? There is Bill English and he and his colleagues were party to that—to filthy underhand politics—but he wants to be taken as being credible in 2008. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to join the debate this afternoon and I had to laugh out loud when I heard one of those earlier National speakers try to imply that Labour was tired. I just about fell over. Labour loves a good battle; it is part of our culture. Labour members of Parliament and Labour Party supporters are fighters. That is who we are. Daddy does not buy us a seat in Parliament I tell David Carter; we are here because we fight to get here we fight to stay here and we fight for the people we feel passionately about. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a long-held tradition in this House that we do not accuse somebody of buying a seat in Parliament. But that is what that member just did. I ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes if that is what the member said I ask her to withdraw please. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw—I am very sorry David Carter. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. We are prepared to fight because unlike National and John Key we know what it is like to struggle up from the bottom. Many of us are proud to have been raised in State houses. I was raised in a State house as were many of my colleagues. We do not believe in pulling up the ladder behind us once we have got there. We do not trade on the fact that: “Oh I’m a nice little State house girl.” or “I’m a nice little State house boy” or “I’m going to look after those people in State houses.” but in reality then pull up the ladder behind us.” Of course unless one is trying to build them in one’s electorate—in Hobsonville as Mr Key says but meanwhile he lives in Parnell and how nice it would be to buy two sections— 
Hon Member 
: Six houses! 
JILL PETTIS 
: Six houses. And build one house and a tennis court! No we are fighters. We believe in sticking up for people who are not quite so well-equipped to get themselves into their own home. We know the importance of having a roof over our heads and the security that gives—a roof that we know we will have for 365 days of the year. 
National is all over the place on a whole range of issues. We have sat here for months and months waiting for just one policy. We have not had one yet. In the last week— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Except for the ones they stole from us. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Mr Chauvel is absolutely right. The National Party is not even sure whom it wants to lead it. It has been amusing to watch National members in the last couple of weeks in particular when they have been under a bit of stress. In fact we on this side of the Chamber are running a bit of a sweep because we are kind of enjoying what is going on on the other side. As I said we are fighters and we are running a sweep on how many times John Key looks up at the press gallery each day. The numbers are quite high already. 
Hon Member 
: Nearly as often as Don McKinnon. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes he looks up nearly as often as Don McKinnon used to. But we are running a sweep so in about a week’s time I suspect we will be able to make an announcement. Mr Key has spent so much time looking up that he will probably need to have a bit of chiropractic treatment soon. Quite why he is doing that I do not know. 
Also it was interesting to watch the reaction of National members today. I notice that Bill English gets up to speak only when John Key is away. It is a bit like “John’s away Bill will come out to play.” Why does Bill English not stand beside his leader and support him? Why does Bill English not stand up and support John Key? Why can those members not operate as a pair as a duo supporting each other? Why do they seem to come into their prime when one of them is out of the House? 
The other thing that concerns me about National is that its members have absolutely no knowledge of social history in this country. That is absolutely exemplified by the ham-fisted statements they have been making about housing in the last couple of weeks. Ignorance of social policy and social history in this country is incredibly dangerous for New Zealand because we need to make sure that we do not repeat the problems and the mistakes of the past. We have luminaries over there like that woman from—where is she from? Is it Timaru? She says profound things like: “We don’t need to borrow money; we’re just going to get it from overseas.” That is a direct quote from one of those supposedly bright sparks new blood intelligent young things the National Party has brought in. She demonstrates that she does not understand even the basic elements of finance when she says: “We don’t need to borrow money; we’re just going to get it from overseas.” I kid you not I say to listeners; all of that can be verified from what she said during the election campaign. 
New Zealanders need to be very very aware of what a National Government would actually mean for this country. It terrifies me. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Two months ago I raised questions with Minister Rick Barker about the existence of endemic loan sharking inside our main casinos along with other irresponsible and downright criminal behaviour. His response at the time was that he intended to make no comment until an investigation by the Department of Internal Affairs was completed. He said that the department checks all the money that goes in and out of a casino and has very thorough checks and that he is “confident the department has a good idea of what is going on.” Well I say to the Minister the department might have an idea about what is going on but what on earth is it doing about it? 
I do not know whether the Minister saw the news on Television One last night but just last week a loan shark at work was filmed in Skycity Casino in Auckland. This gentleman is based in the VIP lounge on the third floor and further revelations as to the details of his activity are I believe to be aired tonight. Not only did the team from Television One film the operations of this fellow; they also chased him around the Skycity car-park without apparently once being seen much less apprehended by the supposedly highly regulated and foolproof security systems operating in the casino. 
Although this is just one episode I think it highlights the extent to which slack security and a dubious lack of regulatory attention characterise the approach to criminal activity in New Zealand’s casinos. It appears that security staff numbers are so low that staff cannot even monitor the cameras adequately. In terms of regulators the Department of Internal affairs appears to check out the casino only during business hours. It does not take an expert to realise that maybe a lot of the perhaps less desirable activity in the casino might actually be happening outside the hours of 9 to 5. 
The Minister told me in question time today that the department already knows about this particular loan shark who was caught on TV and that his activity is being followed up. But it seems from the Minister’s attitude that he does not think there is any kind of problem. When will the Minister wake up to the fact that this is all a lot bigger than he thinks? Perhaps the Minister truly does not know what loan sharking is as he seemed to indicate in his media release following the release of the earlier report from the Department of Internal Affairs—a release in which he asked: “What is a loan shark?”. He then sent his officials away to bring him the answers. Or is it that the Minister thinks that loan sharking like that revealed on Television One last night is actually legal? 
Well I say to the Minister it is not—not for example when people are having to hand over their passports as security and when they are paying 8 percent a week compound interest with no written contract. It is not legal when a loan shark is operating with impunity inside the four walls of a casino—and now we know not only with impunity in terms of the casino itself but also with impunity in terms of the Department of Internal Affairs. None of that is legal as far as I am aware under New Zealand law. 
I do not think that the Minister understands the seriousness of what is going on and what damage is being done in and around the casinos and pokie parlours of this country. He may be fooled but most of the rest of the population are not. Many people would dearly love for there to be a full public inquiry into what is really going on. Both employees in the industry and gamblers and their families need an opportunity to tell the truth of what is happening without fear of reprisal. We need to get the fullest possible picture of the situation not one given to us through the prism of the Department of Internal Affairs or of gambling operators themselves. 
I also call on the Government to withdraw the Gambling Amendment Bill which it has tabled in Parliament but which has not had its first reading yet. This bill contains only small policy and technical amendments not the major reforms to the operation of the gambling sector that are so badly needed. I believe that Labour would actually gain tremendous kudos from the public if it dared to take that bill back and start again on the back of an inquiry into the true depth and nature of what is happening with gambling in our communities right now both in the casinos and in the non-casino gaming-machine sector. 
It is not good enough for the Minister to continue to calmly sit on his hands and wait for the answers to appear magically at some distant point in the future. Real people are suffering right now because of the actions of casino and pokie operators and the lack of action from departmental regulators. The time to act I say to the Minister is now. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise with much enjoyment to speak in this debate which has certainly shown the people of New Zealand that this is a stuttering Government that is going from disaster to disaster. These include the demise of David Benson-Pope the judicial reviews that abound in health the more than 700 people who are leaving every week to go to Australia the record high interest rates that are hitting and hurting ordinary New Zealanders—which of course is something that this Government does not want to talk about—and the demise of the trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. The most recent Labour speaker epitomised that ignorance is bliss. She would be better to be silent and to be thought a fool than to open her mouth and remove all doubt. 
I want to further pursue the debate about the dreadful Electoral Finance Bill. This bill epitomises the essence of unintended consequences and this Government has known many of those. The bill is ill-thought-out ill conceived and poorly drafted. Or maybe it is very clever? Perhaps during the course of my speech members will decide which one it is. The recent headlines include: “Bill of wrongs” “PM is responsible for electoral drift net” “Labour wants its critics on a register” “Labour screws the electoral scrum” and “Labour’s arrogance continues”. These are just some of the headlines. The editorials are speaking out because the newspapers of the country are starting to understand exactly what the Electoral Finance Bill means. Even Helen Clark is looking for a way to distance herself from the mess saying today that the bill obviously needs some change. Mark Burton has made contradictory statements. He said that the Government was seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election. That statement could not be further from what this bill will actually achieve. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Has the member read the bill? 
JO GOODHEW 
: I have it in front of me. The explanatory note of the bill states that the bill will “prevent the undue influence of wealth”. Maybe it will but it will not prevent the Government from using taxpayers’ accumulated wealth to persuade the people to vote for Labour. But the people of New Zealand are too wise for that. The explanatory note states that the bill will “promote participation in parliamentary democracy”. Well the Minister is wrong again; it will do anything but. 
The bill imposes unbelievable requirements on third parties. It is intended although not openly stated to shut them up. If third parties try to take a position on a proposition with which one or more candidates or political parties is associated they will be shut up. It is indeed a scary bill. It is Draconian. Many of the organisations that may be caught up in the third-party requirements will not yet be aware of how they will be caught will not be aware that it will mean they must scrutinise their newsletters in an election year. They will not be able to state any position with which any candidate or party is associated. I think of some of the organisations that will be caught up in this such as Parents Centres Plunket Federated Farmers and the National Council of Women. I cannot wait until these organisations realise they cannot express their particular viewpoints in their newsletters during an election year. 
What about a young person who uses a chalk drawing on a pavement to express a political view during an election year? That person cannot do so unless he or she has registered with the Electoral Commission. Just imagine how those people will feel when they know they have to register with the commission. 
Labour is scared of criticism. That is why this bill looks the way it is. Labour is scared of its own impending demise and scared of political oblivion. It will do anything to screw the scrum. Just imagine the new bureaucracy the Government will have to put in place so that people can register before they put their opinions out there for New Zealanders to understand them. You know the rest of New Zealand will see what Labour is trying to achieve with this bill. We have seen already that the Prime Minister is starting to read the mood of the nation as New Zealanders start to understand what this bill is all about. Helen Clark had decided she needs to distance herself from what is happening. She is leaving it to the Justice and Electoral Committee to sort it out. By golly that select committee has some work ahead of it! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am very proud to be a member of this Labour-led Government that is delivering very good government to this country. It is getting on with the job of governing and delivering strong stable prosperous conditions to the people of New Zealand. We are doing what we were elected to do. We are doing what we said we would do as we have after every other election. 
I am also very proud to be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which is doing very very good work in advancing the programme of this Government. It will surprise members opposite to know that some of that work includes looking at electoral finance reform trying to get the formulas right and conducting an inquiry into victims’ rights with the cooperation of Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. That is something he has spearheaded and it is something we regard as very important. We think the work is important—not the rhetoric. We are considering the efficiency of some of the entities in the justice sector like the Legal Services Agency the Law Commission and the provision of Crown legal services. We are also looking at access to justice. These sorts of things are important to ordinary New Zealanders and they are the sorts of things that we are trying to look at hard in our committee. 
The three matters I have just described are the ones that our committee chair on behalf of the committee put before the Speaker in support of an application by the committee to travel to Australia to compare approaches on those questions in a comparable jurisdiction. That request was granted and the committee travelled to Melbourne last week. It is a great shame that the week before our travel the National Party members of the committee—Mr Finlayson Mr Auchinvole and Ms Wagner—announced via the media that they would not be participating in the trip. We all know that the public does not like the idea of politicians travelling. We all know though that with a good programme and good management these trips are incredibly valuable. New Zealand is a remote jurisdiction. We are far from our neighbours and it is very easy to get insular and provincial. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Look at the Internet. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Henare is living proof of that I am afraid. The National Party instead of doing what it had agreed to do—participate in the trip pull its weight and look at the serious questions—decided to play politics in the media. National members called the trip a junket and said they were not going. They pulled out of the meeting. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I will respond to the criticism that has just been voiced across the House by that member because the members of the committee who were present—Mr Tanczos Ms Pillay Ann Hartley and myself—can confirm that we undertook 16 substantive visits on that trip. The itinerary will be interesting to the House. First we went to the Victorian Electoral Commission where we looked at its innovative programme for enrolling younger voters something we are going to share with the electoral authorities here. There were some good lessons. 
The next visit we made was to the Victims Support Agency of the Department of Justice. Again we were walking the walk rather than just talking the talk—the victims’ rights rhetoric. We found how important it is to coordinate victims’ services something that we can do better in this country. That was worthwhile learning. Then we went to the Australian Electoral Commission. 
Simon Power 
: Nationalise it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am glad Mr Power thinks it is a good idea. Let us see some commitment to it from the National Party instead of just the heady rhetoric that is a lot easier to deliver than real services to victims. 
As I was saying we then went to the Australian Electoral Commission and had a look at the three limbs that it says are important in a clean system: public funding for political parties disclosure regimes that actually work and campaign spending limits. We heard the commission’s criticism that if one does not have all those legs of the triple one does not have a satisfactory electoral system. Well it does not look like we are going to get public funding here so our select committee is going to have to work as hard as it can on ensuring the other two work as well as they can and I am certainly committed to that. 
The fourth meeting was with the Electoral Matters Committee of the Victorian Parliament where those lessons were further reinforced. Then we saw the Victorian Law Reform Commission and we shared some experiences about the need to really take the reports of law reform commissions seriously put them before Parliament quickly and get their recommendations enacted. 
The fifth meeting was with the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council which is very similar to the body that New Zealand has just created—the Sentencing Council—and we learnt about the importance of the educative function of the council. Again it was more than just rhetoric as with the National Party; it was putting things into practice. There were 11 other visits. It was a substantive programme. It was worthwhile and we actually did the work rather than engage in the rhetoric. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Charles Chauvel was away 5 days drank 40 glasses of champagne and had five meetings and he stands in the House and justifies what was essentially a junket. In all my time as a member of Parliament for this House the Maori Affairs Committee has put in numerous requests to go overseas and every time those requests have been turned down. Then we hear the justification. Maybe the real justification was that we cannot trust some fellas to go overseas but we can trust these other guys to go overseas—all three Labour MPs—off to the great state of Melbourne in Australia. They had five meetings—that is all—in 5 days. That works out to be one or two meetings a day counting the meetings that the member did not even get to. He said there were 13 meetings in 5 days. That is not good enough. I say shame on that member—shame shame shame. 
Let us get back to the Prime Minister. Why is it that the Prime Minister cannot tell the same story 2 days in a row? She tells one story on 1 day and then makes up another story on the next day. Members know who will get it in the backside—it is the Minister of Justice. He will have to fall on his sword because of the stuff-up of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark. 
Then I hear on this morning’s news a terrifying piece of news. My former colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly the only one with street cred the only sane one in New Zealand First has decided to jump ship to make a dash for the door—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely I know what it is like trying to get out of New Zealand First by crikey and I thank the Lord that I did and that I took the opportunity while I was still alive. But this former Minister is off to the sun— 
Simon Power 
: A fine member! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He is a fine member. He is off to the sunny Cook Islands. 
But that raises a couple of interesting issues about other important appointments that this Government may see fit to make in the next while. The Rt Hon Winston Peters may very well be the next ambassador to China although I do not think the Chinese people will take too kindly to that appointment considering Mr Peters’ reported comments on the Chinese cuisine including that it involves the eating of dogs as he was wont to say a couple of years ago. 
Then New Zealand First has the temerity to have somebody stand in the House and question the Minister of Immigration about new immigrants when that guy asking the question is an immigrant as well! For goodness’ sake talk about someone pulling the ladder up once he has got into Godzone! Talk about— 
Simon Power 
: Pull up the drawbridge! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Pull it up. The member is saying: “Pull the drawbridge up no more immigrants because I have got to live in Godzone. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly and what about Ron Mark? He could be the ambassador to Oman. He has been there before; maybe he would like to go back there. Poor old Pita Paraone there is nowhere for him other than Te Puni Kokiri in Whangarei. 
I want to say this though. The Labour Party used to pride itself on the fact that it distanced itself from the war in Iraq. That is all we ever heard from Labour Party members—how they would not get into the fight in Iraq. But now we hear that our own carrier the one that the Government bailed out to the tune of $180 million and that the Government is now an 80 percent shareholder of has been carrying Australian troops all the way to Kuwait to fight in a war that Labour members said they would never have any part of. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Farmers' Mutual Group Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a private bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. The organisation has its head in the fine city of Palmerston North and I see a member opposite who in fact worked in the same building. The organisation is in the heart of the city and it is a very proud member of the Manawatu so I was very pleased to be approached by it to bring the bill before the House. I am pleased to see the progress that it has made and I want to thank David Carter and members of the Primary Production Committee for that speedy progress through the select committee stage. 
The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association is one of New Zealand’s longest-established and very proud rural service companies. The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association and its predecessors have provided general insurance to farmers and members of the rural community for over 100 years. The Primary Production Committee has given very careful consideration to the bill and recommends that it be passed with only very minor amendments drafted to enhance the clarity and style. I thank the select committee for those changes and I also want to ensure that the officials of the Ministry of Economic Development and parliamentary counsel are thanked too because I know they have been doing the work of making that happen and are satisfied with what they have done. 
In essence the bill entrenches the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association’s mutual status so it remains owned by its members preserves its principal business of providing risk insurance to rural folks gives the organisation the same capacity and powers as a company which will allow it to broaden its range of products and services to better meet member needs and improves the organisation’s accountability to its members through the imposition of a modern governance regime based on the Companies Act 1993. It gives the organisation a new name—it will be called the Farmers’ Mutual Group which at least will mean that it will not have to change from being known as “FMG”. 
The company undertook an extensive consultation programme on the bill with its 35000 members prior to the bill’s introduction into the House. I know that members who have not been close to this and are watching the speed of it will like to know that there were no objections and no negative comments on the bill at all. Members were overwhelmingly in favour of preserving their mutual status and supported the proposed direction in the bill. 
In conclusion the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association has advised me that it supports the select committee’s conclusions. It endorses the bill as reported back. I commend the select committee’s report to the House and I thank the Primary Production Committee and the House for their cooperation and support on this bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill in its second reading. At the outset to provide clarity to the House I want to repeat something I said to the Primary Production Committee at the time we started the deliberations: I am a member of the Farmers’ Mutual Group and have my farms insured with this organisation. 
