Volume 618 Week 60 - Tuesday 22 June 2004 
Volume 618 Week 60 - Tuesday 22 June 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:13757] 
Tuesday 22 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Trinidad and Tobago—Speaker of the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Delegation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon BarendraSinanin Speaker of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago accompanied by a parliamentary delegation is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the House would also wish to welcome members of the parliamentary delegation who are present in the gallery. 
The Hon BarendraSinanin accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you recall I asked a question of Mr Swain last week and he promised to give me an answer. It is now Tuesday and I am wondering whether he is able to do that now since he undertook in front of the House to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the member and the Minister to work out for themselves. It does not come into part of this House’s operation. 
Questions to Ministers 
Army—Light Armoured Vehicles Purchase 
1. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What decisions has the Government taken to replace the Army’s light operational vehicle fleet? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 In March I signed the contract for the purchase of 188 Pinzgauer light operational vehicles as the first stage of replacing the Army’s ageing Land Rovers. Yesterday Cabinet approved the purchase of a further 133 Pinzgauers 60 of which will be armoured completing this Defence Long-term Development Plan project. These light operational vehicles will significantly upgrade the Army’s mobility and support capability. 
Tim Barnett 
: Why does the Defence Long-term Development Plan provide for the modernisation of the Defence Force across all three services? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I quote: “The National-led Governments did not allow defence spending to keep pace in the 1990s.” and further: “Nine years of neglect have seen the NZDF perilously low in capability and short of funds to correct this.” These honest and insightful comments were made by National’s spokesperson on defence Simon Power and the man who wants his job—Richard Worth. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the right purchase decision has been made given Official Information Act papers that show the other option considered—the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle—was more battle proven than the Pinzgauer; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes because on an overall assessment the vehicles chosen both the non-armoured and the armoured variant have been proven to be better value for money and provide better long-term serviceability and a better long-term through-life structure. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table a set of Official Information Act documents showing that the HMMWV was assessed as superior. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: Will the 60 armoured Pinzgauers come complete with the new birdcage-style slatted armour of the type that the Americans are now having to bolt on to their light armoured vehicles or is the New Zealand Government not going to get the improved light armoured vehicle armour because it simply does not believe our soldiers deserve that sort of protection? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Obviously I would take technical advice but I doubt that the clip-on armour designed for light armoured vehicles would be able to be attached to a light operational vehicle like the Pinzgauer. 
Parole Act—Victims' Rights 
2.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he think the victims’ rights referred to in the Parole Act 2002 should include a right to expect the Parole Board to ensure a sentence denounces deters and holds a prisoner accountable for his or her crime; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. It is in law the role of the sentencing judge to take account of the need for denunciation deterrence and accountability when determining the length of the sentence and whether to impose a period above the statutory minimum before parole can be considered. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister think it is acceptable for the Parole Board then to undo the work of the judge by letting a prisoner out at one-third of a sentence that was originally calculated to deter denounce and hold the person accountable? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When a judge sentences an offender the judge has in his or her mind the minimum period of time the offender should spend in jail before parole can be considered. If the judge believes there is a strong need for deterrence denunciation and accountability then it is perfectly within the capability of the judge to ensure that the offender concerned serves at least two-thirds of his or her sentence before even being considered for parole. Then of course the Parole Board makes a decision as to whether there is any risk to the community and must not release if there is risk to the community. 
Moana Mackey 
: What evidence is there that changes made by the Sentencing Act to denounce and to deter people from serious offending have been reflected in sentencing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is very clear evidence. The Sentencing Act now requires judges to impose the maximum sentence for the worst types of offending in any category and when there are aggravating factors in a murder to set a minimum sentence before parole can even be considered of 17 years. This has resulted for example in the courts requiring a person to spend at least 30 years in jail before parole can even be considered; that was the court’s decision in the William Bell case. It used to be the case that only 7 years was required to be spent in jail before a murderer could be released. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can this Minister stand in the House and justify a system that means a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can be out on parole after only 3 years; and is this the reason why the word “punishment” never features in his legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That member as usual has got it quite wrong. What I noticed about the forecast of prison sentencing for example is that it showed that for the 7 years prior to my legislation there was no change in sentencing levels at all and that after the sentencing legislation there was an immediate increase in the length of time for which people were being sentenced for serious crimes and an increase in the percentage of the sentence that they actually served. Whereas that member did nothing this Government has acted. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many interjections. 
Dail Jones 
: What faith can the public have in the Parole Board and this minority Labour Government ensuring the legal implementation of the Parole Act and the completion of prison sentences when this minority Labour Government allows a non-member of the board—Dr David Chaplow—to influence the board in its decisions and to contravene all aspects of the Parole Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Labour Government did not allow anything; operational matters are determined by the Parole Board itself and by statute passed in this House I am not allowed and neither is the Minister of Corrections allowed to interfere in that sort of decision making by the Parole Board. 
Stephen Franks 
: Would the Minister consider it inappropriate for the Parole Board to respond to the heartfelt pleas of a victim appearing before it to take account of deterrence denunciation and the need for accountability; or does the Minister think it is OK for the Parole Board to have to tell victims that it is ordered to let people out irrespective of those factors if they are no longer a risk to the safety of the community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The guidance for the Parole Board is very clearly set out in section 7 of the Parole Act. It states that in every case the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration. I also draw the member’s attention to section 7(2)(d) which states that the Parole Board must take into account in making its decision the rights of victims being upheld. 
Ron Mark 
: What steps does he intend to take to review Parole Board decisions involving Dr David Chaplow as an adviser; if he does not intend to take any steps to review those decisions—bearing in mind that Dr Chaplow is not and was never appointed to the Parole Board by his Government—why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong. In fact David Chaplow was appointed to the Parole Board at one point. However the fact is that he was an adviser to the Parole Board and not a member at the point decisions were being made. He should not have participated in that decision making and that matter is now being addressed before the courts and by the Parole Board. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does it concern the Minister at all that an offender who is due to be deported at the end of his sentence must be released at one-third of the sentence however heinous the crime because by definition the offender can no longer be a risk to the safety of the community on deportation and that accordingly the 20-year sentence recently put into law for trafficking in humans is an absolute nonsense as it means 7 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that with regard to people who are liable to be deported at the end of their sentence most New Zealanders believe that they should serve what part of their sentence they are required to serve then should be kicked out forthwith. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does punishment not feature in this Minister’s sentencing legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member again is quite wrong. In terms of the guidance given under the Sentencing Act it is about holding the offender accountable providing for the interests of the victim providing reparation denouncing the conduct deterring the offender and protecting the community—all of those things that the member would expect to be there. The prison sentence itself—30 years before parole—must be regarded as punishment. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister refusing to take some action against Dr David Chaplow for acting outside the scope of his powers; why is he refusing to take some action against the Parole Board for allowing Dr Chaplow to be there; and why is he not ensuring that the Parole Board review those 160 cases where people appear to have got off lightly because of his Government’s inaction and Dr Chaplow’s actions on the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is nothing I am aware of that suggests that people got off lightly as the member suggested. It may well have in fact been the opposite. With regard to how the Parole Board will have to deal with that problem the member should just be patient for a couple of days yet. 
Working for Families Package—Marginal Tax Rates 
3.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Working for Families Budget package that “there is no evidence whatsoever that high effective marginal tax rates would cause middle-income families not to want to go to work.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does the Prime Minister explain the advice she received from the Department of Labour on 31 March this year that “those on middle-level incomes will now face higher effective marginal tax rates from family assistance thereby reducing incentives to increase employment”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That matter was addressed in the House last week by the Minister of Finance who pointed out that one consequence of providing assistance to families who previously did not qualify for it is that some of them in certain circumstances may face higher effective marginal tax rates. That of course has no bearing on the answer I gave last week that the member has quoted from which says that higher effective marginal tax rates would not cause middle-income families not to want to go to work. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with figures provided by the Deputy Prime Minister that show that the number of families facing effective marginal tax rates of at least 80 percent will rise to 50000 following the full implementation of the Working for Families package—an increase of 50 percent on the situation when she became Prime Minister—and if so does she acknowledge that the package makes the problem of high effective marginal tax rates worse not better? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not. What I know is that more families are being assisted through these targeted tax measures. That has the effect of pushing the impact of effective marginal tax rates up the income ladder; it does not necessarily change the highest amount of them. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that working families work overtime if not for the money that they get in their pockets at the end of it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the money is coming into their pockets through these targeted tax takes I suggest they are just as well off. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why does Treasury’s modelling show that only 2 percent of sole parents will move off benefits into work and that there will be no net change in employment for two-parent families as a result of Working for Families if as she said last week “The key thrust of these measures is to get people off benefits and back to work.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That most certainly is the key thrust at the lower end of the income scale. As Dr Cullen said in the Budget when comparing a sole parent family on $30000 that is on the domestic purposes benefit and a sole parent earner family on $30000 the earner family will as a result of these measures be $92 a week better off. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is advice from the Department of Labour about reduced work incentives in a Cabinet committee paper dated 31 March. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Don Brash 
: The second document establishes the sharp increase in the number of people facing an effective marginal tax rate. It is a written response from the Minister of Finance dated 21 June. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Don Brash 
: The third document is again a written response from the Minister of Finance to a question on 18 June regarding the fact that there will be no significant impact on employment from the Working for Families package. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
I apologise to the House. I intended to seek leave to table something at the end of the last question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure that the House will not object. 
DAIL JONES 
: I seek leave to table an answer given by the Minister of Corrections to my question regarding the involvement of Dr David Chaplow indicating the Government intends to do nothing about a judicious— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that answer. Is there any objection? There is. 
Benefits—Beneficiaries Born Outside New Zealand 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: In the last 5 years how many people not born in New Zealand received an unemployment invalids and/or sickness benefit and at what cost? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 While it is true that Work and Income collects the place of birth for each applicant making it possible to check the payments for all recipients including New Zealand citizens and those with permanent residence to calculate the total cost of those born overseas and entitled by residency to those benefits the system would have to make an individual search for each of the 5 days of the 52 weeks for each of the 5 years for every person on the records including those who are currently there and those who have moved out of the system and it is simply not possible to undertake the search with the time or the resource available. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this is 2004 and we live in a computerised age and how can he stand there and tell the House he has not had enough time to collate an answer given I lodged written questions asking for the same information 3 weeks ago that remain unanswered and why he is continuing to hide or be evasive in respect of this matter? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: To the best of my knowledge it is not the same question. It might be in a similar area but the member has not identified precisely the question;I do watch the questions as I go through and to my recollection it is not the same question. Secondly the member does take lightly the fact of the complex calculations needed and the huge amount of manual search to go through—I repeat for the member—each individual who has been on the record either past or currently for every day for every week for 5 years. It is a mammoth undertaking. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the Government doing to ensure migrants do not require a benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government has inherited the problem and we have made an undertaking about implementing two strategies to deal with this. Firstly with regard to immigration we are trying to better match with jobs people who migrate here so that many people come here with a job offer—not a hope for a job which was the case previously. Secondly we are looking at those people who are currently here and I would like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that in Auckland from the start of this year there are 38 specialist migrant Work and Income case managers who have been working directly with migrants. We have been able to achieve a 30.1 percent reduction in the number of people who are in the category of migrants who are receiving an unemployment benefit—a 30 percent reduction in 1 year. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the rules clearly state that a migrant has to be in New Zealand at least 2 years before he or she is eligible for the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit can he explain why there are hundreds of migrants who have been in New Zealand less than 2 years getting those benefits? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: People have to be residents and meet other criteria but I am very pleased to be able to say to the member that we inherited quite a significant problem. For example regarding sickness beneficiaries in the year 2000 there were 267 people in that category who were on a sickness benefit; in 2004 there are 65. This represents a 75 percent reduction. We are being much more effective in dealing with these issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister could address the specific question the member asked. [ 
Interruption 
] I am making comment. There will be no comment from anyone else. Perhaps the member would like to ask the question again. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the rules clearly state that a migrant has to be in New Zealand at least 2 years before he or she is eligible for the unemployment benefit or sickness benefit can he explain why there are hundreds of migrants who have been in New Zealand for less than 2 years who are getting those benefits? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I did mention in passing that people have to have a residency qualification—they have to be permanent residents—and there are other qualifications that make them entitled to those benefits. The point I am trying to make to the member is that nothing was done about it by the previous administration. We are doing something about it. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Does the Minister know of Government departments that provide educational material to the public on the positive contributions of migrant communities to New Zealand in order to counter the campaigns of hatred towards migrants run by New Zealand First? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no need to raise a point of order. I will not have that last comment made. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not speak to the point of order. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I want to speak to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot. I am ruling. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I will not withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the House then. 
Hon Matt Robson withdrew from the Chamber. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm that the amendments to the Immigration Act passed last year should reduce the number of migrants on welfare because it restricts residency to those with a job offer relevant to their skills; and can he also confirm that despite its election promise to give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications New Zealand First voted against that very legislation? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can in fact confirm that New Zealand First voted against the bill. I can confirm that we replaced the policy that was in place when New Zealand First was part of the Government. New Zealand First was in fact part of the problem. This Government is solving the problem by matching— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That Minister has no responsibility with regard to the subject matter. More importantly he has just told the House that collating the information that would form the subject of his answer has been impossible even though he was asked for it in writing 3 weeks ago. What we are seeing is an evasive campaign by the Minister and his department. They know some things but mostly they do not know much. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point of order might be another point of order. It is not relevant to this. The Minister was addressing the question. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am very pleased to be able to say that in fact we have had some great success. For example in the year 2000 approximately 579 people were on an unemployment benefit as a result of the previous policy; currently there are 222. We have a significant reduction in those issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister able to answer some questions on percentages with a degree of accuracy as claimed by him yet he cannot answer questions that were matters of written request 3 weeks ago and why does he not consider it a very serious matter that the current cost of emergency benefits over 5 years is $382 million and is likely when added to the rest of the benefits to be a cost in excess of $1 billion whilst his party has been in Government? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm in written answers to the member that in November 2002 there were 6927 people—I gave him the answer for that—and there are currently 5458 which is a 20 percent reduction. We are making significant progress on a problem we inherited from a Government that he was a part of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him that. I asked him whether he was concerned as to two critical figures. One is the emergency benefit annualised and multiplied by five; and second the likely reality that if we add all the other things—the unemployment benefit the invalids benefit and the rest—we have already passed $1 billion for the immigrants in this country. That is what I want an answer on and I have written to him countless times in the past. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might like to comment a little further. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I feel I did answer the question. I said to the member that in terms of the question he asked originally about the numbers over the 5 years for all the individual categories in my opinion he has no appreciation of the size the enormity of the job of doing that calculation. Secondly on the information we have readily available I have indicated to the member that the trend is significantly downward. In some cases it is 20 percent and other cases it is 75 percent less than what it was when we came to Government. 
Dail Jones 
: I seek leave to table in the House an amendment moved by New Zealand First as recorded in  
Hansard 
 on 2 September 2003 which states: “Allowing for Government residence policy that will better enable the selection and active recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the member quite a long chance to state his question. He does not have to complete it all or he will be doing something different. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with reference to Speaker’s ruling 18/5 under the heading “Exclusion from the Chamber”. There is a longstanding understanding in this House that when members are asked to withdraw and apologise they do so and they cannot obviate that obligation by exiting the Chamber; whereas we have just experienced the Hon Matt Robson leaving the Chamber and not apologising to the House. I would like a clarification of that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I dealt with the matter and I ordered him out of the Chamber. That is where the matter ended. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ordered that honourable member out of the Chamber. Does that mean he will never come back again or on what basis will he come back again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please do not be silly. I ordered him out of the Chamber as a yellow card for the rest of question time. That is what I usually do at that stage. I want to say to the member that I dealt with the matter; immediately the member refused I sent him out. That ends the matter at that point. 
Public Defence Service—Pilot Scheme 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Where is the new Public Defence Service pilot scheme operating and what is its purpose? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Public Defence Service opened last month and operates in the Auckland and Manukau courts. Ultimately it will handle approximately a third of the criminal cases in each of those courts. Its purpose is to provide legal aid services that are high-quality consistent and independent and that represent value for money. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Are there any advantages in the type of working environment created by a public defender scheme? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are indeed. It creates the ability to build a team approach where a group of skilled professionals can share knowledge and experience and support each other. It also allows younger lawyers to learn from and be assisted by senior lawyers with experience in the system. Having met all the lawyers who are now working as public defenders I am hugely impressed with the depth of experience they have the skills they have and the enthusiasm with which they are approaching their task. 
Marine Farming—Maori Ownership 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Has he been informed of any reports which suggest that Maori currently own more than 20 percent of marine farming space around the coastline of New Zealand; if so why is he proposing to allocate 20 percent of marine farming space to iwi? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I have received reports that Maori have varying levels of interest in marine farming around the country. Nonetheless the Waitangi Tribunal has found that Maori have interests in marine farming that remain outstanding. The Government’s proposal recognises those outstanding interests and this proposal is intended to settle them in line with the 1992 deed of settlement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Government’s proposal iwi will not only get 20 percent of marine farming space but will be guaranteed up to 10 percent of space through treaty settlements and also retain the right to tender for general allocations of space; and does he think that the three opportunities given to Maori to tender for marine farming space compared with the single chance other New Zealanders have is fair? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. No the proposal is post-1992 and yes. One of the key elements of the proposal is dealing with the unfinished business of the 1992 deed of settlement without adversely affecting private business interests. Progressing that issue in the view of Government is critical to the progress of the aquaculture reform bill and the future of the aquaculture industry. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What reports has the Minister seen supporting the Government’s position on this issue? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen the  
Ahu Moana 
 report of the Waitangi Tribunal of December 2002 which states on page 50: “We note the response from the Minister of both Fisheries and Maori Affairs at the time the Hon Doug Kidd. He thought that the Treasury had wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system but he had personally forbidden Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions on the deed of settlement since it would confuse an already complex set of negotiations.” 
I am also pleased to see the former National Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Rt Hon Doug Graham commenting last week that the Government’s proposal for an allocation of 20 percent of post-1992 marine farming interests was very much “in line with the 1992 deed of settlement”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm by way of background information for the public that the 1992 settlement was opposed by one parliamentarian who was promptly expelled the next day from the National Party caucus and National then went on to give Doug Graham a knighthood—and what does one call that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have any responsibility for that but the member has made his point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect this is a very serious political issue. I may have gone too far in the last part of my question but I am entitled by way of background to have the facts that this House this Parliament and the press gallery know about put back in front of the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will disregard the last part of the member’s question. The member has asked whether the Minister can confirm a fact as it relates to his portfolio. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am clearly not as au fait with the matters of the time as the questioner is but I can confirm that the  
Hansard 
 of the debate makes extremely interesting reading and I commend it to all members of the House. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister sought clearance from the Coordinating Minister Race Relations Trevor Mallard that this 20 percent allocation to Maori is entirely needs-based and not race-based; if so what specific needs does this allocation address that are unique to Maori? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can assure the member that as these discussions—and discussions are what they are—of the Government proposal proceed then such considerations will clearly be taken into account. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt whatsoever to reply to a very clear question from my colleague and I ask that he be asked to at least attempt a response to the question asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought he addressed the question. 
Metiria 
 Turei 
: How can the Minister have any confidence that the 20 percent allocation will benefit all Maori as the 1992 deed of settlement intended when the current allocation model in the Maori Fisheries Bill excludes a large number of iwi and hapu because they do not have a coastal rohe boundary or are simply not included in the bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As the member will be aware the invitation from Cabinet is to Te Ohu Kai Moana to provide to Cabinet an allocation process for approval by my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs and myself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that section 5(1) of the 1992 settlement Act does not talk about the allocation of marine farming but does in fact state: “The settlement shall discharge and extinguish all commercial fishing rights and interests of Maori whether in respect of sea coastal or inland fisheries including any commercial aspect of traditional fishing rights and interests whether arising by statute common law including customary law and aboriginal title and the Treaty of Waitangi.”; if so why does he give the answer he gave to the primary question today? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It should be no surprise that the deed of settlement is silent on the issues of marine space given the prohibition I detailed earlier from the Minister of the time for that to be discussed as part of that settlement. Clearly this is unfinished business which that party was not prepared to face up to. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister sighted any other reports indicating support for this proposal? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I have. They include the following statement from Graham Coates executive officer of the New Zealand Marine Farming Association: “Using the tools that the Government has provided we can move forward. Anything that removes one of the hurdles has got to be a good thing. Let’s get on with things!”; Terry Schwass from the Port Mussel Company believes that the Government has chosen “the most sensible option”; Doug McKay chief executive of Sealord’s was reported in the  
Waikato Times 
 as telling a seafood conference last month that until law reform was settled there would be no investment in New Zealand aquaculture development. Second to last I quote from the editorial column of the  
NelsonMail: “ 
Criticism from deputy leader Gerry Brownlee and fisheries spokesman Phil Heatley is little more than predictable shallow politicking”; and finally from the Christchurch 
 Press— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does the Minister propose to get a 20 percent allocation of the marine farming industry to iwi when they currently own more than 20 percent of existing licences and space and will that mean he will buy back that space from iwi only to turn around and hand it back to them for nothing? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The answer to the last part of the question is no. In answer to the first part of the question clearly the Government has indicated that any acquisition of property would be on a willing-buyer and willing-seller basis. As I said in my answer to the member’s first supplementary question the Government’s prime intention in this matter is to achieve resolutions that are satisfactory to all parties the industry and iwi without interfering with private marine farming interests or private business interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of historical accuracy I seek to table the relevant  
Hansard 
 debate of the evening— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave to table an editorial from the Christchurch  
Press 
 commenting that National’s policy is especially hollow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that  
Press 
 editorial. Is there any objection? There is. 
Civil Union Bill—Rights 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What specific rights if any does the Civil Union Bill confer on couples or is this particular bill only of symbolic value? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Civil Union Bill confers the right for different and same-sex couples to have their relationship formalised by a registrar or a civil union celebrant and to have their relationship registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. I do not believe that civil union vows or marriage vows for that matter are only of symbolic value. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister be good enough to confirm that the Civil Union Bill does not confer rights on couples in respect of the ability to inherit property next of kin status visitation rights at hospitals etc. and if he is good enough to confirm that can he explain to the House why the Civil Union Bill is being promoted? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am able to confirm that many of the rights mentioned by the questioner are conferred by the tandem legislation. The reason for the Civil Union Bill is to provide an appropriate statutory recognition of alternate forms of relationship. I must say that many people in support of this bill wish that the tolerance they show towards those who choose marriage would be reciprocated with regard to civil unions. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What reports has the Minister seen of recent reaction to this bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have received a number of media reports which I will seek leave to table in due course. The first is from today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 stating that the Civil Union Bill should be passed and that social behaviour would be changed little by the law. Secondly the  
Dominion Post 
 editorial also talked today about what makes a family a success. It states that the Civil Union Bill “is not going to shake the foundations of society.” Thirdly the  
Manawatu Standard 
 which 
reported 4 days ago in an editorial entitled: 
 “ 
Nobody should be second-class” went on to state: “… we all need to look elsewhere where these things are now a familiar part of the social and legal landscape and they will see a lot of happy people.” 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the situation and tell the House what the difference will be to my wife and I if this Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill are passed as they currently exist? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Assuming that the questioner means “for my wife and me” can I say practically in his case and his wife’s case none. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister heard any reasonable or common-sense arguments about why a couple who have been living together for a number of years in a committed relationship should not have the right to be defined as immediate family or next of kin in such legislation as the Coroners Act? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That is a question I think should be properly directed to those people who are not in support of this legislation. 
Larry Baldock 
: Why does the general policy statement in the Civil Union Bill state: “The Bill will address the current situation in which same sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationship.” when in fact the Property (Relationships) Act has already given legal recognition to their relationships and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will address even further recognition and does this not further confirm that the Civil Union Bill is legally unnecessary? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No because there are a number of protections that do not flow without this legislation and the rights of de facto and other couples are not adequately protected unless this human rights legislation is progressed by the House. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With regard to my first question and to the Minister’s answer to the last supplementary question what specific rights other than the right to a ceremony and having it registered as contained in the Civil Union Bill was he referring to as flowing from this legislation that are not provided for in the tandem legislation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: There are a number of additional rights and if I am allowed to I will detail five of them. The first one is that the bill confers the right for different sex couples who do not wish to marry to have that relationship legally and socially recognised through a civil union. Secondly the bill also confers the right for same-sex couples to have their relationship legally and socially recognised. Thirdly the registration of a civil union provides a couple with readily available proof of the nature of their relationship rather than relying on a determination of whether their relationship falls under the definition of de facto in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Further the Marriage Act of 1955 does not confer rights on couples except in relation to solemnisation and registration of the relationship. Rights and responsibilities arising from marriage are also established through other statutes. Finally the act of entering into a civil union or marriage can be seen as an important symbolic step as it marks the occasion when a couple makes formal commitments to each other. 
Question time interrupted. 
Visitors 
Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have very much pleasure in informing members that Mr Taro Kono member of the Japanese Diet and Prime Minister’s Fellow for 2004 is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Taro Kono accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tuberculosis—Drug-resistant Cases 
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What discussions has he had if any with the Minister of Health regarding the number of drug-resistant tuberculosis cases found in New Zealand and has she given him the number of cases brought in by immigrants infected overseas? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have had discussions with the Minister of Health regarding the number of drug-resistant TB cases found in New Zealand. I am informed that 16 cases of multidrug-resistant TB have been diagnosed in New Zealand since 1995. Of those cases I am advised that 15 were contracted outside New Zealand and one was contracted on shore from a close family member who was already infected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned about the incidence of this deadly multidrug-resistant tuberculosis known as MDRTB—the number of cases of which have doubled since 1995—and that most cases are brought in by immigrants infected overseas when in fact the provisions of our law would prevent that from happening? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I am concerned about that and that is why the Government has toughened up the screening programme. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Immigration Service website state that generally an application is declined if a person has active TB or is taking TB drugs when this deadly infectious disease known as MDRTB is 100 times more expensive than normal TB to treat with no guarantee of a cure and New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research describes it as “a horrible horrible disease to treat”; and why has the Government not done something to ensure we have blocks in place to prevent it from happening in our country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start as I said to the member before advanced screening is being done now. The reality is that it is a deadly disease—there is no question about that—but it is not incurable. There are ways of resolving it; it just takes more time. The reality is that people will not get entry into New Zealand if they are diagnosed as having TB. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from catching TB from people entering this country under our immigration rules? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: TB screening for quota refugees who are all from high-incidence countries was introduced during the 2002-03 year. The new TB-screening rules already apply to all student applications received on or after 1 April 2004. That means that all students who come from a high-incidence country and who intend to be in New Zealand for more than 6 months must be cleared before entry. From November this year that requirement will be extended to visitors and workers from high-incidence countries as well. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Monitoring of Critically Ill Child 
9.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Was the Department of Child Youth and Family Services monitoring the care of the 6-week-old baby boy reported to be in Starship Children’s Hospital in a critical condition and had the department been doing so since the baby’s birth? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 The baby’s two siblings are in foster care and therefore when the baby was born a new assessment was automatically initiated. The identified risks to the baby did not indicate that his immediate removal was necessary. His mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. The factors that caused her other children to be taken into care were not their physical or sexual abuse but were due to the detrimental living environment she was in at the time and that situation had changed in the intervening time period. 
