Volume 634 Week 29 - Wednesday 25 October 2006 
Volume 634 Week 29 - Wednesday 25 October 2006 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Wednesday 25 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a considered ruling at another time from you on this matter. On 10 October 2006 Dr Brash questioned the Prime Minister on the actions of her chief of staff Heather Simpson. Points of order followed which discussed Ms Simpson’s status and the capacity in which she acted. You ruled: “Of course Ministers are responsible for their staff; the capacity they may work in however is a different matter.” The key phrase of your ruling is “capacity they”—the staff—“may work in …”. At today’s Government Administration Committee in public session Ministerial Services advised that Ms Simpson is paid solely by Ministerial Services and she is not paid from the Labour leader’s parliamentary budget. This means I would suggest to you that Ms Simpson has only one capacity she may work in—to relate to the point of your ruling. Therefore the Prime Minister as the responsible Minister must answer questions relating to the performance of activities by her chief of staff as Ms Simpson works only in that one capacity. I would appreciate your considered ruling on this matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to do so. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In doing so I think it would be useful for the House to know whether your ruling will stand as a ruling of general principle—that is that any member of ministerial staff could claim to be acting in a different capacity when he or she does something—or whether you inquired into the circumstances of this particular staff member. That is important so that the House will know whether your ruling is setting a precedent for all ministerial staff or whether it is a ruling that applies only to the circumstances of Ms Heather Simpson. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it will be a general ruling. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it will be very helpful to have that ruling. Perhaps at the same time you might care to give us a ruling about whether staff employed in the leaders’ offices of other parties can have questions asked about their activities by way of written question to you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am happy to consider that as well. 
Tabling of Documents 
Casino Legislation Voting Record 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday during question No. 12 Mr Williamson sought leave—no doubt to challenge the veracity of what I had said to the House a little earlier—to table a document. I notice that he has not tabled anything so I seek leave to table the voting record on the legislation to introduce casinos into this country. It will show who is telling the truth—Mr Williamson or me. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you check the record you will find very clearly that I made no comment about how Mr Peters had voted; I sought leave only to table his voting record. The reason I did not do it is that I spent nearly quarter of an hour scaling the heights on the ladders out in the lobbies trying to find it but our  
Hansard 
 goes back only until 1990. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order. 
Questions to Ministers 
Inflation—Policy Targets Agreement 
1. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s interpretation of the policy targets agreement as “requiring CPI inflation to be comfortably within the 1 to 3 percent target band over the second half of a 3-year forecasting horizon.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That interpretation is in my view consistent with the medium-term focus of the policy targets agreement. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister not think that that makes a mockery of the policy targets agreement if adherence to the agreement is defined not by what actually takes place but rather by the Reserve Bank’s own forecast of what might take place; and therefore it does not actually matter whether inflation ever really gets between 1 and 3 percent all that matters is that the bank forecasts that one day it will? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is particularly silly. If the member would care to ask Dr Brash under Dr Brash a policy targets agreement of 0 to 2 percent was interpreted as meaning 0.5 percent every quarter which is utterly impossible. What the Reserve Bank does is to project out all else being equal what the inflation rate will be and therefore it judges what monetary policy reaction it needs to have to bring back inflation within the target range. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of alternate fiscal settings that would make the job of the Reserve Bank more difficult? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that advocate a net injection of up to $11.5 billion per annum of spending power into the economy notwithstanding the current macroeconomic climate. I suggest that Mr Key talk to Dr Brash about the implications of that for monetary policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister while we are talking about making a mockery of the policy targets agreement who was it who between December 1994 and December 1996 as Governor of the Reserve Bank had the policy targets agreement outside the band in 8 of the 12 months and is he now leader of the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment is out of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Over that period of 2 years the policy targets agreement was breached eight times out of 12. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister concede that changes he made to the policy targets agreement in 2002 have played a part in raising inflation expectations and will he be giving any considerations to calls made in the recent macroeconomic policy forum organised by both the Reserve Bank and Treasury to replace the inflation target band with a point target and to put decisions about monetary policy into the hands of a committee as is done in the UK and the US ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first point all the countries that I know of that have a point target have a tolerance band around the point target because nobody can possibly predict 0.5 percent exactly by managing monetary policy or indeed any other policy that is available to anybody anywhere around the world. Should one set up a committee? I suppose it will be the National Party’s economic policy in most areas to set up a committee. 
John Key 
: If the Reserve Bank raises interest rates tomorrow does the Minister accept that this will probably lead to a higher exchange rate and further Uridashi issuance; in which case will he send more officials to Japan to tell them that New Zealand is once again a lousy investment destination; urge the Reserve Bank to intervene; continue to talk down the currency as he has since 47c; or order another supplementary stabilisation instruments report; or is it now the case that having once asserted that he was not without options when it came to the exchange rate he is rapidly finding that in fact he is? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that questions are meant to be succinct as are answers. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that was succinct for that member. What I will certainly not do is feed extra billions of dollars of spending power into the economy—as that member proposes thinking it will have no effect on monetary policy. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister stand by the comments he made to Bloomberg a couple of weeks ago when he said: “I won’t say what I expected because well I’m not allowed to but the general consensus is that rates will not be raised … I think that’s really what the bank was saying.”; does he now think that his “wink wink nudge nudge” comments about interest rates not going up are pretty foolish given that 100 percent of the market is now pricing in a chance of a rate rise before the end of the year and does he think he would have been just a little bit wiser to stop at the point where he said: “I am not allowed to …”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Interestingly enough the most recent survey showed that the expectations around a rate rise went from 19 percent at the time I made that statement to about 62 percent—but unlike the member I do not tell the Governor of the Reserve Bank what to do. 
John Key 
: Well that proves they don’t listen to him; but anyway— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has a habit of little preliminary remarks— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —when he asks a question—[ 
Interruption 
]—and that Madam Speaker is a privilege he has yet to earn. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member does editorialise. We all fall into habits I know so in future the member will please just ask the question. Thank you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the last point of order John Key inter alia yelled out very loudly while Dr Cullen was making the point of order. I think that you have ruled on that matter on a number of occasions and I wonder when it is going to be enforced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a good point actually. Many members intervened at that point. If it happens again then the entire number of persons who intervened will leave the Chamber and we will get through question time then. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the course of last week I was removed having come into the House during what later proved to be not a point of order. But I thought it was a speech when I came in because it was so long. I interjected as the member sat down and was then removed from the House yet after a blatant outburst like that members are still here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I agree with— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mean to challenge you and please forgive me if it sounds like that but on 10 October you—[ 
Interruption 
] It is a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Who intervened please? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I did. 
Dr Richard Worth withdrew from the Chamber. 
Ron Mark 
: On 10 October Nandor Tanczos rose to take a point of order and was immediately warned by you—before he had said anything else—“This better be a point of order.” On 17 October I started a point of order and you warned me: “This better be succinct.” or “Make your point of order succinct.” I would like to know why there is one standard for the minor or alternative parties in this House and blatantly and flagrantly different standards for the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member has a very good point. Those members then who intervened on Dr Cullen’s point of order will please identify themselves and leave the Chamber. The member is quite right; I do give leniency. Obviously it is being abused. I now must enforce rigidly because it is the only way to be fair. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked those members who had intervened when Mr Mark was on his feet to leave the Chamber. Mr Worth did. Another member is sitting over there who knows full well what he said. He said: “What year?”. I ask Mr Roy to honour what the Speaker has asked him to do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please leave the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There’s a good lad. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No there is no need for that. The member has done the right thing—please leave. 