I first became really interested in this organisation when I attended a dinner in 2005 in Mr Maharey’s city of Palmerston North to celebrate 100 years of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I commend to any members of the House if they are short of bedtime reading to grab a copy of the book  
Pride Passion and Parochialism—A History of FMG.  
I have found it a fascinating read. Having finished with  
The Hollow Men 
 last Christmas I am continuing with this book now. 
I find the history of the formation of this quite remarkable organisation really interesting. It is about farmers over 100 years ago who were feeling they were being ripped off by British insurance companies and who were finding that their fire insurance rates were becoming astronomical. They themselves set about trying to solve the problem by forming a whole lot of mutuals. 
If any members were to read the history they would note that Parliament receives quite a lot of mention in the book’s early stages because a Mr Kirkbride who was the member for Manukau was in fact someone who had almost dedicated his political career to the passing of the first legislation the Mutual Fire Insurance Bill which came through the House around 1903. He said at the time of the second reading on 22 July 1903: “The Bill is for the purpose of enabling settlers not actually living in a town to form mutual fire-insurance associations …”. What he was saying there is that this legislation was very much targeted at real farmers who were establishing themselves in New Zealand at that time. He went on to say that the British-owned stock and station companies were relentlessly marketing fire insurance premiums and that there was a need for sensible alternatives. 
Subsequent to the passing of that legislation we saw provincial mutuals or regional mutuals establishing themselves all around New Zealand and continuing to flourish. Then in 1978—relatively recently—they all came under one umbrella and the head office was established for the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association in Palmerston North. So the book is a real true and interesting history. What we obtain when we read that book is knowledge of the determination and tenacity of the then farming community who with their farming leaders were intent on making sure they got reputable insurance that was affordable to the industry. 
When the matter came before the Primary Production Committee what struck me was that that determination was something that was still required because there were indeed some obstacles that had to be overcome through the select committee process. I am referring of course to none other than the Ministry of Economic Development whose officials came before the select committee and basically said that because the ministry was in the process of doing a review there was no alternative but to hold this legislation until the review was completed and then any subsequent legislation might be passed by this Parliament. 
Simon Power 
: You can rely on the bureaucrats! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well it was typical of the bureaucracy. It is no wonder it has got so large; I guess bureaucrats have to find something to do. 
The good news is that the select committee was not persuaded by that argument. A huge amount of work had been done by the Farmers’ Mutual Group starting in 2004 to get the legislation through its processes as a private bill. The committee members in total were not prepared to buy an argument provided by bureaucracy that they should be held up from achieving what they wanted to achieve just because the Government had embarked on another review. 
In conclusion I take the opportunity to thank all members of the select committee for their work. The bill was one of the more fascinating and interesting ones we have had. I certainly take this opportunity to thank the officers of the Farmers’ Mutual Group who came along and—I think I can say—politely expressed their frustration the system and with bureaucracy but who helped us to get through some sensible amendments. I certainly hope that the legislation we are in the process of passing today stands the Farmers’ Mutual Group in good stead for the next 100 years. I also make special mention of Parliamentary Counsel officer Catherine Yates who was invaluable through the process. 
Finally I say that there was some haste in the way the bill was conducted through the select committee and more important some haste in the way it is now being conducted through Parliament today. I think that needs an explanation. Mr Maharey was quite correct to point out that consultation had occurred with the Farmers’ Mutual Group and its members before the bill came to the select committee. There were no submissions in opposition apart from perhaps the advice we got from the Ministry of Economic Development. 
But the reason we have been keen for Parliament to progress the bill through all its stages is in fact not just one of importance but also of sentiment—that is that Mr Peter Jensen who has been a member of the board of the Farmers’ Mutual Group for the last 16 years and who has been its chairman for the last 5 years has given notice that he intends to retire from the organisation at its annual general meeting which is scheduled for 25 August this year. It was suggested to us that it would be very helpful and very much a tribute to the work of Mr Peter Jensen if Parliament could cooperate—as indeed it is doing so today—in making sure that this legislation goes through all stages in the House and is ready for the Royal assent so that that can be announced and completed to mark the retirement of Mr Jensen who has done a superb job for this organisation. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to add as the other local member of Parliament from the surrounding districts of the Farmers’ Mutual Group head office my quick comments on this matter. I was just listening to David Carter talk about the contribution of Mr Jensen and of the need to expedite this legislation as a tribute to him prior to the Farmers’ Mutual Group annual general meeting. I was just thinking to myself: “I hope it wasn’t supposed to be a surprise.” 
Hon David Carter 
: It wasn’t. 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh that is great. All right as long as we have not ruined that. I take this opportunity to say thanks to the Primary Production Committee for the work it has done on the bill. David Carter in his usual deft and polite way has made reference to a couple of obstacles that needed to be jumped. He probably put it more politely than most of us would in respect of the role of the Ministry of Economic Development. The Hon Steve Maharey as the proposer of the bill has done a great job of ensuring that all political parties once the matter was reported back to the House were supportive of the matter being expedited through all remaining stages in one sitting. We thank him for guiding the bill through that passage. 
I noticed that there were actually some minor amendments to the bill that the select committee has recommended back at the second reading and no doubt the Committee stage. I think if we pause for a moment and look at those recommendations around the interpretation of the registrar the membership the change of name the constitution the rights and powers attached to the membership and various other matters including the alteration of members’ rights we will see it goes to show that despite the public’s view of the parliamentary process the select committee process adds value. It adds value to a bill’s passage. There were some matters that the select committee reported to the House it believed needed tidying up. I have no doubt that the House and the Committee of the whole House will adopt the recommendations of the select committee over the course of the next short while. 
I say in particular if anybody from Farmers’ Mutual Group is listening to this debate that despite a rather focused political debate on many other issues over the last month or two this is one of those occasions when members across the House can actually take some pride in the way they conduct themselves in seeing legislation like this which helps an organisation move through the House as speedily as possible. On that note—unlike the Ministry of Economic Development—I will delay it no longer. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very grateful to have heard the contribution made by Mr David Carter who explained a number of things to us about this bill. New Zealand First had already decided it would support the passage of the bill all the way through because we thought it made sense but we were not aware that the rationale behind that was to ensure the legislation was passed before the Farmers’ Mutual Group annual general meeting so that Mr Peter Jensen could have some recognition of the work he has put in behind it. That makes New Zealand First even more pleased that we have cooperated in this case. 
There is an interesting thing about the history of it. Mr Carter mentioned a Mr Kirkbride a former member for Manukau. I always stay at a hotel in Mangere just off Kirkbride Road and I just wonder whether it is named after the same person. If it is the same person then every time I go down there it will ring a special bell in my head. 
Hon David Carter 
: They’ll be able to name a street in Rarotonga. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Ha ha! There is a thing called Ara Metua which goes all the way around. It is called the Old Road. 
There is more than just a simple name change in this legislation obviously. I guess to understand that we have to understand why there is only one remaining mutual association under the Act which was obviously put in place in 1903 for some very very good reasons as have been explained by Mr Carter. It was updated in 1955 but really it no longer serves the purpose as well as it might for modern society. I quote from the report back which states: “The Farmers’ Mutual Group retains its mutuality under this bill but it will also have the powers capacity and governance regime of a company under the Companies Act 1993.” I think that sentence basically explains what the purpose of the bill is. 
The select committee however as has been pointed out made a number of changes to the wording which obviously improves the quality of the legislation but has not made any substantive change. Once again I agree with the preceding speaker Simon Power that select committees actually do add value to legislation by trawling through it and by acting as the vehicle for participatory democracy. I think that improves the procedure. 
 I pay credit to the work done by David Carter. The critical point is that under first past the post it was almost a given that members of the governing party had to be the chairs of select committees. Under the first MMP Government—the coalition between New Zealand First and National—that sentiment was retained. But as time went on it became understood that chairs of select committees do not necessarily have to be part of a governing party that those roles could be given out to members from other parties and that MPs took their responsibilities and roles seriously. In this particular case Mr David Carter is a member of the Opposition but he is the chair of that select committee and he sees that particular function as being the most important part of it. It shows in this legislation that David Carter has acted responsibly as the chair of the select committee which is an agency of Parliament. 
I think that shows a recognition that we no longer need to think in terms of first-past-the-post politics. We have genuinely entered the MMP era. For that I give credit to the Labour Government. Gradually and slowly it has had the fortitude to give members of other parties the confidence and credibility to chair those select committees and I say that very much as a non-Government member who has chaired a select committee not only over this Parliament but the one before. So I give credit to all of the committee members here because obviously they have taken their duties seriously improved the legislation and have effectively supported the major thrust of it. I believe it is good to be part of a Parliament that acts cooperatively as we have acted this afternoon in respect of this legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make a fairly brief contribution to this debate. First of all I indicate as other parties have indicated that the Green Party is supporting the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. It clearly makes sense in terms of providing greater flexibility in terms of the services that can be provided by the mutual group and it also makes sense in terms of the modernisation of its constitution and legal arrangements which are eminently sensible. Of course we absolutely support those things and echo the comments of previous contributors. 
I will touch on one other issue that I think is worth considering in relation to the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association and the issues of insurance around farming generally. It is worth noting that it is important to have greater flexibility and modernisation of these services because of the significant challenges that farming faces in New Zealand today in particular in terms of the issue of climate change. This issue has been well recognised now by all parties in this House and we have to recognise the impacts on the farming community that climate change presents. 
We are a nation that is still very much economically dependent on agriculture and we know that we are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change at this end of the Pacific in relation to the predicted increase of extreme weather events. In terms of the impacts that climate change will have on weather patterns within our country we have started to see some of the impacts of those things already. We are told that climate change is likely to lead to the wet areas getting wetter and the dry areas getting drier. Again if the events of recent weeks are of any indication that presents significant issues for our nation—for small towns for rural communities and for farmers. 
We know that the impacts of climate change will have effects on the kinds of crops that can be grown. There is already research going on in terms of developing new forms of pasture to deal with changing climatic conditions. One has to start to ask what effect that will have on the breeds of livestock that can be carried on New Zealand land both in terms of pastoral changes and climatic changes. So to build a genetic base that is resilient enough to face these kinds of changing weather patterns is a very significant issue for us and it is one that anyone who is interested in farmers’ insurance has to take account of. 
The other big impact and this is an issue for food security all around the world is that of seasonal predictability. It is my view—and it is a personal view—that the impact of the unpredictability of our seasons will be huge in terms of the security of food supply around the world. So we have to take these things seriously. 
Another issue around insurance that farmers need to consider is in regard to the contribution that farming makes to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions both in terms of the direct impacts of climate change itself on New Zealand agriculture and in terms of the effects on consumer resistance to New Zealand produce if we are not living up to our clean green image. These are significant issues and we know that there are a number of environmental impacts of farming that we need to consider: greenhouse gas emissions as I have mentioned; impacts on water quality which is a huge and growing issue because of the intensification and expansion of dairying in this country; and issues around soil erosion and the loss of some of our most productive soils—or certainly very valuable soils—into the sea at a very fast rate internationally speaking. 
I say that as a precursor to saying that one of the issues that has not been fully addressed in this country and has not been taken seriously by many people is the benefit of a move towards organic farming as a way of addressing sustainability issues around farming. We know that the impacts of a conversion to organic farming are significant and we know that organic farming methods are environmentally friendly and sustainable but the impacts on climate change specifically have not been well understood. Synthetic nitrogen—and New Zealand is a high user of synthetic nitrogen—is on its own a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. It is not necessarily directly relevant to New Zealand but there are lessons to be drawn from the UK. The manufacture of synthetic nitrogen is the single-biggest energy use in agriculture making up 37 percent of energy use. Every kilogram of nitrogen fertiliser produced leads to nearly 7 kilograms of carbon dioxide and fertilisers are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture and the single largest source of nitrous oxide emissions globally. 
These are the kinds of considerations we have to start taking into account. A conversion to organics and a nationwide commitment to a move towards organics is where we have to start thinking particularly given the fact that we have the National Organics Conference this weekend. This is something that we need to start to pay attention to. If we are talking about sustainable agriculture that has to include a very strong national commitment to organics. I say this in relation to the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill simply because these issues relate to farmers’ insurance and these issues are about future-proofing agriculture in New Zealand. These issues are about how we are going to protect ourselves both in terms of the climate change impacts on our agriculture and in terms of the consumer resistance that our farmers will increasingly start to face if we do not come to grips with these issues. 
I raise these matters to give some broad context to this discussion around the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill but also to reiterate that the Green Party is supporting this eminently sensible bill and that we are behind it 100 percent. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou te Whare. 
Nathan Guy 
: He’s back! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Welcome back Madam Assistant Speaker. Two months ago there was a very special gala event in Rotorua: the presentation of the Ahuwhenua Trophy to the Maori Farmer of the Year the person who most represents excellence in Maori farming. The award established in 1932 by Sir Apirana Ngata was supported by Meat and Wool New Zealand AgResearch the BNZ Te Puni Kokiri and others to highlight the significant contribution that Maori agriculture makes to the nation’s bottom line. In the game of “blame and shame” that has been associated with the word “Maori” in recent weeks it is interesting to note that the undeniable successes and achievements of Maori in agriculture seem to have slipped by without notice. So the timing of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill could not have been better placed to remind the House of that prestigious event on the Maori farming calendar. 
 This year the three finalists were the Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation whose Pah Hill Station is one of 10 stations the incorporation runs between Ruapehu and the Whanganui River; the Tuaropaki Trust north of Taupo whose land includes a $30 million geothermal power plant 30 acres of temperature-controlled export tomato and paprika crops and satellite and wireless communications; and the Matariki Partnership north of Ruatoria which supports 3000 owners who run sheep and beef on 2500 hectares and is planting exotic pine and native bush while maintaining the growth of manuka. As my illustrious co-leader Tariana Turia was quick to point out the Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation took out the title although I would be just as quick to say as they do in rugby circles that they were all winners on the night for what we know about Maori farming is that it provides us with ample evidence of excellence—something that this whole House can benefit from. 
So the Maori Party sees it as entirely appropriate that we are considering at this time the financial mechanisms to protect innocent farmers and other members of the rural community through the core services of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. This bill looks to preserve the basic status of the Farmers’ Mutual Group modernise its governance and expand its authorities and powers. That includes provisions for the Farmers’ Mutual Group to become a reporting entity under the Financial Reporting Act and to confirm its capacity to give rebates to members. 
The two submissions to the Primary Production Committee were both in favour of the bill. The Maori Party will also be supporting it as part of our philosophy of advancing the opportunities for Maori while also noting the primary place that Maori hold as the largest natural grouping of pastoral farmers in Aotearoa worth an estimated $7.5 billion. At another level 10 percent of the farming sector workforce is Maori with some 15500 people working in agriculture forestry and farming—mostly in horticulture or in raising sheep and cattle. If the finalists for the Ahuwhenua Trophy are anything to go by the Maori farming sector is demonstrating advanced thinking strategy and planning which will lead to increased productivity gains for all sectors of the industry. 
The Maori farming sector as with the wider farming sector needs to have the support of an organisation that can offer a diverse range of services meet the expanding financial needs of today’s rural sector provide greater levels of accountability and rationalise insurance services all of which the Farmers’ Mutual Group is doing. It is a mark of its success that it has been able to cope with structural adjustments and still have the unequivocal support of its membership for the changes put forward in this bill. Of course central to that has been the concept of mutuality: reinvesting profits back into the business for the benefit of all the members. That concept resonates well with the Maori values of manaakitanga the principle of care generosity and mutual respect; and of kotahitanga the principle of unity of purpose and of direction. 
I do not want to go over ground already covered by other speakers but I would like to make reference to issues that Maori farmers might want to see addressed as part of the core business of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. The 2004 report of the Controller and Auditor-General into the client service performance of the Maori Land Court and Maori Trustee noted the special challenges that face Maori farmers and specifically the long-standing unresolved issues associated with multiple ownership which have created unwieldy restrictions for Maori landowners who want to develop their land. The report noted the difficulty for Maori landowners in getting finance because banks and other financial institutions insist on unencumbered collateral such as general land for any loan or mortgage. The lack of individual ownership and the restriction on the transferability of title make it almost impossible for communal Maori land to be considered as collateral. It is a strange argument really when one considers that companies with multiple shareholders seem to get finance easily for the development of their businesses. 
But many Maori farming entities are hindered in their ability to access finance and consequently their capacity to succeed is also limited. That leads to Maori organisations adopting a more conservative approach and risk-averse attitude leaving them ill-prepared to take advantage of the entrepreneurial equity market. It would be of benefit to Maori farmers and to the nation generally for the Farmers’ Mutual Group to look at ways to help Maori farmers and organisations to achieve productivity gains for both the sector and the economy as a whole by targeting productivity levels improved financial performance land use efficiency and the increased utilisation of capital assets as part of the services offered to Maori farmers and the rural community. 
The Maori Party will support this bill going to the Committee stage in the interests of helping the Maori farming sector to become more productive and a more influential player in the national economy. Tena koutou katoa. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I just want to put on the record that I—like the Hon David Carter chair of the Primary Production Committee—am a member of the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. I just want that recorded in  
Hansard 
. If I can I will cover a little background about the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association a little about the bill as it weaved its way through the select committee and a little about what the future holds I believe for the association and this bill as it progresses its way through the House this evening. 
As was touched on by one of our previous speakers in the early 1900s a group of farmers came together to form this mutual group. They had no capital no business plan and no marketing experience. They set up the mutual group because they were concerned about the ravages of fire and what it could do to their businesses. We have to reflect back a hundred years to what it would have been like for those farmers. They would have had crops of barley or wheat and if a fire went through that and into their crops of stored hay for their winter supplements we can imagine how it would have impacted on their farming business. So when we look at the 1920s right through to the 1950s we can see the result of what our pioneering forefathers did for agriculture. They had the foresight to set up this group and I think that is absolutely fantastic. 