Katherine Rich 
: Given that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services had deemed that mother to be unfit to look after her two children because of her neglect of them why suddenly was she deemed able to look after a baby? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. I am sure that in this instance as in any other instance the considerations are very difficult for social workers to go through. But they identified the risks to that baby and did not decide that immediate removal of that child was necessary. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister advise on what improvements have occurred in the department’s social work practice as a result of the employment of around 90 or more additional social workers and the expenditure of up to an additional $127 million by the Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can report a number of very positive moves that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has been able to initiate with the recent employment of over 90 social workers and with a further 56 coming into the department from 1 July including a reduction in the number of unallocated cases on the department’s case list despite record numbers of notifications over the last 6 months. 
Judy Turner 
: Why has the department ignored the lessons of the Aplin Jetson and Burrows cases where reports on those deaths stressed the vital importance of assessing the danger to other children in at-risk situations or is the department still stuck in the dangerous mode of having “a single incident focus” that was lamented by the baseline review team? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the particular instance raised in the primary question I do not think it is fair at all to say that the lessons of the Aplin and Jetson case have been ignored. In my view this would have been a very difficult decision for the social workers concerned to make. But it does reflect what I am sure all members of this House would want the department to be working towards and that is not a situation whereby whenever a parent who has been neglectful in the past says he or she is now trying to be a good parent we say no that person will never be a good parent. We will try to do everything we can to improve the parenting skills of those parents and to change and improve their lifestyles so that they can be good parents in the future. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of section 39 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which enables the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to remove a child if there is any likelihood at all that the child could suffer from harm what investigation is under way to determine what went wrong in this case and when will the results be available? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I said the initial assessment of the potential risk to the baby was initiated as soon as the baby was born due to the fact that his two siblings are already in foster care. Monitoring was then undertaken in collaboration with the nursing staff from the local hospital. Two social workers visited the baby at his home on the day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited the baby on that day at a different time. She visited again 3 days later and reported to the social worker that the child appeared well. It was when the nurse visited a third time—8 days after he went home—that the injuries were seen and arrangements were made immediately for his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. As in all these cases a report on the incident and the practices concerned will be delivered in due course. 
Katherine Rich 
: Did the department regularly monitor the baby’s care since birth given that the department had already removed two siblings from that mother because of serious neglect and how many times did a social worker personally visit see the baby and view its care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For the first 6 weeks or so of the baby’s life he was in hospital because he was born prematurely. He was discharged home 8 days prior to his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. He had visitors from social workers on the first day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited on that day at a different time. She visited again as arranged with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services 3 days later to ensure that both the medical needs of the premature baby and the assessment of the risk factors for the mother were considered and the nurse reported to the department’s social worker that there appeared to be no difficulties in the parenting arrangements that were in place. The nurse then visited for a third time 8 days afterwards. The social worker was scheduled to visit later that day but in the intervening time the baby was admitted to hospital. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister advise what kinds of systems if any are in place for Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers to advise support and perhaps educate parents who have had their children removed into statutory care and prior to them having another baby or taking on the care of another child? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I frankly think that is an area in which we do not have enough strength in the department. Of course it is not the department’s primary responsibility to deliver such services itself but I believe that better engagement with other social service agencies that do provide parenting programmes and support is warranted. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that had the 26-year-old mother in this case had access to the full range of voluntary and community services that would have been provided through a family support coordinator as proposed by United Future’s proposal to reform the Department of Child Youth and Family Services then at least those voluntary agencies might have picked up on the risks to the 6-week-old when her department failed and these tragic events might have been avoided; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It does seem as though additional support was warranted. It is very difficult to assess the impact that additional support would have had if it had been provided but obviously any engagement with organisations that are providing parenting support education and advice is a good idea. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister rebut concerns that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has made a huge mistake in allowing this baby to be cared for by a mother who has already had two children removed due to serious neglect and that it should have removed the child under section 39 of the Act or at the very least kept the baby’s care under constant supervision over the 8 days it was in the mother’s care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On the information that I have to date—and obviously a fuller report will be coming to me eventually—it does appear as though all the risk factors were correctly assessed and the risk to this child was not considered such that his immediate removal from the family home was justified. 
Tyres—Disposal 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to protect the environment from the growing problem of discarded used tyres? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 New Zealanders get rid of 3 million to 4 million tyres a year. Often they end up in our rivers and gullies or in dangerous heaps in the countryside. The Motor Trade Association and I this morning launched Tyre Track to reduce the risk of old tyres being dumped illegally. This is a great example of the Government working in partnership with industry to keep our environment clean—no legislation no taxes and the problem on the way to being retired! 
David Parker 
: How is the Government helping to ensure that more old tyres are reused or recycled instead of just ending up in the landfill? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: A number of businesses are already turning old tyres into anything from playground mats to erosion control walls. Matta Products Ltd in Otaki is an excellent example. The Ministry for the Environment is working with recyclers and companies large and small to ensure a steady stream of tyres are reused or recycled instead of just being landfills. 
Mike Ward 
: What is the Minister proposing to address the issue of tyres being imported either new or used on cars or off cars and why has she opted for a voluntary scheme when dealers were asking for a mandatory scheme? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Over half a million used tyres are imported into New Zealand annually and many more come in on used vehicles. It is possible that these imports account for up to half our waste stream. Tyre Track will help to provide us with some statistics about this issue that can be used to determine a way forward with industry. It may be that they can all be reused. 
Prisoners—Rehabilitation Programmes 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What analysis has been done on the effectiveness of the Public Prison Service’s rehabilitation programmes on repeat offenders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Extensive analysis has provided ample evidence that treatment programmes provided by the Department of Corrections significantly reduce reoffending. For example studies of the department’s Kia Marama and Te Piriti sex offender programmes have consistently shown that those programmes halve the rate of reoffending in terms of sex offences against children. Programmes to reduce violent offending have been shown to reduce violent offending by approximately 17 percent over a 2-year period. Although of course not all repeat offenders will be rehabilitated these results show that the department’s rehabilitation programmes are helping to reduce reoffending. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister so convinced when official information from his department now shows that over one-third of all violent inmates are serving at least their third stretch in prison; and does that not convince him that the parole system is not working? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Not at all. The reality is that the repeat reoffending the member has mentioned has been around under Governments over many many years. What the department is doing now particularly with violent-offending programmes is actually reduce reoffending rates. I am confident that with more effort more reductions will occur. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister detail to the House what success the Department of Corrections is having in preventing offenders from recycling back into prisons? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Department of Corrections does good work in this area. The percentage of released inmates returning to prison within 2 years of release was over 37 percent in both 1999 and 2000 around the time that the member opposite was in Government but reduced to 34 percent in 2001. I am currently developing a coordinated reintegration programme that is designed to reduce even further the number of ex-prisoners returning to prison. 
Ron Mark 
: What does it say about prison rehabilitation that 60 percent of the new inmates entering prison this year have been there before; and in the light of the revelations now does the Minister now accept that his integrated offender management system is failing and it is time to implement New Zealand First’s legislation of “three strikes and you’re out”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In response to the second part of the question no. In response to the first part of course it is not just the prison or corrections system that is responsible for people returning; there is a much wider responsibility than that. The reality is that the programmes the member criticises have been quite effective in helping to reduce reoffending. I would hope the member would support those programmes rather than bagging them all the time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister guarantee to us that the three criminals referred to in the report recently released from the ministry who were returned to prison after more than 20 previous prison sentences were not out on parole at the times of their latest crimes; and how many second chances after 20 should a criminal get before the Government learns that it ought not trust him or her on parole again? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In answer to the first question I cannot guarantee that because I am not sure. In answer to the second question under the guidance of the Minister of Justice the length of time that people are serving in prisons has increased which is why I as the Minister of Corrections have had to find $600 million for four new prisons. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If rehabilitation and parole have not worked once twice three times or even 21 separate times when will the Government realise that these repeat offenders should not be getting parole which they are violating upon release? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The department does its best but the reality is that if that member wants to lock up everybody he will need a whole lot more prisons—presumably in the Eastern Bay of Plenty where the member lives. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a series of questions put to the Minister regarding an evaluation report of the integrated offender management system—a report that he is now refusing to make available to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Are those parliamentary written questions? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes they are parliamentary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those questions. Is there any objection? There is. 
Human Rights Act—Political Parties 
12.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does the Government have any plans to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to allow political parties to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or sexual orientation; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No there has been no call to date to amend the legislation in this respect. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the situation of Dipra Ray who was reportedly discriminated against in the selection of a youth MP on the grounds that he was Hindu and not Christian by a member of the United Future party; and what is her view of such discrimination? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as it relates to the Minister’s portfolio she may answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I am aware of the article. Any further action to be taken would be up to the person concerned through the Human Rights Commission. 
Darren Hughes 
: Could a potential candidate take a complaint against a political party to the Human Rights Commission because of non-selection based on either religious belief or sexual orientation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes he or she could. But it would depend on the particular details of the case. It must be pointed out that political parties are not explicitly covered in the Act except in relation to their employees or the provision of goods and services—just like any other organisation. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Government have any plans to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to accommodate the views of political parties such as the Green Party which debated at a conference several years ago whether our domestic pussy cats have rights; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So far as it relates to the Minister’s portfolio she may answer. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As a lover of cats I say that no there is no call to date to amend the legislation in this respect. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest that the desire to discriminate on the grounds of religion is associated with the desire to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preference; and is she concerned that some political parties may want to send New Zealand back to the 19th century when such discrimination was widely practised and tolerated? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The grounds that prohibit discrimination under the Human Rights Act do not in fact include political parties except in relation to employment. Any other matters or views relating to the actions described would be personal. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with 16-year-old Dipra Ray when he said: “You expect that in a country where you preach about equality and all that stuff that you will be able to at least practise it.”; and does she have any concerns about the state of human rights in New Zealand when an Auckland teenager seems to have a better grasp of human rights than some political parties? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: One can understand his intense disappointment after having assumed he was going to come as part of the Youth Parliament. Undoubtedly from this experience he will know that there is a Human Rights Act and that there is the possibility if that Act needs to be changed of a process through which that can happen. It will be a matter for this House to determine ultimately. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Marine-farming Space—Allocation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an announcement relating to the allocation of marine-farming space. The proposal in the Minister’s announcements is described as being part of the decision-making process requiring feedback from Maori before final policy decisions are made. In these circumstances it is not entirely clear that a particular case of recent occurrence has actually occurred. However in any case as the announcement makes clear once decisions are made they will be embodied in an aquaculture reform bill later this year. In these circumstances there is no need for an urgent debate on the subject today. The application is therefore declined. 
New Zealand Sign Language Bill 
First Reading 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on the Minister—and I thank all parties for their cooperation—I wonder whether members who are speaking could speak just a little more slowly than usual. I have allowed cameras to take some shots of this particular debate in process. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a matter of clarification. If members have to speak more slowly will the clock go a little more slowly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately no. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
This bill provides official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language the unique language of Deaf New Zealanders. New Zealand Sign Language is the natural visual and gestural language of over 7000 Deaf New Zealanders. I speak on behalf of the Deaf people of New Zealand to whom New Zealand Sign Language and deaf culture belong. We know that language and cultural issues are best represented by members of that culture and ideally this bill would be presented to the House by a deaf member of Parliament. But in the absence of a deaf member of Parliament I am honoured to do this. 
Deaf people make up a distinct and dynamic cultural group. New Zealand Sign Language is central to their culture. Deaf culture like all cultures brings together a rich body of distinct customs mannerisms art humour and history as well as language. I have attended many Deaf community events and am constantly impressed with their strong sense of community. 
New Zealand Sign Language is a real language. It has its own grammatical structure different from that of either English or Maori. Contrary to popular misconception it is not a collection of gestures or mime. It is like all other languages in that it can communicate a full range of concepts. Sign languages are not universal. This means that New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It is not used anywhere else in the world. It is also unique because it includes signs that express concepts from Maori culture. Deaf Maori describe New Zealand Sign Language as a tool for accessing their Maori language and culture. 
The introduction of this bill to the House is very timely. The New Zealand Deaf community has been seeking official recognition of its language for over 20 years. This moment would not be occurring without their advocacy and I commend them for their drive and persistence. Historically in New Zealand and around the world the use of sign language was actively prohibited. This was a result of longstanding misconceptions that sign languages were not real languages and were inferior to spoken languages. Today linguistic research confirms that sign language is a real language. Internationally a few countries have officially recognised their native sign languages. Most countries however have not yet achieved this. By passing this bill we will be setting an example of best practice. There has already been significant international interest in this bill. 
The New Zealand Sign Language Bill before the House today was built up from the Deaf community. A Deaf advisory group was established then under the advice of that group officials travelled to the main Deaf communities around New Zealand seeking their guidance. These consultation processes provided a wealth of information and clear directions for the bill. Consultation also highlighted why official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language is fundamental to ensuring the dignity of Deaf people. Deaf people report that they experience language barriers when accessing Government services. Consultation showed that Government agencies’ perceptions about the accessibility of their services were very different from the actual experiences of Deaf people. For example Deaf people report sometimes being unable to access interpreters in legal proceedings. In education some Deaf children are unable to access the curriculum via New Zealand Sign Language. Upon finishing school Deaf people are often unemployed or underemployed. Deaf women report difficulties in accessing sexual and reproductive health services. Many of these barriers reinforce each other in a cyclical manner. Poor access to New Zealand Sign Language early in life contributes to poor educational achievement. This in turn limits employment opportunities access to public information and services and participation in society. 
This bill clarifies the legal status of New Zealand Sign Language. As demonstrated by the consultation I referred to under the current law there are serious problems with its status. A gap in our laws means that Deaf people’s rights to use their language are not protected. They have the legal right to an interpreter in some situations but not in others. So this bill declares New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country. It has the further objectives of promoting and maintaining the language. Of course official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language will not affect the status of our other two languages English and Maori. It will not affect the rights of any other minorities in New Zealand. Many languages are spoken here and this bill is not intended to diminish the status of any of them. Those languages generally share a common feature: that is they are legally recognised in their home countries or countries of origin. Giving New Zealand Sign Language recognition in its home country will give it equal status with spoken languages. 
The bill provides the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings where a person’s first or preferred language is New Zealand Sign Language. It includes a general regulation-making power to provide for any matter that may be necessary for its administration. For example we may need to have regulations to prescribe competency standards for interpreters in legal proceedings. Work is now under way to ensure that standards of interpreter competence in legal proceedings can be implemented by the time the bill is passed. It does not impose any specific rights or obligations apart from the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings. 
The level of social exclusion experienced by Deaf people suggests a need to protect and enforce their linguistic rights in many different situations. So the bill sets out principles to guide Government agencies in how to give effect to the provisions in the bill. Those principles include that Government services and information should be made accessible to the Deaf community and that the Deaf community should be consulted on matters that affect their language. Progress reports will monitor the implementation of the bill’s principles. Rather than creating a new reporting mechanism we are using the existing mechanism of the New Zealand disability strategy. 
 The bill itself will assist in implementing the disability strategy. The vision of that strategy is of a society that highly values the lives of disabled people and continually enhances their full participation. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill will help remove barriers that prevent Deaf people from contributing to society. The disability strategy identified negative attitudes as the biggest barrier to participation. The bill will go some way in influencing the attitudes of society in recognising and valuing New Zealand Sign Language. We are committed to equal rights for disabled people including giving legal status to the language of Deaf people. 
This bill is a tremendous achievement for both the Deaf community and the New Zealand Government. However legislation alone is not enough to reduce the inequalities experienced by Deaf people. Deaf people report language barriers in every facet of their daily lives. They have highlighted four priority areas that need immediate and long-term improvements: education health employment and public broadcasting. One way that language barriers can be removed is to utilise the services of qualified sign language interpreters as we have in the House today. But I wish to stress that interpreters are not the whole solution. Public information is largely inaccessible to Deaf people as English is their second language. To make information more accessible we need to translate written information into plain English and use modern technology such as videoconferencing and signed video clips on the Internet and on television. 
In conclusion I reiterate that this bill is a monumental milestone for the Deaf community. This bill gives due honour and respect to Deaf people and their unique language and culture. By declaring New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of New Zealand we are acknowledging the Deaf community’s presence its rights and its equal value in New Zealand society. I commend this bill to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 The introduction of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill to Parliament is of huge significance to the Deaf community—a significance of such immense importance and meaning that those of us who have not shared in the experiences of the Deaf community can only guess at. New Zealand Sign Language is a language and it is unique to New Zealand and to the Deaf community of New Zealand. New Zealand Sign Language is the Deaf community’s most important tool for effective communication—effective communication for learning for building self-esteem for achievement and for social well-being. As people as a community and as a nation we all benefit from recognising understanding and supporting New Zealand Sign Language as being core to the culture of the Deaf community. I acknowledge the 20-year battle undertaken by the Deaf community including the Deaf Association of New Zealand in seeking official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language and I pay tribute to the dedication commitment and leadership of all those involved during that time. 
A number of New Zealanders like myself have had very little involvement with the Deaf community. Recent experiences have helped me to understand more and to appreciate the communication barriers that exist. Jennifer Brain the chief executive officer of the Deaf Association of New Zealand kindly loaned me a videotape that portrayed two young Deaf people being apprehended by the law. Being stopped by the police being taken to the police station and subsequently being processed was a clear example in the video of how a simple misunderstanding can have serious consequences and could have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. What understanding do we in this House have of such a situation? 
I ask members of the House to picture this situation. It is night-time. The car I am in is pulled over and my driver steps out. Being the passenger I am told to stay in the car but I do not because I am Deaf and cannot hear the instruction and because my first instinct is to make sure my driver is OK. I get out of the car and stand with my back to the policeman to look at my friend the driver who is also Deaf. I forget all about the policeman behind me who is now busy telling me to place my hands on the car and spread them. I am concentrating on what is happening to my friend. I cannot hear the policeman repeating his instructions so it is not me who is getting mad. When the policeman surprises me from behind by grabbing my shoulder and I accidentally hit him with a reflex protective action then boy I am in trouble. On go the handcuffs and we are bundled off to the police station. 
That situation could have led to a grave miscarriage of justice—so why did it not do so? A New Zealand Sign Language interpreter saved the day underscoring the necessity of ensuring that people have the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings including in the courts although those interpreters need to be highly proficient in New Zealand Sign Language. In the story I have just related the young man changed his interpreter. One of the reasons for that was the need for an interpreter with a greater degree of proficiency than the initial interpreter could provide. 
 One of the main provisions of the bill is that a presiding officer must ensure that a competent interpreter is available. 
Apart from the requirements of clauses 6 and 7 relating to legal proceedings the bill does not create any legal enforceable rights. The bill does have principles to guide Government departments which have been spoken about by the Hon Ruth Dyson. Those are firstly that the Deaf community should be consulted on matters that affect its language—including for example the promotion of the use of New Zealand Sign Language—secondly that Government departments should use New Zealand Sign Language in the promotion of their services and information to the public and thirdly that Government services and information should be accessible to Deaf people including being accessible through the use of New Zealand Sign Language. The bill also has provisions to authorise the making of regulations which include specifying the competency standards for persons acting as New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in legal proceedings. It is my understanding that any additional requirements for Government departments as a consequence of the enactment of this legislation must come from their existing departmental budgets. Although the general policy statement at the front of the bill recognises that provisions for the use of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters are inadequate no reference has been made to any funding required as a consequence of the bill’s enactment. 
It has been said elsewhere that the demand for interpreters will be fuelled by the passage of this bill. Access to services and interpreters by rural communities needs to be assured as too often rural communities miss out in favour of more populated areas especially if services are population-based. That is my plug for the rural sector. 
I have been talking to all sorts of people about this bill and was told by someone of a family whose members could all sign but of whom only the father was Deaf. Such was the proficiency of the family’s use of sign language that when the mother wanted to express her feelings to the daughter she felt able to do that more effectively by signing than by speaking. The power of signing as a language is clearly illustrated by that example where two people who are not Deaf prefer to converse using signing. 
We now all have an opportunity through the process of this bill to communicate with and to develop an understanding and appreciation of the Deaf community through the language of that community—New Zealand Sign Language. We look forward to that privilege. National supports the bill. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wish to begin by paying tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson for her stewardship of the disability issues portfolio. Ruth Dyson has committed 100 percent to delivering on all aspects of the Disability Strategy and the introduction of this bill is another promise fulfilled. The Minister has made it her mission to consult with the wide range of communities she is accountable to in order to ensure she has a very clear understanding of all the issues. Her understanding of and respect for New Zealand’s Deaf communities are evident today as she introduces this bill. However I can confirm that she is personally committed to Deaf communities beyond the introduction of this bill even to learning some signing herself which unfortunately she did not share with us today. 
That being said I cannot understate or overstate—depending on perspective—the significance of what is happening in this Parliament today. I was very pleased to hear that the National Party will support the introduction of this bill because of that importance. Essentially the Government is recognising that New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of New Zealand. It is a language in its own right and of equal status to spoken languages. I am glad the Minister has explained to the House that New Zealand Sign Language is unique and is not signed English. I can sign my name in signed English but the name I was given by the Deaf Society of Canterbury is unique to me; it means bright eyes. It was given to me in recognition of my light blue eyes and I thank the society for giving me that name in its language. 
I am pleased that the bill contains within it the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings. That is an important component of what is called access to justice. It is what we should all—all New Zealanders—be able to take for granted. I am sure that over time it will extend into other areas of Government service and delivery and out into the wider community. 
Everyone has inherent human rights—rights that this bill seeks to address. However it goes further beyond the human rights that we would see written in legislation. It really talks of the right of participation the sense of belonging that is important to each and every one of us and the ability to communicate with each other enabling us to build understanding across diverse cultures. Our Deaf communities have much to offer those of us who sometimes stand accused of listening without hearing. They have much to offer because their experience is different. This bill is an important component of the attitudinal change needed to bridge the divide that can limit people’s ability to participate fully in society. 
I close by also paying tribute to the Deaf Association of New Zealand and to all members of all Deaf communities throughout New Zealand. The 20-year battle for recognition of this real and equal language unique to New Zealand is almost over. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I shall look forward to receiving this bill for our scrutiny the hearing of submissions and its return to the House. I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the Minister once more. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will support the bill’s referral to the select committee because we believe it is an essential way of encouraging those New Zealanders most affected by this bill to take an active interest and to have their points of view heard and noted in the select committee. New Zealand First can appreciate that this bill promises to give New Zealand Sign Language official recognition and that it will acknowledge New Zealand Sign Language as a real language. This will represent a significant step forward for the Deaf community as sign language forms the basis of Deaf culture in New Zealand. 
As the Minister pointed out the immediate effect of this bill will be to provide people with the right to use sign language in any legal proceedings including the courts—and here there is an issue with resources. How many people are currently trained to ensure that this service can be provided? There is little point in giving sign language official recognition if we are setting up a system that cannot be adequately resourced for this very special group of New Zealanders. At this time New Zealand First can see a resource challenge that will hopefully be addressed at the select committee stage. We believe that there is currently a shortage of interpreters and financial resources to ensure that this need is met. Most of the current interpreters would currently be employed and no doubt have all the work they can handle. The demand for interpreters will be fuelled by this legislation in much the same way as occurred with the official recognition of the Maori language. It took some time for the demand to be met. 
In New Zealand First we were very pleased to read recently in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that a diploma in sign language interpreting has been designed to prepare interpreters for work in the Deaf and hearing communities. It is a 2-year programme that will be run at the Auckland University of Technology in central Auckland at the Deaf Association in Avondale. As far as I am aware this is the only course available specifically for sign language interpreting at this particular time. The successful completion of this programme must be a prerequisite for employment because the role of the interpreter is a very specialised one with responsibility for facilitating and being an essential part of the communication between the Deaf and the hearing people in society. 
Signing relies on a very accurate exchange of information often at a demanding rate with complex concepts or processes that need to be discussed. There is no way that the quality of the communication can be poor. We can list the accessing of university and tertiary education and indeed all educational institutions the court system the health system and there are so many more. This bill will give recognition to this special group of New Zealanders and in doing so will hopefully reduce barriers and improve the participation of the Deaf community in society. 
As many as one in five New Zealanders have been identified as having a permanent impairment or disability. It is a sad but well-known fact that many New Zealanders with impairments are excluded from fully participating in society. Ignorance prejudice and discrimination towards the Deaf and other disabled groups act as a major barrier at all levels. This has an insidious effect and reduces the quality of life of those affected. There is also a cumulative loss to society as a whole. Communication and access to information are key issues. All too often people are not able to participate fully in society because they cannot get the information they need in the form they need it. The Deaf community should be fully equipped with the resources necessary to enable its members to fully participate within their communities and the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is a positive step in this direction. 
The Deaf community has its own identity. It faces unique challenges that require a special method of communication and learning. Acknowledgment of each person’s unique identity lies at the heart of a fully inclusive society. As a group Deaf people are likely to have lower incomes and fewer financial and family resources than the general population. This economic disadvantage is further compounded by the financial cost of disability. The earning potential of families with disabled children can be curtailed by their need to provide support for their children or live and work in areas where they can access family or professional support. This can be improved by providing essential support networks and employment opportunities for the Deaf within their communities. 
For most people the opportunity to work is a fundamental part of their lives. Deaf people face significant barriers in getting and keeping jobs. A Deaf person is several times more likely to be unemployed than a hearing person. Accessible training courses and tertiary study should be made available through special aids equipment and sign language to ensure that Deaf people have the best employment opportunities. The Government says that further developments will proceed gradually and that Cabinet has also agreed to look at ways to improve access to New Zealand Sign Language in education health employment and public broadcasting as well as for Maori Deaf. I hope that the Government continues its commitment to working with the Deaf community through consultation and cooperation as to how best to proceed. 
I say in conclusion that New Zealand First supports this bill—with a cautionary note to the Government to take progressive steps to ensure that Deaf people do not need to wait a further 20 years before the next step towards progress is made. There are many resource challenges inherent in this legislation that must be met. New Zealand First congratulates the Deaf Association and the Deaf community on all the work they have done to ensure that this legislation has reached Parliament. We will be watching the progress of this bill through the select committee process with interest. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I should like to congratulate the Labour Government and the New Zealand Deaf community on the introduction of this bill. It has been a long time coming and I am sure there will be some celebrations tonight—and even more when the bill finally passes later this year. I would like to assure everyone who has had a role in supporting and drafting this legislation that the Green Party heartily endorses it and will be voting for the bill at every stage of its process through the select committee and the House taking into account of course any necessary amendments that might arise from closer consideration of the detail. 
