Volume 620 Week 70 - Wednesday 13 October 2004 
Volume 620 Week 70 - Wednesday 13 October 2004 
[Volume:620;Page:16081] 
Wednesday 13 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Stranger in the Lobbies 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise with you an issue regarding Standing Order 42. I raised this matter at the conclusion of the Committee of the whole House last night and I understood that the Chair of the Committee was going to bring this matter to your attention. It concerns the presence of Mr Ross Wilson President of the Council of Trade Unions within the lobbies of Parliament. Standing Order 42 determines that you have a right to control who is admitted to the meeting rooms and lobbies of Parliament. I am just wondering whether you have given Mr Ross Wilson some form of official status; if so whether the House should be informed of that official status being given to Mr Ross Wilson. If not as the House is discussing employment relations legislation at this time could you rule on whether it is appropriate for the president of the Council of Trade Unions to be in the lobby meeting with officials and the Minister during a part of the Committee of the whole House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that matter which was a point of order. I refer members to my  
Rules for Admission to the Chamber Lobbies and Galleries of the House of Representatives During Sittings of the House  
which state that while the House is sitting the following strangers may be admitted to it: staff servicing members of Parliament in order to leave messages or papers for a member or to receive instructions from a member; and personnel required to carry out technical functions etc. I will have a look at the particular issue the member raised and report back to him. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened to your list and it seems to me that this issue falls into the category in the British House of Commons of: “I Spy Strangers.” If this Government is bringing in people who are not civil servants who are not entitled to be here and who in this case are representing the largest trade union group then my only objection to this point of order is that it appears that if the Government went along with this then the matter has to be a breach of privilege and a very serious one. The Committee of the whole House was debating industrial law and the person who has the greatest self-interest in the issue was within the lobby directing the Government. That has to be very close to a breach of privilege. It is not a matter just for you Mr Speaker to look into. If it happened I think you should invite the member to lay a breach of privilege case against the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to do that then of course he can do so. I refer members further to my rules for admission to the Chamber under the section headed “Admittance of strangers to the Ayes or Noes lobbies”: “When the House is sitting … the following strangers may enter the Ayes or Noes lobbies as far as strictly necessary through the lobby behind the Speaker’s Chair: (3) Ministers’ advisers departmental officials and research unit officers—for access to meeting rooms:”. I will consult the Minister on this matter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is certainly a new point of order. It seems to me that the list you have read out does not in any way incorporate the president of the Council of Trade Unions. The reason why I think we need this matter resolved urgently is that I understand that at the end of question time we are to move back into a debate around employment relations. We now no longer know whether the Government and perhaps the Speaker is giving Mr Ross Wilson special status requiring him to be in constant contact with officials and Ministers during the Committee of the whole House on the employment legislation. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A brief glance at the Order Paper will tell the member that following question time we will have a general debate this being Wednesday and following that we will have the third reading of the electricity and gas legislation. So we are some hours away from getting to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill giving Mr Speaker considerable time to consider the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers are entitled to have advisers on their bills. It depends on whether he is the Minister’s adviser. I have said that I will consult with the Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not have that nonsense at all. I now warn members that the next member who goes on like that will go out. That is out of order and grossly disorderly. Mr Prebble has called a point of order. He will be heard. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure what you are indicating to the House. Are you indicating that if the Government indicates to you that it is taking advice from the Council of Trade Unions on this matter it can invite the Council of Trade Unions in? At that point we will have the whole of the trade union movement out there in the lobby. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise the issue because I was in the House last night when it was reported that Mr Ross Wilson was in the room with Department of Labour officials. When you look at this case I ask you to consider how he had gained access to the room given that we have parliamentary messengers and security people who watch the access. In thinking about it and in noticing that when Mr Wilson walks around the building he has a parliamentary ID card the same as that worn by staff members it appears that that card—which I understand has to be issued on your authority—may well have confused people outside the room who have effectively allowed a stranger to come in because he was wearing a parliamentary ID card. I ask that you examine that issue. It may be opportune for you to look either at the issuing of those cards or at the rules regarding access for people who have them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that but it is up to Ministers as to who are their advisers on a bill. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 It may be up to Ministers as to who are their advisers on a bill but it is up to Parliament to decide who has access to the lobbies. The process that goes on in here is rather different from the process that goes on for Ministers in the Beehive. Voting is done here and amendments are put up. That is why access is controlled—so that the process of Parliament can continue unimpeded and without threatening external influence. 
 If I take your comment at face value you are saying that if a Minister decides someone is his or her adviser then that person has free access to any part of the precincts of this Chamber. That cannot be the case if the Minister decides who is allowed to be in the lobbies of this Parliament. It is up to Parliament to decide that because the lobbies are part of the precincts of this Chamber. Even you Mr Speaker do not have the capacity to change the rules so that Ministers can decide. So I recommend that you give this matter much further consideration than the somewhat intemperate comments that have just been made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not made intemperate comments. I said to the member that I would look at this matter further and I will do so and I will report back to the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I conclude that the member just referred to comments you made as being intemperate? If that is so I think he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the comment made by Mr English was not very wise. I do not think I made an intemperate comment and I invite him to withdraw that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. 
Questions to Ministers 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Treaty of Waitangi 
1. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Did he receive a letter dated 22 August 2003 from Housing New Zealand Acting Chief Executive Jordan Alexander providing a “Maori Responsiveness Update” that advised him that Housing New Zealand had developed “a new set of organisational behaviours that relate to HNZC’s values seen from a Tiriti/Treaty two-world perspective” and does he support Housing New Zealand having a two-world perspective? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The corporation did provide a Maori responsiveness update that noted the main element of its strategic role was to support the Crown in its Treaty of Waitangi relationship with Maori. The actions that Housing New Zealand Corporation intended to take to provide this support were to ensure that the values and behaviours of staff were informed by appropriate knowledge and training accepting that the different people the corporation works with have different ways of looking at the world based on their distinct culture traditions and beliefs. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can he confirm that the recruitment and promotion of Housing New Zealand staff is “Informed by a Tiriti/Treaty two-world view.” and what happens to those staff and potential staff who do not agree with Housing New Zealand’s two-world view? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member touches of course on employment matters in relation to how the corporation hires its staff. But what I can say is that the corporation itself does not have—and I said this last week in answer to a question—a two-world view of the treaty. What is happening is that the organisation understands that its clients have different ways of looking at the world and it wants to ensure its staff understands that. That is part of the training that they apply to their staff. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What range of housing support has this Government provided to meet the diverse range of New Zealanders’ housing needs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There are many examples but I shall cite four: providing homes to meet the needs of elderly people through working with partnerships in the third sector like Abbeyfield; providing larger homes designed to meet the needs of Pacific people thereby helping to reduce the incidence of disease; the Rural Housing Programme to improve substantive housing and prevent children from dying in house fires like they have unfortunately in the past; and over 1400 community group homes to meet the needs of people with mental physical intellectual and other special needs. In other words the Government attempts to be responsive to different communities. 
Katherine Rich 
: On what date did he first learn that Housing New Zealand was developing a two-world view and does he accept responsibility for this two-world view? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot give the exact date although I am willing to find out for the member when I might have received the first piece of paper or briefing on this matter. However I repeat to the member as I have said repeatedly in the House; the corporation does not have a two-world view of the treaty. The corporation understands that there are different views out there in the community and it ensures that its staff are aware of that as they go about doing their jobs. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Why is the Government not insisting that Housing New Zealand prioritise the housing needs of all New Zealanders regardless of ethnicity race or beliefs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Not only do I insist on that but the corporation insists on that itself. It has a social allocation system that the member can get hold of himself and he will find that it is blind to ethnicity. 
Metiria Turei 
: So the Minister would then agree that it is perfectly reasonable—indeed critical—for Housing New Zealand to consider different cultural perspectives and world views within and in the provision of its services if Housing New Zealand is to take a needs-based approach to the housing needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree that it is essential that any public service provider is aware of the fact that its clients will come from different points of view but those points of view should be understood in terms of providing a service to them. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is the Minister aware of the induction programme for Housing New Zealand staff that begins by having new staff learn to explain what the two-world view is what its purpose is and how it can be applied to the workplace internally and externally; and can he explain what the purpose of the two-world view is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can explain what the purpose of the two-world view is because I have just explained it I think in answer to every single question I have been asked in the last 2 or 3 minutes. The answer is that the corporation understands that its clients have different ways of looking at the world and that they have different values and beliefs. The corporation wants to ensure that its staff understand those different views so they can provide a better service to people. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does the Minister accept that under the Treaty of Waitangi Maori might reasonably have expected that “the bulk of the country would still belong to the tribes which would rule themselves as they wished with some Pakeha settlers there by agreement and observing Maori law” as taught in Housing New Zealand’s training programme for staff? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding of the treaty is a little different from that. I would like the member to show me that piece of the training and I will follow it up. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister find it acceptable that taxpayers’ money has been used on Housing New Zealand’s training manual  
Kete 2 
 that requires staff to complete “30 days of affirmations and meditation” to deepen their understanding and application of Housing New Zealand’s two-world view framework? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I go back to the central point I have made a number of times. The department is attempting to ensure that its staff understand there are different ways of looking at the world. Mr Hide for example has a way of looking at the world. Very few other people look at the world that way—a shrinking number of them of course—but we respect that point of view as well. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If a person’s world view is determined by his or her cultural background and if in New Zealand we have people from say a hundred different cultural backgrounds why does Housing New Zealand have a two-world view rather than a 100-world view? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I have said a number of times in answer to questions today the corporation does not have a two-world view of the Treaty of Waitangi. What it understands is that it has obligations—as I said in answer to the first question—as part of the apparatus of the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi to recognise different world views. That is what it recognises. That is what it is acting on. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister accept that the Maori world view is equal to the Crown world view? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Treaty of Waitangi accords status to both the Crown view and Maori in relation to the treaty. In relation to the provision of public services we are talking about people who come from different cultural backgrounds and who have different beliefs and values and they will be respected. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the pre-course manual  
Kete 1 
 from Housing New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table a Housing New Zealand Corporation induction programme so that participants will be able to explain what the two-world view is and explain the purpose of the two-world view. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the recruitment policy and two-world view of Housing New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the training manual  
Kete 2 
 of Housing New Zealand which sets out the programme of 30 days of affirmations and mediation on the two-world view perspective. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave for all of these tabled documents to be bound in one single document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Career Planning—Economic and Social Policy 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to make it more attractive for young New Zealanders to train for careers that are crucial for our economic and social well-being? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 This year for the first time the Government offered Step Up Scholarships to pay part of the fee for school leavers from modest-income households enrolling in critical areas of study. Step Up Scholarships in human and animal health are now being expanded to include students up to the age of 24 and to reduce the fee the student has to pay to just $1000. StudyLink will also begin this year to promote among schools the new Step Up Scholarships for school leavers studying science and technology because the Step Up Scholarships will be available to them as well. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are there any policy changes in related areas that will have an impact on Step Up Scholarships? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. Step Up Scholarships are targeted at low and modest income households on the basis of the student allowance eligibility. Allowance changes next year will increase the proportion of 18 to 24 year-olds who will get allowances from 38 percent to 57 percent so this will also have a major impact on students being able to get a Step Up Scholarship. Another policy change that will impact on Step Up Scholarships would be to allow institutions to charge whatever fees they like since step ups commit the Government to pay all fees in excess of $1000 to $2000. That would expose the Government to fiscal risk. I therefore expect that some fees would go up under a potential National Government and that it would also scrap Step Up Scholarships. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that after 5 years of writing strategies and employing hundreds of people he has lost confidence in the Tertiary Education Commission and that he would be better to take the $45 million a year that he wastes on them and spend some of it on more Step Up Scholarships? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I applaud the member’s support for the Step Up Scholarships because we will be trying to extend them in the future and I look forward to his support. I remind him that the money he quoted in relation to the Tertiary Education Commission goes on for example major programmes like Gateway a staggeringly successful programme that I know he supports as well. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is investigating the possibility of restricting university enrolments in over-subscribed courses of study through funding mechanisms and is also considering raising entry standards for university enrolments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Universities set the standards of entry into their courses so they will continue to do that. As part of the strategic approach to investment—yes we are looking at ways that we can provide incentives for students to go into areas where the country needs their skills. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Bold Perspectives Shared Objectives Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Conference 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is the purpose of the Bold Perspectives Shared Objectives Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Conference that ACC is hosting in March 2005? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The conference will bring together a number of top national and international experts on injury prevention and rehabilitation. It will provide a valuable opportunity to learn from international experience and research and for New Zealand to share the outstanding results of our unique and successful accident compensation scheme. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why has the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) selected as a keynote speaker Steve Longford an FBI-trained criminal profiler who works on counter-terrorism and serial violent crime and how does that fit in with the purposes of the conference? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Mr Longford was a guest speaker at the Australian Rehabilitation Providers Association conference in March this year and appealed to ACC because of his outstanding work in the area of family violence injury prevention. It is not an area on which we have particular expertise and I am looking forward to hearing his views. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What proportion of accident compensation claimants are successfully rehabilitated within a year of their injury? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am advised that over 90 percent of claimants are successfully rehabilitated measured by a combination of the rate of return to work and positive assessments of claimants gaining maximum independence. By world standards this is a first-class achievement. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister give the House some idea of the estimate of the costs of this conference and will she guarantee that there will be benefits in the long term for accident compensation victims; if so how? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am unable to give the final total costings for the conference but I am quite happy to forward that information to the member when it becomes available. I am confident when I look at the 30 or so speakers both from within New Zealand and international that it will be very worthwhile. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister consider that Steve Longford’s presence at the conference creates an appropriate perception among claimants of the corporation’s role in rehabilitation given that his current focus is on providing behavioural intelligence and deception detection expertise to counter-terrorist corporate and Government bodies around the world? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think it is an added bonus that he is also an expert in counter-terrorism activities but that is not the primary reason we have invited him to an injury prevention conference in New Zealand. The reason for the invitation is his expertise in family violence prevention. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister give us even the slightest indication of what this will cost or is it what we would term a “blank cheque” conference? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I cannot give the member any vague indication because I do not think that would be helpful to the member. It is certainly not a blank cheque. The fact is as I outlined in my answer to the previous supplementary question that I do not have the finalised costs available. When I do have them available I will be very happy to forward them to the member. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned at all that despite her efforts to change the attitude of ACC towards claimants over the last 5 years ACC often retains its old culture of blaming rather than supporting accident victims—particularly long-term claimants—and risks intensifying that culture by viewing them via Mr Longford as potential terrorists and serial criminals? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not agree with that suspicion at all. In my view it would be more helpful for the member to acknowledge the reason Mr Longford is coming here and not add to any suspicion that would fuel the very concern she has about ACC. 
Local Government—Voting System 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his speech to the local government conference 2004 that “This will be a historic election” and “The work that has gone into planning for the introduction of STV is a great example of the successful partnership that exists at present between central and local government.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I do. Single transferable voting (STV) itself is not the problem. The problem is the processing of the vote count by two contractors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Could the Minister advise the House of the specific “historic” great or “successful” aspect of the local elections; was it the record low turnout was it the lateness of the reporting of the results was it the record high number of invalid votes was it the mess for thousands of voters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is four questions already. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —or was it the massive counting debacle that has resulted in tens of thousands of votes not being counted in official results? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is five questions. The Minister may comment on two. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I think the comment that would best answer all five is that the implementation the funding and the organisation and contracting of local elections is the business of local councils. 
David Parker 
: Were there successful vote counting outcomes by other companies in the 2004 elections? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes there were. The preliminary results from the largest STV election in the country that for the Auckland District Health Board were available by 10 p.m. on election day. We need to ensure that those sorts of high standards apply across the whole country. 
Jim Peters 
: When the Minister stated in December 2002 that: “The Government has provided options for communities to increase electoral participation and equitable representation.” was he referring to 2004 or to a future Government in 2007; if so which particular options was he thinking about? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Could the member please repeat the question? 
Jim Peters 
: When the Minister stated in December 2002 with regard to the Local Government Bill of 2002 at that stage that: “The Government has provided options for communities to increase electoral participation and equitable representation.” was he referring to 2004 or to a future Government in 2007 or what options did he have in mind? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My comments were in reference to the Local Government Bill of 2002 which provided communities with the ability to choose their voting system. I remind the House again that the 10 councils that chose to use the STV system all chose it for themselves. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that all nine STV elections conducted by Taranaki councils and by Independent Election Services went smoothly and in particular that the results of the Auckland District Health Board election that he referred to where over 127000 votes were processed were announced on Saturday night— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 13000! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. I have warned—and I gave it a second or two ago when another member did it—that the member cannot do that. He knows that is out of order. He is to leave the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just asked a member to leave the Chamber in the middle of a question that is set down in his name. I suggest that that is extremely unfair. Ministers regularly abuse the Standing Orders and indeed your repeated rulings to them about the conciseness required in answers to questions yet on many occasions Ministers such as Mr Mallard have been allowed to remain in the House because they had to answer a question at some time in the future. I think that it is most unfair that Dr Smith has been asked to leave prior to the end of his question. We appreciate that you have made your ruling and we accept your ruling but we ask you to consider whether it may be appropriate for him to return to the Chamber to ask the final supplementary question that he would ordinarily be entitled to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give that point to the member. It was his original question. I will allow him to ask his supplementary questions and then he is to leave. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that all nine STV elections conducted by the Taranaki councils and by Independent Election Services went smoothly and in particular as the Minister mentioned that the Auckland District Health Board election which had the largest vote—of over 127000 votes—was processed and announced by 10 p.m. and that Kaipara was announced by 7.30 p.m. and Thames by 8.30 p.m.; and does he agree that the unacceptable delays with other results are due to problems with Electionz.com and Datamail rather than with the STV electoral system itself? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm the details the member has given and I do agree that it is a processing problem not a problem with STV. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the Minister not embarrassed that his local body elections using STV have produced such a shambolic result and been outperformed by Afghanistan which has just had its first election in 5000 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that I am extraordinarily annoyed that this has taken place. I am very disappointed for the candidates for the communities that are still waiting to see who their mayors and councillors will be and for the district health boards that are still waiting to find out who their members will be. This is an intolerable situation that must not happen again. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister considered requesting the services of the United Nations electoral supervisory body once it has completed its task in Afghanistan in order to sort out the electoral botch-up that is affecting numerous local government elections here in New Zealand; if not what assurances can he give that local government democracy will not be run like the elections in the state of Florida in the future? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that his local government officials have been working with Datamail for the last 2 years to develop the software and system for counting votes and that his department approved the outsourcing to Datamail as stated in the  
National Business Review  
on 24 September this year; and given this detailed involvement of his department why does he not accept responsibility? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My department does not engage itself in making contracts for the counting of votes. That is done by councils. Those negotiations took place between territorial authorities and the companies that they contracted out to. That is none of my business. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers does the Minister accept personally any responsibility at all for the bungle in this year’s local body elections; if so could he briefly outline where he believes he has failed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My responsibility as Minister of Local Government is to provide the statutory framework under which these elections take place. My business is not to engage in contracts; that is the business of local government. What I am doing is trying to provide a solution to this problem. I have asked my officials today to work with Local Government New Zealand to see if this company is not able to fulfil its contracts what alternatives we have to ensure that the vote is counted as soon as possible. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Minister mean when he said on National Radio this morning “the integrity of the vote is always going to be in doubt now”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member failed to give the rest of what I said in that interview which was: “unless we make absolutely sure that this vote is counted properly and promptly”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement of 24 September from the Datamail general manager that the Department of Internal Affairs’ local government section had worked to develop the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I further seek leave of the House to table the transcript in which the Minister said that the vote would always now be in doubt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a statement I have just put out from my office asking my officials to look at new options for how the vote count could be done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Auckland District Health Board which used STV voting showing that over 12000 votes were thrown out because of the complexity of the STV voting system. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
Early Childhood Education—Teachers 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of appropriately qualified early childhood teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Over the next 4 years $41.4 million will be invested in a scholarships scheme to give assistance to people from low-income backgrounds to train to be early childhood teachers. Our Government is committed to getting more and more young children into affordable accessible and top-quality early childhood education. Getting properly qualified teachers is an incredibly important part of that. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Why is the Government moving to increase the number of qualified and registered early childhood teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Quality early childhood education is a vital foundation for future learning and success in later life. It is obvious looking around that too few people have had it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister insisting that the Ministry of Education close down the Kawhia Early Childhood Learning Centre when it has a qualified teacher who happens to have a primary school degree rather than an early childhood education qualification; and why is he going to the High Court to try to get it shut? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are three points. I am advised that Kawhia has received considerable assistance from the Ministry of Education including solutions to the licensing issue and has turned them down. My second point is that Kawhia has gone to the High Court not the ministry. If the member cannot tell the direction on that it is no wonder he is failing badly. 
Trade Negotiations Minister—Confidence 
6.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister for Trade Negotiations; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Prime Minister so confident bearing in mind that her Minister continues to be bullied by Australia in trade matters—for example the Minister cannot even get access to Australia for a few apples—and he is bullied when it comes to the Australian wine industry—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I said there would be no interjections during question time. The member knows who I am looking at. Janet Mackey will leave the Chamber. I like to be even-handed in these matters. I heard a particular member interject. That was the member I was referring to. 
Janet Mackey withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does Mr Hawkins not go? It will be the first time he has accepted responsibility for anything this year. If I may restart my question is the Prime Minister confident that her Minister for Trade Negotiations will not be bullied by the Australians in trade matters—for example he cannot even get a few apples exported into Australia he keels over backwards when the Australians put subsidies on wine and as far as the United States is concerned he is weak on the free-trade agreement; what will the Minister do about that weak attitude of the Minister for Trade Negotiations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just pick out one of those. The ban on New Zealand apples has been in place since 1921—a year before the lakes were not sold to the Crown. We have made significant progress towards achieving the removal of that ban. New Zealand has consistently argued for it to be based on scientific grounds and the Australians are moving somewhat glacially in that direction. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When does she expect the Minister for Trade Negotiations will do more than be just hopeful—as he is quoted saying today—that the Australian ban on the importation of New Zealand apples will be lifted given that the United States has recently won a case at the World Trade Organization against Japan on the same issue using New Zealand research and Australia has been playing with New Zealand for the past 5 years on this current application lodged in 1999? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly the Americans have not got any apples into Japan yet despite winning the World Trade Organization case. Secondly this Minister unlike the member who asked the question actually did get progress with the Australians. As the member will be aware during the election campaign there was a bit of moving around in the Australian Government position. We are confident that Australia will actually moot a position where science will be allowed to determine the issue and the issue is clear—fire blight is not carried on mature apples. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Prime Minister tell her Minister for Trade Negotiations that she will not sign any trade deal with any country that refuses to ratify respect and abide by core international labour standards or involves the import of cheap contracted labour from ASEAN countries to New Zealand as suggested by the ASEAN secretary general just last month? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This country takes a firm position in trying to support labour and environmental standards as part of trade agreements but it is not always possible to get those included. We are certainly not going to cut off our own noses to spite our faces in that respect. 
Dail Jones 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in her Minister for Trade Negotiations when we currently have a trade deficit that has blown out to $2.07 billion in the June quarter when we have had the worst August year since 1982—and we know what happened that year—and this Minister has done absolutely nothing to face up to the gravest problem our economy is facing today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was not aware of what the last matter was referring to; if it was the price of oil I think it is a bit much to expect the New Zealand Minister for Trade Negotiations to get international oil prices down. 
Dail Jones 
: I take it then from the Minister’s answer that the Prime Minister expects the Minister for Trade Negotiations to do absolutely nothing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly do not expect the Minister for Trade Negotiations to achieve a reduction in the international oil price. 
Small Business—Economic Growth 
7.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received on economic growth in the small-business sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 More evidence that the economy is powering along under the great stewardship of this Government and its excellent Minister of Finance: according to the National Bank’s  
Small Business Monitor 
 released last Friday year-on-year growth in the small-business sector was 4.6 percent at the end of the December quarter. 