As the member David Carter mentioned in 1978 the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association through amalgamation set up its head office in Palmerston North. Of course I have a great affinity with that city having been educated at Massey University. 
Hon David Carter 
: Go and get a real degree—at Lincoln. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I would tell Mr Carter not to worry about that; I will challenge him about that outside the House later. 
In 2002 the association was re-branded and now it has 35000 members and 55000 customers. For a while during the select committee process I was a little bit worried that this bill would get caught up in the spider web of the Review of Financial Products and Providers. This review has been around and stumbling through the Cabinet process for quite a while and it was meant to be reported back in February 2007. Now the report-back date will be in November 2007 and I think Lianne Dalziel’s office has had a fair bit to do with that. I was really concerned that this bill would be caught in the spider web of that review. That is just the review I am talking about; not the legislation coming into Parliament that would take another 2 or 3 years to get here. Thank goodness that the Parliamentary Counsel Office stepped in and managed to forge this bill together. The Ministry of Economic Development and the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association were working hard on it for 2 years but they could not quite get it together so thank goodness for the good work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Primary Production Committee. 
National supports this bill. I think it is important for the association as it moves forward because it wants to diversify and to move with the times. If it could not get this bill through the House now then it would feel that it was missing out on opportunities. 
I was interested before to hear Mr Tanczos when he was talking about climate change because I think that is one of the real challenges that the association faces going forward. We all know that over the last 100 years the farming sector has had to face the challenges of climate change. The sector has faced snowfalls flooding hill country erosion earthquakes and droughts. 
But now the association is challenged to think about the future. What is the future in terms of risk for our farming community? I would ask whether it is something like biological terrorism. When we think about the UK and its current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred very close to a research plant there are questions that I think need to be answered. Members should think about the bird flu. These are the challenges that the association faces. The group needs to think ahead about the real issues that the farming primary production industry of New Zealand has to face. I think that is partly why the group wants to get the changes made through this bill this evening. 
Just in closing I wish the association well on its AGM at the end of this month. It has already gone out and advertised to all its members and sought feedback. It got 28 written responses all pretty much in favour of this bill as it passes through this House this evening. 
I just want to put on the record that I wish Peter Jensen all the very best. He has been involved with the association for 16 years and is choosing to step down. I acknowledge not only his contribution with the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association but also what he has done for New Zealand farming as a whole. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to make a brief contribution as well. Today for the benefit of those who are out there listening is members’ day and this is the time when we deal with members’ and local bills. First on the Order Paper today is the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. Those who have been listening will have heard quite a little bit of the history of the Farmers’ Mutual Group and the significant part it has played in the development of the insurance fabric of what was firstly the rural sector but is now a much wider sector throughout New Zealand. 
The Farmers’ Mutual Group is very much a symbol of why New Zealand has been a success in so many areas. There was an issue 105 years ago; there was an inequity in what was being charged in terms of premiums for cover and an inequity in the adequacy of the cover. What did those people do who were affected? They rolled up their sleeves and created a mutual. From that mutual several other mutuals sprang up around the country and the need that was glaringly obvious was fulfilled. 
The history as has been relayed today is that those mutuals came together under the one umbrella so that today we have the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association providing a very worthwhile service to New Zealand. Both Nathan Guy and David Carter have declared an interest in the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I have to perhaps declare that I do not have an interest but that I am a beneficiary. I make the point that I am not actually insured with Farmers’ Mutual Group and do not have any association with it but I believe that I am a beneficiary of it because it has had an impact against which other insurance companies measure themselves. The fact that I have rates that I can afford through an alternative company is largely because of the impact that the Farmers’ Mutual Group has had over a very long period particularly since the different groups all came together into one and became a significant force throughout the country. 
I predict a good future for the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I think the very fact that the group has said that it needs to look at its product range and at the legislation that was restricting it shows that it has some foresight some innovation and some desire to meet the market and create a variety of new products. I think that gives us a very clear example that the group is looking to what its customers need and to how it can grow its base and increase its financial strength. So it is a good thing that we are handling this legislation so that the group is not delayed in doing that. 
I just say as an aside that in about 18 months time when National brings competition back into accident compensation I will look forward to any products that the Farmers’ Mutual Group might want to introduce into that arena. I am quite sure that the rural community and several other sectors of the business community are looking forward to the day that happens. 
The Farmers’ Mutual Group is symbolic of the success of New Zealand in so many fields. I mentioned earlier that the mutuals were set up to provide a fix-it or a solution to a situation that occurred in the insurance industry. Similarly we have seen co-ops that have sprung up through the whole fabric of New Zealand rural business. If I look at the percentage of leaders that the rural community has produced across a range of business options I think it is quite exciting and encouraging and it kind of sets New Zealand apart from a lot of other countries. If there is a problem we will fix it. If we cannot market if we cannot insure if we need to create a new piece of machinery or whatever we will fix the problem. It is very much a symbol of the success of New Zealand agriculture. It is a good thing that we are doing today in taking the next step for the Farmers’ Mutual Group. 
I also want to comment about that leadership. It is fitting that we get this legislation through for the sake of Peter Jensen because not only has he been involved in the Farmers’ Mutual Group but he has been involved in other things that have been significant as well—the fertiliser industry for example. It is that kind of leadership that we need to acknowledge. This is not the time for the tall-poppy syndrome; we want to extol those people who have done a very good job for New Zealand and will continue to do so. We look forward to a number of rural leaders taking significant roles in shaping and growing New Zealand in a way that everybody can benefit from. 
The Farmers’ Mutual Group is now a significant player not only in the insurance industry but in the financial industry of New Zealand. The group has stood the test of time. It has a wide variety of products and it wants to increase those. I thank the House for agreeing to put this bill through all stages today. It is an important thing that we are doing in allowing this legislation to go through. There has been no dissent whatsoever in the debates that have come forward. I look forward to the House now expediting the voting and seeing this legislation enacted. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill to be set down for the third reading forthwith without consideration in Committee despite Standing Order 295. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is a private bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. The bill modernises the association’s business entrenches its mutual status and gives the association a new name: the Farmers’ Mutual Group. The bill has the support of the association’s members and the relevant officials. 
I take this quick opportunity to thank the House for the debate in the second reading. It is interesting to see a bill of this nature attract the kind of interest that it has and I think that it will warm the hearts of the people from the association that they have had so many comments today on their bill and so many compliments to people such as Peter Jensen the retiring chairperson whom we all wish well. We wish the association well for the annual general meeting as well. 
On a slightly light-hearted note in response to the comments of the members opposite I compliment them on their heroic efforts against the mean bureaucracy that came along to the Primary Production Committee. They courageously stood up to the bureaucracy and made sure that it did not have its way with this bill. They certainly must feel themselves to have been through a battle so I commend them on that. Once again I take the opportunity to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill and I have no hesitation in commending the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National certainly supports the third reading of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank parliamentary colleagues of all parties for their assistance in making sure that the bill was progressed through the House today. 
It has been a very very interesting debate. I was particularly interested in the speech from the Maori Party member Mr Harawira and I say that Maori in New Zealand agriculture will be an increasing force to be reckoned with. I know some of the entrants who were involved in the Maori Farmer of the Year competition. Having visited some of their farms I know that they are incredible enterprises. I am sure that when the history of the Farmers’ Mutual Group is written for the next hundred years they as a group of New Zealanders will be shown in that history to have been very powerful. 
The other thing that struck me as interesting was the speech from the Green Party member Nandor Tanczos on climate change. Again when the Farmers’ Mutual Group bothers to write the history for the next hundred years a lot of the truth of the predictions about the disastrous state of climate change and what it might do to New Zealand agriculture will be known by that stage. It will no longer be a guess. 
I wish Mr Peter Jensen well. It is no mean feat to have been the chairman of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I was just briefly looking through the history again and I note that in 102 years Mr Jensen is only the ninth chairman of the board of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I wish him well and I wish the Farmers’ Mutual Group well both for the AGM and for the future of the organisation. 
Bill read a third time. 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The bill is to be debated clause by clause. Members must stick to the subject matter of those clauses. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for allowing me to take the first call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that we are debating the bill on a clause by clause basis and the first clause of course reflects that the name of the Act will be the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Act. The term “new entrants” was certainly debated during the select committee hearing as it was thought that it might not necessarily reflect that we are dealing with young workers in the workplace. However that is the terminology that has been accepted. 
I say from the outset that we do think this bill is well intentioned. We think it is an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member that we are talking about the title. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I was just talking about the new entrants and I thought as part of the title that perhaps I could— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I appreciate that we are talking about the title and the bill is about the new entrants. It is called the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. In describing new entrants what we are doing is describing young workers 16 to 17-year-olds who are presently paid the youth rate which is 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I say again that we think the bill is well intentioned. We are not necessarily convinced that the title is correct but we really must look at substance over form rather than form over substance. We do believe that the bill is an attempt to avoid exploitation of and discrimination against young workers but I have to say we do not believe that this is the right instrument to do that. Indeed we believe that the bill may do the very opposite and price the young workers—the new entrants—out of the labour market and we are concerned about that. 
We are also concerned that these new entrants in accordance with the title of the bill may be tempted or encouraged to leave school so that they can get employment. Again we think that young people especially 16 and 17-year-olds—whether they are called young people or new entrants—should be encouraged to stay in education for as long as possible in order to get a formal education skills training or whatever. We would rather they be encouraged to stay at school and not become a new entrant to the workforce because they have been lured by the adult minimum wage or by the provisional adult minimum wage for those 200 hours of work which I understand is to be increased to 90 days by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
When I listened to the second reading debate on this bill—which again included the title—I did note the fundamental point made by the honourable Sue Bradford. I do commend her for this bill but I noted her comment that the fundamental point of the original bill was to remove discrimination based on age from the minimum wage law. To use her terms and to accept the premise of age-based discrimination I say that this bill is still discriminatory because it now discriminates in its revised form against 14 and 15-year-olds. 
The bill as we know started as an attempt to abolish the youth rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is straying from the title. I am going to be strict because it is the title we are debating. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I do believe Madam Chairperson that the title has to be discussed in the context of the bill and I am trying to wrap the title around the context of the bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’re not doing it very well. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I am quite happy with what I am doing I say to the Minister. I go back to the title of the bill which originally was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The majority of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended that clause 1 the title clause of the original bill be changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. 
It is worth thinking about who new entrants are. Members of the select committee of whom I am one met many of them and it was a great privilege to hear from those young workers. I was certainly very very impressed with them. They are workers who work in hospitality retail and so on and they are the workers who will be affected by this new entrants provision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can we have some fairness in the Chamber? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The original title was about ending age discrimination I say to Mr Mapp. I said during the first reading debate that we had to think about that. It was an important issue that we needed to consider. I believe that in terms of the title of the bill the select committee has looked at the issue very seriously and approached it responsibly. I think members will find that we do consider that the basis of the argument is right in that paying workers on the basis of age is neither just nor sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to keep to the title. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: And the title I think reflects our consideration on that. 
Other submitters talked about paying young workers and new entrants. There was some argument—I heard it from the opposite side actually—that having a new entrants rate then led to a higher rate which would discourage young workers from staying at school. One quote is worth repeating. A young worker said that if payment of a few dollars more will make 16 and 17-year-olds quit school they will be quitting school anyway. I thought that was a very important point. I think the title takes into account the genuine concerns of many who felt that young workers in their very first jobs often lacked work socialisation skills and required more time and investment to adapt to working life and that is what the title of this bill is about. Although the committee agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be paid differently just because of their age we did accept the argument that the inexperience of first-time workers or new entrants deserves the recognition of a short period while the new worker becomes more socialised to work. 
The new entrant concept is not a new one in the workplace. What it is effectively doing is paying workers for experience and that is common in many workplaces and in many agreements. Experience is often recognised through service pay so one could say that the provision is for a form of service pay. The new entrant provision means that people have to work a certain amount of time then they get paid more. I think what is really great about the bill though—and it is reflected in the title—is that thousands and thousands of workers will get a pay rise once they are no longer covered by the new entrant provision. It builds on the work Labour has done since we became the Government. I know this may be out of order Madam Chair but I do have to hold up this little chart. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is out of order and I just remind the member again about the title. Members have plenty of opportunity to debate the main clauses of the bill as we are doing it clause by clause. There are five questions. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will certainly come back to my chart. The debate around new entrants is a very interesting one and I can see my colleague over there having a laugh because “new entrants” is an interesting description of people coming into the workforce. It is quite a strange term particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time. 
Hone Harawira 
: Young slaves! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No they are not young slaves. The description is used for schoolchildren. We did debate a little bit about how we could better describe this phenomenon of new workers coming into the workplace such as “first-time workers” or “new workforce participants”. But on reflection I think the title does express the intention of the bill very clearly which is to pay an adult minimum wage to workers who have completed a very short period of work and have gained some experience. It recognises that when new workers come into the workforce they have some experience to gain. The period of work is a very short time and I am pleased that we have made really good progress on what that will mean in practice. It will mean of course that once new workers have completed the period of work for new entrants they will get a huge pay rise and is not that a wonderful thing? Who would deny 16 and 17-year-old workers a huge pay rise? In fact I do not know any workers who would say no to that level of pay rise and I really have to ask: what is wrong with that? 
I think the title of the bill does reflect what the bill is all about. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill Sue Bradford for bringing this issue to the House. I thank her for doing that because I think it is a very important thing for us to be discussing. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I would like to speak to the title. The original title was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and I think it should have stayed like that because that describes what the bill does and does not do. In fact a good title would be the “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is exactly what it does. One wants the title to say what the bill actually does. This is no different from Dr Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probationary period legislation which we did not support. This is the same thing. 
The title is wrong. New entrants could be 20-year-olds or they could be 50-year-olds entering into the workforce or into a particular job so having the words “New Entrants” in the title does not really encapsulate the idea of someone of that age but rather the idea of someone entering the workforce. If one goes shearing then one can be a new entrant into shearing at any age. Certainly as a rousie or a presser one can learn in 2 days what one is required to do and go straight into that sort of mahi. Furthermore with the age structure the way it is many Maori fall into that category of youth. So as we multiply as we are doing we will come under this legislation. 
I was really excited when Sue Bradford brought this bill forward because it was Maori Party policy right from the very beginning to remove that discrimination. But the bill does not remove the discrimination at all; it just changes the name. Therefore the title Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is the wrong name and it should be left as “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is what it does. Kia ora. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will be taking a couple of calls on the bill. I appreciate that this debate is about the title and the substance of the bill is really contained in clause 4. My next speech will be focused around that. 
It is extraordinary is it not? We had the bill starting off as the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and it was a complete abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. The promoter of the bill Sue Bradford was very proud of that fact; that she was standing up for the rights of the oppressed youth throughout the nation. National opposed that abolition. We saw the age period 16 and 17 as quite a short period and in fact we think the bill provides some perverse incentives basically to encourage youngsters to leave school earlier than they might otherwise do. 
We now have a change to “New Entrants” which is actually misleading. I would have to agree with the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples that it is misleading. The whole point of the bill still if one reads clause 4 is about 16 and 17-year-olds whereas in fact it is a pretence that it is only new entrants. I also note the point that Dr Sharples was making about the 90-day legislation which he supported and in which I had made amendments to make it easier for the Maori Party to support in the long run. They know that. They were given plenty of notice on that. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are talking about the title not the 90-day legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes obviously the member wants his speech cut short. Keep to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was merely commenting on a previous speech which of course one is entitled to do provided one does not digress too much. 
Returning to the title issue it is actually now I think a misleading title to refer to it solely as “New Entrants”. The core of the bill is still about 16 and 17-year-olds and relates directly to the abolition of age discrimination which was the original title of the bill. So I have to ask the promoter of the bill why she agreed to this change. In fact she should have stuck to her kaupapa and said “this is actually about 16 and 17-year-olds only and it is about abolition of age discrimination.” That at least would meet the requirement of legislation which is to tell the public what it is about. The new title unfortunately fails that most basic of tests. 
How can we be sitting in this Parliament today purporting to pass legislation through the Committee stage with a title that is actually misleading? At the very minimum there should have been some reference to the fact of the age discrimination issues. Maybe it could have been called the “New Entrants Age Discrimination Removal Bill”—something like that would have at least connected the new idea with the 90-day period and the purpose of the bill: the abolition of age discrimination for 16 and 17-year-olds. 
I should say that National is still fundamentally unconvinced that this measure is necessary; we do not believe it is. We believe as indeed is evident people are able to negotiate these kinds of arrangements and one such negotiation has already occurred. So employers have flexibility; they have different requirements and demands. While it is easier for large employers such as Progressive Enterprises it is not so easy for smaller employers. So we still remain unconvinced of the merits or the necessity of the bill. 
Clearly we recognise that it has been improved and I would have to put that on record. Clearly the bill has been improved and one of the issues that was raised through the select committee process was in fact the whole issue of new entrants—a training period if one will. The promoter of the bill will recall the discussion from the National side of the Committee on those very points and we do note that there has been some accommodation of that. But on the issue of the general principle we feel the bill is an excessive intrusion into the freedom of employment arrangements between people. We believe it will act still as a perverse incentive that will stop people furthering education and training but we understand the intent of the bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage on clause 1 the title clause of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The title was the subject of some change at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I was pleased to be a member of that select committee. The title of the bill is one of the things that the committee made an amendment to and a fact that many other speakers have alluded to. 
I want to talk about some of the reasons behind that change to the title. I differ from the previous speaker in that I believe that the New Zealand public understands exactly what the phrase “new entrants” means. It is the perfect description of what this bill does. The term describes people who are newly entered into the workplace in New Zealand. It is a very common term that we use for children entering the school system. We do not for example say when someone is in year 7 and changes schools that that child is a new entrant. No we do not say that. We say that new entrants are those who are new to the education system. They are newly learning the processes and structures involved in the education system. So the concept of a new entrant is one that is well understood in the New Zealand environment and is very appropriate to use for what this bill does. 
At the select committee we did not talk just about people who are new to a particular work environment because that would be discriminatory. People change jobs all the time and become new to the work environment but that is not what we are talking about in this bill. In this bill we are referring to those people who are having the experience of paid employment for the first time in their working lives. 