The New Zealand Sign Language Bill before the House this afternoon is aimed at providing formal legal recognition of New Zealand Sign Language for the first time and marks a significant step forward in the history of how our society treats Deaf people and their culture and history. 
In Aotearoa New Zealand as in other parts of the world there has been a long and difficult struggle in terms of getting sign language understood for what it is—a real and living language that is part of a culture and that has as much depth and validity as anyone else’s. As one of those who come from the majority culture with little prior knowledge of sign language and the history it embodies I have to acknowledge our own shameful history as a nation in which the use of sign language actually used to be prohibited in New Zealand and in which for many years Deaf children were condemned to inadequate and often inappropriate teaching and learning in speaking and lip-reading rather than using their own language. 
In our country as in others overseas the hearing society discouraged generations of Deaf people from using sign language in the misguided belief that the only way they could and should survive was by using English. This led to low literacy levels multilevel misunderstandings between Deaf and hearing people and a cycle of oppression and disenfranchisement that is still with us today. 
As the Deaf community has tried to tell the rest of us over and over again sign language is a language that is just as real as Maori English or any other spoken language around the world. Just as there is a gap in understanding and cultural awareness between people who cannot comprehend or speak each other’s oral language the same thing happens when our majority culture is unable to understand or communicate sign. When that incomprehension and inability on our part is added to the patronising attitudes that have so often characterised majority society’s approach to people who are Deaf it adds up to a situation in which a substantial minority of people are scorned derided and denied the major tool that might allow them to achieve and maintain a sense of identity and pride. As one person said: “Stop wanting to cure us. Accept us as we are. Deafness is part of our identity.” Sign language encapsulates and expresses that identity and I cannot comprehend how those of us who are not Deaf have dared to deny those who are Deaf the right to full use of their own language. 
Sign language is the native language of many Deaf people and often of their close family members and teachers too. Sign language not only helps define the Deaf community it also allows the community’s members better access to all other parts of education and training including the ability to learn other languages and skills. Beyond that Deaf people in our country have also had and continue to have a really hard time within the justice and medical systems—places where an inability to communicate clearly and well can ultimately have even life-threatening consequences. 
It is great that we finally have a party in Government that is committed to recognising New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of our country. It is a pity it has taken Labour this long since the 1999 election to get this bill to the House but at least it is happening now. It is also good that the Government took the time to carry out a consultation process in 2003 in an effort to get the thoughts and feelings of the Deaf community on priorities for the bill. 
I guess my main concern now is that the bill does not go far enough but at least it is a beginning. Not only will New Zealand Sign Language become an officially recognised language with the ability for people to use it in all court proceedings but the bill also lays the way open for the setting of competency standards and principles to guide Government departments on the use they should make of New Zealand Sign Language. 
I am very interested in what the next steps will be after this bill particularly in areas like public broadcasting education and health. A lot more needs to be done to ensure that all Deaf people gain the ability to participate fully in our society. I hope that the passage of the bill later this year will pave the way for much greater recognition of and financial support for the provision of New Zealand Sign Language training for Deaf children for Deaf adults who are eager to study New Zealand Sign Language academically for Deaf people who want to learn it for the first time and for teachers and other professionals who work with Deaf children and adults. I also hope that the mass media will become more responsible in the provision of translation and captioning so that Deaf adults and children can enjoy and benefit from a much wider range of movies and television programmes and that the profession of sign language interpreting becomes recognised supported and resourced to a greater degree than at present. I also look forward to the day that we see the first MP in this House from the Deaf community who is able to represent his or her sector to the rest of us in New Zealand Sign Language with the same linguistic ease as speakers of Maori and English. 
In conclusion once again I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. We acknowledge that it could go a lot further and that it will take more than a simple Act of Parliament to bring about all the changes that are needed but at least we are on the road to achieving official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language by 1 January 2005 and this is indeed something worthy of celebration. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is as if by some chance of fate that I have just lost battery power to one ear. I thought it would be appropriate to remove both of my hearing aids for the purpose of this speech. It would seem that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is designed to give Deaf New Zealanders the right to an officially recognised and unique language for a grouping of unique New Zealanders. The bill is designed to give legal status to communication between Deaf people and between Deaf and hearing people. Deaf people need to have legally recognised that most fundamental requirement of human beings—that is the ability to communicate with each other. There is no greater inherent need than to interact with our fellow beings. Throughout the animal kingdom there is a common thread that we all share. To be shut off from our world by an inability to relate to one another must be the ultimate form of loneliness. To be able to express fully to others the joys and sorrows we feel from time to time is the thing that truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. 
The right and the need to express real emotion opinion thoughts disapproval love and indeed hate by language is to me the most essential part of my being. The language of the Deaf is every bit as real as the words spoken and received by those of us who are blessed with hearing. It is right and proper that those who share this special way of communicating should be officially recognised along with their language and I thank the Government and the Minister for that. But I ask: what of the unintended consequence of this bill? For example will the bill require all workplaces—as indeed Parliament—in future to have a sign language exponent? If so what impact will that have on business already struggling under the cost of compliance? Is this bill just another politically correct example of the Government wanting to ingratiate itself with sector groups? Hopefully the select committee will answer those questions. 
I do not presume to understand what it must be like to live in a silent world although I do have a very real hearing loss. Apparently I have been deaf since birth and have exacerbated the problem with the use of tractors and chainsaws but I do have some small understanding of the problems that the Deaf face on a daily basis. I used to joke: “How do I know what I think unless I hear what I say?”. Members should think about that for a moment. As a child I recall constantly asking the kid sitting next to me in school what the teacher was saying and what word was that. The kids would get sick of answering my question and I would get sick of asking so I switched off. My report cards used to state constantly: “Doesn’t pay attention in class. Could try harder.” Often I would be caned for distracting the class or fooling around because my world was often one of blurred sounds—as it is today. I would be accused of selective hearing as some words and sounds are of course much easier to understand than others. I have been ridiculed in this very Chamber because I did not hear the Speaker call me. I miss so much of the repartee that occurs in this debating chamber. However all of these small things pale into insignificance alongside those who can communicate only by sign language. To deny the Deaf the right to be officially heard through sign language is simply wrong. 
But I am not sure that we need to pass a bill into statute. Do we? I am not sure. Deaf people are often thought of as being slow—especially when I was quite young—but of course nothing can be further from the truth. But they do face major hurdles in life. I am told for example that more Deaf people commit suicide and end their life than other people who have physical impairments. The reason for that must surely be the frustration at not being able to communicate well with their fellow human beings. I am not at all sure that giving official recognition to sign language will change the public’s attitude to those with handicaps such as deafness. 
It seems to me that in New Zealand we are inclined to help those who choose not to help themselves and ignore the plight of those in genuine need. In my view the blind the Deaf or those who are handicapped in a physical or mental way should be at the top of the list of those seeking Government assistance. They should not have to raise money through appeals and raffles to ensure a reasonable quality of life. 
Let us hope that this bill is the start of a new awareness of the needs of our Deaf community. ACT will support it to the select committee with some reservations as to the unintended consequences of this well-meaning bill. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in the first reading debate of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill a bill that directly affects the lives of 28000 New Zealanders who use this language and facilitates for them communication and participation in the daily rigours of life. Eight percent of the adult population in New Zealand is affected by some level of hearing impairment making it the third most common disability amongst adults. Most of us take for granted our good hearing and the ease with which we can access the benefits of information services employment recreation education and even the most basic human rights unhindered. 
The Deaf community and the Deaf Association of New Zealand have been seeking official recognition for their language for 20 years. The fundamental aim of the disability strategy is to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating fully in society. It is fitting that this House officially recognise this language and that we congratulate those who have worked hard to assemble the first New Zealand Sign Language dictionary. In addition to a huge group of dedicated contributors and advisers I particularly wish to commend the editorial team who have made huge efforts to see this work come to fruition—general editor Graeme Kennedy; consulting editors David and Rachel McKee; graphic artist Shaun Fahey; technical editor David Moskovitz; and compilation editors Pat Dugdale and Richard Arnold who is the nephew of my United Future colleague Gordon Copeland. 
Why does this House need to officially recognise this language? To begin with whenever society mandates the participation of its citizens in some aspect of our life together—like attendance in court proceedings—we must make that participation equitable for everyone. To date court appearances have been at times a nightmare for the hearing impaired. It has not been uncommon for folk to be denied interpreters and there have been cases where disorderly conduct charges have been laid because the use of New Zealand Sign Language was misinterpreted as some sort of aggressive behaviour. 
One of the most exciting aspects about the fact that we have a distinctly New Zealand Sign Language is that it dovetails beautifully into the existing official Maori and English spoken languages. It has been developed so that it includes signs that express concepts from Maori culture and increases the likelihood of people being able to use New Zealand Sign Language at hui marae events and tangi. It has been tailor-made to express clearly many aspects of Kiwi mannerisms including our Kiwi sense of humour. There are many misconceptions about sign language that hopefully over time we will see disappear as its use becomes better integrated into every aspect of community life. 
Sign languages are not universal nor is Braille the universal written language of the blind. Braille is merely a coded version of the English language. Sign languages must of necessity relate directly to the language or languages spoken in the community. Sign languages are not sophisticated charades or mimes but are detailed visual languages capable of communicating a wide range of ideas and serving a wide range of purposes. 
United Future is very happy to support the first reading of this bill and looks forward to the select committee process and in particular to the addressing of the ongoing implications for the funding—and other resource issues—that will be required if this is to be seriously implemented. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to support this very important New Zealand Sign Language Bill on behalf of the National Party. Like other members I find the genesis and history of this bill both concerning and fascinating but definitely inspiring. I want to pay tribute to members of the Deaf Association of New Zealand who over many years have worked extremely hard to overcome the many obstacles and hurdles that have confronted them. Today we celebrate their success. 
I remember very vividly as a child living with my 90-year-old grandmother for a further 9 years until she was 99. She was profoundly deaf and we literally used to have to get very close to her and make extremely loud noises in her ear. At times that could be frustrating both for my grandmother and for us. However the point of saying this is that in the 1960s our household had no concept of using sign language. That clearly was an omission by us but perhaps it was also a reflection of the times and just what obstacles Deaf people had to confront and overcome. 
I want to spend a few moments going over some of the long history of obstacles that Deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s. I noted the history from the notes that were provided by the Deaf Association of New Zealand. Apparently British sign language was introduced to New Zealand back in the 1980s by Deaf migrants pupils attending Deaf schools and tutors working in New Zealand. But how difficult it must have been—if one were living in isolation out on farms or perhaps out even on a whaling station as my forebears were—for a Deaf child to have access to these facilities. 
But in 1878 William Rolleston one of the South Island MPs introduced a bill to fund an institution for the Deaf. The Government however decided on oral education only. There was no acceptance at that stage of sign language but a few years later Gerrit van Asch an expert on oral education came to New Zealand to open a school for the Deaf in Sumner. What was concerning was that only 14 students enrolled at Sumner as no signing students were accepted at the time. 
By the 1880s school-leavers from Sumner and overseas formed Deaf communities. School signs and British Sign Language combined to form the New Zealand Sign Language which has since evolved as a sign language absolutely unique to New Zealand and one with the characteristics appropriate and sensitive to the various cultures of our country. In 1904 an Act of Parliament meant parents had to enrol their children at Sumner but signing was forbidden. However children signed in dormitories and developed their own signs. Some staff were former pupils and probably introduced some of the signing as well. So it is from those early beginnings that I understand that the New Zealand Sign Language has evolved and developed. 
But in 1983 the Deaf Association of New Zealand was persuaded by its hearing president to accept Signed English as the official sign language—in the belief that anything else would prevent Deaf children from having any kind of access to manual communication. From there work carried on so that by 1992 a New Zealand Sign Language dictionary had started at Victoria University and in the latter part of that year the New Zealand Sign Language Tutors’ Association was started up. In 1998 the  
Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language 
 was published—a milestone. 
I understand that sign language itself is a visual gestural language used by Deaf people and I believe it is a great honour and privilege to see this happening as we speak today. It is a unique experience for me as a parliamentarian and I feel extremely humbled to be part of the process that has brought this legislation into the House today. I note that sign languages differ from country to country just as spoken languages do. The International Sign Language is Gestuno which is used at international conferences and meetings and the European Union recognises sign language as an official language. 
I will be very interested how the select committee deals with the ability of the New Zealand Sign Language to be consistent with—and hopefully absolutely in line with—the International Sign Language so that New Zealanders who are familiar with the New Zealand Sign Language have no difficulty with the universal sign language which is clearly acceptable throughout the world. I also understand that the New Zealand Sign Language is unique in that it includes signs that express concepts from Maori culture. 
As an obstetrician I have been incredibly mindful of the fact that hearing disabilities from birth can profoundly disadvantage people affecting them both in terms of their ability to gain school qualifications and to achieve gainful employment. It was obvious to me in the 1970s and 1980s that many children in New Zealand were missing out on appropriate access to doctors and modern ear surgery and became profoundly deaf at an early age. They had difficulty in school they often did not gain qualifications they could not get jobs and an even worse scenario was that some turned to crime. Even worse they got caught because they could not hear the policeman coming! This was backed up by a study taken of the Mount Eden Prison muster in 1980 where something like 90 percent had some form of hearing defect and many had profound deafness. 
I end by just pointing out that we in the National Party are hugely mindful of the milestone that has been achieved by this legislation today and we support it. I pay tribute to the Deaf Association of New Zealand for having overcome all of those obstacles and hurdles that have bedevilled many people with hearing disabilities over the last 120 years. Today indeed is a landmark day and I wish to celebrate it with those from the Deaf Association who are here in the Parliament today with the passing of this New Zealand Sign Language Bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theJustice and Electoral Committee. 
Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance. 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Supplementary Estimates 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a second time 
. I want to make some comments and range over a number of issues relating to these bills. 
First of all I will deal with the broad economic situation. New Zealand grew by 3.5 percent in 2003 making us one of the fastest-growing nations in the OECD. Near-term strength and growth are still present but growth has passed its peak. However slowing net migration slower employment growth and the lag effect of a high exchange rate are expected to slow growth to 2.8 percent in the year ending March 2005 and to 2.5 percent in the year ending March 2006 but a rebound is expected from the year ending March 2007 due to a lower exchange rate and continuing global growth. Unemployment is forecast to remain under 5 percent for the next 4 years—a fabulous effort—inflation is forecast to peak at 2.6 percent before falling to 2 percent by 2008 and wage growth averages are expected to be 3.8 percent per year over the period. 
In the fiscal area gross debt is our fiscal anchor. It influences our spending decisions. We are committed to managing gross debt at prudent levels; we expect it slowly to reduce over the longer term and to pass through 20 percent of gross domestic product before 2015. We are on track to do this. Our Budget allocations have been significant this year at over $2 billion per year. New spending will be lower in future Budgets at about $1.8 billion. This will enable us to continue to meet our fiscal goals. Net debt including New Zealand Superannuation Fund assets falls to zero by 2007-08 and we continue to run an operating surplus in line with our fiscal goals. Our forecast surpluses largely finance our capital-spending programme including the Superannuation Fund Reserve Bank reserves 
and 
advances and other new capital spending. This means that the Government has to borrow only a relatively small amount of $808 million in 2004-05. 
As far as the Budget package is concerned it has of course been well received all around the country. Working for Families which was the key Budget announcement has three main aims. The first is to make work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work and are rewarded for their work effort; the second is to ensure income adequacy with a focus on low to middle income families with dependent children; and the third is to ensure that people get the assistance they should to support them into and to remain in work. We expect to see the following from the Working for Families packages: we expect to see nearly 300000 households assisted by April 2007; we expect over 60 percent of families with children will receive increases in family income assistance by 2007; we expect average increases to be around $66 per week; and we expect families in the lower income range of $25000 to $45000 will gain almost $100 per week on average. No wonder this Budget has been well received around the country! 
Spending on economic development tourism research and trade promotion has increased by over 25 percent since the Government took office. This year we are investing a total of over $1.21 billion in these areas including new funding in this Budget of $181 million. We have also made significant investments in other growth-related areas such as education—for example Modern Apprenticeships—and revenue with for example compliance cost reduction. Close to $900 million extra funding in 2004-05 in our key social-spending areas in addition to Working for Families includes $306 million for health $480 million for education and $91 million for housing. There is significant new capability funding over the next 4 years for a number of agencies. 
In-year decisions picked up in the supplementary estimates are of particular note in the bill and they include $260 million for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services $146 million for the Department of Corrections—which is close to my heart—$144 million for the Defence Force $76 million for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and $28 million for the Customs Service. The strong public services funding which includes capability funding and strong social services funding includes $443 million in the supplementary estimates for operating funding in 2003-04. The supplementary estimates also include $186 million additional capital funding in the 2003-04 year of which $101 million is assistance to business mostly arising from the rail decisions and $148 million is to strengthen public services—$55 million for the justice sector being the largest single component. 
As far as the Imprest Supply Bill is concerned supply is sought for 2 months—one-sixth of the total appropriations contained in the main estimates. This is the usual amount sought in the first Imprest Supply Bill. 
I commend the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill and the Appropriations (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill to the House. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Was that not a revealing speech from the Hon Paul Swain who was filling in for one of the finance Ministers who was obviously unable to take his call? Was it not a revealing speech when he told the House that growth was past its peak? It did not take Paul Swain to tell the House that growth was past its peak; when the Budget was released Treasury told everyone that that was exactly the situation. Over the last decade growth in New Zealand has been about 3.5 percent but lo and behold what do we see in the Budget documents and tied up in the imprest supply debate today? We see a projection that the growth rate will fall and fall rapidly over the next 10 years—fall and fall rapidly. 
What a disgrace for a Government whose members have gone up and down the country to tell the people of New Zealand that its No. 1 priority is growth! That is what the Prime Minister said in her speech early at the start of this year. That is what the Minister of Finance has been telling people every time he has an opportunity to give a speech—that growth is the No. 1 objective of this Government. Well that is not the case because we know that we are not allowed to talk any more about this country going back into the top half of the OECD. When the Minister of Finance came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee just last week I put to him that very question—when would New Zealand go back into the top half of the OECD. He sat there looked at me with that typical “deer caught in the headlights” look that a Minister gets when he has completely lost control of his ministry and said: “Not any time quickly.” That is when we will go back into the top half of the OECD under this Government—“Not any time quickly.”! 
Hon David Carter 
: Why doesn’t he make it 2011? 
JOHN KEY 
: The date of 2011 is a date well and truly forgotten. This is my prediction: talking about our getting back into the top half of the OECD is about as popular in the Labour Cabinet as closing the gaps is. That is right—it has gone. One is not allowed to talk about it any more. It is another one on the banished list of failed objectives from a failed Government. 
After the Minister of Finance had come down and woefully delivered the Budget of 2004—and that is another point I would like to pick the Minister up on—he said it was well received. If communism by stealth is well received then I suppose it was well received. But it was not well received by the four out of five New Zealanders who got absolutely zilch. Four out of five New Zealanders are out there today as I speak in the House working their guts out to produce a better New Zealand and a better country and those four out of five New Zealanders got the doughnut from Michael Cullen. For four out of five New Zealanders the message was: “We’ll take your tax dollars; you keep working hard for us but there’s absolutely nothing zilch zero doughnuts for you in this Budget. Carry on working; we’ll carry on overtaxing you but there’s nothing for you in this Budget.” 
Why are they feeling the pinch? Well for very very good reason. This Government loves taxing the hard-working productive sector of New Zealand. It loves taking extra dollars off those people at every opportunity it can. It has had plenty of opportunities. This year alone hard-working New Zealanders will pay $500 million more; the impact of their moving up into different— 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s $2600 per household! 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes $2600 per household extra but $500 million more from the impact of fiscal drag or bracket creep—$500 million! Yet there is not a dollar for four out of five hard-working New Zealanders in this country. A billion dollars more will be paid due to changes in the tax rates and a lot of that is due to the change in the top tax rate. 
Hon David Carter 
: It is “envy tax”! 
JOHN KEY 
: Does the country need it? Does the Minister of Finance need it? Oh let me just remind myself that this Minister of Finance has had the largest Budget surplus in New Zealand’s history yet he somehow still seems to think he needs to have the “envy tax”. Any Minister of Finance can produce the largest Budget surplus in New Zealand’s history if he or she wants to overtax. It is very hard to go to the Inland Revenue Department and say: “Look I’m a bit offended by Michael Cullen taking an extra $2600 off me so what I’m going to do—and I hope you don’t mind—is this year I’m not going to pay it.” Unfortunately that does not work very well because a whole load of laws passed by Parliament mean that any Minister of Finance can get the largest Budget surplus in history if that is what the Minister wants. 
I now want to turn to the Working for Families package for just one moment. What a disgraceful display that was! Labour’s re-election plan was rolled out with a $21 million fanfare. I see that a number of the Ministers opposite me are now smiling and smirking. They know in their heart of hearts that it is nothing more than a blatant re-election plan. They are spending 10 times more than National ever spent on trying to promote a Budget. 
Hon David Carter 
: Coca-Cola spends less than that. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes Coca-Cola spends way less than that. To trumpet its Budget the Government will spend $21 million on propaganda that will be shoved into mailboxes and at the bottom of that propaganda it will say “Vote Labour”. That is what it is really saying. That $21 million worth of propaganda will be paid for by the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand. Four out of five taxpayers get zilch doughnuts from the Budget but they have to pay for that $21 million. 
Those people who do get something face a very interesting dilemma because if they have two children and they earn $38000 or $60000 the difference in their after-tax income is virtually next to nothing. It is one size fits all under the prescription of the Labour Government of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark. It does not matter whether people work harder work longer retrain for another job have more responsibility get up earlier in the morning or really try hard to produce more for their country; it does not matter what people do because they will get the same. Well the same thing was tried in Eastern Europe and it was an absolute disaster. It was tried in China and it was a disaster. It was tried in a number of communist and socialist countries around the world and it was a disaster. And now the Government is trying it in New Zealand. My confident prediction is that it will be a complete and utter failure like this Government has been. 
We have a growth rate that is on the way down which is absolutely despicable. It was a sad Budget that this Government delivered. It was a sad day for the productive sector of New Zealand and it is sad that the people of New Zealand have to pay $21 million to see this drivel rolled out through their letterboxes. It is not good. 
I want to speak for a moment about one of the elements of the Budget—that is the increase in capital expenditure for prisons. What is very interesting is that it shows that the capital expenditure to build four new prisons is about $600 million. This is a Government whose only action in the commercial sector in recent times has been to close the only private prison operating in New Zealand—Auckland Central Remand Prison. Why is that? What possible reason could there be for the Government to close that prison? Well I will tell the House the reason for it. It is because that private prison works in practice but just does not work in theory! That is the problem. It works in practice. It is 15 percent more efficient the rehabilitation rates are better the security is better the people of New Zealand want it the people of New Zealand like it but it does not fit the ideology of this Labour Government so it is gone. And the Government will build four more prisons at a cost of 15 percent more. That is why it is building a prison at Meremere at a cost of $350000 a bed. It is a disgraceful waste of Government spending. 
A few weeks ago there was a very interesting article on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
that showed just how bloated the State sector has become. The Minister of State Services the Hon Trevor Mallard was very offended that it showed just how large the State sector is getting. What do we see in the Budget? We see a $1.2 billion increase in spending for personnel expenses over the next 4 years. This is a Government that has added about an extra 40000 employees if we look at the widest definition of State sector or an extra 19000 if we look at a pretty narrow definition. It has cost about $800 million so far and we are seeing a $1.2 billion build-up in spending. This is a Government that loves taxing the people of New Zealand. It loves spending other people’s money. It is a Government that loves asking hard-working families and other New Zealanders to tighten their belts but when it comes to tightening its own belt it does not know where the buckle is it does not know where the end of the strap is and it does not know how to tighten its belt—it just wants to spend more money. 
We see it in the health sector all the time. The health ministry is clearly getting out of control as well. We see billions of dollars more of Government money being spent on health but lo and behold the number of operations is going down. We saw the Minister of Finance write to the Minister of Health Annette King saying: “Can you explain to me why we are spending billions of dollars more and there are fewer operations?”. Annette King looks me in the eye and gives me that blank “deer caught in the headlights” look as if to say: “I don’t know. I’ve got to go back to my office and check it out. I just do not know why that is the case Mr Key.” 
This was not a well-received Budget. It was not a great day in New Zealand’s history. It was a very poorly received Budget indeed. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This was not a very good Budget at all because it failed to address one of the major problems facing New Zealand today and that is the way in which our police force is being treated not only by this Government but also by some offenders around the country. New Zealand First has made it clear that we must improve the law and order system and in particular in so far as the size of the police force is concerned we have made it clear that the police force must be doubled in size. Our law and order policies are tough but they are fair and they are non-restrictive for law-abiding citizens. We have made it clear that our police force will have the front-line police numbers power and resources to create safer communities. We will double their numbers. 
What is the Labour Government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. We have made it clear that parole should be earned not presumed after one-third of a sentence has been served as stated in the law at the moment. Parole would not be treated as a right as it is today under this Labour Government. We have made it clear that there should be a rehabilitation board and that people should not be able to get parole and home detention and suchlike as a right as suggested by this minority Labour Government supported by United Future in their soft law and order policies. 
We have made it clear that we will give local police and community groups greater power and ability to deal with local problems. We will introduce new measures designed to prevent crime at its source and we will aim to eliminate the reasons young people enter into a life of crime. 
In so far as the treatment of police officers is concerned—and the standard of public behaviour to the police is going down and down and down; it is no wonder the police are having so many problems themselves—we in New Zealand First will instigate a regime of zero tolerance of abuse and crimes against police officers in the discharge of their duties. If people want to abuse the police and to behave intolerantly and assault the police there will be zero tolerance. Those people will be dealt with severely. We will not give in in the way that this minority Labour Government supported by United Future is doing. 
We have heard time and time again about recidivist offending—people who commit an offence go to jail come out commit another offence and do so again and again and again. New Zealand First has made it clear in its policy that for those types of people it is three strikes and they are out. This will mean that offenders who have been convicted of three crimes for which they have been sentenced to any period of community service or incarceration in a prison or corrections centre will be required to serve a minimum period of 10 years in prison irrespective of the nature of their crime. That is our policy. That is a tough law and order policy. 
