Volume 614 Week 44 - Thursday 4 December 2003 
Volume 614 Week 44 - Thursday 4 December 2003 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
Thursday 4 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the passage of the Holidays Bill and the Families Commission Bill. There will be the first readings of a number of bills including the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill; the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3); the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill; the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and other first readings on the Order Paper. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Knowing that there are a number of bills on the Order Paper that date back to 2001 and in one case even 1996 I ask whether there is any prospect that the Government might take urgency between now and the lifting of the House for the Christmas break in order to get some of these pressing matters dealt with. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the bills have been on the Order Paper since 1996 they will probably wait a while longer without urgency. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Police now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member indicating the subject? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and thank you for the opportunity to elucidate the content of the question. Quite clearly it would be a question about the extraordinary expense the police have gone to in pursuing the frivolous prosecution against Shane Ardern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did give the member an opportunity. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the unusual circumstances surrounding this case the obviously considerable amount of taxpayer money that has gone into it the allegations that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The point of order is simply whether we can expect a ministerial statement so that the Minister can explain himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to the Minister. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Given that the Government is showing no signs that it wants to discuss this matter further clearly it would want Parliament to be able to have a say on a matter like this. Therefore I seek leave for there to be a debate immediately upon the end of question time to discuss this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will recall that a matter of privilege was raised with you some time ago in relation to the matter that Mr Brownlee has just raised with the House. You made a ruling that relied on the fact that a prosecution was in the offing to turn the matter down. In the light of these new circumstances I ask whether you will now revisit the matter that was earlier put before you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I dismissed the complaint at that time and that is the end of the matter. If any other letters are on their way that is then up to the members concerned. 
Questions to Ministers 
Schools—Anti-virus Software 
1. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that schools have ready access to reliable anti-virus software? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Free anti-virus software for State and State-integrated schools will be available from the beginning of next year. A large number of schools currently do not have quality anti-virus software leaving them exposed to virus attacks. Through the provision of a common high-quality anti-virus software package at no cost to the schools the Government is protecting the investment schools are making. 
David Benson-Pope 
: How does this initiative fit within the Government’s wider strategy for promoting the use of information and communication technology in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As Maurice Williamson often tells me ensuring our children develop good information and communication technology skills is an essential part of equipping them for life and work in the 21st century. I am looking forward to Maurice Williamson getting back on that front bench. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that most viruses are designed to attack the hegemonic proprietary software platform Microsoft while non-proprietary operating platforms such as SuSE Linux now meet international security certification and how will he protect the ability of schools to choose open-source alternatives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Quite a few schools use open-source software. That is their right and if they want to do that that is fine. I am not aware of the technical details but my understanding is that a lot of the software will support Linux as well as Microsoft. 
Child Support—Liable-parent Debt Write-offs 
2.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Revenue 
: What message does the Government’s announcement that it will wipe part of the child support debt owed by errant parents on a “dollar for dollar” basis send to struggling solo mothers and their kids who rely on child support payments? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The Government has made no such announcement. 
Katherine Rich 
: In that case with regard to comments that the Minister made to the Christchurch  
Pres 
s 
 how does he explain his comment that the bill proposed for next year will “increase flexibility and parents will be able to write off back debt on a dollar for dollar basis.”? Certainly every individual would think that their life would be more flexible if they were able to forget about their debts. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has been canvassing a range of options to encourage parents to pay off child support debts. I will be progressing legislation next year that helps to reduce penalties on an ongoing basis. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: When was the current penalties regime put in place and is it working? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It was put in place by the National Government in 1992. The growth in debt has demonstrated that it is not working as well as it could be. That is why we are looking at making some changes. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How does the Minster reconcile his statement that “New Zealand actually has one of the best-performing child support systems in the world” with the dreadful anomalies in our present system which can have a father of 10 children paying a total of $12 a week for all those children while a father of two pays almost $20000 a year in spite of having his children for 40 percent of the time; and will he now consider a comprehensive review of the whole system along the lines of that proposed by Judge Trapski almost a decade ago? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe that in general the child support system is working well. The penalties regime which is a part of it is arguably not and that is why we are looking at reforming it. 
Marc Alexander 
: What message does the Government send to New Zealanders when on the one hand it announces that it will wipe child support debt owed by non-custodial parents and when on the other hand Steve Maharey says “Every father has a responsibility to be emotionally practically and financially engaged with his parenting responsibilities.”? Which one is it to be? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Non-custodial parents who are in general but not always fathers do have a very important responsibility both to their children and their broader families. The Government upholds that. We are trying to make the system of collecting that debt more effective. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Minister could help the ordinary people of this country out by telling us why if someone is not penalised for not paying his or her debts that person would bother to pay them? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Firstly because parents should love their children and their children need them. Secondly because this Government is not and has never said it will be wiping off all penalties—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A voice came from over there best resembling a dog with a cleft palate but I think it was Mr Mallard making some allegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that such comments as were made were out of order. I prefer not to have them recorded in  
Hansard  
but now they will be unfortunately. But since the matter has been raised the member will stand withdraw and apologise for that allegation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you now to elucidate somewhat on what was out of order in my comments—a matter of fact was recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but it was in the second person for a start and that is out of order above anything else. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why did the Minister talk about this proposal to wipe big chunks of debt yesterday—3 weeks before Christmas—when the first thing an irresponsible parent will do is stop paying child support because he knows that the Government will next year wipe out a large proportion of his debt? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place not all irresponsible parents are he’s. In the second place there are many reasons to continue paying one’s child support including the continued existence of penalties. 
Marc Alexander 
: How will the Government’s announcement that it is wiping child support debt generate any sense of responsibility for the men of this country or is this a twisted campaign to allow them to fertilise flee and forget? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Members of other parties simply cannot have it both ways. One cannot argue on the one hand that we need to do more to recover debt and then criticise when we do so—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is the only warning Mr Hide gets today. 
Katherine Rich 
: With regard to his last statement how does the Minister explain to mothers like Christine Hall of Dunedin who have been battling for years to get their ex-husbands to pay child support debts that his big idea to reduce debt is to forget about it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Without dealing with taxpayer-specific matters can I say this: the Government is determined to make it both better and easier for people to pay their child support payments. The presence of large penalties can act as a blockage to non-custodial parents re-entering the payment system. It is that blockage that we are seeking to remove. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of the Government’s announcement that it will wipe child support debt for non-custodial parents who will not pay for their children’s upbringing will he also help to wipe the personal debt incurred by parents who are trying to pay for their children’s upbringing? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The presumption of the question is wrong. May I repeat that the Government is not proposing to wipe all debt for people who owe child support. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Compliance Costs 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Has he been advised of any compliance cost implications from the passage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
: Yes he has. However the compulsory costs have been kept to a minimum. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the provisions of the Act that require in just 27 days the outdoor entrance of every school classroom and building in New Zealand to be labelled as a no-smoking area firstly has the Minister advised schools of their need to comply within that length of time and secondly will her ministry be making an appropriation to cover the costs or is it something schools are expected to cover out of their operating grants at the moment to the detriment of the children they are supposed to be educating? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will be a nominal cost to schools to provide external signs at all entrances. The Ministry of Health is working with the Ministry of Education to keep this cost to a minimum. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the annual estimated cost of treating diseases associated with smoking in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is a considerable cost to New Zealanders from the impact of smoking. For example the health costs alone including hospital costs are estimated in 1992 dollars at $202 million a year. 
Hon David Carter 
: How many Ministry of Health officials will be employed to police the smoke-free environments legislation and will the Minister assure the House that this number of staff will be able to cover adequately the whole of New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are no plans to increase the number of smoke-free officers or health protection officers who currently exist. There are now 17 dedicated smoke-free officers in New Zealand and their job is to oversee the current legislation. There are 117 health protection officers in relation to food issues toxic substances and so on. There is no intention or plan to increase the number of them at this stage. We want to give this law a chance—to see how it goes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the total revenue take for the Government from taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and is it not 3½ times higher than the figure the Minister has just given us for the costs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have with me the exact number of dollars from cigarette revenue but I gave the member the cost to the health sector only. The only research we have in New Zealand to show the cost was done by Brian Easton in 1997 and it showed a cost of $22 billion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are entitled to raise by way of point of order the question as to what the Minister meant when she said $22 billion. Did she mean the whole world? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the Minister’s answer and she is entitled to give it. It was a specific answer. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the Associate Minister give any regard to the Ministry of Health’s proposal last year in the 5-year plan for tobacco control in New Zealand for its “cost-saving strategy for the health sector” to transfer the enforcement of smoking laws to the police; and how does he square that proposal to require the police to enforce these laws with the Government’s claim that anti-smoking laws are about social change and not policing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously the Government did not consider giving this matter to the police. No provision was made for that and it is not likely to be. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that every school in New Zealand will meet the requirement of the Act to have every outdoor entrance labelled as a non-smoking area by 1 January 2004 in view of the fact that the Act was passed only last night and may not yet have received the royal assent and that most schools are closing for the holidays in the next couple of weeks—or is this provision just some new employment programme for the summer to get people out there painting the signs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member is assuming that there will be some gold-plated sign applied to the building. I think we will find that schools have enough time between now and when they return at the end of January to put in place a sign stating that they are non-smoking areas. 
Schools—Closures 
4.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he on track for closing about 300 schools as reported in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 2 November 2003 and how many have been closed this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The figure of 300 is an estimate of the total number over the next decade to 15 years based on a drop of 76000 students over the same period. There is no predetermined number of school closures. Fourteen have been closed this year—none as a result of reviews—and eight will be opened next year or the year after. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why is his ministry sending out letters to principals telling them not to involve pupils in their opposition to school closures when some pupils are old enough to vote are required to be on boards of trustees and are affected by the closures too or does he think that pupils should not have an opinion about the closing of their schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I respect the psychologist involved in sending out the letter. I think that from a psychologist’s point of view it was quite good advice and it should be looked at. But I think it would have been better if the ministry had not sent it because it has inflamed the situation. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why is the Government engaged in the process of school network reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I indicated before the population drop over the next decade to 15 years of people of school age will be about 76000. It is slightly unfortunate that that is happening quite unevenly around the country. We are building new schools in north-west Auckland and south-east Auckland where there are likely to be 40000 extra people over the next 8 or 9 years. It is important that we have a real matching of where the students are and where the schools are. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Holy Trinity model of shared governance and professional leadership which is currently being proposed for a group of Catholic integrated schools—in line with New Zealand First policy I might say—being promoted as a possible alternative for State school reorganisation through the network reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is including by National Party MPs. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of an email to a South Canterbury mother from Michael Deaker one of the ministry facilitators that states: “The requirement that schools resulting from this review be sustainable over 10 to 15 years and include viable professional communities of teachers ... we have set a roll figure of around 160 as the minimum for country primary schools.”; if so has he told Michael Deaker what he has told this House—that there is no minimum roll figure for rural schools and that Mr Deaker should be careful to give factual and accurate information to communities whose schools are under threat of closure? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and indirectly yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he have a response to the 35-page report commissioned by the Timaru District Council that challenges not only the flawed network-review consultation process but also its lack of economic and social impact assessment and the faulty use of population projections? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In discussing it with the council I have suggested that the fundamental problem is that we have more schools than the number of pupils justify and nobody wants his or her school to close. Education is about children not buildings. Half-empty schools are in nobody’s best interests. I was quoting Nick Smith. 
Deborah Coddington 
: As Minister of Education what does he think is so wrong with the schools that he is closing when the parents are in favour of them the community supports them financially and physically and the Education Review Office has given many of them glowing reports; can he tell the House why he thinks he knows better? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure of the relevance of the GST comment but the important point that has to be made is that we have to make some choices. I accept it is the ACT point of view that schools should be allowed to drift to closure. As I have indicated 14 have done that so far this year not as part of a review. It is my view that we have to look to having a sustainable network. We have to have schools in the right places. We have some very strong boards of trustees and principals in charge of schools of 13 or 14 pupils when 5 minutes down the road there is another school that is struggling. If we could put the strengths together I think we would guarantee quality education in a way that that member knows is not being delivered in some schools now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are a couple of things I want to call to your attention. Firstly at the end of the last question a comment was made to the Minister by the junior Government whip to which he responded at the start of his answer and clearly there was meant to be some barb inside that comment directed towards the questioner. That was inappropriate. It should have been picked up on. 
Secondly in the previous question he was asked whether he would give a response to the Timaru District Council. He chose instead to read a very good quote in the circumstances from the Hon Nick Smith but failed to give his own ideas on that matter. That cannot be considered as addressing the question—if one just says that someone else said this. 
There is another matter that I would ask you to consider in the case of this Minister. Throughout his responses there are these little chips and comments which quite frankly will lead to considerable disorder if they are not heard by you and if he is not required to apologise for his appalling performance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Three points were raised but the second one has no relevance at all. If a Minister quotes another member and agrees with the member I cannot see what on earth is wrong with that. The first and third points are relevant and were accurately made. I am just warning the junior Government whip to keep quiet. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister try again to reply to the last question put by Deborah Coddington asking why is he opposed to small schools that the parents are in favour of the pupils like and the academic results of which are excellent; and is he now saying that the only reason he is closing them is that adjacent big schools are failing and that somehow closing the successful small schools will help? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Defence Forces—Deployment Off Shore 
5.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received any recent updates on current New Zealand Defence Force deployments off shore? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. I can tell members that we currently have 480 defence personnel deployed in 17 missions in 12 countries. Major deployments include 17 personnel in Timor-Leste contributing to UN missions 126 with the intervention force in the Solomon Islands and 296 personnel in the Middle East including Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Darren Hughes 
: Given the multilateral nature of these deployments has he received any reports on their effectiveness from the other countries we are working with? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. During my recent visit to the United Kingdom the Ministers and defence chiefs whom I met with made it clear to me that we should be proud of the high regard in which our defence personnel are held by their international peers. The high standards of training and the approach to operations are valued and respected by the defence personnel they work alongside. 
Tauranga Surgeon—Patient Safety 
6.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How does she explain Mr Ian Breeze performing surgery on Mr Barry Baker at Norfolk hospital on 6 December 2000 and operating on Mr Baker again at Tauranga Hospital on 10 and 14 December 2000 given that in her answer to question No. 3 yesterday she stated that restrictions were placed on Mr Breeze on 29 August 2000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The answer I gave yesterday was correct. Restrictions had been placed on Mr Breeze’s ability to carry out colorectal surgery in Tauranga public hospital on 29 August 2000. I am advised by the Bay of Plenty District Health Board that the surgery carried out on Mr Baker on 10 and 14 December 2000 was not colorectal. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Given that according to the Bay of Plenty District Health Board Chief Executive Officer Ron Dunham fellow surgeons whistle-blew on Mr Breeze accusing him of incompetence why was the Bay of Plenty District Health Board unable to take action until the Health and Disability Commissioner stepped in; why did it not get the college to competency-review him earlier and why did it not get the Medical Council involved? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: My understanding is that Mr Breeze had had an audit earlier. The member got it wrong this morning when she said it was done by Mr John Simpson—it was done by another person in 1995. It was the district health board that put on the restrictions. I say to the member that she ought to ask the Medical Council. After all she was one who strongly supported self-regulation by doctors over their own profession. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why was the Bay of Plenty District Health Board unable to stop Mr Breeze practising surgery when Southern Cross’s investigation committee was able to conduct an inquiry into his practice in 2000 and immediately banned him from practising in its hospitals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The district health board stopped him from operating on colorectal cancer in August 2000. It continued to put restriction on his practice. However the competency of health professionals is decided by their own organisation the Medical Council. That organisation self-regulates the health professions—something that that member strongly supported. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did it have to be Shirley Crowley who took a complaint and I quote: “I was advised to take a complaint. I was told it was not correct. I was told this in intensive care and I was told by other medical people namely at Southern Cross Hospital because they did their own investigation and the investigator there said: ‘You have to take this further.’ I said: ‘I don’t really feel that I’m the right person to do that.’ and he said ‘Yes you are’. He said: ‘Somebody has to do it and it’s got to be you.’ ” Why did it have to be Shirley Crowley; why did the system not ensure patient safety? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member makes a very good point about the system. The member will recall that prior to the passage of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act complaints could be reported to a number of agencies: the Medical Council the Accident Compensation Corporation etc. I explained this to the member yesterday. Fortunately we changed that. There is only one place to complain to now and that is the Health and Disability Commissioner. That came out of the inquiry we had about Dr Graham Parry. It probably could have been fixed years ago. Fortunately this Government has done it. 