Mark Peck 
: What did the report highlight as the most significant concern for a small business? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The major hurdle identified by small businesses is a skills shortage. Fortunately after years of neglect from National-led Governments this Government is working hard to solve that problem in a whole host of ways. Unlike those on the other side who continue to fight yesterday’s battles we like the business community are moving on with confidence. 
Te Arawa—Rotorua Lake Beds 
8.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Was he advised by his department that the proposed Te Arawa lakes settlement would require an exception to the Crown’s settlement principles; if so why is the Government proceeding to make this exception? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. My department had initial concerns about the impact of the settlement on the autonomy of local authorities. As I said in my reply yesterday the concern has been addressed in the current deed of settlement in agreement with the relevant local government authorities. 
Simon Power 
: Why did he state in a letter to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that he was not “persuaded that settlement negotiations are the appropriate forum to address regulatory reform” and is this not evidence that the Te Arawa proposal is about contemporary resource management issues and not a grievance of the type that a treaty settlement process is supposed to deal with? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I said in my initial answer we did raise concerns at the beginning of this process. Negotiations over a settlement are an ongoing process. We have moved on and addressed those issues. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Minister have any concerns about the Te Arawa settlement and its impact on conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None whatsoever. I believe that a partnership between Te Arawa the Rotorua District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty with support from Government agencies including my own department will ensure the best possible future management of the Rotorua lakes. The public interest in the lakes is protected and we are likely to see a significant improvement in the health of the lakes’ ecosystem. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can and will the Minister explain his Government’s transfer of the iconic Rotorua lakes out of public ownership to meet iwi claims while simultaneously insisting that the coastal foreshore and seabed be held exclusively in public ownership in spite of iwi claims? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My responsibility as Minister of Conservation is to be an advocate for the biodiversity and conservation values of the lakes. I am confident they will be better addressed after the settlement. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. I asked the Minister to explain the apparent contradiction between the foreshore and seabed issue and the Rotorua lakes issue. He made no attempt at all to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought he did attempt to answer that question. It might not have been answered in the way the member wanted but he certainly did address the question. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree with his officials’ advice in relation to the Te Arawa lakes settlement offer that they “do not support contemporary resource management issues being addressed in the context of a historical treaty settlement”; and does not this advice simply show that the whole Te Arawa proposal is unsuitable as a historical treaty settlement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I have said twice already we have moved on in the negotiations. But I would like to quote the words of the Mayor of Rotorua Grahame Hall: “The people of Rotorua don’t deserve to be the butt of political posturing that was more about rating well in the polls than ensuring a positive and harmonious future for our residents.” Mr Hall was talking about Don Brash. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just advise the member whom I am about to call that it is not appropriate to call out “Yes or no?”. Ministers will answer in the way they address the question. 
Simon Power 
: Why did the Government not accept the Minister’s advice and that of his officials that the Te Arawa proposal is about contemporary resource management issues and is not a historical treaty grievance settlement; and is that not evidence of how politically motivated this Government’s treaty settlement process has become? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As we have already explained we have moved on in the negotiations. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member is so concerned about the recognition of Maori ownership of lake beds how does he explain National’s agreement to recognise iwi ownership of Lake Taupo and Lake Ellesmere? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would be interested to know how you could consider that the Minister had addressed this question adequately. The question went right to the heart of the policy decision that the Government has overturned in the case of the Department of Conservation’s advice to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I would have thought that it would be quite an easy matter for the Minister just to say that his advice had not been accepted because the Government had decided to go ahead with a certain course of action or perhaps to explain how his advice has been taken by the Government in the context of the settlement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned the member has offered how he would have answered the question. The Minister gave his answer and it addressed the question. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Chris Carter to the Hon Margaret Wilson regarding the Te Arawa lakes settlement in which he stated that he was not currently “persuaded that settlement negotiations are the appropriate forum to address regulatory reform”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Beneficiaries—Reciprocal Responsibility 
9.  
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he agree that people who receive a benefit have a reciprocal responsibility to minimise their reliance on the State; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. For example people have a clear responsibility to take up job opportunities that are offered to them. Work and Income has experienced significant success in this regard with record numbers of employment placements and a 50 percent drop in the number of people needing an unemployment benefit since this Government was elected. New initiatives and strong employment opportunities have seen the total number of working-age beneficiaries reduce by over 57000 since 1999 and I look forward to continued success in this regard. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm that over the past 5 years 44793 recipients of the domestic purposes unemployment sickness and invalids benefits had additional children while on the benefit and notwithstanding the odd accident is he satisfied that these people have taken their reciprocal responsibilities seriously? 
Hon Annette King 
: Abstinence! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That may be a way forward and maybe that is something people ought to consider. When we look at the list of figures of people who are on the domestic purposes benefit we see that most have a very small number and they move off that benefit very quickly—about 3.5 years is the average time after which they come off the benefit. The kind of person who is on that benefit is usually a person in his or her early 30s who has come out of a relationship and moves on from that benefit. We will continue to ensure that people who are on all of these benefits live up to their obligations move off the benefit when they are able to and move into a job and support themselves as we are very successfully doing. 
Tim Barnett 
: What initiatives are in place to ensure that people receiving a benefit have opportunities to move into employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A wide range of initiatives are in place to help people into work. For example the domestic purposes benefit and widows benefit reforms are already seeing an increased number of people exit to work. Jobs Jolt initiatives such as industry partnerships are opening up new opportunities. The sickness and invalids benefit strategy is showing encouraging results in assisting people to recover and return to employment. Active approaches like our seasonal work strategy are helping people to take up opportunities that are available. We have an obligation to offer people employment opportunities and they have a responsibility to take them. 
Katherine Rich 
: How many clients if any since the implementation of the Jobs Jolt initiative have had their benefits reduced as a result of moving to remote areas with little prospect of paid work or of failing an employment drug test? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would have to get the figures for the member. However in relation to the low employment alert list that she is referring to with regard to people moving to a remote area that is a list that was asked for by front-line staff because for example if people work in Nelson and want to shift to somewhere where they are unfamiliar staff simply use the list to say to them: “This is an area where you are unlikely to get a job.” and usually they therefore do not go. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister accept that by not taking their reciprocal responsibility seriously beneficiaries who purposely have additional children would receive at least $20 per week more meaning an extra cost to the taxpayer of almost $1 million a week over the last 5 years particularly when other forms of family assistance are included; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If there are people whom the member knows about who do not take their reciprocal responsibilities seriously and are having babies so they can earn another $20 a week I would love him to bring those to my attention and we will follow them up. 
Paul Adams 
: Why are sickness and invalid beneficiaries not required to undergo treatment as part of their reciprocal responsibility to the State? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If people are on a sickness benefit as was recently said by the national commissioner they are sick and we therefore focus on getting them well so they can return to work. For example they have to return to a doctor within a 13-week period after their first assessment and they have to keep on going back to ensure that they are indeed moving towards being well. If the member is perhaps referring to people on an invalids benefit such as tetraplegics for example having to be constantly proving their health status I imagine that the member would accept that they are tetraplegics. 
Local Government—Election Results 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What responsibility does he accept for the “bungle” over this year’s local body elections? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 None. Responsibility for this shambles lies with the two companies responsible for processing the count in the affected areas. I have directed my department to look at the specific problems that occurred to see what assistance we can give to local authorities so that they can avoid these problems in the future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that the Department of Internal Affairs was directed by him to work with Datamail on its experimental software systems that it approved those systems which now have failed and it is the failure of that Crown entity and that Government department that are ultimately his responsibility? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that my officials worked on the single transferable vote (STV) calculator which is not in question. That is not the problem. The problem is in the electronic system that feeds data into the calculator. My officials are not responsible for contracting out the counting of the election. That is the responsibility of territorial authorities as it has been since the 1860s. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister clarify who is responsible for conducting local authority elections? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can indeed. Local electoral officers are responsible for conducting local authority elections including the processing and counting of votes as they have been for well over 150 years. I know that some councils have contracted out that responsibility. Some encountered no problems but no doubt some must be very disappointed with their contractors’ performance. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister tell the House whether if this type of bungle were to occur at the next local body elections he would accept responsibility at all and if it did what is the difference or is he a Minister who needs a dummy run? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I assure this House that I have been giving every encouragement to Government members who sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee to conduct a full inquiry into this local body election. I am hoping that the results of that inquiry will be a guide for local government so that we can avoid this problem ever happening again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why will he not accept responsibility as Minister of Local Government for the self-declared shambles when he has been a vocal supporter of STV when his department was responsible for the inadequate publicity on how STV works when his department approved the failed software systems and when his department had been working with the State company at the heart of this mess for 2 long years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat to the House that STV itself is not the problem. Two of the contractors who obtained contracts from local authorities have been unable to count votes adequately. The problem is a processing problem. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has known for some time that the problem is in the character recognition software that Datamail was the only company in the country to have such software and that there was always a chance that this would be the result should that experimental software fail; if so why does he not accept responsibility for his decision to go ahead with the STV elections? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm reports from Datamail that this debacle is some weeks away from resolution; if not can he tell us when those affected votes can be counted? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I cannot confirm that either. What I can confirm to the House is that I have instructed my officials today to draw up a contingency plan just in case Datamail is unable to carry out its contracted functions and we will provide that guidance to local government which ultimately must make the decision about where it will have its votes counted. 
Darren Hughes 
: In terms of taking responsibility for elections does the Minister recall any outgoing Ministers taking responsibility for the long delays in the 1999 general election including the entire polling booth of votes that went missing in Mr Power’s electorate? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for that. The National Party has used up its supplementary questions for today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Have we? I have two questions to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can check. The list I have here indicates that there are 15 supplementary questions today and they have been allocated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After two primary questions and after an extraordinary number of supplementary questions finally the Minister of Local Government told us that he instructed his officials to put together a contingency plan should it not be possible to count the missing votes in the STV election debacle. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to ask one further question of the Minister in order that the House might be clear about the contingency plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask one further question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Television New Zealand—Dividend 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he agree with the reported comments of Television New Zealand Ltd Chief Executive Ian Fraser that the TVNZ dividend of $37.6 million for 2003-4 would be better off reinvested into programming to meet the charter; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 It is for the Government to decide how to allocate funding. For this reason it expects the State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies to return their surplus funds. The payment of a dividend to the Crown by TVNZ is required and the Crown returns funds to TVNZ to assist it to implement its charter. By doing so it helps to ensure there is transparency and accountability for the now $17 million provided for charter funding. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree with TVNZ’s chief executive Ian Fraser that the State broadcaster is caught on a money-go-round by having to pay far more in dividends to the Government than it receives back in funding for charter programmes; and why will the Government not waive the dividend provided that TVNZ meets a strict and accountable set of commercial and public service performance measures? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before TVNZ is a commercial company. It is required to act in that way while it delivers its charter obligations. Therefore we will ask it to pay a dividend and we will choose what it gets back for charter funding. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the Minister happy with the performance of TVNZ? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I am. TVNZ’s results have been outstanding in the last financial year. Not only has it improved its financial performance but it has taken significant steps towards implementing the charter. Unlike some of the Opposition members who seem to want to sell off TVNZ we are committed to it being a strong company delivering charter television. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister think that TVNZ’s request to retain its dividend to reinvest in charter programming is a clear sign that it is not currently meeting its charter obligations as indicated by the plethora of crapulous mind-anaesthetising programmes such as  
Living the Dream 
 the  
Mike King Show 
 and the truly inane  
City Celebrity Country Nobody 
; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. The member might have liked to watch the programme on Marti Friedlander that was on in the previous weekend. He would have found it very very useful. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that if TVNZ is serious about reshaping itself as a true public service broadcaster as the chief executive said yesterday then the days of astronomical salaries for star staff long lunches on company credit cards and the company paying for $60 bottles of wines and $60000 a year for corporate boxes must end? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government has been very clear with TVNZ that it needs to monitor its expenditure closely. Eleven percent of all TVNZ staff earn over $100000 a year which compares very favourably with other publicly owned companies and large private sector companies. We will ask it to continue to monitor that. In relation to other expenditure I will pick out the member’s last point. TVNZ has for some time been looking to assign its lease for its corporate box because it no longer should have one or wants to have one. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has TVNZ taken any specific steps since the publication of the report on violence to reduce the amount of violence in children’s cartoons screened on TV2—the programmes show more than 8.3 episodes of violence in an hour—and why is it saying in its annual report that it will replace foreign cartoon programmes when funding becomes available when charter funding is already available precisely for that purpose? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member would probably know that the production costs of cartoons particularly those for child audiences are inordinately expensive. That is why the company needs time to do that kind of programming. In relation to what it has done about violence I think the major thing that it has done in respect of young people is to remove the promos that it ran throughout the evening for often quite violent films that were to play later on in the evening. 
Airports—Congestion Auckland and Christchurch 
12.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What is the Government doing to address congestion in the arrival halls at Auckland and Christchurch International Airports? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The Government will spend $5.75 million this financial year on extra border staff and equipment to relieve congestion at Auckland and Christchurch airports. Tourism is a success story in this country. My colleague Mark Burton reports a 12 percent increase in the number of people arriving and departing over the previous year. That growth requires infrastructure that can process international visitors in a more timely fashion while still undertaking the checks and clearances essential to protecting New Zealand’s borders. 
Dave Hereora 
: Where and on what will this extra $5.75 million be spent? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government will spend $5.75 million this financial year increasing to $7.7 million in out-years. There will be 96 more customs officers at Auckland airport to ensure that the 50 arrival and departure booths are fully staffed at peak times. Two new MAF Quarantine Service X-ray machines and 70 new staff will be engaged at Auckland International Airport. At Christchurch there will be nine extra Customs Service staff as well as five new MAF Quarantine Service officers and new X-ray machines. Those developments are a good example of Government and business working together. Both the Auckland and Christchurch airport companies are expanding their space and increasing the number of staff to fill it. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Will the Minister give the House a cast-iron guarantee that by processing people faster there will not be any slippages and that at the same time security will be tightened to ensure that undesirables will not fool the system and gain entry to our borders thereby creating safety threats to all New Zealanders? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can assure the member that the increase in numbers will not be at the expense of checking passengers who are a threat to our borders. The main reason the number of staff is being increased is to ensure that the processing times come down but that we continue to have the same level of security and safety checks at our border. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer to my colleague will the Minister advise the House how widespread the problem is: how many undesirables come in during any given time period? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot tell the member what I do not know and I do not know precisely how many undesirables come in. But I can tell the member that we have a record number of arrests at the border for the importation of for example drugs and a record number of seizures of consignments of goods that are contrary to the copyright laws. In the last financial year the Customs Service outperformed nearly all its criteria. 
Questions to Members 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Specialist Adviser 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Following his reply to my oral question on 7 October 2004 what did he consult the committee’s independent specialist adviser about? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 I consulted the adviser about the names of submitters not on the previously agreed list but whom individual members wanted the committee to hear. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the chairman deny suggesting that Nanaia Mahuta be heard and not telling the committee about that? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I did not deny that I suggested Nanaia Mahuta be heard. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: During the chairman’s consultation with the specialist adviser did he recommend that Nanaia Mahuta be heard without consultation with anyone else? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was given names by several committee members and in the same manner that they were forwarded I forwarded Nanaia Mahuta’s name to the specialist adviser. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debate—Local Government Elections 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for an urgent debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On what subject? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am pleased you asked. It is very clear from the answers given by the Minister for Local Government that for some time in the future we can expect major cities to be without governance we can expect hospitals throughout the country to be without governance we are likely to have to have special legislation in the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has indicated roughly the subject of the debate. Please be seated. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Local Government—Election Results 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jim Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the problems that have emerged with the local body election results. These problems were apparent yesterday and if the member had wished to suggest an urgent debate he should have raised the matter then. In these circumstances there is no case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for an urgent debate today. The request is denied. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to conclude that in the worst botch-up of local government elections in the whole history of this country you are not allowing a debate? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All the member can conclude is that he did not comply with the Standing Orders which I have to administer. The Standing Order has been in existence ever since I have been in this House for 38 years. It has not changed. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This situation is not sorted out now on Wednesday which makes it far worse than not being sorted out on Monday or Tuesday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just compounding the issue. I have ruled. There is no case because the matter should have been raised yesterday. An urgent question was raised by Dr Smith. I said that although it was not strictly urgent I realised it was a serious point and I allowed it to be raised at that time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might give us some indication of how you view changing circumstances in these matters. What is very evident today is that rather than being a problem that might be sorted out in a matter of hours or perhaps in a day or two this is now a problem that by Datamail’s own admission will take some weeks to sort out. 
As I said before it will leave major cities without any governance and it will leave every hospital board in the country without governance. It is likely to lead to special legislation in the House either to cover that situation or to validate elections in some way or in fact to have new elections. I think it is difficult for us in Opposition to know when it is an appropriate time to put in a letter given that the situation is moving so very fluidly but most certainly the House should have a view on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can get an urgent debate on only a particular occurrence not a continuing issue. We are about to enter into a general debate where I notice all parties will be represented. They can speak about whatever they like. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to refer you to Standing Order 373 which deals with the issue of applications for urgent debates. That Standing Order requires that a written statement must be made 1 hour prior to the day’s sitting which would have been 2 o’clock. Given that the Minister’s press release came out after that time it would have been practically impossible for any member of this House to meet the Standing Order for an urgent debate to be lodged yesterday—plainly impossible—so I seek some clarification. Is the reason for your declining the debate because you do not see it as urgent and that is perfectly within your discretion or is it that we should have done it yesterday which would have been impossible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer to the second part of the question is that it would not have been impossible because I could accept the letter any time if there was a particular circumstance. That is why I of course accepted the member’s urgent question—I thought there was a particular case even though that was not the advice I was given. I took responsibility for accepting that urgent question. As far as I am concerned this issue is one that I have ruled on. 
General Debate 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I begin by expressing my congratulations to those who were elected in the local body elections on Saturday my commiserations to those who were not elected and my consolation to those who do not know either way at this stage. We have seen an appalling situation by any stretch of the imagination and particularly so when we discover that essentially the system for running local elections in New Zealand has been unchanged since the days of provincial government which ended in 1876. That in itself is an indictment and is a reason why there needs to be an urgent inquiry into the events surrounding that election. The subsequent issues that have emerged regarding the counting of votes the contract that was let and the fact that every local authority is responsible for the conduct of its own election is in my view totally unsatisfactory. 
 The point Mr Brownlee raised by way of a point of order a moment or two ago about large cities now being ungoverned and district health boards being unable to carry out their responsibilities is perhaps a little far-fetched but the reality remains that many New Zealanders today—most of whom did not vote in the local body elections anyway—have had a further blow to their confidence in our system of local government by virtue of the fact that we cannot even get the results counted and out on time. Part of the problem lies in the way in which we administer the local body elections. 
I take the House back a few years to the establishment of the Electoral Commission in the early 1990s as part of the lead-up to our MMP system of Government. One of the objectives prescribed for the Electoral Commission at the time of its establishment was that it should oversee all matters relating to the conduct of elections in New Zealand. As one of those who can remember the design of it and as a member of the select committee at the time I well recall the discussions about the fact that we needed one central body to conduct elections to carry out the regulatory responsibilities in terms of the registration of parties etc. and to ultimately take over the handling of enrolments. At the moment we have a hopelessly split and divided system. Then we add into that the tier of local authority responsibility and we get a system that is totally unworkable and that has failed the public on this occasion. 
I am a strong advocate of the single transferable vote (STV) system. I do not hold that responsible but I do believe that inadequate preparation was made for counting the votes under it. I draw to the House’s attention this parallel. In our first MMP election in 1996 we experienced similar problems in getting results which were complicated then by a referendum as well. But the lesson that should have been learnt from that change was that when one makes a major change to one’s electoral system—and I will come back to the point raised separately by Dr Smith in the media in a moment—one needs to have thorough and adequate preparation. It was maybe forgivable in 1996 to have the delays the first time around. It is utterly unforgivable in 2004 to have a similar situation occurring. 
Dr Smith raised in the media the fact that we have one system for some elections and one for another. There is some merit in that point but I do not think that that in itself goes to the core of the problem. I take the point that people confronted with a range of voting papers may have scratched their heads and wondered which names to tick or which names of a series to strike out because they did not wish to vote for them. But the fundamental point is that we have a system administered by so many different authorities and we clearly did not have sufficient preparatory work done. Even the company involved in carrying out the election—and I was not aware until I became aware of who Electionz.com are that we had privatised the electoral system in New Zealand—now admits that it did not have the resources to do the job properly. That in itself should be raising huge questions about the level of preparation for this change. 
The reality will be that up and down New Zealand at the moment many people who have been cynical about local government over the years who have wondered what on earth its relevance has been and who have tended to ignore it will now have had their cynicism confirmed. I feel sorry for those candidates who are on tenterhooks. I feel sorry for the country. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It was only a few weeks ago that the Minister of Local Government proclaimed that the upcoming local body elections would be historic great and successful. Then he wanted to claim responsibility; today he is blaming everybody else but himself. The scale of the debacle is extraordinary. Tens of thousands of single transferable vote (STV) votes have not been counted. Eighteen district health boards and seven councils are affected. The Minister admitted on radio this morning that it was worse than a shambles and said that the integrity of the vote will always now be in question. 
The Minister must accept responsibility. Let me set out why. This Government passed a law against opposition from this side of the House. It put in place the law that provided for the confusing system of STV and it also required every district health board to have that system. The Minister has gone even further. He has personally promoted STV all around New Zealand. The Minister said in the House this afternoon that he has no responsibility at all. Well the smoking gun is in the record from Datamail. Datamail says that Chris Carter’s own department has worked with it for the past 2 years in developing the software and the system. His department approved the Datamail system that has failed so badly. Members should remember that it is a State-owned enterprise that has stuffed up here. For the Minister to blame councils when his own department indicated that both Datamail and Electionz.com are approved agencies really is an extraordinary exercise in passing the buck. 
It is also noteworthy that only a few weeks ago he was claiming credit for the STV system and for the campaign that was to back up that system yet today Datamail has said that at the core of the problem was the poor information campaign—for which the Minister claimed the credit at the Local Government New Zealand conference speech only a few weeks ago. The Minister is keen to highlight the fact that STV has worked fine in a few areas that did not use the company. That is garbage! There were 14000 votes in the Auckland district health board area. Of that number nearly 15 percent has had to be thrown out because of this confusing system. In Northland 4000 votes are unable to be counted because they are invalid. That is extraordinary and undemocratic. For the Minister of Local Government to claim that that is a success is something extraordinary. The part that is so bizarre is that only a few weeks ago the Minister said that the running of local body elections was a partnership between central and local government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who were the partners? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I assume it is between the councils and the Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s a divorce today. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is it a divorce? We know the Government is pretty keen on some strange things like that. I am saying to the Government that the Minister cannot say it is a partnership one week and then the next week say that it is all the councils’ responsibility. It is interesting: as the Minister of Conservation there are all sorts of pictures of him in the paper as if he personally saved the kakapo but the moment anything goes wrong that Minister is nowhere to be seen. There is an old ministerial convention in this House and that is that Ministers are responsible for their departments. The fingerprints of the Department of Internal Affairs are all over this debacle and Chris Carter is responsible for that. But what is even more serious is that he is responsible for the PC legislation that introduced the confusing and conflicting electoral system that has resulted in this debacle. I say to the Government member who is about to get to his feet that the Government should take responsibility. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The House will rise for the year in about 9 weeks and a new question has arisen in New Zealand politics: can Dr Brash last as long as that? If he does then he will enter the new election year as leader and will therefore almost certainly lead National into the general election. He will lose that election. He will depart politics soon after. Under that scenario National will have a new leader about 1 year from now. But the other scenario is that he will be gone by Christmas and that scenario is starting to gain momentum. 