Eric Roy withdrew from the Chamber. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I just point out to you that now that Dr Cullen would like to have me treat him like a nice soft cuddly bear without any kinds of interjections maybe he would like to give the same respect back to me in his answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member did intervene. He may finish his question then he will leave the House. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister stand by his other comment on the possibility of interest rate rises—that “I think that what Alan was saying was ‘I haven’t got my finger on the trigger but don’t forget that there is a gun in the drawer.’ ”; and when it goes off will he accept that not only is the gun fully loaded but that the safety catch has been flicked off and yet again the only role he will play in this vignette is that he will be the person who will be shooting himself in the foot? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The gun referred to of course is in the hands of Dr Bollard not myself. 
John Key withdrew from the Chamber. 
Research—New Zealand Firms 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What is the Government doing to support greater uptake of research among New Zealand firms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government recognises that the stronger the links we can get between business and science the better we will be in terms of transforming to a high-value high-wage economy. So next week the Government and Business New Zealand will host a major summit in Auckland aimed at building new partnerships between investors and researchers boosting research-led innovation by Kiwi businesses and ensuring the research community can respond to business needs. The Capitalising on Research summit will bring together New Zealand’s top business people—144 of them—and 60 science leaders along with international leaders in this area. The forum at the present time is oversubscribed and has a waiting list. The summit is just one part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure Kiwi firms can make the best possible use of science pioneered in this country. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure that the results of research are being applied to accelerate the growth of Kiwi firms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Labour-led Government invests more than $300 million a year in programmes to develop new industries connect firms to global expertise match private sector investments in research and development improve linkages between business Crown research institutes and universities and ensure that science is a commercial reality for New Zealand business. 
Meningococcal B Vaccine—Significant Adverse Health Events 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Have there been any significant adverse health events associated with the meningococcal B vaccine; if so how many? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There are a range of side effects associated with all vaccinations. However significant adverse health events are very rare after vaccination with meningococcal B disease vaccine. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer last week to a written question that he is confident there are no significant adverse events associated with the meningococcal B vaccine and is he aware that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has advised it has accepted 33 claims for adverse events related to the meningococcal B vaccine? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes and no. The member may be referring to some of the anaphylactic shock reactions that occur or may occur with any vaccine or indeed with any medication. They have occurred with the meningococcal B vaccine but they have been extremely rare. There have been fewer than 10 of them most of which have only a possible association with the vaccination procedure. 
Maryan Street 
: How many cases of the epidemic strain of meningococcal B disease did we have in New Zealand prior to the roll-out of the vaccine? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: About 200 children and young people each year used to contract this disease almost a quarter of whom were left with a lasting disability or died. Saving our young people from either of those outcomes is a prime motivation for our hard-working health sector and for this Government. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of concerns raised by New Zealand First at the time the vaccine was rolled out regarding its safety and effectiveness and in light of the latest evidence is he willing to give the House an unequivocal assurance that the vaccine is safe as his predecessor did in response to an oral question by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 2004? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As I said in my answer to the primary question significant adverse events are very rare after vaccination with the meningococcal B disease vaccine. Accordingly I think it is appropriate to describe this vaccine as safe. It is certainly the most intensively monitored vaccine in New Zealand’s vaccination history. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he confident that the Ministry of Health made the right call to proceed with a massive vaccination of 1 million New Zealand children before it had carried out stage three clinical trials of the vaccine—trials that are normally considered essential before any new medicine is approved—and does that not mean that basically the roll-out has been a gigantic experiment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I do not agree with that. The member will I am sure be aware that at the beginning of this process the first 100000 children under 5 and the first 100000 children over 5 were part of a hospital-based surveillance scheme in which any child who had been vaccinated and was then found to be in hospital for any reason was then carefully and closely examined to see whether there was a link with the vaccine. No links were found except in a few cases where there had been an anaphylactic reaction. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked why there had not been a stage three clinical trial. The Minister gave us some comments about monitoring but he did not address the issue of why there had not been a stage three clinical trial. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In vaccination that is what a stage three trial looks like. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When he was advised by his ministry that there was no evidence of any significant adverse health event associated with the meningococcal B vaccine was he aware that the ACC has accepted 33 claims of adverse reactions to the meningococcal B vaccine and has declined 42 because the injury reported was an expected result of the vaccine—bruising redness minor pain for a short time—and the fact that it has accepted 33 claims means that those cases are more significant than those expected outcomes; as a result of that information what action will the Minister take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I was not aware of that as I said in my answer to the member’s prior question on that matter. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would it surprise the Minister to know that while his officials are saying that there is no evidence of a significant adverse reaction to the meningococcal B vaccine the ACC has accepted 33 claims including the claim of an 8-year-old girl whose specialist has said she developed a severe blood disorder as a result of the meningococcal B vaccine; surely that must be a significant adverse event? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not the member responsible for the ACC but it is the case that the Ministry of Health—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let the Minister address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —but it is the case that the Ministry of Health has looked hard for for example cases of meningococcal meningitis cases of Guillain-Barre disease cases of thrombocytopenia and all of the things that might be associated with a vaccination and has found no higher incidence of them after vaccination than before. That does not mean that a person who has been vaccinated might not develop one of those conditions but it does mean that their prevalence has not increased at all. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What action will the Minister take now that he has become aware for the first time that while his officials have been telling the nation and the Government that there have been no reports of significant adverse events the ACC has accepted that a meningococcal B vaccination caused a severe blood disorder and surely the fact that 32 other claims have been accepted would warrant the Minister instructing his officials to start to investigate the serious cases that the ACC has accepted? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may not be aware that apart from 33 ACC claimants this vaccine has been subject to three separate ongoing monitoring regimes—three of them. They have been of such a high standard that they are regarded by the independent scientific committee that oversees them as being of a gold standard and worthy of international attention which indeed they received. This vaccine has been monitored harder than any vaccine in our history and most vaccines in anyone’s history. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister of Health actually appreciate how serious this information is because the public have been assured by health officials that there have been no significant adverse events and parents like myself have immunised our children on that basis and what we are now discovering is that the ACC has accepted 33 claims? We are uncertain about the range of injuries that they are claims for but we are aware that the ACC has accepted the claim that this vaccine caused a severe blood disorder in an 8-year-old girl. Surely the Minister realises that that puts in question the advice he is receiving? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What is so special about the National Party that members like Mr Ryall can get up and go on and on in question time when we are asked on numerous occasions by you to truncate our questions? There should not be a special rule for Mr Ryall particularly since 2 years ago he did not have anything to say about this issue at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should be reminded that in supplementary questions there is only one question and that all questions and answers should be succinct. There is a tendency for members on both sides of the House to make speeches. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you check the  
Hansard 
 Madam Speaker I am sure you will find that the last supplementary question asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not start with a question. You have ruled many times that questions must start as a question. I would appreciate your sorting that matter out for the future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any help on that. Please be seated. Yes if all members observed the Standing Orders all the time it would certainly be very helpful. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You do need help on this Madam Speaker and I will tell you why. If that point of order was to be valid it had to be raised at the time that I asked the supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is quite right but we are having a little general discussion here on how we are all going to observe the Standing Orders—and we are. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It may help the House if I offer the following advice. A range of serious blood conditions occur in children and the question is whether they occur with greater frequency after the population of New Zealand children has been vaccinated. The view of the Ministry of Health is that they occur at no greater rate than previously. Although of course a child who has been vaccinated may nonetheless at some point develop a serious blood condition the issue of causality is one that can be proven only epidemiologically whether or not the ACC has accepted it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of a Norwegian documentary that recently screened in Norway in which three Norwegian professors of medicine expressed grave concerns about the safety of the meningococcal B vaccine—the so-called parent vaccine used in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the answer to a written question from the ACC. It is not yet on the written questions website so it will be of interest to members. I seek leave to table the document which shows 33 adverse events— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Police Holding Cells—Teenagers 
4.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she agree with Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft that holding teenagers accused of crimes in police holding cells is unacceptable; if so what options is the Government planning? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I do agree that holding young people in police cells for longer than 24 hours is unacceptable. That is why over the last 12 months we have opened a new residence in Canterbury providing an additional 12 beds with a further eight beds planned for December; established a further six beds three in South Auckland and three in Dunedin; promoted supervision with activity; promoted a supported bail option; commissioned a new youth justice residence in Bay of Plenty to further increase bed numbers; and we are building three transition units attached to each youth justice facility. 