Question time interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Pamphlet— 
Whose Country Is It? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the details of the Labour Party’s latest propaganda campaign on talkback and radio shows and in the newspapers put out by Ann Hartley with respect to the very worthy pamphlet  
Whose Country Is It?. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tourism—Conservation Land Protection 
7. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress has been made in providing environmentally sensitive tourism opportunities on conservation lands? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Just last week I was privileged to open a coastal walkway at Milford Sound. It provides a new opportunity for the 450000 tourists who visit Milford Sound annually. This is an excellent example of how the tourism industry can work with my department to provide benefits for both conservation and the economy. 
David Parker 
: What role did the tourism industry play in the development of this walkway? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The tourism industry through the Milford Sound Development Authority helped to identify the need for land-based attractions at Milford Sound. It also helped to plan the walkway and provided approximately half the funding required to build it. It worked in partnership with the Department of Conservation the Ministry of Tourism and Ngai Tahu. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer to the primary question can he inform the House whether Department of Conservation staff chopping up rimu on Stewart Island or clear-felling timber in other parts of New Zealand is that new environmentally sensitive approach? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As far as Stewart Island is concerned my department has already apologised to the landowner concerned. People make mistakes. But I can say that the Department of Conservation engages very positively with organisations and individuals throughout New Zealand. 
Mike Ward 
: How is the privatisation of 35 kilometres of land adjacent to Lake Wanaka consistent with both the provision of environmentally sensitive tourism opportunities on conservation land and the Government’s review of public access? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not responsible for final decisions on tenure review. The tenure review proposals for that property are currently undergoing public consultation. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In recognition of the importance of tourism in Milford does the Minister support the proposal which will have a low environmental impact and is culturally sensitive and energy efficient of Ngai Tahu and Skyline Enterprises to build a gondola system through the Greenstone Valley linking Glenorchy with Milford and thereby saving the 12-hour day-trip from Queenstown to Milford? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Applications for tourism developments on the conservation estate go through a rigorous statutory process that includes an assessment of the environmental effects and public consultation. All cases rest on their merits. 
Government Revenue—Roads 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the total amount collected annually by central government from all taxes duties licence fees and levies for the purposes of road construction maintenance and road safety? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am advised that the total in the categories referred to is $1481 million GST exclusive for the year ended 30 June. There were $58 million of GST-inclusive refunds. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How is it that the Minister gave me an answer in the House 4 weeks ago in which he agreed that the real figure was $2223 million not the figure he has just given? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The question the member asked on this occasion was for the purpose of road construction maintenance and road safety. The number I have been given at this point for our total revenue is $1481 million GST exclusive. 
John Key 
: Noting the Government’s intention to release its Auckland roading solutions on 12 December is the Government intending to sanction a further fuel-tax increase either regionally or nationally; if it is what is the logic behind that decision given the surpluses the Government currently enjoys? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Funding for Auckland’s transport strategy will require a commitment to funding it over at least a 10-year period and probably longer. Perhaps at some time during that period there might be a National-led Government and therefore a great improbability of surpluses. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the Minister was thinking up his one-liner about a National Government but I wonder whether he could answer the question which was not about the 10-year funding period but about whether the Government intends on 12 December to raise fuel taxes above their current level in order to fix Auckland’s roads. That was the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The question was why that would be considered in the light of current surpluses and the answer is that we are committed to a long-term funding programme. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister again whether he will admit to the fact that this Government collected $2223 million— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From motorists. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes from motorists—for the ostensible purpose originally given in all those cases of building roads and for road maintenance and road safety; if that is the case what on earth is he doing seeking to justify a petrol-tax rise of 5c per litre to fund a $400 million expenditure to fix Auckland’s traffic congestion problems as reported in the  
Dominion Post  
on Thursday December 4 when he is currently sitting on an operating surplus of $1.96 billion and an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes surplus of $5.58 billion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly we are not sitting on a surplus of $5.58 billion. That was the surplus last year and surprisingly enough we do not leave it sitting in my private piggy bank doing nothing with it in the meantime. The actual cash surplus was used to pay off debt last year. That money has gone. Secondly as I have explained to the member on many occasions the cost of capital associated with roading is not currently covered out of excise duties whereas on rail for example the cost of capital is covered by the current operators. Thirdly there are many other costs associated with roading that are not included in matters such as road construction road maintenance and road safety. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that if the Government decides to reduce the fuel-tax diversion—as indicated by his answer to my question yesterday—by even as much as 2.2c per litre it would be a greater reduction than that accomplished by Winston Peters when he was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister in 1998? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I can confirm that and by sheer chance having looked up the member’s maiden speech I have found that the largest grab ever in New Zealand’s history for the consolidated account occurred in Sir Robert Muldoon’s first mini-Budget when he diverted the entire revenue from motor vehicles into the consolidated account. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the 1998 Budget which sets out very clearly that for the first time in decades a Minister of Finance or Treasurer in this country sought to redress that anomaly. Had we remained in Government for 10 years there would have been a dramatic change and difference in the infrastructural investment on roads in this country. Mr Baldock should get his facts right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not want to accuse the Minister of Finance of misleading the House but in terms of 1998 dollars 2.2c per litre is far less than 2.1c— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member may choose to use that as a debating point; it is not a point of order. 
Peter Brown 
: But he is giving the wrong information— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain why $2223 million in revenue was collected from all sources for the purposes I have outlined in respect of road construction maintenance and safety in the last financial year when only $1.4 billion made it into the National Roads Fund; and can he tell us why when there is an $823 million shortfall that is not being used for the purpose of road construction in Auckland he is just passing the buck again to motorists? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said there are issues relating to the cost of capital for the roading system and there are environmental and other costs associated with roading. The present excise duty does not cover the full cost of the roading system. 
Peter Brown 
: When will the Minister produce the economic report that will justify diverting 18.5c per litre of petrol into the Crown account which he has promised for a long time: before the 12 December package is announced or afterwards so that the motorist is conned again? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised—it is not my responsibility—that such a report in relation to costs will be produced next year. Auckland is demanding much faster answers than that. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is it not true that the best part of $1 million has been spent already on this report and does the Minister think it is satisfactory that we are waiting months for such an overdue report which will come out after the Government has introduced the legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot confirm that figure. I do not have any information in front of me in relation to the costs of what has been done. I know that a great deal of work was done on road costs in the 1990s. Much of that has always been around the issue of generating more income to improve our roading system over the long term. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister of Finance allowing himself to become a victim of a lie—which is that motorists are not already paying sufficiently for all the projects we may have in mind for the next 10 years—and is putting up an argument that is a clear case of creative accounting when he talks about the cost of capital? Is it not true that $823 million is currently not spent for the purpose it is collected and why is he taxing the motorist one more time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The cost of capital is not an aspect of creative accounting; it is fundamental. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is so. It’s just debt servicing. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh well it is no wonder New Zealand First has a rather strange position on economic policy with the cost of capital being regarded as an aspect of creative accounting! I will try to explain this to the member again: there are cost-of-capital elements and there are other costs associated with roading. My authority for that is no less than the Automobile Association and the road transport federation which just before the last election—undoubtedly not in collusion with any party in this House—estimated that if we were to cover the full cost of roading we would have to double the excise duty. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting that that answer was somewhat frivolous I will be equally frivolous: can we have George Fairbairn here and we will really get the facts of the Government’s policy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that Transfund New Zealand is currently sitting on $225 million in its bank account yet people will shortly be forced to pay another 5c per litre of petrol to fix Auckland’s congestion problems; is that not plain daylight robbery so that the Government can finance some of its other whacko projects? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure some of that increased tax will be paid at night-time as well. But passing beyond that it is equally clear that if there is any change in excise duty only the proportion that is due to Auckland in terms of its population will go to Auckland. The rest will go to the rest of the country and the Auckland share will be matched by the Government. 
Meridian Energy Ltd—Project Aqua 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that the Resource Management Act 1991 is a “beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation”; if so why is special legislation required for Government-owned Meridian Energy Limited’s Project Aqua to proceed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by that comment but the member omitted the rest of that wonderful quote which was that the Resource Management Act had to be made to work. The special Waitaki legislation is necessary because without a regional water plan the Resource Management Act alone cannot balance the competing applications. We want to ensure that a fair and open process produces the best decisions for Waitaki water without favouring any applicant—as wrongly presumed in the member’s question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister for the Environment seriously suggesting to the House and the people of New Zealand that we would not have this resource management bill in her name if it were not for Project Aqua? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Without a water allocation plan Project Aqua and the large irrigation requests—if they were all granted—would mean that no water would be left in the Waitaki. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What will be the effect of the water allocation framework to be drawn up by the Waitaki Catchment Board under the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The water allocation framework will become operative as if it were a regional water plan under the Resource Management Act and will guide the decisions about specific applications for water. Of course we would not need to legislate for this if the National Government had not abandoned local government during the 1990s leaving many local authorities without the capacity to draw up regional water plans themselves. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Would the Minister agree that after 12 years of the Resource Management Act if there is any regional council that does not have a catchment management plan and a water allocation plan for a major river system then it is negligent and failing in its duty; and would the Minister consider amending the Resource Management Act to require catchment plans and water allocation plans for the water resources controlled by regional councils? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am loath to condemn regional and local councils for the absence of plans because plans are also required for air quality soil quality as well as water quality and—because they were left without the resources—some of them did not get around to that. An amount of persuasion has gone on with the councils. I do not want to pass that into legislation because I would much rather give a hand to enable different plans for different catchments. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister for the Environment explain to the House why the re-establishment of a separate Waitaki catchment commission to allocate water is not just turning the clock back 15 years and is an admission that the Resource Management Act has failed miserably—even if in her eyes it is a “beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The bill uses the Resource Management Act’s very good principles and very good procedures for the most part. The fact that there was an absence of a water allocation plan meant that it was “first come first decision”. When there are 66 applications a “first in first served” policy does not mean that the best use is achieved. 
Larry Baldock 
: In light of the ongoing concern and constant criticism expressed by interest groups and Opposition parties about delays the Resource Management Act causes for major projects is the Minister surprised by criticism of her most recent effort to address such problems by those very same groups including most notably the National and ACT parties? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Resource Management Act comes in for a lot of criticism from a whole range of people whether it be non-governmental organisations or business concerns. As such it is always under constant review. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has this Minister steadfastly refused to make substantial amendments to the Resource Management Act when asked to do so by the forestry industry the agricultural sector the energy sector and the transport sector but hello hello when it is the Government’s own company she will put a special bill through just to help it out; and how is that any different from the special Clyde Dam legislation that was passed in 1983? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There is an absolute difference in relation to the Clyde Dam legislation. The Clyde Dam legislation was about fast-tracking—this is not. That legislation was about reversing local decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me say again that that legislation was about reversing local decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] This is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some difficult decisions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a speech made by Dr Michael Cullen in 1983 in which he talks about constitutional outrage and abuse of process and in which he states that the people of Otago should decide how their water resources are used rather than a committee appointed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he went on too long. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you might say that the barracking came from this side of the House but not all of us were barracking. Some of us were actually trying to listen. I would really like the Minister to give the answer again so that we can hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I heard an amount of interjection but I managed to hear the answer from this part of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier you ruled that I was not to interject on a questioner ever again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No on the asking of a question not an answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is right. So I have sat here as you know a model MP—and it has been very difficult. But I could not help but observe that while Dr Nick Smith was raising a point of order given that you have always and quite correctly demanded absolute silence the Government whip David Benson-Pope interjected on him. The Minister Marian Hobbs—and she is nodding her head indicating that she did—interjected on him but somehow when they do it on a point of order it is OK. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me say that it was a member of the National Party who interjected while the member was discussing that point of order. I usually tend to stand by that rule but I am not going to be absolutely rigid every single moment of the day. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to take you back to your earlier ruling. I am sitting considerably closer to the Minister than Mr Prebble who raised the point of order and a lot closer than you are and I could not hear the answer that was given. I suggest that it was perhaps a little unfair of you to rule that from your distance you could hear it whereas those of us in this sector of the House could not. Maybe the Minister should be required to repeat it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I hope the Minister could give us a brief summary of her answer. I suggest to you Mr Speaker that it should be that and that there should be no interjection—otherwise we invite barracking and members delay question time by then asking for the answers to be repeated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the point is well made. There was too much interjection. However I thought the Minister was coping with it. I will now ask the Minister to give—and I want silence—a very brief summary of her answer. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As I recall the question it was that this bill was being compared with the Clyde Dam legislation. This bill which we have before us this week will not be about fast-tracking any proposals. Nor is it about reversing local decisions as it was in the Clyde Dam example. It is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some very difficult decisions. 
Statistics New Zealand—Maori Communities 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to raise awareness and extend the use of official statistics in Maori communities? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has secured funding to retain six kaitakawaenga who were appointed to work with Maori communities during the 2001 census. Their role is to raise awareness and extend the use of official statistics in Maori communities. Statistics New Zealand plays a vital role in informing social political economic and business decision-making in this country and we are proud to be a Government that is taking Statistics New Zealand seriously after years of neglect by those members opposite. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to improve the availability of official statistics about Maori businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Currently no systematic official statistics about Maori business activity are available. As a means of improving the situation Statistics New Zealand in cooperation with Te Puni Kokiri is currently testing strategies for identifying Maori businesses so that a systematic range of statistics can be compiled from existing data sources. The Government believes that these statistics are needed to understand and enhance the contribution of commercial activities. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right and I might add that this Government is supporting Statistics New Zealand in such projects by providing it with an additional— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency—Bilateral Treaty 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has the Government made a decision to include the regulation of complementary medicines and dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency and when does it expect to sign a bilateral treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments establishing the agency? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has decided to include the regulation of complementary medicines and therapeutic dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency. The treaty will be signed on 10 December. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why has the Minister made this decision before the Health Committee which is inquiring into this very issue has even reported back and what does she say to members of the Health Committee who have been toiling away on this issue for 8 months only to find at the end of it that that we have completely wasted our time because the Minister had already made up her mind? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not reasonable to expect the Governments of New Zealand or Australia to wait any longer for a report from a select committee—a report that the Government did not call for—on something that was first decided in September 2002 15 months ago. Governments cannot hold up agreements on that basis. What countries would deal with us if we did? 
Mark Peck 
: What process will be followed once the treaty has been signed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is proposed that the national interest analysis and a text of the agreement be tabled in Parliament in accordance with the parliamentary treaty examination process. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What are the cost implications for New Zealand’s large complementary health-care market of having a trans-Tasman therapeutics product agency rather than mutual recognition and a strengthened New Zealand regulatory system? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Work undertaken by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research suggests the costs of regulating complementary medicines within a joint agency would be significantly less than that of a New Zealand regulatory scheme. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What would she say to the hundreds of submitters who made submissions in good faith believing that we were conducting a genuine inquiry into this issue and does she understand how they may consider her decision to be arrogant and extraordinary and that they too may feel—like the members of the Health Committee—that they have completely wasted their time because she had already made a predetermined decision on the matter that the committee is inquiring into? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Cabinet made a decision in principle in November 2002 that complementary medicines would be included in the joint regulator. We have waited patiently for the select committee to report back. It still has not reported back. We are working closely with the Australian Government. We have considered what we have heard along the way. I think the member may well even be pleased when she sees the extent of what has been considered in the joint regulator. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In light of comments by the Minister for Small Business yesterday that Australian businesses face much higher compliance costs than New Zealand businesses do why is she supporting a proposal to regulate dietary supplements by an expensive Australian-based therapeutic goods agency when overwhelming evidence was presented to the select committee that that will increase the compliance costs of small New Zealand dietary supplement industries and that no further assurance will be given to consumers as a result of these increased compliance costs as the Pan Pharmaceuticals debacle amply illustrated? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was far too long. The Minister may comment briefly on one or two aspects of it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is because of the Pan Pharmaceuticals situation that this Government has decided to move in conjunction with Australia to regulate complementary and therapeutic dietary supplements. Many New Zealanders demanded that we put in place regulation and the work that I have seen shows that the impact on small business of what we intend to put in place will be minimal. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of submitters consumers and dietary supplement industries are completely opposed to the course she is pursuing and does she agree with Margaret Wilson’s comment in respect of the Supreme Court debate that a remote and inaccessible final Court of Appeal is not a hallmark of modern democracy; if so why is her Government supporting the establishment of a remote and inaccessible body based in Australia and staffed principally by Australians to regulate dietary supplements in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is wrong on just about every point she has made. She has assumed that the body is remote she has assumed that it is in Australia and she has assumed that it is under Australia’s control. She is wrong on all those points. 