I am sure that many members in this Chamber can still reflect for themselves on what it felt like to be a new entrant into the workforce. Certainly for myself as a new entrant it was a bit of a shock to the system. My first job on leaving school was working in horse racing stables and that entailed getting up at 4 o’clock in the morning. It felt very much like a completely different scenario from getting up at 8 o’clock in the morning preparing my school lunch getting on the school bus going to school and really being the recipient of information coming towards me. 
Obviously when people move into paid employment they are not the passive recipients of information coming towards them; they are often required to be producing and to be producing every hour of their working day. That is quite a shift and quite an adjustment that new entrants into the work environment need to make. 
So I support the title that the select committee came up with: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. We could have called it the “Minimum Wage (Put our Money Where our Mouth is When it Comes to Low Pay) Amendment Bill” also because I think that that is one of the things that this bill does. Those parties that will be supporting this bill can proudly stand up and say: “Yes when it comes to low pay we are prepared to do something practical and something real to deal with low pay; it is not just a bumper slogan that we reel out during an election year.” In conclusion I tell the Committee that I support clause 1 the title: the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 The name of this bill is a shame—the “New Entrants Bill”. Sue Moroney has just talked about new entrants going to school. There is a difference I tell her—we do not pay 5-year-olds to go to school. There is a big difference. We are talking about people going into the workforce here. 
The original bill was called the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill but we will not be able to call the bill by that name any longer because this bill will maintain discrimination against those people who are young. It has this new fancy kind of title because it continues to discriminate. I am ashamed to listen to these so-called tough unionists talking about workers’ rights etc. etc. when they are shafting the next generation of workers. They are from the party that talks about the working class—but let me take this back to the title of the bill. 
The Maori Party would like to call this bill the “Abolition of Age Discrimination Bill” because we are a tough unionised working class - type party. However in this bill we are about to reaffirm discrimination against young people so we cannot call it that. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: But that is what you are doing Darien—you know that I am right. You are affirming discrimination against people on the basis of age. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member was bringing the Chair into the debate— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: He was not! 
Sue Moroney 
:—during that speech and he knows not to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. Dr Mapp you are lucky to be here. The member knows that that was a point of order and that he does not talk through a point of order. I gather that the member who had the call was using the word “you” and it is something we certainly want members to cease doing. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: My apologies—my apologies. There could be another title for this bill when the thinking was: “We the Labour Party did our best to oppose Wayne Mapp’s 90-day bill and we have decided to be really really radical and introduce a Supplementary Order Paper so that this one becomes a 3-month bill which just happens to be hello 90 days.” I am ashamed to say that there is hardly any difference there. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: No no—we are talking about the title here. 
I want everybody to realise one other fact here. It is that discrimination on the basis of age is against human rights and Labour is pushing through Supplementary Order Papers and a bill to ensure that that discrimination will continue. 
I have been known to call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. I will give a quote from Martin Luther King: “Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.” That is why I call this bill the “Young Slave Bill”. Young people have no option but to accept it when their so-called union and working-class protectors have affirmed that that is the way it will be. 
If it is true that it takes 8 hours to train a person then why do we need to have a 200-hour limit in the bill? If it is true that it takes 16 hours— 
Darien Fenton 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is straying again from the title. Please come back to the title. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I would like to wrap it up there but I will make the point that the bill is inconsistent with the philosophy of unionism and the rights of the working class. It is inconsistent for a Labour Government to be talking about the title of the bill as being about new entrants when in fact it is a “Continuation of Discrimination Against People on the Basis of Age Bill.” 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in this Committee stage in relation to the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill and the fact that we are talking at this stage about the title of the bill. If we are to consider the title and how it should reflect the substantive matter of the bill then I think that the title is appropriate. 
I disagree with the previous speaker from the Northern Territory that it in fact does represent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member must refer to other members correctly. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: I beg your pardon. The title does in fact reflect the substantive nature of the bill because the bill is about the minimum wage. It is about making sure some statutes are in place that address minimum wages and it also reflects those minimum wages for new entrants. 
So I think that the bill is timely and that it is appropriately named. It is aimed at the group of workers that traditionally have had a long history of problems surrounding their rates of pay. Other names in the past have been used to describe pay rates for that category of workers if we are talking about whether this title is appropriate. Other names that have been bandied around have been “youth rates” and “under a certain age rates”. But I think we have come to a stage where in considering this entire bill the title is appropriate. It addresses the matters we are about to discuss as we continue this debate in the Committee stage and I stand in support of the title of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 2A Principal Act amended 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Clause 3 Purpose 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This is the purpose clause of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill but it obviously also includes certain criteria and whilst not straying from talking about clause 3 that naturally means I will have to also talk about the criteria. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the principal Act which as we know is the Minimum Wage Act to expressly provide for a minimum rate of wages to be prescribed for new entrants being workers who are 16 or 17 years of age and who meet certain criteria. This is not a huge bill but the criteria I think are very important. 
The criteria include such items as the length of employment whether that employment has been with one or more employers and the position held by the worker. That basically says it all. Nothing about how many hours of work is mentioned in the bill’s criteria although the commentary on the bill suggests a figure of 200 hours of employment on or after an employee’s 16th birthday unless that 16 or 17-year-old is employed in a supervisory position. The minimum rate as I think has been mentioned is set at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
I state from the outset in relation to this purpose—and I restate—that we believe that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. No worker should be exploited because of age or for any other reason. But we are concerned about the criteria—and we share the concern of some of the submitters—that this bill will only raise the cost of hiring young workers. It will not actually increase their productivity and as I tried to mention in my address in relation to the title it may have an adverse effect on the employment and training of young workers. It may be a barrier to them entering the workforce and it may indeed tempt or encourage them to leave school and forgo their education or trade skill training for a job that is paid at or above the adult minimum wage. 
I say in relation to the criteria that I see no reason at all why a 16-year-old would not be paid at the same or similar rate to a 19-year-old a 25-year-old or for that matter a 40-year-old if he or she does the same work and makes the same contribution. But as one submitter said: “Younger people tend to be paid at a lower rate than older workers because age is a proxy for experience and performance on the job just as the age of 15 is a proxy for the minimum capacity and maturity required to drive a car on our roads.” Legislation like this whatever its purpose cannot change overnight the amount of experience and performance capabilities of any worker whatever his or her age. 
To paraphrase a useful quote—and again it is in relation to the purpose—”What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job.” I think that sums up a lot of our worries and concerns about this bill and its purpose that it will indeed be a barrier and not help the employment of young people. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 The National Party was quite struck that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to end age discrimination in employment by removing the ability of the Governor-General to set by Order in Council minimum wage rates defined by reference to the age of workers amongst other things. I would be quite keen to hear the matter discussed in more detail if the honourable member Sue Bradford would like to take a call. 
The National Party has huge concerns about the ending of age discrimination in respect of young people in smaller towns. I heard some of the submissions and arguments made about places like fast-food restaurants in small towns where people are working next to each other doing the same job but are paid differently because they are different ages. To be honest some of what they said made sense and when we heard from the young people themselves we were moved by their stories and agreed they were doing exactly the same job. 
The concern I have has also been expressed by other members on this side of the Chamber when we have discussed this bill at length. We have not made our decision lightly because it affects young people. Obviously in the National Party we agree that people should be paid what they are worth. There is no question about that. 
We could give the example of Levin a small place that has mechanics hairdressers small businesses and small retailers. They often take on someone from school to give that person a go. Those businesses do not have much money or much fat. They do not take on that young person to make the business some money or even really for that person to have a huge input into the business at that time but they see the benefit for the longer term of taking on that person. The businesses may be strapped for cash and not making a lot but by paying the minimum wage rate they can take on a young person. 
For example I have a dear friend in Taupo who owns a hair salon. She takes on someone from school on late nights on Thursdays and Saturday mornings. She said that to be honest the young person sweeps a few floors and does not really do much but it gives that young person a taste for the industry. It takes a huge commitment to train as a hairdresser. Trainee hairdressers work for a long time for only a little money in the hope that the qualification will lead to something worthwhile. My friend said that it is a huge commitment to undertake. 
The purpose of the bill is to remove age discrimination. The National Party has huge concerns that the bill actually discriminates against young people because small businesses in smaller towns cannot afford to give young people a go if they have to pay them adult rates. Those young people will end up in jobs in bigger places in supermarkets and so on and although there is nothing wrong with that it does not give them a taste of what they are hoping their future career might be. 
We heard another good example of a veterinarian who takes on young people—and I raise this in terms of the purpose of the bill to cut out age discrimination. That veterinarian takes on young people after school but can afford to pay only the minimum wage. The veterinarian cannot afford to pay them more than the minimum wage and does not want to pay them nothing so takes them on at the minimum wage. A young person in that situation is rapt quite frankly. The person is getting a go and having an opportunity that would not arise otherwise. 
These small businesses said that they knew the worth of what they are doing for young people. I wonder whether the bill has been as well-thought-out as it could have been in that respect. 
I say to the member in the chair Sue Bradford that we understand some of the bigger problems and perhaps why she has brought in the bill. We do not always agree with other members but that is the nature of this place and that is OK. We can argue about it. But I do have huge concerns about whether those smaller areas have been thought about—areas where there are not as many employment opportunities for those young people. Those small businesses are almost doing a community service by taking on these people. They are quite open about the fact they cannot afford to pay anything more than the minimum wage but they know it may help those young people with career opportunities later on. That is really important. 
I have personally had people write to me and National has had many people meet with us. They range from veterinarians to hairdressers mechanics panel beaters and many others. Kids working for these businesses are looking for a bit of a break and a taste of the work so they can see whether that area suits them. 
Sue Moroney 
: Talk about clause 3. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I have been talking about the purpose clause and we hear moans and groans from members on the other side of the Chamber because that is what they like to do. I do not believe that any member of the House wants people not to be paid what they are worth. That is the truth of it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The member from National Paula Bennett has inspired me to speak because first of all I would like to respond to her comments. Young people in smaller towns if not older people are actually worth the same for the job they do wherever they happen to live in the country unless one is proposing a policy that says we should discriminate in wages on the basis of where one lives which I would find an extremely odd policy. I would also point out that a number of programmes for young people to gain work experience are available I believe in smaller towns as well as in cities such as Modern Apprenticeships and work placement programmes from schools. This bill does not tamper with the training wage either which is still available. So I really do not think that the problem the member speaks about is a real one. 
I would also call the member’s attention to an agreement that was signed yesterday between Progressive Enterprises and the Northern Distribution Union—it was very happily supported by that employer last night and today; a progressive employer indeed—where that employer has agreed to take everything a step further than this bill goes. All its young workers will be paid from when the agreement kicks in after the first 200 hours or the first 3 months on the job whichever comes first. Workers for Progressive Enterprises supermarkets will hit the full adult wage after 200 hours or 3 months and that will happen not only for 16 and 17-year-old workers but also for 15-year-old workers. I am hoping that other supermarket chains and retailers will follow that company’s example. 
Further to the purpose of the bill overall my original purpose was to remove fully discrimination on the basis of age for 16 and 17-year-old workers. That has not been completely achieved by the bill as amended and I will talk about that a bit more when we come to the debate on the next clause. But in terms of the main purpose of the bill it is simply unfair that the wages should be different for people doing exactly the same job. 
The previous speaker said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received plenty of submissions and could see that these young workers are doing the same job as older workers. In fact in a number of cases they are supervising and training older workers which is almost the grossest injustice of all. Particularly in places like the fast-food industry and in some retail outlets the young workers have sometimes been on the job for 3 years. They are still 16 or 17; they are put in the position of training and supervising older workers. There could not be anything less just than expecting those workers to continue to receive the minimum wage at over $2 an hour less than what the people they are training are receiving. The work is the same the employer’s expectation is the same and the job description is the same. 
The other thing that is the same is the cost of food clothing and transport. That does not change because one is 16 or 17 either. It does not matter what part of the country one is in; it is a myth that the wages young people earn are not for “real things”. Often these young people are helping to support their families. As we know wages are too low in this country anyway and some families are on benefits. Often these young people are contributing to their family. In other cases they will be contributing to their own clothing transport and food—the necessities of life. These things do not cost young people any less just because of their age. 
All workers also need a short period in which to learn the job. It does not matter what age one is when one starts work. It does not matter whether one starts work at 16 or 60 there is an orientation into any workplace. The Green Party certainly does not believe that workers should have to spend 2 years being paid a lower wage simply because they are learning how to work or how to do a new job. 
Wage discrimination is arbitrary inequitable and unjustifiable. I am really pleased that this bill even in its modified form is taking a big step in the right direction in terms of finally getting rid of this inequity of discrimination on the basis of age. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak about clause 3 “Purpose” of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. It is no surprise that the National Party is opposed to the purpose of this bill. From time to time National members say that they want to do something about low wages in this country and they have the opportunity this very evening to support the purpose of a bill that has a practical impact on improving low pay in this country. Given that opportunity National members stand up and say they oppose clause 3 being the purpose clause. 
Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to provide expressly for a minimum rate of wages to be prescribed for new entrants …” and we have talked about the title of the legislation and who new entrants are. This clause describes new entrants as being those who are 16 or 17 years of age and who meet certain criteria. I know that we will have an opportunity later on in the debate in Committee to talk in more detail about what those certain criteria are but Sue Bradford certainly made reference to the fact that they will be around such workers not being in situations where they are supervising other staff. 
Of course that situation exists at the moment. Many 16 and 17-year-olds came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and were able to tell committee members about situations where they were supervising other staff who were on higher pay rates than they were receiving simply because the Minimum Wage Act in its present form allows that to occur. Also one has to say it was because their employers chose not to pay them what they were worth. 
The member Paula Bennett raised the issue about young people in small towns. I spend a lot of time in many of the small towns in New Zealand. 
Paula Bennett 
: Cambridge? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes places like Cambridge and places like Matamata and Morrinsville. 
Hon Member 
: Sandra Goudie was in Cambridge recently. 
SUE MORONEY 
: They just about ran her out of town but that is not the subject of this debate. My experience is of being in Matamata on a Sunday and buying groceries. I try not to do that on Sundays too often but in this particular event I was. Two young women both 16-year-olds were there. One was putting the groceries through the checkout and the other one was packing them. It was Sunday afternoon and I asked them what wages they were being employed on. [ 
Interruption 
] I will talk about stable hands shortly because that is another group who will benefit greatly from the purpose of this bill which the National Party opposes. 
These two young women were really very aware. They were pointing down the aisle and one said: “Look that woman down there is doing packing at the same rate as I am.” I think they told me she was on about $12 an hour and these young women were on $5 and $6 an hour. They were doing exactly the same job on a Sunday. In years gone by they would have expected penal rates for that as well but that is a whole different debate again. 
So I certainly cannot support the view of the previous speaker Paula Bennett that perhaps this is an opportunity to introduce geographical discrimination because this bill was an opportunity to get rid of age discrimination. The impact of that move will be widely felt in the small towns in New Zealand. It will be greatly appreciated by 16 and 17-year-olds. 
I say to Ms Bennett that yes people do work in stables in places like Matamata and Cambridge. The legislation will have a big impact on that industry. Those young people are getting up at very early hours and are working very long hours. In fact they would be able to meet the criterion of having worked for 200 hours a lot earlier than they would meet the criterion of having worked for 3 months. Many of these young people would be meeting the 200-hour criterion in about 4 weeks such are the hours they work in that industry. 
These are the realities out there for young people in these positions. They are working in industries that are well supported by this Government and that are thriving under this Government. This is another piece of legislation coming forward from this House that will further support those young people in their endeavours. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Prescription of minimum wages 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on clause 4 of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I understand there is a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to this clause. Can I say from the outset and repeat that the National Party thinks this is a well-intentioned bill and an attempt to avoid the exploitation and discrimination of young workers but it is not the right instrument in which to do that. 
I will pick up on one of the scenarios that the honourable member Sue Moroney mentioned in respect of the young women in the supermarket on $5 an hour. That seems somewhat incredible to me because if those women were aged between 16 and 17 then under the current law they should have been in receipt of 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. If they are earning less than the adult minimum wage then that is contrary to the law. That may indeed be—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that it is not permitted for those who do not have the call to interject on each other. Interjections are only for the member who is speaking. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I would also like to repeat the quote that I used earlier because I think it is a good quote to use to preface the debate on clause 4: “What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her”— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although your ruling at the last break in proceedings was that people who were speaking could be interjected upon—and I have absolutely no difficulty with that and I am not disputing it—I would ask you to remind members on the Government benches that those who have shifted their seats to gain advantage should not use that advantage to interject on others. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution and say that a number of members on both sides of the Chamber have shifted their seats. I will take into account what the member has said. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I will paraphrase the quote that ended my previous speech because I think it is a good quote to preface what I want to say in relation to clause 4. What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? We really need to focus our minds on that because if the bill even though it might be well intentioned becomes a barrier to young people obtaining work and if it prevents them from getting work then the bill will have the opposite effect of what is intended and it will not be good effective law. 
Clause 4 relates to what the Governor-General by Order in Council may prescribe as the minimum wage and this provision is in relation to 16 or 17-year-olds who basically meet the criterion. The criterion was specified in the commentary on the bill as being 200 hours of employment. We recognise the introduction of the new entrants’ requirement of 200 hours. I appreciate that Supplementary Order Paper 137 proposes to replace that period with 90 days but I will speak to that later. The requirement is designed to provide young workers with time to acquire the skills and experience necessary to hopefully lift their productivity which is what we all want to achieve and to justify a higher minimum wage. The difficulty with this 200 hours’ training requirement is that the formula provided for it is not clear. The 200 hours could be with one employer in which case those skills could be cumulative. It could be with two or even more employers. In that situation one cannot assume for example if a young person worked for four employers at 50 hours each that that experience gained is actually transferable to the latest employment. One cannot assume that the skills and experience of the different jobs are transferable and that the young person is valuable enough to the employers to justify the adult rate. 