Let us explore the evidence: firstly the polls. National is tracking down these days in poll after poll and Don Brash’s own ratings are leading that decline. His preferred Prime Minister ratings are now low—again. If there is another month of decline like the last month or two the National caucus will stop its current muttering and start doing the numbers seriously. It is bad to watch it happen but it is about to get worse. 
Secondly let us look at his performance. Crucially that also not only remains bad but is getting worse. That man is not learning from experience. The post-Orewa shine has long since corroded and left him. The hope that his caucus invested in him has long since gone. He has responded to all of that by steering clear of Parliament. Instead he tours cadaver-like around the towns meeting with very small groups of people—mainly business. He becomes more distant not less. He is hermetically sealed. He has become more clinical and less able to take a position on any issue that resonates with any significant group of the public. 
Thirdly there are the policy flip-flops. Flushed with his Orewa success he let it be known that a series of major speeches on policy would play out this year. It turned out to be a series of one—on law and order. The good doctor was going to get tough with crime rates which happen to be at a 20-year low and put more people in prisons. “Oh yeah?” said the nation with one voice “Where? Where will you build these prisons? Will you build them in Tony Ryall’s electorate or in Simon Power’s electorate? Will you build them in John Key’s electorate? With what sort of money and how much money will it cost? When will you build them and with what workforce given that we’ve got the second lowest unemployment rate in the Western World?”. So the law and order speech sank into a swamp and the series of speeches was off—it was the flip-flop. But in the last week or two it seems as if the series might be resurrected again—flip-flop-flip. It is very hard to tell where National is. 
Fourthly Dr Brash has no judgment. He thought he could change the law on the nuclear issue and he thought he could get away with it. He is profoundly dismally out of touch. He thought that he might hock off Kiwibank. “Don’t do that” said members of his own party. He wants to spend the Cullen fund but his finance spokesperson thinks that that is a bad idea. Then over the weekend we watched the Mayor of Auckland get historically and comprehensively dicked and we saw Dr Brash put up his own sinewy hand and say that: “Maybe Mr Banks could come back into the ranks of the National caucus.” He has such timing and such judgment! 
But finally the main bit of evidence is that Bill English is on the move—watch him. This week today and last week the man has been putting out press statements at exactly the same rate as the leader. He is working hard. He is taking an active role in House procedures. He is taking it to the Government. It is true that his allegations in the education portfolio are misleading—or sometimes worse than that—but he is active and engaged and his activity is planned and strategic. Bill English is waiting. He knows that his time is coming again and he has one fact at the very front of his mind. It is this: about a year ago Bill English lost the National Party leadership by mistake. Do people remember the rat pack the Bill English camp celebrating the night before and losing the following day? Do they remember the effect on the caucus in general and on Nick Smith in particular? Do they remember the questions about who voted for whom and whether the senior whip had done the right thing? Do we all remember all that? It was a mistake. That was why they were celebrating the night before. What happened was that a number of the caucus who wanted to support Bill English also wanted to run him close teach him a lesson and sharpen him up a bit. What happened was that they did not tell each other. It was a mistake. He is coming back. 
Debate interrupted. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Stranger in the Lobbies—President of Council of Trade Unions  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked to rule on the presence of the president of the Council of Trade Unions in a room off the Ayes lobby. I understand that the person concerned was escorted to the room by a member of the House. On that basis the person’s entry to the lobby was not challenged. The member however should not have brought the person into the lobby in that way. Ministers are entitled to have advisers present in the lobby and on the right of the chair when a bill is being considered by the House and had the president been present in that capacity as an invited adviser there could have been no objection to his presence. But that was not the case here. I remind members that while the House is sitting they should not bring other persons into the lobbies except where that person is acting as an adviser to a Minister or member in charge of a bill. A further point was raised about the visitor’s identity card. He did have a proper identity card for entry to the building but as I have said that did not authorise access to the lobbies. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling. I just seek a couple of points of clarification if I may. Firstly are you advising the House that Mr Ross Wilson was here not at the invitation of a Minister but of a member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is what I said. 
SIMON POWER 
: Thank you. Secondly since that is the case in accordance with the guidance that you gave at the commencement of question time today does that mean that we now have a situation whereby a particular member is in breach of Standing Order 42? And what avenues are available to members of the Opposition in that case? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I regard this incident as a breach. But the breach has been acknowledged and I have accepted the member’s apology in that regard. I regard the incident as closed. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could do the House the courtesy of advising the House who the member was because I think that the House deserves to know that. Members got into difficulty earlier on today when they did not know who it was. I wonder whether you could do that now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it was the senior Government whip. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as a follow-up issue something that I am not clear about and that I think it may be worth taking away and considering is the process by which a person becomes an adviser. It appears to me that you are not advised of who the advisers are but that it is really an informal process we have where a Minister says for instance: “These three people are my advisers.” For example Mr Wilson could have been declared an adviser after the event or 5 minutes before it. I just wonder whether it is not worth considering that process so that we have some formality before the event about who is and who is not an adviser. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that comment. As far as I am concerned if a Minister wants to have an adviser he or she can have whomsoever he or she likes. But that is the Minister’s responsibility or that of the person who is in charge of a bill. It may be a private member’s bill and the private member can have an adviser in that capacity. I trust that when members and Ministers have advisers and have them representing them on their behalf they accede to the Standing Orders. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it not be appropriate that you be advised of them and of their names before the event? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that has not been the case in all the 38 years that I have been here. It may be something to look at in the security policy and I will look at that particular issue. But at the moment I am going on the rule that advisers are there at the invitation of the person in charge of a bill—whether that is a Minister or a private member depending on the type of bill we are dealing with. I will ensure that that is the case. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you are on exactly the right track and I may be able to offer some help. It may be appropriate that you take Mr Hide’s suggestion and say that when a Minister or a private member who is in the chair chooses to have an adviser who is not a Government employee that Minister or member advises the Speaker. Traditionally the advisers are departmental officials. They come and go and they do not all have the badges but they are often heads of department and very senior people. I do not think that anyone in the House is complaining about that but it would be useful for you to know when the advisers were non-Government employees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that point of order and wonder if he would be prepared to write to me in that regard. I will then have something to consider because I am very much in sympathy with the point he makes. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Today the ACT party asked the Minister of Housing whether he is aware that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has developed and implemented a two-world view within the corporation—a Maori view and a Crown view. It was clear that the Minister did not have a clue. That Minister does not know what is going on in his portfolio. That is the same Minister who has the worst record of failure for ill-advised flagship programmes in the whole Labour Government. He has wasted millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. 
We now have the totally unacceptable situation where the corporation—the State agency that houses tenants from dozens of different nationalities—has implemented racist policies that create a Maori world view and a Crown world view promoting special treatment for Maori. According to the chief executive Helen Fulcher the two-world view “is based on an acknowledgment that the two Treaty partners have different ways of looking at the world including beliefs values and experience. By looking from both of these perspectives we can develop a two-world view for the Corporation which will underpin the way HNZC operates internally and the way we develop relationships externally. … we are only at the beginning of a long and really interesting journey.” 
A request under the Official Information Act has revealed that in breach of all of our New Zealand laws stating that in this country one cannot discriminate on the basis of race the Labour Government has implemented policies that have introduced special treatment for Maori clients and special treatment for Maori employees creating two tiers of privilege. Under Housing New Zealand Corporation’s two-world view millions and millions of dollars have been spent on consultants travel meetings and hui as well as on race-based recruitment and training. 
For the first time in the history of the public service in this country we have a Government that has introduced recruitment policies meaning that unless a person agrees with Maori grievance ideology and buys into this Government’s politically correct agenda that person cannot work for Housing New Zealand. It is an outrage that we now have a Government that employs people in the public service based on racial ideology and that they cannot be hired by the corporation unless they pass Labour’s race test. 
I know people who have applied for jobs in the corporation and in other Government departments like the Department of Corrections—and I understand that such policies are also going on in the health sector in the police and in a number of other areas—and they have chucked it in in disgust because they do not buy into political correctness at the level that Labour is thrusting it down their throats. They do not buy into having two different types of privilege—one for Maori and one for the rest of New Zealand. 
According to the training documents there is even a transformational vocabulary in the Housing New Zealand Corporation. One cannot say that one is “confused”; one has to say one is “curious”. One cannot say that one is afraid; one has to say one is “uncomfortable”. If one is furious one has to say one is “passionate” and if one is disgusted one has to say one is “surprised”. 
Steve Maharey must accept full responsibility for undermining the integrity of the public service for pushing even more political correctness on to New Zealand—a country that is sick and tired of political correctness—and for promoting reverse discrimination by introducing special privilege for Maori. 
I leave Government members with this question: can they name one person who lives in a warmer dryer safer house as a result of Housing New Zealand Corporation’s two-world view? The answer is no. The members over there know it yet they are thrusting this stuff on to the public service and unsuspecting New Zealanders. It is not only that; Labour’s spin machine has tried to tell us the opposite—and it is not true. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To dream the impossible dream to fight the impossible fight—an octogenarian first-term MP becomes National’s leader and sinks without trace. What is now obvious to everybody is what the  
Daily News 
 recently remarked upon. At 18 percent and falling Dr Brash is at levels that Bill English was at when National dumped him a year ago. A year ago National was struggling in the polls. A year ago the National caucus was dispirited and dejected. A year ago the National Party had no policy to speak of. What has changed? Nothing has changed. It is still struggling it is still leaderless and it is still a policy dead-zone. Don Brash was supposed to be the answer—now they cannot even remember what the question was. 
How has National’s new line-up responded? The  
Dominion Post  
called the front bench “missing in action”. The Christchurch  
Press  
lamented the paucity of talent in the National caucus. About the only National member doing any visible work according to the conservative columnist Matthew Hooten was Bill English. Let us look at the competition he has for being the soufflé that rises twice. Katherine Rich had a welfare policy and Roger Sowry called it the best policy paper ever written by a sitting MP. What did Don Brash do? He canned it. Simon Power had a real job once. What did Don Brash do? He canned it. Gerry Brownlee who is proving about as useful on the foreshore as any other beached whale is not happy. He criticised the iwi ownership of the Arawa lake beds but he supported it for the Taupo lake beds. Judith Collins wants to force children in potentially abusive situations to tell their parents that they are having abortions. Her caucus canned that so she is not happy. Georgina te Heuheu is still there. That is a mark of great courage and some mana but one has only to look at her to know that she is not happy. 
John Key wants to keep the Superannuation Fund and give back taxes. Don Brash does not nor does Standard and Poor’s so John is not happy. Nick Smith is still recovering from his judicial discovery of the separation of powers. He is not happy. Roger and Lynda are going. Mr Speaker is not standing in his seat. Shane has stayed off the tractor. None of them are happy. Paul Hutchison knows more about health than Judith Collins but she got the job so Paul is not happy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will use members’ full names. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The good Dr Hutchison the member for Port Waikato told a general practitioners meeting in Queenstown that there were too many district health boards and primary health organisations and that they needed rationalisation. Judith Collins said that that was not National Party policy and that she was not happy. 
So where is all this leading? Don Brash’s polling is back down to the margin of error and he faces a potential early retirement. The Nats have the gruelling decision whether to dump him now and lose the next election or to lose the election first and then dump him. John Banks potentially has a new future in the National caucus. Simon Power has a glimmer of hope. John Key Katherine Rich and the other policy wonks have a chance to make policy. But they are not happy. 
Meanwhile Labour is delivering. Under Labour we have a Budget that is good news for Kiwi kids. We have a strong growing economy with the best growth in a decade and the lowest unemployment in two decades. We have a secure retirement with a protected superannuation fund. We have State assets proudly owned by New Zealanders like Kiwibank that are paying their way. We have a future for our young people with more resources by far for education and training Gateway programmes and apprenticeships. To wrap up Don Brash is failing and his caucus is not happy; he will be gone by lunchtime. Labour will govern for another 3 years and the public will be happy. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 If Darren Hughes was ever worried about having to get past David Cunliffe to become the next leader of the Labour Party that sad pathetic little speech from David Cunliffe will have pushed Darren Hughes into a different limelight and a different spot. David Cunliffe is the only member who when he rises for the Labour Party to start to speak has the junior Government whip sinking below his desk with his hand on top of his head shaking his head. Darren Hughes is fully supportive of a man who cannot give a speech in this House without starting with some corny line that he has dug up from the “100 Best Lines” from “Webster’s Best Speeches”. If ever Darren Hughes thought he would have to climb over the corpse of David Cunliffe to become the next leader of the Labour Party let me say to him: “Don’t panic.” It will be a very small step indeed after that sad little speech. 
Having said that Mr Cunliffe did not refer to the complete shambles that local government in New Zealand is currently in. Chris Carter is totally out of his depth. As the Minister of Conservation his output classes in the area of management of natural heritage have failed in 21 out of 35 performance measures. He was ignored by Margaret Wilson—admittedly a reasonably regular occurrence in that caucus—when he tried to advise her against the Te Arawa lakes settlement in Rotorua. The poor man is a total lightweight and now after making a hash of conservation he has moved on to make a complete hash of the local government and district health board elections. 
As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out Chris Carter said at a local government conference in 2004 that the introduction of the single transferable vote was a great example of the successful partnership that exists at present between central and local government. That Minister is now in a bathroom somewhere washing his hands of that matter and saying that it has nothing to do with him. I never thought I would stand in this House and say this but bring back Sandra Lee. She would not have made a mess of this like that Minister has. She would have at least managed to see the elections go through. 
Whatever happened to the Westminster convention of individual ministerial responsibility? It is worth having a look at what Philip Joseph wrote in  
Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand 
: “The convention of individual ministerial responsibility holds Ministers responsible for the general conduct of their departments.” 
Bob Semple would be rolling in his grave. He gave the advice many years ago in this House that he was responsible but not to blame. Annette King has stood in this House and said that the buck stops with her. What does Mr Chris Carter say? “It is not my fault it has nothing to do with me. Nothing to see here. Let us move on to another exciting speech by David Cunliffe.” Let us move on to what else Philip Joseph has to say in his textbook on administrative law: “A Prime Minister will sacrifice a Minister whose personal failings cannot be publicly defended or are an ongoing liability to the Government.” 
I ask the Prime Minister to think very carefully about allowing Chris Carter to continue in that job. He should take responsibility for what has occurred. Eighteen district health boards have been affected around New Zealand. Seven local councils are in complete disarray and tens of thousands of votes have been counted—or not counted; who knows. It makes Florida look like a walk in the park. The buck stops with the Minister Chris Carter. 
I ask members to remember when Helen Clark became Prime Minister. She said there would be new standards of Government. What is Chris Carter doing to those new standards of Government when he refuses to take responsibility for the debacle that has occurred in these local government elections? As my colleague Nick Smith said it is all very well for Chris Carter to wander around at photo opportunities with a tuatara on his shoulder but these local government debacles that have occurred in the last week will be the millstone around his neck. His time is up. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is interesting to speak here today. We have had the very strange sight that was like some weird version of  
Men in Black 
 whereby people in black suits were wandering around a lake in Rotorua. We would have expected perhaps the great shot fired by Dr Brash to be the subject of the debate today. But no what happened? One of the icons of New Zealand Sir Howard Morrison put him in his place and National members shut up rapidly. They figured out: “Whoops we bombed that one again. We had better flip and flop all over the place about the local body elections.” But they have not talked about the results. 
Let us have a look at Auckland. I am very proud to say that in my electorate six out of six members of the community board were Labour candidates. Three out of four of the city councillors in the electorate the boundaries of which I share with Mr Simich were Labour candidates. Four of the six members of the licensing trust were Labour candidates. What is the score for the ACT – National coalition that masquerades in Auckland as Citizen and Ratepayers Now? Zip zilch gone! Dead in the water! Some of the candidates abandoned ship beforehand. 
Of course ACT members had to come here today and bring out the old Maori bashing technique again. ACT is polling down at 1 percent and disappearing. If those members want to talk about integrity let us hear about that fella called Brian Nicholle. What a wonderful campaign manager he proved to be. Let him run the campaign for National and ACT next time. They will not be worrying about 24 percent or 20 percent; they will be worrying about minus 24 percent. 
What have we heard about here today? We have heard about how the votes did not get counted. Opposition members do not want to talk about where the votes did get counted. No they were judged good and proper by the people who said that they do not like people who sell pensioner housing. Up in Maungaturoto where the invisible leader of the Opposition was last week drumming up votes—it is a great place; I bet if we asked most New Zealanders they could not tell us where it is but it is a great place and I have been there—what did residents say to the great leader? They asked him why he wants to sell Kiwibank. The area is heartland National territory. The people there say that they like Kiwibank that it is the only bank left in their area and that the Government did a good job by putting it into place. But we have not heard about that in this general debate. Dr Nick Smith is the great hit man the one with the huge success rate. Do members remember the carpets and all those wonderful stories we heard from him—“Mr Reliable” somebody whose every word we could believe? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The rug doctor. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: The rug doctor yes. They have him lined up. I want to know why Bill English is not speaking today. He is the only effective member of the Opposition. At least he gets it right half the time. All the rest of them are flipping and flopping and going all over the place. Mr Key says one thing and Mr Brash says the other Dr Hutchison has one view and Judith Collins has a different one and next week somebody else will poke his or her oar in. Yes I agree that Katherine Rich wrote the best policy paper the National Party has produced. It is the only one but nobody is allowed to see it because Dr Brash’s strategy has changed. There are no big hits on the Government any more. Let us to Maungaturoto and answer the big questions: “Why are you taking away Kiwibank?” the people up there asked. What a shambles this Opposition is in worrying about the fact that some computers did not work and the votes were not counted. There will still be a district health board next week. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Is the hospital still open? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: The hospital is still there. And yes it is damned annoying for those people who cast their votes and those candidates who are waiting but it is equally damned annoying for the National Party and ACT people who got turfed out of their positions all over Auckland City because the Auckland population said: “We hate that style of politics. We don’t want it any more. We don’t want local government selling pensioner housing Kiwibanks and anything else they can lay their hands on.” That is what the National Party and ACT need to think about—a sound and utter rejection by the people of Auckland of their politics. That is the historical thing Mr Carter was talking about in this local body election. The people did not get fooled by a label that read “Citizen and Ratepayers Now”. They knew what they were being asked to vote for and they said: “It stinks. We don’t like it. We’re not going near it.” 
Mr Simich knows all about it because in the area we share an interest in—our two electorates bound each other—the people resoundingly voted Labour. The person who ran Mr Simich very close last time is now the youngest Auckland city councillor ever as far as I am aware. She was a very good candidate and will make a great city councillor. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to deal with a press release put out by the Minister of Defence today in which he criticises me and my party of trying to garner publicity off the grief of the Bain family. Let us put a few things on the record here in the House so they may be clearly understood. 
This issue was brought to the attention of the Minister of Defence back in March 2002. I am now told that information is available to the Government showing quite clearly that this issue was first brought to the attention of the House by Marilyn Waring sometime before that. I assume that the Minister of Defence has access to all that information more so than I. This issue arose when the Bain family first gave its concerns about a number of issues but the one that upset the family the most was the inappropriate use of photographs of their deceased son used as training aids. 
Let us be clear what the Minister was told. I wrote to the Minister and pointed out these matters. I told him that the Bain family was not satisfied with the information it had been given surrounding Grant’s death at the time and that the revelation of the use of those photos had only made the situation worse. I outlined a number of things to the Minister and in my letter pointed out to him that the Bain family had made a number of inquiries. The family had requested a copy of the report of the inquiry into Grant’s death and was told it was not entitled to it. That is in my letter to the Minister. I also told the Minister that I found all of this totally contrary to the manner in which Private Manning’s family was treated and I was disappointed and puzzled that this should be so. I requested that the Minister personally ask the Chief of Army to look into this issue and have an officer visit the family with the aim of satisfying its needs and putting right this whole sorry affair. The Minister claims he did everything that was asked of him in that letter. Well the question is this. Did the Minister do so? He says in his letter to me: “I am now satisfied the matter had been dealt with as best as it can be given that it is some 21 years since the tragic death. Army will remain responsive to the needs of the family and I await the decision of the family as to how they will proceed.” He washed his hands. 
If as the Minister said he had met my request of satisfying the family’s needs then he would have known that the family has never been satisfied with the explanations given. The family was still so concerned that it brought in its local MP Shane Ardern to assist it as well. He again wrote to the Minister and asked for further assistance. Again this Minister washed his hands. Now this Minister says that some people are using this case to garner publicity. Well is that not rich? It is this case that the Minister and the Prime Minister have gaily referred to as an alleged murder and they have used it as justification for the actions they have taken to initiate an independent inquiry into the goings-on at Regular Force Cadet School. So quite the reverse; it is the Government the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence who are playing off the Bains. 
This case stood on its own merits. It deserved investigation. Not one not two but three MPs during the time of this House have raised this issue and this Minister who gets paid a small fortune and who has the joy the pleasure and the responsibility of looking after our Defence Force did nothing more than palm it off. He did not follow up. He did not take on board the concerns of Shane Ardern. He did nothing until suddenly it looked as though the Government was going to be embarrassed. The only thing that motivates this Minister is when he gets three bad trots on the  
Holmes  
show night after night. That is what motivates this Government. It is poll driven: “How do we look? Oh my God let’s do something!” 
Well I have a request for the Minister. As he has suddenly found it within his heart to look to people in time of need might I bring to his attention the petition from Damien Patrick Nepata and George IllyahNepata and the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that said that those two boys should get compensation which he the Minister rejected. I bring to the Minister’s attention the case of an able seaman. I will not say his name because the Minister knows that in 2000 I brought to his attention a case about an able seaman who to this day I still believe was not looked after by the military. He was subsequently medically discharged. His life has never been the same. Did this Minister care? No he did not. He overlooked the case. Maybe what it needs is: “Mr Holmes please help us out. Please put this naval rating on to your TV show.” 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to demonstrate clearly that Dr Brash’s political posturing is driven purely by a poll drop—he is down in the polls trying desperately to raise his public profile. What does Dr Brash do? He comes to Rotorua which I proudly represent and holds a public meeting. But he keeps the location secret. “Flip-flop Dr Brash bellyflop Dr Brash and your merry men.” This posturing secretly with a small—a very small—group of supporters on our beautiful lake edge did nothing for the Opposition’s image. The leadership of the Opposition has clearly become a real concern. The rifts are already showing in the Opposition and it is very clear when Dr Brash uses such poor political judgment to come to Rotorua to make such a misguided statement as he did on the lakes that he did not seek Georgina te Heuheu’s very very valuable advice. 
Even Jane Clifton said: “From top of the polls to puny laggard. What has happened to the political athlete Dr Brash?”. Yes in our district of Rotorua we are concerned about the lakes but not the ownership of the lake beds. Dr Brash read that really wrong. We are concerned about the water quality of the lakes. It is a hot issue. Why did he not come and hold a good public meeting and come out with another of his second major public policy announcements? Ownership of the lakes is not one of those. 
Since he made that statement the press has run hot: “Rotorua leaders condemn Nat’s stance on lakes deal”. At home we do not like it and it has no traction whatsoever. An image of the doctor the old sort of colonial tea planter framed against Lake Rotorua—a tourism Mecca in the nation’s eyes—will not add any value to the iconic status of our lakes. Why did he not come and give his second major announcement on policy? Because he has gone feral on it and he has decided that that strategy was not working. Was this the No. 2 major policy roll-out that we all waited for? In July he was on a roll. Now he is flip-flop on policy yet again. This was we think the No. 2 major announcement 3 months too early or over a year too late. It shows yet another lack of political judgment and one would have to ask where he is getting his advice. 
The polls will not peak feverishly in Rotorua for National. The people see the lack of support for Te Arawa ownership as a worrying move to the far right. We are a proud moderate community—tatou tatou we together. At home we understand the issues of diplomacy and the generosity of NgatiWhakaue and Te Arawa. They gave the reserves Hospital Hill the very site that the city is built on. Who rose up most to speak against the National stance? It was yet another icon of Rotorua Sir Howard Morrison. He said “What I am really up in arms about is the fact that people like you do not trust the word of your bicultural partner—Maori; the bicultural ethos of this country is Maori and Pakeha and you as a treaty partner are just blaspheming and demeaning Maori to the worst degree.” It stinks. We hate it. 