Speed Cameras—Demerit Points 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has he considered introducing demerit points on speed camera tickets; if so what recommendations if any is he proposing to his Cabinet colleagues on this matter? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes but I am not telling. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In making a recommendation to his Cabinet colleagues did he tell his colleagues that in Victoria which does have demerit points for speed camera tickets it is not uncommon for family members to transfer demerit points between themselves to avoid getting a disqualification period and in some companies it is not unheard of for the receptionist to accept demerit points so that top salespeople can keep their cars on the roads; and does this not show what a mockery such a policy would be? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There is a range of issues around demerit points for speed camera tickets. If the member would like further information on the issues in relation to Victoria I am happy to show it to him. But those issues need to be considered carefully and Cabinet is doing just that. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What indication has he received about public attitudes to speed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There is growing support for a tougher line to be taken against speeding on our roads. For example an NBR poll in September this year showed that 57 percent of people supported demerit points for speed camera tickets. Given that one-third of all fatal accidents were primarily speed related I am keen to hear a lot more from those whose families have suffered the consequences of speeding and a little less from those who want to drive as fast as they like. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Government considering introducing demerit points for other transport matters such as driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament or does the Minister think he will end up with egg on his face as the Government and the police have done today with the dropping of charges against Shane Ardern MP? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as that relates to the Minister’s responsibility he may comment briefly. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No and no. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In advising his Cabinet colleagues to consider demerit points as in Victoria did the Minister tell them that Victoria’s road toll has remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years yet New Zealand’s has dropped by 37 percent in the same period and did he tell his Cabinet colleagues that the New South Wales road toll has fallen by only 3 percent over the same period despite motorists sometimes being hit with double demerit points? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course the mess that has been made with those statistics really does not deserve comment but I will just say that New Zealand comes off a higher base. The truth is that Victoria has plateaued out and is looking at a range of new measures. Victoria is looking here at some of the things we are doing. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table research that shows that Victoria’s road toll has remained static in the last 10 years while New Zealand’s has dropped by 37 percent without having demerit points for speed cameras tickets as Victoria has. 
Document not tabled. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from Brian Easton dated April 1997 that states the net social cost of tobacco abuse amounts to almost $22.5 billion. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Holidays Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their diligent work on the bill. The committee received more than 4000 submissions which clearly indicates the high level of interest in this area. 
I would like to draw the attention of members to the following key amendments to the bill recommended by the committee. The bill heralds a fundamental and necessary change to employment standards in New Zealand. It will increase minimum annual holidays entitlements from 3 weeks to 4 weeks effective from 1 April 2007. We recognise the change to 4 weeks’ annual holiday will create issues for employers that need to be carefully managed thus the long lead-time given. This will enable employers and their employees sufficient time to plan and to manage the change. 
This change recognises that New Zealand employees deserve to enjoy 4 weeks’ annual holiday as much as their counterparts across the Tasman or in the UK. It has been 30 years since the last increase in the minimum annual holiday entitlement. We cannot keep annual holiday entitlements in a time warp. We would like to note the support of New Zealand First and the Green Party for this measure. I am sure those employees who already receive 4 weeks’ annual holiday will testify to the benefits this brings to their work and to their personal lives and families. Achieving a better work-life balance is becoming increasingly important in our often hectic and harried lives. This Government wants those benefits to be experienced by all employees not just those with enlightened employers or sufficient bargaining power to secure these benefits for themselves. 
There has been a lot of attention to the flow-on implications of this increase. Some employees will already have 4 weeks’ annual holiday in their employment agreements. It is true that these employees can seek to renegotiate their entitlement but the outcome of any such negotiation is up to the employers employees and the unions. If employers consider a higher annual entitlement as a useful tool for retention purposes or to reward long service this is their choice. Increasing the minimum annual holiday entitlement is also important if New Zealand is to compete successfully against other countries in attracting and retaining skilled people. 
The committee has also recommended amendments to the bill to address submitters’ concerns about the payment of annual holidays. The key change in this area is that the ability to be paid for annual holidays on a pay-as-you-go basis has been extended to employees who are employed so sporadically that it is meaningless and extremely difficult for the employer to provide them with annual holidays. This provides a sensible balance but this provision needs to be used appropriately. 
A range of submitters raised concerns with regard to what they describe as casual employees. However we would suggest that in many of those cases the employees were not truly casual employees and could easily be provided with annual holidays. The arrangements for taking annual holidays during close-down periods have also been amended in response to concerns raised by submitters about the restriction it seemed to place on employer activities. It has been made clear that there is only one close-down period a year in which employers can direct their employees to take annual holidays. This does not stop employers from having other periods of closure. The arrangements for any additional periods of closure will have to be by agreement between employers employees and unions. 
In terms of public holidays one of the key provisions in the bill is that all employees should genuinely be paid rate and a half for the time they work on a public holiday. This acknowledges the fact that the employee is sacrificing a day of national religious or cultural significance he or she could otherwise spend in relaxation or celebration with friends and family. Submitters did however raise concerns about how rate and a half can be provided to an employee in practice. The committee recommended amendments to the bill to clarify how rate and a half is to be calculated. As well as this we want to ensure that employers employees and unions understand what the requirement to pay rate and a half for time worked on a public holiday means for them and that employees are genuinely provided with that. To address these concerns the bill now provides that the employment agreements will have to include a specific provision stating that rate and a half will be paid for work on a public holiday. 
The bill proposes separate entitlements for sick leave and bereavement leave. This is a change from the 5 days of special leave provided in the Holidays Act to cover both types of leave. Submitters generally reacted positively to this measure. However one of the major concerns that employer submitters had on the bill was their inability to require medical certificates from employees who were sick for 5 days or less. The committee has recognised that there may be circumstances where proof of entitlement may be appropriate and that a 5-day period of restrictions may have been too restrictive. The committee has proposed an amendment to the bill to allow employers to require medical certificates from employees away on sick leave for 3 successive calendar days rather than the 5 days originally proposed. This change achieves a fair balance between the rights and interests of employers and employees. Changes to the eligibility criteria for sick and bereavement leave reflects concerns from submitters that some groups of employees may have been unable to access this leave. Access to sick and bereavement leave has been extended to employees who have worked for an average of 10 hours per week and at least 40 hours per month for the same employer for 6 months. 
 In conclusion on behalf of the Hon Margaret Wilson I thank members of the committee again for their work. Already a good bill has been further improved by their efforts. The bill represents an important step towards achieving the Government’s vision of New Zealand as a great place to live to learn to work and to do business. It is a key component of the employment relations framework put in place by this Government. Minimum standards such as those provided in the bill promote fair dealings protect vulnerable employees and prevent a race to the bottom. Businesses in the economy will not flourish unless employees have a good working environment—one where rights and obligations are appropriately balanced so that each party is best placed to contribute to positive and productive employment relationships. I commend the Holidays Bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party recognises that the contribution to this country’s productive economy from working New Zealanders is considerable. We do not in any way wish their conditions of work to be at all draconian. We want to see a working environment where those who do contribute to the economy take their rewards from it just as much as do those who put their capital towards its growth. It does not matter what sort of gloss Mr Tamihere or Margaret Wilson might put on this bill: the workers of this country will pay for it. The bill which has a number of new provisions that perhaps clarify holidays legislation in this country will be most notable for the introduction of a fourth week of annual leave. That fourth week will be paid for by hard-working New Zealanders as this Government—the Labour Government—effectively imposes a wage cap on those workers over the next 4 to 5 years. 
One of the things that have gone a little bit unnoticed by many workers is that the earliest possible date at which a person might qualify for 4 weeks’ holiday is 1 April 2007 which is four Christmases away. I have to tell the House that if a person takes up an employment opportunity on 30 March 2007 that person will not be entitled to his or her fourth week of holiday until after 1 April 2008. So what we will see now is 5 years of wages being ground down in this country as the employers who provide opportunities for income prepare for the additional costs that this bill is likely to impose. 
I can see Government members laughing and saying that no that will not be how it works. But it needs to be seen in this context. Firstly there are about 2 million workers in this country and all of them whether they are currently on 4 weeks’ or 3 weeks’ leave will expect an extra week’s leave. When that is extrapolated out it means that the extra week’s leave for workers in this country is the equivalent of 40000 full-time jobs in any given year; 40000 full-time jobs in any year is the equivalent cost of the 1 week’s extra leave provided by this bill. I ask Government members whether they have been told that that was the cost. I ask Government members whether they have considered what the effect on the economy might be. If one takes a whole city the size of Timaru or Palmerston North or New Plymouth and puts the people in it on holiday for a year the economic cost of that is borne by every worker throughout this country. Every worker throughout the country will pay for those 40000 jobs those 40000 contributions to the economy that will be taken out progressively from 2007. 
We do not in any way begrudge people the opportunity to have quality time with their families and other such things. But we do ask whether people should not have a choice about whether they go on holiday or take additional income. There is no way of looking at this bill without coming to the conclusion that it will be the workers who pay for it. Even Treasury has told the Government that very fact. Cabinet received the information and just decided to ignore it. It decided that it would be a nice bit of spin to tell workers in this country that they will get an extra week’s leave but then fail to tell them that they will have to wait four Christmases to get it. 
I heard one of the lesser lights of the Labour Party say that we were being mean in some way by pointing out that workers will be paying for the extra week’s leave and that as it was the Christmas season we were being particularly mean. Well I think it is a plain tease to hang out the prospect of an extra week’s holiday but to ensure it will be 4 years before anyone qualifies for it. [ 
Interruption 
] Those 4 years will mean that workers in the electorate that Mr Gosche currently represents—and that is only a temporary arrangement—will have their wages stunted and pruned over the next 4 years. It makes sense. Our Minister of Finance is absolutely fixated on growing his surplus to almost extreme lengths at the present time. He tells us that the economy is going absolutely brilliantly and he skites about the fact that New Zealand is now a $17-an-hour economy. There is absolutely no alternative for employers in an economy that is so fixated on containing costs but to prune the wages of their workforce in order to afford as a group those 40000 jobs that no longer will be worked as a result of the extra week’s leave. So we are very concerned about the passage of that part of the bill. 
We also see a huge gap in the legislation in terms of the opportunity that should have been given to workers to trade off their accumulated holiday entitlements for cash. 
We know that numerous people work their weekends work during public holidays work through the whole 12 months and do not take their current entitlement of 2 or 3 weeks’ leave. They quite often end up with accumulated annual leave of maybe 3 to 5 weeks over and above their annual entitlement. Under this bill their choices are simply to take 7 or 8 weeks off work or lose their holiday entitlement. We ask a simple question: why would fit healthy young New Zealanders who are able to survive the year on 11 statutory holidays and say 2 weeks’ holiday not want the opportunity to say they would rather take an extra pay packet and use that money to get rid of a bit of debt or to put it towards the mortgage or towards a deposit on a house? Why should they not have the opportunity to do that? 
This bill fails New Zealand workers in a very significant way. It is a cynical approach to the concept of improving opportunities for workers in this country. I note that it is former union members in the Labour Party who are laughing beneath their jackets at the prospect of their workers having to pay for this extra week’s leave over the next 4 years. I ask workers in this country whether they really believe that 40000 jobs can be effectively taken out of the economy to be paid for by someone without that affecting their wage packets. 
I also ask them to think about how much their wage packets have grown in the last 4 years. They will know that wage growth has been very meagre indeed. I ask them to think about what it will be like over the next 4 years with much much lower wage growth than they have experienced in the past 4 years. The greatest wage growth came during the 1990s under a National Government. From 1995 workers took home more of the money they earned than workers had ever done in any other period in this country’s history. This current Government has not moved workers’ incomes at all. Wage packets have barely kept pace with inflation. They have barely kept pace with the costs of daily life. Now we see this cynical throwing of a fish to the hungry seals—an extra week’s holiday. Well workers will not let themselves be treated in that way. It will be workers who tip this Government out of office for being so cynical and malicious. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Holidays Bill represents another step forward in the implementation of the policies of the minority Labour-Progressive coalition Government. It is another step forward for the people of New Zealand. It takes a number of progressive steps in the modernising and upgrading of our labour laws. The bill clarifies and reforms what has become a messy law. It ensures that those who work on public holidays are not penalised it clarifies the calculation of annual holiday pay it provides for 5 days’ entitlement to sick leave and it ensures that payment for sick and bereavement leave is at the relevant daily rate. 
The most significant part of the bill in the view of the Progressive party is of course the provision to increase the minimum annual holiday entitlement from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. I do not want to irritate anyone but I must say this issue was a huge gaping hole in the annual leave entitlements in the legislation as it was first presented to the House earlier in the year. As Margaret Wilson has acknowledged in the speech read for her by John Tamihere this is the most significant reform for low-income workers for over 30 years. The year 1974 was the last time that another week of annual leave was granted to the workforce. In that time professionals management some sections of the highly skilled workforce and others have long moved to 4 weeks’ leave and more. So has our greatest trading partner Australia. Members of Parliament with a flexibility of holiday time that low-income workers do not have have now in their majority recognised what is owed to those who have borne large sacrifices with the restructuring of the economy—often poorly done and unwisely instituted. This measure will afford them more appropriate rest recreation and family time to compensate for more than a decade of the rolling back of conditions—in particular the 40-hour week. That is the decade that Gerry Brownlee lauded as a decade of great improvement for workers. 
I am very proud that the Progressives and the Labour Party are now at one on the issue of changing the law to allow for 4 weeks’ leave although the Progressives will continue to advocate that it come in sooner than 2007. I will do that by a Supplementary Order Paper in my name which seeks to bring 4 weeks’ annual leave into force on 1 April 2005. This move is socially just. Our families are under pressure—all parties state that. United Future although consistently opposed to this family-strengthening reform states that strengthening families is one of its major planks. Four weeks’ minimum annual leave relieves that pressure on families. 
I recently attended one night of my younger son’s school camp. A number of parents had been there for the week. They had taken that time out of their holiday entitlement. I had a more flexible arrangement. One father was a factory worker. He had been with his present job for a decade. He had 3 weeks’ annual leave. He gave up one of those weeks to be with his son. He was overjoyed that 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave would come in because that would still leave him with 3 other weeks for his wife and his other children. It is to allow productive workers like him to put adequate time into their children that this measure is aimed. He was disappointed that he had to wait until 1 April 2007 but he brightened up when I advised him that the Progressives had an amendment to have it begin on 1 April 2005. I will say more on that later. 
When this measure was first introduced by the Progressives only the Greens came out in support; it was their policy and they supported it from the beginning. But gradually support built. From the original 11 votes in this Parliament the Labour Party has added its 52 votes to give a parliamentary majority. I am aware that New Zealand First particularly through the work of Peter Brown had intended to support this measure although it does not support it now because of its opposition to the total bill. This turn-round of support came because of the massive public support for the measure. That support was generated by a postcard distribution campaign workplace meetings union stopworks letter writing and a lobbying campaign of MPs. In the correspondence that I received I noted how much support came from those who already had 4 weeks’ leave but wanted that provision extended to the total workforce. That is the Kiwi tradition of fair play for all. They did not want women who clean late at night assembly line workers young parents women who have broken service from having children and the many others largely in low-income positions to be deprived of the benefits they have. 
In economic terms those who decry the cost fail to talk of either the social or economic benefits. What price do we put on the social benefit of the extra time that parents can spend with their children? What price do we put on the health of low-income workers? Why do opponents forget to advise that the total increase will not be a further 2 percent of the total wage bill covering all workers because a large number of employees get 4 weeks’ leave now? The annual net cost will be around $350 million—1 percent of the wage bill. These opponents forget to include the increased spending in the economy because people on holiday spend money on goods and services. They are silent on the fact that Britain which introduced 4 weeks’ leave for all last year—with cries of economic disaster from the right-wing parties’ political counterparts in Britain—has actually strengthened its economic position. Why is Australia not an economic basket case when it has had 4 weeks’ holiday for all of 20 years? It is probably a reason why the Australian rugby team is better than the All Blacks! 