The interesting thing about the Supplementary Order Paper is that it abolishes the youth rate—to use the colloquial term—but then it proposes to insert a provision in respect of workers who are new entrants “being workers who are 16 or 17 years of age except workers (i) who have completed 3 months or 200 hours of employment whichever is the shorter;”. I want to focus on that criterion for a moment. I wonder whether the member Sue Bradford might take a call and explain what she understands by the amendment—although of course the amendment has been introduced by the Minister Ruth Dyson. 
There are two issues in respect of this amendment. One issue is that the definition of employment includes employment undertaken with more than one employer. So this provision basically includes a young person who has worked for a couple of employers. But what happens if the young person is employed with only one employer? That is not included in this clause. I am not sure what the rationale would be for this. It seems to me that if it is a training rate a provisional period or something like that then employment with one employer would translate into an employee acquiring more cumulative and better skills training and experience rather than working for more than one employer and doing the same job but not learning. Maybe there is a very good reason why the provision relates to employment undertaken with more than one employer. I would have thought the correct drafting—not that I am here to help the Government draft its Supplementary Order Papers—would be that it should be one employer or more than one employer. If that were an error of drafting it would not surprise me. 
The second point I will make in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper is in relation to the provision that the new entrant has completed 3 months of employment. There is nothing in the definition of employment to say how many hours that 3-month period of employment is. Is it 3 months? I know that Supplementary Order Paper 137 states that it is 3 months or 200 hours whichever is the shorter but 3 months could be 1 hour per week or it could be 1 hour per month. There is no qualitative criterion for that 3 months of employment. I think that this leads to some uncertainty and we all know that uncertain law is bad law. 
I will talk further in relation to the wider ramifications but those are the two issues that I raise in relation to the technicalities if you like of the Supplementary Order Paper. I understand and appreciate what the author of that Supplementary Order Paper is trying to achieve but I am not actually sure that that will be achieved through this amendment. 
I also say at this stage that many employers at the moment—and we understand through submissions that the figure is about 85 percent—already pay above the minimum youth rate to their staff. That is because they recognise that the value their staff are providing warrants a higher level of pay. I was interested to listen to the submission of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. In its submission it advised that none of its members receive the youth rate at all; in fact they all received above the youth rate. 
We have to wonder what the point is of having a prescriptive bill like this that could be the very barrier that stops young people from getting a job. 
Paula Bennett 
: More compliance costs. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes it is a case of more compliance costs because employers have to keep a record of not only the hours worked with them but the hours worked with other employers. They may not even necessarily know what other employers the young person is working for in terms of the 200 hours or the 3 months. When does the 200 hours actually kick in? It is not the responsibility of employer A to know exactly what employer B is doing. Keeping a record of the hours per se is not a problem because wage records are kept. But one does not keep records of the hours worked in respect of other employment matters or issues or for other employers. I think that it is somewhat unwieldy. Again unwieldy and uncertain law is bad law. It is good for the lawyers but it is bad law. 
In any employment relationship the last thing people want to have to do is resort to the tribunal the authority or the court procedures to try to work out exactly what this law is supposed to say. I believe that the bill is not particularly workable. The intent of the bill is fine. Let us avoid the exploitation of young people. If young people deserve a fair wage then they should get a fair wage. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk to clause 4 of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Kate Wilkinson referred to the Supplementary Order Paper and I will not attempt to unravel the lawyer-speak that the member presented to us in that last speech. I think that is unnecessary actually because I think it is far simpler than she is saying. 
The fundamental thing about this bill that perhaps some people have not understood is that we are talking about the minimum wage here. We are talking about a minimum wage. Maybe members opposite do not understand what the minimum wage is for. A minimum wage sets a floor below which no employer can pay. It is about having a socially acceptable minimum wage. 
I heard the member Paula Bennett calling out to ask what unions are doing. Well I think we have seen what unions can do with the Progressive Enterprises settlement—and the Spotless settlement has in fact set a whole new benchmark of $14.25 an hour. That is what unions are able to do. This legislation is for workers who are vulnerable and who rely on this but it was never intended to be the primary wage-fixing instrument. So let us just remember that too. 
I think the other thing we should remember is that we have come a long way but boy did we have a long way to come! When Labour became the Government in 1999 16 and 17-year-olds—and indeed 18 19 and 20-year-olds—were being paid $4.20 an hour. That is shameful absolutely shameful! The first thing Labour did was to lift the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. What is wrong with that? Now their pay is nearly three times what it was in 1999. The minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds has increased by more than 100 percent during the same period. What is wrong with that? That is fantastic. 
We have provided legislation for other workers to have a minimum wage—for example workers with disabilities. In a few weeks the House will be debating my member’s bill about dependent contractors being entitled to a minimum wage. What is wrong with that? What we are talking about is people getting paid socially acceptable minimum wages. 
What is wonderful about this bill and about clause 4 is that thousands and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will get a pay increase after they have done 200 hours of work or have worked for 3 months whichever is the lesser period. Again I acknowledge Sue Bradford. She has done a wonderful job in bringing this issue to the House and the parties who vote in support of this clause tonight will be making history. As I have said in a previous debate it is world leading. 
I say to the members of the Maori Party that I am a bit puzzled about why they would choose to make no progress at all and to leave the current injustice in place so that 16 and 17-year-olds continue to get the youth minimum wage for 2 years rather than to make progress. One of the things that I have understood for many years as a union negotiator is that if one asks for 10 percent and gets 8 percent one does not say to the boss: “Sorry that is not good enough. We will have nothing.” It is better to make progress and that is what I think this bill does. A whole lot of workers out there are saying that this is a whole lot better than nothing and that they are looking forward to getting a pay increase. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 which was moved by the Minister Ruth Dyson locks in the adult wage for 16 and 17-year-olds. This means that a future Government under the Minimum Wage Act cannot go back to having a youth minimum wage apart from the new entrant period. This is fantastic—unless of course a future Government changes the law; let us not let that happen. 
Supplementary Order Paper 137 also locks in the provision that if a worker is supervising other workers then the new entrant provision does not apply and the worker goes straight on to the adult minimum wage. That is fantastic. What is wrong with that? 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes sure that where the new entrant provision applies the worker gets 80 percent. At the moment there is no guarantee of that happening; the worker gets whatever the boss chooses to pay. So that locks it in too. 
As I have already mentioned the new entrant provision applies for only 200 hours which is 5 weeks for a full-time worker or 3 months. It might be only an hour a week but hey we have made a judgment on that and we think that is fair given the nature of the industries that are covered by the minimum wage or the youth minimum wage—the retail industry the hospitality industry and so on. 
Once again for the benefit of the Maori Party this bill has nothing to do with probationary periods. This bill is amending a totally different Act of Parliament. It has nothing to do with Wayne Mapp’s bill even though he keeps trying to bring it up—he has not really got over it. Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call in order to make a few comments about Supplementary Order Paper 137 that has been proposed by the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not think it is any secret to the Committee that the Green Party and I were not particularly happy with the bill as it was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—as I said in the House and as we stated in the minority report. However we do support the latest Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister and I would like to give some of the reasons for that. 
First of all the Supplementary Order Paper enshrines the decisions that were made by the select committee and that appear in the commentary on the bill. Secondly the Supplementary Order Paper strengthens those decisions by adding a time-bound maximum of 3 months’ service as an alternative trigger to 200 hours for the period that new entrants are required to work before they move to a full minimum wage. This is really important and that is what I am really pleased about as a number of young people work only a few hours a week and it would have taken some of them up to 6 months or even 9 months before they could have moved to the full adult wage—it would have taken them as long as that to reach the 200 hours. That provision would have applied in a lot of workplaces and any pretence that somehow it takes 6 months or 9 months to learn how to do a job to be a new entrant in a job is just ridiculous and I am really glad that this progress has been made. Thirdly and most important for me the Supplementary Order Paper is strengthened by removing the power of any future Minister of Labour to again regulate across the board for discriminatory youth rates. I would like to congratulate the Government on taking that step. 
These changes make a much better bill. They make a bill that is much closer to its original intent than that which came back from the select committee. That is why the Green Party is really happy to support this amendment and feels confident of making big progress with the bill today and when it next comes back to the House for the third reading. 
This Supplementary Order Paper and the bill as amended are an indication to employers and workers alike that across-the-board age-based discrimination has been removed from our Minimum Wage Act. It allows unions and employers to negotiate wages with certainty and not have to worry about a rogue firm gaining a competitive advantage through the hiring of low-cost young workers. I would like to thank the Minister Ruth Dyson again for drafting this Supplementary Order Paper which now enables at last the Green Party to happily support the bill. I would also like to mention and thank Peter Brown and New Zealand First for agreeing to the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper. I know the member has been very involved in the select committee and the process of this bill going through the House. I thank him and his party for their support and for making it the better bill that it has become today. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have just been listening to the debate and I felt somewhat— 
Nathan Guy 
: Moved. 
ERIC ROY 
: Moved would be the word yes. I was going to say “angered” but moved will do. I felt moved to make a contribution to this debate because I can recall with great clarity the first debate we ever had about putting in place youth rates and that was by way of a private member’s bill moved by Michael Laws and Nick Smith in 1994. So this debate has gone on over time. The issues that were apparent then are just as clear today and I wish to draw attention to those issues. 
The first point is that this bill says that the best way we can help people to get involved in the workforce and to get rewarded for what they are doing is to have the Government say what they are worth. And I would say that that is a flawed notion. 
David Benson-Pope 
: There were 161000 people unemployed under that party. 
ERIC ROY 
: The member who is making a great fuss on the other side of the Chamber needs to consider these issues. I absolutely agree that people should be paid what they are actually worth but the history under this Government is that productivity in New Zealand has gone down and by every measure we are worse off now productivity-wise which means that we are less able to compete in the world market and ultimately that there will be fewer opportunities for young people. 
The question surrounding the minimum wage is whether there is a job opportunity and whether we rule that out by setting the barrier of a wage that is too high. I give members this example. In the petrol station where I get my car filled with fuel there used to be a person on the forecourt who filled up my car. But as soon as we put minimum wages up to a point that has an impact on the price of fuel I will go and get my car filled up somewhere else where I can pump my own gas. So when we set the bar too high it becomes a disincentive for employment because at the end of the day someone has to pay. So to think that we can resolve the situation of a low-wage economy—which I admit we have in New Zealand compared with all other countries particularly those above us on the OECD list—by just putting wages up can in actual fact work as a disincentive for employment. That is the first point. 
The second point is that when we start to dictate what a minimum wage should be and when that bar is too high then that sends a false message and locks in dependency because many young people think that that wage is as good as it can get. The moment young people step into a minimum wage without education and without any incentive they are locked into that for the rest of their lives. 
I want to pick up on clause 4 because this is the part that really starts to concern me. Clause 4 will enshrine in law a delegated authority to set what the wage is. So by passing clause 4 today we are saying by Order in Council that somebody can set the wage. 
Darien Fenton 
: Haven’t you read the Minimum Wage Act? 
ERIC ROY 
: My questions are—and I expect someone who is very vociferous on the other side of the Chamber to answer this—”What is the mechanism to be used by those people who make the recommendation to the Governor-General and who are they?”. I have only just picked up this bill and had a cursory read of it. Is it the Minister of Labour? [ 
Interruption 
] Well someone can take a call and respond because I believe that this is an issue we need to know about. What are not stipulated in respect of this delegated authority are the measures to be taken by the group individual or person making the recommendation for that minimum wage to be set and altered at any point without the intervention of Parliament. What criteria will they consider when they are using that delegated authority to set the minimum wage? So I have some serious concerns that by passing clause 4 as it stands we are locking in a mechanism whereby some people who are not specified in the legislation have a right at any time not determined in there—it could be twice a year or every 5 years; we do not know the specifics— 
Dave Hereora 
: Read the bill! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well someone can respond to that; I have had a quick look at it as I say. 
 Let me just restate that this is not a case of helping young people by locking them into a situation. If we want young people to be incentivised to be interested and to be taking opportunities then it is not a matter of encouraging them to lock themselves into a low and minimum wage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker for the benefit of my learned colleagues on my right I tell them that I would like them to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3. It was a favourite of former Deputy Speaker Geoff Braybrooke and it is becoming one of mine. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As we have heard from Sue Bradford who has been the driving force behind the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill—and it is good that she has had all the commendations from around the House; even from National members who say it is a well-intentioned bill even if they do not support the content—the Green Party will be supporting this bill this clause and Supplementary Order Paper 137. 
I would like to put to rest Kate Wilkinson’s idea that somehow this bill will stop employers from employing people who are not getting youth rates. In fact I think a lot of the evidence she has provided argues the other way. As she pointed out 85 percent of people at that age are not paid youth rates at present and most of the people on youth rates are in either the retail or the fast-food industry. We have had Progressive Enterprises a big chain coming out and saying that it can quite easily do away with youth rates even for 15-year-olds so I think the idea that any of these firms will go bust if they do not give the odd extra dollar to make up the full minimum rate for workers is not particularly apt. Doing away with youth rates is no great sacrifice for the employers but they are a huge sacrifice for young people entering the workforce. 
I think it is great the way Progressive Enterprises has come out and responded to the concerns of the general population and of young people in particular in the same way that their competitor Foodstuffs has come out recently and supported the labelling of fresh fruit vegetables and meat in supermarkets as a response to popular concern about that issue. The way that these companies are getting ahead of the play is fantastic. 
There was a bit of an argument about people being paid $4 an hour and whether that is below what they should be paid on youth rates. I will not get into the particular argument or the figures but I will say that young workers are often duped to some extent about what rate they are owed. The existence of youth rates makes it more difficult because they know they will get a lesser rate as a result of these youth rates and anyhow they are all a bit scared in their first time in employment. Often they do not want to talk back to the employer and a lot of them are not unionised. Unite! and the National Distribution Union are gaining members in the industries that employ young people but a lot of those young people are still not unionised. Unknowingly they sometimes take a lower rate than they should have to legally. The very fact that we have clear legislation will give those young workers more confidence. 
The move to complement the requirement of 200 hours’ work with a minimum 3-month period will help a lot of workers to work out where they stand too because it might be a little hard for them to shuffle around bits of paper about how many hours they have done for this employer and for that employer and add it up to 200. It will be a bit complicated but hopefully they will be able to do it if they are getting their 200 hours up in less than 3 months. At least they can work back to the date that they started work and figure out when they qualify for the full rates so it will be easier in that respect. 
I think there was a misunderstanding over whether the requirement is 200 hours with one or more employers. I looked at the explanatory note on the back of Supplementary Order Paper 137 and it states that “employment” includes more than one employer. If we were to apply that explanatory note to the definition then clearly it is employment with one or more employers. 
Of course the Greens would like this bill to go a little further. We are not really in favour of youth rates in any form for 16 and 17-year-olds but this bill is a great step forward and we will definitely be supporting it. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I will start by acknowledging the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford. I thank her for her determination and her stubbornness on many occasions as she watched the bill go through its many iterations at select committee in and out and I thank her for her support for the Supplementary Order Paper that I am moving to amend clause 4 which we are debating at the moment. This is really the heart of the legislation: the prescription of the minimum wage. 
I listened with great amusement—and that is the kindest adjective I can apply—to the contribution from the member from Southland Eric Roy who described the process of reviewing and setting the minimum wage in Sue Bradford’s bill and Supplementary Order Paper 137 as if it were new. Frankly for the National Party perhaps it is new but it has been that way as a process in the Minimum Wage Act since 1983. What happened in the 9 years from 1990 to 1999 when there was a National Government in New Zealand was that National complied with the law because all the law stated was that one had to review the minimum wage. It did not say one had to increase it and that is why the previous National Government did not do so. For 9 years the adult minimum wage stayed at exactly the same rate except for a pathetic increase of $1 an hour over the entire 9 years and at that time young people were included right up to the age of 20. 
The youth minimum wage which is the point of this debate applied to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Under National one did not become an adult until the age of 20 and what is more the youth rate was set at 60 percent of the adult rate not the current 80 percent. So for that member to come in here and say that this is new is just nonsense. It is new to increase the youth minimum wage; that has been happening only in the last 8 years under a Labour-led Government. That is why the graph of the minimum wage looks like it does with the blue numbers flat-lining and the red numbers going up. Sue Bradford’s bill will improve that situation even further. 
I also commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because this legislation is not as easy as the original proposal. The idea that jobs should be paid according to their value is pretty straightforward and I think that it is an excellent principle on which this bill was developed. But the submissions to the select committee raised a number of issues including the main driver behind our consideration of the amendment which was the socialisation skills that young people do not have. It is not skills for the job and it is not skills generally that training itself will fix because we still have a training rate linked to skills—and the list member from Christchurch did not seem to indicate her understanding that we have a training rate that is skill-specific related. This is about socialisation and that is all. Frankly some of the contributions at the select committee would indicate that even the adults who made the submissions had not quite got to that stage in their presentations either. So after hearing from the select committee and listening to what are quite complex submissions and debates I proposed this amendment. 
As I said earlier I am really delighted that the proponent and sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford has urged her caucus colleagues in the Green Party to support it. I also acknowledge New Zealand First the Maori Party and United Future which are also supporting it. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I thought United Future was going to support it. 
Darien Fenton 
: The Maori Party isn’t. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Maori party is not supporting it? I cannot believe that those members would not support such a good step forward for young people. They still have time to change their minds as the debate will go on for a little while yet. But the parties that are supporting the bill did so after a lot of careful thinking. 
We do not want to send the message to young people that leaving school early with no qualifications is a good idea and I do not think this bill will drive that message. Our increase in the youth minimum wage over the last year has shown a negligible impact on the number of young people who are leaving school early. In fact if anything this increase has allowed people to stay at school longer because the part-time jobs are better paid and they are able to balance work and school without doing long hours. We do not want to send a message that it is OK to leave school too early with no qualifications. 
I also want to just touch on the other spurious point that Eric Roy made in his contribution—I think Paula Bennett may have made passing reference to this as well—which was about the possible impact on unemployment for young people that a higher wage would have. I cannot believe the short-term memory loss that has occurred in the National Party in the last 8 years. When National was last in Government there were 161000 people on the unemployment benefit and that figure now is 20000. There has been a drop in the rate of people on an unemployment benefit of 140000 people despite the fact that every single year we have increased the adult minimum wage we have increased the youth rate we have increased the percentage of the adult rate that the youth rate has attached to it and we have also made sure that people at 18 years of age receive the adult rate. 