One of the problems with people who commit small crimes here and there is that they think: “Ah well it’s only a small crime. I know what the judge is like. I might get 6 months. I’ll take the risk.” They commit the offence get caught finally—usually about the 21st time they have committed the offence—get charged with 21 offences get 6 months’ imprisonment serve about 2 to 3 months get out and they do exactly the same thing once more. Those people are a darned nuisance. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Flog them! 
DAIL JONES 
: The Green member wants to flog them. He keeps saying “Flog them!”. That may be what the Green Party wants to do but no we will go better than that we will just lock them up. [ 
Interruption 
] Was it the ACT party saying that we should flog them? 
Stephen Franks 
: Well we’ll think about it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Someone over there was saying that we should flog them and I thought it was coming from the Green member. If it was not him— 
Stephen Franks 
: It was the Green member. 
DAIL JONES 
: Right we know that is the Greens’ policy—to flog them. It is the new Green policy announced today by New Zealand First. We say “Three strikes and you are out.” These people have to be locked up because they are a nuisance. All the police time is often spent on catching and trying to catch minor offenders again and again. They know they will be dealt with leniently. They are absolutely certain about it because the judges are lenient—they cannot help themselves. The judiciary is made up of decent people and they find it very very hard amongst themselves or in themselves to lock these people up for the length of time they deserve. New Zealand First will do something about it. 
What it will mean of course is that once these people are locked away and out of the way the police can deal with real crimes. They can catch the murderers and rapists and do something about violent crime in the home for example instead of the way those crimes run rampant at the present time. 
New Zealand First will increase the use of mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders with no automatic rights to sentence reduction. I am sitting on the Care of Children Bill at the moment and we are trying to grapple with the problems of women who get beaten up by their husbands and who never actually complain to police because they often find the police cannot do anything about it. We have to create a situation where in order to make the home safe for children if the wife is beaten up and the children are in danger of being beaten up then those men know they will be caught and dealt with and that the police have the time and the resources to do something about it rather than chasing around time and time again for those people who constantly convert cars and commit what is called minor theft but really create a lot of problems in an average police officer’s day. 
As far as the Parole Board is concerned—and really that is something of a joke—as we said in the third reading of the Parole Board Bill when we voted against it on 1 May 2002 we should have a rehabilitation board with the primary objective of minimising recidivism. We are determined to cut back on people committing repeat offences. There should be a rehabilitation board. The Parole Board should not be just for people to come along and say: “Look I have been nice for the last year or two in prison where everyone has been keeping an eye on me. Please let me go home now or put a bracelet on me and I’ll be a good chap.” If one agrees with that what happens? Offenders are out on the streets committing offences again. 
The rights of the victims do not end once a sentence has been passed. We will ensure that victims of crime will be given a permanent representative on the rehabilitation board. Families of victims will have mandatory rights to full information on rehabilitation hearings and to appear in person to have an advocate or to make written submissions. Something further has to be done about law and order and New Zealand First is determined to make sure it happens. 
Recently with regard to the Parole Board we had Dr David Chaplow acting as an adviser. I understand that for a while he was a member of the Parole Board but when he ceased to be a member he still continued to give advice to members of the board about what they should do with the people in front of them. That is clearly a breach of the law. I put down some written questions to the Minister of Corrections about the situation expecting him to get cracking and do something about it. But he said “The board is a statutory body and I understand that it is considering its options in conjunction with the appropriate Crown agencies (Ministry of Justice and Crown Law)”. That is it. 
Here we have a person who I understand has been involved in about 160 parole decisions by advising the Parole Board totally illegally to come to certain decisions. What is done to him or that board? Nothing. All of the members of that board should be sacked. They should not have allowed that situation to arise. The Minister if he had any sense at all would have sacked the board and put on it people who understood their full responsibilities—including the judges who were members of that board. 
Stephen Franks 
: Was he actually flogged? 
DAIL JONES 
: No no flogging as yet. I will leave that to the Greens. 
New Zealand First at the last election asked the people: “What about those promises that Labour is not telling you about?”. For example on Labour’s “debit card” we said Labour would legalise prostitution and soliciting. It has legalised prostitution and soliciting. We said it would legislate for gay marriages and gay adoptions—it is legislating now for gay marriages. We said Labour would raise further taxes on cigarettes alcohol and petrol—it has clearly raised taxes on alcohol to try to combat the dreadful situation amongst the aged in our community who go on the binge on sherry and port! Labour has legislated to try and cut down on those people’s misbehaviour when they are on sherry and port. We said that would happen we warned the people and it has happened. 
We said Labour would continue to bring in 53000 immigrants per year. Fortunately the Labour Party has finally taken the advice of New Zealand First and taken some action and the level of immigration is coming down. That has been a clear success for New Zealand First’s policies. 
We are seeing the sad situation now where the Civil Union Bill is being introduced which will be another nail in the coffin for family life. I will be opposing the Civil Union Bill and I will also be opposing the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which constantly refers to civil union. I cannot see how anybody who opposes the Civil Union Bill could possibly support the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The legislation virtually runs together. I understand that the United Future leader Peter Dunne has said he will oppose the Civil Union Bill but support the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. 
Marc Alexander 
: That’s not true. 
DAIL JONES 
: Last night on television I heard Peter Dunne say he would oppose the Civil Union Bill and support this one. Now a member of his party says that is not true. What is happening to United Future? It is in total disarray. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 A large part of the expenditure in the supplementary estimates is still paying for the mistakes of the past. I will talk particularly about electricity and transport. We can see here the effects of National’s electricity deconstruction where we ended up over the last few years with nobody regulating the electricity industry—the only country in the world that had tried to deregulate the electricity industry put in place a market and put no regulator in control. For some years we have also had nobody responsible for ensuring security of supply which is a particular problem in a hydro-based system when we have dry winters. We all know the effects of that after having two winters in three when the rain did not come and we had inadequate capacity. 
We have had a 2-year experiment under this Government with industry self-regulation and it has finally been admitted that it has failed. The Electricity Commission has been put in place as a regulator and $20 million of the supplementary estimates is to cover the cost of that. We welcome the appointment of the commission. We would have liked to see it 2 years earlier but we welcome it as better late than never. We hope the commission will now move to put in place electricity industry rules to ensure that the very good statements in the Government policy statement on energy are actually implemented. We hope they are rules that allow the connection of distributed generation and small-scale renewables to the grid without impediment and discrimination; rules that allow the demand side to engage with the electricity market and allow for a demand exchange which would greatly lower the cost of supply in an emergency; rules that minimise greenhouse gases so that we do not burn gas or coal and spill hydro; and rules that provide for security of supply. 
The largest part of this energy supplementary estimate is a new power station—$165 million for a new distillate-burning power station in Hawke’s Bay. The really interesting thing about that is that this is a power station being built on land owned by Contact Energy which is to manage the power station. Why? Because until a very short time ago Contact Energy had a power station on that very site. It was sold to the company by the National Government; a power station very like the one that is being built now. What did Contact Energy do with it? It dismantled it and sold it overseas because it thought it had surplus capacity. Now we taxpayers are paying for a station to be built again on that site to replace something that should never have been sold to Contact Energy in the first place and should never have been sold by Contact Energy in the second place. 
The other scandal that has led to this expenditure was the sale of New Zealand Rail in 1993. This year $116 million and further expenditure in the out-years for some time is required to revive the rail system that has been allowed to run into the ground under its private owners. It became a cash cow for Fay Richwhite and that company’s mates who through a series of manipulations managed to take out of the company more than they had put into it by far leaving it in a very sorry state. 
 In 2001 the Green Party called for the Government to take back the track. That demand was also made by the transport unions and 2 years later the Government agreed that we cannot allow our national rail system to fail. It is an important part of New Zealand infrastructure it is a very important part of a future in which oil will be much more expensive and we need to make sure that it is still working—rather than having the sorts of disasters there have been on the Napier-Gisborne line—buckled tracks and heat stress and so forth. The Government has now moved to take the track back under Government control and we support that. So money in the supplementary estimates is providing for the setting up of TrackCo and for investing in the track to get rid of the technical problems that have formed a major barrier to enhanced use of rail transport over the last few years. 
Capital is also going to provide a loan to the Auckland Regional Council for the purchase and upgrade of rolling stock for the suburban rail system. Auckland’s suburban rail system is still skeletal compared with what is in Wellington and Wellington’s could be improved as well. We look forward to Auckland developing a commuter rail system that will be better than Wellington’s and that would help a lot with congestion on the motorways. 
There are capital contributions for the development of the national rail corridor overall; for double tracking of the Auckland rail corridor so that trains can actually pass each other when they are going out west; and for the purchase and upgrade of the Wellington Railway Station which itself should never have been sold either. 
It has been a very expensive lesson for New Zealanders to find out what happens when State assets are sold off particularly strategic ones that are crucial to our energy and our transport future. We welcome the expenditure on reversing those disasters and we note that it will be some years yet before we stop paying for the mistakes made by previous Governments. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 A little earlier in the debate members saw Dail Jones’ Mr Tough Guy impression and to be perfectly honest it was not very convincing at all. From his little seat over there on the Opposition benches Dail Jones squealed that we should have double the number of police. But on what basis does he want the number to be doubled? I would like to find the rationale by which the New Zealand First members are advancing that policy but this is exactly what that party does. Before it decides anything it sticks its finger outside to see which way the wind blows. If the New Zealand First members are not sure about that they go to Winston Peters. They wake him up after a night spent in Courtenay Place to decide what their policy should be based on what they think the public may like. So their policy is not exactly well-thought-out or thought through but that is exactly what one finds with New Zealand First. That party is called New Zealand First for a very good reason: because its members want to put themselves first. That is part of their culture—tough guy Dail Jones wants to double the police force. Well that is brilliant—absolutely brilliant! Why not triple or quadruple the number? What rationale could one possibly have for doubling the police force? 
United Future would like to see an increase in numbers in the police force too but we have something to base that on. As a rough estimate we would like to see 1700 more police to give us some kind of parity with a process that has actually worked well in New York: the broken windows policy. On a per capita basis that would mean we would like to see roughly 1700 extra police officers on the front line to give us the same kind of police presence that the very successful New York process has. At least our ideas have been well-thought-through and given a bit of rationale unlike New Zealand First’s strategy of just grabbing anything that floats and hoping like hell that the public buys it. Well the public is not quite as gullible as that. 
Looking at the Budget and at some of the broad-ranging things that it delivers or attempts to deliver I see $1.5 million is directed towards Victim Support groups. Those groups deserve some extra money but $1.5 million is not very much. Let us look at the rest of the spending. There is something like $7 billion in surplus but from the spare change the Government is giving $1.5 million to look after victims. I tell members that victims do need some of that money—and in fact need more than $1.5 million. But this Government has not done very much on law and order. It has not responded to the 1999 referendum from Norm Withers where 92 percent of the population wanted tougher meaningful sentencing that denounced crime. What have we had? We have had 4 or 5 years of absolute pap. The Government has tightened up on a few things here and there but that is no more than putting bandages on the  
Titanic 
 and the Government is not doing the job it is supposed to do. 
Let us look at the bail and parole provisions. With increasing regularity we open up the newspaper and read yet again of another offender committing crimes while on bail or on parole. How can there be any sense of meaningful sentencing while there are 35000 cases still outstanding that have not gone to court yet? Some of those offenders may never get to court because the system is so crippled and paralysed. We have inherited a criminal justice system from the year dot that does not have the ability to cope effectively with the huge rise of crime. It has been taken totally and utterly unaware by that and all that we are doing now is talking about where the deckchairs should go. That is not good enough. We have to take the criminal justice system rip it apart and make it address what it should be about which is the interests of the public and of victims but we are not doing very much in that sphere. There is an 86 percent rate of recidivism within 5 years and for sex offenders the recidivism rate is about 70 percent over a 22-year period. It is pathetic! We are still tweaking around at the margins. We are not doing nearly enough and are not nearly effectively enough. 
We do need to beef up the police force but it also needs to be given the tools to do the job more effectively. What about for example having a research facility within the police so that they do not have to rely on foreign consultants to make them decide what they should do? What happens in Sweden or Helsinki does not necessarily reflect what we should be doing here. The police need their own research team to assess the rate of crime and the police’s capability to address those issues. We need that. We also need the police to be armed with encrypted radio systems so that when they get a call to go to a burglary the bad guys have not left the scene beforehand because they have better equipment. That is exactly what is happening right now. Why are there two-man squad cars when there could be three-man squad cars which would be far more effective? Having spent a great deal of time in the back of a squad car when I spent nights running around Christchurch to see exactly what the police get up to I found that half their time is spent off the road on processing activities. They could have another person inthe car and get that car back out on the street much quicker than they do. The police need to work faster harder and smarter and that is a resourcing issue. But this Government does not seem to care about the public interest or about victims because it is not doing as much as it could be doing. 
One of the things we are looking at is four new prisons coming online. Well I tell members right now that if we did have a meaningful justice system those four prisons would be filled up in no time and they still would not do the job adequately. We would probably need more prisons in the intervening period. We should not go down the track of trying to rehabilitate those people who are beyond rehabilitation but rather we need to spend money on and put resources into early initiatives and early interventions in those families who are most at risk. We know who they are; it is not rocket science. But that is what will make the difference. It may mean in the intervening period that there are more people in prisons but in 15 years if we go for a policy of greater intervention with those families deemed to be most at risk we will be able to close prisons. That is the kind of thinking we need to see a Government lead on. But we will not see much of that from this Government because there are no votes to be gained from this issue at the next election. This Government does not want to look 15 or 10 years down the track. So the victims that emerge between now and then will be on the backs of this Government because it is not addressing the core issuesby dealing with offenders before they become offenders and targeting families deemed to be most at risk with early intervention. The Government is not spending nearly enough on that and it could do a hell of a lot more. Everything else is just lip service. 
The whole thing is not helped by the wider issues the Budget has delivered. There are families earning up to $60000-odd a year who are now becoming welfare beneficiaries—absolutely brilliant! Who thought that one up? Who late at night drinking their Chardonnay and talking socialism amongst their little mates thought that one up—that families on $60000 a year should suddenly become welfare beneficiaries? I tell you this: there is a reaction against that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I apologise for that. There is a reaction against that. I have plenty of emails and letters that show people are not willing to sacrifice the wealth they create only to have to go cap in hand to the Government which has stolen and ripped off that money from them and ask for their own money back. That is what that kind of socialism does. The Government talks about people being greedy. Well I will tell members who is greedy. It is the Government that is greedy—greedy for the wealth earned by the people of New Zealand and greedy for the votes of New Zealanders. The simple fact is that the people who create wealth have a right to that wealth. It is made from their blood and their sweat and this Government turns around and takes it off them. Why should they have to pay for the socialist ideologies perpetrated by this Government— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What! What about the kids? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: —and by that member who is mouthing off ? She has probably never had employees in her life or run a business or anything of that sort. It is utterly ridiculous that the Government expects the people who create the wealth of this country to pay for the Government’s idealism and socialism. That is simply not fair. The issue is about the Labour Government extending its orbit through the means of material property and wealth and through socially engineered policies such as legalising prostitution and civil unions. 
There is an awful lot to undo in the future. A lot of damage will have to be undone in the future that will be bequeathed by the Labour Government. The problem is that middle New Zealand does need help but it does not need the welfare mechanism through which that help is to be delivered. Middle New Zealand does need help because wages in this country are pathetically low. But the Government’s mechanism of delivering that help is to get people to stand in line cap in hand and beg to be given their own money back. Socialism is a failed policy everywhere else in the world. Germany has finally realised the dubious nature of its socialism and is now reeling it back. Germany is giving taxation cuts. It understands that socialism does not work. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I was quite enthusiastic about the speech by the United Future member who has just sat down. There was a lot of sound comment in it particularly towards the end. The real mystery—which I know is shared by Dail Jones who has been sitting here in the House and puzzling over it—is that for 2 years it has been in the hands of the United Future party to stop those things. United Future could have made it absolutely crystal-clear that the Budget did not turn workers into beneficiaries by simply voting against it. That is what people are elected to Parliament to do. However it is easier for Peter Dunne to make speeches than to vote with integrity. There is a very puzzling problem there. I guess it accounts for the Greens rather than United Future being the most favoured coalition party for the Labour Party should it keep the Treasury benches at the next election. Of course United Future has been a very faithful lapdog of Labour’s. Life is not fair. 
I want to address the extra appropriation in the Department of Corrections budget. In Vote Corrections we see an appropriation of $1342000 extra in a departmental output class called “Services to New Zealand Parole Board”. That is on top of another $1.25 million that will go on extra psychology pre-release and pre-parole reports. There is just under $3 million extra there and there is not really much explanation of why such a huge amount in comparative terms has suddenly been required by our Parole Board. There is some explanation in the Parole Board’s annual report which tells us that the Parole Board had 93 percent more hearings than anyone had expected. That is nearly twice as many as had been expected. Why? That is simply not explained. The board just baldly states that it had nearly twice as many hearings as it had expected to have. 
I will venture a suggestion: it may be because it is worth it to the criminals. Did some genius in the Department of Corrections or in the Labour Cabinet think that we could reduce the required time to reach parole from two-thirds to one-third of a sentence ensure that the Parole Act does not mention punishment anywhere deprive the Parole Board of any right to take account of the purposes of sentencing and order it by means of a specific provision in section 7 of the Act to release people unless it is satisfied they are still a danger to the community without having—surprise surprise—8500 or 9000 applications to get out of prison instead of the 3000 applications the Parole Board had expected? What a mystery that is! The average chronic offender according to the Department of Corrections’ own statement of intent costs $500000 in the first 5 years after release. So those offenders are let out to do $100000 a year of damage to the community and then an extra $3 million is provided to help the Parole Board members to decide whether those offenders should be let out of prison. 
Let me give members a few more figures from the Department of Corrections’ annual report and statement of intent. On average a medium offender will cost the community $3 million over his or her lifetime and a serious offender will cost nearly $6 million over his or her lifetime. Those are people who contribute nothing to society. That is a net cost purely in financial terms to the community. It does not measure pain and suffering or all the precautions that people take because they are scared—and rightly scared. The entire annual cost of the Parole Board could be met by stopping one serious offender in his or her tracks at an early age. But what do we see happening? We see that the Parole Board has decided—because it is told to by the law not because it is evil or mean or because it does not care—it has to let young offenders out to have a second go. Many of the young offenders who are let out are not first offenders. They are not having their second go but their sixth eighth twelfth or fifteenth go because they have been through the youth justice system in which we do not even record the number of times they have had to deal with the police. Then as young adults they are treated as though they are first offenders or young offenders when in fact they are hardened offenders. 
When the poor wallies on the Parole Board let such offenders out of prison what is the consequence? Once again the figures from the Department of Corrections tell us. Seventy-seven percent of those let out under the age of 20 are reconvicted within 2 years. Seven out of 10! I wonder why the Parole Board feels it can do that when it is not supposed to let anyone out if that person represents an undue risk to the safety of the community. I have asked the Parole Board what its members think “undue” may be. We know what this Government thinks an undue risk is when an employer takes it: when a director of a company has an employee who is hurt an undue risk is any risk at all. But this Government is telling the Parole Board to let offenders out of prison when it knows there is a statistical probability that seven out of 10 of them who get out under the age of 20 will be reconvicted within 2 years and more than one out of every two of them will have committed a violent offence. The Parole Board says that New Zealanders out there can just bear the risk of being hurt robbed and stolen from and of losing trust in their fellow New Zealanders because this Government thinks offenders have had bad potty-training or something like it. 
I will add a little more. There are no guidelines on risk at all. I asked Parole Board members whether they thought a 5 percent risk may be undue or whether a 10 30 or 40 percent risk would be. They have no guidelines on that whatsoever. Seventy percent of those with dishonesty convictions and burglary convictions are reconvicted within 2 years. Fifty-five percent of all violent offenders—again more than one out of every two—are reconvicted within 2 years. So too are 67 percent—nearly seven out of 10—of medium-security prisoners. And 43 percent—nearly one in two—of offenders are back in prison within 2 years. So we can look to the Parole Board and ask why it is letting any of those people out. What possible measure is it using of undue risk with that kind of probability of reoffending? Then we can look at the length of sentences. We are told that prison does not work and that prisoners have to be let out because they will get out at some time. Well we see the highest reoffending rate is that for people with sentences of under 2 years. It is more than twice the reoffending rate of people with sentences of over 5 years who reoffend only at a rate of 18 percent within 2 years. That is still far too much but it is an awful lot better than the 77 percent rate for burglars who get let out. 
We have a Minister who stands over there on the Government side of the House and gives us a vein-popping speech about the safety of the community. Mr Goff will have his comeuppance. The parole system is corrupt. It is corrupt by design and not because of the people running it who are doing their best under absolutely impossible circumstances. They are also told by law that they must give due weight to the interests and rights of victims but the right that most victims want is the right to know that justice is being done. In this House this afternoon Mr Goff said he did not think that the Parole Board should be taking account of seeing the purposes of sentencing were carried out. He said that was for the courts to consider and then closed his eyes to the fact that the courts cannot influence what the Parole Board does. 
This generous Government has given an extra $800000 to Victim Support to take its funding up to $3.8 million. One of the things that that will be used for is to nearly double the number of counselling sessions for the family members of murder victims. I wonder whether it has occurred to the Government that the family members of murder victims would rather not have seen the murder occur and believe that it might have been a bit better just to keep violent offenders locked up? Instead of cutting crime in half which as Mr Alexander mentioned has been done in New York we are letting people out—even someone with 777 convictions—to offend again. Today we heard of three people who recently returned to prison after 20 previous prison sentences and the Minister of Corrections could not even give us an assurance that with that kind of record they had not been offending while on parole. He probably does not even know whether that occurred. Well that will change; the next Budget may be the last Budget for this Government. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. This is a time when we are meant to be talking mainly about money because it is when the Government’s finances are under scrutiny. Appropriation is the statutory mechanism by which Parliament authorises the Government to spend money and to incur expenses and liabilities. If the supplementary estimates bill is not passed then the Government cannot do that legally. Other than appropriations that are authorised by permanent legislative authority—and those are pretty minor—the permanent appropriations are contained in the estimates which we debated a couple of weeks ago and in the supplementary estimates which we are dealing with today. 
The reason why we are not hearing much talk about the supplementary estimates in terms of their numbers is that they look so good. The Opposition is not focusing on those because the fundamentals of the economy and the Government’s books are things to be proud of. 
If we look back to the mid-1980s when debt was the equivalent of about 70 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and when one dollar in five was spent on interest we can think about which party was responsible for government then and it was National. In the years since then through some good work of the Labour Government—and I have to acknowledge in some part of the National Government in the 1990s—Government debt has decreased. By the time the previous National Government left office the debt was still at 35.6 percent of GDP but this very good Labour Government has reduced debt to under 25 percent of GDP. The supplementary estimates show that that trend is continuing. Indeed one of the standout facts is that following this bill being passed Government debt will still have decreased over the last year by $2 billion to be under 25 percent of GDP. So we are now in the position when rather than one in five dollars being spent on interest only one in 20 dollars is being spent on interest. 
Against that background one would wonder what complaints would be heard from the Opposition. Well one of the things that has had some circulation in my electorate is a little leaflet dropped by the ACT party which is talking about a $6 billion surplus and saying that that is justification for some great tax cut. Well let us analyse that a little bit further because the Budget and the supplementary estimates both show that that cut cannot be made without either a significant cut in Government services or an increase in Government debt back up towards the high levels we had under Mr Muldoon—or probably both. 
The operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes is one measure of the surplus. It is true that there is such an operating balance of about $6 billion but that $6 billion is not there to be spent. If that $6 billion were to be spent without significant cuts to either health or education services which along with superannuation are the two big spending items of Government then Government debt would have increased in the last year by $4 billion and would increase in the coming year by about $6 billion. So New Zealand’s debt position would remarkably go against the trend that we have managed to achieve over the last 10 to 15 years and debt would start to climb again. That is not desirable. 
What the ACT party ignores is that from that $6 billion surplus things have to be funded. ACT might argue that the New Zealand Superannuation pre-funding is unnecessary but if it were not being funded then ACT would have to put more money away for reducing Government debt in order to be in a position to be able to fund the bulge of superannuation when it came along. 
But let us put aside superannuation and think about what else is funded out of that surplus. There are a lot of other capital costs that have to be funded. Some of the big-ticket items include things such as making funds available for the new prisons that Mr Franks from his last speech obviously would like to see built to accommodate longer and longer prison sentences. The cost of those new prisons is already significant. About $400 million I think from memory is being put towards those in the coming year. That sum comes out of money after the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes is calculated. Mr Franks would not be able to do that if he were spending his so-called $6 billion surplus. 
Other things that are funded include capital injections into the areas of health and housing to build hospitals and houses. Other things are the funding of student loans and the purchase of assets for defence equipment such as the new vehicles needed by the Army and the new vessels needed for the Navy. 
In terms of the criticisms we hear from Dr Brash his criticism of the Budget last year was the same thing he parroted out again this year—that the Budget would not narrow the large gap that has arisen between the living standards of New Zealanders and Australians. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Yes that is what he said. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s the biggest issue this country faces. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Well it is interesting when the Opposition quotes that gap—and I will use the exact words Dr Brash used in a  
Dominion Post  
article. He said that the growth we have now is at “… too slow a growth rate to narrow the large gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia that emerged during the seventies and eighties.” Well it is very strange that in this year he actually talks about the 1970s and 1980s but forgets about the 1990s so I went and had a look at the statistics. This is something I have said before but obviously Dr Brash is not listening because he still parrots his misguided view of history. In the 1980s the decade of Labour Australia started that decade as No. 10 in the OECD on per capita earnings and New Zealand was No. 18. By the end of that decade it is true that New Zealand had gone back one place to the 19th position but Australia had charged back six places. 
Mark Peck 
: What? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Six places back compared with New Zealand’s one place. Well that is hardly a criticism of Labour in its decade. If we look at the next decade of the 1990s we see that New Zealand went backwards from position 19 to position 20 when Australia went forward by four places. 
Mark Peck 
: New Zealand went back? 
DAVID PARKER 
: New Zealand went back; Australia went forward and that was the decade of the 1990s. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Who was in Government? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party was the Government—and who the Governor of the Reserve Bank was is another question. 
Mark Peck 
: Who was it? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Don Brash. So his answer for everything which is “austerity austerity and more austerity; cut services cut everything” does not make the nation wealthier. 
We heard a couple of months ago that the National Party was saying “Fund on the basis of need not race.” That is what this latest Budget does. When it comes around to doing something on the basis of need as does this current Budget which focuses on working families and improving their disposable incomes National says: “No. Don’t do it.” and votes against it. New Zealand First votes in favour of it United Future votes in favour of it the Greens vote in favour of it Labour votes in favour of it the Progressives vote for it but who votes against it? National does. It pretends it would fund on the basis of need but that fiction is not carried out. 