Sir Howard Morrison also said: “My angst is with Mr Brash and all of them using Maori as a scapegoat to vent for their own opportunist ways to try and stir up another hit like Orewa. I guess our people are sick of being used as a political football.” That is the message from home Dr Brash. 
Let us talk about the deal that Dr Brash talked about when he said: “A deal’s a deal.” There has been a very very strong reaction to this deal. Margaret Wilson said that the deal was unfair and should be reversed. The 1922 agreement could not properly be described as a sale. It was a classic case where one party to the negotiation had considerable power to the detriment of another party. That is why there has been a sense of grievance in Te Arawa ever since. Our Government will get that right. I say ask Georgina Te Heuheu. 
The previous Mayor of Rotorua Grahame Hall has spoken out. Paul East acknowledged the generosity of Te Arawa. So did Don Stafford a local historian and ArapetaTahana the previous chair and AnaruRangiheuea. The list goes on and on. The Opposition should be embarrassed. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We have just seen one of the greatest stuff-ups compromising thousands of voters in their one opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in the latest local body and district health board elections and what does Minister Chris Carter say? He says: “It wasn’t me.” The Hon Chris Carter like some of his colleagues is well over the speed limit in running away from this issue. Of course the faster he runs the bigger the mess! But the enormity of this problem is too great to run away from or to try to dump on anyone else as the Minister seems intent on doing. So the mess just keeps getting bigger. 
The time frame has now been extended from what was meant to be a reporting back today to possibly 3 weeks but essentially the Minister does not know how long it will take before there is a result for the thousands of voters and the hundreds of candidates who are waiting. If the Minister had his say he would probably say that it will not happen today but it will happen. But effectively he does not know when. So there has been a press release saying that it will be maybe in a week’s time. Now it looks like that could be 2 or maybe 3 weeks but essentially no one really knows. In the Minister’s rush to avoid the mess he said in answer to a question on the single transferable vote (STV): “The 10 councils that have chosen to adopt the single transferable vote system did so through their own choice.” That is what the Minister said. 
I have to tell folks that that is not true. It was not through their own choice. Although some of the 10 councils did choose to use STV others were forced to use the STV system because of referenda that were successful in getting support to do that. But essentially the Minister did not answer the question correctly. He answered the question incorrectly. His answer was untrue. So the Minister Chris Carter clearly needs to reacquaint himself with the legislative processes put in place by his Government and that he as Minister is responsible for implementing. He needs to get his facts right and to answer the questions correctly. 
That is the same person with oversight and responsibility for a major democratic voting process so no wonder it crashed and burnt! This is another fit of political correctness that has tripped up this Minister big time. His lack of oversight has seen thousands of voters and the validity of their vote thrown into contention. It is the Minister’s lack of oversight that has seen hundreds of candidates left at the side of the road not knowing whether they are going to be left in the dust or picked up or whether they have been elected. The results will mean that they also do not know how long they will have to wait for a result. That was quite clearly borne out today by my learned colleagues during question time. 
The Minister Chris Carter is responsible for ensuring that the process we use in exercising our democratic right by way of a vote is sound and that there are no glitches especially from the STV system where there is already a lack of transparency and which has also been driven by a Government agency. New Zealand Post was using subsidiary Datamail and Datamail called the process “intelligent capture”. If one looks at some of the press releases one sees where it used that term. Datamail has no experience with the STV voting system and was using it for the first time. The Minister of Local Government Chris Carter has the responsibility for the oversight of that process in conjunction with the Minister of Internal Affairs. But what happened? It turned into an absolute fiasco because they just did not exercise their responsibility effectively. I wonder whether they also call it intelligent capture because it has turned into a debacle. The Minister Chris Carter should resign if he cannot get this right. The election was crucial. It was about local bodies and district health boards. He should resign in view of the fact that this has turned into a mess. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Mark Peck. 
Jill Pettis 
: Thank God for small mercies! 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I thank my honourable colleague for saying: “Thank God for small mercies!”. I have always regarded myself as being something like that. The junior Government whip interjected on the previous speaker and asked why Sandra Goudie was not on the front bench. It is quite simple really. When we look at that fearless member and the way she does her business on behalf of the people in her electorate we see that she allows Bill English to go around and bad-mouth Cambridge High School and worse she put out a press statement criticising Ngati Maru iwi for holding to ransom the Sylvia Park development in Auckland and almost exclusively after— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It’s in my electorate. 
MARK PECK 
: Well she was interfering in the honourable member’s electorate but she was so fearless in putting out that statement that the moment she found out that Dr Brash—[ 
Interruption 
] The member should stop chirping. She is displaying all the intelligence and wit that she displayed this morning at the select committee—and can I say that people have compared her with orange roughy. Well that is not fair because orange roughy has far more brain capacity than the member has. She put out this statement and as soon as she found out that her leader Don Brash is involved in the company connected with the development and that the ACT party president Catherine Judd was involved and handled the public relations for that firm— 
Darren Hughes 
: She went very quiet then. 
MARK PECK 
: She did not go quiet—she withdrew it! She did not have the conviction to stick to the line that she took at the outset and that speaks volumes about that member. She will never be on the front bench because she does not have the ability to stand up and do anything at all on behalf of the people of her electorate. One of the things that is a great delight about announcing one’s retirement is that it gives one the freedom occasionally to tell junior members in this House some of the things they need to learn if they are going to be around here for any period of time. 
I have been given the honour by my party to sum up on our debate. It really goes this way in relation to the National Party—lack of leadership and the riderless horse and I have the poll results and they are fascinating. If we go through them we find that of all the political parties listed in the poll results the only one that is actually dropping in the polls is the National Party. 
 Every other party is either going up or staying the same but the National Party is dropping. There is a danger in that for the National Party because we remember—and Bill Gudgeon will remember this—when Winston Peters took a huge jump in the polls just before the 1999 election. It was like Mount Everest and then just as quickly he took a huge drop. After the Orewa speech we saw a huge jump in the polls for the National Party and guess what the trends now show? They show the drop. There is nothing unusual about that. Anybody who has any rudimentary understanding of anything to do with politics business and so on will know that there are certain cycles. When we have a massive bump in the way that this occurred there is a correction—and the correction in this respect is to say to National members: “Listen you are leaderless you are a riderless horse and you are a one-trick pony.” The only trick that Don Brash has been able to use to get any publicity this time around was the Orewa speech where he attacked Maori. 
He tried it again in Rotorua. It became such an embarrassment that he and Mr Brownlee went to Rotorua just in the last few days to try to fix it. They did not bank on running into a Maori woman who was simply going for a walk with her dog that day on the foreshore. When she heard what Don Brash had to say she cried. She does not see it as an ownership issue. She sees it as a landlord-tenant issue. Her iwi put the pole in the lake to signify their claim on it. They have never denied people their right of access to that particular lake and for Don Brash to say that he would give them money but no ownership of that lake bed was despicable. That is why National is going downwards in the polls—and may it continue to plunge! 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This afternoon during question time I asked the Minister for ACC the Hon Ruth Dyson a question about the invitation to Steve Longford from Australia to be a keynote speaker at the Accident Compensation Corporation’s forthcoming Bold Perspectives Shared Objectives conference in March next year. The Green Party raised the issue because we cannot really understand why the Accident Compensation Corporation felt inspired to feature Mr Longford given that his web profile identifies him as an FBI-trained criminal profiler with a specialisation in “deception detection” unless the underpinning aim here by the corporation is to use the gentleman’s expertise to get more people off income-related compensation more quickly through a presumption that better “deception detection” will achieve this. 
In response to my questions among other things the Minister suggested that this gentleman has been invited because of his specialisation in family violence. We have looked again at the material readily available on the web and at this stage we have not found anything in his resume that indicates anything to do with family violence. Instead Mr Longford’s contribution to the Australian conference the Minister mentioned earlier says in part: “Keynote Steve Longford one of our four forensic profilers in Australia: The detection of deception is based on criminal intelligence and incorporates body language social psychology. Do you know when someone is being deceptive? Is someone purposely hiding information from you?”. That was the focus of his speech at the conference in Australia. This is why the Accident Compensation Corporation has invited him here. 
When this is allied to the fact that Mr Longford’s company focuses on intelligence and investigation management for counter-terrorism and Government and corporate fraud and compliance I think it is pretty clear what it is that the Accident Compensation Corporation has invited him over to do. 
I realise that some MPs in this House probably think that countering claimant fraud and getting people off accident compensation as quickly as possible is one of its core purposes. The Green Party however subscribes to a somewhat different view—that the rehabilitation part of accident compensation should be primarily focused on helping and supporting people until they have genuinely recovered to the point where they can achieve real vocational independence; not on pushing people off because of dodgy computer certificates or treating people as criminals by case managers using behavioural profiling techniques such as those espoused by Mr Longford. 
Claimants report that individual rehabilitation plans often seem to be a token exercise with a speedy exit from weekly compensation entitlement through the vocational independence assessment process being the goal rather than restoring the claimant’s participation to the maximum extent practicable. That perception is reflected in the petition currently before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee calling for a committee inquiry into Accident Compensation Corporation claims management. I hope the committee picks up that petition. 
I am afraid that the step-by-step computer course that attracted media attention yesterday is not an isolated incident. Accident compensation claimants around the country are reporting that the inclusion of similarly short and inadequate courses in individual rehabilitation plans under the guise of retraining is widespread. These courses give claimants no real skills that enhance their employment opportunities; rather they result in just a piece of paper that shows that they have completed the course so they can be entered into the vocational independence assessment process and thereby have their compensation stopped. When experiences like these are combined with the invitation to Steve Longford to next year’s conference the Green Party cannot help but feel that this is indicative of an Accident Compensation Corporation mindset that all claimants are potential malingerers and the primary focus is to exit them from entitlements as quickly as they can. 
Restoring an injured person’s participation to his or her maximum extent practicable should mean what it says. It does not mean making a token effort at vocational rehabilitation. It does not mean treating all claimants as criminals malingerers or deceitful fraudsters and profiling them so as to exit them from the scheme as soon as possible. It does not mean forcing people off accident compensation—and into the dole if they are lucky but often into nothing at all. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Third Readings 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 3) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. These bills arising out of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 2003 reflect a need to replace the failing electricity governance regime security of supply problems with electricity and the need to provide for governance of the gas industry. This legislation reflects the Government’s objectives to have electricity supplied in an efficient reliable and environmentally sustainable manner to all consumers. 
More recently security of supply has been a particular concern. The Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) provides the Electricity Commission with an enhanced tool-box of powers across security of supply enabling the commission to contract for reserve energy in dry years. This legislation gives the commission a full tool-box of necessary powers—the judicious and effective use of which will help the market model function better. 
The legislation extends the commission’s remit to deal with demand side management and energy efficiency. The commission now has the ability to consider both the demand and supply sides when considering security of supply and transmission upgrade issues. The legislation also extends the commission’s brief to cover consumer protection the promotion of retail competition improved information from market participants and development of distributed generation. 
The legislation provides a similar set of powers for the gas industry and enables the establishment of a co-regulatory body. Gas industry co-regulation represents a collaborative approach being taken by the Government with industry—an approach developed with and supported by the industry itself. That this body be established and functions effectively is especially important as the sector deals with the challenge of transition to the post-Maui era. The Government looks forward to working with the industry to ensure that co-regulation is successful. 
Another key provision in the legislation relates to changes to the Crown Minerals Act to promote enhanced disclosure of petroleum reserves and production information. That should encourage increased levels of exploration which in turn may yield new discoveries to help the security of supply concerns. 
The legislation was referred to the Commerce Committee which considered submissions from a wide range of interested parties. The committee subjected the legislation to close scrutiny. I believe that the committee did a great job in further refining it and I fully support the committee’s recommendations. 
Few technical changes have been made to this legislation. They represent general tidy-ups and enhance clarification and consistency across electricity and gas rather than any wholesale change in policy direction. 
I take this opportunity to comment on a couple of major issues of debate surrounding the legislation. Firstly many submitters particularly from the National Party have tried to argue that the Electricity Commission lacks independence and has mixed objectives and conflicting goals. They still do not get it. The Government properly has multiple goals for the electricity sector—reliability efficiency environmental sustainability and fairness to consumers. It is not clear which of those National thinks is unimportant. The commission does have a wide brief and for good reason. I am confident that it can carry it through and make sensible judgment calls when necessary. 
National is also unrealistic in saying that the commission should be left wholly to its own devices. That would be to suggest that the Government wash its hands of its responsibility for the electricity market—a policy that led to the failure of sector governance and the need to establish the commission in the first place. The public expects the Government to be accountable for electricity outcomes. The Electricity Commission’s establishment the scope of its mandate and its being responsible for delivering the Government’s policy objectives in electricity all show how serious this Government is about the sector performing properly for the good of consumers and the wider economy. So although the commission is responsible for the day-to-day and longer term application of Government policy it is the Government itself that remains responsible for setting its direction therefore retaining ultimate responsibility for electricity outcomes. 
Arguments for full independence akin to that of the Commerce Commission are also misguided. The Commerce Commission has a vital but relatively narrow role of administering and enforcing existing competition and consumer law. The Electricity Commission has the wider role of regulating a key sector and has a direct mandate to be involved in many facets of the sector’s operation. 
Conflict of interest arguments are also unfounded. The commission and commissioners have no commercial interest in outcomes. Many checks and balances exist to ensure that good processes are followed. For example the commission is required to evaluate options assess costs and benefits and consult affected parties before making recommendations. It is also subject to the same judicial review and accountability requirements as all Crown entities. Its role as an agent for the contracting of reserve energy also hardly qualifies as a conflict of interest. Across all of their brief the commission and the commissioners have no commercial interest in outcomes. Some critics contend that different bodies should perform different parts of the commission’s brief. That would simply lead to a proliferation of bodies unnecessary duplication of costs and effort and coordination problems. It makes no sense. 
National is also pushing for the reversal of legislation it introduced divorcing lines companies from generation ownership. The limit has been raised to 50 megawatts or 20 percent of network load and the ability of lines companies to own and operate renewables remains uncapped. It has been so for 3 years. It is my view and that of the Commerce Committee that it would be unwise to lift all restrictions without full consideration and consultation on the issues involved. 
The electricity and gas sectors are critical to New Zealand’s economic growth. The need for the proper management of the market is clear. This legislation will ensure certainty and stability for the energy sector and further shapes the future of those sectors. It will result in better electricity and gas arrangements and outcomes for New Zealand which is something that all New Zealanders deserve. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Energy showed no enthusiasm for the legislation in that speech. One does not have to look very far to see why he is not enthusiastic about it. One has only to look at the submissions made to the Commerce Committee to see that every single energy company—the Government owns the majority of them and appoints the directors—actually opposes the legislation. Energy companies like Genesis—the Labour Party Government put Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party on the board of Genesis—made a submission opposing the legislation. It would have been interesting if the Minister could point to one energy company that supported it but he could not. 
If we look at the groups that made submissions we see that the Orion lines company totally opposed the legislation. It was highly unusual for Transpower to come before a select committee to argue that Government legislation should be changed. I could go through a range of other groups. I can understand why the Minister would not want to stay in the Chamber to hear about the TrustPower submission. TrustPower one of the private companies in the energy sector said that if the Minister passed this legislation it would not solve any of the issues and that TrustPower would have to re-examine its role in the New Zealand market. It said it would have to “put weight on and seriously consider exiting the retail market if this bill is passed”. 
How much more serious can one get? How much more arrogant can a Government be? It just says: “To hell with all of their views; we know best.” The Minister thinks he knows better than any of the submissioners. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And we know that’s not true. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Exactly. Effectively he instructed the Labour MPs on the committee to roll over and they did. The legislation was meant to be rushed through but was slowed up by the committee. It now emerges in the House for its third reading in a way that has TrustPower saying it will seriously consider exiting the New Zealand retail market if it goes through—and it will. Mighty River Power is opposing this legislation. It is a State-owned enterprise. Genesis the company I started with which has the Labour Party president on its board is opposing the legislation. Energy Trusts of New Zealand is opposing it. Vector is opposing the legislation. And the list goes on and on. 
One of the contentious parts of the legislation is the structure of the Electricity Commission. That was what most of the submitters were saying. We tried to amend it in the Committee stage— unsuccessfully because Labour has decided that the structure of the commission is to stay as the Minister has deemed it to be. The commission is responsible to the Minister and has to get ministerial sign-off of its plan and work programme. Effectively it becomes liable to the dictates of the Minister. It has no independence. The Minister appoints people on to the commission. The commission then appoints its own committees to look at and examine issues. We have already seen the commission make decisions and recommendations around reserve energy without even consulting its own committee. So the Minister appoints the commission and approves its work programme and it has independent committees to look at things like reserve energy—how much energy we should have sitting there ready to be turned on if the rain does not fall. The commission has decided we need no extra reserve energy for the next 2 years but did it consult its own independent committee on that? No it just made the decision. 
That is arrogance from the Electricity Commission but one has to go one step further to see the ultimate in arrogance and that is the Minister deciding that the Government will underwrite a new generation facility by Genesis. The Government will do the deal with Genesis underwrite it and bypass the Electricity Commission which the Minister is establishing in this legislation. Why does he do that? Why does the Minister decide to ignore the commission? The commission is obviously angry at being snubbed on the first decision of major importance to the energy sector. In the biggest decision made this year in respect of the energy sector the vehicle that the Minister has established to look at energy was ignored. The commission came out and said: “Hey what about us? We weren’t consulted.” The Minister said: “Oh no and I wouldn’t want to make a habit of not consulting you.” 
What does that mean? It means that he will consult the industry only when he wants to. We have set up a puppet organisation. It is an organisation that is in no way independent and the Minister has shown in his first act in respect of the sector that he does not take it seriously—just like he does not take the House seriously. He wandered in read his speech then left ignoring the debate and letting everybody else get on with it. That is the arrogance he displays all the time around the sector. People in the sector talk about it all the time. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They don’t like him. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: They do not like him. They do not like the arrogance. They do not like being treated like this the commission does not like being treated like this and soon I believe we will see that New Zealanders do not like that degree of arrogance either. 
In the speech the Minister read to the House he talked about the new 50 megawatt limit on the amount that lines companies could generate. He said it was wonderful and we would not want to go any further without consultation. Well the amount was doubled and that is significant if one is a tiny or small lines company but the issue is why it was doubled. Mr Copeland with much chest-beating will no doubt tell us later on that it was doubled because he wrote a letter to the select committee on it. No that is not why the amount was doubled. National announced in March our policy of not having any restriction on it at all and that was greeted with unanimous applause from the sector. I think there was one critic whose name escapes me at the moment. The rest of the people totally agreed with it as did the political parties of the centre-right. I know that ACT is of the same view—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right; they think we went a tad too far in the first place they are happy with where we have ended up now and we agree with them. That was why the Minister following National’s announcement went to the conference and told people not to worry because the Government would make some movement on the limit—just a little step. 
A little step to the Minister was to double the limit. Why does he not get rid of it completely? Why not allow the lines companies to invest in the retail and generation sectors—in particular the generation sector? Vector is now buying the National Gas Corporation. Powerco is investing in Australia. Those lines companies will invest in New Zealand if they are given the opportunity. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 First I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for all the work it did in reporting the legislation back. I note that significant changes were made during the Committee stage as a result of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want to take a moment to look at why we are in the position we are in. As the honourable Peter Brown said on the occasions I talked to him about it it is a case of taking steps along the way. Why do we need to make these steps along the way? The reason is simply that what had been pretty well provided through electrical supply authorities was deregulated by the Max Bradford reforms. One cannot get away from that. The deregulation of the energy market and the consequent issues that arise from it came from those reforms. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: 1989. 
MARK PECK 
: I disagree with the member— 
Brian Connell 
: Are you supporting us? 
MARK PECK 
: No not at all. I am indicating that the issues that need to be tidied up are a result of playing around with putting together a market. We cannot completely walk away from the market concept without there being serious ramifications for our nation’s economy. There are people who are interested in investing in the energy market in New Zealand and if they were to believe that the Government was going to do away with the market as it is now then we would lose that particular investment; it would no longer be attracted to New Zealand. That is too serious an issue to play petty politics with. 
I am sure that Roger Sowry and Brian Connell can get very good headlines out of saying they would go to complete vertical reintegration—maybe keeping some form of accounting separation—but that does not answer the question at all. The question is still there and it is how we deal with the reality of what we have which is a number of energy companies in the lines and retail areas in particular—I put to one side for a moment the issues concerning Transpower because they are of another nature. And there is the gas industry which has its own significant problems. Essentially in setting up the market what was a monopoly has now become a collection of oligopolies. That is what has happened. 
Essentially the same rent-seeking against consumers continues. It does not go away; it is just that more people are engaged in it. There are more boards. There may be a slight variance in price from place to place depending on circumstance. I understand that if we are looking at places where the market works we are looking at Auckland Wellington and perhaps Christchurch. On the East Coast for instance I do not think it works terribly well. Nobody wants to go there. If the East Coast is looking for security of supply in future years it will have to develop its own generation. 
The point is that this is an incredibly political industry. When a dry year occurs—and let us not worry about whether the Minister involved is a Labour Minister a National Minister or a New Zealand First Minister—and the consumers face blackouts and/or brownouts who gets the blame? The Government gets the blame. There are some reasons for that. Seventy-five percent of the retailers are State-owned enterprises so in some cases one could sheet it home to the Government. But during the last energy crisis a State-owned enterprise was actually able to make more profit by not generating. We need to think about these things if we are going to be able to sort them out. 
Brian Fallow who writes for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
took some time to review the issues in the legislation in order to comment about it. He commented on Graham Scott’s submission which was endorsed by the major companies et al. but he made the point—and it is one that I do not think should be lost in the debate on the third readings—that the Government had said to the energy companies that they could not continue to behave in an unregulated manner. We all know that as a result of their behaving in an unregulated manner our senior citizens and those on fixed incomes are trapped with high energy costs. We have seen the cost of energy rise over the last few years. It has gone up significantly. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Yeah Government policy. 
MARK PECK 
: No that is not right. The member is more intelligent than that. He knows that it is not right. He is making a political point. I would have expected that when he got an opportunity he would actually think about some of these things. What happened is we said to the industry: “We will give you a period of time to agree on your own self-regulation”— 
Hon Member 
: Or what? 
MARK PECK 
: —“or we will regulate.” Indeed the member is quite right to raise the “Or what?”. We cannot have companies that have the capacity to rent-seek in their charges acting in a deregulated manner. It is simply not possible if we are serious about ensuring that consumers have some protection against monopolistic behaviour. That was the intention of the regulation. And they could not get it right. Despite those years and the thousands of pages put together by the Hon David Caygill who was doing the work on their behalf they could not come to an agreement about the right thing to do. So we did legislate and yes as Brian Fallow picked up in his report we did listen to submissions and we made some significant changes. 
I accept that we probably have not heard the end of this and I know that my colleague David Parker in particular is doing a lot of work in respect of issues around energy. There will be another generation of politicians who revisit this on another occasion. But I know that the simple answer of standing up and saying we will go straight back to energy supply authorities simply will not work and will cause more grief in the short term than it will actually settle. 
This legislation is a start along the way and I think it sets out some relatively good will. Yes it does bring in Government policy statements and it does require the Electricity Commission to have regard to those. But those Government policy statements are subject to negotiation and if the Minister rejects the Government policy statement he has to have a reason for doing so. Where will it finish up? It will end up on the front page of the business papers and I would suggest if it is particularly serious matter on the front pages of the newspapers as well. This is not the sort of industry around which there can be a level of non-accountability. This is the sort of industry that will become far more transparent in its operations over time and the legislation starts to give the Minister who will get the blame for most of what goes wrong in the sector some powers to work within it. 