With all those changes we have had a decrease of over 140000 people on an unemployment benefit. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Tell us about the young people. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My colleague asks about the young people. Well I just happen to have that information. When National was last in Government there were 17500 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit despite the fact that the youth rate was so low that a person could have employed 20 people in any business and it would hardly have made a little bump in his or her wage bill. The youth rates were a pittance. What is that figure now? The rate of 18 and 19-year-olds on an unemployment benefit in our country now is 1000 people. Those are the statistics that National should think about before it comes into this Chamber and raises spurious arguments in opposition to improving the way that 16 and 17-year-olds are recognised through their wage packet. 
In conclusion I acknowledge that this bill does not go as far as the sponsor of the bill and the Green Party originally intended. That is one of the things that happens when we are in a Parliament that comprises a number of parties. If we have a day when the Green Party is a majority Government it will be able to go ahead with exactly what its members want without any debate discussion or perhaps compromise with other parties. But I seem to recall that the Green Party was a strong supporter of proportional representation; certainly my colleague Rod Donald was as co-leader of the Greens. This is one of the results of proportional representation. We have to work with other parties and we have to make some compromises. We cannot just bowl ahead and do what we want. 
I am pleased that we have been able to reach a position that is supported by the sponsor of the bill because this bill is done for the betterment of young people so that the contribution they make in paid work is properly valued. The amendment applies to all employment regardless of whether it is the first second third or fourth job. I am glad that other members read the full Supplementary Order Paper rather than following Kate Wilkinson’s very shallow example of not even reading it. Lawyers should read the legislation before they make a contribution in Parliament; it is very damaging to one’s reputation if one does not do that. It is very clear that the legislation applies to all paid employment of 16 and 17-year-olds. It includes employment undertaken before the commencement of the Act. It does not include employment for those under 16 years of age. That is a debate for the future I am sure. 
In my view this legislation is a huge step forward for 16 and 17-year-olds. It recognises the primary valid concern of employers that some period of socialisation be required. This period is almost a transition between school and a paid job. Perhaps the 200 hours was too much—it was only 5 weeks in a full-time job—but we have reached a position now where 200 hours or 3 months applies whichever is the shorter across all employment. That period can obviously commence prior to the implementation of the Act. There will be a huge wage increase for people and that recognises the value of the work they are doing. Many of them are doing exactly the same work as people who are older and who are getting paid more. 
I also acknowledge the contribution from Business New Zealand. The point it raised in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is also reflected in this Supplementary Order Paper and indeed in the bill as reported back from the select committee. Business New Zealand was not supportive of the bill but it did say that anyone supervising somebody should be paid at the adult rate. This legislation achieves that as well. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tena tatou katoa e hui nei ki te korero i te pire nei. I want to make the stance of the Maori Party very clear. All members somewhere in their speeches on this legislation have said they believe in the principle of equal pay for the job done yet here we are with a bill that does not supply that. Why have we not got the guts to go the whole hog? That is the point.  
The Maori Party went up and down the county in support of repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act. The principle of repealing section 59 was to give children the same status as adults—in other words to end discrimination against children. Why should there be a defence for an assault on a child that cannot be used for an assault on an adult? The same thing applies here. Why can we not go the whole hog and say that we do not agree with differential wages for 16 and 17-year-olds without having to invent something like new entrants korero? 
Although the Supplementary Order Paper is an improvement on the bill in that workers now qualify for the adult minimum wage if they work for 200 hours or 3 months whichever is the sooner it still does not satisfy the Maori Party position of opposing discrimination. Our kaupapa and our tikanga the resourcing of whanau and the promotion of rangatahi [ 
Interruption 
]—if members listen carefully—are values that are very important to Maori. We Maori are also the ones who have a lot of our population in the youth area and what sort of message are we giving young people by saying they are worth less? What sort of work ethic are we supporting? What are the inside messages that we are sending to young people by saying to them that they should start at this lower rate? 
The concept of a new entrant into the workforce does not sit with that entrant being of age 16 or 17 either. It could be that someone who is 20 41 or 51 is entering into a new work area. Many Maori are employed in areas such as shearing sheds the road and a lot of manual jobs. They do not need a new entrants supervisor or skills to swing a shovel or to use a handpiece—well they need a bit of practice for the handpiece but to throw a fleece— 
Eric Roy 
: How many a day do you do? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: All of those bro—200 a day. I am just saying— 
Eric Roy 
: You understand. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes that is right. So despite the heckling and the support I say that that is the reason why we are opposing the bill: it is the whole thing or nothing. It is about discrimination and this bill still discriminates. Kia ora. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My honourable colleague from the Maori Party has raised a very interesting question. Let me make it quite clear that New Zealand First supports this bill and all the amendments under the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought to the Committee. We think that this legislation is a way forward. We recognise that many employers in this country are now sympathetic to the cause and we want to be behind them. 
But the co-leader of the Maori Party Pita Sharples—for whom I have a great deal of respect I might add—raised an interesting question: why do we not go the whole hog? Let me answer that by saying that there are employers in this country who have some fears. It is not just a case of employing person A and person B to do the same job when one is lifestyle-experienced and the other is new. There are other qualities that employers have to take into consideration. It is not just about a measure of competence; it is about a measure of attitude and commitment. Older people tend to have a greater commitment to the employer and to the company. It is about a measure of lifestyle. Younger people tend to live for their pleasures dare I say it—and actually some older people do too. I have to clarify that. But younger people tend to give priority to after-hours activity as against working-hours activity and they get the balance wrong. And—I have to say this with some concern—younger people are not necessarily as reliable as older people. 
Hone Harawira 
: No no. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is true. The “William Wilberforce of the South Pacific” is challenging me. 
New Zealand First is supportive of this compromise position but if anybody has changed tonight I have to say it is the Green Party. My breath was taken away when Sue Bradford offered some compliments to New Zealand First. They were deserved because I think it is fair to say that we have put a lot of background effort into this bill and I thank the member for recognising that. But last week when the bill came before the House I heard her colleague Keith Locke describe it as a rotten compromise. By jingo I have to say that that got up my nose with the amount of work that has gone into this bill. It has turned from a rotten compromise to a reasonable thing which the proposer of the bill now applauds. 
At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we heard from a number of young people and they put their case exceedingly well. Two young women in particular came before the select committee independently and they made a great impression on me—not because of their looks; well in part because of their looks. They told us they were in supervisory roles one in a cinema and one in a hotel. There were people coming to work in those establishments who were a good deal older and who knew nothing about what was required and what have you and these young people on the youth minimum wage were training those older people. That is absolutely and totally wrong. An employer with any nous would have said: “Look I’m paying you more for what you are doing.” I have no doubt from the way these people put their case across that they were telling us the absolute truth. 
It is good to know that many employers—Kate Wilkinson told us it was 85 percent of employers—in this country are supportive of this type of legislation. That is good to know. I say to the National Party that it should get on side with the majority of New Zealanders. They should think about it if 85 percent of employers are supportive. But in particular I want to say to my colleagues in the Maori Party that for goodness’ sake they should not oppose a bill because they have got their knickers in a twist. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
PETER BROWN 
: That is what it amounts to. They are saying: “We don’t get everything we want so we’re going to oppose it.” And this is the party that went to solve the problems of Australia. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I would like to add a contribution to this debate tonight. I start by responding to Minister Dyson’s comments about the changes in unemployment rates across the country since the Labour Government’s rise to power in this country particularly her claim that amongst 18 and 19-year-olds there has been a drop of 17500 in unemployment and also that altogether there has been a reduction of 140000 people in unemployment. It was an interesting point that was made because Labour members always say they are responsible for that drop in unemployment. How they make that out I am not too sure. Did the Labour Government employ those people? 
Sue Moroney 
: Labour is responsible for the drop in unemployment. National raised unemployment. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Labour is responsible for the drop in unemployment? Employers are responsible for the drop in unemployment—employers—and that is where this Government does not understand business at all. The people who are responsible for the drop in unemployment in this country are employers. We see the same situation with a conservative Government in Australia. There has been a significant drop in unemployment over there over the same time because of employers. I ask those members to name me one thing that this Government has done in the last 6 years— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! It is Wednesday evening; I am aware of that. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —that has— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member’s speech. He is making some very good points. But I wonder whether he would take a question. Would the Government have been responsible— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member is perfectly entitled to ask the member on his feet to yield but that is up to the member himself. It is not a point of order. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The decisions around employment are made by employers and are largely driven by the economic circumstances that they find their businesses in. That is what drives unemployment. Let us take the comment about the drop in unemployment among 18 and 19-year-olds. I will give the Labour Government some credit for the drop in unemployment. The credit goes to Labour because of the rise in bureaucracy in this country—I will give them that one. 
The $20 billion increase in Government expenditure since 1999—$20 billion—has resulted in some employment that they can take some credit for. But tell me how many of those 18 and 19-year-olds has the Government employed? How many 18 and 19-year-olds have been employed by the bureaucracy? How many nurses aged 18 and 19 have been employed? How many doctors aged 18 and 19 have been employed? How many analysts at the Ministry of Economic Development are 18 and 19-year-olds? How many analysts at the Department of Statistics are 18 and 19-year-olds? Not one. So the reduction of 17500 in unemployment has nothing to do with the $20 billion increase in spending by the Government and it has everything to do with employers in this country who have driven unemployment down. 
What policies have been put in place to help the unemployment rate? Here we see a bill—not a Labour bill but a Green bill—aimed at increasing the youth rate. I turn to clause 4 “Prescription of minimum wages” and you will be pleased Mr Chairman that I am getting back to that part of the bill. Section 1 in clause 4 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council prescribe the minimum rate …”. Now how is the prescription of a minimum rate going to reduce the unemployment rate of 18 and 19-year-olds? It will not make one iota of difference because for 18 and 19-year-olds and 16 and 17-year-olds employment is all about employers who give them a job. 
I want to finish my speech tonight by talking about McDonalds Supermarket an employer in Taradale. I ask the Green members how clause 4 “Prescription of minimum wages” will help that employer employ more 16 and 17-year-olds. That employer has helped to increase employment in this country. It has employed 16 and 17-year-olds and it has given them a work ethic that they can take with them throughout their lives based on a wage that that supermarket can afford. I was one of the guys who was lucky enough to get a job in that supermarket early in my career and that gave me a work ethic. Over many many years employers such as that company have employed young people given them a start and given them a future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 At this point of the debate in the Committee stage we are really getting to the crux of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I think that the member who has just resumed his seat should perhaps cross the floor because in fact he argued against his own party’s position. His colleagues were maintaining that increasing the minimum rate for 16 and 17-year-olds would affect employment figures. That member did a good job of convincing—I hope—his colleagues and certainly the rest of the Committee that the evidence is there: increasing the minimum rate does not affect the employment rate or the unemployment rate. That is not what this bill is about. 
This bill is not about affecting employment or unemployment rates; this bill is about getting a level playing field for 16 and 17-year-olds. When 16 and 17-year-olds are contributing in a workplace to the same level as any other person irrespective of what their age may be they will not be discriminated against by virtue of the Minimum Wage Act. That is what this bill is about. 
I think that the member who just resumed his seat completely missed that point. He thought he was coming down here to debate who had done better in terms of unemployment rates—National or Labour. I do not think we need to debate that. I think everyone in the country is absolutely aware that under Labour—under its policy settings under its support for business under its support for workers and under all the policies that it has brought in—there is no doubt that unemployment has fallen dramatically and drastically. 
This bill is really putting the cat among the pigeons and not just for the National Party. The National Party is really exposing its hand here. Its members have campaigned in the past on the issue of being worried about low pay in this country and worried about New Zealanders who take their skills and fortunes over to places like Australia. They talk about that regularly and routinely. But when they get an opportunity to do something in this House to improve low pay in this country what do they do? We can check their voting record. Every single time they get an opportunity to improve low pay in a structural way they vote against it. That is what the record of National is. So next time those members roll that little bumper sticker slogan out at election time check the voting record. 
I will move on and respond to the Maori Party position. Hone Harawira earlier in this debate talked about the very experienced union people on this side of the Chamber and made some observations. Thank goodness that the Maori Party is not a union responsible for taking wage claims forward. At this point in the debate the Maori Party members are saying—and my colleague Darien Fenton used this example before as well—that if a union goes to an employer for a claim for a 10 percent wage increase and the employer says: “Well good argument folks but we can’t quite do that. We’ll give you 8 percent instead.” the Maori Party if it were the union would say: “No thanks very much. We’ll take nothing; we’ll take zero.” That is the position that the Maori Party is taking at present. 
I think that the Maori Party is probably standing on principle but it is not thinking about the practicalities of this. The impact of voting against this Supplementary Order Paper is the maintenance of the status quo. The status quo means that 17 and 18-year-olds will not get this increase in the minimum wage until their 18th birthday. This Supplementary Order Paper makes significantly more progress than that. 
I know that Paula Bennett sneers at people who work as stable hands and people who live in small towns but I want to use the example of many young people in an industry that I am familiar with who work as stable hands in the horse racing industry. Supplementary Order Paper 137 states that after 200 hours of employment 16 and 17-year-olds will receive the adult rate. That will take about 4 weeks of working in a horse racing stable for a 16-year-old—they generally work about 50 hours a week—to be on the adult rate. That is the sort of improvement that has been proposed here. The Maori Party would have that 16-year-old wait 2 years and not get the adult minimum rate until 18. I really encourage that party to think about the practicalities of the position it is putting forward on that basis. This is good progress it is world leading. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker can stand up and make allegations about what I have and have not said and she can say that I wish to see people in some regions being paid lower wages and that I do not care about people who work in stables and places like that. If that rings a bell at that particular time then that is fine. 
But let us take something that the Minister Ruth Dyson said on 25 July. She said that we need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have for thousands of workers against the possible negative impact of giving those 16 and 17-year-olds an incentive to leave school early with fewer qualifications. The Minister has introduced this Supplementary Order Paper 137 because the Government has concerns that there may be a possible negative impact because of that incentive. 
The member who spoke before me stood up and said correctly that within 4 weeks those young people will be on the adult minimum wage. How will 4 weeks counter that negative impact and stop them leaving school early? The Minister herself has identified it as an issue. She said that the Government has concerns about young people having an incentive to leave school early without full qualifications yet it admits that 200 hours can be done in 4 weeks. As such a slightly lower wage for 1 month will not be the disincentive that Labour hopes it is. 
Let us also take a comment made by the member who spoke before me who has since disappeared. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. If I had had the call and been able to respond to that member when she spoke earlier in this debate and talked about young people being on wages of $4.20 and $5 an hour then I would have pointed out that that is illegal. Those employers are breaking the law now. This Government is to put in another law and thinks that all of a sudden it will fix it. The Government thinks that if it puts in another law employers who are breaking the law and not paying the bare minimum wage now will think: “Gosh golly me! I had better obey the law.” No! We should stick with what the law is now and fix those people who are breaking it. The Government should come down hard and fast on them because people in this country have rights. 
If the unions cannot stand up and make a difference then perhaps they need to take a hard look at themselves and their values. We have heard about Progressive Enterprises. The Greens spoke about the agreement between Progressive Enterprises and the unions earlier and I say: “Good on them.” Actually there is no one here who would not say: “Good on them.” Good on Progressive Enterprises and good on the unions for putting a case forward having it listened to and then looking at their books and working out whether they could afford it. 
We can look at small businesses. One can try to turn it into a regional argument and say that Opposition members do not care but that is not true. If those small businesses are not in business then the people they employ will not have jobs. Then the only choice those young people would have would be at supermarkets and in chain jobs that go in and out and they would not have these other opportunities. 
The member who spoke before talked about stable hands and the racing industry which is quite often known for paying the minimum rate for young people when they first come in. It is a time for them to get in and show their worth. It is a time for them to muck in and for them to pick up that shovel and do the sort of dirty work that shows whether they have the mettle to make it in the long term because the job ain’t going to get any easier. In fact the job will probably get tougher at times and they will have to have the backbone to put up with it. Those employers let those kids in they let in more kids than they can afford and often they pay them the minimum wage to start with. But they give them a shot and when they have proved themselves they pay them more. 
Let us talk about some of those young people who get the minimum wage and who get bonuses. Those small businesses turn around and when things are going well for them they give their staff the cash. We can give many many examples of small businesses that turn around and when things are going a bit better that is the first thing they do. They put their hand in their own pockets and they give that cash to their staff. They turn around and give Christmas bonuses; they give a little bit more. They give it back. 
But if the Labour Government keeps going at them keeps loading on the compliance costs and decides to keep burdening our small businesses with compliance costs and regulations in the way that it does then it will make it so tough for those businesses to keep going that they will not do so and those jobs will no longer be there. That has to be of huge concern and not just to members on this side of the Chamber. 
Surely there should be some recognition for those people who go out there who take the risks and who take those young people on because they want to give them a shot. They do that because at the end of the day they know that it will show the mettle of those young people. They will end up being rewarded at a rate that is way above minimum rates and the businesses will get something back for it. That is important and that is really what shows. 
I want to raise one issue with the honourable member Sue Bradford. It is about paper girls and boys and those who go out on deliveries. I know that this issue is not completely covered in this bill but it is obviously a related issue. I personally want to put a pitch in because as a mother whose daughter went out and did deliveries into letterboxes I think that they should be paid at least double if not triple what they are paid. I also think that money should go to their parents who end up doing the deliveries most weeks. 
At the end of the day it is actually the parents who end up doing deliveries out there and I thought that if ever there was a case for something then this is it. I would quite like a petrol voucher or to be paid for the number of streets I have walked up and down delivering those brochures on behalf of my dear daughter who thought it would be a great thing to start off with but who very quickly decided it was not quite the job she thought it would be. 