Raising the minimum standard for leave entitlements is vital and critical to New Zealand for many reasons. It is important if New Zealand is to continue to compete successfully against other countries to attract and maintain skilled people. New Zealand has been running current account deficits in each and every year for over a quarter of a century. Under the Labour-Progressive coalition Government our economy has outperformed the average of the OECD over the past 4 years and we are forecast to continue to outperform the average of the OECD over the next few years. Our unemployment rate is now one of the lowest amongst the rich group of nations but we must still do better. We will never export our way out of our inability to pay our way in the world by competing on international markets on the basis of cheap labour and low costs alone. 
That approach would be a loser’s approach a race to the bottom as we attempted to compete with the likes of the Democratic Republic of Congo on the basis of ever-cheaper labour and ever-cheaper commodity production. The Congo does not have 4 weeks’ leave entitlement for its workers. In fact the vast nation of the Congo is a living experiment for ACT policies. One does not have to pay federal tax or even state taxes in the Congo. Businesses do not pay company tax either. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s a stupid stupid statement from a stupid member. He is a half-wit. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that calling out “a stupid member” is not within the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It was more than that and I ask the member to withdraw under Standing Order 117 “Personal reflections”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise for my comments relating to the member. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: In the Congo businesses do not pay company tax either. There are no expensive public education or health systems to burden the consumers and taxpayers of Kinshasa. I guess we could say it is an ACT party paradise that National wants to join—no tax no welfare no education no minimum labour standards and no hope for the majority. Progressive takes a different approach from that. We have to add knowledge add value and integrate innovation into everything we export. That is how we are steadily regaining our place in the world. 
But it is not just ACT that does not understand the nature of a modern economy; the National Party leader Don Brash said that any future centre-right coalition Government he leads would change the law and end 4 weeks’ leave—of course they would leave it for themselves. Don Brash has attacked the Progressives’ 4 weeks’ leave initiative on the grounds that it is—yes one can guess it—a cost to business. But 4 weeks’ annual leave is a critical financial issue in the battle to keep low-income families in the productive workforce and contributing to New Zealand’s economic development. The financial cost of balancing work and family responsibilities is too high or on the margins of being unaffordable for many low-income two-parent families. Having 4 weeks’ leave is long overdue for this part of the productive workforce. The fierce opponents of this family-friendly move—National ACT and United Future which now unfortunately are joined by New Zealand First—all get 4 weeks’ leave and more but they will deny it to those who need legislation to get what other more privileged people like the MPs in those anti-family parties already get. 
New broom Don Brash now will have to repeal 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave; he will add it alongside his moves to revoke our nuclear-free status. He has pledged to sell Kiwibank—the “People’s Bank” popularly known as Jim Anderton’s bank—and other State assets that he Mr Prebble and Mr Dunne previously assisted in selling to the rich at bargain-basement prices. Now National and its putative coalition partners ACT and United Future want to repeat the nightmare of the sale of public assets. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The member is telling lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that is out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Where is New Zealand First? Fresh from attacking immigrants as its contribution to the season of goodwill it now decides it will vote against 4 weeks’ annual minimum leave. How does New Zealand First explain that to the very Kiwi battlers that it came to represent? Once again as in 1996 when it campaigned as the party that would throw out National it has joined with the parties that sell public assets and cut the conditions of workers. 
I will do my best to persuade my Labour colleagues in the Committee stage to support 1 April 2005 as the introduction date of this bill. I do not want a situation where the reward is denied to those who if they have to wait until 1 April 2007 will not have the help they would have had and the family time if it had been introduced earlier. The bill especially its 4 weeks’ leave component is a time for celebration for all fair-minded pro-family New Zealanders. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealanders are in the main hard-working friendly and of flexible disposition. 
John Key 
: Not all of them. 
PETER BROWN 
: In the main. On one of the few times I have gone back to the UK since I have been here—I think it is well known in the House that I originated in the UK—people have said to me: “We like New Zealanders here. They are hard-working they are flexible and they will turn their hand to anything.” 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Except that member. 
PETER BROWN 
: This will stun the member over here: the last time I went back there they said to me: “We like your people over here.” They put me down as a New Zealander. That member will be silenced forever. I felt very proud and very privileged. 
 Matt Robson spoke to me one day and said he was going to promote this bill. I reacted pretty warmly as did my caucus colleagues. We wanted to support the 4 weeks’ holiday provision. Basically—which became quite clear to the members of the select committee—it is only the low paid the young and the casual employees who are on 3 weeks. 
It is all very well for Gerry to stand up here— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). The member should refer to a member by his or her full name. 
PETER BROWN 
: Goodness me I do not want to offend 6/1! It is all very well for members of the National Party to stand up here and say that 4 weeks will send the country into oblivion. Listening to the honourable Mr Brownlee one would have thought that the sun would not rise in the morning if we supported 4 weeks’ leave. I bet he cannot remember a recent time when he was on less than 6 or 7 weeks per year. [ 
Interruption 
] Before that he was a schoolteacher and they get plenty. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s a low blow. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a low blow. I believe and New Zealand First believes— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was momentarily distracted. I wonder whether the member could repeat his comments. It would be unfair for me not to be able to enjoy them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: We believe that low-paid people young people and casual employees in this country need to have some of their working conditions addressed. We know we cannot raise their wages to the level that Australia or the UK pays but their holiday conditions should be of a similar type. They certainly should be of a similar type to the rest of New Zealand’s population. We believe that it is wrong unfair and unreasonable for our economic well-being to depend on the low-paid having 3 weeks’ holiday whilst the rest of us enjoy quite a lot more. We will definitely support the provisions for 4 weeks’ holiday in the Holidays Bill. 
The New Zealand First caucus debated the bill at length but we are in a dilemma. The select committee did a good job. Its members listened to the New Zealand First submission about casual workers double-dipping which has been amended and also to our concerns about sick leave which were shared by many submitters. Those provisions have also been modified but we still believe that the Holidays Bill is business unfriendly. Should we hold back from supporting the progress of this bill? It can be modified by Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. New Zealand First had a special segment of its caucus discuss the issue and the debate was pretty torrid frank and tense. We say to the country that we believe that the bill has to be positively addressed. At this point in time we say that it is business unfriendly but we cannot go on saying that for ever. We will look positively at it. 
Despite what Mr Matt Robson said earlier New Zealand First is longer in a dilemma. We will support the bill. We might put a few amendments in at the Committee stage but we will support its progress. We will not vote against it at this stage. In fact we will vote for it. We are not prepared to have New Zealanders treated as second-rate on a world basis in their own country because they are well-received overseas. To employers who will no doubt make representations to us we will say that we will support increasing workers’ leave but we will look favourably at some sort of tax concession when we become part of the Government after the next election. 
We believe that New Zealanders are entitled to a fairer go than they are currently getting and we will push for that. We will say to working people that we know that they can get better conditions elsewhere in the world but that we do not want to see our young people in particular going permanently off shore. New Zealanders have always gone off shore for their OE trips—for 2 years or whatever—but now many of them want to go permanently. That is partly to do with the situation they find themselves in with student loans but it is partly to do with employment conditions here. If this bill can make it more attractive for young people in particular to develop their careers here—although it is not just aimed at young people—we will certainly support its progress. 
This legislation has been a long time coming. When Max Bradford was the Minister responsible for the Department of Labour he went too far to the right. He wanted to sell everything and got nowhere. As I recall it was New Zealand First when we were part of the coalition Government that stopped that proceeding. We said that was going too far in the wrong direction. This bill has gone slightly too far to the left but it is trying to make things fairer for the average working person. 
I warn the Government now that probably some—if not many—employers will look at this legislation and say that because of it they do not want to employ people in permanent positions. They will say that they would rather stick with casual employees. There is an incentive here to employ more people on a casual basis. New Zealand First believes that and we sincerely hope the issue can be addressed. We will be looking at advocating tax relief particularly for people who employ permanent employees. 
In summary we have always supported 4 weeks’ holiday. We listened carefully at the select committee and there was nothing that changed our minds on that. We are not a party that wants to see people queuing outside post offices to collect their dole. Basically we believe that people in this country have to be treated fairly and when we treat them fairly and they get a fair return for a day’s work they perform. Holidays are an important part of employment conditions. We also believe that the main part of the bill as I said earlier is business unfriendly but that that can be overcome. We believe that some of the flaws in it have been taken care of and that we can perhaps take care of a few others in the Committee stage. New Zealand First supports the progress of this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It is great to see the Holidays Bill back before the House—in time I hope to be passed by Christmas this year. In the long run this bill will be one of the best Christmas presents the workers of New Zealand could hope for. Although the Green Party is disappointed that the introduction of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers is being postponed until 1 April 2007 at least this bill contains a statutory promise that I hope any Government post the 2005 election will keep. I cannot imagine that even National ACT or United Future will want to go out on the hustings and tell ordinary people to their faces that they will repeal this bill should they become Government in 2005—a very unlikely outcome I am sure. 
Although I do not like the way the implementation of 4 weeks’ leave has been delayed in a way that looks as if it could perhaps be an inducement to vote in a certain way at the same time any party or candidate who professes to care about the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders and their families must surely support 4 weeks’ leave for all. After all it is around 30 years since the statutory entitlement for 3 weeks’ leave was introduced. That is a long time and our society and culture have changed hugely since then. Longer hours of work and much more equitable participation in the workforce by women mean that individuals and families need every day’s leave they can get just to help them survive. 
Many workers on higher incomes and in jobs and professions that have comparatively stronger bargaining power have already negotiated themselves 4 or even 5 or more weeks’ leave. It is a grave injustice that those who are the lowest paid and who are often in the least personally rewarding of occupations are those who are also the least likely to get anything over the 3-week minimum. All workers are human beings with human needs for rest relaxation recuperation and time with children partners family and friends. Our children partners family and friends need time with us too. The cost of an extra week’s leave is small when compared with the beneficial effects for so many and with the fact that overall employees’ motivation performance and productivity will all be substantially enhanced. 
On top of that the 4 weeks’ leave being introduced here is already being offered by many other countries. Every single country in the European Union must by law provide a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual holiday and while some in this Parliament might find it hard to believe in Austria Denmark Finland France and Spain all workers have a statutory minimum of 6 weeks’ holiday. In our near neighbour Australia workers have had the privilege of 4 weeks’ leave since around the time that New Zealand moved to 3 weeks’ showing once again just how slow we are at times to make progress—despite priding ourselves so often on our supposedly enlightened attitudes to social change. 
I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Matt Robson of the Engineers Union and of other unions and individuals who have led the push over the last year for 4 weeks’ leave for all. Mr Robson’s member’s bill for 4 weeks’ annual leave has been incorporated into this one and even though the Progressives and Greens share a deep disappointment that implementation is so far away at least we are making a major step forward with this legislative commitment to 4 weeks’ leave in 2007. 
Beyond the 4 weeks’ issue of course a number of other significant improvements to holiday law are included in the bill we are considering this afternoon. The overall goal of the bill is to make holiday requirements easier for both employers and employees to understand and work with. I am sure that despite the usual flurry of objections that featured in the committee hearings in practice many employers—both large and small—will appreciate the clarity this bill will bring once it becomes law. Among other things we are particularly pleased that it is now very clear that all employees must receive 11 public holidays annually that provisions for payment and time in lieu for working on public holidays are established and simplified that arrangements around the payment of holiday entitlements are being made both more transparent and easier to understand that clear minimum entitlements to sick and bereavement leave are established and that casual staff who work in an ongoing situation will also be entitled to bereavement leave. 
I guess our major disappointment with this part of the bill—apart from the fact that it will take 4 years until 4 weeks’ leave will begin to take effect—is that during the select committee process the Government decided to retrogressively amend the clause that originally provided that an employer could request proof of entitlement for sick leave after people had been away from work for 5 days. Labour has chosen instead to reduce the period before proof is required to 3 days. That means workers will end up at times—depending on the nature of their employers—having to endure the inconvenience and cost of going to a doctor for a medical certificate when there is no other reason for seeking medical attention. The Green Party will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage of this bill to return the relevant time period in the clause from 3 to its original 5 days. 
Another area of concern for us in this bill has been around the way sick and domestic leave have been brought together as one. It is great that all workers have a minimum of 5 days’ sick leave a year but for those employees with dependants that leave can get eaten away very quickly when children or other dependants become ill to the extent the wage earner has to stay home and look after them. That is a very real situation for the hundreds of thousands of workers who have young children and/or sick or elderly relatives to care for. We believe it would have been preferable to separate sick leave from domestic leave so that a distinct domestic leave entitlement existed for those who genuinely needed it. However I acknowledge that that was something not strongly pushed by submitters and it was certainly not endorsed by Government members. I hope I live to see the day when we are a humane enough society to recognise the needs not just of the staff members themselves but also of their dependants. Sadly that day is not here yet. 
Overall however this is a welcome and important bill which will benefit not just workers and their families but also employers through increased productivity and society at large through the benefits of greater work/life balance and happiness all around. People in those echelons of society who take 4 5 6 or more weeks’ leave for granted often seem to forget—if they ever knew—what it is like to be able to have time off for only half the summer school holidays with nothing up the sleeve for the rest of the year. I am glad that Labour the Progressives and the Green Party have been able to work together to achieve at least 1 extra week’s leave for all workers by 2007 and that through other provisions in the Holidays Bill there will now be a lot more certainty for both employers and staff when it comes to dealing with the complexity of leave entitlements in all their forms. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party did support the repeal of the Holidays Act of 1981 to provide holiday and leave entitlements that would be easier to understand and apply but this bill in the way it has been drafted and amended does the opposite so we will not be supporting it and we have a minority report in the commentary. 
The purpose of the bill is supposedly to address a work-life balance. We would say that it is not the proper role of Government to interfere with the work-life balance of individual people. That is up to people themselves to negotiate with their employers and for employers to negotiate with employees. In some cases employees might prefer to have extra money instead of another 5 days off. That might contribute to a better work-life balance for them than having 4 weeks’ holiday. They might like to cash in a week’s holiday and take 3 weeks’ holiday or take 2 weeks’ holiday and cash in the other 2 weeks’ holiday. 
We had submission after submission at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee saying exactly this from employers who were very in touch with the people whom they employed and who said that a lot of their employees get into financial difficulty. They see their holiday pay sitting there like money in the bank. They constantly come to their employers and ask whether they can have it in cash instead of taking a holiday because they are so stressed. Their family life is affected because of financial difficulties they have got into but they are unable to trade a week or 2 weeks’ holiday for the cash. 
We see this as a patronising attitude that treats employees like children who are unable to decide for themselves and work a way into a work-life balance. We are particularly concerned at the way the 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave has been introduced. At a Business New Zealand conference during the winter of discontent the Prime Minister promised that 4 weeks’ annual leave was not on the Government’s agenda. Then the unions got agitated and Matt Robson’s bill was introduced. However that bill was considered in select committee alongside the Holidays Bill and not as a serious alternative. Many submitters either ignored it or did not treat it seriously because they heeded the Prime Minister’ promise that the 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision would not be passed by this Government. 
Then the Prime Minister promised the unions that the 4 weeks’ annual leave would in fact come in. She hedged her bets by saying it would be passed during this Parliament and not come into effect until April 2007. That is constitutionally unsound. How can this Government have something that binds a future Parliament? How can it have something sneaked through like that? It was never seriously discussed at select committee and at the very least it should have gone back to select committee after the Labour Party conference. Submitters should have been re-invited to put in their submissions and we should have considered and discussed those submissions. That has not happened and this 4 weeks’ annual leave is going through in a profoundly undemocratic way. 
The other thing we looked at is this “pay as you go” holiday pay. We have tidied up the bill a bit in that it is now casual staff who will if they agree be allowed to be paid “pay as you go” holiday pay; that is where it is built into their weekly or 2-weekly wages. 
However the ACT party argued that this should also be extended at the very least to permanent part-time workers who should be able to agree to “pay as you go” holiday pay too. Permanent part-timers such as people who work in restaurants and those sorts of places have terrible trouble trying to get their holiday pay from former employers. This is often not because the employers are deliberately trying to withhold it from them but because it is a huge compliance cost for those employers trying to keep up with multitudes of staff who shift from one place of work to another. 
In many instances it is better for permanent part-timers to have their holiday pay as “pay as you go” but this Government has denied them the opportunity even to ask for that. That is another example of how workers are being treated as children by this Government. 
There is another area where the Government has got it wrong. Special leave is separated out in this legislation—that is sick leave and bereavement leave. I will come to sick leave in a minute. Bereavement leave is now so permissively written in terms of the relevant factors that employers must consider when they decide whether to give someone bereavement leave that it will be hugely open to dispute. I predict that this will be a feast for employment lawyers and there will be more and more cases going before mediation. 