In conclusion I want to make one final comment. It concerns the role played by those in the gas industry. They saw clearly that the Government was serious about the need for these utilities to have regulation. They carried out a series of very comprehensive consultations amongst themselves and they came up with a solution that was acceptable to them. Indeed the Commerce Committee went so far as to accommodate them right along the road to the point when the final report came back to the House to ensure that what was in that particular report worked. One broker in the process the Rt Hon Jim Bolger played a very strong role and I want to give him some credit. I would say to members opposite that they have two legacies: the legacy of Max Bradford which has never been put to rest; and the experience of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger who managed to get together a probably even more disparate sector and who worked with its members to make sure that the regulatory powers were accepted by the industry. 
This is good legislation for now but I am sure it is not the last word of Parliament on the energy sector. Although I will not be involved in those debates I want to wish Parliament well in the future as it tackles some very complex issues concerning our energy infrastructure in this country. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I always enjoy following the honourable Mark Peck because I know he will put rather complex legislation in simple language so that a simple sailor like me can understand it. I thought he made some very good points and his last point should not be overlooked: this is legislation for now and more legislation will be required because this legislation does not address the problem as comprehensively as it should and could. 
In 1998 when the lines were segregated from the generation—the Bradford reforms—there was if not plenty of capacity a reasonable amount of spare capacity in electricity generation. But we knew then that it would not last forever. At that point in time there was a need to create on an annual basis a reasonably significant amount of extra electricity. There was a need for ever-increasing investment in the industry. Regrettably nothing happened. By 1999 the National Party Government knew that there had to be some regulations to tighten it up. I know that Max Bradford approached New Zealand First on more than one occasion to try to address the issue and get some regulation into the industry. New Zealand First and National got very close to doing that but we did not do it— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why not? 
PETER BROWN 
: We did not do it because of a glitch in the negotiations. We could not agree on everything. 
Brian Connell 
: Did you agree on anything? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes we agreed on quite a lot. Let me put it this way to the honourable member. Mr Bradford agreed with quite a lot of what New Zealand First wanted—not the other way round—to tidy up the 1998 situation. Then Labour came into power and we had 2 dry years. That proved without a doubt that we have not got the industry— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You should have done something. 
PETER BROWN 
: Something should have been done. Between 2001 and 2003 we had 2 dry years principally because we did not hold enough water in our lakes. Now we have this legislation and we have to ask ourselves whether it will solve the problem. I think the honourable Mark Peck has already answered that: the legislation will do something only for now. 
New Zealand First believes we have to free up the lines companies to let them have greater access to the ability to create energy generation. 
Brian Connell 
: To what extent? 
PETER BROWN 
: Probably removing the cap. We would like to have that professionally reviewed. We certainly think lifting the 25 megawatt limit to 50 is a token. It disappoints New Zealand First that United Future members sit there puffing out their chests and claiming credit for it; if they were a little bit more worldly-wise they would have supported a call for opening it up to a significant extent if not totally removing the cap. I think there is a good argument—I say this to my colleague behind me because I know he will shortly interject—to free up the lines companies to let them have free access to produce as much electricity as they are capable of doing. Our concern is that if we did that right now one of them would simply go out and buy say Contact Energy and achieve its aim in that way. What we really want is new generation. 
The second point I should raise is that there is also a very good case for freeing up the use of coal to produce electricity in this country. I know that the Greens will shudder but when we go and talk to people in Dunedin and other places further south we know that it is absolutely— 
Brian Connell 
: We agree. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now the member has got me worried. There is a strong case for using the billions of tonnes—not millions of tonnes—of coal in this country to generate more power. I think if we freed up the lines companies and allowed more effective use of coal we would solve a couple of problems. One we would make more electricity available and two it would be at a reasonable price and would stabilise at that price. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Tell that to your grandchildren when they’re drowning. 
PETER BROWN 
: I respect the member’s views on the environment but we are talking about a country that is tucked down the bottom of the South Pacific with only 4 million people. The problems with global warming are not here; the problems are in China which is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol; India which is also exempt from the Kyoto Protocol; and other places far afield. If she looks at the countries in the Western World that use coal for generating electricity she will find that New Zealand is a minor player—just 5 percent of our electricity is generated from coal. If we look at Australia we see that the figure is 76 percent; if we go to Europe we see that it is 50-plus percent. I think the member holds Germany up as the pinnacle as the most environmentally friendly country in the world but over 50 percent of Germany’s electricity is generated from coal. But I digress. 
Brian Connell 
: This is a very good National Party speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now the member has really got me worried! New Zealand First members asked ourselves three questions. The first was whether the legislation would address security of supply. The answer to that—and I say to Mr Shirley that we have to be fair although he might not always agree with that—is that it goes some way towards addressing security of supply. It does not go all the way but it goes some of the way. Will the legislation reduce the price of electricity or even stabilise it at a reasonable level? In general terms the answer is no. I thought that the maximum lines charge of 30c for a customer using 8000 kilowatts or less a year was a move in the right direction but after going south and talking to people who live in Dunedin and places like that I realise that it does not go far enough. The third question was whether the legislation would encourage investment in the industry. The answer to that was a firm “No”— 
Brian Connell 
: No! 
PETER BROWN 
: —as the National Party member behind me has just stated. It is essential that we encourage investment in the industry. It is hard to get investment in the industry if as Mr Peck said companies can sell everything they produce. His statement was along the lines that a generating company can make more money by not producing. That is a situation we are getting into in this country right now and we must reverse it. With three of the five major generators in public hands—owned by taxpayers—we have an opportunity. 
In summary this legislation will not do the job. That was acknowledged by Mr Peck when he said that it is good legislation for now. I do not know that it is good for now. New Zealand First is of the opinion that when one does something one should do it to one’s best ability and get it right the first time. We know that this legislation will not do that. We all make mistakes but this legislation will not solve the problems. New Zealand First will oppose it and we have made that quite clear throughout the debate. We have looked at this legislation very very seriously. We wanted to support something because we are not against regulation. We believe that there are times when regulation is appropriate and regulation of this industry is appropriate. Nevertheless we do not believe that the legislation will do the job required of it so New Zealand First will oppose it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It always amazes me that people like the member who has just resumed his seat believe that we should blame climate change on the Chinese because there are a lot of them even though each one of them on average produces about one-fifth as much greenhouse gas as that member and other New Zealanders. It appears that there is somehow a view that because we are small and in the South Pacific a tonne of coal burnt here will not have the same environmental impact as a tonne of coal burnt in China which is of course nonsense. These five bills are part of a long-term repeated hugely expensive and complicated fix-up of the destruction of our electricity system for which consumers have paid and paid and paid in terms of higher prices of loss of reliability of loss of service of loss of democratic rights and of loss of any help in managing their own power use for the very dubious benefit of phoney competition among the power companies. It was not much of a deal that the previous National Government foisted on this country. 
I am no fan of the old New Zealand Electricity Department. It built the Clyde Dam which produced the most expensive electricity ever in this nation and compared with anything we may build now it wasted a large proportion of our Maui gasfield by burning the gas in power stations at 30 percent efficiency putting the rest of its energy into the river and the sky. The department built 40 percent overcapacity in the 1970s which was a big waste of public money and it tried to build nuclear generation. But what it had going for it was that there was an integrated system. The department had a model for dispatching the next-most efficient and cost-effective power station in order to meet demand and it had models for back-up capacity. It was able to make rational economic choices between whether to invest in transmission or in generation in order to solve a particular problem. It was under one roof it was capable of taking a whole-system integrated view and that is what we have lost. That is all gone. 
The heart of the competitive model is the concept of never letting the left hand of the electricity system know what the right hand is doing. The consumer has to pay enormous additional costs: the costs of running the market of the lawyers of the people who play the computer games and bid in order to try to game the market and of the court cases as the consumer-owned Transpower and the consumer-owned Meridian Energy sue each other. There are the costs of not one but seven expensive boards and of the chief executive officers and corporate structures for seven entities where once upon a time there was one. And the same consumers have been bought and sold like cattle by those power companies. It is obvious that in this industry competition does not work well. We are working in an industry that has major resource constraints that makes a product that cannot be stored and has to be dispatched instantly and that is highly weather dependent. What we now have instead of competition is a set of virtual regional monopolies. 
The electricity industry was supposed to work through self-regulation. Two and a bit years ago I told the Minister that I did not think it would work. The Greens supported the previous electricity legislation because something had to be done. We said that because self-regulation would not work the Government had to make sure that there was a back-up regulator. There was a back-up for a regulator provided. I predicted it would be used and now it is being used. It would have been much better to provide for the Electricity Commission in the legislation 2 years ago but the Minister wanted to try self-regulation. He was the Minister and he was entitled to do that. But what we are doing now is setting up a huge and expensive structure to simulate the integration that we once had in the industry. We do need the commission and this enormously expensive structure because now it is just about impossible to go back to the integrated system which would have been much better. That is why the Greens support this legislation although we have reservations about the way it works in practice. 
The commission’s job is to give effect to the Government policy statement on electricity and gas. The policy statement is largely good. It stresses important things like security and reliability fair prices energy efficiency environmental sustainability demand-side participation in the market distributed generation and investment in renewables—all things that I would put in it myself. There is a huge amount of work for the commission to do and there are some worrying signs. The commission does not seem to be interested in consulting consumers other than the big consumers in the Major Electricity Users Group. The Government policy statement states the commission must take into account the needs of consumers but I do not see it being very consumer focused at all at the moment. 
The commission is intended to ensure that investment is efficient and the first big test of that is now looming over the next year. It is shaping up to be a bit of a disaster. One of the most serious threats to energy security in New Zealand is transmission constraints. We have had times when water has been spilled because electricity cannot be dispatched over the wires as they are already full yet in other parts of the country we are burning fuel that is scarce and expensive. Something has to be done to deal with the transmission constraints. There have been calls for major transmission upgrades which will cost billions of dollars if they are all carried out. That is a huge cost on the whole economy so we have to make sure that that cost is the most efficient way of proceeding. 
 Now for a number of years we have been shown another way of proceeding by Orion the lines company in Christchurch—and may I say a publicly owned lines company in Christchurch—which has staved off new transmission investment for years and has provided complete security for its customers through distributed generation peak-load shifting and greater efficiency of end use which means that the lines have been running at below their capacity even while demand has grown. Orion has demonstrated the principle of least-cost planning which has been accepted in sensible electricity markets around the world for at least 20 years since I first read about it and maybe for longer than that. That principle means that there needs to be a proper study of the costs of a transmission upgrade versus the costs of putting in distributed generation on the other side of the constraint along with load shifting and greater efficiency in order to achieve the same outcome. 
That is the job of the commission. The Government policy statement indicates that the commission must promote efficient investment in transmission or transmission alternatives at least cost. It must provide a statement of opportunities to identify the potential for transmission alternatives and provide incentives for least-cost options including energy efficiency and demand-side management. So what is happening? There is a deadline imposed of 11 months from now for approval for the initial grid upgrade. That is across the country—the transmission upgrades. So Transpower can spend years—and has done—in coming up with proposals for grid upgrades dump them on the commission and the commission then gives the other players weeks or at the very best a few months to put together the alternative options. That is a highly technical and sophisticated process. There is no help for the development work. It requires gold-plated performance guarantees for peak demand reduction but gives no credit for kilowatt hours reduction. It has to provide its own monitoring and verification. The commission has to dance to the Transpower tune and it has to dance with frantic speed. In fact all the cards are stacked against any least-cost options any demand-side management or any load shifting—which incidentally is also the most environmentally sustainable way to go. 
We must avoid the temptation to perpetuate in the commission the “think big” that the New Zealand Electricity Department indulged in and that the current market players indulge in and move into the 21st century of locally distributed primarily renewable generation that is capable of meeting our essential needs by being reliable efficient and greenhouse friendly. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 At the outset I will say that I found the analysis of the member who has just resumed her seat to have been very sound. I think that she gave a very fair analysis of the situation. Unfortunately her conclusions were inconsistent with her own analysis. Totally rejecting the market is totally inconsistent with her speech because all the reasons she gave in her speech were reasons for more market participation in and less government of the industry. She said that we do not have the least-cost options available to us which is bad for the environment. I agree with that analysis but I say the market will deliver the least-cost options and thence will give the best environmental outcomes—not big-Government prescription. The example of the most expensive over-investment in gold-plated generation that we have done is the Government’s “think big” Clyde Dam which our grandchildren will still be servicing the debt on. That is the strongest argument against the conclusions of the Green member who has just resumed her seat. 
The ACT party strongly opposes this legislation. It is very bad legislation. I think Mr Peck from Invercargill made the point that it is a bill for today. Government speakers are virtually conceding that it has weaknesses but say that it is a sort of stopgap measure to try to tide us over as the Government tries to grab more levers and have more controls. Well it is not a bill for today; it is a bill for the 1930s. It is all about the politicisation of the energy sector big-Government control more government and less market participation. That is the fundamental failing of this bill and the ACT party deeply regrets it. 
Energy is critical to this country. Next to our good fortune in having a temperate climate the key competitive advantage that we have in this country is comparatively cheap electricity—an adequate availability of competitively priced electricity. If we lose that we are done for. Our whole economy as a trade-dependent nation is based on processing our key export products. We are exporting energy. For milk-powder wood pulp and aluminium—for all our key exports—the cost of electricity is as great as the input of the raw material derived from the land and if we do not have competitively priced electricity on an international basis we are done for. What is the policy of this Government? It is to drive up the price of energy. The Minister said so. He said that energy was too cheap which is why windmills are not competitive and that if we had more expensive electricity windmills would then become competitive and that would be good. No that would be bad but that is what this Government is doing. Because of the Government’s capture by the Green movement it thinks that somehow if we go for more expensive electricity put blockages against coal and hydro generation and favour and subsidise wind generation it will be good for the New Zealand economy. That would not be good; it would be disastrous for the New Zealand economy. But that is the course of action this Labour Government has embarked on. 
Of course one can embark on that course of action only if one controls the levers which is why the Kyoto Protocol is such a wonderful instrument. It is the perfect instrument for the socialist because one can progressively control all the levers. One nationalises the sequestration credits and then says to industry that it will have a carbon tax put on it but that exemptions will be given. One tells people that if they go to the Government and lobby it the Government will consider their cases and give exemptions. That is a politicisation of the total economy. It is a recipe for a command economy and a recipe to drive up the price of energy in this country and diminish our competitive advantage against other trading nations—our competitors out there are in the global marketplace. It is disastrous for New Zealand but somehow the Labour Government speakers have come to this debate to try to defend that and say that it will be good for us. It will not be. 
The whole structure of the New Zealand energy sector is one of not enough market and too much government involvement. That is where the Greens’ conclusions are so wrong. Those members say that the market has failed. But it is not that the market has failed; it is that the Government has prevented the market from working. Looking at our generation we see it is 80 percent controlled by State-owned monopolies that gouge our export industry with unbelievable price hikes. One hundred percent of our transmission is controlled by a single State-owned enterprise; there is no competition and no market. Then when we come to the retail supply end we find we have not applied price signals because of the metering problem. So the domestic consumer is not exposed to price signalling. We do not have time-of-use metering and domestic consumers cannot respond to pricing signals because they are shielded from them. So at every step it is Government intervention and policy that prevents the market from working. 
I was interested to hear the National Party claim credit for removing the restriction on energy supply companies becoming involved in generation. Well I say good on those members for claiming credit for that but I would remind the House of who imposed it in the first place in very recent history. I remember spending several days in Bill Birch’s office with Max Bradford and Tony Baldwin pleading with them not to do it telling them not to go down that path and saying that we did not need to split the supply and energy companies and then prevent supply companies from getting involved in generation. But just a few years back that is exactly what the last National Government did—against the advice of the ACT party. We warned National about that and the very aspects that we warned it about have come to pass. So I am delighted that National has now abandoned and recognised the folly of the policy that it implemented. 
But we should not blame the market for the mistakes made in the Bradford reforms. Overall the market reforms in New Zealand’s electricity sector have been a success. The problem is that we have not continued forward. We have not allowed the market to work because of too much Government interference and too much monopoly. That is why this bill is so bad. The Electricity Commission is an absolute puppet of the Government and will become the plaything of the Minister. This is heavy-handed regulation that rather than encouraging the investment we need in our energy sector will be the single biggest put-off. For foreign investors the world is their oyster; their money flows like water to the best opportunities. They will look at New Zealand and see the great big State-dominated sector the heavy-handed regulation and the great big instrument that the Minister has. This legislation is the equivalent of the Minister having his hand up the back of the ventriloquist’s puppet and the puppet looking at him and saying: “Minister you are an idiot.” It is an “I’m not.” “You are.” “I’m not.” “You are.” sort of situation. The instrument that the Minister has created has already shown that his decision to subsidise his own State-owned enterprise Genesis Energy was silly. It was silly. It was stupid public policy but it is just another recent example that we are seeing of that from the Labour Government. We will see a whole lot more examples like that because Government members cannot help but fiddle. They are fiddlers—socialists are fiddlers. They have to have their hands on the control levers—they are control freaks. That destroys markets destroys confidence and kills investment. 
This bill is bad and the ACT party will be opposing it. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The principal purpose of the part of this legislation that deals with electricity is to improve the security and supply of electricity. On that subject I draw to the House’s attention concerns about the implications for New Zealand’s electricity supply and for our economy in general flowing from the May 2004 decision of the Environment Court concerning the renewal of the Tongariro power development consents. As is now well known the court has reduced the term of those consents from the requested 35 years to a mere 10 years because of its inability to make judgments on the negative effects of the power scheme on Maori cultural and spiritual values as required by the Resource Management Act. That is a matter of the greatest national importance. The Tongariro power scheme incorporates two major hydroelectricity schemes. The water is then discharged into the Tongariro River flows into Lake Taupo and then flows down through a further eight dams in the Waikato River until it reaches the ocean. That is a total of 10 hydro schemes in all. 
The decision means that the generating capacity of the entire system will be quite significantly reduced should the consents finally be confirmed on the condition that the diversion of water from the upper reaches of the Whanganui River and a number of other rivers sourced from Mount Ruapehu is brought to an end. Even worse is the signal that the decision sends to the business community in relation to new investments in New Zealand - based hydroelectricity and other electricity generating schemes. For hydroelectricity schemes the business community needs a 35-year-plus investment horizon and a certainty of process or otherwise investments simply will not happen. Potentially the damage flowing from the decision is such as to relegate New Zealand’s international reputation as an investment destination to a highly negative if not a complete nutcase status. It is important therefore that we examine that extraordinary decision and its effects. 
The decision itself is clearly set out in the 134-page judgment and is therefore a matter of record. The key finding is in paragraph 472 which states “In evaluating the various matters that we are required to under the Act”—that is the Resource Management Act—“and evaluating the matters on which evidence was presented we have had some difficulty in weighing the metaphysical matters against the physical and scientific matters. Notwithstanding this difficulty the Act nevertheless requires us to do so. In so doing we have had to make a value judgment which reflects what is in our view the relative importance of these matters and the relevant magnitude of the various matters.” The Tongariro power project as a result is left in limbo. The court stated that it could not make a determination concerning the metaphysical matters but at the same time it was obliged by the Act not to ignore them—a classic no-win situation. Accordingly the Environment Court has just passed the matter back to the three iwi concerned—seven other iwi chose not to contest the consents—and to Genesis Power Ltd and has effectively said to them that it hopes they can get together and sort the matter out over the next 10 years. 
Genesis Power is appealing that decision to the High Court—and it should do so because it is not the function of our courts to adjudicate on the spiritual and the metaphysical. That is something that I understand the National Party is also in agreement with. For the moment we will have to await the outcome of the Genesis Power appeal. In the meantime some people are saying that the Environment Court has got it completely wrong in the emphasis that it has placed on the metaphysical aspect. They argue that the purposes and principles under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act are paramount and that the references there are only to the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. I hope for the sake of New Zealand and the future of its electricity supply that that view will prevail and that the decision of the Environment Court is overturned by the High Court. However if the decision is upheld then the Government will need to act and to act swiftly to amend the Resource Management Act so that references to spiritual values are removed. 
I need to be clear about one matter at this point: I am committed to defending and will defend the principle of religious freedom. It is a fundamental right in our society—including the right to change one’s religion. I need to say that because I want to emphasise it is not my intention in this speech to attack traditional Maori spiritual beliefs— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the member but by my reckoning he is now 6 or 7 minutes into his speech and I do not recall him having mentioned this legislation once. I would ask you to direct him to address his attention to the legislation. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I started my speech by quoting the principal purpose of this legislation. I quoted it as being to improve the security and supply of electricity. I am speaking to that matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has been speaking to the supply matter. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was saying that I do not want to attack traditional Maori spiritual beliefs. In matters concerning religion my attitude is one of respect and dialogue. I simply say that if the decision of the Environment Court in this case is upheld then Parliament must act both to ensure the future of the 10 hydro schemes in question and to repair the damage done to New Zealand’s international reputation as a credible investment destination. 
The reality is that we do compete in a worldwide marketplace for scarce capital resources. United Future believes strongly that our future economic prosperity will be dependent on New Zealand remaining a destination of choice for international investment. I agree with the point which was strongly made by the Hon Ken Shirley that electricity must remain cheap in New Zealand—as cheap as we can possibly make it. All of us should apply our minds towards ensuring that that happens because it is clearly a comparative competitive advantage and as Ken Shirley has pointed out we do compete on the world stage. Dr Michael Cullen was quoted in this House a few weeks ago as saying that the purpose of the current Resource Management Act review is to provide greater certainty. I agree with that objective but should it become necessary we will need to follow through with further amendments to the Act in order to ensure that that becomes a reality. Just saying it is so does not make it so. 
I turn briefly to the question of the major investment that Transpower needs to make to upgrade the national electricity distribution system. I referred to that briefly in my second reading speech on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. 
Brian Connell 
: Do you support the legislation? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I will come to that in a moment for the benefit of the member. The problem that needs to be solved is the fact as others have said that we literally need billions of dollars potentially of investment in the national electricity grid. Because it has been neglected for 40 years we now have a major major upgrade ahead of us and I think that all of us in this House would be in agreement on that point. The question therefore is how to get that system upgraded while keeping the cost of electricity as low as possible in order to achieve the economic goals that I have mentioned of ensuring that we retain a comparative competitive advantage relative to other players in the world. 
 In my view the way to do that is that the State needs to have a hand in borrowing the money to do it. Then I believe it needs to endeavour to repay the funds borrowed over at least 35 years or so. It has to be an intergenerational borrowing because the upgrade of the power grid will last for at least another 40 years—so 35 years for repayment is conservative. Then I believe we should recover from the electricity consumers of this nation just the amount that we actually need to service the interest and debt repayments on those loans so that we can keep the price of electricity as low as possible. I used the analogy in my second reading speech of our roading system. We do not actually attempt to get say a 10 percent real rate of return on the investment in our roading system. We all agree that roading is a necessary part of our total integrated economy and therefore that it is in the public interest and the common good to provide it as efficiently as possible. I believe that exactly the same thing applies to the upgrading of the transmission grid. 
I can also say that to some extent I am in agreement with previous speakers from the ACT and National parties on other points too. I think we need to take the step of getting rid of the current separation of the electricity sector into different segments. I do not think that has worked and I think the time will come—and Mark Peck mentioned this also in his speech—when we will have to revisit that matter. 
This legislation is not perfect but nevertheless it is a significant step forward in what had become a situation that was quite frankly out of control. It was a mess created by the Max Bradford reforms which obviously from any point of view whether one is a socialist or a free marketeer have not worked. At least this legislation takes a step in the right direction towards fixing that. Therefore I am pleased to signal United Future’s continuing support for these bills. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The range of electrifying speeches we have heard this afternoon—particularly the one by the member who has just resumed his seat—means that we have avoided the sleeping gas we might all otherwise have suffered. 