I will quote some other statistics in support of that. Between 1986 and 1998 the families in the bottom five deciles went backwards in terms of real income. Not just the bottom 10 percent not just the bottom 20 percent not just the bottom 30 percent not just the bottom 40 percent but half 50 percent of New Zealand families went backwards in terms of their real disposable incomes. That happened primarily under the decade of National being in charge of the Treasury benches when Dr Brash was in charge of monetary policy and had his foot on the throat of the New Zealand economy. 
Mark Peck 
: Did it trickle down? 
DAVID PARKER 
: It did not trickle down; it trickled out of the pockets of the bottom 50 percent of New Zealanders and into the pockets of the top 50 percent. I am actually a member of the top 50 percent of New Zealanders by income. I believe in capitalism. I am a businessman. I like to see people profit but I like to see everyone profit—not just the top 50 percent. Where did all the profit go? It was not just concentrated in the pockets of the top 50 percent of New Zealanders. That sounds pretty extreme in itself and it was by international standards; but when the bottom 50 percent was going down and the 40 percent ahead of them were staying pretty static over that same period the top 10 percent were increasing their disposable household incomes by 41 percent. Against that background our statement in the Budget was that we think the focus should be on improving the incomes of low to middle income families with children. That view is one that every party in this Parliament except National and ACT feels it can support. When the electorate looks at the leaders of those two parties Dr Brash and Mr Hide—the kind face of New Zealand politics?—it can see through them. It knows that the prescription of those two leaders should they ever get into power is more austerity and less wealth for the bulk of the population and gains for a very small minority at the top. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second readings of the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/05) Bill and I start by congratulating the member for Otago David Parker—soon to be the former member for Otago—on the vision he displayed in his speech when he very correctly termed the National Opposition “the National Government”. I thank that member for the confidence he has in the chances of his own party at the next election. I heartily agree with his comments because we are talking here about the National Government that will be in power after the next general election. 
I want to concentrate on the seriousness of the Budget as presented recently by Dr Michael Cullen. As David Parker gives what I suspect is almost his final speech in the House we take pleasure in noting that Michael Cullen at very best can present only one more damaging Budget for our economy. 
I ask members of the House to refer particularly to page 45 in the Economic and Fiscal Update section of Budget 2004 under the heading “Economic Outlook Mid-2004 Through 2005—the Slowdown Arrives”. I then want members to turn to page 29 of the Fiscal Strategy Report in the same document and to look at the projected growth in gross domestic product. Very quickly we can see an economy under the stewardship of Dr Cullen settling down at 2 percent growth and it makes us remember the comments made by the Prime Minister about 12 months ago in the House when she was prepared to set a deadline of 10 years as the time she expected it would take New Zealand to lift itself back into the top half of the OECD. With the growth rate trending down to about 2 percent there is absolutely no possibility at all of seeing New Zealand lift itself back into the top of the OECD. 
So it is little wonder that Helen Clark quickly forgot her target of a 10-year deadline. She no longer has a target. More recently Dr Cullen when he was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee was asked what chance New Zealand had of getting itself back into the top half of the OECD. He replied: “Not at any time soon.” I say to that Minister and to Government members that it is time they actually looked at the seriousness of the situation. The skills attained by talented New Zealanders are highly marketable anywhere in the world and although David Parker says there is no relevance to the standard of living that Australians enjoy he is totally wrong. 
What New Zealanders could do at this stage is to look at the fact that if they moved to Australia they could earn substantially more. Many New Zealanders argue that one of the reasons they will not make the decision to do that is the rather enjoyable lifestyle we have in this country. I accept that to some extent that is true but where that lifestyle part of the equation becomes seriously compromised is when one realises that the Australian Government is able to deliver far better health and educational services than we in this country can—and that point is fast approaching. 
We had the ridiculous situation quite recently where the Government had put additional money into health for example. But even Treasury has had to notify the Minister of Finance that despite additional money being put into the health budget the output—the actual operations being received by New Zealanders—has actually declined. The Minister of Finance sent a “Please explain” letter across to the Minister of Health and to my knowledge we have not had a response from her about why even with more resources the output from our health sector is actually less. That is a very serious situation. 
David Parker also crowed about the Budget surpluses. They are large by historical standards but it is relatively easy to achieve very high Budget surpluses if one continues to impose tax after tax on New Zealanders. It is no challenge to achieve huge Budget surpluses if one just keeps on increasing taxes on all New Zealanders. A most revealing figure recently showed that average New Zealand households now pay an additional $2600 tax on top of what they paid prior to the Labour Government coming to power. It is not a total tax of $2600 per household; it is an additional tax of $2600 that they pay since Labour came to power at the end of 1999. 
John Carter 
: How much? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Two thousand six hundred dollars more tax is being paid by the average household in this country. That is now getting us to the ludicrous stage where this country is so overtaxed that it is not at all surprising we are ending up with projected growth rates of about 2 percent per annum. 
When this debate finishes later on this evening we will debate the third readings of the bills coming out of the Border Security Bill—or the “terrorist tax” as it has been named. That is the 23rd tax increase that has been imposed by the minority Labour Government since it came to office. It is the 23rd tax increase when the Government itself campaigned on only one tax increase—the “envy tax” that lifted the top tax rate from 33c to 39c. Commentator after commentator has been able to demonstrate to everybody but Dr Michael Cullen that that tax was totally unnecessary in view of the surpluses that subsequently have been achieved. 
The most frightening part of the Budget and the Budget debate is the revelation subsequent to the Budget itself that in a blatant attempt to sell the message to New Zealanders the Government will spend $21 million of taxpayer money selling itself and its re-election chances. The advertising industry found that the figure of $21 million was the biggest advertising spend in this country’s history. I read the other day that the Coca-Cola corporation which spent only $16 million a year was the biggest commercial advertising spend. Yet the Government is using $21 million of hard-earned taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to sell its measure for re-election. 
John Tamihere had the audacity to interject that $21 million was not enough. I tell that member that the Government should not use taxpayer money. If he believed in the progress made by the Government over the last 4½ long years he should get out there to sell its message. The latest polls would suggest that it has certainly not managed to do that very well. As people start to realise that most of the promises delivered in the Budget with the Working for Families package come into effect in 2005 2006 and even 2007 then I do not believe that that party has much of a chance to fool the electorate again in obtaining yet another term. 
The central theme of the Budget is about putting people back into welfare dependency. It is time this Government faced as an issue that New Zealand will not achieve a higher growth rate unless that trend is stopped. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 It is a huge pleasure for me to be able to contribute to the debate on the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill this evening. The back of the Budget on 27 May was when the debate from National Opposition members became weaker and weaker. They became more and more depressed as they saw public understanding of the Budget and its implications seeping out. Exactly the same thing is happening now. In fact they are down to their sort of reserve list. 
We have seen the All Blacks do very well but that is because their top team was performing—with the exception of Andrew Mehrtens. Frankly he should have been there right from the start but that is another debate. That is what the National Party really needs to look at. However it has a problem putting up its top team because it does not have a top team in the House. Its top team is any other party’s “C” team and that must be pretty depressing. I can see the despondency in the face and the sadness in the eyes of the senior Opposition whip. He knows that when he tries to lift the morale of the team when he tries to get a good strong debate going in this House when Opposition members try to argue against what this Government is doing they fail. They are a total failure. The public has seen through their attempts as well. 
It is particularly a pleasure for me to speak in this debate about the social development aspects of the appropriation. They are the ones—although there are many other particularly good areas one could talk about—that I am mostly closely involved with in my portfolios. At the moment I have the privilege of acting as Minister for Social Development and Employment for my friend and colleague Steve Maharey. 
Social development is probably anathema to the poor old National Party opposite. Its members know only about social welfare. They know only about giving people benefits. They do not know anything about the Ministry of Social Development having a strong leadership position where it can constructively engage with families individuals and communities and make a difference to their opportunities and ability to change their future lives for the better. 
This is not about welfare cheques going out to people. It is about engaging with them and asking what the barriers are to better chances—whether education employment the need for a higher income or a chance to do a whole lot better with the quality of the paid work they are involved in. This is about social development. That is why this portfolio was built around the idea of social development and that is the big difference between the Labour-Progressive Government and National ACT and whoever else might like to prop them up in the future. 
Social development is about building a country where inclusion is the basis and where everybody is able to secure a job. We are not interested in very low-paid no-future-career-prospects jobs as the only option for people. We want people to have the opportunity to do better than that to get a good job to build a better life for themselves and their families. We want to ensure that they contribute not just to the economic well-being of our country and society but in their social life as well. It is better for them as individuals for their families our communities and the balance sheet of our country. 
The success of social development policies is pretty obvious. When one looks at the figures one can see the graph of employment opportunities rocketing up over the last 5 years and the unemployment figures trending downwards. We now have the lowest unemployment figures for I think the past 17 years in New Zealand which is just fantastic. In fact since 1999 there has been a 50 percent drop in the number of people on an unemployment benefit—that is something that everyone in this House should be celebrating—and a 21 percent drop in the number of working-age people on a benefit. 
As has been pointed out in other contributions on the employment area we have had an increase in the number of people on invalids and sickness benefits. That is part of an international trend and we know a little bit about it. This Government has said it absolutely knows what some of the barriers are to people on a sickness or invalids benefit who are moving from that benefit into paid work. Frankly there is very little of an attitudinal barrier. I work with a lot of people around our communities who are on a sickness or an invalids benefit. They do not ever say: “Look we love being on a benefit. Could we stay on it a little bit longer?” They say: “If we had the opportunity if these things were changed we would be able to get a paid job and we would like to be able to tell you to keep your benefit. We’d like to be independent. We’d like to know our own worth in terms of employment earning better money obviously and having some self-esteem and regard.” 
There is a value attached to people in paid employment and that is a good thing we have in New Zealand society. That is not of course to demean the quality of the contribution that people not in the paid workforce make in a variety of ways but for people who have the ability to get a paid job the obstacles they see in the way of not being left there are just a huge frustration. So we are focused on those obstacles; we have asked people what is standing between them and a paid job and offered to help them get rid of it. 
For beneficiaries on the sickness and invalids benefits a lot of the barriers were lack of access to support from the Department of Work and Income. There was not a lot of case-management and work-broker support available for CV applications or work experience preparation. Those very practical supports which were offered to people on an unemployment benefit were previously denied. That is changing and changing for the better so that people on those benefits now will be able to access the practical support that will help them get into the paid workforce. 
Also a number of people on those benefits do not meet the criteria for urgent surgery or other procedures in the public health system. Of course if they have been on a benefit for a while they are unlikely to have the sort of savings required for treatment under the private health system. We have said that we can help to ensure that people get those medical procedures—if we know it will make a difference and help them get into a paid job. For a lot of people that will be the answer particularly those on an invalids benefit. 
We found that the attitude and lack of understanding of employers has been a barrier. So another instigation has been that Work and Income will now deal directly with employers and say: “You have a huge potential here. You’re short of staff”—which is now a very common cry from employers. We are not saying that we are short of jobs; we are saying that we are short of staff. We have a large number of people who are able to do this work. They cannot get a job sometimes because of lack of understanding and sometimes because of the attitude of employers. If we can help employers with better understanding and of course tell them the practical ways they can get support as well I am sure that will help. 
We have huge potential for a greater contribution to our economy by making sure that the people who want to work and who are currently on a sickness or invalids benefit are getting that help. That is a critical part of the social development model. We are ensuring that people who have been neglected by our system for too long— people who felt undervalued and second-class citizens because they were denied the support to contribute in the way they wanted to—get that support. We are giving them better opportunities so that they can take charge of their lives improve the quality of it and support their families. 
We are also giving families a lot of very practical financial support as well. Family incomes and making work pay account for $2.372 billion over 4 years. That is going into the pockets of working families in New Zealand—people who for a long time have contributed day in and day out either in the paid workforce in their communities or in raising their families. They have found it hard to increase their quality of life because they have not been getting the additional support that this year we are able to give them under the Budget. 
The package is spread out over 4 years because we have to ensure that we do not literally blow the Budget. We are being very responsible because that is part of a Government’s activity. We have to make sure that our Budget is sustainable. People understand that. People in New Zealand are responsible and I am delighted that our package has been so well received because of that. We have ensured that people have more affordable housing and more help with childcare costs. We have changed the hardship assistance and we have also ensured that the very people who have felt neglected in the past get the direct practical and financial support they deserve. 
There are still a lot of social areas left to tackle. I am pleased to see some expansion of the Family Start projects that we have had running some expansion of social workers in schools and in ensuring that families and community support services are better supported within the Ministry of Social Development. This is an exciting package and it is a pleasure to have had the opportunity to contribute. I look forward to the progress of this bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on these appropriations. I have to say right from the word go that New Zealand First has given me the law and order portfolios to watch over—specifically police and corrections. For those two areas I grade this Government a very bad “E” for effort. The Government truly deserves an “F” for failure; failure to live up to the expectations that the public had failure to live up to the promises that Labour made in 1999 and 2002 and failure even to live up to its own expectations—not that those are very high. In terms of closing the gaps on law and order this Government is a dismal failure. 
Let me just go through some of the areas of law and order. Supposedly the judiciary was going to be empowered so that it could take care of sentencing and parole in line with what 92 percent of New Zealanders had asked for but that has proven not to be the case. In fact we now see that people who are sentenced to jail are up for parole at the one-third mark of their sentences. They are so confident of getting parole these days that they apply for back-end home detention 6 months prior to their parole date and they get it! They are being put back out on to the streets having served less than one-third of their time in jail. That was not the expectation of the percentage of New Zealanders who voted for this Government to come into office. Their expectations have certainly not been lived up to. I am thankful that we have judges out there like Judge Erber who can see precisely what the public views as appropriate sentences and deals them out. 
Sadly there are some other areas where the judiciary is failing to live up to the community’s expectation and this Government is doing nothing whatsoever. Members should look at the number of cases of children who have been bashed to death and the rather strange sentences that have been handed out to those offenders—and I mention Kershaw as one example. 
With regard to fines and enforcement what value is there in the judiciary handing out fines if those fines are not enforced? The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is still before the select committee so I will not go into that territory. However I will say that when New Zealand First started raising the problem of outstanding fines the bill was something like $480 million. The Government fluffs around the edges it does a little “name shame” here and a little of this and that there it puts people’s photos on buses on the backs of cars or wherever but the fact remains that if this Government were serious about making the most of the good police work that is done that obtains convictions obtains sentences and sees fines being allocated if this Government had any concern about the integrity of the judicial system and the law enforcement wing it would pass legislation to give the courts access to the information that the Inland Revenue Department has. Then anyone who is on a benefit anyone who is being paid any sort of money at all and is paying taxes who has any outstanding fine would be snaffled immediately and held to account for non-payment of that fine. The Government’s failure to do anything there is a failure for the whole of New Zealand. 
What can we say about parole? Parole is a disaster. New Zealand First has long said that parole should be earned. But we have a Government that hands it out willy-nilly to these people only to find—just like with Mr Isherwood and Mr Jarden—that within days of their release on parole they offend again. What has the Government done about it? 
I can tell the House that we now have revelations that Dr David Chaplow who is supposedly an adviser to the Parole Board has actually been taking part in the decision-making process. My colleague Dail Jones who is our justice spokesman has put through a number of written questions to this Minister of Corrections asking: “What steps does he intend [to] take to review Parole Board decisions involving Dr David Chaplow as an adviser and if he does not intend to take any steps to review those decisions why not?”. This is the answer he gets: “The Board is a statutory body”—we know that—“and I understand that it is considering its options”—we know that too—“in conjunction with the appropriate Crown Agencies (Ministry of Justice and Crown Law).” We know that too. But what is the Minister’s answer? There is no answer. 
We will have a look at that to see if in any way it allows us to take a case to the Privileges Committee because it is not in keeping with Helen Clark’s statement that we would see a new era of accountability ushered in. It is buck-passing and duck-shoving and at the end of the day there is a whole list of victims whom this Government just turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to. Under this Government parole is a joke. This Government needs to be held personally accountable for some of these decisions. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
RON MARK 
: People can laugh but in Mr Isherwood’s case alone for which this Government has tenure and responsibility a woman was raped drugged and put into prostitution and he was jailed for it but when he was let out on parole he did the same thing again. Who in this Government will stand up put up his or her hand and say: “Sorry I’m responsible. I resign.”? No one! What does that say about Helen Clark’s new era of accountability? 
Let us look at the corrections system and at sex in prisons. We had a year or two of Matt Robson as Minister saying inmates should have conjugal rights. We now have Paul Swain as Minister and they do have conjugal rights but the problem is that male prisoners are having them with female prison officers! We actually have a report of one case where an inmate had sexual relationships with a male prison officer and with a female prison officer. What is this Government doing about it? Nothing. The Minister and this Government stand up day after day and protect and defend the inexcusable actions of the “goon squad” but I do not see anything in the Government’s Budget anything in its policies or anything in its initiatives that would protect good female prison officers who do sterling work but are now becoming the victims of stigma and innuendo. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite prattle on. When the Minister was first asked about this matter he said there were three cases. Then he confessed there were five. Then he admitted there were 12. Now we hear there are 21 cases. The truth is the Government does not know because the Department of Corrections has deliberately kept these complaints as informal investigations so there is no record. The truth is this Government has no idea of the level of offending inside prisons. 
I want to talk about home detention. Well what can one not say about home detention! Under this Government inmates can be put on home detention. It is great for gamblers because they can gamble on the Internet at home. It is great for alcoholics because if they have got themselves into trouble and broken the law or have been violent criminals they can booze up at home with all their gang mates. It is great for drug dealers. They can set up a speed laboratory at home and die of a P overdose. What did this Minister say about that? He said that it was not true and that the member was making it up. Well the member was not making it up. It was true. The case was reported in the newspapers. What is the Government doing about it? It is doing nothing. It is just trying to justify itself. 
Then there is the real sharp end of law enforcement—that is the police. This Minister of Police has had personal letters going back to 29 September 2002 from police officers telling him of the problems inside the communication centres yet he has done nothing. He is batting that problem off to one side in the hope the Land Transport Safety Authority will pick up the funding because he does not have the gumption to put in his own money to look after his own police officers. He uses policemen and policewomen as pawns in a little Treasury game between himself and the Minister of Transport whilst he sends his officers out there to collect revenue by issuing 27 percent more traffic tickets. This Government has increased its revenue take from quota ticketing by $52 million since this Minister has been in the job but that has been at the expense of the reputation of the police force and at the expense of the reputation of policemen and policewomen. But the Minister does not care. Well I have a message for him. New Zealand First will be part of the new Government after the next election. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Ha ha! 
RON MARK 
: We will be. He can laugh. If he does not want to be in Government that is fine. But we will be addressing these issues in the way that the public expects them to be addressed. That he can bank on. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Before I concentrate solely on the supplementary estimates and imprest supply debate I want to acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat. I commend him because he is one of the few in New Zealand First who can string a sentence together although the jury is still out on whether he makes any sense. But I do commend him. There will always be a life for Ronnie Marks after Parliament; any pharmaceutical company that heard that speech would take him on tomorrow because he would drive anyone to take Prozac or Valium! He always leaves us feeling really depressed. 
I want to celebrate the Budget and the Budget settings with regard to the current supplementary estimates debate and to concentrate on economic management which is an area for which Labour Governments have often been attacked in the past. Between 1990 and 1999 New Zealand’s economic growth averaged 2.6 percent per annum—below the OECD average 
growth rate. But our annual economic growth rate over the last 3½ years has compared well with the OECD average of 1 percent. Our rate has been 3.4 percent. Under Labour the economy has expanded by over 15 percent in 4 years. It is no wonder that members opposite do not want to talk about the economy. They might want to talk about law and order they might want to talk about race but the real issue which is economic management and business management in this country is over and Dr Michael Cullen will go down in history as one of the finest finance Ministers this Parliament has ever seen. The facts are on the table. No one will stand and refute them. No one will stand and rebut them—no one. 
I want to make some more comments about that because it is vitally important that we start to make some comparisons between the management on this side of this House and that on the other side. I refer to the domination of our front bench which is not just formidable but absolutely capable and hugely confident. I know that most people think Stephen Franks was the big loser in the recent ACT party shemozzle—and that is what it is when to obtain leadership one has to rely on one’s own vote! There was no great majority and God bless Rodney Hide as a consequence! The Labour Party rejoices in that result. We hope Rodney Hide gets a lot more coverage a lot more photos because we know he was one of the greatest inspirations of the creative directors and producers of the main character in  
Shrek 
. The more we can promote him out there in the community the more we see of the policies of the ACT party then the greater the chance that Kiwis will start to understand that any Government with Brash and Hide in it is scary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Surnames only are not permitted. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I sort of went off the track there. I shall move back to the debate on the supplementary estimates and imprest supply. 
When we look at policies in Budgets we see they are reflective of ideas. In this Budget we know we have set and will continue to set a very tight labour market. We can be the victims of our own success in that regard in that people with skills are greatly required. With this Budget with the way in which the Hon Steve Maharey has recalibrated tertiary education and training and with the way in which Mr Mallard in terms of the education portfolio is getting a business culture going in schools and is actually getting Kiwi kids to start to think about themselves as future employers rather than their just “working for the man” we expect to see great shifts in culture as Kiwis start to take a greater world view. We want them to have greater acknowledgment of their own capacity competency capability and potential. We say the potential in our communities is significant but latent. This Budget and in particular these supplementary estimates go a long way to endeavour to release that potential. 
What does the Opposition have to offer in that regard? Well what we do know is that its key finance spokesperson develops National Party policy with Fran O’Sullivan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He does not go to his caucus. He does not go to his leadership. The National Party finance spokesman now develops National Party policy on the pages of the “Business Herald”. That is where it happens. That is where his caucus gets to read about the tax policy of the National Party and its policy with regard to debt management. It is all there in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 It is not even on the National Party website. 
When we are comparing the way in which we manage the economy with the way in which National would do it it is very important in this debate to start to acknowledge the differences. What are those differences? Mr Key would tell us that this country has been managed so well in the last 5 years that we can now borrow. Any little deals that the boys and girls who line up to become members of the Opposition want done can be funded—there are plenty of dollars in the kitty. But he says they can be funded out of direct borrowing. Well we say this country has had enough of that type of politics—enough of largesse being granted to a few at the expense of the mainland and heartland of this country. We are managing the debt load of this country by setting a system to drive it down to under 21 percent by 2008. That is a big ask but good Governments have to set strong targets. They do not go out into the community and promise to borrow to fund largesse for the few the rich the minority—the likes of the ACT party and National Party. 
What else has been said? Well Dr Brash has said this: “That is certainly one option. Most governments do borrow for capital expenditure … If the rate of social return is appropriate then it is a perfectly rational thing to do.” Well what we do not know about the National Party is what it would actually borrow on. What we do not know is why it would borrow—we do not know that. We do know that it would spend a huge amount of money on the military but we do not know how much it would borrow to do that. And having done that we do not know how many hospitals would have to close. 
Another issue that is significant and that we need people to come clean on is superannuation. We understand what the Superannuation Fund is doing. We are banking for a major demographic profile coming through from the baby boomers and we have to manage prudently so that our children and grandchildren can manage the process as the population ages. What does Dr Brash say about that? “We haven’t reached a decision on that one yet.” he says. Surely voters need to know. Surely we need to know what National would do with the Superannuation Fund which has been put in place for and on behalf of all Kiwis in the most prudent fashion possible. Surely the elderly of this country deserve to know whether their entitlements would be slashed whether surcharges would be— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I want to conclude on a number of matters. In terms of competency capability and the like this front bench is absolutely dominating— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And the second one! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: —and also the second and third rows; the third row where I sit is not too bad. But the front bench is absolutely dominant. Those members can walk into this House and be without peer or competition in terms of the Opposition. When we are talking about Budgets and supplementary estimates we are also talking about the capacity and the capability the integrity and the credibility on this side of the House to make things happen and I am grateful for that. 
I conclude by saying that John Key is making a wonderful run for the front bench—running right over the top of the rest of his caucus. In his own inimitable style he is providing National Party policy in cahoots with Fran O’Sullivan of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. His caucus woke up one morning and found that John Key had opined on the fact that his party would actually cut superannuation. 
Mark Peck 
: Is that what it is? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It would have to do something like that—lift the age or alternatively take on debt. We have managed the Government’s finances so well that he has opined that the low debt is crazy and that National would borrow to dispense largesse to some of its mates. It would have been great if only he had told his caucus colleagues that. 
Mark Peck 
: No no never tell them when they are drawing the policy up. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Oh right that is National Party policy. Mr Peck knows the way the National Party operates. Obviously it operates in cahoots with Fran O’Sullivan in terms of delivering exactly what the National Party policy is which is given the low debt levels that this Government has managed to take borrowings on board—but to spend on what? 
Mark Peck 
: Well what? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That is a good question. We know that our old people out there will be shuddering and wondering whether they will be 70 or 75 before superannuation kicks in. Would they have the Superannuation Fund under that lot? How would that lot manage the tax system in terms of its tax take? What hospitals would close? What operations would be stopped? I do not like to depress Kiwis listening to this debate—and thousands of them will switch off after I sit down—but I say they should be afraid of Rodney Hide and Don Brash. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 One of those front-bench members whom Mr Tamihere has just been referring to is of course the Hon Trevor Mallard. I have a cutting from today’s  
Hutt News 
 that has an article by the Hon Trevor Mallard in it. In this article Trevor Mallard is waxing on about why tax cuts do not work and why the Budget is so wonderful in delivering to low-income families. Trevor Mallard said: “So how can we deliver an extra $100 per week to a family on $30000 with 2 children? If we were to try and achieve that through tax cuts—they are paying around $100 a week in tax currently. So to gain $100 through tax cuts we’d have to have made the first $30000 of income completely tax free—for everyone.” Well I guess that is the way the current arrangements work but the  
Hutt News  
was not that impressed with Mr Mallard’s arguments. 
The  
Hutt News  
went back to Mr Mallard and asked why that tax break would have to be extended to everyone. It asked: “Why can’t it be that if you only earn ‘x’ (say $30000 or less or whatever other figure is decided) you don’t pay any tax? If you earn $30000-$40000 you could pay a certain tax rate; $40000-$50000 a higher rate of tax etc. Why do we have to have a very complicated set of allowances and subsidies administered by a large bureaucracy (Work and Income) and we have people missing out on their entitlements because they’re not aware of them. Can’t we simplify the whole thing using tax rates?”. Now Mr Mallard came back answering that question—of course he could not answer it because such innovative thinking is quite beyond Labour. Trevor Mallard went on to say: “The main objectives of the Working for Families package were to ensure that work pays. In the past there has often not been a significant incentive for beneficiaries particularly those with children to seek work.” 