Among the issues that have to be taken into account when employers are deciding to give bereavement leave are cultural factors. Now what on earth does that mean? How on earth is an employer meant to work out what is meant by cultural factors? We had one submitter who gave a very interesting submission to us. She talked about again a factory with shift workers where an employer was approached by the whole shift—40 people—who wanted to go to the funeral of the father of one of the workers. The employer was able to say to them: “Those workers can go and those workers can go but if those workers go they won’t get paid because they don’t have any bereavement leave left.” He was able to do that with clarity and the employees who did not have any paid bereavement leave left did not take the day off. Under this legislation the employer would be wiser to give the whole shift the time off and close down the factory if those employees claimed they needed to go to the funeral for cultural reasons. Otherwise the uncertainty stakes are raised so high that the employer risks at worst being dragged into litigation. 
At least the sick leave provisions have been reduced from 5 days proof down to 3 days proof but we would argue that this is still open to abuse. There are employers who are desperately trying to manage absenteeism. They do not routinely ask for proof after 1 day’s absence or sometimes even after 3 days if it is a good employee who is absent but if they spot a pattern of abuse—for instance if they spot people taking Mondays and Fridays off regularly—under the present legislation employers are allowed to seek proof without waiting for 3 days. We argue that the 3-day requirement is something that will be open to abuse. 
There are significant costs for small businesses in this legislation. If one looks at public holidays where the relevant daily pay is a new concept and if one looks at salaried employees where the penal rates are already built into the employment contracts and salaries at the best those will last for only 1 year after this legislation comes into force. This bill overrides existing employment agreements that state that the salary or base wage is specifically included. 
This will cost the country up to $900 million if one counts the lost wage rises to workers. If there is any merit in the argument that it will increase productivity why do we not just increase annual leave to 48 weeks and have 4 weeks in work? Then productivity would go through the roof. That is the logical extension of that argument. 
Finally what does the Government say to the Auckland District Health Board which estimates that this bill will add another $2 million to its annual costs? Where will that come from—increased taxes or reduced services? 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future voted for this bill on its first reading because we could see the value in any attempt to clarify the confusion for employers and workers alike surrounding leave entitlements. The representation of Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on the advisory group that was consulted over the bill reflected that common desire to tidy up the holidays legislation. But we also signalled that we could not support the bill through its latter stages if the Government continued to use this opportunity to tidy up the Holidays Act to award new entitlements to workers. This Government talks a lot about good faith and collective bargaining but this amounts to lip service when it tells employers and employees what the terms of that agreement will be. Where is the freedom to choose? Where is the freedom to negotiate? 
Brian Connell 
: There is none. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: The member is right—there is none. In life we go through seasons. A young worker who has just got married might prefer to negotiate with his or her employer to take only 2 weeks’ annual holiday and take an additional 2 weeks’ pay. But in this legislation I see there is no freedom to choose; there is just legalism which binds people. People in this nation are being instructed day after day to live by the law. The law will tell them everything they can do yet they no longer do what is right or often what is fair and that concerns me greatly. 
Work is not a bad thing; work is a good thing. Holidays have been mentioned a lot in this bill as being a great time to spend with the family. Matt Robson has said of United Future that it is the family-friendly party. Well we are and we understand there is a lot more to building a successful family than having 4 weeks’ holiday. If members actually look and work amongst many people as I do they will find that holidays can be a time of incredible stress heartache and many other challenges for families in New Zealand. I know that in February and March there is often a lot of counselling and work to do with people who have gone away because there are a lot of pressures on families these days. 
The new entitlements imposed by the bill include a minimum rate of time and a half for those working on public holidays in addition to an alternative day’s leave. Business New Zealand estimates that this will cost employers an additional 1 percent in wages and one can start to see how it will begin to add up. The Auckland District Health Board has calculated that the bill could cost it at least $1.25 million a year in extra pay for doctors on salaries and staff on casual contracts as these agreements do not include allowances for working on public holidays. The 6 percent loading paid to casual staff covers annual leave not public holidays. If employers roster fewer staff to work on those days that raises health and safety concerns for those left behind with more duties to perform. 
I argue that most employers of this type would regard the salaries they pay as high enough to include allowances for public holiday work but undoubtedly they will now face a new round of claims for an increase because of this bill. In fact clauses 47A and 47B specify that new and existing employment agreements must include provisions relating to time and a half payment. There is no longer the freedom to choose if people want to work on a public holiday for maybe a few extra dollars. No that freedom is taken away. It must now include provisions relating to the payment of time and a half. I am sure that it will mean that employers will have to pay more in salaries whether or not their employees work public holidays. 
 Then there are the changes to sickness and bereavement leave. I am very pleased to see that the select committee has changed a provision in the bill relating to the employer’s right to seek proof of sickness so that they now require evidence after 3 days of sick leave rather than 5. This was the biggest cause of concern expressed by 1500 employers at a series of 30 briefings conducted by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) during April and May. 
But the bill also stops an employer from seeking proof of illness from somebody who regularly takes a Monday or a Friday off and if we are honest we could all say that most of us here would know people who have done that. Some members may have been naughty and done it themselves—the old Friday off or Monday off trick to get a long weekend because that would be only 1 day of sick leave at a time. 
I still have concerns that the new entitlement for 3 days’ separate bereavement leave may be treated as a minimum as well as a maximum by employees and I note that employers are unable to require proof of entitlement. Some employers are predicting that the inclusion of cultural reasons as a justification for taking an additional day of bereavement leave could require some workplaces to shut down completely where a large proportion of the workers share a cultural or ethnic heritage. 
But the biggest change to this bill at the select committee was the inclusion of the 4 weeks’ annual leave to be introduced in 2007 rather than straight away as Matt Robson’s bill proposed. As a consequence the Robson bill was rejected by the select committee by majority. It would be difficult for anyone trying to find out why the committee made this decision. The select committee report that rejects the Robson bill is a barely a page long. Yet the section in the report on the Holidays Bill that incorporates the new provision for 4 weeks’ leave does not state the reasons this new entitlement should be included. 
The question this raises is whether the inclusion of 4 weeks’ leave was a decision made by the committee as a group or whether it was a case of Government members following orders. I will leave the listeners to figure out which it was but it is a bit of a worry that all those people who made submissions on this matter and the general public get no justification for this decision. 
The inclusion of 4 weeks’ leave in this bill has made United Future’s decision about whether to support it much more difficult. We voted against the Robson bill at its first reading primarily because it would have imposed a large and immediate cost on business of something like 2 percent or $1 billion nationwide to their wage bill. We voted for the first reading of the Holidays Bill but at that time we put the onus on the Government to convince United Future and this Parliament that the new entitlements it proposed would not adversely impact on business in this country. 
We do not think that the Government has adequately demonstrated how the other changes in the Holidays Bill will impact on employers but we do recognise that by introducing 4 weeks’ leave in 4 years’ time there may be sufficient time for business to adjust. It must be noted that according to the Employment Relations Service 24 percent of employees have more than 3 weeks’ leave so the size of this change cannot be underestimated. 
As the original family party we do think that having more time to spend with loved ones is a good thing but not if it is at the expense of the boss’s ability to spend time with his family because he or she has to cover the extra time that his employees have off. This would almost certainly be the case if 4 weeks’ leave were introduced straight away. We have to remember that the vast majority of employers in New Zealand run small operations with a handful of staff. So we are in the unusual position of voting against the second reading of this bill yet we are supportive of the phasing in of 4 weeks’ leave. However it must be noted that this may not be without difficulties as the economy may be in very different shape in 2007 and the implication of this bill would add considerable strain to the business climate. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 As someone who has employed staff for about 30 years in small businesses I can say that it is not the number of weeks’ holiday that increases performance; it is the atmosphere of the employment place. All employees deserve a decent holiday. The one regrettable thing about this bill is that it increases their statutory entitlement only to 31 days and still leaves us 7 days behind the Australian statutory entitlement. There is no reason at all to oppose this bill and there is every reason for all of us to support it. I support it wholeheartedly. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The Holidays Bill has been quite an important piece of legislation in the New Zealand business environment. We can see that by the number of submissions received on the bill—some 4163. A lot was hoped for with regard to this bill which covers quite a complex area. Employers and employees alike demanded some help in understanding this law. Members will well understand then when I tell them that the people of New Zealand are feeling very disappointed indeed. They have been nothing short of conned. There has been an absolute con job. 
The people of New Zealand have been sold a pup by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. With the same sleight of hand that she used to sign that fake painting she is signing this legislation into this Parliament. That is right and the Labour members know it. This bill is a complete and utter con job. It is disgrace and it is no wonder the Prime Minister is out of the country while this bill is being passed. She would be ashamed to be in the House; she would be ashamed to be sitting here. The Prime Minister went up and down the country in 2002. She went from business group to business group from Wellington to Christchurch and Bluff and right up to Auckland Gisborne and Napier. She went all around the country and she said one thing. This is what she said. She looked people in the eye and said: “Under a Labour Government we won’t be signing 4 weeks’ holiday. You can put a ring around it. Don’t worry about it. Mark my words. I am an honest Prime Minister.” 
Hon member 
: You can’t trust the system. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. You cannot trust the Prime Minister of New Zealand— 
Jill Pettis 
: And we won! 
JOHN KEY 
: Well you might have won— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Every time the member uses the expression “you” the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or to another member in the third person. I refer the member to Standing Order 104. 
JOHN KEY 
: But that is right. The junior Government whip cried out “And we won!” The Government has used its political position to con the people of New Zealand by telling them one thing and delivering another. That is a little like Labour saying it would not be putting up taxes—except that we have had 18 tax increases. Next week the good people of New Zealand have another one rocking down the road to greet them—a 5c a litre or 10c a litre petrol tax—but that is a different issue. 
This bill has been a great form of double-dealing and double-trading. The Prime Minister campaigned on the basis of not supporting 4 weeks’ holiday and told the business people of New Zealand she would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. Despite the fact that Treasury wrote her reports telling her how bad 4 weeks’ holiday would be for the country she then went out and told the people of New Zealand it would cost only a mere $350 million. Yet the National Party through an Official Information Act request that we sent to the Minister of Labour’s office discovered a piece of paper that lo and behold told us it would cost $800 million—not $350 million but $800 million. Not only will it cost $800 million but the very people who have supported this bill as Matt Robson and others have claimed are the very people that this Treasury report told us would pick up the tab for this mad idea. I can only say that the reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the people of New Zealand are to be given another week’s holiday—in other words bribed with their own money—they will pay the price for that. That is right; they will pay the price. They will not get the pay rises they deserve. They will get an extra week’s holiday—bribed with their own money or someone else’s money—and they will pay the price. 
We have a low level of unemployment in New Zealand at the moment. We can compare it with the rate in the countries that have been quoted in this Parliament this afternoon and I would suggest that Government members go and look at what the unemployment rate is in some of those countries. They will see that in every single instance it is higher than the New Zealand rate. What we know is that when one has inflexible labour markets it is the lowest paid workers the most inexperienced workers and the young workers who miss out on jobs. I just say to members that if we had some of those people in this Parliament this afternoon and asked them whether they would rather have more money or another week’s holiday they would say time and time again that they want the job and they want the money. That is what they want: they want jobs and the opportunity to make money. I know that the Labour Party members are on one permanent holiday. They do it from womb to tomb as they head towards the retirement village. Those members are on a permanent holiday but that does not mean they have to apply their work ethic to the rest of the country. Some of us are out there trying to build a brighter and better New Zealand and we will not do it with legislation like this. The bill is very very disappointing indeed. 
I want to make specific reference to the people from the restaurant industry who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and told us that if this provision for 4 weeks’ holiday went through they would simply not be able to open on many of the public holidays and they would simply not be able to open for the same periods of time. It will be a case of back to the future—the good old days when tourists came to New Zealand and nothing was open. New Zealand was closed for business. That is what Matt Robson and the members who think along that line are destining the future of New Zealand to be. I prefer it the way we have it whereby we can go out and enjoy ourselves and people can make their own decisions about the holidays they want. 
While we are debating the issue of holidays with those Labour members I just wonder what the low-paid workers who will be getting an extra week’s holiday will do. They will not have the money to go jetting off to the Gold Coast as I am sure other people in the community will do. They will sit at home in a very expensive situation with their families in poverty and starving and they will be robbed of the opportunity to have higher wages by the nanny State that would not know what is good for them if that hit it in the face. That is the reality of this legislation. What a sad day this is for the people of New Zealand. If 4 weeks’ holiday is such a great idea why are we all hanging around and waiting until 2007 to bring it in? Why do we not bring it in next week if it is such a great idea? Why not? Because that would be another broken promise by the Prime Minister who seems to make a habit of breaking promises. 
I want to talk for a moment about the issue of sickness that is raised in the bill. Many of the submitters who came before the select committee told us that they demanded a medical certificate on very rare occasions really—on the odd time—but they would like to do that if they had the ability when a pattern of behaviour was emerging. The provision that the period of sickness must be 3 days before a medical certificate can be required which is now demanded in the bill was rejected by and large by every employer. It is a retrograde step. What will happen is that people who are about to change jobs and leave their employment and who may have collected 20 or 25 days of sick leave over their working time with their employer will be taking every Friday Monday and Tuesday off ad infinitum and there will be absolutely nothing that employers can do about that. That is not a positive step for people in New Zealand and I am very very disappointed about that indeed. 
The Holidays Bill like the Labour Government promised a lot and has delivered very very little—a complete sop to the unions. I am sure that Ross Wilson will be feeling very good about himself at the moment. I know that Matt Robson has the best of intentions but really at the end of the day the hard-working New Zealanders who do not have enough money to buy Christmas presents who do not have enough money to have a holiday and who do not have enough money to put shoes on their children’s feet will at least have an extra week’s holiday in poverty. What a sad outcome that is for the people of New Zealand. Let us bring on a National Government in 2005 and we will deliver the real results that New Zealanders want. Members can put a ring around that. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Was that not a typical Tory response—and from such a nice young man too! It is the same kind of thing that people said about Samuel Parnell when he wanted to introduce the 8-hour day; about the Blackball miners who wanted a 30-minute crib and whose boss had 2 hours for lunch; and about the introduction of equal pay pay equity and fair accident compensation legislation. The end of the world was nigh! That was what those Tories over there said and not a darn word of it came to pass. We should get on and pass this fair modern forward-looking bill and be done with it. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have not heard that member sound so animated before in this House. It did not make a lot of sense but it was enjoyable. Having debated the redundancy payment bill last night I thought that bill was garbage but this bill is a real shocker. This is garbage on garbage and Matt Robson should hang his head. 
I have to admit I am a little bit confused about where Peter Brown was going with his speech. When I look at the New Zealand First minority report I think the House would be confused about his speech. It states: “… it has major concerns with this Holidays Bill. In a nutshell New Zealand First believes it is flawed and so ‘business unfriendly’ that it will in circumstances be a disincentive to employ.” Forgive me if I am wrong but that sounds as if New Zealand First does not agree with the legislation. Maybe Mr Robson’s powers of persuasion are such that Mr Brown rolled over at the last minute but somehow I very much doubt it. 
This anti-business socialist claptrap just has to come to an end. How much flesh do we want from the good hard-working people of this country? The business people of this country just cannot continue to take it. They are saying this nanny State mentality is killing business and I totally agree with them. It is turning business people away in their droves. I gave an example when I spoke last night and I will use it again. The people who came here from the multinational corporation Weyerhaeuser said this country was a good place to grow trees. Those guys turn over $22 billion a year which is the sort of investment we want. But they said our compliance regime was such a huge turn-off that they were going to go away with their chequebook unopened. That is an absolute tragedy for this country. That is the type of nonsense this legislation will reinforce. 
So everyone is now to get 4 weeks’ holiday. How very generous! It is easy to spend someone else’s money. It absolutely sickens me. Other than listen to its union buddies who else did the Government consult? I bet it did not consult business and I bet it did not consult employees. The Government just proclaimed that this measure would be good for them. This is the type of nanny State interference that is killing business in this country. 
Most large businesses have trouble getting employees to take leave now. That is the great irony of this. They have trouble getting employees to take their leave entitlement now. Let us use the New Zealand Police as an example. The outstanding leave entitlement is absolutely crippling that organisation and because of this nonsense its contingent liability has just gone through the roof. 