In speaking to the third reading of the electricity and gas industries legislation it would be helpful to remind members and other interested listeners what this legislation is about. The objectives of the Government for both electricity and gas are to have energy delivered to consumers in a safe efficient fair reliable and environmentally sustainable way. This legislation will take us further towards that goal. It puts in place all the decisions made by the Government this year on electricity supply security and the governance of all the electricity and gas industries. It will provide certainty and stability in the electricity and gas industries. 
The legislation contains measures to promote security of supply consumer protection and competition and to improve the governance of the electricity and gas industries. That is imperative considering the importance of those industries to New Zealand’s continued economic growth and prosperity. At the same time this legislation will enable us to continue our progress towards greater energy efficiency and a sustainable energy future. Mr Copeland in expressing his party’s support for this legislation has seen the light—which is a lot more than could have been said if we had continued under the failed reforms of Max Bradford. I will not continue—I was going to take only a brief call. I am very pleased to be supporting this legislation. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Georgina Beyer’s short call was anything but electrifying. I think the fuse burnt out. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No resistance! 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: There was no resistance in the system and it burnt out. 
Brian Connell 
: Lost in transmission? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: No I think the speech before that was definitely lost in transmission. The Electricity and Gas Industries Bill has been broken up into the five different bills before us tonight. [ 
Interruption 
] I really am going to try to speak on the legislation. 
What do the consumers out there actually want? We are talking about all the details of this legislation but what do domestic consumers want? They want to pay a reasonable price for their electricity and they want security of supply. I think that every one of us can remember the number of times we ended up with power cuts at various times. I remember building a new house and putting in a fireplace that one could cook on because we knew— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did you? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes I did because we used to keep having electricity blackouts. Blackouts and brownouts— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Was that during the war? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: No that was a little before my time. It was not during the war; I am not that old. 
Brian Connell 
: Was the blackout Minister there? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: “Blackout Pete” was very lucky a couple of years ago when we were heading for an extremely dry year everybody was getting desperate and no regulation was proposed at that time. What happened? It rained. He got off lightly that year because the situation had been looking very very serious. However it brought to everybody’s attention the lack of investment in developing security of supply in the electricity industry. 
As a constituency member of Parliament what did people come to me about? The spot market was one thing. They had gone on the spot market and ended getting price gouged. I had a friend who had a supermarket. His costs went up from $8000 to $20000 in 1 month. Someone else who owned a rest home faced cost increases from $10000 to $25000 in 1 month. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They got burnt. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Those people had bought into those businesses and they got absolutely burnt by the system. Businesses want security of supply and to know what the price will be so that they can make some decisions. 
But the market has worked in various areas in New Zealand. When there is competition and people can make a choice then the price usually comes down and the delivery of service is improved. That is what National stands for. We oppose this legislation. But if there is competition then a marketplace is generally improved. The problem has been that in some of the smaller areas there has been a lack of choice so there is no competition. There has not been anybody come around to read our meter recently so when it is read we usually find that they have got the estimates incredibly wrong. People can end up with huge bills because their meters have not been read for a year. That has caused problems for elderly people in particular. Those are the sorts of problems about which people come to me as a constituency member of Parliament. 
The efficient reliable and secure supply of electricity is incredibly important when businesses are looking at whether they will invest in and come to New Zealand. If people are going to move to New Zealand they look at consumer protection. This Labour Government is about regulation. It has brought much legislation into this House that has seen a huge increase in regulation. Labour members will not leave the market alone. They said that they gave it 2 years. They are now in there boots and all regulating the market. 
A lot of submissioners to the Commerce Committee felt that the Electricity Commission should be independent and the Government should not be interfering in it. They did not accept that the Electricity Commission should be able to be directed by the Government. The Government is choosing to regulate a key sector of this economy. Most of the submissioners did not feel that that would bring down the cost or increase the security of supply. They felt that there could be conflicts of interest and they were not positive about that at all. Many of the submissions to the select committee were against the legislation that we are debating tonight. 
Part of the legislation is to do with lines companies. The ACT party talked about the fact that they were the Max Bradford reforms but the intention was always to increase competition and reduce costs to try to improve the system. The aims were honourable and they did work in some areas. They have not worked in other areas but increasing the ability of lines companies to generate from 25 megawatts to 50 megawatts is a token. It does not go far enough. I know that our Marlborough lines company would have liked to see a bigger increase which would allow local decision-making about increasing generation. One of the biggest problems of course is our lack of ability to have this increase in generation. 
In the Marlborough Kaikoura and North Canterbury areas but especially in the Marlborough area the problem has been that the Dobson dam was scuttled. I am actually quite a conservationist—I am very concerned about New Zealand and protecting our environment. But the Dobson area was an area of gorse and one has to look at the trade-offs. There were going to be some good trade-offs there to allow—[ 
Interruption 
] They were going to get more than they were giving and we would have increased hydro generation. For Nelson and Marlborough the Dobson dam should have gone ahead. 
Then there was Project Aqua. That has been scuttled as well. The problem is the Resource Management Act and this Government is not addressing it. That is the problem. Transpower has problems as well—its major problem is the Resource Management Act. It would be better if we were debating some substantial amendments to that Act tonight instead of legislation that National will not support. Members heard the Hon Roger Sowry talking about the fact that the Government was not going to move off the 25 megawatts of lines company generation ability until National came out and said that we believed we should go back to allowing lines companies to be able to be involved in generation. The Government then moved to 50 megawatts but that does not go far enough. Every energy company that submitted to the Commerce Committee opposed the legislation. Genesis Energy opposed it Orion opposed it and Transpower came and argued for changes. TrustPower said that the legislation will not solve the issues and opposed it. We have already discussed the lack of independence the Minister having to sign off the work plans the Minister appointing members on to the commission and then the fact that the Minister can completely ignore that if he chooses to. 
So one has to ask what the point of all of it is. We know that there needs to be much better investment. Tonight we debated all the various forms of electricity generation and I heard the Greens being very adamant against coal. I have visited China many times lately because my son was living in Shanghai. The pollution there is absolutely terrible. The kids grow up not seeing the sun; it is just an orange ball. But the pollution is quite substantial. We do not want to see that. But we do have huge levels of coal reserves and if it can be burnt to a level that is clean and with new technology that can be done then that is one of the options. 
This legislation is only a token in addressing the security of supply. Most of the people who came to the select committee and made submissions said that they did not think this bill would lead to new investment in the industry. That is one of the most important things. We do need overseas companies or New Zealand companies wanting to invest in the electricity and gas industries. The fact is that under the gas regulations that will come in through this legislation there will have to be a sharing of processing facilities. That also will lead to less investment. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of this legislation and in doing so I acknowledge that National will not support it. It does not support the infrequent sojourns of its leader coming down to the House—it does not support many things in the House but it does not propose anything either. This is most regretful. What National does do however is that it does support us. Roger Sowry the outgoing shoe salesman who is due to set up business in Levin as a salesman said that the Labour Government must now step up and show some direction. That is exactly what this legislation does. Roger Sowry has also renounced as he rightly should have the Bradford reforms. We have had to unbundle those and we are putting in a regulator as we had to in telecommunications and so on and so forth. So we are a Government of solutions and I commend this legislation to the House. I just wish that New Zealand First would support the legislation rather than being mean-spirited as usual. 
I conclude by saying that the great genius and legend in his own mind Brian Connell who is about to take a call—I cannot recall what seat he represents nor can his constituents—said this: “I think the electricity reforms of the late 90s under Max Bradford were ill conceived. National has accepted that we got it wrong with these reforms.” That is what he stated in the  
Ashburton Guardian 
. 
Brian Connell 
: It was the  
Timaru Herald 
. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well in the  
Timaru Herald  
as well. But he neglected to add that National also got it wrong when it confirmed his nomination for the seat. I commend the legislation to the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I think it is a very sad day whenever John Tamihere takes a call but it is a sadder day when a Government member namely Mark Peck gets up and says on such an important piece of legislation: “This bill is for now.” By implication he is saying: “We know it is broken we know it won’t go the distance but it is the best we can do for now.” Well is it not about time that we had in Government men and women of vision who think beyond the next election cycle and actually do things for the common good of the people of this country? That is why I am proud to be a member of the National Party. 
Let me address the issue that Mr Tamihere spoke about. Yes I said that and I am very adamant in saying that I think the National Party did get those reforms wrong. But do we beat ourselves up or do we do something about it? We are prepared as Mr Sowry outlined in March of this year to do something about it. We are not going to hide and on top of our mistake make another one—and that is where this Government is found wanting. I have to say that we do not have an energy crisis in this country. What we have is a power crisis. We have tons of energy options in this country if we allowed ourselves to use them. But this Government just will not do that. It has already been said but it is worth repeating that we have 1000-plus years of coal reserves in this country. But “Blackout Pete” is inspired by the Kyoto Protocol which in turn is inspired by the Europeans. He is being seduced by that and by his own greenie tendencies to make sure that coal is priced out of the market. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can I just remind the member that he should refer to members by their correct names. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson will be responsible for many a blackout if this type of policy is continued with. What we need is more generation but what we get instead is a bureaucratically inspired panacea called the Electricity Commission. It is a backward step. Nay it is a leap backwards by at least 30 if not 40 years. It is an old inflexible and inefficient model that has been tried before. It is the worst type of central model that could be conceived. This is the very true component of what Mr Tamihere was saying and he was correct about my views that what has been suggested now is ill conceived. It does not call for any more competition. For goodness’ sake! Any analysis at all tells us that the problem in this country is that we need more generation not less. What will happen if we do not allow this competition? Lines companies for example with very good balance sheets will simply decamp and invest in other people’s economies. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They are already doing it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well they are doing it in some cases yes. I say to Mr Tamihere that that is an absolute tragedy for this country. The people of Rakaia in supporting me with my experience overseas knew that they needed someone with the commercial experience in this country to tell the Government that it has to think beyond the next election cycle. This is a critical issue. 
 What will happen is that those who do take the risk of investing in this country are going to ask for a much higher rate of return simply because they have to mitigate the costs that are being imposed on them by this Government. That is why the National Party is totally in support of the removal of any limits on lines companies entering into generation. Of course that is subject to oversight by the Commerce Commission. The Electricity Commission is not independent. 
Every serious submitter who came to the Commerce Committee said they were concerned about the commission’s lack of independence and the costs the Minister would impose in respect of what he is setting up. This is a huge bureaucratic model. It is a step backwards. It is akin to what we saw in Eastern Europe 40 or 50 years ago and is really inflexible to boot. Hardly one submitter supported this legislation. An array of expertise came to the committee but not one of the Government members took it seriously. The fact they dismiss that type of expertise shows the arrogance of the Government and this Minister in particular. 
I want to make it clear for the record that we are talking about some of the most senior executives in this industry so I will name some of them. I refer to people like Stephen Barrett Alan Jenkins Murray Jackson Doug Heffernan Ralph Matthes Keith Turner Steve Bolton Keith Tempest Mark Franklin and Ken Sutherland—to name just a few. They expressed very clear concerns about design. I want to pick up on some of them. They said that it will create an institution with advisory operational and regulatory roles that will place it in serious risk of performance failure and judicial review. What member of that select committee could listen to that and not think that we may have a problem? Considering the array of expertise before the committee one would think a rational sensible person would want to give it some thought. But this Minister simply dismissed those experts with a wave of the hand. 
This Minister prefers to listen to his own closeted Labour advisers. I am surprised that some of them are not skulking around the corridors as we speak. One thing that really exposed the Minister’s ignorance and arrogance was what is being proposed in the gas industry. This is truly incredible. It is clear and I think most parties will agree that investment in gas exploration is expensive and risky. But having spent let us say $50 million on exploration then striking gas and then establishing infrastructure to support that new find this Government says to whoever has been that successful company: “By the way you now have to give your competitors a leg-up.” By that I mean that this Government is legislating to say that competitors in the gas industry have to let others use their infrastructure whether or not they have contributed. I ask the House whether that will encourage investment. I ask Mr Copeland whether that will encourage foreign or domestic investment. Clearly the answer is no. Why would one want to give one’s competitors a leg-up? 
We should all have been put on notice very early in this debate when the Green Party said it was going to support this legislation. What I found a little bit more interesting was that United Future was prepared to support it. I have heard them speak both privately and publicly about their concerns regarding this legislation and in particular the component around the sharing of gas infrastructure. That is incredible and simply stupid because that will scare away investment in this country. That in itself will make sure that we do not have enough supply and that the cost of gas will soar. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the  
Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 3) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No 2) 
 be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In view of the proximity of the dinner break I seek the leave of the House to adjourn a few minutes early so that we can start afresh on the new business at 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
Employment Relations Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 12 October. 
Part 1 Employment Relations Act 2000  
(continued) 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you tell me how much time we have left firstly before the dinner break and secondly for the member who was last speaking when the debate was interrupted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was just about to say that. We have 3 minutes left. When the Committee was last considering the bill the Hon Richard Prebble was speaking and has 3 minutes 5 seconds remaining if he so wishes. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is a complex bill and as I noted last night Part 1 has 117 clauses. I want to make a particular point since I notice that Mr Tamihere is in the Chamber which is a rare occasion. I point out that there is a special Supplementary Order Paper that allows Mr Tamihere to vote for a 90-day probationary period for new workers. That Minister goes up and down this country I know saying that that is what is needed in our industrial law. Perhaps later this evening he will have the opportunity to vote for precisely that because I have drafted a provision that deals with that very issue. I would expect that the Minister will be a man of his word will have the courage of his convictions and will vote for that proposition. New Zealand employers want that and that Minister knows it. He should therefore vote for it. 
I want to speak on two further issues in this debate. The first is on the sale of businesses which goes under what might be seen as the benign title of restructuring. Actually that is quite duplicitous. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think I need to have this assurance but I would still like to have it. The Committee resumed about 3 minutes before 6 o’clock and I would have been able to give you an excellent speech. I hope it will not be held against me that I could not be here then and I will go for a call later. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I look forward to hearing that excellent speech. Before the dinner break Dr Wayne Mapp was speaking and he has 3½ minutes remaining. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the dinner break I was talking about two particular issues and the first is in relation to the value destruction provisions in this bill. Those provisions known as Part 6A inserted into Part 1 by clause 30 are said to be about restructuring but are more properly called value destruction. This Government has created a mythical concept of so-called vulnerable workers who will have extraordinary powers to receive information about the possible intents and plans of people to sell their businesses. They may well get that information—in fact will get that information—before the businesses go on the market. Those people will have the opportunity by industrial action and the like to diminish and reduce the value of those businesses. The Minister has the power by Order in Council to add anyone he wants into that category without reference back to this Parliament except by way of those statutory regulations. 
That is fundamentally wrong. To give those sorts of powers to these extreme leftists—these hard-left unionists who infest the Government—is wrong. The Minister himself is paying his dues today by supporting this bill. When I hear this slur—I guess it is—about “Swainy and the boys” I know that it is a falsehood because this bill is proof of it. In fact it is him paying his debt to his union mates. 
By creeping erosion the value is being destroyed in New Zealand businesses. People will be advised early and effectively get redundancy. That redundancy will come straight off the top of the value of the business. It will reduce the sale price and because people have early notice they will be able to manipulate it to reduce the value even more than would be the case. That is fundamentally wrong. Why would the Government go out of its way to hurt hard-working business owners who have had to put much more than a 40-hour week into their businesses to build value only to have the Government by its manipulative interventions destroy that value? 
I will seek a fourth call on another issue. It is a fundamental issue and it is the politically correct madness of putting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi right through all legislation. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Here we go again: knock the Maoris. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Samuels thinks it is a good idea that in employment law we have the principles of the treaty inserted into that legislation. There is a new schedule to that effect. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 This is one of the more significant pieces of legislation this Government has introduced and it has been drafted in such a way that makes this part one of the largest I have seen. Just before the break the other night I raised the matter of the extraordinary actions under clause 37 where a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Wilson and Horton—that is the  
New Zealand Herald 
—and Oram case is reversed. Some members might remember the case. Mr Oram was a journalist who saw that there had been a major crime and he thought it would make a great front-page story. He saw the name went to the file pulled out a photograph of a person of that name put it on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
and of course it was the wrong person. He was fired. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 had to immediately pay out thousands of dollars. He had not done any of the checking that a journalist should do before going ahead with the story. Under this legislation the Government is now saying that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 should not have done that. 
If the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had to pay out tens of thousands of dollars to someone who had not done even the elementary checking how on earth can the Government say it is prepared to pass a law stating that a person in that situation cannot be fired? That is the effect of this decision. I would like to hear the Minister—“Swainy and the boys”—explain why it will now be perfectly OK for a person to be so negligent but that the employer cannot fire that person. Under clause 37 it will be even harder to fire people who are so negligent. 
The Minister said that it is perfectly OK that non-union members should be forced to pay a bargaining fee. The reason he said that is because the employer the union and a vote means it is OK. What happened to freedom? He also said that if people do not want to join a union then they do not have to. He failed to mention that the unions do not pay the wages that it is the employer who does. This law makes it illegal to pass on to all of one’s workforce the same wages for the same job. That is basic Kiwi fairness. The Government is saying to employers: “You can’t pay everyone the same—that is if it undermines the collective.” Who decides that? The union can bring the case. Who can the union take the case to? It can take it to the Employment Court appointed by Margaret Wilson so it is all OK. 
This is compulsory unionism without the benefit of people at least getting union membership. Employer after employer appeared before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to say that the union never negotiates anything. Every time there has been a significant advance it is because the employer has made the offer. But if an employer does make a better offer then under this bill it will be illegal to pass it on to people who do not want to join the union unless they pay the union. I call it a blackmail fee. Why does the Government want that? We know that unions are the Labour Party’s biggest source of funds. By increasing the unions’ funds— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Working people! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister has got it absolutely right. He is voting for a measure to extract money from working people to support his political campaign. He no doubt honestly believes it is in the best interests of working people. What happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice? What happened to the many people—now in the majority I understand in his electorate—who do not intend to vote for that honourable member at the next election? Why should they be forced to pay a bargaining fee and if they do not pay it then by law they cannot be paid the same wages as the person working alongside them. If an employer did that members opposite would be outraged. This is an outrageous clause. It is a disgrace. It is worse than compulsory unionism. The unions used to do very little for their fee but now they do absolutely nothing and they still get paid. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When this part opened up I raised a point of order about the length of the debate and at the time the Chair did make some comments on it. This debate started at 8.48 last night. It went for 1 hour 5 minutes. It started at 3 minutes to 6 this evening and obviously it has been going for 13 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What is the member trying to point out? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The point is that so far the debate has been going for a total of 1 hour 18 minutes. Government members are already seeking the call to close this debate. The bill has 117 clauses and it is only reasonable that it should be thoroughly and properly debated. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. The Chair is not unaware of what was discussed yesterday. We will see how it goes. Everyone will be treated fairly. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday debate on all parts of the Holidays Amendment Bill was closed down early by the Chairperson. Indeed when I raised the issue after he had closed down Part 1 that New Zealand First had not had its proportionate amount of calls he told me—and I am certain that he meant well—that we only have to have calls in proportion in the 2-hour debate. I have since looked up the clause in Standing Order 102. I draw your attention to the fact that we have had one call in this debate thus far and we will be seeking plenty. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s concerns are noted. I was in the Chair last night and I have to say that members from your party did not seek the call but that is not relevant. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I strongly support the ruling you have made. However I invite you to think about something that might help the debate. If you were to indicate to the House that you will be taking more calls that would be helpful. One reason it would be helpful is that I would like to hear from the Government. Instead of Government members wasting their calls on closure motions if they know from the Chair that the Chair will not accept them then we might have Government members responding to some points. That would lift the standard of debate and I know that is something the Chair is always in favour of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank all members. I am more than looking forward to the debate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to make a contribution on Part 1. Although many of the remarks that have been made on the bill to date have had an edge of flippancy to them this is very serious legislation. It is very serious and very draconian for several reasons that I will turn to shortly. But I shall say this in advance of those comments: the only people in New Zealand society who will benefit from this legislation are the lawyers. They will be the only people in New Zealand who will gain any real financial gain from this legislation. 
When one reads through the confused clauses that make up Part 1 and the sloppy drafting the Minister has allowed to get to this point it is almost embarrassingly transparent to see how this legislation has been designed essentially to do only one thing—that is to continue a steady stream of funding to the New Zealand Labour Party via what can only be described as legislation intent on driving this country back to an industrial relations paradigm that is stricter and offers less freedom and choice than many of its predecessors including the Industrial Relations Act of 1987. When a Government is so miserable as to deny a group of people an exemption certificate for compulsory unionism when specifically asked to do so then that is not reflecting the wishes of workers in New Zealand; it is reflecting an inbred prejudice against those workers in New Zealand who choose of their own free will not to belong to a union. In fact we are talking presently about 83 percent of working people in New Zealand. After the introduction of the Employment Relations Act in 2001 only 17 percent of New Zealand workers have chosen to belong to unions. 
Call me old-fashioned but the question has to be asked—why is it the case with the Employment Relations Act in place that only 17 percent of workers in workplaces choose to belong to unions? The answer is simple. The unions do not do the job of representing workers’ issues well decisively and fairly. National contends that the only group of people unions are interested in protecting the rights of are those in the unions themselves not the workers those so-called unions purport to represent. 
The Minister is allowing legislation into this House that effectively says to 87 percent of working New Zealanders: “No we’re not going to let you 87 percent of New Zealand workers choose not to belong to a union. We’re going to bring to this House legislation that essentially picks up all those pieces of the Employment Relations Act that were stripped out under the winter of discontent in 2000 and 2001 and rehash in a new Margaret Wilson - Ross Wilson type of provision with “Swainy and the boys” being sent out the front to market it.” Margaret Wilson would not show her face in any environment other than in a union annual general meeting held at Victoria University Wellington during the week that this House is sitting. What was not realised is that “Swainy and the boys” are as much under the thumb of the unions and Helen Clark as Margaret Wilson was. To be fair to Margaret Wilson at least she had the gumption to front the thing in an honest way. “Swainy and the boys” did not. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to correct what my honourable colleague Simon Power led into. He started by saying that 83 percent of people were not in unions and before the end of 5 minutes it became 87 percent. I think he was closer in the first instance. There is no reason whatsoever why employers should be nervous of unions and basically they are not. I have not met an employer that is nervous of a union. Maybe some small employers are fairly apprehensive but—[ 
Interruption 
] The member says that I was on the waterfront. I have spent my lifetime dealing with two of the toughest unions in this country—the Seafarers’ Union and the Waterfront Workers Union. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Power’s colleague brought up the waterfront. 
I do not think that anybody is advocating—well I am certainly not advocating—that we give blanket power to unions any more than my National Party colleagues are but I just want to get the whole thing in perspective. I want to come back to the bargaining fee because the Hon Richard Prebble made some interesting points. Again he widened the area as if we should live in fear. 
Many employers have a workforce that is largely made up of union people. I would say that many of those employers—but perhaps not all of them—would welcome the opportunity to deal with one set of people to negotiate for everybody. [ 
Interruption 
] They do not have to. A Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name states that first the employer has to agree with the union. 
 If I were an employer and did not want to have a bargaining fee arrangement then I can say quite categorically that I would not have one. I certainly would not have one if the majority of my workforce was non-union. However if the majority of my staff were union members I would probably give it some consideration. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Mapp please shut up! 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a very well-known principle in this Chamber that when a member is on his or her feet those around him will remain silent. I ask that Dr Wayne Mapp restrain himself in the interests of proper parliamentary debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was just going to make that point. I thank the member for raising it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was saying that if I had a largely union-oriented workforce then I would consider a bargaining fee arrangement if most of them were in the union. I would even consider if I were an employer negotiating the fee with the union and possibly paying it myself. Workplace harmony is a very important issue. 