Judy Turner 
: Is it feasible or acceptable to monitor young offenders through the use of supervised remand at home and electronic bracelets as suggested by Judge Becroft in home environments frequently unable to control the offending behaviours in the first place? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In my view and I believe that it is a view shared by Judge Becroft that would not be an appropriate environment in which to promote monitoring at home. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can the Minister explain what longer-term options are being considered; if so when they will happen? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. Longer-term options being considered include developing assessment tools for the Youth Court which will be in place as soon as they are signed off by the appropriate officials; encouraging quicker turn-round of specialists’ reports which is being implemented now; and the use of home detention in appropriate situations—as I mentioned in answer to the most recent supplementary question. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why when 330 young people were held in police cells for more than 24 hours in the first 6 months of this year a 16-year old accused will spend his second night in a police cell because of a waiting list to get into a youth justice residence the average occupation of three youth justice residences over the last 2 years has been 99 to 100 percent violent youth crime is on the increase and no new youth justice beds will be built this year or next—with all this happening—is the Minister doing nothing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I said in the answer to the primary question in the last 12 months there have been an additional 12 beds in Canterbury an additional three in south Auckland an additional three in Dunedin and here will be a further eight in Canterbury this year. As the member may well know a proper process of consultation has to be gone through—as we have been doing in Waikato - Bay of Plenty—in order to provide a facility that is supported by the local community as well. It would be really good if that member supported building of youth justice facilities instead of constantly coming into this House and undermining the progress. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware of comments made by Judge Andrew Becroft on 27 February stating that: “Serious crime committed by young people is becoming more savage and early intervention is vital to reducing youth crime” and would she not agree that there is no place more suited to violent young savages than a police cell or a prison? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree with the first part of the member’s question but I actually disagree with him on the second part. A police cell is not an appropriate long-term detention facility in which to either punish or rehabilitate an offender. 
Tariana Turia 
: What has this Minister done to increase the use of supervision with activity rather than supervision with residence as Judge Becroft asked and what are the increased numbers in supervision with activity? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly support the tenor of the member’s question. I am a strong supporter of supervision with activity as well. I do not have the increased figures but the primary focus of Child Youth and Family in this area has been on specific and ongoing promotion of supervision with activity where it is appropriate. 
Judy Turner 
: Considering the concerns expressed by Judge Becroft does she consider Child Youth and Family Services sufficiently resourced for the youth justice work it is mandated to carry out? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I do. Any implementation of any of the areas I outlined in the short term medium term or long term are not delayed because of lack of resources. They are delayed because of ensuring that the entire policy work research work and obviously planning work are done appropriately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister what reports she has received that the criminal community particularly hardened criminals had a collective knee-tremble when they heard that Tony Ryall had been appointed to get tough on crime? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a legitimate question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is responsible for certain aspects of criminality and penal policy responses. I do not think that question is out of order at all. I am asking what happened in the criminal community when its members heard that Tony Ryall was going to get tough on crime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but a reaction to National Party policy is not within the Minister’s responsibility. That is the end and that is the ruling. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the answer to the last question the Hon Bill English made a comment that I found offensive. I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I honestly cannot imagine what I had said that was offensive to the Minister. If she could tell me what it was and if it was offensive I will certainly withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has not withdrawn and apologised but is waiting to hear from the Minister what the comment was. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Madam Speaker it is not necessary for me to repeat an offensive comment. I have asked that the member withdraw and apologise. I know what he said; I have taken offence at it. That is all that is needed under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the project director for the construction of the four new prisons Mr John Hamilton and the manager of administration and consulting—both external consultants—were involved in the renewal process for each other’s contracts in 2004 including writing job descriptions setting out the attributes to be considered the weighting each was to be given and the suggested pay range? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of their positions. I am not aware of all the details of how those contracts were negotiated. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Given the many wonderful New Zealand men and women who serve our country in the Department of Corrections can the Minister give some examples of why we should have confidence in a department that is ably served by those wonderful men and women? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I am very happy to. Department of Corrections staff have overseen a difficult but improving situation for a number of years. Escapes have fallen by 78 percent in the last 10 years. Serious assaults on staff have fallen by 89 percent since 1997. Over the last 3 years we have more than doubled the contraband we seize from people before it gets into prisons. I think they are doing a wonderful job. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that as a result of Mr Hamilton’s contract being renewed in 2004 his daily rate went from $1300 plus GST a day to $1764 plus GST a day; and in light of the collusion that occurred with his fellow consultant over remuneration rates does the Minister think the public has received value for money for the $2 million that Mr Hamilton was paid to February this year despite the fact that he has overseen the biggest budget blowout in living memory? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of their positions. I am aware of a pay rate similar to or approximately around the figure that the member has suggested. A number of issues have been raised in the Auditor-General’s report on the review of this project which was an $890 million project to build four new prisons after years of neglect by the last National Government. Contracts between staff and the contractors themselves are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that consultant John Hamilton’s original contract in 2000 was not put out for tender at the time was extended twice after that and was awarded a matter of days after he had resigned as an employee of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of those claims I understand they have been investigated and changes have been made in that area. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that as stated in the report of the Audit Office dated June 2005 most of the members of the department’s steering group for the prisons project were not involved in the decision to renew Mr Hamilton’s contract; and is he at all concerned about the finding of the State Services Commission report that “… there was often considerable pressure to make quick decisions at Steering Group level again based on little information or on verbal representations from the Project Director.”—Hamilton—“This often resulted in situations of so-called ‘no choice’ decisions …” including the decision to adopt collaborative working arrangements; and does he not think that suggests his department really is deep in the mire? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware that some of these issues were raised in the review. Changes were made within the department and further changes have occurred in that whole area of management of these projects. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House that the contract for establishing the collaborative working arrangements was awarded to Mr Stewart Rix to the tune of $1.3 million and was not tendered out because “The department researched the market and found that [Rix] was the only New Zealand based provider of CWAs.”; and is he at all surprised by that when the State Services Commission report reveals that it was Hamilton and Rix who convinced the Department of Corrections to adopt collaborative working arrangements? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of some of those claims and assertions. I would like to remind the House that this was one of the largest construction projects in the country. Two prisons have already been completed on time and to budget. The issue of cost overruns has been thoroughly canvassed in a couple of reviews. Changes have been made. I am confident that we will complete the final two prisons on time and that they will be available to secure prisoners and keep the community safe which is what we set out to do in the first place. 