If that is the objective of the most recent Budget and the Working for Families package I want Government members to contemplate this situation: a low-income family—low income because it is not that skilled—with three children is seeking to increase its income. Maybe there is one breadwinner in the family working at $10 an hour. After that breadwinner has worked 20 hours a week at $10 an hour that family will have earned a certain amount of income—$10000 a year. To earn another $1 of income once this Government’s Working for Families package is implemented that breadwinner would have to double his or her hours of work to get another $1 and Trevor Mallard claims that that is a policy that makes work pay. 
I would like the Government members opposite to take a call and explain to me how an effective marginal tax rate on the next $1 one earns of 101.2 percent makes work pay. I would like the next speaker to explain that because it has got me absolutely whacked. If a working person earns an extra $100 but loses through that $101.20 through tax changes how is that making work pay? [ 
Interruption 
] What did that Labour member Mr Peck just say? 
Mark Peck 
: Why don’t you listen? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I would be delighted to listen to Mr Peck if he was prepared to explain to this House how an effective marginal tax rate of more than 100 percent makes work pay. 
Mark Peck 
: Get your calculator out and do the sums yourself. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: That shows the appalling lack of arithmetical understanding of Labour members like Mr Peck. An effective marginal tax rate means—if I could just explain to Mr Peck—that on the next dollar one earns it gives one the tax rate one pays. On the next dollar one earns with an effective marginal tax rate of 101.2 percent it means one pays more than $1 in tax for that $1 earned. For Mr Peck’s sake I point out that it actually means one is worse off. 
Mark Peck 
: Oh no! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Suddenly Labour does not care about low-income hard-working families trying to earn more for their family through work instead of just being on a benefit. Mr Peck says: “Oh no that does not matter.” That might be Labour’s attitude towards low-income low-skilled people but where it will suffer hugely with this Budget is that now that kind of high marginal tax rate is going to affect middle-income New Zealanders. These are not my figures. These are figures from the Inland Revenue Department made available through written questions. 
I asked the department for the effective marginal tax rates at $5000 intervals from $5000 of income right through to $100000 of income for various family configurations. Let us take the example of a family with three children—a typical family and it is the one I have been talking about up until now. Once that family with three children has earned $10000 a year do members know what that family’s effective marginal tax rates are from there up to $100000 of income? I want to share them with this Parliament because I think the information is hugely important in relation to what this Budget will do to middle-income New Zealand. 
At $10000 of income as I have said there is a 101.2 percent effective marginal tax rate. At $15000 of income there is a 101.2 percent effective marginal tax rate. At $20000 of income there is a 101.2 percent marginal tax rate. At $25000 of income whoop-de-doo the effective marginal tax rate is down to 47.2 percent. But sorry it is only for $5000 of income. For $30000 of income the marginal tax rate is up to 77.2 percent. At $35000 of income there is a 77.2 percent effective marginal tax rate. 
If losing 77 percent of one’s earnings in tax sounds bad enough once people hit $40000 of income—which is the average New Zealand salary—the effective marginal tax rate is such that whether a family has one child two children three children or four children on the next dollar earned the Government will take 89.2 percent of it off them. That means that if people earn an extra $100 in overtime the Government will take 89 percent off them and leave them with just 11 percent. If people earn an extra $100 through overtime they will keep less than $11 of it. They will keep $10.80. It goes on. People with three children who earn from $40000 up to $60000 will keep only 10.8c in every extra dollar they earn. It is an outrage. But it gets worse because at $60000 of income the marginal tax rate hits 95.2 percent. 
Mark Peck 
: Lockie has got it wrong. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Mark Peck says that I have got it wrong. These are official Inland Revenue Department figures. What that means for a family with three children and an income of $60000 who wants to go on holiday and decides to work overtime to earn an extra $5000 is that they will keep $240 of that extra $5000 because the effective marginal tax rate they will pay is 95.2 percent. That is what this Labour Government and its mates are doing to our hard-working families in New Zealand—taxing them into oblivion on any extra dollars they earn. That is a disgrace and it why this Budget will see this Labour Government thrown out—and good riddance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I am advised that this particular speaking slot will be shared between the Greens 5 minutes and ACT 5 minutes. For the benefit of members I will ring the bell with 1 minute to go. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Today’s front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
once again reveals that actions of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are under review this time after a tiny baby was left fighting for its life in Starship Children’s Hospital his mother facing a charge of assault. While I do not want to get caught in that old trap of blaming the Department of Child Youth and Family Services for the actions of the adult who injured this baby this incident once again highlights the adequacies or otherwise of a department that continues to struggle. 
While overall the supplementary estimates do not show big variations for the department with only just under half a million dollars being added to its budget this does not really reflect what is going on with the department. Capital investment is down because of delays in implementing the residential youth justice services strategy. Funding for prevention and for what is called Family Wellbeing Services is down while there is additional money for care and protection services. I presume some of this latter amount is to go towards the employment of the new social workers the Minister referred to in the House this afternoon and I certainly acknowledge the progress the department is making towards improving its capacity to carry out its core statutory functions. But it is the lower than expected spending on prevention and family well-being that I am really questioning here this evening especially in the light of this morning’s news. 
I would like to be a little clearer about what sort of service if any the department provides for parents whose children are taken into statutory care. If a mother like the one in today’s story goes on to have or adopt another baby or child or children having had earlier children taken away does the department work with her to help her look after the new addition or additions to the family? Does the department step in only when there is an emergency or crisis or is there ongoing support and even education for families and parents who have had their children removed? 
The Green Party totally supports the underlying kaupapa of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services which is that the welfare of babies children and young people must come first. However parents and other family are an intrinsic part of each situation and surely they should not be ignored except when there is a crisis. Families in trouble do need lots of support but particularly if they are once again entering the situation of caring for children having lost earlier ones because of care and protection issues. 
I know that in the end no social worker or nurse or anyone else can ultimately protect any child—the recent situation in which a 2-month-old baby was assaulted by her father while she was an inpatient in Whangarei Hospital is another case in point—but I do get the feeling that more could be done to help those parents who struggle hardest in the most difficult of situations. My underlying question is this in relation to what is after all the estimates debate today: why is even the originally allocated funding for prevention and Family Wellbeing Services being underspent or spent elsewhere at a time when there are families parents and children in need of support all over the country and at a time when simultaneously many of the community organisations that work with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to provide assistance to families are also crying out for sustainable funding and contracts? There does need to be better support for families who are within the purview of the department. Preventing both first instances and the reoccurrence of child abuse and neglect is very much a bottom-line outcome for the service and this work with families should be considered an integral part of this not some kind of added extra. 
In terms of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ relationships with community organisations one of the jobs that the baseline review undertook was to look at the interface between the department and the voluntary sector. My understanding of the result of that review is that a mandate for the department does continue to ensure that it builds effective and collaborative relationships with the non-governmental organisations that work in its area and to help strengthen its work and the synergies between the department and the community sector. However again if the department is serious about supporting and making the most of what the voluntary sector can offer in terms of prevention and support and Family Wellbeing Services I cannot understand why this part of the department’s budget is underspent or put to other areas. Too many groups and services are struggling to survive right now around the country. Some are going under. Every dollar unspent in these comparatively small budgets would go a very long way in helping some groups and the important work they do survive. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party in this estimates debate and I would like to touch on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services as well. In the department’s statement of intent on page 10 it talks about the intended outcomes of its care and protection strategy which are to prevent the occurrence and reoccurrence of child abuse and neglect. The department wants to address the effect of harm and to restore and improve the well-being of children. The statement of intent then goes on to talk about youth offending outcomes and states that the department wants to reduce youth offending and to hold young people to account for their offending. I ask the Government where in that statement of intent there is any mention of holding the perpetrators of child abuse to account for their offending. 
I have been watching the child youth and family portfolio since I came into Parliament in 1996. The incidence of child abuse in this country has continued to rise relentlessly and the number of cases coming before the department has continued to rise. Just a couple of months ago a headline stated that there were some 6000 cases of potential child abuse waiting to be allocated to a social worker. I want to know why it is that as a society and as a House of Representatives we are not calling out for a zero tolerance to child abuse and saying that anybody who is responsible for it will be held to account and sentenced to a tough sentence so that firstly child abusers are not free to go out and abuse more children and secondly a very strong signal is sent out to the community at large that child abuse will not be tolerated in New Zealand. 
It seems to me that we end up with a situation whereby the department does all that work in removing children from their homes and trying to keep them safe. The department has already seen many of those children before; they are from families that cannot keep them safe. But nowhere do we hear that the people responsible for child abuse are in prison. Occasionally we do hear that—I should put the record straight by saying that occasionally we do—but not in the same volume as the number of cases that come before the department. I say it is time we woke up. It is time we said that we have a zero tolerance to child abuse and that that is what we want the department to have. When the department puts together its statement of intent for the next financial year I suggest that that be one of the outcomes stated in it. The department probably would not do that work—it should be done by the police—but the point is that it can put such a policy in the statement of intent and can work in a collaborative fashion with the police to ensure we have a zero tolerance towards child abuse. 
The previous speaker spoke about a case that happened recently. A mother has now been charged with assaulting her 6-week-old baby. She had previously had her other two children removed from her because she is incapable of looking after children. I would like to ask this House again why we are not saying that women who have children and who have a record of not being able to look after them should be encouraged to adopt out those children. I think that the decline in adoptions in New Zealand when we see the corresponding rise in child abuse is a scandal. If people cannot care for children we as adults have a responsibility to ensure they are put into a family that will love them raise them and care for them in the way that we would want our own children to be raised. 
We need to look at the whole way that we have organised the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. A number of us now believe that the department is outmoded and that we need to rebuild it as a community-based one-stop shop. I further believe that we need to have a long hard look at the welfare system which is encouraging people into long-term intergenerational dependency whereby child abuse goes down from one generation of a family to another. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rubbish! 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I challenge the Minister to come to the House and show us that that is not true. Most of those children have been seen by the department before and so have most of those families. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 On behalf of the Progressive Party I support this bill of the Labour-Progressive Government. The Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is required to ensure the revenues are raised to pay for the ongoing smooth running of Government administration through to the end of the financial year on 30 June and through the first 2 months of the 2004-05 year. This debate once again highlights the reality that this minority Labour-Progressive coalition Government is able to govern for the good of our country thanks to the constructive relationship we have with and the crucial support that we receive from the United Future Party’s eight votes of support. The money raised previously from taxpayers in this bill and to be included in the money-raising legislation related to Budget 2004 for the new financial year starting on 1 July can proceed to be used only because there is rationality no surprises and honest cooperation between three parties in this Parliament. 
For 2 years now the public’s vital interest and concern that there be a stable and forward-looking Government has been possible only because Labour Progressive and United Future are making our proportional representation electoral system work for the electors of New Zealand. Based on our policies we are getting good things done for people because we are working constructively together. Labour and Progressive could not do it alone because we do not have the numbers. Nor could Progressive and United Future do it alone; we have not got the numbers. Labour and United Future could not do it alone. They do not have the numbers and have not had the numbers since this Parliament was elected in July 2002. But by working together we are able to advance policies that strengthen our economy build safer communities and benefit our families. That is why this bill is so important. Money bills are about as serious and significant as any bill that we can get in a Parliament. Civil wars have been fought over money and Parliament. 
Tomorrow we will see some more practical examples of the benefits of the cooperation in this Parliament that allows for money to be raised in order to be invested in securing a better future for all. Tomorrow we will have an announcement on the appointments to the new Families Commission. The three Government-related parties in Parliament are responsible for establishing the Families Commission an agency that from 1 July will be working to advocate for the interests of families. 
Peter Brown 
: It’s the last thing we want. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: New Zealand First can wait; I have a little bit in this speech for its members. The commission will encourage intelligent and rational discussion on issues affecting families and it will commission research into family issues and make independent comment on policies that affect families. Together with representatives of the other two parties in Government I met with the commissioners for the Families Commission this evening. They are people who will produce intelligent research and advocate for policies that will help families in New Zealand. The commission will be to the benefit of every single family; I am certain of that. In particular the commissioners will be able to address how underlying issues of poverty and low income affect families to their detriment. 
In a confidence vote last week the Labour-Progressive Government won an absolute majority of support. Whereas an absolute majority of 61 has confidence in this Government just half that number—or 35 members—expressed confidence in the only other alternative available to govern the country which would be a National minority Government led by Don Brash. National has already shown us that if it were in Government it would return us to the nuclear umbrella would sell Kiwibank would repeal 4 weeks’ leave and would put taxation cuts for the richest New Zealanders on its agenda. The reason the Labour-Progressive coalition Government has double the support in this Parliament of that of the right-wing alternative is highlighted by Budget 2004 and by money-related legislation like the legislation before us now. The key to understanding the Labour-Progressive programme is to appreciate that its value lies in the work it permits in propelling the base of the New Zealand economy on to a higher level. There are many many examples of that in New Zealand. 
Perhaps the key point to make is that every region has now had growth for a considerable number of years. We are taking a comprehensive approach to economic development. We are focused on strengthening and deepening New Zealand’s connections with the world economy. In the Budget we have allocated $500 million over 4 years to help unleash New Zealanders’ creativity and talent. That broad approach is not limited to the economic development portfolio but is across the board: in commerce small business finance education science and technology immigration and a number of related portfolios. This Budget includes nearly $54 million for the war on drug peddlers and on initiatives to try to help their victims. The Budget includes $5.5 million for suicide prevention initiatives because we must do more to fend off that blight on our communities. I am sure no member in this Parliament will want to see the New Zealand suicide level particularly for youth stay at the level it has been at for too many years. The Government is also increasing the overall level of investment in infrastructure both by direct Government expenditure and by encouraging others to invest in our nation’s future economic and social development. 
We do not want a National-led Government because we know of National’s dire record. In the years from 1994 to 2000 when many New Zealanders fled the country the net purchases of physical assets by the then National-led Government added up to a mere $800 million a year. For the period 2001-08 in contrast the Labour-Progressive Government has committed to increase that investment in the future to an average of $1.1 billion a year. For over two decades we have had under-investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure to the detriment of the welfare of all our people. Overcoming that lag has been an enormous task but already this Government has made an enormous dent in those sorry figures. The financial transparency of the Government’s books has improved dramatically since the Labour-Progressive coalition Government first came into office in 1999. We now have a system of line-by-line consolidation in the Government’s accounts that allows all New Zealanders to understand much better the level of investment their elected Government is making as well as the actual capital investment in the future being made by Government-owned commercial enterprises or State-owned enterprises—and I would like to put Kiwibank right up there with the best of them. This Government has been prepared to shoulder its responsibilities to the regions of New Zealand when the market failed to deliver. We have invested in the rail network in Auckland’s transport needs and in the national airline. 
Cooperation and building for social and economic progress are the key themes for the Labour-Progressive Government. That is the antithesis of the approach taken by parties like National and New Zealand First which foster divisions. National does that by using Maori as the scapegoat in its attempt to draw many New Zealanders into a campaign against Maori. New Zealand First makes continuing attacks on migrant communities in New Zealand and attempts to scapegoat those communities for all the social ills of New Zealand. Labour and Progressive in contrast are drawing our various communities together and will continue to do that for the sake of the health of New Zealand. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the call on the supplementary estimates debate. I was not sure what I would talk about when I came down to the House today but after listening to that drivel from the last speaker I decided I had to deal with the Budget and put the record straight. 
Let me start by saying that if Michael Cullen is sitting in his office listening to this debate he must be tearing his hair out. This was going to be the Budget that would be the saviour the bribe to end all bribes the circuit-breaker that would put the Labour Party back in front. This was going to be the Budget that would put dim-witted Ministers like Trevor Mallard back in office. 
I mention Mr Mallard because I heard him refer in the House to one of my colleagues as being stupid. I think that showed great audacity coming from a member who is regarded as being so dense that light bends around him. He is the member who set about closing all the schools around rural and provincial New Zealand and only when he had done great harm to his own party did the Prime Minister drag him into her office kick him from wall to wall and say: “Mr Mallard if you don’t stop this then I am going to.” That 20-watt light bulb that he calls a brain showed a dim glow of recognition in his eyes and he was told to go out and announce a moratorium. But what was worse was when the Prime Minister made Mr Mallard say that she looked down the barrel of a camera— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member knows he has to say members’ names correctly. Mispronunciation of members’ names is unacceptable in this House. That is the third occasion on which that member has deliberately mispronounced Mr Mallard’s name and I ask you to direct him to pronounce it correctly. It is a cheap and undignified shot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I suggest that perhaps the member on my left look at Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8 and come to order. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Certainly. Thank you for your guidance. It is amazing though is it not how that member’s colleague can take cheap shots and accuse people of being stupid but when I give his colleague’s name a little bit of emphasis that member gets on his feet. He can give it but he cannot take it which is typical of the Labour Government— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member on his feet cannot refer to that; he must get on with the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was saying that the Prime Minister looked down the barrel of the camera and said—despite the school network closure programme being in every daily newspaper for months and being the lead item on television for 6 days out of 7—“My Cabinet and I didn’t know about it.” Well that is stretching the truth is it not? It is so perverted that she is a woman who could not lie straight in a coffin. Michael Cullen has fallen flat on his face— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a well-known Standing Order in this House and convention that people are not accused of certain things and that members do not use mechanisms to achieve that. That is what the member has done. He has accused the Prime Minister of telling a lie. That is the very essence of it. Without saying those words he has used a mechanism to subvert the Standing Order and I ask you to draw him to order. 
John Carter 
: If every statement that was made in this House were to have an interpretation put on it then I have to say that from the time we start at 2 o’clock until the time we finish at 10 o’clock there would be inferences and references that would lead one to draw the conclusion that members were accusing others of lying. It is well known in this House that members are not allowed to accuse anyone of lying but I have sat here for many hours as has that Minister and I know that he has made comments that were very similar if not the same in the same vein about other members. If we are getting to the stage where statements such as “can’t lie straight in a coffin” are excluded from our speeches then I am afraid that speeches in this House will be narrowed down to something that is hardly worth listening to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The member was skating on thin ice and I was considering Standing Order 116 which is about personal reflections. He was not quite there but I think the member should come to the point continue with the debate and come to order. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you for your guidance. Michael Cullen has fallen flat on his face. He has committed $4 billion of taxpayers’ money over a 3-year period to the pursuit of cheap votes and it has been soundly rejected by mainstream New Zealand. The message back to Dr Cullen has been: “Naff off. We do not believe you any more. You can’t buy our vote—we’re not going to put up with it.” Do members know why it has been rejected? It has been rejected because Dr Cullen and his colleagues are so out of touch with mainstream New Zealand that they forgot about the most basic Kiwi test of all: the test of fairness. When there are 1.5 million families in this country and the Government gives all the Budget funding to 300000 families people look at each other and say: “Well that’s not fair.” When four out five families do not get one red cent out of this Budget Kiwis look at each other and say: “That’s not fair.” When the very people who are the productive sector of this country—the very people who put this $6 billion surplus together—do not get one red cent out of it they also will reject it. So that has been the message for Michael Cullen and his cohorts. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It’s a good number of hip replacements. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister is yelling out. I would engage in a battle of wits with her but I will not attack an unarmed person. 
What message do we have when there is a $6 billion surplus? It is simply that we are being taxed too much. This Budget tells me that this Government has no vision or aspiration for fellow Kiwis. What it has done is take the cheap option. It will try to buy votes instead of reducing tax and doing something about removing the impediments to growth. We have missed a huge opportunity to improve growth. Those members opposite know it. They just do not have the decency or the honesty to look themselves in the mirror and admit it. We have missed a huge opportunity for growth. We have had the best conditions for growth in decades—the three stars of low interest rates high commodity prices and a low dollar have been aligned—but the best we can achieve is 4 percent growth. Those members pat themselves on the back and say we achieved it in one year 2003 but now Treasury is forecasting 2.2 percent growth. Those members have no aspiration and no vision. 
If we take a hiding on the rugby field from the Australians we have a year of mourning to look into it yet we have been so conditioned that if we are beaten to the tune of $200 a week by the average Australian worker we think that is our lot. I have a better vision than that for this country. Not only could we have reduced taxation but we could have removed the impediments to growth. The Resource Management Act the occupational safety and health legislation the Holidays Act and the draconian employment law that is coming down the line are just impediments to growth. They are stifling growth. [ 
Interruption 
] At least I am getting a response from members opposite. It is the first time they have woken up today. They are so dumb that they would not recognise an economic spur if they saw one. 
What has this Budget done for water infrastructure on the east coast of the South Island? It is silent on that. That is an indictment on those members opposite. Providing infrastructure for South Island water would put billions of dollar into the local economy. That is aspiration. That is how one grows an economy. What has the Budget said about forestry? The only thing it has said is that the Government would steal people’s carbon credits and do absolutely nothing else for them. 
What this Government has done is take the cheap option of welfare dependency. In this country the working-age population on welfare is bigger than the population of the city of Christchurch. Our welfare population has grown twelvefold in the last 30 years while our population has not even doubled. We are spending $20.5 million a day on welfare dependency and nothing on growth. [ 
Interruption 
] That Associate Minister of Finance does not have a clue what he is doing other than yelling out drivel. Worse is the fact that the welfare dependency cycle is just keeping people impoverished. The correlation between those on welfare and high representation in crime and health statistics and low representation in education is there for all to see. Because of that mismanagement the country is heading to Third World status—unless we have a National-led Government in the next term. That is how acute the situation is. 
What has the Budget done for policing? The Minister of Police George Hawkins appeared before the Law and Order Committee the other day. The Southern Communications Centre is under stress. It is understaffed and 111 calls are not being picked up. When I spoke to the Minister about it he said: “Oh we’re budgeting for more staff.” When I asked him how many he said: “Oh we haven’t thought of that yet.” 
This Budget is a disaster and it is a reflection on that Government. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 The kindest thing one can say about that speech is—nothing actually. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It’s over! 
MARK PECK 
: Yes it is over and the member highlighted the reason why: for the National Party it is over. One of the things that amazes me when we listen to Opposition members debating any economic matter in this House is that they try to convince us that what we need is a whole bunch of tax cuts. Despite Lockwood Smith who seems to have a particular bent at the moment for what might be called a base income flat tax idea where people with a low salary would have no tax and everybody else would be taxed—and he is the only one talking that way—the rest of his colleagues are talking about cutting the top personal tax rate and the corporate rate and—to get a coalition—they might even buy Rodney Hide’s idea of the flat tax of 20c. They might just have to do that. It might be the deal they have to make to get a coalition. 
I have only one question for them. They go on about having this tax cut and that tax cut having to do things for low-income families fixing education and health doing something about superannuation getting all the F16s back again having more frigates and doing this that and the next thing—but how will they pay for it? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: They’re not. 
MARK PECK 
: Of course they are not. So what they will have to do if they go down the Rodney Hide flat tax regime route is close hospitals sell off schools sell off the roads— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And ACC. 
MARK PECK 
: —and they will have to get rid of accident compensation. 
I am also aware of one other thing. I have never forgotten Madam—Mr Speaker. I do apologise to the Speaker in the Chair Ross Robertson who is a good member of the Commerce Committee and who reminds me often that he is entitled to supplementary questions. I am reminded of one other thing. The entire time that we go through the drama and destruction that those members opposite say is a result of this very good income-redistribution package that the Government has put together I will never forget that they brought in the “mother of all Budgets”. Their Government slashed benefits and made sure that the very poor simply could not live—that was the effect of it—and at the same time they brought in the Employment Contracts Act from which the wages of workers up and down the country never recovered from the position they were in. I see my mate across the Chamber Peter Brown who was an employer in the shipping industry one of the toughest industries in New Zealand. Yet he understands exactly what it was that that Act did to those on casual and part-time rates. 
It is no accident that that was part of the National Party’s prescription because that prescription was about a low-skill low-wage economy in which we could turn out commodities cheaper than elsewhere. It was not a vision for New Zealand having a future of high-skilled high-quality workers and a growth economy but of having us compete with the lowest-waged economies to get our commodities to market a little cheaper than might have been possible during the 1980s. There was no strategy in that. It was simply about playing to the lowest common denominator. 
It is no wonder the National Party no longer talks about growth. Its members occasionally like to raise the issue of when we are going to get to the top half of the OECD. I heard a report on  
Morning Report 
 only this week that showed that our quarterly growth rate was at 1.7 percent which actually at the present point in time does put us in the top echelon of the OECD. The financial commentators are cautioning along the lines that it will not be as good in the next quarter. In fact I think they are predicting 0.7 percent for the next quarter and that is fair enough. But when we look at the economic growth rates and when we think about how this particular package of economic growth has been able to be put together in the first place we look at it for 2004. In John Carter’s area Northland there was substantial growth of 4.5 percent. In Auckland the Speaker’s own area of the country there was 3.5. percent. In Tony Ryall’s area—God bless his cotton socks—there was 4.5 percent. In Janet Mackey’s and Moana Mackey’s area Gisborne there was 2.4 percent. In Rick Barker’s area Hawke’s Bay there was 4.5 percent. Marian Hobbs’ area Wellington achieved 3.7 percent. Not bad for a bunch of pen-pushers I say to Marian Hobbs. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Excuse me we’ve got creative pen-pushers. 
MARK PECK 
: Absolutely. They are creative pen-pushers. In Nelson-Marlborough Mahara Okeroa’s area there was 4.6 percent. Where are my Canterbury colleagues? They are all around listening to this—Lianne Dalziel Tim Barnett Ruth Dyson et al. Canterbury achieved 4.1 percent. 
Shane Ardern 
: Tell us about Wanganui. 
MARK PECK 
: I am coming to Wanganui. Wanganui is doing very well actually. The member will be quite surprised. In Otago—the area of David Benson-Pope Pete Hodgson and David Parker—the rate was 5.3 percent. When I look at those numbers I see that that is the top figure. That is pretty good for the year’s growth rate to March 2004. 
In Southland my own neck of the woods the growth rate was 3.6 percent. And the Sting won the National Bank cup in netball for the sixth time. There was no North Island team in the final so we had to play Canterbury and beat them for the 13th time. I apologise to my Canterbury colleagues for that. For the West Coast with good old Damien O’Connor the rate was 4.6 percent and for Manawatu-Wanganui I congratulate Jill Pettis because she beat Southland—but not in the netball—with 3.9 percent. Regarding Taranaki I tell Shane Ardern that he has not done a good job because its rate was 2.3 percent. Waikato’s rate was 4.4 percent. 
The picture that that shows and the important thing about it is that from 2000 to 2003 there has been a 15.3 percent increase in our economic activity across our gross domestic product (GDP). In dollar terms the best part of an additional $15 billion has gone into the nation’s income if one likes. That is huge. I say to the National Party that when its members start going on about that huge Budget surplus they should not try to mislead people who run household budgets. 