Let us finish on a couple of things. One of them is Supplementary Order Paper 137 which talks about the requirement to have worked 200 hours or to have worked 3 months. I would tell Mr Williamson to take note of this—and I congratulate the honourable member sitting next to me on having been 20 years in this House. Today he is celebrating having been in this House for 20 years. 
Hon Member 
: How many hours has he done? 
Hone Harawira 
: Less than 3000. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: He is only 38; it has been quite a ride for him. 
Let us just make the point about those businesses that need a break. Those businesses are doing the best they can and they will reward their workers as soon as they can—and fairly. Let us make the point that 85 percent of the people in those businesses are paid above the minimum wage and we need to correct some of the misinformation has been going through this Committee today. 
Those 16 or 17-year-olds who are paid $4.20 or $5 an hour have bosses or employers who are breaking the law. We on this side of the Chamber would be coming down hard and fast on them and we would be making no apologies for them—no apologies at all. It people are breaking the law there are laws for us to go in hard. But those businesses that are not breaking the law need some sort of understanding and they need that break. This Government can continue to put more and more legislation on them but at the end of the day it will not have the results it needs. 
I stand here easily before the Committee and say there is no way—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh get into the year 2007 people—get into the year 2007! Labour members should move on move on. I know that they are still living in yesterday and just want to blame what is happening now on what happened in 1997 or in 1995. That is 12 years ago people 12 years ago. Those members should get into the year 2007 and see what is really happening in today’s world. Then maybe—maybe—there might actually be a game on. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(a) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(b) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(3) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance on this. My understanding of the way that the Standing Orders work is that when a member’s bill is going through this House then anybody else can put amendments to it but that person must be putting them forward as a member of the House. So it should be that Ruth Dyson is putting amendments forward as a member. You have been calling these amendments in the name of the honourable Minister Mr Chairperson and I do not believe that a Minister can in the form of a Minister be putting amendments to a member’s bill. It must be in the form of the Hon Ruth Dyson as a member of this House. I would like some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that and he is absolutely right. The member is putting the amendments through but as I understand it not as the Minister. The Minister is not in charge of the bill.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(4) in clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am delighted to rise to speak to the second reading of this bill. 
This bill has been considered in the Health Committee and I am pleased to report was not a contentious bill at any point. As the records show it was passed unanimously at the first reading. It was only the Labour Party that gave qualified support—not guaranteeing support beyond the Health Committee. The Health Committee considered nine submissions and heard two oral submissions—from the New Zealand Medical Association and HealthCare Providers New Zealand. All submissions were in support of the bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Official Information Act 1982 so that any entity representing one or more district health boards such as District Health Boards New Zealand would be subject to the Official Information Act. There had been growing concerns among the health sector that District Health Boards New Zealand—which represents the 21 district health boards—has been making decisions that impact on all New Zealanders but the public have not been able to find out what this group does or how it functions because it is not subject to the Official Information Act. 
District Health Boards New Zealand is funded by taxpayers’ money through its contributions from the 21 district health boards and it has been an anomaly that this organisation has been exempt from the Official Information Act when other organisations that are funded by taxpayers’ money are subject to it. The purpose of this bill was to bring accountability and transparency to the organisation. District Health Boards New Zealand has been functioning outside our constitutional situation. It is clear from the submissions that many many people have been frustrated by District Health Boards New Zealand’s lack of accountability. 
We had an oral submission from the New Zealand Medical Association which supported the bill. It suggested that the organisation possibly be disbanded. The New Zealand Medical Association has been concerned for some time about the role of District Health Boards New Zealand which it felt was increasingly taking on coordination and operational policy functions that should more appropriately be carried out by the Ministry of Health. The former chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association called District Health Boards New Zealand a private club for the district health boards and said it was time that the organisation was absorbed back into the ministry. 
The bill also had the support of HealthCare Providers New Zealand. This organisation said the existing situation was an anomaly that chipped away at our constitutional framework. The organisation also felt that it was high time that consistency was maintained by having District Health Boards New Zealand brought under the Official Information Act principles which are based around the belief that information be made available unless there is a good reason to withhold it. 
Researchers have been frustrated by the results of official information requests. They often have to make 21 separate Official Information Act requests to the district health boards to get a complete picture of the health sector. They cannot request the information from District Health Boards New Zealand because the organisation is outside the Official Information Act. To make 21 district health board Official Information Act requests is incredibly time-consuming and frustrating particularly if the Ombudsman is involved. It is slow and frustrating for all concerned and there is no guarantee that the information will be forthcoming. The district health boards in turn often protest that in having to answer the requests themselves their staff are taken away from their core business and roles. By bringing District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act information is obtained directly and expediently and district health board staff are not sidetracked from their own work. 
All the submitters made excellent points and after the submissions were considered the committee was advised that the Government agreed with the bill. As a result the Governor-General has signed an Order in Council to amend schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act to ensure that District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and this will take effect on 3 September. 
I am absolutely delighted that the Government saw the light. It realised that it did not have the numbers to defeat the bill and it agreed with the intentions of the bill. As a result of the Government’s agreeing to this bill and agreeing that an Order in Council be made this bill is no longer required and the National Party takes great pleasure in voting it down. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government—at least the Labour Party—will also be voting against the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill for the reasons that the member who introduced the bill has pointed out and they are that the Government has found a way to ensure that District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to the Official Information Act and has made the changes by regulatory means rather than by primary legislation. That Order in Council was passed on 9 July and will come into force presently. 
There is no problem at all with District Health Boards New Zealand being subject to the Official Information Act and there will be times—as the member in whose name the bill resides Dr Jackie Blue said—that District Health Boards New Zealand is able to give people information and save them the transaction costs of going to the 21 district health boards. There will however be plenty of times when District Health Boards New Zealand is not able to do that or chooses not to do so. 
District Health Boards New Zealand official information requests are often made to gain commercially sensitive information and to give negotiators an opportunity to gain an upper hand in a negotiation by getting hold of information about the other side of the fence and that is not going to change. The Official Information Act is clear that where something is commercial in confidence then it is not subject to the Official Information Act while for example negotiations are in play. In other instances District Health Boards New Zealand will not be able to provide for example a researcher with the information the researcher wants because District Health Boards New Zealand does not have it. It is absolutely the case that one cannot respond to an Official Information Act request if one does not have the information that is requested. On the other hand to the extent that District Health Boards New Zealand is able to provide information we are keen that it does so. 
The health system in New Zealand prides itself on transparency and on increasing its transparency. Last week we announced a further 12 health targets. Each district health board in a series of negotiations with the Ministry of Health has agreed to put into its annual plan its target for responding to the various key performance indicators—as one might call them—that the ministry is asking the boards to pay attention to. These targets are things like the immunisation rate the number of people who are on the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme the number of people who are discharged from acute mental wards with a long-term plan for their recovery the number of people who no longer smoke or have never smoked and so on. There are 10 such targets. 
These targets will be reported upon. They will be reported upon transparently. Transparency is an important part of the New Zealand health system even though one’s political enemies may choose to make as much political capital as they can should a target not be reached or not be fully reached. Transparency is relatively new to the New Zealand health system. It used not to be the case that we knew what was going on with elective services or waiting times in an emergency department of a district health board for people with different levels of acuity. These things are becoming increasingly transparent and it is therefore utterly in keeping with the move to greater transparency that District Health Boards New Zealand—when it is able to—responds to Official Information Act requests in a manner that is compliant with the Official Information Act. 
We will take great pleasure in voting this bill down as will Dr Jackie Blue and her party because we no longer need it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 This second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill really marks a great victory for all those who are keen on increased transparency and accountability in our health system. I commend my colleague Dr Jackie Blue for bringing this bill before the House. It is something that has been sorely needed. 
I totally disagree with what the Minister of Health has said about transparency in the health system. The fact is that if he could have got away with it he would have ignored this bill. There should have been a Government bill long long ago because District Health Boards New Zealand has been a great vehicle for covering up what is really happening in health in New Zealand. I tell members that when people make an Official Information Act request to those 21 district health boards so often they are told that District Health Boards New Zealand will be handling the matter. But then people find out that that organisation is not subject to the Official Information Act. Like so many other areas under this Government District Health Boards New Zealand has been a mechanism for covering things up and sweeping them under the table. If we look at the speech made by the Minister in the first reading we see that he had reservations about this bill and could not guarantee he would be supporting it beyond the select committee consideration. So this bill is a great victory for transparency today. It is a back-down for the Labour Government and I would say that if it could have got away with it the Government would not want District Health Boards New Zealand to be subject to the Official Information Act under its watch. 
Sue Moroney 
: Rubbish! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Members opposite mutter and shake their heads because they know it is true. There has been a heck of a lot to cover up in the health system under this Government. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We do not need this legislation. It has been done. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It has been done and we do not need this legislation but that is only because of the pressure that Dr Jackie Blue has put on the Government. Those members knew they were on a hiding to nothing. They knew they could not get up in this House and continue to say that they had reservations. The Governor-General signed the Order in Council and now we are lucky enough that District Health Boards New Zealand will be subject to the Official Information Act. 
This Government has been in power for 8 years. People should see the issues in health that the Government has been trying to cover up in that time. They should see the big cover-ups on waiting-list culls on people not getting access to the cancer treatment they need. Members opposite know that it is true; they have their heads down— 
Martin Gallagher 
: Tell us about the tobacco lobby. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is classic. That useless member for Hamilton West can only start getting personal. He can only talk about an irrelevant issue! That sort of thing has been the theme of this Government. It is losing on the issues and its members get personal. We saw it in the House last week and are seeing it again now. Martin Gallagher would not have the horsepower in his brain to debate this issue seriously. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Tell us about the effects of tobacco. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: All he can do is get up and trade insults. He will get them back. He is shaking his head. Let us hear from him after this speech. 
There has been a big cover-up in health under this Government. It duped so many people who voted for it in 1999 2002 and 2005 by telling them that the health system will look after them from the cradle to the grave that all their medical needs will be met. Those members know and the Minister knows—it has been a nightmare for him—that in the New Zealand health system now people have to be more and more sick to get an operation. They all know this because it is absolutely true. People are not getting the operations they need in New Zealand hospitals. 
Sue Moroney 
: Bring on the tax cuts and the spending cuts. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There they go; they are not arguing the point. They have a totally irrelevant argument again. People cannot get the operations they need. If they have a basic surgical condition they will not get an operation in a New Zealand hospital. If they need something acute done at an emergency department it will not be done. We know that. 
I challenge the Minister to come up to North Shore Hospital and go through the emergency department. He knows how bad it is. He knows they are stacking people on trolleys in the car-park and in the corridors and people cannot get through. North Shore City is one of the wealthiest cities in New Zealand yet it has the worst emergency department. That must be due to nothing more than gross mismanagement. The Minister knows it and Labour members have no come-back on this issue. The fact is that under the Labour Government health has been grossly mismanaged. The Government managed to cover it up until about 18 months ago when we really started to get access— 
Martin Gallagher 
: How many Ministers of Health did National go thorough? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The member can shake his head but he knows that it is absolutely true. He knows that it will see him kicked out of Parliament at the next election. The Government covered it up for so long—the waiting-list debacle the culls the fact that people could not get cancer treatment. It has been an absolute disgrace and it has been from people who believe in social justice and access to free health-care at the point of delivery. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who took away the workforce planning that had been the hallmark of the 1980s? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: They know. All they can do is get personal again. They are on a hiding to nothing now in health. How bad does a centre-left Government have to be to lose on health? That is the ultimate indictment—that Labour is losing the battle. Actually the Minister is a pretty gracious guy when he is outside the House but he knows that he has failed in this portfolio. If members want to know about cover-ups in health then we have to talk yet again about Lake Alice Hospital. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Talk about Jenny Shipley and Bill Birch. We know what they did.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Let us live in the present. A lot of members on the other side are living in the past. What about the Cabinet cover-up in respect of Lake Alice Hospital? What about the 87 second-round claimants who received $35000 each? The Cabinet Ministers’ heads have gone down now because they were in that room when that decision was taken to lop that payment off. They thought they could keep it secret. It was only by chance that it was found out that $3 million had been basically confiscated from 87 of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society. It was a total cover-up and it came to light purely by chance. That is an example of the lack of openness in the whole area of health care under this Government. The Minister has told me the Government is going to sort it out. Well it is still not sorted out. I would say that in the spirit of openness and transparency it is time it was settled. 
We can see there really is a need for this bill because if there is a structure this Government can use to sweep anything under the carpet it will do it. District Health Boards New Zealand has been a great structure for the Government in that regard. This is a great day of victory for those in favour of more transparency and openness of Government. I commend my colleague Dr Jackie Blue once again. It is great that we are not having to vote on this bill that the matter has been signed off by the Governor-General. We look forward to getting more information under the Official Information Act about the failings of this Government in the area of health now that District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to it. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I ask Jonathan Coleman who has just resumed his seat where he was when the National Government did not even have enough openness and transparency in the health system to trust local communities to elect district health boards. There were no elected members no transparency and no democracy in the health system under National. That member stands up and preaches about openness and transparency. Well where was that member at that time? I think he just said he was working in the health system so he would well know that in the 1990s under National all decisions with regard to our public health-care system were taken in secret behind closed doors behind locked doors with no media allowed in no scrutiny no accountability and absolutely no transparency. That is the background that those new members of the National Party have to acknowledge about their history. They should take on board the history of the National Party. I say: “It’s yours. Own it!”. It is for members opposite to own their own history when it comes to openness and transparency or should I say more properly a lack of openness and transparency that has been promoted day in and day out decade in and decade out by the National Party. 
The new member for the National Party Jackie Blue has brought forward— 
Simon Power 
: New member? How long has this member been here? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well if Jackie Blue wants to take responsibility for the lack of openness and transparency in the 1990s from the National Government then that is up to her. I am sure that Jackie Blue is interested in openness and transparency when it comes to members on the Auckland District Health Board and their disclosures or not about conflict of interest. I would like to have some consistency from members opposite when it comes to openness and transparency. I know that Jackie Blue will have some interesting observations on Dr Bierre and his lack of openness or transparency in his role on the Auckland board. 
To come back to this bill which we will be— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: One law for all. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is the National mantra and I am interested in seeing the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the member opposite. I think Simon Power has been here for some time. His reference was the nickname that the 10 and 11-year-old boys came up with when I was that age. 
Simon Power 
: What are you talking about? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Was it Tau Henare? One of them came up with what is 10 and 11-year-old schoolboy stuff quite frankly and I take offence. 
Simon Power 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can you enlighten me as to what might have been said? 
Simon Power 
: I can absolutely enlighten you Mr Deputy Speaker. I said: “Let Lianne Dalziel take a call.” 
SUE MORONEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that is not the statement I was referring to. I think Tau Henare probably knows the statement I was referring to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Henare the member is saying she heard you say something. Do you acknowledge that? You are on the point of order. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: A member cannot raise a point of order then go down the line accusing people until he or she gets the right one. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a fishing expedition. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Basically it is. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right. We do not need to take it any further. If you could continue please. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you and next time I will get the culprit. I will work out exactly who the culprit is. 
I look forward to Jackie Blue’s “Openness of Auckland District Health Board Members’ Disclosures Bill” which she will be putting in the ballot no doubt as soon as this one has cleared the traps. And this bill will be clearing the traps rather quickly because as I understand it all parties will be voting against it. But there is a good reason why the parties are all voting against the second reading of this bill. It is not to do with cover-ups and no it is not to do with—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Coleman that I am sorry but there is no cover-up here. There is no cover-up to be seen. In fact we are voting against this bill because the problem has been resolved by action taken by the Government. National is the party that does not like legislative approaches to anything but here is Dr Jackie Blue from the National Party bringing legislation forward for this House to consider when it is not needed. All that was needed was regulation. I think the National Party needs to have a good discussion about where it stands. Is it for over-regulation? Is it for lots of legislation when we do not need it or is it not? That is where we have come to with this bill. This bill is unnecessary. Legislation was not needed to resolve this issue; in fact it has been done by regulatory means. 
Why would the Government have a cover-up over District Health Boards New Zealand anyway? We are enormously proud as a Government of the role of District Health Boards New Zealand because it talks about cooperation in the district health board sector and in our public health system. Guess what? This Government thinks it is a great idea that there is some collusion that there is collaboration rather than the competition that was driven up and that nearly brought our health system to its knees in the 1990s. It is about cooperation. It is about the sort of coordination we get from doing nationwide planning of the health system in a country the size of New Zealand and it is good news. 
It has also allowed us to do things that I know that the National Party does not agree with. I know that it will rip them apart if it ever got the chance. In a nanosecond these sorts of measures would be gone. But multi-employer collective agreements are another excellent example of nationwide coordination in the public health system. Yes they have meant substantial wage increases for nurses and I know that the National Party does not like that. It keeps going on about increased spending in health and about increases for nurses and multi-employer collective agreements which allow consistency right across the board being the sorts of things National would attack straight away. But they are exactly the type of thing that having an organisation such as District Health Boards New Zealand allows because yes it has been able to do negotiations right across the board it has been able to give advice and support to the district health boards and it has been able to support them to be able to cooperate with each other so that they can share resources and are not competing in that very costly market-driven mode we had in the 1990s. 
There is absolutely no reason why the Government would be secretive about what District Health Boards New Zealand is doing at all because in fact we are incredibly proud of the message about having a nationally consistent health system that actually does some planning. I know that members opposite come forward all the time in this House and say: “Gosh let’s have another vision. Yes let’s have another strategy.” Yes let us do that because that is exactly the type of thing that is making sure we have a plan. We have a plan for developing the workforce unlike in the 1990s when the National Government did not have a plan about anything in health or in any other industry for that matter because the market was going to sort it out. Well the market made a hash of it and the market particularly made a hash of it when it came to our health system. So District Health Boards New Zealand is a wonderful organisation in terms of planning and in terms of national coordination. It supports the very fine work that is done by health professionals and others in our public health system. 