Simon Power 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the Audit Office report confirming that the tendering of those documents was completed by two external consultants outlining each other’s remuneration range. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fisheries Officers—Calls for Police Assistance 
6.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: How many times did fisheries officers call for police assistance for reasons of personal safety in each of the last 7 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Fisheries officers regularly call for assistance from police under a memorandum of understanding the Ministry of Fisheries has with the New Zealand Police. But neither the Ministry of Fisheries nor police keep a record of the reason for each and every call. However I can advise the member that the number of occasions on which the personal safety of fisheries officers was compromised to the point of there being an assault requiring medical attention is nine times in the last 7 years. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister continue to deny the 85 front-line fisheries officers the ability to protect themselves using pepper spray and batons when his own figures show that they have a similar likelihood of being assaulted with a weapon as do sworn police officers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I imagine that all members of this Parliament are concerned about the growing culture of violence in New Zealand. But I believe that arming fisheries officers would continue to escalate this culture not ameliorate it. In New Zealand we have a cultural ethos against the use of violence to enforce the law unless it is absolutely necessary. When force is required the police are the appropriate agency for doing so. The police are trained equipped and mandated by law for the use of force; fisheries officers are not. I do not believe that the current level of violence towards fisheries officers requires a review of that approach. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why is the Ministry of Fisheries considering raising the count of shellfish that people can collect on Auckland beaches because fisheries officers cannot enforce the current rules; how does that help the shellfish stock; why does the ministry not just police the current rules or are officers so few they cannot police them or so afraid they will not police them? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The principal question was about the safety of fisheries officers. I do not think one can expand that to every function that fisheries officers undertake including in regard to shellfish on Auckland beaches. I do not think there is any suggestion of a large safety element involved in that. 
Phil Heatley 
: My question asked why fisheries officers do not just police the current rules or are they so few they cannot police them or are officers so afraid they will not police them which is the whole point of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The substance of the question is about personal safety. So if the member just considers his question we will take another one. It is very broad and actually just using “safety” at the end of it about shellfish does not bring it within the scope. If the member would just like to rephrase. Supplementary question Phil Heatley. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have given the member some direction about the question and it would be fair just to allow him to go ahead and ask it now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well he is. I have called him to. 
Hon Bill English 
: No you’ve called someone else. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have not called anyone else. [ 
Interruption 
] I am giving the member the opportunity to think. He does not need it; he can reframe his question. I called him. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I would have thought a point of order lasts from the time it is raised till you complete your ruling on it. You were ruling on it and several members on the Government benches were interjecting during that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Were members interjecting? If they were they will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Madam Speaker I did interject. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Then please leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I am happy to leave the Chamber but I ask your leave to return to answer Dr Lockwood Smith’s question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you may. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Thank you. 
Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could name at least four Ministers— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I called for suspects as well and they identified themselves. At one point there was such a barracking most members would have had to leave the Chamber. That is the point. I have to take the members’ word on it. I have taken their word on it. If anyone else interjected on the point of order he or she should leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard some noise from people at the point—indeed just after—Mr English sat down. If that is to be ruled completely out of order then I am afraid Dr Lockwood Smith is about to leave as well because he interjected from his chair having just raised a point of order. He sat down and interjected before you had finished ruling on the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true. Let us get some sense into this. I did not hear anyone interject during the Hon Bill English’s point of order but there was interjection at the end of it. So I accept that. The member has left. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We do now have to have consistent rules. Earlier on in this question time Winston Peters took a point of order. He said to you that Eric Roy had interjected during a point of order and on that basis you ejected Eric Roy from the Chamber—not because you heard the interjection or found it out of order or because you knew who had done it but simply because one member stood up and took a point of order. On that basis my colleague Lockwood Smith should be allowed to get up name the members who interjected and then you eject them from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That would be an absurd position. I could quickly clear the House on that basis and then take urgency for the remainder of Government business. Mr Roy stood up and accepted that he made an interjection and left. The member seems to be—yet again today—trying to raise points of order by looking through the back of his head and not seeing what is happening behind him. We could see what Mr Roy did from this side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true actually. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. I am ruling on this point of order. I have heard enough comment. Mr Roy did identify himself and therefore left the Chamber. I have asked members to identify themselves. The member has identified himself and he has now left the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Another point of order? It has to be a different one because I have ruled on that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Yesterday you asked members on this side of the House if they had interjected to be sufficiently honest to leave the Chamber. You did not know that I had interjected. I admitted I had and in honour I left the Chamber. I think the second time— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you are talking to the same point of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I require my right to raise a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry it is not a different point of order at all. I have ruled on this matter. Members have identified themselves but some may not have. There is nothing I can do about that. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Ministry of Fisheries considering raising the count of shellfish that people can collect on Auckland beaches because fisheries officers are so few they cannot police the current rules or so afraid they will not police the current rules? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it is somewhat naive to expect fisheries officers to call the police when confronted with dangerous situations given the often remote locations that officers work in the ability of the overstretched police to respond in time to apprehend their poachers and the resourcefulness and street smarts of the poachers themselves; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I like all other members of this House would be concerned and am concerned about the safety of any public servant including fisheries officers. My advice is that when police assistance is not immediately available to fisheries officers which of course on occasion it is not and they are confronted with an escalating situation which is not the usual set of circumstances but it does occur their training to date has allowed them in the overwhelming number of cases that I have reviewed to extract themselves safely from those situations. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that the figures do not justify fisheries officers protecting themselves with pepper spray or batons when one in 20 front-line fisheries officers is the victim of a serious assault every year and does an officer need to be killed before self-protection is allowed? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have asked the Ministry of Fisheries to research the figures of serious assaults on fisheries officers over the last 7 years. The definition of serious is an assault that requires hospital treatment which in no cases has meant overnight treatment but it could be stitches to a cut or whatever. There have been nine of those in 7 years. I think given the circumstances and knowing that we have bus drivers taxi drivers nurses and Accident Compensation Corporation and Work and Income officials at the front line who have been injured on many occasions if the suggestion is that we start arming all public servants in this area that is simply ludicrous. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Jim Anderton Minister of Fisheries published in today’s  
New Zealand Herald. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
article reporting that one of the ministry’s suggested solutions to people breaching shellfish takes is to raise the allowable takes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a report by the Ministry of Fisheries outlining figures from January 1999 to December 2003 highlighting reported incidents of threat or assault. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Pass Rates 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the statement that: “Suddenly the standards-based regime is beginning to look like it’s getting the norm referenced treatment. With an expected 70 per cent pass rate it looks a bit like School C which allowed a 60 per cent pass rate.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. The statement is from Saturday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which refers to a State Services Commission report of 2005 recommending measures to strengthen moderation of external assessment by “defining normative grade boundaries which can function as a safety net for the 2005 external assessments:”. The report itself states that “bands of accepted tolerance” should be developed and that “variation beyond these bands should be brought within tolerances unless there is a defendable explanation for that variation”. As a result of this recommendation the New Zealand Qualifications Authority developed profiles of expected performance. These provide a trigger to investigate marking when results suggest students are not consistently achieving what was expected when the exam was set. This was explained to the member last week. It is what is allowing the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to address problems with variability. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should parents teachers or students believe what the Minister says when he defended the results of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams in 2004 as “just fine” then brought in normative-based bands with variations to reduce the variability then defended the results of the 2005 exams as “just fine” and right now is trying to sneak in major changes to the way the New Zealand Qualifications Authority sets external exams; and does the Minister accept that 2005 was not “fine”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have been the Minister for 12 months so let me just focus on the second part of the question that the member raised the part about 2005. Let me use that as an example. What I said about those exams is that we have improved a great deal and that we have laid the platform that will enable us to make more improvements and that is exactly what we are doing. I have said this so often that I am beginning to think the member has a case of amnesia. 