Who will get hurt? Small business which can least afford it and employees themselves. Let us deal with small business first. The average small business in this country employs 5 employees. That means that under this bill for many months of the year it will have to carry an extra employee. Is it affordable? No. Do that lot over there care? No. Why? Because those members have never risked anything built anything or run anything in their lives. They just do not care and they just do not have any sense of responsibility. Small businesses and by that I mean mums and dads will pay for this measure by having to work for longer. They will not be able to afford to bring in extra staff. They will just have to work for longer. The social impact—and this is where Mr Robson should really be listening—on the family and society are all too obvious to me but that dim-witted lot over there just cannot get it. There will be marriage break-ups more solo parents more kids in crime. They will be the real cost and that lot over there just do not care. 
How about the workers themselves? How will they pay? Four weeks’ annual leave sounds nice if they want it but in reality most do not. Employees will initially shoulder the cost which is a whopping big $800 million of which $708 million will be paid for through the private sector but over the medium term staff will pay as employers expense it by freezing or reducing wage increases. What will employees get? Staff will get an extra week’s holiday that they do not want and less cash to pay the mortgage and the bills. That is a mean-spirited dirty trick to play just on Christmas. 
I will go forward 2 or 3 years. I want members of the Government—but they will not be part of the Government then—to put their hands on their hearts and say they will be able to look at the kids of those families and say: “You can’t have a Christmas present this year because the previous Government made sure your parents got an extra week’s holiday that they didn’t want but gave them less cash.” 
 This Government knows that will be the outcome. Members should listen to the advice it got from Treasury—the Government’s own report which of course it tried to disguise: “While the initial cost of the extra week of leave falls on employers over a period of a few years we expect that employers will offset these costs by passing them on to employees through lower wage increases.” That is exactly the point I was making and that crowd tried to cover it up. It is a real travesty. 
The immediate cost of labour will increase by 2 percent. We are already struggling to be competitive but the legislation will build up compliance costs by another 2 percent. Those costs will fall more heavily on smaller employers a large proportion of whose workers currently receive 3 weeks’ annual leave. That is what that crowd is doing to the workers of this country. It is an absolute disgrace and members over there know it. They should be ashamed of themselves. The compliance regime that is built into business in this country at the moment is killing it; it is unaffordable. Instead of reinforcing this type of behaviour Government members should have the courage to stand up and do the right thing—rather than try to buy cheap votes and rather than just sell out to the Progressive party so that they can maintain their coalition arrangements. That is not a legacy that I would be proud to leave to future generations of this country. Those members should hang their heads in shame because this is something that this country will pay for for ever and a day. 
This legislation is just totally unnecessary. Workers did not ask for it. They do not want it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Are you going to scrap it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Who is that yelling out? Is that member making a guest appearance here? He is the guy who is driving compliance costs in this country through the roof. Now he has the temerity to ask a question that he would not have the guts to answer because he does not know the answer. All he knows is that he wants to drive up costs—nothing else. His answer is to pass all the costs on to the employer and to hell with the rest. I will now conclude. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Maori Fisheries Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
Ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare nei e tika ake ano i runga ano o te tu nei ki te mihi ano i a koe tena koe. Na te mea e mohio anake ano tatou te to roa noa iho o te tae ake o te tuhinga nei o te pire nei ki roto iI te Whare nei e mihi kau ana ki a ratou kare i konei. Ka mihi ano hoki ki a ratou nga kaiwhakahaere o te komihana e mau kaha ake ano mo tenei tino kaupapa tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To you the Speaker of this House it is apt indeed that I extend greetings to you as I rise to speak. Greetings to you. Because we know how long it has taken for this document this bill to arrive in this House I acknowledge those who are not present and those of the commission as well who worked tirelessly on this matter of such significance. Greetings to you 
.] 
Ki ake ano ki te mihi ake ano ki oku hoa mahi i konei o te Kawana me koutou nga kanohi Maori. To tatau pakeke e Winitana koutou katoa mihi ake ano i a koe tena koe. 
[ 
I acknowledge my Government colleagues and those Maori members once again. To all of you and indeed to you Winston our elder statesman thank you 
.] 
I move  
That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by a committee to be established. The bill will give effect to the agreed model for allocating Maori fisheries settlement assets as proposed by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission in its report  
He Kawai Amokura 
. It is cause for celebration that this bill is finally before the House. It is the culmination of more than 10 years of discussion and debate amongst Maori. Its passage will begin a new era of Maori participation in the fishing industry enabling the beneficiaries of the 1992 fisheries settlement to receive the assets and use them for the economic and social benefit of Maori. This is a settlement worth more than $700 million dollars—more than all the other treaty settlements combined. 
In 1986 the introduction of the quota management system for fisheries prompted a number of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and the High Court from Maori. Three years later in an interim settlement the Crown agreed to transfer to Maori 10 percent of the existing quota and the Maori Fisheries Commission was established to promote Maori involvement in the business and activity of fishing. I commend the commission for the efforts it put into that. The commission was charged with managing the quota while it developed the method of allocating the settlement assets to iwi. The final Maori fisheries settlement was agreed following the Ngai Tahu sea fisheries report from the Waitangi Tribunal and it was signed on 23 September 1992. The settlement provided Maori with $150 million to purchase 50 percent of Sealord Products Ltd and the Crown undertook to transfer to Maori 20 percent of the quota of all new species brought into the quota management system. As part of this celebration it is important to note how well the commission has brought that forward and increased it and developed the regulations to manage customary non-commercial fishing. 
The Maori Fisheries Commission was reconstituted as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and charged with developing proposals for a new Maori Fisheries Act including a procedure to identify beneficiaries and allocate the benefits of the settlement. By 1998 the commission had developed the model for the allocation of the interim settlement assets but a High Court order prevented it from reporting that model to the Minister of Fisheries. In due course the commission concluded that only a combined allocation proposal dealing with both the interim and the final settlement assets would secure enough support from iwi to proceed. The commission presented the Minister of Fisheries with its report  
He Kawai Amokura 
—its proposed model for the allocation of all fisheries settlement assets—on 9 May 2003. The commission has been candid in acknowledging that the model reflects some carefully balanced compromises needed to achieve a high level of agreement and support amongst iwi. The Government formally accepted the proposal in June being satisfied that it is fundamentally sound and provides a just and workable framework for the future. When considering the details of the proposal Cabinet noted that the process to sell inshore settlement quota that is proposed by the commission and contained in the bill would preclude the sale of packages of mixed quota thus potentially reducing the value of the sale to vendors. 
The bill is divided into seven parts and includes eight schedules. Part 1 contains the preliminary provisions covering commencement interpretation and key concepts—including the classification of quota the process to determine and register coastline entitlements the functions and powers of mandated iwi organisations and the criteria for their recognition. Part 2 provides for the establishment and review of a series of new entities. Te Ohu Kai Moana is a trust that will replace the commission and carry forward the allocation of settlement assets and other aspects of the scheme. Te Kawai Taumata is an electoral college created to appoint directors to the corporate trustee of Te Ohu Kai Moana. Te Kawai Taumata will have 11 members. One will be appointed by each of 10 iwi regional groupings and one will be appointed by a group of representatives of Maori organisations. Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is a commercial company that will manage the settlement assets associated with a number of companies currently owned by the commission. It will have separate income and voting shares. All voting shares and 20 percent of the income shares are to be held in trust for iwi. The remaining 80 percent of income shares are to be distributed to mandated iwi organisations on the basis of their iwi population. Te Putea Whakatupu Trust is a trust to provide funding to Maori for education training and research including that in relation to Maori involvement in the business and activity of fishing and fisheries. Te Wai Maori Trust is a trust to assist with the development of Maori interest in freshwater fisheries. The commission has recognised that an organisation’s structures and processes that are appropriate for today may require changes to meet the evolving requirements of iwi and Maori in the future. Consequently Part 2 also provides for reviews of the performance of the groups that I have named. 
Part 3 provides for the allocation and transfer of settlement assets by Te Ohu Kai Moana. All settlement quota will be transferred to iwi once the iwi has a mandated iwi organisation. The amount each iwi will receive is calculated on the basis of population coastline length and the scheme for classification of quota. Settlement money will be used to provide the capital reserve for Te Ohu Kai Moana Te Putea Whakatupu Trust and Te Wai Maori Trust to fund the transitional functions of Te Ohu Kai Moana and to make payments to iwi in specific circumstances. 
Part 4 provides for restrictions on the sale and exchange of settlement quota. Mandated iwi organisations can sell settlement quota only to other mandated iwi organisations or to Te Ohu Kai Moana. For inshore quota a right of first refusal must be offered to buyers of coastline entitlements for the fish stock. Part 5 provides for dispute resolution processes to deal with disputes within and among iwi and between iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana trustees. In respect of matters relating to certain decisions made under the bill disputes may be referred to the trustee for a determination or to the Maori Land Court if the trustee is a party or is unable to resolve the dispute. Part 6 provides for transitional and miscellaneous provisions repeals and amendments. Part 7 amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to reflect the Maori Land Court’s new role in dispute resolution. 
In summary this bill provides for the allocation of approximately half the settlement assets directly to iwi and for the remaining assets mostly company shares to be centrally managed on behalf of iwi. The model requires the establishment of a series of new entities. The bill has the support of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and I want to commend it. The commission has an important role now to manage the transition towards the future needs of Maori both in the sense of structure and in the sense of the usage of the benefits for the Maori people. Perhaps inevitably the allocation model does not command universal support amongst Maori. Nevertheless more than 90 percent of iwi agreed that the model should be presented to the Government. Parliament now has the opportunity to bring the 1992 deed of settlement to a conclusion and to usher in a new era of opportunity for Maori in the fishing and seafood industry. 
I a koutou ano o te komihana te tiamana koutou katoa e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. To my colleague Minister Hodgson who is not here today I commend him for his effort and tenacity and certainly I thank my colleagues in Parliament for the support they will bring to this great turn in history for Maori. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 E mihi ana au ki a ratou katoa i awhina i tenei kaupapa mai i te timata ki tenei wa hohonu. Nga roimata ki a ratou e kore e kitea i tenei wa a ki a tatou te hunga ora huri noa tena tatou katoa. From the time of the beginning of this process to this very important time the present one cannot forget those who have helped to deliver this taonga those who have gone before and those of today and I would like to pay tribute to them all. 
I am very pleased to stand to the first reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The introduction of this bill represents in my view a significant milestone in the treaty settlement process and in particular in the process of clarifying Maori entitlements to fisheries resources and assets under the Treaty of Waitangi and of effecting a transfer of those assets into the hands of iwi and Maori. The Maori Fisheries Bill is designed to effect that transfer. Its source is the deed of settlement of 1992 which was preceded by the Maori Fisheries Act of 1989. Its purpose is to implement the agreements in the deed of settlement and provide for the development of iwi interests in fishing and fisheries in order to benefit all Maori. The bill establishes a framework for half of the settlement assets to be allocated directly to iwi and for the remainder to be managed centrally on behalf of iwi and Maori. It provides directions to establish new entities and rules to govern and guide the distribution of settlement assets. 
The Minister has referred in some detail to the provisions of the bill. I would like to remind members of some of the background and history of the bill and also to comment about the position of Maori in the sector today. In my view the overriding objective for Parliament—given the 11 years of litigation dispute compromise consultation and debate among Maori—should now be to make sure that this bill reflects the agreements of the 1992 deed of settlement and the underlying aspirations of those who negotiated that deed. Clearly the underlying aspirations were that the Maori beneficiaries would be able to establish for themselves a firm and significant stake in the sector and create both wealth and opportunity for their own communities and for Maori. From that point of view this bill represents an economic plank of which we should all be supportive. The bill represents economic prosperity not just for Maori but also for New Zealand. 
We should remind ourselves that Maori now have influence over in excess of 40 percent of the commercial fishery. They are represented through all sectors of an industry that has a global reach. The Sealord’s company which is the Maori flagship of this asset has an influence throughout the world and I understand is respected both for its professionalism and the quality of the business acumen it has displayed. This represents a major go-forward economic plank and from that point of view National is very pleased to support the bill to the select committee. 
Pita Paraone 
: Which one? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is a good question. Which select committee? As someone has raised the question I want to comment on that. This bill is about a Maori asset. It represents years of work by the Maori Fisheries Commission to get broad agreement from Maori stakeholders about a model of allocation that will hopefully see the asset grow and be nurtured in a way that will make those who were responsible for kicking this process off in the first place proud of what has happened. I would have thought that as it is a Maori asset as it is for the benefit of Maori and as it represents agreements reached by Maori that it ought to have gone to the Maori Affairs Committee so I raise the issue about a special committee having been set up. 
I understand that the Government has been looking at this issue in the context of foreshore and seabed and marine farming and aquaculture matters but those two issues do not really bear any resemblance to this one. This represents agreements—albeit sometimes begrudgingly given by some—among Maori and the other two issues are of interest to all New Zealanders. I am glad someone asked that question because I think that point has to be made. 
I personally do not understand why the bill had to go to a special select committee. However among other things this bill makes provision for those iwi entities that will receive the assets. In the select committee I will be interested to look in some detail at those provisions. I will be keen to pay particular attention to the governance requirements. We are told by the Maori Fisheries Commission that issues of transparency accountability and constitutional propriety will be foremost in the minds of the commission before assets are transferred. I think that is in the sense that this is a treaty-based package and asset and that the obligation of its future managers will be to ensure that the benefits accrue not just to this generation but are there for future generations. 
 It is important that the commission pay due regard to the new entities because we would all want to make sure that 17 years after the fisheries claim was first kicked off in Te Hapua up in the Far North the iwi governance entities are in a sound position to receive and manage the assets that are transferred. 
I would imagine that this bill has now reached the House because even though there is residual disagreement on some points—which might be quite strong as evidenced by the fact that there were actions in the High Court in Auckland just last week—somehow the commission has finally managed to reach broad agreement with all the stakeholders that this legislation should come to Parliament. I would like to think that parliamentarians are keeping their eyes on the big picture and are thinking about what this legislation represents if it is implemented in the way envisaged in the bill. They need to understand that if Maori have agreed to the bill being introduced they as much as anyone have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and understand the latent economic potential that resides within the bill. 
Despite the misgivings of various interests—which they are entitled to bring before the select committee and which we will no doubt hear quite a lot of during the committee process—it would in my view be a disappointment if somewhat of a group of parliamentarians tried to second-guess the work that has gone into this allocation model. The last thing any of us want to see—and the last thing New Zealanders want to see—is more dispute and litigation. We cannot have that. That asset has to transfer to its beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are iwi—Maori—out there in their communities. They are entitled to receive those assets. As I say I will be putting the bill under some scrutiny but ultimately this is an economic opportunity that must move forward. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Government’s handling of the Maori and the general fisheries area in this country is an utter and total mess. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The first person to complain about that is Mr Swain. That is typical because he knows nothing about it whatsoever. I ask him where the framework for the oceans policy is after 2 years of unmitigated delay. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Where is it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Where is it? He is the first to shoot his mouth off but he cannot answer the question. Where is the framework for the oceans policy in this country? Where for example is the resolution of aquaculture management in this country? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Good progress is being made. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He says that good progress is being made. We have a moratorium that is now to be delayed at least until 31 December 2004. In the meanwhile all sorts of groups—European and Maori—have their investments languishing and all their programmes on hold because the Government cannot resolve a critical issue of this country’s resource management. 
Regions and industry are unable to proceed. I ask the member where the Marine Reserves Bill is. That is three in a row. The Marine Reserves Bill is probably delayed until the end of 2004. That is a mess and into that mess the Government throws this bill. 
Some of us at least had the presence of mind back in October 1992 to say that this issue would be the biggest area of legal contention with Maori and over 11 years that is precisely what it has been. In fact I can recall— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Move on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Tariana Turia says to move on. I will be moving on to her very shortly. I can recall being expelled from the National Party caucus the day after I was the only member of Parliament to oppose that deal. I was expelled on 2 October 1992 and I have moved on. There is nothing so sterile or antiseptic as the phrase “I told you so.” but I did—and I paid a big price for that. 
We need to remember that the Government’s claim in respect of iwi support needs to be revisited. It says that Ngapuhi supports this bill. What about Ngati Hine the biggest hapu? It has about 45000 members and they do not support this bill. What about Ngati Porou? What about Ngai Tahu that huge landed tribe? What do they say? 