I move on to Part 6A “Continuity of employment if employer’s business restructured” inserted by clause 30. This all sounds very good in theory but it will not work. The provision is flawed. It was flawed at the time the last employment relations legislation was enacted and it was removed I think at the select committee. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble referred to it yesterday afternoon. It is contentious and it would not work. 
If an employer wanted to sell his or her business to another employer who was faced with a major redundancy bill or alternatively the first employer’s agreement had no redundancy clause in it then the first employer would sell the contract. He would not sell the business. The staff would go and there would be nothing left. How do I know that—and we are talking largely of small businesses such as cleaning organisations? Employers have told me. They will not be captured by this sort of legislation. What the Government is trying to do will backfire not only on the Government itself—it will not feel the pain—but on the individuals it is trying to help. The Government should think twice about this measure because bringing it in will add costs to employment. It will be a downside to employers who want to employ people. They will take on people on a casual or contractual basis rather than give them permanent employment. When a business has to be sold to another business they will look for a loophole—they are very easy to find—and therefore avoid any extra costs and payments. This bill is flawed immensely. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which will not be supporting this bill. I read in the commentary on the bill that this legislation will enable the Act “to better meet its key objectives of promoting fair productive and effective employment relationships between employees employers and unions.” I think that wage increases are always achieved through bargaining and consultation processes between the employer and the employee and in some cases the union. That is just a fact of life. It is either the union with the employer or non-union staff with the employer. 
The employer is the one who ultimately has to pay any wage increase and who is always concerned about the state of his or her staff and their welfare. Most business people would say that their staff are their greatest asset. My greatest concern about this measure is for genuine employers—and this may be more relevant in the case of smaller-sized business than larger businesses where a lot of it is less personal—in a small to medium sized businesses who have two or three union members and seven non-union members. They go to the negotiating table with both categories of employees and agree to a fair package because they want their workers to be rewarded equally. It then becomes ludicrous when they cannot offer them all the same package. If they offer to their non-union employees in individual agreements the same package they negotiated around the table with a union representative they will be penalised under this measure. What will the employers do? Will they have to pay the non-union staff just a little bit more so that the package is not the same? What will the unions do then? They will jump up and down. 
I have no problems with unions. I believe that many of them probably do a very good job but just as a business has to stand on its own two feet to survive so also should a union have to stand on its own two feet to survive. It should not need any Government assistance to do so. The figures that have been put out are interesting. If only 17 percent of employees choose to belong to a union then a very good question to ask is: why is that the case? It would be great if we could return to business conditions in New Zealand where we have a genuine negotiated arrangement between employers and employees. Over the years that has greatly improved not deteriorated. Therefore I agree with my colleagues that this legislation is taking us backwards at a time when business is having to face the challenges of working in a global economy and with the competitiveness that that brings. Things can change in a matter of months or weeks or in the car industry they can change in a matter of days. It is immoral for an employer not to have the right to be able to negotiate with his or her employees on things that are relevant—even perhaps to the survival of that business. No business wants to have a noose around its neck to the extent that it cannot operate and therefore loses staff. 
I agree with the many speakers who have already said that many aspects to this legislation will be very negative for workers. If only 17 percent are choosing to belong to a union why do we not take notice of the fact that the great majority of them are happy and very comfortable in negotiating directly with their employer? What choice do employers have when they want to bring uniformity into their workplaces between union and non-union members? I would say that they have very little. I agree that the bill started out as a way for the Government to pay back its union mates. That stands out very clearly. The bill makes it very difficult for employees to avoid joining a union. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has three amendments it would like to make to this part of the bill. They are on the Table if anyone is interested. The first and to us the most significant of these amendments is a proposed change to the schedules in relation to the categories of workers who can receive protection when their jobs are restructured or sold out from under them—the old transfer of undertakings clause. 
The Green Party is supporting the Service and Food Workers Union in calling for caregivers in residential care facilities to be added to that list of workers who will get protection once the bill is passed. I can think of no earthly reason why caregivers in rest homes were omitted from the list in the first place as they are surely one of the most exploited and vulnerable groups in the country. I do not think there would be many employers or even politicians in the Chamber here tonight who could disagree with this. These workers earn mainly between $9 and $12 an hour and many of them are actually on the bare minimum wage of $9 or just over it. The work they do is physically and mentally demanding. Many of the workers are older women who are really risking their health and welfare doing this work at pitifully low wages. 
 Rest homes change ownership often so they fit right into the category of the other kinds of vulnerable workers that we are talking about in relation to this bill. When the business is sold these hard-pressed low-paid but essential workers are at risk of losing not only their jobs but also all their service-based entitlements such as additional holidays if they have worked there long enough. I know that the Government is reluctant to add any group of workers at all into the coverage at this stage but the Green Party believes strongly that Labour could and should make an exception just for this one group of workers—caregivers in rest homes. If that is not possible I would urge the Minister and the department to do everything they can to assist the service workers union and other unions involved with the process for getting caregivers added to the schedules as soon as possible. 
The second amendment that we are putting up tonight is to clause 30. We would like to see it changed to allow all employees who transfer to a new employer the right to bargain for redundancy entitlements. This is again in the section dealing with the transfer of undertakings. Unfortunately the bill as drafted excludes vulnerable workers from bargaining for redundancy if they have an employment agreement that expressly excludes redundancy entitlement. The Green Party believes that the bill provides a strong incentive for employers to put in a redundancy exclusion—not a desirable outcome at all—and I doubt that the Government intended that. We need to remember that these clauses relate to some of the most vulnerable groups of workers in the country who are prey to having their jobs and conditions changed. We should be doing everything we can with this bill to protect them. I call on Labour members to reconsider their position on this rather minor amendment and support the rights of these workers. 
Our third amendment is to do with new section 4A inserted by clause 6A. Although we are pleased that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee strengthened this section we would like the Committee and in particular Labour and New Zealand First to consider one further minor change. The current bill states that employers are liable for penalties only where the breach of good faith was “deliberate serious and sustained”—all those things must be met. The Green Party believes there are circumstances where a breach may be so serious that it requires a penalty. We want new section 4A to provide that the action is “serious or sustained” so that either can apply. It could be that the action was minor but sustained over a long period of time thereby eroding good faith and confidence in collective bargaining. The change we propose would allow the Employment Relations Authority to consider penalties in these kinds of situations but they will not be mandatory. I call on the Government to consider supporting this very minor amendment. 
Finally I would just like to turn quickly to the question of bargaining fees. The Green Party does support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on bargaining fees and sees it as a very minor addition to the bill unlike the Opposition parties. This is not setting up the American system of closed shops at all as Mr Prebble said last night. All it does is allow workers and employers to negotiate an agreement that includes an arrangement for bargaining fees. It is simply just the right to have it—it can be by negotiation only; it is not something that can be imposed at all. It is something that can be done only after a vote in the workplace. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 As a member who sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to say that Part 1 which of course is the bulk of the bill is of considerable concern to the National Party and something that we are totally opposed to. 
I want to start with the clauses in this part that require negotiations to be carried out and concluded. So here we have the Minister legislating to require the unions and employers to continue to meet when they cannot agree. What is the purpose of that provision? It is clearly a purpose from the trade unions’ point of view because they do not want employers to say that that is it they cannot agree so they are walking away from the table. It is in fact the employers who lose money and whose management time is taken up by having to sit at the table with trade union officials and it is employers who have to let staff off to negotiate. 
This provision tilts the table enormously in favour of the trade union movement. If the parties cannot agree then employers know that economically it will cost them because they have to keep fronting up. It does not matter to the unions but it matters to the employers. But what did we hear tonight? At 5.40 this evening we heard Trevor Mallard Minister of State Services and Paul Swain Minister of Labour announce a new bureaucracy attached to the Department of Labour. This was probably the bureaucracy that Ross Wilson was telling the department officials would come when he was in the meeting room with them yesterday. Tonight we were told of the establishment of a new $1 million bureaucracy. The Government is fronting up with $1 million for a semi-autonomous unit attached to the Department of Labour as an advisory group for unions and employers when they cannot agree and have to keep on meeting. 
The Government said that it will legislate to keep the parties in the room and then chuck another $1 million at the Department of Labour and set up a semi-autonomous not totally autonomous unit. So the Minister’s grubby little fingerprints will still be on this unit—a semi-autonomous unit attached to the Department of Labour—so that it can sit there to do I know not what. We have to believe that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions will be all over it because in the press release the Council of Trade Unions President Ross Wilson welcomed the move and we heard nothing from business. In fact did Business New Zealand and the business groups even know it was coming? Have we in the Department of Labour under this Government totally given up any pretext of trying to straddle the fence? It looked like it in the select committee. It looked like it with the advice that we were getting. It certainly looked like it in the lobby last night—it certainly looked like it there. 
Brian Connell 
: It looks like it tonight. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It looks like it tonight as my colleague is saying. It is a shabby deal stitched up to indirectly give the union movement another $1 million of partnership advice for the public sector to grow the bureaucracy while all the time it is aimed at keeping the employers at the table until they cannot afford to stay any longer and they give up. 
I want to say to the Minister that I was in Nelson recently. Hospitality industry people told me that they were outraged that their staff would be able to say that they did not agree they could not agree but that the employers would have to keep fronting up in their time and that they would keep the employers at the table for as long as it took to break them. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I tell the member that that was what the restaurant owners in Nelson were saying. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 We first heard it here—the New Zealand First Party is a pro-union party. Is it any wonder that the word on the street is that a vote for New Zealand First is a vote for the Government? Can they fix it? No they cannot. 
This legislation is about as draconian as it can possibly get. This is a step back to the 1970s. This will do more to impact on our international and our domestic competitiveness than any of the hare-brained schemes that “Swainy and the boys” and his Government mates have dreamt up to date. I see us going back to the huge industrial unrests of that period and I would have thought that any clear-thinking person would want to avoid that. But no not this Government. This is payback time big time. This is reward and recognition for the 24 members of the current Government who served as union officials. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Including the Minister. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Including the Minister in the chair Paul Swain as one of my colleagues has said. No wonder he is out there saying one thing to business but quietly and in a sneaky way he is doing dirty grubby deals in the lobby of this House with the boss of the union movement. In fact he should declare whether Ross Wilson is in the precincts tonight. I would not be surprised if he is. 
Simon Power 
: He has a room in the lobby. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Does he have a room in the lobby? Is he paying rent? He probably has a permanent place in the Minister’s office because he is really the guy who is driving this legislation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He’s in the Department of Labour head office. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He probably does have his own office there. This legislation is about compulsory unionism. The Minister can beat it up any way he likes but that is what it is really about. 
Dover Samuels called out before and said it is for those hard-working members and for the hard-working people of New Zealand. Well it has already been pointed out to him that 79 percent of the hard-working people he has referred to do not actually belong to unions at all. I say to the member and to the Minister that if unionism is so damn good why does it need to be made compulsory? Why do they not just let people come to it naturally? The same argument was run with communism in East Germany. If it is so good why did they have to build a wall to keep people out—or was it to keep them in? I suspect it might have been the latter. 
I want to talk specifically about the restructuring provision in Part 6A inserted by clause 30. I have personal experience of having led a management buy-out of a large business here in New Zealand in 1990. This kind of nonsense was in existence then until there was a change of Government. A company that had assets of approximately $12 million only got the value of $5 million because the company was broke and the people who were buying it knew there was a contingent liability on the books for $35 million. They said that if they could not restructure the business the way they wanted then they would not pay fair market value. Do members know what? The Government did that deal because it knew it had no option. The same thing will repeat itself now. 
It is a dumb Minister and a dumb Government that cannot learn from previous mistakes. Here we are repeating the same stuff again. This will have an immense impact on the value of businesses when they are up for sale and purchase. The first thing a purchaser will look at is the terms and conditions that the company has or that the employees enjoy. If the purchaser is buying the business because it is in trouble why on earth would anyone pay top dollar or take the risk in the first place to purchase that business if there is no flexibility to restructure it according to the purchaser’s own needs? It is not rocket science. The Minister should have been able to work that out. If he had not been listening to Ross Wilson and company he would have. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am very appreciative of getting the call but I note that a number of my colleagues who have not yet spoken will also be seeking calls. 
The particular issue I want to deal with is why a principles of the Treaty of Waitangi provision is in this legislation. The Government has said it is trying to narrow the principles down. We hear Mr Mallard who has authority on the issue constantly proclaiming that the Government wants to narrow down the scope of the treaty yet sneaked into this legislation is a treaty provision. New Zealand First seems to be unaware of it. Its members are hunting for it desperately as we speak—even the dare I say it rude deputy leader of that party. 
I will take members through the sequence. Clause 35 requires codes of good faith. This clause inserts a new part consisting of several provisions. That explains the count of 117 clauses. New section 100D in clause 35 states that there will be a new code of good faith required in public health sector employment agreements. One might think that seems harmless enough. These are contained in schedule 1AA. For the benefit of members I will read out clause 7 in schedule 1AA “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” which states: “The parties must recognise and support Part 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 which in order to recognise the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and with a view to improving health outcomes for Maori provides mechanisms to enable Maori to contribute to decision-making on and to participate in the delivery of health and disability services.” That is required in employment agreements. What relevance does it have in collective agreements or for that matter in individual agreements? I would like the Minister in the chair Paul Swain to answer the question of what particular principle of the treaty is relevant here. What article of the treaty relates to employment agreements? That is what that provision is all about. Does it mean that in the future the nurses union and the district health boards will have reference to principles of the treaty in their employment agreements and their various practices which are enforceable by the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court? 
We know perfectly well so does the country that the Government does not even know what the principles are. It has not been able to explain them. It certainly cannot explain them here. In fact the Government claims that health services are provided on the basis of need not race. It actually says that. But sneaked into this bill is a reference to principles of the treaty. No one knows what it means. I am sure the Minister does not know what it means. Can the Minister tell me what points of guidance the Government will give the judges of the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court—and everyone knows that those judges are expert in the principles of the treaty—to determine how the principles will apply in an employment agreement between the nurses union and a district health board. 
Maybe it would be a cleaning union. It is very important I guess that those so-called vulnerable workers have reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their agreements to clean the floors of the building. Even I struggle to see how there could possibly be reference to the principles of the treaty in cleaning floors. Maybe it is some kind of joint sovereignty over the floors? 
Hon Member 
: A partnership. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: More than a partnership—joint sovereignty. Maybe a symbolic title a bit like the lakes will be given to the parties in relation to the floors of hospitals. This kind of absurdity has no place in employment legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When you called the previous speaker you indicated that that was likely to be the last opportunity to speak on this part. I invite you to have a look at the record of speakers of this evening and on the previous evening when this bill was discussed. The Green Party has had only two calls by my colleague Sue Bradford. I have had no opportunity to speak on the bill even though I have come down to the Chamber this evening specifically to deal with a particular clause that I have a particular interest in which is the amendment relating to the Brethren. It is usual in this Committee for members who have not had the opportunity to speak to be given the chance to speak on a particular part. So before we go on I invite you to reconsider your decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for bringing that to my notice. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether I could follow on from Mr Tanczos and make the point that when I arrived I think Mr Mapp was speaking. He went through a number of calls and he has just spoken again. Although I respect the fact that he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and is pretty knowledgable in these areas I too have been seeking the call the whole way through. I wonder whether you would possibly reconsider that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware of all those things. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak specifically to the United Future amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption that allows unions to be denied access to a workplace on religious grounds in certain circumstances. Of course this Committee knows that this amendment is particularly about the Brethren who already have an exemption under current and past law and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery tonight. 
More than most members of this House I understand how law can conflict with religion. In fact I am probably the only member of this House who faces victimisation for practising his faith so I have some sympathy for the position of the Brethrens. Although I will not discuss the theology of their position—I was tempted to because I am always keen to engage in a bit of reasoning—and regardless of my interpretation of the Bible we do have some sympathy for their position. 
However on looking at the issue it seems to be that a genuine concern for protecting religious rights in this House would make provision for people to practise their faith without persecution as long as that practice does not infringe the rights of others. So we consider that the law should never require people who have a religious conviction that forbids membership of a union or any other organisation to become unionised. In fact the law should never require anyone to become a member of a union if that person wishes not to be a member regardless of whether that person’s objection is religious or otherwise. 
However the argument that a person who has a religious or otherwise principled objection to unionisation or membership of any organisation apart from his or her church should be allowed to impose this objection on the rights of others by denying union access to a workplace in order to offer employees the chance to join a union is not in my opinion a convincing one. Religious conviction entitles people to practise their faith; it cannot entitle them to deny other people their rights or protections under the law. 
The Green Party will vote against the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 to extend the exemption even though we do have some sympathy for the position of the Brethren. We would certainly support the amendment if we felt that it was genuinely protecting people from a threat to their right to practise their religion in so far as that practice did not interfere with the rights of others. The respect for religious rights which United Future New Zealand First ACT and National purport in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper will be demonstrated not by whether they support an anti-unionist clause in this bill but by whether they support religious rights in other areas and contexts where they have no hidden agenda. 
The last point I would make is that it is contradictory to hear the ACT party the National Party and New Zealand First run a campaign declaring “one law for all” in respect of Maori but then to vote for an amendment that creates a different right for some. The hidden agenda of political parties has little connection to the genuine religious conviction of the Brethren—who as I said I acknowledge here today—who have lobbied for this Supplementary Order Paper. We will vote against this amendment. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to that speech from the honourable member from the Green Party. That speech seemed to say that the Greens will vote against the amendment because New Zealand First ACT United Future and National are supporting it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I never said that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well that was the thrust of Mr Tanczos’ speech. I say to the honourable member that this sort of clause has been in the Employment Relations Act from the beginning and it has worked very very well. It has caused no harm to anybody—none whatsoever—yet those members want to go against it. I think they should hang their heads in shame. 
Jim Peters 
: It’s just posturing. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is just posturing and making a noise for the sake of making a noise. I turn to my honourable friend behind me whom I was quite rude to and I am not normally rude. I am talking about Dr Wayne Mapp. He was interjecting quite severely and as he is only 2 feet behind me it was not easy to take. But I want to draw the member’s attention to the concern expressed in our minority report. I see that only one party referred to the Treaty of Waitangi provision. 
Jim Peters 
: Only one party? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes. 
Jim Peters 
: Which one? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was New Zealand First. We have been concerned for quite some time about inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and when it emerged in the new schedule 1AA “Code of good faith for public health sector” to be inserted by clause 67 of the bill we were quite alarmed. We were alarmed enough to raise the question in our minority report. I say to Dr Mapp that he can rest assured; we are well up with the play. 
There is an inherent fear among some of my colleagues about unions and people who operate in unions. Let me just say that most people who are in unions are decent law-abiding New Zealanders. I know many of them and I have had some darned good arguments with many of them—debates over philosophy and debates over practical things—but I do not run fearful of them. I understand their concern when their having paid for a group of people to negotiate conditions on their behalf those conditions are then simply passed on willy-nilly. That is what is known as freeloading or free-riding and I understand those people’s concern. I think every MP here should understand it because from what I have seen of members in this House if one political party steals an initiative from another it causes quite some concern. I just express that point to Dr Mapp who alluded to our not being up with the play on the Treaty of Waitangi clause—so it does touch a nerve. 
I do not see a bargaining agent modification arrangement as any great shakes. I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First would prefer the right for non-union people to negotiate their own collective agreements. I have said that if not once then a hundred times in this House and we will not walk away from that viewpoint. We believe that a collective employment agreement is the right of anybody and it should not be a monopoly held only by unions. But we know that the Government will not even consider that and we know that some of the parties that prop the Government up will not even look at that so we have this second-best option—both for the working people whom it will embrace and for the employers. I know many employers who do not want to deal with unionised staff then have to deal with individual contracts on top of that. Some of the employers alluded to that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They referred to things like “independent collectives” or “covert collectives” which basically means that they negotiate a collective agreement outside the framework of the law. The bargaining agent regime might help them but they have the choice. That was at New Zealand First’s insistence and I am pleased that the Minister of Labour took note of it and brought in another Supplementary Order Paper to amend and clarify that position. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(1C)(c) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(6) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4A in clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 6A be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 4A the words “sustained; or” and substitute the words “sustained; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the sake of clarification I want to confirm that this amendment relates to the issuing of a certificate of exemption on grounds particular to different organisations. Is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is correct. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 31(aa) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 32(1)(ca) in clause 11 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 33 in clause 12 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to sections 50A to 50J in clause 15 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to omit words from the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 59A(2) to (6) in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59B in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to omit words from the heading to section 59B in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 59B(2) to (6) in clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 65A in clause 26 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 67 in clause 28 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Part 6A in clause 30 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to to subsection (1)(c)(ii) of new section 69H in clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this subsection. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 161(1) in clause 53 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 275 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to the amendments to sections 69O and 69P in clause 30 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in his name be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 In comparison with Part 1 which was quite a substantive part this is a very very small part. In fact it is all of about nine lines. This part brings itself into line with clause 32 which has just been passed by the Committee. I can recall having sat here for the entire time that no one spoke on clause 32 and there are no amendments to clause 32. 
 This part is a small amendment to the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It simply states that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training which I am sure every member of the House supports— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well most sensible members of the House would support that. Clause 97 simply provides that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training and that it does not have to be done by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It could be notified in the  
Gazette 
 or over the radio or in newspapers or on the Internet. This brings the provision in line with clause 32 which we have already passed. This is a very very small part and notwithstanding some initiative within the Opposition debating team I expect there will be relatively limited discussion on it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the points that my colleague will no doubt raise as a point of order is what looked like it could be a direction to the Chair. I would like to think that is not the case. 
The Minister I believe has actually misrepresented the part and the reason why he has misrepresented it is that he says it is a simple change and one does not have to notify approvals through the  
Gazette. 
 But what he did not say was what it is actually all about. It is about a whole range of so-called education programmes set out in section 19G which was inserted by this Government into the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Section 19G is headed: “Minister may approve occupational health and safety training”. 
On the face of it that seems perfectly reasonable. It is actually a cover because what the clauses enable is union-based occupational training. Section 19G is referred directly back to section 72 of the Employment Relations Act. That section is all about union education courses. Union education courses are a sop I guess to the unions—and thus to the Labour Party—because what the clause enables is millions of dollars of training to be undertaken at the expense of the employer. In fact there is a table in the Employment Relations Act that sets out the number of hours that unionists are able to take for this training. That is what clause 97 is really all about. 
The Minister may pretend that the clause is just about the removal of a notification provision but actually it is a secrecy provision. No longer does it have to be publicly notified. No longer is it subject to review by the Regulations Review Committee of this House because that would be the implication of it being notified in the  
Gazette 
. It could be just a secret agreement between the Minister and the relevant unions under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. 
I spoke in my last contribution about issues relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Are these kinds of training programmes going to make specific reference to the principles of the treaty which will now be a compulsory part of codes of behaviour for employment agreements between public sector unions and district health boards? That is what is going to be the case and this is a way whereby secret training will now be undertaken at the cost of the employer to boost union funds. Firstly it will be done to give the unions more money and secondly funnel that money to the Labour Party which will use it to campaign in the general election. Whilst the Minister may pretend and try to convince the public that it is all quite innocent it is in fact very surreptitious. It is a secrecy provision so that the Labour Party can get up to its nefarious games with the unions to boost its own funding. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Another conspiracy theory! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am not surprised that Mr Benson-Pope a Minister in the Chamber tonight who is actually very slippery—he was trying to stand on the head of a pin in question time today saying that things are not what they are—would be supporting secrecy clauses because secrecy clauses are all about what is called in American politics: “Follow the money”. This clause is all about following the money. There will be secret provisions secret deals between the Minister and unions for trade union education at the cost of employers. Unions get paid for it with special provisions in Department of Labour allocations—$10 million and another million dollars announced today. I wonder how much of that ends up in these special programmes funnelled through to the unions and funnelled through to the Labour Party. It is all part of Labour’s election campaign. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that the Minister owes the Committee much more by way of explanation than he has given us so far. I support my good colleague Dr Wayne Mapp when he said the Minister was quite misleading as to the import of clause 97 particularly in Part 3. It is important that members go back to the principal Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act. As Dr Wayne Mapp has pointed out already there are all sorts of matters in there that make it clear that there is far more to this matter than just the simple omission of the words “by notice in the  
Gazette 
”. I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation of why this measure is necessary. Let me deal with the issue about why it is necessary and then why I am concerned about the dangers of it. 