Dianne Yates 
: Further to the explanation already given what is the process for ensuring that the results for the external assessments under NCEA are fair and consistent for all students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For each externally assessed standard the profile of expected performance is developed using historical information and expert advice on the relative difficulty of various subjects. The profiles are used as a screening device to check that marking is consistent. If a profile is different from that which is expected marking is suspended and the reasons are investigated. In a small number of cases the marking schedule is adjusted to better reflect the national standard in light of the students’ work. The papers and questions are then re-marked. That ensures NCEA exams are fair and consistent for every single student. I think I have answered that question numerous times over the summer period and my answer has not changed in its form. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that pass rates for School Certificate Agriculture in 1998 and 2001 were 41.1 percent and 51.4 percent respectively and for Latin in the same years were 93.7 percent and 94.1 percent and do not these figures make any comparisons with NCEA pass rates effectively meaningless? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I think very carefully I can recall every single one of those figures as being accurate; therefore I can confirm the member’s question as being accurate as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the changes the Minister was forced to make to NCEA assessment last year were effective valid and credible why has he this year set up a technical overview group comprising Professors Gary Hawk Terry Crooks John Hattie Cedric Hall and Jeff Smith to investigate fundamental changes to how the New Zealand Qualifications Authority writes marks and tests external exams? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am always interested that the member delivers such questions with such grim determination. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are not going to comment on presentation. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not know how many times I have told the member that this is exactly what we have been saying all summer that we would do and we are doing it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that he had been saying he was doing this all last year when it had not become public knowledge that he was using assessment experts to fundamentally change NCEA assessment until he answered a parliamentary question on Friday 1 September and when no school I know and have spoken to is aware that these changes are going on? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am really sorry to continue to disappoint the member but I have been continually saying that there were 200-plus recommendations last year from the State Services Commission; that during the summer period every time there was a problem we would record it; that this year if we could not fix it at the time we would fix it now; that we would have the same kind of reference group for NCEA that we have for Scholarship; that we would have a leaders’ forum that would work with us on these issues; that I have asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to carry on doing work on these issues and that I have said to the member repeatedly that if he ever has a good idea—which he never has—he might like to give it to me and we will change that matter too. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the changes being investigated by the technical overview group—which amount to fundamental changes in external assessment—apply to NCEA exams this year or not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before this is a process that will go on for a while as we get these issues right. We are looking at issues this year which have resulted for example in a change to the Record of Learning. There is nothing different there going on at all— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —and I am sorry but I tell the member that I cannot answer it any differently from the way I have before. There are ongoing changes; some will take place this year some will take place next year and probably some will take place the year after. But we will get this exam right. One of the good things about it however is that the last exam season meant that everybody except him and Warwick Elley thought we were on the right road now. 
Hon Bill English 
: What would the Minister say to a parent who has heard the Minister’s conflicting and confusing answers to proposed solutions to problems he will never admit to when this parent has made a public comment to this effect: “My daughter gained two maths credits last week by sitting a practice test the day before the real test. Both tests had identical types of questions but with different answers and students who failed were given the opportunity to re-sit a third test.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would say that many times this member has raised issues in the House that have been wrong so if he will give me the case I will investigate it. 
Income Support—Fair and Equitable Administration 
8.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is the Minister confident that Work and Income is administering income support in a fair and equitable manner across all parts of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why then do some districts such as the East Coast of the North Island continue to show alarmingly high rates of people being denied entitlements—for example people with medical costs not being offered much less granted the disability allowance or people not being assisted with access to running water necessary for their dialysis treatment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I guess the quality control and audit of the consistency of decisions lie in a very extensive and robust review process. The member will be very aware of the review and appeal procedures for people who disagree with or do not understand decisions made about their entitlements. Generally those procedures ensure that disputes are settled fairly and quickly. People can also discuss their situations initially of course with their case managers. They have 3 months subsequently in which to apply for a formal internal review. After that there is a benefit review committee process and subsequently if dissatisfaction continues people can appeal to an independent organisation the Social Security Appeal Authority. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What has been the particular contribution of Work and Income frontline staff? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure members would agree that we are where we are today with historically low benefit numbers and unemployment because of the focus and professionalism of Work and Income staff in applying Government policies. The staff of Work and Income need to be congratulated on the way they have assisted hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders into sustainable employment. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that people who are struggling to survive and in some cases people who are facing the danger of death have to wait through the at times very lengthy review and appeal procedures to actually get the benefits they are entitled to in the first place? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I twice yesterday offered that member the opportunity to give me any particular case she would like me to investigate. I would be delighted and happy to do that. But if she chooses to grandstand around people’s disadvantages— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: —I guess that is her call. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a necessary comment. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister be taking details of the long-awaited single core benefit reform to the Labour Party conference this weekend and can he assure the House and the public that any such reforms under his Government will provide all eligible beneficiaries with a primary income that takes into account their real needs and circumstances? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Cabinet decisions on those matters will be announced shortly. 
Ingram Report—Immigration Submissions Completeness of Information 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Was complete information provided in immigration submissions by Taito Phillip Field; if not in which cases was information incomplete? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the submissions made by members of Parliament including those of that member. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information was Taito Phillip Field trying to hide when on 2 October 2005 he held a meeting with eight Thai immigrants with the objective—as alleged by the Serious Fraud Office—of controlling leaks to the media about work the immigrants were doing on his numerous properties in return for Mr Field’s assistance on either their or their partners’ immigration cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that I do not have responsibility for the actions of a member of Parliament including those of that member. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information was Taito Phillip Field trying to hide with regard to the material gain he was obtaining in return for making immigration submissions when after the meeting on 2 October 2005 only three of the eight Thai immigrants would cooperate with the Ingram inquiry one of whom Mr Srikaew claimed Mr Field was not at the meeting although Mr Field recalled seeing him there another of whom Miss Thaivichit had her evidence described by Noel Ingram QC as “improbable” and two of whom Miss Thaivichit and Mr Chaikhunpol refused to cooperate further after being asked to provide documentary evidence? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I respond that I am not responsible for the statements or actions of a member of Parliament. I further note that all those questions are the same. No doubt Dr Smith sees them as being different just as he advised the  
Evening Post 
 on 3 August 1998 when he said: “I even knew all the ewes in the stud by sight. Some people think sheep look all the same but to me they all look different.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information was Taito Phillip Field trying to hide with regard to the material gain he was obtaining in return for making immigration submissions when after the 2 October meeting the police provided information that Mr Field had identified Mr Chaikhunpol as the leak to the media and that Mr Field had pressured Mr Chaikhunpol and when Noel Ingram QC described Mr Field’s cooperation on the matter as “not particularly helpful”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that I am not responsible for the actions or statements of a member of Parliament. But I would observe that when demoting Dr Smith Dr Brash said: “It was … time for a new face.” No doubt the member will be demoted further if he does not get a new question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information was Taito Phillip Field trying to hide with regard to the material gain he was making from immigrants when Mr Field rang Mr Patrick Cole on 27 September 2005 5 days after the Ingram inquiry was established and told Mr Cole to tell his son to “back off” from his public comments on Mr Field’s purchase and subsequent resale of their home at 51 Church Street and that he was sending someone around to get Mr Cole’s signature on a form stating that he had nothing against Mr Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that as Minister of Immigration I am not responsible for the actions of a member of Parliament. However to repeat those assertions constitutes an error of judgment rather like posing— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Two related interjections were made. In the end when put together they actually reflected very badly on you. They were made by Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I said the Government was rotten to the core and that is true. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member said: “You’re rotten to the core.” Whether he was referring to either you or Mr Cunliffe both are out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is not what I said but I am happy to withdraw and apologise. My reference was in respect of the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member used that term he has been here long enough to know that it is a reference to the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I did not use that term but I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will take the member’s word for it. There is nothing— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information was Taito Phillip Field trying to hide when last week Mr Field provided Mr Sunan Siriwan with over $500 in cash then sought to influence what Mr Siriwan may tell the police; and how can the Minister have any confidence in information provided by Taito Phillip Field given that he has continually and consistently attempted to manipulate the flow of relevant information from immigrants from whom he has gained significant material benefit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that I do not have responsibility for the statements made by a member of Parliament. But of course the member concerned is expert in providing full disclosure which he inflicts every month on his constituents via a pin-up calendar. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is also irrelevant. 