I know that my mother and father were very good at running the household budget. They had a certain amount of money to use and part of that money went to paying the mortgage. The house was worth a whole bunch of money. If it was shown on a balance sheet it would probably have been worth in those days—I am talking about the late 1960s early 1970s—about $30000 which in today’s money is $300000 to $400000. But there is no way my parents would have gone on a spending spree on the basis of the worth of the house even when they did take the mortgage off and have whatever the capital gain might have been. They would not have gone spending that because they could not have bought the groceries. 
People understand that if the Government is to bring in assistance packages like the one it has brought in for working families then it must be brought in on a basis that is sustainable. That means we pay the bills. It means that we count our assets as part of our net worth but we do not go around kidding ourselves that we can realise all that cash in 5 minutes if it were needed in a hurry. That is where the National Party’s argument falls down and when John Key—who is rapidly crawling over the backs of everybody else to reach the front bench of the National Party—goes on about how he can borrow and hope that raises in me the spectre of one politician who used to dominate this Chamber through the 1970s and 1980s. 
Government Member  
: Heh heh heh! 
MARK PECK 
: My colleague is doing a pretty good job of imitating the chuckle. Rob Muldoon believed in borrow and hope and he also believed that nobody would recognise a deficit if they fell over it. Well not only did we recognise it but we fell over it and we had to deal with it. Now we have debt at historically low levels and dropping at a time when we are able to bring about the most significant redistribution of income back to low and middle income families in 20 years. There have been two redistributions of income to those who are better off and now we are redressing the balance. The National Party does not like that message; its members would much rather talk about marginal tax rates. But let them never forget that the very people they attacked in the “mother of all Budgets” are now starting to get a little bit back. That is good and the bills before the House today ensure that it can be delivered in a timely manner. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in the debate on this Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which is necessary for the ongoing efficient running of the Government. The debate provides an opportunity to highlight the various areas of expenditure of the taxpayers’ funds we are appropriating today. In the words of my colleague the Hon Matt Robson it also highlights the smooth functioning of the Government based on the strong coalition between Labour the Progressives and United Future and I might note the increasing cooperation of the Green Party which is also valued. It is appropriate for us to consider seriously the uses for which these funds are put because this is the taxpayer’s hard-earned money and it is absolutely important that this House debates thoroughly what it is being spent on and how. 
Tonight I would like to cover three things. Firstly I would like to summarise and to a large extent rebut the claims the Opposition has made in this debate—at least while I have been listening. Secondly I would like to draw the attention of the public to how things have changed since the Government took office in 1999. Thirdly and perhaps most important I want to really emphasise that the job is not done yet. We have a historic mission to take New Zealand forward and New Zealand cannot risk a change of Government and another few years of parties on the other side trying to run things because their track record last time they were in office was so miserable. It was so ineffectual that New Zealand cannot afford another lost decade and still hope to be a sovereign nation. 
Let us turn first to the Opposition’s affairs. If I were Don Brash I think I would be despairing. When we look down the newly promoted members on his front bench and tick off their contributions in this debate we ask ourselves whether there is anyone there. There is John Key. Yes he knows how to trade foreign exchange and I think he also knows how to tell the truth which is why he has been quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as advocating a tax cut for high-income earners. That is the Opposition’s agenda and that is what we would get from a National-ACT coalition. Let there be no mistake: we would be going back to the dark years of the 1990s when the top 10 percent got 30 percent richer and the bottom 50 percent got poorer. New Zealand cannot afford to go back and although I appreciate Mr Key’s honesty I think his leader must be gnashing his teeth because he was not supposed to say that. 
Looking down the line there is tired old Lockwood Smith with the tax-cut mantra and the marginal tax rate. Would someone please explain to that member that it does not matter where the level of family assistance is set the problem of marginal tax rates is exactly 100 percent the same. All this Budget does by supporting lowest-income people children and middle-income earners is just raise the level a little and that does not change the problem at all. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot target benefits to the people who need them and avoid the problem of marginal tax rates. That is just a fact of mathematics and it is time that member learnt some. 
Simon Power is next along the row. What is it about the defence portfolio that seems to give people foot-and-mouth disease? It is Simon Power who said that National would unreservedly go wherever Uncle Sam or Uncle George W sends us. Goodness me Don Brash must be pulling his hair out at that one! That reminds me of the previous defence spokesperson Richard Worth who enjoyed camel rides and pyramid gazing. Then there is Mr Wayne “let’s buy fighter planes” Mapp. If we think Dr Cullen has a steady hand on the exchequer what sort of problem will Mr Key have when his colleagues start to spend money a billion at a time? 
Brian Connell—the man whose contribution is matched only by his CV who has finally lowered his sights from being leader to being Minister of Finance and is equally likely to achieve both offices—delivered the expected drivel. We have news for Mr Connell. He alleged that this Budget was a bribe. If we were going to do a quick bribe of a Budget we would not have spent 2 years working on the social policy that underlies it. If we had wanted a public relations winner we would not have targeted income supplements to the most marginalised in our society. Instead we would have given chardonnay to the chattering classes. 
This Budget gives help to children who need it. Lockwood Smith says: “Oh it’s only one family in five.” Brian Connell says: “It’s only a few who benefit.” This Budget cuts child poverty by three-quarters and two-thirds of all New Zealand families who have any children at all will benefit substantially. That is not marginal; that is mainstream. 
Despite the fact that this is a solid targeted Budget and not a public relations exercise the polls have shifted all right. The Government has won by a net 6 percent against National in the last month and its lead in the UMR Insight poll is increasing so do not tell me that this Government is not appreciated by the public. Mr Brash’s one-hit Orewa wonder by teasing the lowest common denominator of our social underbelly has passed—and good riddance to it. 
 Finally Mr Connell talked about what his real agenda is—the so-called productive sector. I want to peel that back. Is it true that only the rich work hard? Is it true that only the rich are morally valuable in our society or do hard-working New Zealanders who go to the factory or the office each day for their 15 bucks an hour count too? Do they not count just as much as Mr Connell or Mr Key with his house that Merrill built? 
I know what we stand for. We stand for the great Kiwi tradition of fairness for the ordinary bloke. It used to be part of the National Party’s tradition. I believe it is still a part of Mr Ardern’s tradition but it is not a part of his colleagues’ agenda. Mr Ardern should be National’s agriculture spokesperson. He is the only one who knows anything about it. He is a good bloke. I am on a select committee with him. He should be on National’s front bench. 
Mark Peck 
: And he can drive a tractor. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Badly at times but is he on National’s front bench? No that party has a Fendalton farmer Mr David Carter running the agriculture show. Don Brash must despair. 
That is enough about those members; let us talk about us. When we took office the National Government had left the economy with a decade’s legacy of growth of only 2.6 percent per annum. Since then it has risen to 3.4 percent. Not only that the OECD average in these so-called “good luck” years has been 1 percent and we have tripled it. How much good luck can one Government have? 
That genius Mr Connell reckons it is because of our low exchange rates. When was the last time he read the business pages of the  
New Zealand Herald 
? When we took office it was around 52c against the US dollar; a month ago it was around 71c. When was the last time he talked to a cow-cocky trying to export milk? Don Brash must despair. 
When we took office unemployment was at 6.7 percent; now it is at 4.3 percent. Inflation has stayed down and there we agree with National on one thing. We need an independent central bank but we put in a Policy Targets Agreement that means that the Reserve Bank does not hit the brakes every time there is a stutter in the exchange rate. We smooth it out so exporters can export. 
I could go on about all the good news but I will not because I want to be honest about something: the job is not done yet. Kiwis know the job is not done. They do not actually care about all the good things we have done for the last 3 years because they will ask us in 15 months’ time what we will do for them in the next 3 years. That is a fair question. Our historic mission is to raise the level of value and information in the products we export. Let us think about the way the world is changing. It is globalising and in a global world we have to get good or get out. That means we have to know what we stand for. We need a unique selling proposition to take out and market to the world and that means we need a strategy for what we do well. If we do not know no one else will tell us. 
That is why we cannot afford 10 years of the Tories. They never had a clue. Their excuse was to leave it to the market and just hope that someone else could dream it up. But they did not did they? That is why we had miserable low growth. That is why their cheap solution resulted in social dislocation like one would not believe. That is why they have no answers even now. That is why we come to work every week in Parliament. We know that only a Labour-led Government can lead New Zealand into the future that New Zealanders deserve. Next September or whenever the election is New Zealanders will prove that that is what they want. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I understand that United Future and Labour will share this slot each member speaking for 5 minutes. For the benefit of members I shall ring the bell when 1 minute remains. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 This debate on the Imprest Supply Bill is really about how best to use taxpayers’ money. We know that it is taxpayers who bring the money to Parliament and that it is the Government that has the responsibility of spending it and using it efficiently and effectively. We know that money is required for a lot of things in the governing of a nation. Tonight I want to take a moment or two to touch on some of the requirements in education. When we talk about education we realise that there are many needs requiring help and that there is only so much money we can give in terms of fulfilling those needs. We therefore have to choose I imagine what are the most appropriate. United Future asks what we should be teaching in this 21st century. What should we be looking at in terms of our knowledge society? In 30 to 50 years’ time what will we here have left behind? Why are we doing it? How can we best use taxpayers’ money to achieve the maximum set of results? 
Tonight I suggest that there are areas we could allocate moneys to that I believe would be minimal in cost but have lasting benefits in the long term. At this stage I applaud the Government for putting money into early childhood education to an extent that has never happened before. This is a positive move in early intervention and I do not think that anybody in this Parliament would rail against the approach of lifting up our children from the very beginning of their lives so that they can make the greatest possible contribution to the future. Leaving no child out as it were in the endeavour is a maximum way of achieving this. 
The Government has poured enormously into this Budget a programme for the way forward. I have questions about what it means by “beyond 2007”. What does that really mean? How is that held? The Government has made a start in handling some of the tertiary student requirements and I applaud that. It is looking at the quality of teachers and is raising the standards. It is looking at literacy. May I make a statement tonight on behalf of United Future. One of the areas of literacy that we really need to look at is financial literacy. We need to train our children from primary school level onwards in how to look at and handle money—how to manage it properly. When every child grows up he or she becomes an adult and one of the things that adults do is to handle money—to earn it spend it and to learn how to accumulate it. 
One of the missing literacies within our education process right now—and I ask the Government to consider this—is a literacy programme that would help all our boys and girls become incredibly capable in terms of learning how to become entrepreneurial create capital look at investments properly create a surplus and become a contributor in our society. United Future says that we need to start with our children. Why not lift up our children and therefore our future by encouraging them to become literate in handling finance and money? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 In starting I would like to congratulate Bernie Ogilvy on a great speech and I commend him. I think that United Future is a party that is looking forward. I would also like to talk about my colleague my ”westie” colleague David Cunliffe who spoke earlier in the debate and he spoke passionately. We are a passionate party. He spoke from the heart about what we stand for—about how we are looking forward into our future and delivering for all New Zealanders. I was in my office working away when I 
heard my colleague Mark Peck talking about the pillaging and plundering that went on through the 1990s under the National Party. I look over to the Opposition benches now and see two hard-working older gentlemen. Peter Brown says proudly: “I’m just a seaman.” but he knows the value of hard work. Doug Woolerton who is sitting beside him is a hard-working farmer. Like the Labour Party and this Government they believe in hard-working families and hard-working people reaping the rewards. That is what this party stands for. That is what this Government stands for. 
In contrast we heard drivel from members on the other side of the House. It was absolute nonsense. Shane Ardern is off his tractor! At dinner time I saw him eat very unhealthy food in the cafe. He was eating a big hamburger and chips; Sue Kedgley would have been shocked. Then he comes into this House along with his colleagues and talks a lot of drivel and absolute nonsense. That is all we have heard from that side of the House. 
I have no time for nonsense. This party has no time for nonsense. This Government is not into nonsense. It is into good stable government that delivers. It is into quality education and an affordable effective health system that promotes good living a good diet and healthy living. This Government is into security in retirement for those older people amongst us now who will be looking towards their retirement. Those of us who are 50 and approaching it know that this Government will provide. Will a National Government provide for people? No it will not. There are no guarantees whatsoever. Quality education is what this party stands for. We invest in quality education. 
Shane Ardern 
: How long? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Forever and for as long as we are in Government. If there is a change of Government that is when those things come to an end. Opportunity in jobs and training and affordable tertiary education and apprenticeships are things very dear to my heart. Apprenticeships bring skills into our businesses and production and that means that our businesses grow. The result is a buoyant winning economy and with that we can invest in our people in working families in New Zealand and in our future. That is what this Government is about. We are upfront. We say “Here’s the deal. We invest in people. We get you into work. We’ll support you and your family in work. Why? Because it’s good for you and it’s good for our country.” 
The leader of this party the leader of this Government and the MPs in this party talk about our policies. We wear our policies like our hearts on our sleeves. I can see National Party members and its leadership members hang their heads in shame. Where are their policies on health education holidays defence nuclear issues and superannuation? They do not have any. They flip-flop around and New Zealanders simply will not accept that. New Zealanders want to stay with a Government that works for them and with them. Labour does not want to beat up on people. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a second time. 
Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time. 
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 
Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. As I read and hear the headlines from around the world I am thankful that New Zealand is far removed from those many terrorist trouble-spots. However that does not mean that we are immune to the violence and the effects of transnational crime. We are seeing increasing evidence of transnational crimes such as trafficking of drugs and people smuggling and the use of false and fraudulently obtained documents. As travel and trade increases so does the level of risk. These bills we are debating here are part of a comprehensive approach by the New Zealand Government to keep New Zealand secure. The Government is concerned that we do not leave the door open for New Zealand to be used as a safe haven or a bolt hole for terrorists or a platform for launching an attack elsewhere. 
The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) will put our security on the front foot. The bills complement the Maritime Security Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act in strengthening the legislation protecting New Zealanders and New Zealand’s interests. The bills introduce a number of measures to provide greater scrutiny of people goods and craft arriving in and leaving from New Zealand. 
In summary the changes will firstly improve the security of global travel and trading environments; secondly strengthen the gathering and sharing of intelligence; thirdly ensure better use of information to assess risk; fourthly enhance customs enforcement powers at the border; and fifthly strengthen and enhance immigration processes relating to persons intending to travel to New Zealand. 
We have heard a great deal of debate recently about individuals their presence in New Zealand and whether they pose a risk. As the Minister of Customs my goal is to ensure that the Customs Service is able to identify intercept and deal effectively with those people at the border. To be able to do that advance information is essential. 
There are two elements to the travel information provisions provided in this legislation. For immigration purposes the following will apply. Firstly airlines and cruise-ship operators will be required to use electronic means to submit passport details for persons boarding craft for the purpose of travelling to New Zealand in advance of their arrival. The chosen electronic system for Advanced Passenger Processing was launched in August 2003. Many airlines are already using the system on a voluntary basis and it is already being used to assist the identification of passengers who do not meet legal requirements to travel to New Zealand. They include such things as a requirement to hold a valid passport a visa if required and a valid outbound ticket if required. The full implementation of the legislation will mean that the passport and visa details will be checked automatically against electronic records held in New Zealand by the Immigration Service. Any matches will trigger an advisory back to the airline about whether a person should be allowed to embark for New Zealand. That form of screening of data is an important contribution to reducing New Zealand’s exposure to risk from peoples travelling here while at the same time maintaining the high flows of arrivals into New Zealand. 
 The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) makes Advance Passenger Processing boarding directives binding on airlines and creates penalties for airlines that fail to comply with the requirements of Advance Passenger Processing. However airlines are already obliged to ensure that passengers are properly documented for travel and they may incur penalties if they do not do so. Therefore the Advance Passenger Processing system backs up the airlines’ existing obligations and ensures that we are better equipped to meet them. 
The second and equally important aspect of travel information gathering and analysis in the legislation is the provision for the Customs Service to access electronically the computerised passenger-booking systems of travel operators and their agents. This will allow access to certain passenger or ticketing information for up to 14 days before or after travel and with a warrant the Customs Service will be able to extend that time frame. 
In summary the Advance Passenger Processing system will check the traveller’s immigration status if he or she checked in overseas to filter out those who do not have permission to arrive in New Zealand. Customs will use the passenger name records analysis to identify travellers who are allowed into New Zealand but who still pose a risk to this country such as the risk of drug smuggling or other transnational crime. Overall these two systems will benefit legitimate travellers by speeding their passage through the border while border authorities focus on the small number of individuals who are of interest. 
In this year’s Budget the Government also provided extra funding of $5 million to Vote: Customs to enable more officers and technology to be deployed to intercept those individuals of interest. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also assists the Customs Service to deal with people crossing our borders illegally outside the traditional entry points—the major ports and airports. Right now a person encountered by a Customs Service officer who is unlawfully arriving or leaving New Zealand from a remote location is able to do so without being subjected to the normal level of scrutiny that a person arriving legitimately at a customs-controlled area is subjected to. It is obvious that this translates into a considerable security risk for our immediate neighbours and us so we are toughening controls on this and we are empowering Customs Service officers to deal with those situations. 
Then there is dirty money. Right now our laws have limited provisions to detain cash or tainted property that crosses our border undeclared. That means terrorist-related funds or funds from the proceeds of crime or tainted property can move into New Zealand unimpeded. While funds in the banking system can be monitored and tracked down that is not the case if those funds are moved in hard cash so we are plugging that loophole. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also requires the advance electronic supply of information about goods and craft arriving in and leaving from New Zealand. I am pleased that legitimate businesses are already cooperating with the New Zealand Customs Service in providing that information. The legislation ensures that there is no doubt about its obligations. The business community has generally been very supportive of the new security measures being put in place by the New Zealand Customs Service. 
The legislation provides the legislative framework for the customs supply chain security strategy that is designed to keep New Zealand goods moving across international borders in times of heightened security alerts. For example the United States is very clear that when it is operating on heightened security alert it will give border clearance priority to those goods from a secure and trusted source such as a port with a container security initiative agreement with the US or some equivalent to container security initiative effectively putting those goods in the green lane. This Government wants to ensure that New Zealand exports are seen as secure and trusted at all times. The US Commissioner of Customs Robert Bonner said that the initiatives being introduced into New Zealand when fully implemented will help to ensure the low-risk nature of New Zealand goods coming from New Zealand to the US and keep New Zealand goods flowing in international commerce in times of heightened security. 
As I said this approach is supported by the industry but what is in dispute is who should pay for it. The legislation provides for cost recovery from traders to cover the costs of enhancing trade facilitation. Consultation will continue with industry on exactly how the cost will be recovered. To help address exporters’ concerns over these costs the Government has decided to move in two areas. Firstly it will review all charges for the Customs Service goods clearance services. This review will examine the quantum and apportionment of charges for imports exports and trans-shipments and the basis on which Customs Service charges should be levied. The results of this review will be implemented no later than the first half of 2006. 
Secondly we will continue to contribute significantly to the total cost of goods clearance services including a share of the new costs of the trade programme. To help reduce the impact of the new charges on top of the other costs exporters are facing and while the review is taking place the Government will provide an additional $8 million over the next 2 years towards the costs of Customs Service export clearance. This means that 50 percent of new costs for export clearance will be met by the Crown and 50 percent will be met by exporters. 
While the cost-recovery question has occupied a lot of time in the debate on this legislation it is just one part of an overall package designed to provide robust mechanisms to keep New Zealand secure. New Zealand is low risk but that does not mean no risk. We must do whatever is necessary to keep our country secure and contribute to a secure international neighbourhood. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) are an important contribution to this. I commend these bills to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Customs give his third reading speech on the various issues that were discussed particularly the bit about now reassessing the costs doing a survey on that and coming back in 2006 with a recommendation. Obviously we will look with great interest to see what comes out of that. 
The National Party will be supporting the immigration part of this legislation. We voted for it in the Committee and there were some very good reasons for that. The Minister outlined some of them. I note that in the Committee the Minister put in a Supplementary Order Paper to separate the immigration part from the customs and excise part. I presume that was so that the Government could secure the numbers without having to do too much of a deal with the Green Party and giving too much away over the immigration part of it. 
As the Minister said the legislation amends a number of things. One thing it does is it gives carriers the ability to turn somebody back at his or her point of entry into the plane ship or craft. That is a good thing. The New Zealand Customs Service otherwise has to detain those people go through a lengthy process at a huge cost—I believe that it is about $20000 per person; the Minister may be able to confirm that—then send them back. So that amendment is an excellent thing. We support it. The legislation also gives the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour which includes the New Zealand Immigration Service authority to make a decision based on the information it has been able to collect through the new system to be introduced after this legislation is passed and to say: “No I don’t think this person is suitable to come to New Zealand for a range of reasons based on this information and therefore you”—the carrier whatever it might be—“should not carry this person to New Zealand.” That is a very very good move and we support it. 
There are a number of others. It is good to see the extra $5 million in the Budget for this area. That was overwhelmingly necessary. One has to wonder given the massive surplus that this Government has why it would not invest in this area because clearly it is a very important area for New Zealand trade and trade access of course is very important. 
But that is where our support for this Government’s approach in this legislation ends. In the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill the Government is still proceeding with the notion that somehow or other a security cost should be paid by exporters importers and the shipping companies in-between. The cost is now down to $4 million for exporters $8 million for the shipping companies and $4 million for the importers. Quite frankly that is totally unacceptable. The Minister has been told that. The coalition of trading exporters and importers has told the Minister that in no uncertain terms and so far we have seen no explanation that justifies the move that the Government is taking. 
Maybe the Minister will take another call and tell me why he thinks that at this point in time it is credible to introduce a backdoor tax—and that is all it can be described as. Treasury papers themselves state that we cannot establish the actual cost and will not know it—and the Minister has admitted it tonight—until a survey is conducted and a proper thorough review of the cost of these procedures is done yet the Government is still proceeding with this $16 million tax which will be dumped on the growth industry of this economy. So I ask the Minister to take another call and tell me why I am wrong. The export coalition represents 80 percent of New Zealand’s $40 billion in trade and it says the Minister is wrong. What does the Minister say to that? Does he say the export coalition must be wrong—that the Government is right and it is wrong? No the Minister is definitely wrong. There is no doubt about that. 
Let us look at what the Prime Minister has said throughout this process: “We’re going to have a look at it. We’ll consult you. We hear your concerns. We’ll listen and we’ll make a decision.” Well the Government has consulted and it has listened but has it made a decision? No it has not. It has continued with this back-door tax which is right where it was at the start with the exception of the $4 million back-down. The Government intends to continue with this tax despite it being the 23rd tax imposed on New Zealanders in the time this Government has been in office. I say to the Minister that is totally unacceptable. 
The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) does one or two other things that are worth mentioning. It requires—as legislation has always required—a carrier to obtain from people their date of birth nationality sex passport or certificate of identity and the like. That is a good thing. We need to know those details. In recent times there have been many debates in the House about people who have come into this country without having been thoroughly vetted. Once they are here it is hugely difficult for us to track them down. Indeed recently we saw the Minister of Immigration appealing on national television to such a person to come forward to give himself up. So it is important that we have good rules and good regulations with regard to those aspects of the legislation. 
The officials who advised the select committee and have advised the Minister are to be congratulated on their thorough work. At this point the Opposition cannot see any gaps but time will tell. I note the officials are present and I acknowledge them. In time we will know whether there are gaps but for now the bill looks thorough and as though it will work. We think it will manage at least to ensure that New Zealand’s borders are secure against terrorist-type people who may want to come here for reasons we would not like. The Government also has said it is prepared to fix any mistakes the new regime may have by 1 July 2006. I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that fact again tonight. I look forward to what happens there. 
But I cannot understand why the Minister wants to proceed with clauses 7B and 8C in the light of huge opposition. The Government would make huge political gain if it said that it had had a look at the provisions that the officials had had a look at them that the industry had had a bit more time to have a look at them that the international concerns had been taken care of—and that was the Government’s primary objective when it set out on this course—and that the US had said it was happy with what was proposed so the Government now accepted that given its huge huge surplus it should pick up this security cost as it historically always has done. We should not have this mad “tax and snatch” approach and we should not penalise our traders again. We should not set off down a track that potentially could have a detrimental effect on our growth—and growth has been a stated objective of this Government right from the time it started talking about this business. The Minister should stand and say that the Government got it wrong and that it will not proceed with this silly tax. The political mileage that the Government would gain from that might even have the effect of turning round Labour’s fortunes in the polls—although I doubt it; I think it has gone beyond that now. Why does the Minister not accept that this measure is no good and just back away from it? 
The industry made a very very credible offer in my view. It came back to the Government and said that it accepted that the Government was pretty dug in on this approach so it was prepared to accept about 50 percent of the cost. But what did the Minister do? He said that was not acceptable. He said that the Government was not prepared to move from its current “dug in the ground” pig-headed approach that industry would pay and that that was how it would be. The National Party will oppose the legislation on that basis. It is wrong it is a back-door tax and we totally disagree with it. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 This legislation is an important part of the Government’s approach to strengthening both New Zealand’s national security and our international reputation for providing that security. It will provide a legal base for the Customs Service’s innovative Secure Exports Partnership scheme which sees the Government and industry working together to secure goods from the point of loading to export. It is very important. 
The previous speaker did at least have the wit and the sense to recognise how important this legislation is for New Zealand and for our international reputation but he got a few things wrong. The Government is of course putting $20 million in to start this process. It is not covering the whole cost. We are not trying to claim that but we are working in partnership with the industry and providing money to get the process up and started. This legislation facilitates early and timely access to information for the purposes of managing at-risk people planes ships boats and goods and the threats they may pose from terrorists. 
We all recognise that in today’s extremely insecure global climate we are at risk and we are a trading nation a long way from those people with whom we do most of our trade. Therefore we need to make sure we secure our borders and that our trading partners feel confident of that security here in New Zealand and when our goods go overseas. So I commend this legislation to the House as being absolutely vital to New Zealand’s international reputation and our trading success. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) which came out of the border security legislation. We do so for the obvious reason that our party is very strict on matters of immigration. We have been calling for controls on immigration for quite some time. We have made that clear—certainly since the last election. [ 
Interruption 
] There is the former Minister of Immigration. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: You got in the country and you want to close the door on everyone else. 
PETER BROWN 
: Minister do not give me credit for that! I reinforce New Zealand First’s view that immigrants should have a job to come to. I came here to take up a job. We say that immigrants should have good health. I say to the former Minister because she shows an interest in this that I had good health. In fact I still do. That will upset members opposite quite no end. 