I am pleased to say that for all the right reasons Labour will be voting against this bill. It is unnecessary. The legislation brought forward by a member of the National Party is unnecessary. It could have been done by regulation it has been done by regulation and that information is available for members. However I caution the member opposite who proposed the bill Dr Jackie Blue. She made a statement about people in the past having to use the Official Information Act to gather information from the 21 district health boards and now instead going to one entity and how much easier that would be. In fact District Health Boards New Zealand may not actually hold the information that one is seeking from the 21 district health boards so there will still be a need to use Official Information Act requests for the 21 district health boards but there will also now be the ability to get information from District Health Boards New Zealand. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill for all of the reasons that have been outlined by the previous speakers. We must congratulate the member on her bill and her intentions for this bill and the success that she has had with it. 
We believe that any entity representing the district health boards—and it is District Health Boards New Zealand—should be subject to the Official Information Act and the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. It was a rather interesting situation that this organisation stood alone as an incorporated society rather than as a company or a Crown entity so it could not be scrutinised by anyone—not even a select committee. 
New Zealand First is very pleased firstly that the Government has agreed with the bill’s intention. It is a very worthy intention and it did need to be acted upon. Secondly we are very pleased that there was such a speedy response to the situation and that the Governor-General has already signed the Order in Council to amend the Act so that as from 3 September 2007 District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. 
I recall that some time ago District Health Boards New Zealand came along to the Health Committee to outline what its role was in health finances and all the very many other activities that it was involved with. I know that many of us had been on to the website to find out exactly what the board’s role entailed and that role was very very considerable. But the bottom line is that any agency that is using public money should be accountable and should be open to public scrutiny. 
We do not need this legislation now that regulations have been passed to ensure that the information can be obtained officially. We in New Zealand First are very pleased not to be supporting this bill and that action has already been taken. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins all other parties in this House in congratulating Dr Jackie Blue on her bill which triggered action—and I might say very speedy action—by the Government to bring District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act and to ensure that all of its work is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. This was a very simple bill but it was important. It is important that we have the reality of those well-worn words that we have heard so much about tonight: transparency and openness. I myself know that I have at times been frustrated by the inability to find out information about District Health Boards New Zealand. We look forward to District Health Boards New Zealand operating more openly and coming within the scrutiny of the law. The Green Party will be very pleased to join with others in recommending that this bill not be passed. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Less than 24 hours ago I came into this House and asked that the books be opened transparency be valued and that accountability to the State and to every Maori be accorded a priority. Today hello we have a bill advocating for openness. We have a bill promoting exactly the ideals that I hold high including that the district health boards or the entities representing them such as District Health Boards New Zealand are now accountable under the terms of the Official Information Act. Great stuff. I congratulate Dr Blue. 
Why should this be so important? Well according to my extensive research during the 2005-06 financial year the Ministry of Health received 834 Official Information Act requests as listed in its annual report while in the same period the Ministry of Justice received just 182 requests. Clearly there is sufficient appetite out there to warrant the highest level of public scrutiny that we can expect to see with the opening up of the Act. When we think of the influence and significance that the 21 district health boards have in providing State-funded health care services throughout Aotearoa we can only guess at how vital the information they hold is for New Zealanders. 
New Zealanders need clarity about their individual health records but there are also broader concerns such as the progress that is made in reducing health disparities by improving health outcomes for Maori and other population groups. We need to know just how well we are doing as a nation in promoting the inclusion and participation in society of all people. So it was worrying to learn from the submission of the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand that it had experienced situations in the past where district health boards have used the mechanism of District Health Boards New Zealand to unofficially withhold information that should have been in the public arena. 
Why would District Health Boards New Zealand want to avoid the public duty of being accountable for taxpayer funding? Well we appreciate that if there are matters of commercial sensitivity involved then the value of being able to receive aggregated data without having to make individual requests to different district health boards should not be understated. For example in the critical area of Maori representation on district health boards section 29(4) of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 requires the Minister to endeavour to ensure that Maori membership of the board is proportional to the number of Maori in the district health board’s resident population and that there are at least two Maori members on the board. In 2001 when district health boards were first established only three Maori were elected to the 21 district health boards throughout Aotearoa. The Minister used her power of appointment to appoint 18 Maori but the issue of Maori representation remains high on the agenda of Maori health practitioners. 
Three years later there was still concern expressed about Maori representation in the aftermath of the 2004 elections. A report from Radio New Zealand in November 2004 revealed that many district health boards still lacked Maori Pacific Island and rural members. In Wellington the only Maori member was the reappointed chairperson; while in South Auckland the Counties Manukau District Health Board had only one woman member one Pasifika member and one Maori member. In December last year Ngai Tahu Tumu Whakahaere Mark Solomon revealed that it had been a long journey to achieve a representative on the Canterbury District Health Board even as an observer. The media reported that the Minister of Health had supposedly rejected a Ngai Tahu nominee when appointees were chosen after the 2004 board elections. It was not until 2 years later that Dr Matea Gilles was able to get on the board. Dr Gilles for those who do not know is the chairman of Manawhenua ki Waitaha which is a collective of health representatives from seven runaka in Canterbury. Dr Gilles lectures in Maori health at the Christchurch school of medicine. He has worked for many years in indigenous health including a significant amount of time with aboriginal peoples. In another district health board area that of the Southland District Health Board media reports alleged that the statutory requirement for two Maori representatives actually meant only one in that case.  
I have taken the time to trawl over this one area of vital information about Maori representation because it reveals the mystery and intrigue that can arise when information is not freely available. Why was a Ngai Tahu nominee rejected? Why does two Maori representatives mean only one Maori representative in Southland? How is it considered suitable that in South Auckland there are no Maori representatives? It is curious. In the light of all this ambiguity the amendment proposed in this bill has been welcomed by the Maori Party as it provides certainty and clarity to the public and to Maori in that they can request official information from district health boards. We want to avoid any situations of misinterpretation or of passing the buck between district health boards District Health Boards New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. 
 Being able to access specific information about how decisions are made or about the basis for internal policies principles rules guidelines strategies and reports is vital in being able to assess the value of the funding provided to district health boards to meet the health needs of the communities of iwi Maori. We endorse therefore the advice of the deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Tania Thomas who told the select committee: “I support any statutory amendment which increases transparency and availability of information in the health and disability sector.” 
Therefore the Maori Party congratulates Dr Blue once again on bringing such an important issue to the House and we are happy to support the recommendation of the Health Committee that the bill not be passed confident in the fact that its intentions will still be honoured through another area. Kia ora. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Like other members of this House I rise to speak to the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill and I say I am very pleased with the outcome. Along with the other members who have already done so I would like to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue on bringing this bill to the House. Despite the fact that every party will vote against the bill tonight she has achieved a significant move forward in terms of openness transparency and accountability in our health sector and it is long overdue. I will come to some examples in that area where we are sadly lacking but I say that this move tonight is a very important one. 
Just before I explore those issues I will take a moment to say that I was quite astounded when the Labour member Sue Moroney stood up. She actually reminded me of a racehorse. I do not know how fast she can move but members can picture racehorses with their blinkers on. Sue Moroney’s ideological blinkers are well and firmly on are they not? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: She’s a trotter. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is dead right. Those blinkers are well and truly in place and people must have thought on listening to her that this Government has achieved great things in health. She seems to forget that since 1999 this Labour Government has actually achieved nothing in health. It has spent an extra $4.5 billion but has produced not one extra thing. In fact the Government forgets that since 1999 we have had significant population growth. If we take into account population growth since 1999 then look at the extra spending in health and the result of that spending we can see that we have moved backwards. That is not something that anybody in this House should be proud of. 
So openness transparency and accountability are the winners here tonight. The Labour member Sue Moroney said District Health Boards New Zealand was a wonderful organisation because of the advice and support that it has given to district health boards. Well how would we know that? It has never been accountable and it has never been transparent. Who knows what actually happens behind those closed doors? It is shameful in fact that when District Health Boards New Zealand was set up it did not have responsibilities under the Official Information Act implicit in its operations in the first place. 
It is all very well for Sue Moroney to stand up and say that Jackie Blue’s bill was useless. It was not useless; it has achieved a great victory here today. The bill is not useless because when was this Government which has now been in power for almost 9 years ever going to bring forward the regulation that is now coming before this House because of this bill? It was never going to do that. This Government does not want to know what happens in the health sector because then it would have to be accountable for it. There are numerous examples of a lack of openness a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability or whatever one wants to call it. Every party in this House including Labour which has not exhibited any of those qualities while in Government likes to claim victory for them. The fact is that patients should be able to expect openness transparency and accountability but they cannot. 
I will highlight three examples of the way our health sector is certainly not open transparent or accountable. The first is that when I first came to Parliament I used to send off an Official Information Act request to Treasury every quarter and ask for the productivity reports of the provider arms of the district health boards. Those were very enlightening reports. They looked at how much money had gone into the provider arms and they tried to make some sort of assessment—it has never been easy—as to the productivity of those provider arms. The results were quite shocking. I went to do one of my regular Official Information Act requests about 2 years ago. The response came back that—guess what—those reports were no longer being done. A cynic might think that those reports had been stopped because the Government did not want me or anyone in the National Party to put out a press release saying that productivity was down yet again—that population growth was up but that productivity was down and that the huge amounts of taxpayer money provided for health had gone yet again into a big black hole. We need to know in this House where that money goes. But more important patients who are sitting at home in pain those who are sick and waiting for operations or treatment and all those who are on waiting lists—waiting waiting waiting forever—need to know exactly what the extra money that is being poured into the health sector on their behalf has actually achieved. 
My second example is a finding in an OECD report that came out in 2005. It was a very thorough report that looked at the big areas of Government spending. Tucked away at the very back of the report was half a page on the New Zealand public health sector. Given that one in five dollars of taxpayer contributions goes into the health sector one would think that the report would be more than half a page in length. But the conclusion that the OECD report writers came to was that there was insufficient documentation and insufficient information available presumably from our Ministry of Health for the OECD to be able to come to any conclusion about the state of New Zealand’s public health sector. I would contend that this Government should not be proud of that. We never hear about that OECD report—the Government does not want it to be publicised—but given that we are spending one in every five dollars of taxpayers’ money on health we should have some idea of what those funds are being spent on. 
 My third example concerns waiting lists and in particular waiting list exit categories. I also did a bit of research at the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005 about the exit categories from waiting lists. I was interested in the number of people who had been returned to their general practitioners the number of people who had given up on the public sector and had gone privately and the number of people who had died while they were on a waiting list waiting for treatment. Those figures were quite staggering particularly the figure for the deaths of patients on waiting lists. In the 2 years from 2002-04 the number of people who had died while waiting for a procedure on a public hospital waiting list increased by 40 percent. That sounded alarm bells in my head. I thought that could not be right and I asked myself why if the figure was correct that increase was happening. Any responsible Government would have asked why that was happening and would have looked into the situation very thoroughly because that figure is staggering and is worth investigating. But no that did not happen. 
There had previously been 10 exit categories including patients who had been returned to a general practitioner’s care because the public hospital sector was not able to cope with the request patients who had gone privately because the public sector was not able to provide a procedure or treatment and patients who had died while on the waiting list. As a result of my publicising the fact that those deaths had increased by 40 percent the Ministry of Health instead of looking into the situation decided—and I expect there was some input from the Minister’s office—to decrease the number of exit categories from 10 to four. The number of people returned to a general practitioner’s care the number of people who had gone privately and the number of deaths of people on waiting lists were all jumbled into one list so that nobody could see exactly what was happening in our public health sector. 
Those are three examples of the very reasons that Jackie Blue’s bill was needed and that is why she has had a great victory on behalf of this Parliament today. As a result of this bill we will have a little more openness transparency and accountability in the health sector. This Government has a long long way to go when we talk about those three things but this bill is a step in the right direction. This entire House instead of berating this move should congratulate Jackie Blue tonight. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill and I do so in the knowledge that many members of the House tonight have joined with me to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue. When one comes into Parliament as a new MP one hopes to achieve some change and that is truly what Dr Jackie Blue has done with this bill—and quickly and easily. We heard the Minister of Health himself say that the Government has agreed with the intention of the bill. We know that the Governor-General has signed an Order in Council to amend schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act to ensure that District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman from 3 September 2007. That is a victory and an example of a member of Parliament getting things done and making things better. 
Therefore it was quite surprising to hear one of the members opposite Sue Moroney speak as if she was against this bill and did not agree with the intention of the bill. It made me wonder whether in fact she was speaking as a member of the Government team. She is maybe a little bit confused. When that member talked about “openness” and accused the National Party of all manner of dreadful things it occurred to me that openness is perhaps something she should reflect on very closely. 
Let me tell members that not so long ago the Labour women’s caucus visited my electorate of Aoraki and spoke with a number of people there. The newspaper recorded those members’ views on how the health system was being dealt with in South Canterbury etc. Among the themes discussed behind closed doors was one that I am not sure all of the Government or even the Minister is aware of. It is my understanding—and it has been reported to me by more than one person—that Sue Moroney believes there is no need to have the South Canterbury District Health Board. 
 Let me tell members that that went down like the proverbial lead balloon. However the “openness” of that member did not extend to her discussing it with the  
Timaru Herald 
 reporter. That is unfortunate perhaps because it certainly would have helped my cause in getting re-elected next time. Her view certainly would not be something the local people would be happy about. That is not my agenda but it most certainly may be the Labour Government’s agenda. It would be interesting for the Minister to take a call and answer that question. 
The Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill is in the interests of the public. The public deserves access to that information. It deserves the knowledge that that organisation is accountable and has transparency and openness. I wonder whether the reason that both the Auckland District Health Board and the Canterbury District Health Board have left District Health Boards New Zealand in recent times—I have not seen it written down anywhere; they have not told me this but I just wonder—is in part because there is no place to hide any more so why bother with it. They are both very big district health boards and perhaps for that reason they can do without the purposes of District Health Boards New Zealand. I want to touch on those purposes because it will underline the reasons why it is so important that District Health Boards New Zealand is transparent is accountable and shows openness. 
In the 2005-06 year there were six areas for specific portfolio development within District Health Boards New Zealand. They were really important areas. In the area of primary health the purposes were to continue implementation and build capability. In the area of sector productivity and value for money the purpose was to build the framework and sector capability. In the area of service planning and coordination the purpose was to further develop and apply the framework developed in 2004-05. In the area of health for older people the purpose was to build joint activity with the ministry and district health boards to implement the strategy for health for older people. In the area of supplies efficiency the purpose was to implement targeted initiatives with high returns on investment. That is about saving New Zealanders money. That is about saving the Government money—saving the taxpayers of New Zealand money. In an area called “inter-sectoral” the purpose was to build a way of working and a development framework through specific projects and examples. These are all very important tasks important things that District Health Boards New Zealand did so it is no wonder that it produced many reports and New Zealanders in general and people like members of Parliament wanted to have access to information about them. 
As I said this is just a brief call on my part. I want to underline that members have joined together to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue on bringing this bill before Parliament and on achieving something in a short time. I congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that in his address to the House tonight. This is really a good-news story. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Although a member of the Health Committee I was not going to take a call on this slight and insubstantial Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill because I really thought the bill merely served as a warning for members new to the House to first breathe through their noses and try very simple tactics like a letter to a Minister. That is a very useful tactic that new members could think about. 
But I sit in the House and I listen as the conspiracy theorists in the National Party roll themselves out once again. They seem to be riding high again in their speeches on this bill. Or should I say the fiction writers of the National Party the hollow men of the National Party. Suddenly it appears that District Health Boards New Zealand is being portrayed by the other side of the House as the Voldemort of the health world. Next thing we will have Draco Malfoy and the Death Eaters appearing from the other side of the House. I am moved to get to my feet and say that that portrayal from the other side of the House is just wrong. This is an insubstantial bill. 
District Health Boards New Zealand is an organisation I had a bit to do with in my former life as deputy chair of a health board. It is a good organisation of which Labour members are proud. It is about collaborative and collegial operations. It is about coordination. It is about good people—many of whom I worked with in a former life—who lead health boards by working together and actually achieving very good results. It is all about delivering public health and putting the people back into public health. Those are things that the people opposite do not seem to know a lot about. That is quite different from the competitive dog-eat-dog business model that the members on the other side of the House seemed to think was their only one-trick pony in the 1990s. 
That reminds me that the members on the other side of the House still have only one trick and it is called a tax cut. We all know very well exactly what their plans for the tax cut would do to the health system which we have spent the last 8 years rebuilding after they spent the 1990s breaking down the infrastructure; closing hospitals; instituting secretive appointed health boards; bringing in bed-night charges; and mismanaging through a series of failed health Ministers with names like Mr English and Mrs Shipley disaster after disaster in the health system. 
The fact is that this bill was unnecessary. The Government found a way to achieve the same end by a simple Order in Council. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members should listen very carefully. An Order in Council was passed on 9 July and will come into effect from 3 September. The fact is the current health system actually prides itself on transparency and on increasing transparency. Targets and reporting are open under this very good health Minister and with elected health boards in place unlike in the past under the last National Government when there were Crown health enterprises or “CHEs” and other such strange beasts. Of course there will be plenty of times when District Health Boards New Zealand is not able to provide the information requested simply because it does not hold it or because it is commercially sensitive. But a simple Order in Council was all that was needed to make it possible. 
This slight and insubstantial bill—which is a bit like the party opposite who put it forward and continues to promote it jumping from insubstantial cloud to insubstantial cloud—was always an unnecessary bill. We will be voting against it because there was always a sensible way forward on this matter which the Labour Government found. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call. I say to the members opposite that I think there has been a very positive outcome for the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. Let me be gracious in acknowledging that. 
Even though I have been in this Parliament for a number of years I still find it very hard to deal with the lack of memory that is apparent opposite. Those members are members of a party that closed the health boards and dismissed their democratically elected members and they come here and talk about democracy and openness. I find that personally very very hard to take. The “h” word comes immediately to mind. But let me be gracious. I say to Jackie Blue that she should read the history of the 1990s. She may even have been there! I say to Dr Jonathan Coleman that he should read the history of the 1990s if he wants to learn about closed doors and the dismissal of democratic community accountability. 
But I am being gracious. I congratulate the Health Committee and the member Dr Jackie Blue on the very positive outcome for this bill and nothing more needs to be said. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.