State Housing—Effective Usage 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is the Government doing to ensure State housing is being used effectively? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 In the last year the Housing New Zealand Corporation has saved the taxpayer $292 million by shifting people into smaller homes when their families have grown up and by encouraging market rent tenants to buy their first home or rent in the private sector. As a socially and fiscally responsible landlord we aim to meet tenants’ changing needs and ensure effective use of resources. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative ways to manage State houses? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen two rather alarming reports. The first is Dr Brash’s proposal to reintroduce market rents for State houses to trim the waiting lists which is a shameful policy that led to food banks opening in every community during the 1990s. The other part of the proposal confirmed as recently as last week by Phil Heatley National’s spokesman on housing is to resume the sale of State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why did the Minister say that the recent case of an inherited State house was “not an isolated one” and that cases are “arising regularly around the country” then refuse to answer parliamentary questions detailing the number of cases; surely he should be bothered to find out how widespread subletting rorts are given that many genuinely needy people could really use those State homes? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Firstly no State houses are inherited. Secondly we have 11700 people on the waiting list. That member’s Government sold 13000 State houses. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What is the Government doing about easing the housing shortage in Northland and what assistance has he got from the local member of Parliament for Whangarei? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that the second part of the question is in order. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will be happy to answer the first part. Recently the Hon Dover Samuels and I opened a new $4 million 21-unit housing village in Kaumatua Crescent in Whangarei. It provides new homes for older single tenants and for couples currently living in larger Housing New Zealand Corporation homes. Strangely the local member could not be bothered turning up. That person is National’s spokesperson on housing Phil Heatley.  
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an official Government statement made last week stating that inherited or sublet State houses were not isolated incidents but common “around the country”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Family Violence Intervention Programme—Effectiveness 
11.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he satisfied with the effectiveness of the Family Violence Intervention Programme; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is the Minister aware that his ministry funded a Family Violence Intervention Programme to train Work and Income staff to address “immediate safety concerns and provide crisis support contact numbers including New Zealand Police” and does he not realise that paying $2.3 million for a course to teach Work and Income staff to hand out phone numbers is a waste of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes and—unfortunately the member is typically misinformed—no. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the value is of the Family Violence Intervention Programme? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Family Violence Intervention Programme is one of a number of initiatives that this Government has undertaken to identify reduce and hopefully significantly prevent family violence. This initiative will contribute to the reduction of family violence by upskilling Work and Income staff through training in the provision of information about family violence so that they are better able to identify clients they work with for whom family violence is an issue. It is also about those staff connecting people with appropriate information on services. When a client does disclose family violence Work and Income case managers work with the client to address his or her immediate safety concerns and provide crisis support contact numbers including the New Zealand Police. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe. Tenatatou katoa. Does the Minister believe in He PutahitangaHou the Labour Party’s vision for Maori development which the Prime Minister Helen Clark confirmed she had an absolute commitment to; if so does he agree that “by Maori for Maori” services will meet the needs of Maori in the area of family violence; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am very pleased to confirm that generally I find community-based solutions the most effective. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does the Minister support paying $2.3 million for an extravagant course in passing out phone numbers and is this not yet more evidence of Labour’s politically correct waste of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think it is unfortunate that the member continues to trivialise really important initiatives in this area. She might not be aware for example of over $35 million in this year’s Budget alone $11.5 million over 4 years for a community prevention campaign around family violence $9 million over 4 years—[ 
Interruption 
]; well I have to comment that the degree of verbal violence being displayed by the Opposition does tell us where their heads are—committed to increased funding for family violence prevention and $14.8 million over a further 4 years to continue the excellent strategies around the SKIP programme. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Can the Minister confirm that the training for the large number of front-line staff in Work and Income began because staff found it difficult to deal with the large number of women who are assaulted and present themselves through the benefit system? They are therefore able to be recognised and helped. We are trying to ensure that women are placed in safe environments when they are in a benefit situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was very difficult to hear the Minister’s last answer and I did not intervene. But I will and members will leave the Chamber unless we can hear the response. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can confirm that that is the situation and we believe that it is really important to deal with this matter sensitively and to support people to make sensible decisions. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree that spending $2.3 million to train Work and Income staff not in counselling services but essentially on how to hand out crisis phone numbers is totally excessive when that money could be much better spent by Women’s Refuge which actually does something for women? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No the member will be aware of the extensive funding this Government directs towards Women’s Refuge and I do find it sad that that member trivialises our efforts in this regard. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Is the Minister aware that there are currently 275 practitioners registered and licensed through the hapu— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard made an extremely offensive comment to me and I would like him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: But it was true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the comment. I do not want the comment repeated. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Hon Pete Hodgson has just gone on to say that the comment was true. I would like him to be asked to withdraw and apologise. I take offence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Is the Minister aware that there are currently—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. Could members please just stop the sideshow that is going on in the House otherwise two members will be leaving the Chamber if they open their mouths again before the end of question time. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard has yet again made an offensive comment. It is a matter on which as you are aware Madam Speaker I have written a letter to complain to you as the Speaker of the House as a matter of privilege. I ask you to ask Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise again. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What the member said—and I have no idea whether it is true—was: “But the assailant was convicted.” One cannot take personal offence in this House about a comment made about somebody else. 
Hon Bill English 
: Trevor Mallard interrupted in the middle of our colleague’s question. In every other single case you have thrown members out of the House for that offence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not true. The member will be aware that the rules have changed. Members on his side of the House frequently call out also. It is a question of whether interjections are permitted. They are permitted. It is the barracking so that members cannot be heard. I want to deal with this point of order. The member has again taken offence. Given that she has taken offence would the member withdraw and apologise so that we can move forward. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have correctly ruled that interjections are allowed during questions but I understand that interjections are to be directed to the person asking the question or in the case of the Minister the person answering the question. What we had was an exchange between a member of the National Party on the one hand and a Labour member on the other hand actually having a debate about who knows what whilst Pita Sharples was asking his question. That is not an interjection; that is just disorderly behaviour. I believe that if you allow it to continue we will continue to see the standard of conduct in this House go downhill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. That is why I said that if either of those members opens his mouth again unless it is to ask or answer a legitimate question the member will be out of the House. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Is the Minister aware that there are currently 275 practitioners registered and licensed through hapu and iwi as Mauri Ora practitioners; if so what assurances can he give to these 275 practitioners that their skills in the area of domestic violence will not be neglected and ignored as the contract negotiations conducted with the Ministry of Social Development have been? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am prepared to repeat my assurance to the member that effective programmes in this area will be supported by the Ministry of Social Development. 
Judith Collins 
: Were Work and Income staff previously handing out crisis helpline numbers to those clients who disclosed family violence; if they were not why were they not; and if they were why is a $2 million programme now required? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member will be only too aware that the workload of front-line Work and Income staff has reduced massively because of our success in moving people into employment. When a National Government was last in power 160000 people were unemployed in this country. Now there are fewer than 40000. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member would listen I will answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will members allow the Minister to answer the question please. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Because of that capacity Work and Income staff now have the ability to provide a much more extensive service to their clients including this work for which they have been specifically trained. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister aware that when opening his Government’s family violence intervention wallet the overwhelming image is of Maori and Pacific New Zealanders as the victims of family violence and is that a fair reflection on the vast majority of Maori and Pacific New Zealanders who do not beat their wives and who do not beat their children? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member might not be aware that there are 39 of these very valuable resources. I must say that the family violence practitioners who use them value them and distribute them do not share that member’s reservations about the value of the resource. 