I ask why this change is necessary because for generations the official way of notification to the people of New Zealand from Ministers has been by way of notice in the  
Gazette 
. One of the beauties of that system is that it saves compliance costs for business because people do not have to look in various places for decisions made by Ministers. They know the one place they can find that information is in the  
Gazette 
. If something is in the  
Gazettee 
 an employer knows that that is it. So my first question is why there is this change. Putting notices in the  
Gazette 
 is a very simple thing for the Government to do and it saves employers compliance costs because they do not then have to go and search in order to find out where something is notified. They do not have to wonder whether they have to search the transcripts of radio news for announcements made by a Minister. I admit that most employers have access to the Internet but not all do. Those who do not would have to have someone go and search the Internet and that person would then wonder whether to go to the Government website the Minister’s website the Department of Labour website or just where else to find the information. My first question is why is there this change? There has to be some reason for it and I think the Committee needs to know the reason because it does not cost the Government a lot to put notices in the  
Gazettee 
 and it will add to employers’ compliance costs as they now seek to verify information. 
I want to go on to why this measure causes me even more concern than that. One notes from clause 97 that section 19G(1) of the principal Act is the bit that is being amended. When I went back to that section to find out exactly what it was all about I found that actually section 19G(3) caused me the most concern. I found from that section that the Minister may delegate his or her power under section 19G(1) to one or more persons. That becomes a concern to an employer if a union member can come along to the employer and say the Minister has approved that member to have delegated authority to specify training courses. Presumably the Minister can delegate that under section 19G(3) to one or more persons. Now I would not mind betting that the Minister intends to delegate some of these powers to unions. What guarantee does an employer have when a union delegate says there is an official course he or she must follow that afternoon? How does the employer verify that? Quite clearly the Minister will not have put a notice anywhere because he has delegated his powers. Where has the union put a notice? How does the employer verify that? 
I believe the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee. On behalf of the Government he should tell us what is up here. What trickery is up here that requires this amendment? It was bad enough before that the powers could be delegated but at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
. If a union delegate said to an employer that he or she had been delegated the authority to set up a course and that the employer was to let the delegate go that afternoon at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
 where the employer could check up that it was bona fide for the health and safety employment officer to attend the training programme. It may well be a union training programme but at least there was some assurance to the employer that it was bona fide. This provision removes that protection. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 First of all I very much resent the way the Minister purported to speak for the Committee. He said—and no doubt it is accurate—that no member had spoken to clause 32. But he failed to mention that he had answered the question himself as to how many clauses there were. The Government had put all the provisions into one part. I defy the Minister to say that is not correct. If the debate had been taken clause by clause does he really believe that members would not have spoken to clause 32? I see he is silent now. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Maybe. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Come on Minister! Does he really think that I would not have spoken to clause 32? I would have taken four calls if I had been allowed to do so. 
I also resent the Minister’s suggestion that everyone has gone along with his socialist view that the Government ought to provide for everything. The ACT party does not go along with that view. We do not support safety programmes run by trade unions. The ACT party never has. The Minister knows that. One thing that I note about the trade union movement is that when all else fails it pulls out the safety card; it turns it into a safety issue. In my experience most of those safety issues were bogus. In my experience as an employer I have never agreed to pay danger money. Any time the trade union came along and started playing the safety card I have said that I am not prepared to pay people extra for something that is unsafe. But I have certainly seen unions raise bogus safety issues on many occasions. 
I believe that many of these education courses approved by the Minister will be a monstrous waste of taxpayers’ money employers’ money and employees’ money. I do not care whether the Minister publicises his approval of them on the Internet in the G 
azette 
 or on movie screens. It will still be a waste of money. I believe that this bill is another example. We ought to have a decent system of the rule of law. People should be held responsible for their own actions and the full consequences of them. If we did that we would not need to have the Government acting as granny and the trade union movement acting as auntie to try to do all these safety measures. We never used to have them. 
When we look at recent safety accident rates we see they have gone up. The real reason—and I do not want to go into any detail—is that no-fault accident compensation has made New Zealand more dangerous than Iraq. That is what has happened. That is why we have all these regulations. All we need is good old common law that states that people as adults are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. If we had that we would not need the Minister having to gazette safety courses—in fact so many of them that he now wants to publicise them on the Internet. But how much money will be taken from the taxpayer? This Government thinks that it is its money. It is not. It belongs to employers and to the public. 
The ACT party will vote against this clause just as we voted if the Minister had noticed against clause 32. We are being completely consistent. We say that this bill has no redeeming features. It is not often we have a bill that has no redeeming features. This bill is a huge step backwards. The Minister can call it health and safety as much as he likes but that does not mean that it will improve the health and safety of New Zealanders. It will just increase their costs. It is just more socialist bureaucracy and more pandering to the trade union movement. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is with pleasure I talk on behalf of the National Party on Part 3. Despite the Minister’s rather dismissive view that Parliament would have no interest in this part I will make this prediction: not only does Parliament have an interest in this part tonight but Parliament will have an ongoing interest in it for quite some time. I make the prediction that the whole bill is nothing more than a nationwide recruitment drive for the unions. This is just part of the whole clandestine activity that will take place whereby unions will organise very important health and safety training courses that are secretly approved by the Minister on some sort of communications device. 
If the training courses had to be gazetted then there would be a clear and an easy track for someone to follow. But this will be the great line: “I’m off to a health and safety employment course.” When the employee is asked why he or she is going the employee will reply: “Because I heard it on the radio. It was a party-political broadcast brought to us by the Minister of Labour Paul Swain. I heard it on the radio.” “Swainy and boys” will invite employees to a health and safety training course to listen to how to improve health and safety. That will be great will it not? How many people record the radio when they are listening to it? If an employer says to an employee: “Can you just show me where you actually heard that?” the employee will reply: “I heard on the radio that ‘Swainy and the boys’ are having a cup of tea and a health and safety course. It happens to be at 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon just before the running of the Melbourne Cup so why don’t we go down and have a listen?” That is the kind of clandestine behaviour that we can expect. 
The Minister said that there would not be much activity. He said that there has not been much discussion of this part and there would not be much discussion of it tonight. I make the prediction that not only will there be discussion tonight but that this part will be the subject of many parliamentary questions on behalf of the Opposition going forward. We want to know how many courses the Minister will send New Zealanders on. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Listen to the radio. 
JOHN KEY 
: We will be listening to the radio looking at the  
New Zealand Gazette 
 and searching the Internet. We will be searching and included in our favourite sites will be: “Health and safety employment courses brought to employees by ‘Swainy and the boys’.” We will look at that sort of activity. 
This is very very concerning behaviour. Earlier tonight my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry came to the Committee and much to my surprise he announced that a press release had been put out sometime earlier this evening I think in conjunction with the Minister stating that $1 million is to be put aside for work in this area—that is $1 million will be available to the unions. I wonder how much of that $1 million will go towards radio advertising gazetting and the running of health and safety training courses. Maybe the Minister may want to take a call to tell the Committee how many courses will be run. The next question the Minister may want to answer is what that will do to the productivity of New Zealand. Not very long ago this Government was telling New Zealanders that we would get back into the top half of the OECD by 2011. We will be in the top half of the OECD for the number of health and safety training courses attended by workers in New Zealand. I have no doubt that we will be in the top half of the OECD for that. If “Swainy and the boys” set up some sort of private company we could be in there very very quickly but we will not be back in the top half of the OECD. 
I bow to Mr Brown’s knowledge. He is the most knowledgable member about the waterfront in New Zealand and our shipping industry. Earlier on he said we should not be frightened of unions. I am a young man; I am younger than I look. I am only 43 years of age and I remember seeing on television on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve hundreds of cars at Picton that could not get on the inter-island ferries because of the strikes for chocolate biscuits. Now the issue will not be chocolate biscuits; it will be training courses. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Human Rights Act 1993 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Employment relations is all about balance. I have learnt that and it is important to get the balance right. Part 4 which relates to the Human Rights Act brings in some balance. Essentially it states that if a person were to complain for example about sexual harassment or racial discrimination then obviously there are two channels that person is able to take: either to go through the human rights channel or through the employment relations channel. It is fair to say that under the Employment Contracts Act—and before I hear outrage from the National Party that this legislation is a disgrace and is all about pro-unionism I will tell members this—people had the right to be able to choose whether they went according to the human rights way or the employment contracts way in order to try to get a resolution of their complaint. It is fair to say that the point at which they were cut off and had to choose the particular channel they wanted to go down was very early and people were confused about whether their complaint would be proceeded with. What happened with regard to the Employment Relations Act is that it is probably fair to say that the balance went too far in the other way. In fact people were almost able to negotiate—that is to take a complaint through the human rights system while at the same time taking it through the Employments Relations Authority. That was probably going too far in the other way. 
This legislation attempts to bring about some balance. Essentially it states that if a person gets to the point where he or she can lay a complaint provides that new section 79A(4) if an employee makes a complaint under the human rights legislation the employee may not exercise or continue to exercise any rights relating to the subject matter of the complaint that the employee may have under the Employment Relations Act. So if a person makes a complaint and he or she decides that complaint is to go down the human rights avenue that cuts off the opportunity to go through the employment relations channel. New section 79A(5) is exactly the opposite of that—that is if an employee chooses the employment relations way to go then he or she cannot continue on with his or her complaint through the human rights channel. 
The measure is about 40 lines in length and not particularly controversial in my view. The issue is something that has been around since the Employment Contracts Act where people had the right to be able to make a complaint. They should be able to make a complaint. However this legislation is about making sure that once people have made a complaint they must choose one channel. Once the complaint is made under employment relations law that is the channel people must go down. They cannot continue to have their complaint looked at in both the employment relations and the human rights channel but must choose whichever one they are in. The legislation simply states that once a person has decided to make the complaint the complaint is heard under that particular channel so that the person cannot have two bites at the cherry. As I have said the issue is about balance. The cut-off point under the Employment Contracts Act was a bit early and the decision point was a bit early. In the Employment Relations Act it was probably a bit late and that allowed too much choice to go on. This legislation attempts to try to bring some balance back and I recommend it to the Committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that the Minister took an extensive call and raised a number of issues that do need discussion and comment. I would like to think that members on this side of the House would have ample opportunity to discuss those issues because it is a practice that once a Minister takes a call there is ample discussion. I know that a number of my colleagues will be seeking those kinds of opportunities. 
The issue raised by the Minister sounded superficially attractive. He put it forward as an advance I guess on the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. However he claims that the Employment Relations Act went too far and in contrast the Employment Contracts Act was a bit restrictive but he has failed to recognise that the disputes in question are employment disputes. That is the first fundamental point. They are employment disputes. Thus one would expect for the sake of consistency in the way in which decisions are made that that would be the track that one would go down. 
The Government has made much play about the mediation processes authority processes and the expertise of the Employment Court with its four judges all of whom have built up expertise. That is well acknowledged. I would admit that that is one part of the Employment Relations Act that works reasonably effectively. Our dispute with the Employment Relations Act as we have consistently maintained is all of the deeply entrenched union preferences. As a Government we would strip out those preferences. 
 But the dispute resolution procedures are effective and that is widely recognised. Because they are effective they should be the choice. That is what National believes. So rather than still providing this dual-track process as the Minister continues to do we would say that employment disputes should be going through the systems that are well set up for them and in which people have built up expertise. Otherwise we get inconsistency. And surely in matters of the development of the law consistency is what is desired. I have heard numerous contributions from the Minister of Finance who talked about the importance of our courts being consistent—it has been quite controversial in fact—and the role of Parliament relative to the courts. We want consistency. Therefore we want disputes to go through the provisions of the Employment Relations Act mediation authority and ultimately the Employment Court. 
Another point I will mention very briefly is that section 64 of the principal Act is repealed by clause 99. People will ask what that is about. It is actually about employment agreements. It refers back to Part 1. That is typical of this legislation. It is very complex. One has to read Part 4 together with Part 1. Clause 21 in Part 1 has in it some very complex and much more demanding provisions about what employers have to do to provide employment agreements and so on and so forth. It is about the employer’s obligations in respect of new employees who are not members of a union. It loads the dice against people who choose not to be union members. So whilst it looks innocent it is not; and it is wrong that it is in Part 4. The only way we can effectively debate this clause is by referring back to Part 1. 
That shows the huge deficiencies in the way this bill is structured. The Government has deliberately tried to foreclose debate by putting 117 clauses into a single part knowing full well that that would limit the debate. It is fundamentally wrong. It is a practice the Government is developing more and more and it is dangerous for the health of our democracy. Ironically it did not get it right when one thinks about it because this provision should probably have been in Part 1. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the contribution from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp I would just like to tell the Committee a little story about somebody who could chose between whether she claimed under the Employment Relations Act or the Human Rights Act. Before I came to Parliament I did do the odd bit of employment work for employers and sometimes for employees—in fact quite often. After the second case I took for one particular employee who was alleging sexual harassment against an employer I decided that she probably would not come back for yet a third go. Each time she ended up with a payment and was able to further her university career. 
The third time she turned up claiming sexual harassment from yet another employer she really did not want to go through the Employment Tribunal where such cases were taken in those days because maybe they might know her too well. By that stage I have to say I was starting to feel I had too much employment work on my hands. So where did she go? She went off to a human rights lawyer who not knowing the history was much more sympathetic. 
That is unfortunately one of the situations we have. I take the Minister’s point that the provision is an improvement over the ability at the moment for people to switch halfway through and decide on where they might get a more sympathetic hearing where they might get more money or where they might not have to front up with better evidence. Unfortunately there is still the provision whereby people can take a couple of cases under one particular Act then at a later stage come back through under another Act against yet another employer and not be found out. Unfortunately this can still happen under the provision the Minister has here. As Dr Mapp pointed out this is about an employment relationship. Why is it not under the employment relationship law? Why does it always have this other human rights provision as well—the dual track which unfortunately still allows people to choose whichever system they think they might be able to get a better deal out of or that they think might be more sympathetic to their cause? 
Of course it is the human rights track that has been the cause of so much angst in the House in relation to prisoners in the management systems. I know that the Government is not enjoying that. The Minister in his other role is probably not enjoying it. It is the human rights provision that the Minister is going to confirm yet again on the poor old employer who has to try to deal with all the compliance costs all the litigation all the difficulties and is sitting there waiting for someone to bring a claim on something. 
That is not to say of course that many claims in this area are not genuine because many are. Having said that there are always the odd ones—in fact quite a few odd ones—that are not particularly genuine and would not stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny. 
We know that employers have got very used to just paying out. There are lots of people who advise employers that it is cheaper just to pay out. It is true. It is good advice in the monetary sense—absolutely—because the time the effort the angst and the money involved in defending these claims is huge. 
Of course there is always the probability of the threat of publicity—basically an extortion situation—if they do not pay up. Unfortunately that will still be relevant here. By having this dual system someone will be able to say: “We’re going to go down this track. We’re going to do this or else we’ll claim publicity or try to do something to embarrass the employer.” So unfortunately we do leave ourselves open to that odd employee—very odd—who happens to think that that is the way to pay for his or her university education. It is a very very sad fact but it is true. If I have struck it then I am sure there are other people who have struck it as well in this area. 
So the Minister could maybe take a call and say why it is that it is necessary to have two different strands. I can see him nodding and I know he is thinking about it. Maybe he is thinking about the prisons. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we have a slightly different view from the National Party on this. No we do not support either course of action. If it were up to the ACT party we would have just employment contracts and if there were something wrong with them people would go to the court. The problem we have here is that the Government and I am afraid successive Governments have been setting up all these commissions and we have a mighty grievance industry. One of the questions that came up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was one asking the Law Society how many lawyers were involved in this sort of business 14 years ago. The answer it gave me was that there were almost none. It is now a large part of employment law. 
Either in the last 14 years we have suddenly started to discriminate against everyone or alternatively we have highly sensitive young ladies such as the one just mentioned. Of course as an employer I know that that is so. One good story deserves another. I was asked as the director of a small company whether I would come in for a cup of tea when a person who had been on a 3-month contract was about to leave. I was told that she had not done a very good job but the company still wanted to say goodbye to her. I went along and made some nice noises and the following Monday we received a letter from her—she had been on a 3-month contract—saying that it was wrongful dismissal and also threatening because she happened to be Maori to take us off to the Human Rights Commission. 
Judith Collins 
: Why? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Because we should have continued with the 3-month contract. There was never any understanding that it was to be more than 3 months. It is illegal to do this so I will not name the firm. 
 One of the secretaries there was so outraged that she rang the person who had provided the superb reference she had and was told that it was part of a settlement of a previous case. She had three references and so rang each referee to find that each time part of the settlement was that the employer had to write a letter saying what a wonderful woman this was together with the money. 
Shane Ardern 
: I have experienced that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says that he has experienced that. I do not know whether members opposite know about this but I guarantee that everyone on this side of the Chamber who hires any number of people knows that under this Government these references are now being produced and by law we are not allowed to ring up because it is contrary to the Privacy Act to see whether it was actually a shotgun reference. We refused to give her a shotgun reference and against the legal advice—I have to say mine as well; I said to settle as it was cheaper—we contested that. She was outraged and could not believe that anyone could oppose her because she had—I understood later—already done that four times. I say to the Minister that this part does not do anything about that problem. That is why I hope we will discuss this because this is the first opportunity we have had to do so. This is a rort. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The ACT party knows all about rorts. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is a grievance industry and Mr Benson-Pope is quite happy to tell people he does not have lists of projects in front of him. He cannot see that point and that is why he cannot see that what he is doing here is putting out a licence for fraudsters. He is corrupting people. That young woman might have started off as a reasonable person but under Mr Benson-Pope’s law she was told by the Government that she could extort money legally. That is what this legislation does and the Government is saying that it cannot be done twice so it is wonderful! I say that people should not be able to do it once. If people have a real case why not take it to a real court? I say to Mr Mapp that I do not accept that these mediators are doing a great job. The only reason it is a great job is that it is cheaper than going to court. To heck with that! I do not support the legislation. I do not support any of these commissions—I think they are a whole load of rubbish. I can still remember the 1990s when we did not have one of them and I personally think that New Zealand was a better country. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Richard from the rort party. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I can recognise a rort and I am saying to the member that this is a rort. Is the member saying that these things do not happen? He is not prepared to say that because he cannot because he has never employed anyone with his own money in his whole life. Well we should not hold that against him because neither has anyone else in the Labour Party. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of National in connection with Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. This is of course legislation that National bitterly opposes and for good reason. Because in this legislation and in particular in Part 4 we see a real exemplar. That exemplar is that politics has completely dominated over principle. If we wanted to see politics in action we saw it the other night where in the precincts of this Chamber the president of the major trade union organisation in New Zealand was closeted with members of Parliament from the Labour Government seeking to subvert their views. That is why I say in connection with Part 4 that politics has dominated over principle. 
Part 4 is we might say a simple enough part. Indeed it has only four sections but what significant sections they are. What Part 4 is about—similarly to Part 3—is consequential amendments to other primary pieces of the legislation. Whereas Part 3 was concerned with the Health and Safety in Employment Act Part 4 as the member opposite wisely notes is concerned with the Human Rights Act. 
 I want to look quickly at some aspects of Part 4 that I think are worthy of particular comment. As others have commented one of the things Part 4 does is repeal section 64 of the Human Rights Act. When one looks at what replaces it one sees that the changes on one view of it may not be all that significant because new section 79A “Choice of procedures” is inserted. That leads me to the second point I wish to make in this call with the intent of taking further calls on other aspects of the part if there is the opportunity. What this Government inappropriately does is draft legislation with a very very high degree of prescription. Because it has taken that prescriptive approach the reality is that gaps occur. 
It is simply not possible to foresee the implications of such highly prescriptive legislation. Let me give an illustration of that. What will the situation be if an employee starts down let us say the human rights pathway in section 79A and sees perhaps for good reason that that outcome will not best advantage his or her cause? One might think that the issue would be governed by subsection (3) but it may well not be. It would be possible to discontinue those proceedings and start down the other line if some greater degree of advantage were to be seen there. 
So I have spoken about how politics has dominated principle and I have spoken about the prescriptive nature of the legislation and given an example. But there are other examples. Why is it necessary to state in section 92BA inserted by clause 101: “Proceedings before the Tribunal are to be commenced by the lodging of an application in the prescribed form.”? That is utterly superfluous. We then have to move to a position whereby there are regulations or rules prescribing forms. That is what I am saying when I assert that the prescriptive nature of the legislation is completely unnecessary. 
I now pick up a point that other members of the National Party have similarly identified which relates to the burdens of process. One would think as a matter of principle that an employment law issue might be dealt with under this legislation—that another Human Rights Act option would not be given. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4 of the bill. United Future’s concern about this particular aspect of it is that although it is right and correct that employees should be able to take a grievance to the appropriate authority we have noticed over the years that unfortunately when many of those grievances are brought forward the actual issue is not so much the grievance but the possibility of the person getting an amount of money out of it. In some parts of the industry we have 0800 SACKED numbers and the ultimate aim is not to deal with a grievance but to get a monetary return. A lot of the things we bring into legislation such as what is laid out in Part 4 do concern human rights but I think we can overlegislate on many of those types of things. It becomes very complex for both the employer and the employee. I do not know whether in weighing up and looking at the circumstances they will be asking what the best place is they can go to or which of the two alternatives will give them a better financial return from their grievance. 
 So United Future is concerned about this type of legislation and that is why we are voting against this whole bill. As members have heard there are many many areas in this particular legislation that we are concerned about. As sensible as it is to have a grievance process it does concern us when there start to be multiple choices. What will the poor employer have to do? Will the employer have to get advice or to do studies to find out which is the best angle or the best alternative? We have serious concerns about whether this process will work. 
United Future is voting against this legislation in its entirety. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues on the other side of the Chamber seem to have been really enlightened by that. I do not know whether they have really taken as long as this in the debating process—I am talking about Part 4—to come to an understanding of what United Future’s position is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’re either for or against it! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Prebble that United Future is definitely against it and it is voting against this legislation. Many clauses in Part 4 do greatly concern us. We are in agreement with the other members of this Parliament who have been speaking against this part. We confirm that their comments have been very serious. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour took to heart the seriousness of their comments on this part but I would like to confirm those comments and say that I think those members’ concerns are very relevant. I would encourage the Minister to take the time to study the amendments and see what good sensible amendments they are. United Future is very concerned about this particular part and we will not be supporting it. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. I note that the Minister of Labour got to his feet and took a call regarding this part and I commend him for that. I struggle to find myself in agreement with anything that the Minister had to say. He stressed in his call that employment relations were all about balance. Well I agree with that—employment relations are all about balance. But then he lost me because nothing in this part is about balance at all. I find myself agreeing with the ACT member in that there is nothing in Part 4 that I agree with. In fact I am strongly opposed to what is being suggested here. 
Of course we are shaped by our experiences. I will relate to the Committee an experience I had with this type of legislation that explains why I am so strongly opposed to it. Back in the early 1990s I was working for a large financial institution in this country. We had a female employee who was working for the bank’s legal department. She was a lawyer of course. 
Judith Collins 
: She couldn’t have been a real one! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I suspect she might not have been too flash. But putting that aside the position as the head of our legal department became available. Those who applied went through an approved selection technique called targeted selection interviewing. The woman in question did not get the position. Even though every candidate had the same treatment and the cream floated to the top she took an action against the institution claiming that she had been discriminated against. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Did she have a form? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well she did not have very good form. That was the problem. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.