Edwin Perry 
: What about Ngatiwai? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will get to Ngatiwai shortly. I pick up the bill and I see that the resource will be distributed on the basis of population. How is that fair to Ngai Tahu? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Treaty property rights. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is amazing is it not? When the Government says that the bill has the support of Maoridom I ask whether it does. Is it not a fact that one of the reasons the Maori people wish this bill to go to a select committee is so that the model can be revisited? Those are all facts. It is no use for Government members to say they are doing something about it when after 4½ years we have an utter and total mess and delay across the whole fisheries scene and the Maori people are no better off. 
Mr Horomia said: “I am going to refer it”—that is the bill—“to a select committee yet to be formed.” I ask the Maori members over there in the Labour Party whether this bill will be going to the Maori Affairs Committee because that committee is formed and has been for decades. Is the bill going to that committee—yes or no? I want to hear the answer. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no. They do not trust their members. They do not trust those Maori members. So here we go. We do not have the “magnificent seven” in the seven Maori seats; no we have seven vertically challenged followers of Snow White—or at least her ugly sisters. Here we go—“It’s taihoa taihoa off to some other select committee we must go.” When are those Maori members going to stand up for their honour their mana and the integrity of their people? How long can they go on being doormats to people like Helen Clark Cullen and Swain? Have they got a Maori member chairing this committee? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no; they cannot have a Maori member from the Maori seats chairing a select committee! 
Pita Paraone 
: Don’t trust them. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
:They do not trust them—precisely! No they will have Mr Fairbrother from Napier. This man is so steeped in Maoridom Maori history and Maori anthropology that in a court case he said the reason why a Maori was offending was that he had been colonised. The Treaty of Waitangi was not being honoured and that was his defence. Here is this man Russell Fairbrother who knows nothing about Maori whatsoever and he is to chair the committee on Maori fishing assets. How do members like that for an insult? I tell members not to talk to me about tino rangatiratanga and all of those beloved lofty statements they make out there on the marae where they are real lions but in the caucus—lambs utter lambs. Helen Clark and Cullen stomp all over them and they do not care what it means as the image of representation for Maoridom. Can members imagine Ngata putting up with this? 
Opposition Members 
: No way! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can members imagine Bill Gudgeon putting up with this? 
Opposition Members 
: No way! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can members imagine Pita Paraone putting up with this? Can we imagine Ron Mark Edwin Perry or for that matter my brother and I putting up with this? 
Opposition Members 
: No way! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There are seven Maori members in seven Maori seats which those in Government say they must retain because they are “the voice of Maoridom”. It is that peculiar special voice—unparalleled and unique in Parliament. The only problem is: I cannot hear it. I cannot hear a syllable or a sound a mutter or a murmur. It is absolutely mute—silenced. 
I think that when young Maori look at this Parliament they will wonder why we need those seats. They never asked that question in the time of Ngata Pomare and Buck or in our time but they are asking it every day now because they cannot hear the voice. Worse still in their name those seven Maori members are subjugating them to absolute insults. Why will this bill not go to the Maori Affairs Committee? Because the Government does not trust its members. Why is the chairman of the committee not to be a Maori member? Because the Government does not trust its members. 
Pita Paraone 
: Sorry Mahara. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes—“Sorry Mahara. You are a good man but we don’t want you chairing this committee.” But he chairs the Maori Affairs Committee now. Why does the Government not trust the member for southern Maori? He is an honest sort of guy. Why will it not trust him? What is it about Fairbrother that tells us he knows more about Maori fisheries and Maori matters than the honourable member for southern Maori? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He does what Helen wants him to do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is that what it is—because Fairbrother does what Helen wants him to do? The member is right except that my question is: why are those seven Maori members allowing this to happen to them? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who’s the sycophant? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what it brings to mind—sycophancy. There is a better phrase for it but I cannot use it. It starts with a “b” and ends with “nosing”. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member is referring to other members he must refer to them by their correct names. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will. What did I say wrong? Is it honourable sycophants? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. Here is another great defender of the Maori people eh? Apparently I am insulting someone. The insults are coming from that party over there in this bill. When Labour says it will not trust the seven Maori members in Parliament that is the insult. I ask whether that party would be asked to get up and apologise. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens want to see the fisheries assets that were taken in breach of the treaty returned to their rightful owners. To that extent we are pleased to see this long process come to some kind of resolution—as uneasy a resolution as it is. But the bill does not meet the criteria the Greens consider to be ethical either in equity of distribution or in giving sufficient authority to iwi and hapu. There remain a number of serious unresolved issues. 
The introduction of the Maori Fisheries Bill into Parliament brings an opportunity to critique and scrutinise the provisions in the bill and to present issues that reflect Green considerations over this—an early treaty settlement. Our concerns include the strongly corporate framework in the settlement structures asset distribution that is not sufficiently beneficial to iwi and hapu and the marginalisation of tikanga in deference to corporate models of management. I want to outline some of our concerns. 
We agree that the quantum for and restrictions on the use of Te Putea Whakatupu Trust do not offer urban Maori the level of support and benefit they are entitled to. The High Court has very recently acknowledged that the Government and the Minister of Fisheries are not fulfilling the obligations of the Crown to accord fair treatment to all persons who have rights and interests extinguished by the settlement. The court also noted that iwi benefits will not reach those whom the iwi does not know and that iwi mechanisms will not be able to deliver the benefits of the settlement sufficiently such that the putea will suffice to cover those gaps. 
 This leaves unresolved the serious questions of the fragmentation of iwi produced through the alienation of our land base. We do not agree that the centralisation of 50 percent of the total asset holdings in a new company Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd is the best way to protect the fisheries assets. Te Ohu Kai Moana believes that this is the right thing to do because Maori do not necessarily have the capacity to hold their assets long term. It argues that central management of this proportion of the assets is essential for the retention and protection of the assets for use by future generations. But iwi argue that the assets are their property which they are entitled to control as they see fit. Many do not want to see half of their assets held and controlled by someone else. That is what this settlement was supposed to stop. We agree that this structure undermines the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu to manage their assets and interests in commercial fisheries. 
Some have argued that the centralisation of assets will help develop the industry as a collective rather than numbers of smaller competing companies. But in fact it is the imposition of a competitive model that establishes that risk of competition which is then used against the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu as collective communities not as corporate entities. We are concerned that Te Ohu Kai Moana Ltd the new group will exclusively control Aotearoa Fisheries as Te Ohu Kai Moana will retain all the voting shares over that company. It will also retain all the income shares until it accepts a mandated iwi structure which will then take on its share. This means that iwi will at some other unspecified time in the future receive only income shares and have no direct authority over the company that manages half their assets. This centralisation looks very much like a means by which those who have controlled these assets for some time will be able to maintain their control. 
Te Ohu Kai Moana argue that if iwi had the voting shares they would exercise that vote in their own interests to the detriment of the whole. In my view that is a sick argument. It says that Maori are incompetent incapable and have no capacity to think of anything but their own self-interest and that is unacceptable. 
It appears that Te Ohu Kai Moana is not subject to the same rigorous levels of accountability and governance controls that iwi organisations will be subjected to. Iwi governance entities have to meet a set of stringent conditions imposed by this outside agency before they are entitled to receive the property that they lost due to breaches of the treaty. But these provisions force iwi into corporate models of management that best fit the current economic theory not the needs of iwi or hapu. This is the imposition of the corporate over the community along the same lines as that imposed by the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
We question the synergy between governance structures to be established for the fisheries allocation and the direct negotiations. Will iwi have to turn themselves into structural pretzels to meet all the various requirements of the bodies that hold their property and refuse to hand it over? Given the difficulty iwi have had with the Office of Treaty Settlements over the mandating of governance entities I entirely understand the very real fear of iwi that once again their rangatiratanga will come second to imposed processes. 
The Greens are very concerned that this allocation process entrenches existing power disparities between different iwi participating in this industry and that those disparities will mean that the smaller players—iwi hapu and whanau—will not benefit from their fisheries assets in the long term. The mandated governance structures are an example of a very real barrier for smaller or poorer iwi. They will struggle to meet the requirements of the bill; they have no control over their assets which are held by Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd; and then they will have to try to compete in a market already dominated by long-term established iwi players. Some of those long-time players have been significant and it has been strongly argued unjustifiably significant beneficiaries of the previous release rounds which are reportedly worth $230 million in total. 
If the process picks winners and losers and entrenches their positions there is no justice here. Even if we factor in the review of Te Ohu Kai Moana in 12 years’ time the high vote threshold for making any changes to the structure of that organisation means that those smaller players will not be able to make the changes necessary to ensure some equity for them. Even the review process protects the status quo where the status quo benefits the stronger groupings. 
The select committee that will eventually consider this bill will be under some intense pressure to both change this bill and to retain it in its current form. The Greens want to make sure that there is a rigorous testing of this bill against principles of fairness justice and equity as well as economic considerations. There are some major flaws underlying the structure of this allocation process that date back to the original inception of the settlement and we acknowledge that we will not be able to fix all of those problems. But having said that we do not believe for a minute that the bill could not be altered to be fairer and to better reflect Maori community aspirations rather than corporate ones because despite some views to the contrary those are not the same thing. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 To quote from the explanatory note of the bill: “The report  
He Kawai Amokura 
 was delivered to the Minister on 9 May 2003 and accepted by the Minister on 7 June 2003. … The purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreements made in the Deed of Settlement and to provide for the development of iwi interests in fisheries and fishing”. 
In recent times important issues such as the Ngati Ruanui land claims and the claim in process with Ngati Tama have been within the jurisdiction of the Maori Affairs Committee which has been very competent in the handling of those issues. The Maori Fisheries Bill is within the bounds of the Crown and Maoridom—just as land issues have been—and now the Government wants to form another committee when there is already one in place. Why is that? The Maori Affairs Committee is already in place and ready to go. New Zealand First does not support the bill going to an ad hoc committee as we have heard previously from our leader Winston Peters but supports this bill going to the Maori Affairs Committee. I feel that select committee is competent enough to handle the affairs of Maori. When issues such as tikanga come before the Maori Affairs Committee and we have to go on to the marae to explain the issues to the people the select committee is familiar with them. I would say all those who are on that select committee are familiar with te reo and with the tikanga of all iwi and hapu throughout the nation. 
 So why is this ad hoc committee to be formed? As Mr Peters said a chairperson may be appointed—I say may be but I hope not—to direct issues that he or she is not familiar with. The meeting of that select committee could be like Cinderella: the shoes will be picked up later on and then we will find out whom the owners are. Is that what is going to happen with regard to the fisheries and the Maori people when someone else has been allocated the amount that they are entitled to? We have enough problems amongst Maoridom as it is and we need to get these issues straight. I wonder what the Privy Council would say about this issue if it were taken to the Privy Council—or will that just happen in the building that is to be refurbished in another couple of years’ time? And who will pull the strings? The ones pulling the strings will say “Jump” and the answer will be “How high?”. How high are they going to jump? 
The Maori Affairs Committee is in place now and New Zealand First supports the move to bring this bill before that committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to advise the House that the ACT party will vote against the Maori Fisheries Bill. I say to the two old parties that they should think very carefully about whether they ratify this proposal because it contains within it many further injustices. I say to the National Party that just because it put forward a bill—and Mr Peters is right—in 1992 that is not a reason for it to continue to support it. If one looks at the  
Hansard 
 record one sees it is true that Mr Peters voted against that bill. I was a member of the Labour Party then; I was not allowed to vote against it. But if members read my speech they will see that I predicted that the allocation model would lead to a huge legal battle. Anyone who is a lawyer could see—and Mr Peters and I could see—that what the Government of the day did was to say it was handing over an allocation of fish to Maori without giving them any advice as to how it was to be apportioned and was then asking them to settle that amongst themselves. People criticise Maori for taking such an amount of time to do that but I say there would have been problems if we took any group of New Zealanders and said there was $700 million worth of assets that we did not know who owned them and that those people should sort that out amongst themselves. It is a miracle that Maori have come up with any sort of agreement at all. But just because that is a miracle it is no reason for us then to say that the quota allocation model is so fragile that we should rubber-stamp it. 
The first thing I want to say for the record and to those who are appointed to the new committee—and I note that the Maori Affairs Committee is not being trusted by the Government to consider the bill—is that this is not a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. I have consulted the Clerk and the advice that the Crown is trying to put around that this bill cannot be amended by the select committee is not right. This is a bill that a select committee is able to look at in order to see whether it is just. When we look at the bill we can see immediately that it is not just. Members do not have to take my word for that. We have had an opinion from a High Court Judge Mr Justice McGechan and he has already pointed out that there are some very very odd things in the formula. The whole formula is pretty odd but one of the odd things relates to the coastline. The more coastline that an iwi has the more quota it gets. However the Kaipara Harbour which is the largest harbour in the Southern Hemisphere— 
John Carter 
: The second-largest in the world. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the local member. And of course the Kaipara Harbour is a very good fishing area because there are maraes all around it. Is that coastline counted? No. Who made that decision? It would not help Sir Tipene O’Regan’s tribe would it? Then if we look at the coastal spit off Nelson— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Farewell Spit. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is Farewell Spit counted? Yes right up one side and down the other for another 52 kilometres. Which tribe happens to benefit from that? I believe that members of Parliament are entitled to look at those things even if the local Maori members did not think they were worth looking at. 
I was the Minister who first started this whole thing off. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s right. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is right. David Lange passed the issue over to me and the offer I made was more generous than this one. I said that if any Maori wished to go fishing the Crown would find quota for him or her right up to 50 percent of the total allocation. Of course “Sir Tipene and Co.” was not in favour of that because it did not want to go fishing. It did not want to work. Sir Tipene O’Regan made it quite clear that he just wanted to be a landlord and to take the rent. He saw the quota allocation as a sort of cargo cult. I still think that is wrong. 
The ACT party is in favour of a property settlement. We are in favour of this House honouring the treaty and of fisheries being owned by Maori. If we do that of course we then have to look at the fisheries that Maori had in 1840—where Maori were likely to have been fishing—and at the technology they had available to them. Does this bill do that? No it does not. We find that under this bill anything from above a depth of 300 metres is deemed to be a coastal fishery. That means that we have fisheries areas going into the sub-Antarctic being described as the local fisheries of Ngai Tahu. There is no way whatsoever that in 1840 Ngai Tahu fished them. In that sense this model is not an honouring of the treaty. 
But there are further principles that apply. This model does not give fisheries to the Maori hapu and iwi that had them. This is a racial settlement; it is race-based. It says that if one happens to be Maori one is entitled to a certain percentage of the fisheries allocation because of one’s race. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Race-based welfare. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I call it “cargo-cultism”. So there are iwi that have no coastal area being granted quota but then there is a further requirement. Some Maori members want to represent urban Maori and they have had them put in on a racial basis. I say this to Mr Tamihere: if that is the proper criterion and if that is the right way to do it— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mailbox tribes. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member calls them mailbox tribes. Justice McGechan pointed out that if that is the basis on which those members are doing the allocation then urban Maori are not being treated fairly. He is basically saying that if the Government is going to use a population basis then every Maori in New Zealand should be treated fairly and that it is illogical to treat urban Maori differently from others. I ask Mr Tamihere this: if the judge thinks that is unjust then why is Mr Tamihere supporting it? Perhaps he did not hear me. If a High Court judge as recently as last Friday when making a decision before Parliament considered this bill  says that the bill is unjust to urban Maori why is Mr Tamihere as a Minister and as the local member who says he champions urban Maori supporting the bill? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he says it is because he loves them—it is aroha. I say that the real reason is that Mr Tamihere puts loyalty to the Labour Party and his position in Cabinet ahead of looking after his own people. He knows that this is an unjust bill. 
I also say to the House that we are being told by Sir Tipene O’Regan and others that 91 percent of all iwi support this bill. Rubbish! Absolute nonsense! But if they believe that is so and if they think that that is an important principle why not put it to the test by having a vote? Why not go and ask the iwi? But of course we know that the Government will not do that. 
Let me make it clear what I think should happen. I believe that this House has to take responsibility because the proposal comes from a Government bill. Yes the ACT party is prepared to recognise property rights and we say it is possible to have property rights in fishing. Of course the property right that Maori had in 1840 was the right to fish. That is how they put it. We can identify even now without much difficulty the fishing areas that particular Maori tribes and iwi had. That is what we should have done and we should have done that in a proper legal fashion. But instead we have a squalid political deal with some Maori groups that are now powerful and rich and they have actually drawn up the maps themselves. We all know that the maps are unjust; we all know they are unfair. And we also know something else. We know that on this particular matter the Rt Hon Winston Peters is right. The average Maori in New Zealand has not seen a snapper and what is more we know that under this bill Maori never will see one. This bill is actually an injustice. 