Labour Force Issues—Horticulture 
12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps is the Government taking to assist the horticulture industry with regard to labour force issues? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Assisting industry to meet its labour force needs is fundamental to the Labour-led Government’s economic transformation agenda. I am pleased to advise that the Government’s recognised seasonal employer policy will provide an accessible and productive labour force for New Zealand’s $4.5 billion horticulture industry. The recognised seasonal employer policy gives priority to New Zealand workers first then workers from Pacific States. If there are not enough New Zealand workers available to avert critical labour shortages industry will be able from April next year to recruit seasonal workers from Pacific countries for up to 7 months. I am delighted to report to the House that industry members have welcomed this new policy on which they worked closely with the Government. 
Moana Mackey 
: What measures are in place to ensure a smooth transition from current seasonal labour policy to the new recognised seasonal employer policy? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government understands that employers are likely to require a period of time to get the recognition required and to make arrangements to recruit workers from offshore. That is why we are allowing the seasonal work permit pilot policy to continue until late 2007. The approval in principle policy—a policy that allows employers to recruit workers from offshore—will also remain available until late next year. After that policy is closed approvals in principle will continue to be used by other industries but will no longer be available to horticulture and viticulture. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that these recognised seasonal employers will have to use New Zealand labour first that skilled workers from the Pacific will be used only to fill specific cyclical labour-market shortages and that they will not come at the expense of jobs for New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Recognised seasonal employers will have to demonstrate that they have made every effort to fill vacancies with local workers from the Work and Income register before they turn to workers from the Pacific. Work and Income approval will be a prerequisite for an employer to attain the recognised seasonal employer status. The recognised seasonal employer policy supplements the New Zealand workforce to fill critical labour shortages. Under no circumstances does it replace the New Zealand workforce or deprive New Zealanders of jobs. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This weekend the Labour Party will trot off to its conference and congratulate itself on its long-standing tradition of being the defender of those who are vulnerable. In fact the Labour Party has over the last few months used every privilege of power to avoid the consequences of ripping off the taxpayer— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members leaving the Chamber will please show some courtesy to the member trying to address the House. It is good conduct to do so and it shows consideration for others. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not heard a word that my colleague has said since he started his speech. I ask that you set the time back to the start. A cacophony of noise was coming from the back of the Chamber. I agree with your remarks but I think that respect should be shown and that Mr English should start his speech again so that we can all hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Henare. That request will certainly be given some consideration. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This weekend the Labour Party will congratulate itself at its conference on its historical record of being the defender of those who are vulnerable. But in fact the reality is the opposite. This party regards itself as being entitled to every taxpayer dollar and being entitled to use it purely in its own political interest not in the public interest. Labour has used every privilege of power to justify what it has done and to avoid the consequences of what it has done. What the party has done will give Ms Clark some satisfaction. She overspent on the election campaign cap by half a million dollars and she got away with it. 
The whole Government machine is focused on justifying Labour’s actions. In the meantime members could see how the vulnerable are doing just by listening to question time today. Youths are being locked up with adults when they are not meant to be and just a few months ago one youth got killed because of it. Officials are claiming there is no evidence of bad side effects resulting from a vaccination that has been given to 60 percent of New Zealand’s children when the Accident Compensation Corporation has accepted 33 serious cases of bad side effects resulting from that vaccine—and the Minister did not know about it. Today in the Education and Science Committee the Education Review Office told us that 30 percent of schools have no idea about children’s achievement or progress. That is a case of a Labour Government stealing from our children the hope and the opportunity of a State education. 
Today we heard even more about the honourable Taito Phillip Field exploiting overstayers for personal gain. Those people needed his help but instead they were exploited— 
Paula Bennett 
: And he’s still on full pay! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And he will be on full pay until the next election as far as we know. Today a piece of paper landed on my desk from the Council of Christian Social Services—hardly a bunch of right-wing extremists. That organisation said it was tired of “pilot-mania” endless new strategies and new ideas that do not work. It said that after 7 years and the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars no child in New Zealand was any safer. That is what is happening to this tired tired Government. It has become so focused on protecting itself and achieving its own political ends that the nation and its needs are going begging. The nation and its needs are suffering and those who are most vulnerable—those whom Labour has always prided itself on protecting—are suffering the most because there are no new ideas. 
The Minister of Health instead of protecting those sick people of New Zealand spends all his time churning out press releases about the Exclusive Brethren and other matters. That is what the man with the most complex and demanding portfolio in the country is doing. Steve Maharey the Minister of Education is doing nothing in education. All is rosy no problem exists he has only solutions and meanwhile 30 percent of our schools have no idea about children’s achievement or progress. Helen Clark has wisely decided to get out of the country because she has to answer why an employee of hers who is fully on the public payroll and whose costs are met by the taxpayer is completely unaccountable to Parliament or the public for her actions in making Labour overspend on its campaign budget. 
This Government is showing all the signs not just of being tired and in Government too long but also of incurable arrogance. It has a fierce and ugly sense of entitlement to power a fierce and ugly sense of entitlement to taxpayers’ dollars and a fierce and ugly sense that it must have support that everything it does is right and that it can do no wrong. Well the reassuring thing is that the public do not see it that way. I say to Mr Mallard that over Labour weekend I experienced more political anger towards the Labour Party than I have experienced since a National Government abandoned the surcharge. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 We are off to the Labour Party conference on Friday to celebrate our 90th year since formation. We do so united we do so proud of our achievements to date and we do so in no doubt of who our leader is and what our policy programme is. We are proud of our progress towards economic transformation of the thickening and broadening of our economy of the release of entrepreneurial spirit of the greater attention paid to research science and technology and of the blossoming of both traditional and new industries. We are proud of our focus on families—young and old—through Working for Families and of year-on-year progress in health and education services. We have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the world— 
Hon Member 
: Not bad! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
:—not bad—and the highest level of participation in our workforce in our history. I can say about people who are vulnerable in this country that every day 50 people come off the benefit list in New Zealand and go to work. They have been doing that—at a rate of 50 a day—every day of the week every week of the year for 7 years. National put them on the list; we are getting them off it. 
We are proud of our focus on national identity of our arts and cultural renaissance of our sporting prowess of our new film industry and of our status in foreign affairs. We are proud that we did not go into Iraq and we are proud that we have no nuclear weapons or nuclear-powered ships. So we are heading off to the conference knowing who we are having a very clear idea of what we stand for and knowing that we have both high-quality and stable leadership. 
What a contrast! The National Party has no policy after 7 years. It has no direction no idea of what it wants—except naked power for the sake of having power—and no more unity than a herd of cats. National members are approaching the season when the National Party has coups. In November 1997 Mrs Shipley rolled Mr Bolger. In October 2001 Mr English rolled Mrs Shipley. In October 2003 Dr Brash rolled Mr English. The October November season of 2006 is now upon us. They really are uncertain what to do. 
Hon Member 
: Don’t do it! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is probably good advice. In fact the discomfort is palpable: senior members of the party wander around strange parts of the building late at night; Mr Key cancelled his 3-week trip to the US; and there is bad blood everywhere. 