Hon David Carter 
: Despite the Government. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes despite the Government. New Zealand First is concerned that immigrants coming here are all living in Auckland. We are concerned about those immigrants with a criminal background or evil intent. We want checks on them and we make no apology for saying that. We will support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). Indeed we would have been pleased to support the entire border security legislation but as my National colleagues have said earlier it is not fair or proper to impose the additional costs $16 million on exporters importers and people who tranship their cargo. The full $20 million was going to be put on to those people but the Government in its wisdom has seen the light somewhat and reduced the cost to exporters. But that is not good enough particularly when in 1999—[ 
Interruption 
] Now the Minister of Customs is taking an interest. I have the document in front of me. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with it but in 1999 the then Leader of the Opposition—the current Prime Minister—gave a speech to the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association conference— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: He’s got that wrong. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want the Minister to listen The then Leader of the Opposition said: “A coalition of tourism industry interests was instrumental in forcing the Government to postpone its plans to introduce the user-pays regime for border control services which was announced in the Budget last year.” 
PETER BROWN 
: She was talking about the National Government. 
Hon David Carter 
: Those were the days! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says: “Those were the days.” When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition she went on to say: “I can announce formally today that that regime will not be established by the incoming Labour Government.” 
Hon David Carter 
: Who said that? 
PETER BROWN 
: That was said by the Rt Hon Helen Clark when she was Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon David Carter 
: No that can’t be right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes I have the letter in front of me. She says: “We will continue to fund those border control activities which the State presently funds.” That is a categoric statement that the Government will fund border control costs. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: We’ve done that—$5 million more in the Budget. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister is shouting out. I am not exactly sure of the detail he is shouting out but he knows that border control is exceptionally important to this country. He knows that. He more or less alluded to that—that it was important to this country—in his own contribution in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister that if it is important to the country it is important to all the people of the country not just the exporters and the importers—the people who earn our wealth; the productive sector. We all should pay for border security. We all have an interest in having our shores made very very safe. The Minister knows that and to pass those additional costs $16 million of them on to exporters importers and trans-shippers whoever they are—who are they? They are not readily identifiable. 
I listened to the Minister in the House when he tried to explain what a trans-shipper was. He did not have a clue. If this bill had been addressed properly—and I do not want to say that the content of what will happen in this bill is not correct—from the point of view of cost I think every member in this House would have supported it willingly. Every member and every party would have supported this bill had the costs fallen where they should and that is on the country as a whole under general taxation. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me tell that member over there that he is only going to get this bill through with the Greens. I do not think United Future will vote for it. Is United Future going to vote for it? 
Paul Adams 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are not. Yesterday in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—I was staggered and I know that Maurice Williamson was staggered—the Greens actually said how delighted they were that the price of petrol and the price of oil was going up and that it could not go up high enough. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is that right? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is absolutely right. Maurice Williamson fell off the chair. He was sitting on the chair next to me and I had to pick him up. I have to say that I was staggered. The former Minister over there knew. She heard them say that. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: It was not yesterday. What are you talking about? 
PETER BROWN 
: What I am pointing out to the House and to that member is that those people do not understand the importance of travel roading shipping and border control to this country. If the Government wants to go along with people who have such a frivolous idea of the importance of transport border control and all that then the Government will pay the price. Everybody in this country knows that border control is important to us. It is very very important. Anybody with one iota of sense brain or whatever one wants to say would recognise it as a responsibility we should all front up to. The taxpayers should pay for border control. 
Jill Pettis 
: What do you call $20 million—chicken feed? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not sure what $20 million the member is alluding to but I can tell her that there is a $16 shortfall. If the member calls $20 million chicken feed then the Government should be paying the extra $16 million. That is what the Government should be paying. That is why we are paying our taxes. It is a disgrace that the Government sits on such a surplus and lets— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: So the surplus is a disgrace now? 
PETER BROWN 
: No no. The member is very confused. It is a disgrace that the Government is not funding this out of taxpayers’ money. This should have been funded from the general account the Government account the Crown account—whatever one likes to call it. That is the promise that the Labour Party made when it was in Opposition. Further to that when Helen Clark was Prime Minister elect she endorsed a letter to an aviation industry executive and she stated in own handwriting: “PS. Yes there is a Minister of Civil Aviation”—they obviously asked for that—“and we will be honouring the commitment we gave re border control.” That referred to the cost and that is all it refers to and the letter is signed “HC”. 
Earlier on in the imprest supply debate member after member stood up and said that when they make a promise they keep it. In a question from us about education and the policy statement and how long it lasted for I think it was Lynne Pillay who said— 
Hon David Carter 
: Who? 
PETER BROWN 
: That little lady over there. She said that when they make a statement it is forever. 
Hon David Carter 
: There are not many little ladies over there! 
PETER BROWN 
: Well there are a few! This is a serious issue and it should have been funded from taxation. If it had been funded correctly then everybody in the House would have supported this and it is a sad day that we cannot support it unanimously. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has been supporting the border security legislation and that legislation has now been divided into two bills. However we do have some serious concerns about the implications for civil liberties particularly in respect of some powers granted to the Customs Service and the Immigration Service. 
The positive aspect of the border security legislation is contained in Part 1 which is now a separate bill called the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. It will enable tighter monitoring of containers and that could help improve biosecurity. The Greens are very keen about that because already too many unwanted and dangerous bugs and plants are coming into New Zealand. There has been some debate about which extra costs should be borne by exporters and which costs should be borne by the State because there is private and public benefit from having improved security monitoring of containers. We are glad there will be some transitional State subsidies to enable the new arrangement to carry us through to the review of what the cost sharing should be between exporters and the State. 
I will spend most of this speech discussing the serious privacy problems associated with the Advance Passenger Processing system which the bill introduces. A form of this system as implemented by the United States has already caused a conflict with European countries. Section 38E(3)(d) in new Part 3A inserted by clause 8 will give the Customs Service extensive powers to require airlines to hand over personal information on passengers. The information required is open-ended not limited to any particular list although there is a list that includes for example such things as place of birth—something the airlines were a bit upset about—that could lead to the targeting of people not just on grounds of their present nationality which may be a New Zealander but also the nationality of their parents. 
Given that the whole idea of this system is to exchange personal passenger information particularly with the US we could see some New Zealanders if born say in an Islamic country having trouble at the US border or not even being able to get on a plane from New Zealand to go to the US. The whole idea of this system is to stop people—that the Americans are suspicious of—from even getting on a plane in the first place. One of the passenger details listed in new Part 3A is “special conditions regarding travel”. The Americans have sometimes interpreted that as including special diets such as might count against passengers going to the US if they order a Muslim halal menu given the paranoia in the US towards migrants or visitors of Islamic origin. 
 The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) provides that airlines are required not just to give out details of people’s impending trips but to give details of other trips around that time over a 28-day period including trips without a New Zealand origin or destination and all without a warrant being necessary. 
The Customs Service will have the right to search airline records some time after travel takes place. The Immigration Service will be able to check who someone’s companions were during the travel. The Passenger Name Records system that the Minister referred to in his speech will enable the Customs Service and the Immigration Service to search frequent-flyer records which detail journeys over a long period of time—years in fact—and maybe even credit card details will be required later. This has been a major bone of contention between Europe and America. The US wanted the details and numbers of credit cards used to purchase tickets and the Europeans could not receive any guarantees that that information would not be spread through different American agencies and misused. 
The European Parliament has been quite upset about the passenger data exchange deal signed between the European Commission and the US Government. On 31 March this year the European Parliament passed a motion criticising the agreement and the issue may soon go to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. There is a whole set of data privacy issues involved. How much personal information is collected and is it excessive? It seems excessive in this bill. What purpose is the information used for which relates to what agencies and countries such as the United States it is passed on to and how they use it or misuse it? There is no control over this in the bill. If it is misused how can we find out about this misuse and have some right of appeal and redress? That is not contained in the bill. 
The next question is what right passengers have to see what is transmitted and to correct any errors. In the bill there are four sections of our Privacy Act that are explicitly overridden to prevent someone from finding out such information. 
There are not adequate rights of appeal if someone has been stopped from getting on a plane because of certain information about that person provided by airlines to the Government. The Law Society expressed concern about this in its submission to the Government Administration Committee. The matters relating to appeal rights or lack of them are contained in the last part of the border security legislation now called the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). We know from our Immigration Service that over the last little while 34 people have been stopped from getting on planes to New Zealand because of the Advance Passenger Processing system. If they were not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents under this legislation they would not have had any right to find out why. They have only the right to challenge the decision of the Immigration Service if they can prove they were confused with someone else who had an identical or similar name although I do not know how one will actually figure out that it was a name mix-up that was the cause of the problem if one is sitting at say Los Angeles airport. 
Under the bill immigration officers do not have to give any reasons for their decision and one cannot find out through the Official Information Act which is specifically excluded from operation by one clause in the bill. If people are prevented from travelling to the United States for example they will not necessarily get much joy from the Customs Service which may have stopped them from getting on the plane because of information coming through from the United States. The key information could be withheld from them if it would “prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence by the Government of another country”—that is the other country say the United States can say that it is a confidential matter and that in itself determines the result in the fact that one cannot have access to that information. But on the other hand ordinary people have to be very open and honest with Customs Service officers because under this bill they can be detained for 12 hours and sometimes more if the officer “is not satisfied that the person has correctly answered the question asked” by the officer. 
The airlines are not too happy about this bill and they are in a difficult situation with different countries bringing in different privacy guidelines. The guidelines at take-off might be different from the guidelines in the country the plane lands in. The new processes are making a lot of extra work for them and potentially getting them in trouble with some passengers—for example they do not like the question whereby they have to provide the information on the country of birth of the passengers. 
There were also problems that were brought out in the submissions made by the Law Society in relation to the increased detention powers of the Customs Service under this bill. Detention does involve the use of force and the Law Society wanted more accountability and reporting mechanisms for the use of such force than are contained in this bill. 
As I said at the beginning the Green Party was voting for the original Border Security Bill but with its division into two bills we will be voting differently on each one. We will vote for the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill to please Peter Brown and I am sure that that will enable it to get through. That bill does have some useful security measures that will help with biosecurity—namely to help overcome the greatest danger to our security from unwanted animals and plants that are brought into New Zealand and badly affect our ecosystem. We will be voting in favour of that bill with some serious regrets because of as I have explained provisions that are detrimental to our privacy and that can lead to injustice. 
We will be voting contrary to the vote of New Zealand First against the smaller second bill the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). This is because of all the information on people that is required from airlines and the provisions specifically stopping people affected from finding out why they were excluded under the Official Information Act and having some right of appeal of that decision. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in the third reading debate on this legislation. I pick up on what Peter Brown was saying about the Greens and their rejoicing in the increase in the price of petrol. I am absolutely amazed at that party which wants to take us back 100 years. Despite the Greens I am glad that we can still progress but maybe we will soon get a time capsule that we will be able to put the Greens in and send them back 100 years so they can see what the country was like then which they are trying to take us back to and move on. 
Coming back to the legislation I point out that there is no doubt about the effect of the events of 11 September 2001. I clearly remember that morning. I was rung at about 6 or 6.30 in the morning by my young son who said: “Turn on the television because America is blowing up.” We sat before those screens and many members will have seen the replays. I do not think there is any doubt that we did not fully appreciate the horrific event happening on that day. It was a day when New Zealand went to war. We are probably only now beginning to really appreciate that we are part of that war on terrorism. It is a worldwide terrorism. Therefore we agree that there is no doubt about the need for this border security legislation. 
Whenever a country goes to war it is the responsibility of the Government of the day. I do not know of any countries at war that do not stand and pick up the cost of fighting that war. I do not believe that New Zealanders would object to the cost of our border security and paying for it. It was the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act in relation to contentious cost recovery which was included at the select committee that has forced United Future to vote against that aspect of the legislation. With regard to the amendment to the Immigration Act it is really just a correction of a technical omission that is not controversial and as such United Future will be supporting it. 
The need to increase trade security in New Zealand cannot be disputed. United Future acknowledges this and supports the practical proposals as contained in this bill. We have no arguments against those at all. But the Government swimming against the tides both of industry outrage and common sense has decreed that the private sector should bear a great part of these costs. That to us is really the major challenge with this bill. 
New Zealanders pay taxes. I do not say that they pay them happily but they do pay their taxes. There are many uses of taxes that New Zealanders object strongly to. Many New Zealanders have spoken to me very strongly about having to pay for legal aid to criminals—hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I do not know any New Zealander who would object to the Government picking up the full tab and the full responsibility for paying for the border security of our great nation. They understand that this is a type of war we have never had to fight before. They understand that it is the Government’s responsibility to protect the borders of the nation and United Future agrees with that thinking. We do not agree that the Government should look around and like in a Robin Hood situation rob from the rich and give to the poor by picking up half the tab and then ask who it can get to pick up the rest. 
Exporters labour long and hard and have to face many battles to export their products from our borders for the betterment of our nation. We do not agree they are the ones who should pay for the cost of border security. We believe the Government has an irrational and short-sighted claim that the protection of the New Zealand trading supply chain will benefit only exporters and importers. The protection of these chains of supply is vital to the maintenance of the national economy—there is absolutely no doubt about that. This relationship is particularly important in this country with our heavy reliance on the export economy. We are a nation that must export to progress. We should in every way possible be supporting the export sector which is definitely a public good whose success or otherwise of it impacts on all New Zealanders. 
I believe that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to say to the exporters of this nation: “We recognise that the security of New Zealand’s borders is our responsibility.” I believe that the Government could have won many brownie points telling exporters that it appreciates the hard work they do to build the economy of New Zealand; that it recognises because of the situation since September 11 that it has a right and a responsibility to protect these borders; and that as a Government it will pick up responsibility for what is its responsibility and pay the costs for it. So United Future will not be supporting the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill but will be supporting the second bill that the original bill has been split into which is the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party in these third readings of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). This debate is actually about the proper role of Government: what sorts of things Governments should do and what they should not do. I think every member certainly of the Opposition would see that a core role of Government is its responsibility in national and international security—that New Zealanders have a right to feel safe in their homes and on their streets and that they have a right to feel safe from any form of international threat. So when we have legislation such as these bills before us common sense tells us that it is yet another strategy of a Government trying to keep New Zealanders safe. 
As we have heard in this debate people saw the events of September 11 and were very worried about them. They have seen the developments in international terrorism since then. Here in New Zealand we have seen the increase in illegal drugs coming across our borders. We have seen the problems we have with people-smuggling and so on so we are aware of the fact that we need to have good border security. But what we do not expect is for this Government to try to pretend that border security is not its responsibility. 
That is the outrageous thing about the way this Labour Government is governing New Zealand. It seems to think that national and international security is not its responsibility as a public good. Well I have to say to the members sitting opposite that in fact it is their core responsibility and that it should be paid for out of the taxes they take from hard-working New Zealanders. The reality is that right now we all know that Labour has taken way too much tax from those hard-working New Zealanders because the Government is sitting on a surplus of some $6 billion—one of the largest surpluses that we have seen. Yet here is the Government quibbling over whether or not it expects exporters importers and other people associated with trade and travel to pick up the cost of improved border security. I think it is an absolute outrage that we have to be worrying about that particular issue as we talk about this legislation. 
Labour has managed to alienate so many parties in the Opposition that parties believing in good border security and the need to increase and ramp up the security we offer—parties like ours—have to vote against this bill because it is such poor legislation and reflects such an ill-advised way that the Government is trying to run this country. 
If we think about it national security is all about our police our defence forces and our border security. I suppose that in the next minute we will have the Minister of Police putting in legislation so that if the police come to help or rescue us we will get a bill. Is that what Labour is planning? What about the defence forces? Will we have to pay more taxes on top of our normal taxes for anything to do with what our defence forces do? We all know that that is absolutely ridiculous. I am not so sure with this Government but we do give it the benefit of the doubt. We do not think it is plotting or planning anything like that at all so why on earth is it trying to do that with this border security issue? Why on earth is it even thinking about trying to tax people more to pay for border security that is in the best interest of every single New Zealander? It simply does not make sense. 
The problems are clauses 7B and 8C the cost recovery clauses in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. Because it is a cost recovery issue I would like to ask the Government and the Minister in particular the total cost of all those border security measures. I understand that the Government Administration Committee asked that question and the Minister could not answer. Here we have an even more stupid situation where a Government is passing laws when it does not even know how much the legislation will cost. One has to ask: how dumb is that? Normally if we are going to do something we know how much it will cost so that we know if it is affordable and whether we put the Rolls Royce version in or something a little more modest. But here we have a Government charging on and it does not care. No. 1: it is taxpayers’ money. OK but No. 2 is that the Government is going to try to put another tax on a whole bunch of New Zealanders in order to pay that cost which is apparently unlimited because the Government does not even know how much it is. 
The measure has been labelled a “terrorist tax” by some of the sectors that will be involved. I understand that exporters are expected to pay some $4 million importers some $4 million and those involved in trans-shipping of goods will have to pay some $8 million. That is all very well but we all know that it is not just those people who have to pay; it is every New Zealander. It is consumers who will have to pay because some of those industries are so stretched right now by all the other regulations and taxes this Government has imposed on the small business sector that they will have no other way of dealing with the cost except to pass it on. 
I saw the Minister of Tourism come out on Monday with some half-baked press release based on how he was accusing restaurants and other industries that had tried to open on Easter Sunday of putting a 15 percent surcharge on their prices. He said that that was outrageous. Well how—gosh words almost fail me—irresponsible is it for a Minister to say: “It’s their fault.” when it was his Government that imposed those extra costs on small businesses in the first place? The whole point about Governments imposing costs on small businesses is that they will try to absorb certain of those costs because obviously it is not good for their businesses if they have to put costs up. If they cannot afford extra charges then they simply have to put up costs and pass those charges on. 
So while the Minister of Customs responsible for border security may think it is simply exporters importers and trans-shippers who will pay the bulk of the extra charges it is not. It will be the people shopping at The Warehouse. It will be the Labour Party’s own voters who will say: “Goodness me! These prices have gone up. We’re finding it even harder to struggle by on our limited incomes.” And they can blame this Labour Government because it has imposed yet another tax on top of the 23 taxes it has already imposed since it has been in Government—stealth taxes that are being passed on to consumers. Petrol taxes sherry taxes and cigarette taxes—we can name them. Labour has put those taxes on to consumers since it has been in power. 
What is even worse is the $16 million which this Government claims is a lot of money it has to get from somewhere because it cannot fund it out of its Budget surplus. Well I can tell the Government where it can be funded from. All the Government has to do is take the $21 million the Government intends to spend on its propaganda campaign to try to sell its Budget. That campaign is all wrapped up with Labour Party logos and advertising which I believe the Auditor-General will find is illegal. I believe that that issue is being brought back in front of him and if he does not find illegal aspects he should do. No Government in our history as I understand it has spent so much money. It is an absolute disgrace and the Labour Government should be ashamed of itself. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call in this debate simply to endorse the Border Security Bill. I was heartened to hear the ACT party confirm that the free market does not always provide answers to the questions we often have to confront as a nation especially when we have more international ports of entry and departure in this country per head of population than any other country in the world. Imagine Sydney having as many ports of entry and departure as New Zealand has in terms of its international airports and ports. It is absolutely outrageous for the ACT party to make a speech like that but then not have the same view on health education and all those other fundamental things in this country that we hold dear to our hearts. 
I want to talk about the Immigration Amendment Bill because I noticed that that member did not even mention it. I fully support the Advance Passenger Screening system and the Advance Passenger Processing programme that has been put in place in order to implement the system. Concern has been expressed in this House about the loss of privacy with those very large airline databases and I want to make a comment about this. 
 I spoke at a privacy conference last year. Justice Michael Kirby from the High Court of Australia whom many members of this House will be familiar with was on the panel and he made a very good point. In our countries we have the right to walk down the street—any street—without having to produce an identity card to a police officer or a security officer. That is an important freedom that we in New Zealand share with Australia and it is a freedom that is well worth holding on to. I do not know that anyone wants this country to become a police State. 
This legislation justifies measures that exclude certain people from entering our countries and I thought that Justice Michael Kirby put it very well when he said that we do have the right to look at who is coming into our country and the right to make those decisions. As I have said on more than one occasion we have a right to know who is here where those people have come from and why they are here. This bill should go a long way to ensuring that those who wish to enter our country under false identities to seek residence in this country by back-door entry will be stopped before they board the plane. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The contribution by Lianne Dalziel was interesting in that she spoke of the Border Security Bill. Having been involved in the debate throughout the earlier stages of the legislative process I can say that the legislation was until very very recently the Border Security Bill. But we notice that at the eleventh hour the Minister has split that bill into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). The Minister has not bothered to inform the House himself as to why that was done but it was clearly because of the flakiness of the Greens. 
John Carter 
: Are they flaky? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They are very flaky as I will prove shortly. First of all I want to talk about the amendments to the Immigration Act because my reading of them is that they are a very sensible initiative. I think that putting some onus back on the carriers to provide information to the immigration authorities so that decisions can be made before people get on an aircraft at the point of embarkation or certainly during the trip and before they arrive in New Zealand are eminently sensible suggestions. I do note that they were actually raised by customs officials back in late 1999 to Ministers of the then National Government so it would be interesting for the Minister sitting over there on the Government side of the House Rick Barker to answer the question of why it has taken 4 long years to progress this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on those amendments to the Act. 
But the interesting thing to note is that the Green Party will not vote for this legislation. The Minister’s knowledge that the Greens have decided not to give their support to the Border Security Bill in its entirety is probably the very reason why the Minister at the eleventh hour had to split the Border Security Bill into the two separate bills that will be passed tonight. That in itself is very very surprising. I remember when the Border Security Bill was first put out by the Government. Amongst the many many press releases that went out from various parties and various members of Parliament was one by the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. He was absolutely opposed to the Border Security Bill as being yet another unnecessary tax that would be placed on the importers and exporters of this nation. So there we have the original position taken by the Greens which was that they would oppose the Border Security Bill because border security should be a public good and not yet another tax on the wealth creators of New Zealand. More recently Mr Keith Locke said tonight that the Greens will support the Customs and Excise Bill which has arisen from the Border Security Bill. Mr Keith Locke nods his head agreeing that that is his position. I accept that that is the position but I take the opportunity of pointing out to the House that it was certainly not the original position of the flaky Greens. 
 In talking more specifically about the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill I want also to agree with the comments made by the United Future member Paul Adams. It is almost 3 years since the dreadful events of September 11 and my memory of those events and the pictures and images I saw on television will never fade. I suspect that members of the public who also saw those images time and time again will never forget them either. On that very day whether or not the Greens are prepared to accept it the world fundamentally changed with that event. Clearly border security was going to be something that all responsible nations had to address and be prepared to greatly strengthen. I think that not to do so would be an irresponsible action on the part of any sovereignty. The sad thing we face is that despite countries around the world—and including New Zealand—significantly upping the ante in border control I suspect the world still faces further risks from international terrorist events. I think that when our children and our grandchildren travel around the world for their overseas experience from now on that will be acknowledged as a realistic fact and risk associated with their travel. 
The second aspect of this bill I want to comment on—and I am referring of course to what is now the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—is that any country with which we want to trade has the right to set the rules by which it will accept goods at its borders. If the United States of America has upped the ante and now made it tougher for any person or any country anywhere in the world to export to that nation then I accept the sovereignty of the United States of America. It has every right to do that and I think it is naive at best for the Green Party to argue for anything else. Put simply if we as an export nation want to export to countries—particularly to the United States of America—then we must abide by the rules a particular country sets. No amount of comment and criticism down here in New Zealand by the Green Party will cause any change to that country’s position but it certainly will not do us any good either. 
The final issue I want to speak to is the issue of whether border security is a further tax or whether it should be a public good. That has been the major argument expounded time and time again by Opposition members and particularly by those from the National Party throughout this debate. This is the terrorist tax. It is taxation increase No. 23 from a Government that on coming into power promised only one taxation increase. The National Party is firmly of the view that border security is a public good. It is a core function of this Government to fund border security to the extent that it protects our citizens in the best way possible from any adverse importation and certainly from any importation of a terrorist event. That good should be paid for by general taxation. But this Government because it wants to crow—as Mr Rick Barker the Minister has throughout this debate—about the huge Budget surpluses it has been able to achieve has levelled back on to importers exporters and trans-shippers a further taxation bill tonight of $16 million. Or it will be a further taxation bill with the passing of this legislation. 
Now that figure is somewhat better than it might have been because when we were debating this legislation in its earlier stages through the House the figure at that stage was $19.753 million. Subsequently the Labour Party started to decline dramatically in the polls. It knew it was in trouble over this issue— 
Shane Ardern 
: And many others. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —and many many others as my colleague and friend Shane Ardern mentions. So it took the step of reducing that $20 million liability to $16 million expecting that to curry favour with the importers and exporters of this nation. Well it has not done so. Importers and exporters have clearly demonstrated to me and to many members of Parliament that this issue is about the public good. It is about a core responsibility and duty of central government and therefore there should be no attempt to pass on to the users of the service the costs that are now being imposed because of the passing of the border security legislation—the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill as it is now known. It is a public good. 
My closing remarks are to remind New Zealand that we are now hugely overtaxed and that that taxation burden is being added to tonight with taxation increase No. 23 which is about to be levied by the Labour Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in the third readings of these two bills the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). Throughout the debate members have talked about the importance of border security so we should get on and pass legislation to do something about it. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is an important issue. It is yet another example of how this minority Labour Government is trying to get yet another tax passed through this House as late in the day as it possibly can. New Zealand First will not allow that to happen. The whole country should be made aware that most of the Opposition parties in this House are fighting as hard as they can to prevent this minority Labour Government—on this occasion supported by the Greens or should I say yet again supported by the Greens—from imposing a tax on the people of New Zealand to do something that in the past Governments have always done in any event and that is ensure the safety of our borders from people coming in and the safety of the products we export. 
This Labour Government is again breaching these well-established principles of the New Zealand way of life all to eke out another $18 million or so from the workers of New Zealand. This tax bill will fall inevitably on the workers of New Zealand as the tax is passed on to the various people who have to bear the cost of it. The exporters will pass it on to the carriers and ultimately the carriers will pass it on to the housewife. All these costs will inevitably be met by the housewife as she shops in Foodtown Countdown or wherever for the goods that are exported or imported. Another little tab will go on to them but this minority Labour Government does not really care at all about those people. 
There are two bills here. New Zealand First will support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) which has nothing to do with taxation. It tightens up aspects of immigration to New Zealand and that is to be commended. I just had one thought about the bill when I looked at section 125AA in clause 29. I am sure that this matter has been covered but there is a constant reference in section 125AB as well to a chief executive. I suppose the chief executive must be covered in the definitions in the principal Act because there is no definition of chief executive in this bill—the chief executive of whom or what? Is it the chief executive of the plane itself or the chief executive of the Immigration Service? 
Shane Ardern 
: Immigration. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well if the person coming on to the plane has to be dealt with and the chief executive is in Wellington that will not help someone getting on a plane in Hong Kong very much. I guess that some sort of delegated authority will have to be taken into account. I just raise that issue but it is excellent to see that the type of policy that New Zealand First— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.