I say to the National Party members that they should rethink their position. If they rethink their position if New Zealand First is against it if ACT is also against it and if the United Future members for the first time in their lives stop being a doormat we can start to get close to stopping this bill. I listened to the Green Party members. I do not know quite why they are against the bill but apparently they are. I am prepared to take their vote and we can then defeat this nonsense. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to lend support to the passage of the Maori Fisheries Bill at this first stage. Much that was conveyed in the speech made by the Hon Richard Prebble I agree with actually but I do not see the logic in our deciding ahead of the examination of this bill by a select committee to make up our minds right now not to support it. We are very happy to allow the bill to go to a select committee but we do so with some of the comments that have been made by Richard Prebble. 
We would like the select committee not just to be a rubber-stamping body. I have read the document that was given to the Minister of Fisheries in May of this year. It is a very complex document. It involves for example a lot of arithmetic and as has been pointed out a lot of measurements and maps and a whole range of things. I do not think we should simply kiss goodbye to and ignore 11 years of work and go back and start again at this point in time. I do not think that is a wise thing to do at all. So that is one thing—I do not think we should rubber-stamp the bill. We should look at it but I do not think we should be relitigating the whole thing. 
So we need to strike a kind of middle way—an attitude one would expect from United Future— to make some progress. We have to keep in mind the big prize and that is to get this matter settled so that the benefits can flow through to the people who have been waiting for a long long time to see something of consequence flow from this process. 
I want to make another comment that Richard Prebble made: I think the comments of Justice McGechan made on 17 December should be taken into account by the select committee. I refer to the one that he calls the judicial bay line which he has mentioned already and also the appraising of grass-roots appreciation of the benefits passed down to Ngai Tahu. I think those two issues should be relooked at. 
I also agree with him—and I think John Tamihere does as well—that further consideration should be given to an equitable allocation to urban Maori beyond that which is currently on the table. This settlement process somewhat reminds me of the historical situation in some of the old countries of Europe where over time an aristocracy grew up because certain people in certain families owned land and assets to the exclusion of all others. Over time one’s success and opportunities in life actually depended on the family one was born into. I have a bit of a fear that with the way this model works that is going to be the future of Maoridom as well. One’s future prosperity and one’s future opportunities in life will depend on which family one is born into. That I think is completely against the whole ethos of New Zealand as a nation. We have a very strong “Jack is as good as his master.” ethos in this country. We believe in every child and every human being regardless of race getting a fair go in this country and I would certainly want to see that for all Maori as we move forward. 
In view of the time constraints this evening I am not going to say much more than that at this point but will just say that United Future wants to see this bill go forward to a select committee. We wish the committee well in its endeavours and we look forward in due course to its report coming back to this House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 May I first of all thank the Hon Richard Prebble for giving the National Party an opportunity to reflect on its position on this bill. He questioned whether we should be supporting this bill and he gave us the opportunity to reflect on it. We have reflected on it we do support the bill and we support it going to a select committee. We thank him for that opportunity. 
The reason for our position is that the longest-serving member of Parliament who has taken an interest in fisheries happens to be from the National Party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who’s that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Georgina te Heuheu. She spoke on this. She is the longest-serving member of Parliament who has spoken on the bill and she supports it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about Mr Prebble and myself? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Sorry I forgot about Richard Prebble. Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Maori member of Parliament who has spoken so far on this bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No another mistake! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: What? Another mistake? Sorry! Georgina te Heuheu is the longest-serving Maori member who has been constructive in the last 10 years when it comes to Maori fisheries. I have never seen Winston Peters so easily fall into a trap in this House as he fell into that one just then. He was sucked along one by one by a young white boy from the north. Clearly for Winston Peters the light is dying the sun is setting and the old man is beaten at his own game. I am hoping that over the Christmas break he will go up to Whananaki in the north catch a few snapper and reflect on his future in this House. When a young white whippersnapper from Whangarei can beat Winston Peters’ at his own game it is time for the old man to retire. I am disappointed to see him fall so easily for that trick. 
I would like to acknowledge Georgina te Heuheu as a speaker in the House today who acknowledged National’s support for this bill going to a select committee. We will give it serious consideration because certainly we have some questions in relation to it. 
I took great interest in Wayne Mapp’s comments over the last fortnight in relation to this bill coming into this House at this time. He had two major concerns. The first was that this bill would come into this House before the two High Court judgments had been heard and viewed by the New Zealand public. That was a bit of a mistake—somewhat of a marketing error by Labour—simply because one should respect what the courts have to say one should listen to what the courts have to say and one should take into account what the courts have to say. However I do recognise that the bill was delayed. It was due to come in last week but it was delayed for 1 week so that we could hear some of those findings. 
The second issue that Wayne Mapp brought up which was of interest to me was the structure of some of the trusts being set up—the Te Wai Maori trust and the Te Putea Whakatupu Trust. The latter is commonly known as the urban trust which John Tamihere has taken an interest in. The Te Wai Maori trust is all about research and development of freshwater fisheries. Wayne Mapp raised the need for those trusts to have Maori trustees. He questions the requirement for legislation to state explicitly that they should be Maori trustees particularly given that those trustees are appointed by the seven commissioners above them who through legislation must be Maori themselves. Our concern simply is that—and I concede that Wayne Mapp put it better than me—Maori may find that there are non-Maori who are able to fill those roles and do a better job and they deserve the freedom to choose whom they have on those trusts. I accept though as Richard Prebble clearly does not and as Winston Peters clearly does not—and the Greens clearly have not even thought about it—that this asset is a Maori asset. Because of the Fisheries Act 1989 and because of the 1992 fisheries settlement this asset is a Maori asset and decisions on its future should be in Maori hands. I certainly acknowledge that but I am just a bit concerned that there is a requirement in legislation that Maori oversee some of that asset and the disbursement of funds. I am not quite sure that is necessary. 
There is no doubt it is a big asset—$700 million to $750 million once one takes the quota cash companies and various other assets into account. But it is worth bringing to the attention of the House that on a population basis based on the electoral roll and who is on the Maori roll it is only about $2000 per Maori person living in New Zealand at this time. It is a significant amount to Maoridom but the reality is that the future of Maori in this country their economic prosperity their cultural prosperity and their prosperity when it comes to education and their families—all the statistics that Maori are measured by inside and outside this House—will not rely on this $750 million given that it amounts to only about $2000 per head of Maori population. What will count is how Maori use assets like this. What will also count is how they approach the education system and get success there how they approach all sorts of other areas in life and how Government and private enterprise can assist them in doing that. That is what will really count. This is simply a nest egg—a significant one yes—of $700 million but the reality is it will not save Maori from the damning statistics that we hear about time and time again. 
I would like to take some time to look at some of the issues about what will be received through the allocation model as per the legislation. There will be allocation of quota from before the 1989 settlement and of post-settlement assets as well—roughly post-1992. There will be cash and what they call income shares which generate an income stream for each iwi group. The interesting thing is that the quota that will be allocated in that way to iwi can be sold only within the iwi group. They cannot be sold outside that grouping of Maori. That is quite interesting in that on reflection it affects a quite significant portion of the quota—I think it is 20 30 or 40 percent of the quota out there in the marketplace. In terms of the market within Maoridom for those particular quota which are locked in there it will be interesting to watch how much effect that provision has on the pricing structure both within that Maori system and without that Maori system. 
I was interested to hear from the Fisheries Commission yesterday that the most significant aspect is the leasing value of that quota—not so much the value of the quota itself being bought and sold but the leasing value. Of course quota can be leased outside Maoridom and can be leased inside it. So there is no effect on that pricing structure at all. 
I also raised the issue of whether quota purchased from outside the Maori system would be locked into that regulatory framework and could no longer be sold on the free market to other commercial fishers. I understand that the asset can be built up within and set aside as part of the settlement asset or it can move freely outside and be sold without that Maori group—which is quite an interesting prospect for other commercial fishermen. The important thing of course is that that settlement quota will not be whittled away over time. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 E tu ake au kei te tautoko e te mihi i mihia e te whanaunga me te Minita Maori i te komihana no reira tena koutou tena koutou. Kei te tautoko i te mihi i mihiaina mo te kaimahi mo te komihana aroha ki a koutou. 
I just acknowledged my relation’s acknowledgment of the commission and the workers in it. In Maoridom we have this saying that rings up and down the maraes year in year out month in month out and the short version of it is: he aha te mea nui ki te ao he aha te mea nui ki te ao hou he tangata he tangata he tangata. 
[ 
What is the most important thing in the world; what is the most important thing in the new world? It is people it is people it is people 
.] 
With regard to the tortuous approach that has been taken to this bill that saying has been perverted: he aha te mea nui ki te ao hou? Kei te moni kei te moni kei te moni. 
[ 
What is the most important thing in the new world? It is money it is money it is money 
.] 
As we move forward into the select committee let us now start to concentrate for a change on the people rather than on the distribution the division and the greed. 
The final thing I want to say with regard to this issue is that in large part the asset has been distributed. This allocation model just brings it to closure. In terms of the lease rounds the few have done very well in the name of the many. We must now put the spotlight on Maori leadership going forward with regard to how they will connect the performance of our assets—and this asset has been performing well there is no doubt about that—with the under-performance in our communities. We can no longer continue to tolerate that. 
I conclude by saying that in terms of his decision Justice McGechan was absolutely prescient in his comments in the High Court in Auckland when he stated quite clearly that the way the Te Putea Trust is being operated is right on song. On that basis in terms of the submissions to the select committee I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time. 
was called for on the question That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a first time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Fisheries Bill be considered by a committee to be established 
. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that resolution we have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The amendment is to omit the words “a committee to be established” and insert the words “the Maori Affairs Committee.” 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is this new committee and its membership able to debated now or is it a non-debatable motion? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The motion is the next motion on the Order Paper which is to set up the committee. It was discussed at the Business Committee and has all parties on it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of Select Committees 
Appointments 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 10 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4 New Zealand National 2 New Zealand First 1 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 and United Future 1; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196 (1 )(b) and (c). 
This is moved primarily for three reasons. The first is that both this bill that we have just been discussing and a number of other bills are bills in which all political parties have a keen interest and should be involved with in terms of the considerations of the select committee. The only two select committees that have all-party representation at present are the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Standing Orders Committee. I think that by no stretch of the imagination would anybody care to suggest that the Waitangi fisheries settlement legislation should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee and probably not the Finance and Expenditure Committee either. 
Secondly these are all matters in which there is deep Maori interest in particular. It is appropriate therefore to give parties the chance to nominate members to the select committee with a particular emphasis upon the Maori membership of the House. 
The third matter is that the bills that are likely to be referred to the select committee have a degree of common ground between them—that is the fisheries settlement legislation the foreshore and seabed legislation and probably the aquaculture legislation and I would think that we also need to consider the marine reserves legislation as coming into that category. 
 And what particularly will be in common to those apart from many of the issues is that many of the submitters on those bills will have very much in common. There will be a very strong interest with all those bills in submissions from iwi and hapu groups and other Maori organisations. The select committee may wish to be able to partake of the possibility—given that some of these bills will be running alongside each other in terms of actual time—of being able to travel the country and take submissions on a range of bills simultaneously from particular groups. This will facilitate that process. Otherwise what would happen is that the Waitangi fisheries legislation would probably go to the Maori Affairs Committee the foreshore and seabed legislation—goodness knows where that would go appropriately. The Marine Reserves Bill would go to the Local Government and Environment Committee almost certainly; and the aquaculture legislation would go to the Primary Production Committee. Therefore they would have been split all over the place in terms of the select committees dealing with those matters. 
The third element is that almost certainly in terms of the foreshore and seabed legislation we would have sought to set up a separate select committee. As I said it does not fit easily into any other committee and given the very strong interest of all parties I am sure in that issue but again the particular interest of Maori in that issue there are problems in running select committees if a separate committee is set up while other mainline committees are continuing major work in the meantime. The whips will be particularly aware—certainly the Government whips are—of the difficulty of running the number of people involved in select committees in that case. By forming a separate select committee we are able to ensure that one or two other select committees will have their workloads significantly reduced. They will not need to meet so often over the coming months while this special select committee is under way. 
It is going to be a very important select committee because of the nature of the legislation before it. In some ways a good deal of this legislation will reflect issues about the nature of our nation and its identity and the way forward in that respect. I wish it well. Because of the bulk of the work that is going to be involved the greater amount of work I think the suggestion certainly in my own mind is that there are going to be a lot of submissions so that the committee will need to meet outside the normal one morning a week sitting times for a select committee to enable that range of submissions to be heard while progress is being made. 
Particularly in terms of the bill we have just been considering the message I have loud and clear is that the momentum now needs to be continued and carried through to conclusion. We have been waiting 11 years so far for a settlement of the division of the fisheries settlement. We cannot now as a House delay the process for year upon year while the select committee wends its way through a large number of submissions with only meetings in a relatively limited amount of time per week. We need to get on and make sure that now people can make progress based on the resources that are available. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about the reasons why we are debating this motion setting up a special select committee to consider possibly four bills that relate to matters that are contentious in the Parliament and contentious in the public’s mind. I listened carefully to see whether the Minister had a very good reason why we should set up a special select committee rather than refer the legislation to one of the permanent select committees. 
I was interested to hear the Minister say we should set up a special select committee firstly to make sure that every party is represented and I accept that because that is logical and very useful; and secondly he said we should make sure there is good representation of Maori on the special select committee. At that point I started to wonder what was the real reason behind our setting up a special committee. One has to ask this question: we have a Maori Affairs Committee we have a Primary Production Committee— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Practically no Maori on that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Correct. But the point is that with either of those committees if there is a will by one or other of the parties that may not be represented on them directly there is the means by which that can happen. If a particular party feels that the people who are representing them on it are not the appropriate people then changes can be made. So it led me to this conclusion: the Government is concerned about the politics around these issues—the Maori Fisheries Bill the foreshore and seabed bill and the aquaculture and marine reserves legislation—and it is playing politics by setting up this special select committee. 
It is doing so because it is concerned that if it did for instance refer the bill to the Maori Affairs Committee then not only would that not look like the appropriate select committee but it would then cause the Government some difficulties in managing its people on that select committee. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that I understand—and he can confirm it or not—that Russell Fairbrother is to be the chairman of the special select committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes a brand-new member. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He is a first-term member who will be the chairman of a select committee that will deal with some extremely important sensitive legislation. Why would one get an anonymous backbencher to chair the select committee? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He’s known for his sensitivity. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is right. Mr Prebble interjected that Mr Fairbrother is well known for his sensitivity. The fact is that we have to ask ourselves that question. The next question that then sprang to my mind is: who else is the Labour Party and the Deputy Prime Minister likely to put on the select committee from its side? If this motion gets passed Labour will have four members. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Tariana Turia will be one of those members. I have a great respect for that lady. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there are a few things she says that I do not agree with. There is a lot of stuff she says that I think makes good sense. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Name one. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I can name several and am happy to do so but not on this occasion because I want to continue on with my political point. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister trusts that member enough to put her on the select committee. It is well known that if issues start going down a line that the member will not like she will speak out about it. So I will take a bet that the Government will not run the risk of putting someone like Tariana Turia on the select committee. The Government will try to control and manipulate the committee so that it gets the decision it wants and it will not want to run the risk of putting anyone on the committee that is likely to upset the apple cart. I say that the chances of having Tariana Turia on the committee as a representative of the Labour Party are zilch. That is a great pity a great shame. Other members in the Labour Party— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the attention of Mrs Awatere-Huata one does not stand at the back of the House when another member is on his or her feet speaking. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member will be seated. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There are other members from the Maori caucus of the Labour Party who should be represented on the select committee but I ask whether the Government will do that or will it put someone on it who comes from a pretty much landlocked electorate—David Parker for example. 
Jim Peters 
: David Parker? 
JOHN CARTER 
: David Parker. The Government may want to put David Parker on the committee because it will be the last thing he does before he loses his seat at the next election and it might want to give him the feeling of a little bit of power and influence. But one has to ask why the Government would put him on above somebody like for example Dover Samuels. Why would it put somebody who does not know what a fish looks like—and I doubt whether he runs into many Maori down there either for that matter—on to something that is as sensitive as this? One has to ask those sorts of questions as we debate who should be on the committee and who should not and why we should have it at all. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.