 National last week spent a strong vitriolic week saying that the Labour Party was corrupt saying that other parties in this House were corrupt and opposing validating legislation. National members said they knew very clearly the difference between ordinary parliamentary business and electioneering so how does Eric Roy explain these pictures? Eric Roy—the buddy of Bill English who has just resumed his seat—finds himself on one of these buses. These are actually two pictures of the same bus; the same number plate is on it. These are photographs taken at two different times. One of them on the left is a photograph of Wayne Harpur the Labour candidate for Invercargill in the last election and that advertisement was paid for by the New Zealand Labour Party. Over here this advertisement of the bus with Eric Roy on it with the National Party logo on it and with advice that states: “Eric Roy is working for you” on it was photographed last week—the same week that Eric Roy and his mates were voting against legislation that would have validated precisely this sort of expenditure. This advertisement was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer; this was not paid for by the New Zealand National Party. 
National members spent all of last week saying that stuff of this ilk was wrong and that they opposed legislation validating it retrospectively. Now this week I get to out Bill English’s Southland mate. I want to know how much more of that is going on. How much more “Miss February” are we going to get from Dr Lockwood Smith? How much more “Miss June” are we going to get from Gerry Brownlee? How much more of this are we going to get from the National Party now that legislation has passed saying that this stuff is OK even though the National Party spent all of last week opposing it? 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Can people believe that we have a health system in crisis and the Minister of Health spent 5 minutes speaking to the nation and did not once mention the word “health” or mention patients in New Zealand? Not once did he share with us the email that he must have received from the Minister for ACC to tell us about the 33 claims that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has accepted in relation to the meningococcal B vaccine. We are asking the Minister of Health what they relate to. Do they relate to something as innocent as an injection injury or more important do they relate to the serious case of an 8-year-old girl where the ACC has accepted— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No not most of them. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh “not most of them” says the Minister for ACC. I ask whether she will table the email that has that information in it because we need to know why the Ministry of Health is telling the people of New Zealand that there have been no significant events associated with the meningococcal B vaccine yet ACC is accepting claims of which we know at least one is the result of a significant impact that specialists say is the result of the meningococcal B vaccine. 
The reason why we want to know is this: parents in New Zealand have put their faith in the advice from the Ministry of Health to have their children immunised. I am one of them. I believed what the ministry was saying. Frankly I have to say that my kids did not like it but I have not seen any lasting side effects. But why would the Ministry of Health be hiding this information? Why is it not out there? There is a huge level of suspicion and misinformation out there about meningococcal B vaccination. We are relying on the ministry to tell the truth and to put it all out there. We will make the decisions. So why is ACC accepting claims when the Ministry of Health is saying that there is nothing to worry about and that nothing has been reported? We want to hear from the Minister of Health because the matter goes to the heart of our confidence in the advice the ministry is providing. 
But of course we did not hear a word about health from Mr Hodgson; we heard all about strategy. Do people know that he is the Labour Party strategist? I will tell people how long he has been the Labour Party strategist. The first time he was Labour Party strategist was in 1990—the biggest election loss the Labour Party has ever had. Then he was the election strategist in 1993. Labour lost that election. Then he was the election strategist in 1996 which gave the lowest poll result Labour had ever received. And do people know what happened in 1999? Labour people said: “Three strikes and you are out. We are having Mike Williams as the election strategist.”—and Labour won. And in 2002 was Peter Hodgson Labour’s election strategist? No it was Mike Williams. Labour won handsomely then. Then in 2005 Mr Hodgson was back as Labour’s election strategist. Labour almost lost and if it was not for Winston Peters Labour would be losing again. So much for the great election strategist! 
I ask the Labour Party back bench who appointed Pete Hodgson as Labour election strategist? Who gave him the right to be Labour strategist? I suspect that it was Heather Simpson. So at a time when we have scandal after scandal coming from this lumbering arrogant Government all we hear from the Minister of Health is nothing but politics—nothing but politics and nothing about health. Well I say to the Prime Minister that she should put the country out of its misery put this Government out of its misery and go to the people because she does not deserve to be the Prime Minister of this country. It is time to put this Government out of its misery. 
In the latest opinion polls who is gone? Russell Fairbrother—gone. Dave Hereora—gone. Moana Mackey—gone. Sue Moroney—gone. Darien Fenton—gone. Charles Chauvel—gone. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Brash is gone. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well Mr Mallard says that so and so is gone but I have to say to him that he has lost it. Mr Mallard was almost the Minister of Finance of this country—almost—but he never got over the line. And did people hear Dr Cullen say yesterday that he was expecting to be the Minister of Finance for years to come? He was not saying that 10 months ago was he? He will not let go because he knows that Mr Trevor Mallard has lost that golden opportunity he might have had to be the Minister of Finance for a year or so. 
But honestly what is desperately needed in this country today is a fresh vision and fresh leadership that New Zealand can get from the National Party because this Government has been 7 years in office and is showing all the signs of a tired arrogant third-term Government. The latest sign was revealed today—the huge blowout in the number of ministerial press secretaries and communications advisers. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Three years ago the National Union of Public Employees asked the Ministry of Fisheries to allow its fisheries officers to use pepper spray and batons because it was concerned about the safety of the 85 front-line fisheries officers. What the union was met with was a stony silence—a stony silence from a Minister who is out of touch with what fisheries officers do and the issues they have to deal with. 
Upholding the laws of our country is an important and honourable if sometimes dangerous occupation. Law enforcement comes in many forms including that carried out by the police customs officials and those who—like fisheries officers—protect our environment. Fisheries officers are our first our last and often our only line of defence against those who would plunder our coastline. In 2004 a report was released by the Ministry of Fisheries on the risk of assault to fisheries officers. It gave many statistics noting amongst them that fisheries officers are at the same risk of serious assault as our sworn police officers and it noted that the information does not support the idea that it is becoming a less dangerous occupation. In fact the report noted that if anything assaults were under-reported. 
More than a third of reported incidents from 1999 to 2003 involved the use or the presentation of weapons. The Minister of Fisheries knows that this is a dangerous job because he has given his permission for fisheries officers to have flak jackets which they use. But he seems to think it is unreasonable that they should be able to protect themselves by using any other means including pepper spray and batons. The ministry’s 2004 report noted that fisheries officers have a similar likelihood to sworn police officers of being assaulted with a weapon. We get very upset when our police officers are assaulted but it seems that the Government is not the least bit worried about our fisheries officers being assaulted. 
Fisheries officers had to wait 3 long years before the Minister of Fisheries deigned to give them an answer in the form of a letter from Jim Anderton letting them know that they would not be allowed the means to defend themselves. It was a firm no and that continues. Today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 a letter was published from the Minister stating that he would not allow fisheries officers to use guns. In fact he seems to have misread the communication from the National Union of Public Employees which was asking not for guns but for pepper spray and batons. It seems that the level of defence has escaped the Minister; he probably does not know the difference—indeed he is completely out of touch. 
From 2001 to 2003 13 percent of officers each year reported incidents where they were assaulted or seriously threatened. The Minister has many objections; in fact he is full of them and he voices them loudly and often. He says there are not enough assaults to justify defensive weapons but he cannot read his own statistics because one in 20 fisheries officers in the last year received a serious assault. He says fisheries officers should withdraw from perilous situations and call the police. Well it would do the Minister of Fisheries good to get out and see what these people do. He should take himself up to a remote coastline with a fisheries officer who deals with situations on his own and is hours away from the nearest police assistance. 
Yet he will not allow fisheries officers to protect themselves. He worries about a domino effect. He says that pepper spray and batons will lead to Tasers and guns. Nobody is asking for Tasers and guns. He is completely out of touch and he does not understand how fisheries officers are trained. On an international spectrum there is an acknowledged scale of force. Currently fisheries officers are trained in open-hand encounters and carotid holds which are very dangerous indeed if used under particular circumstances. But our fisheries officers receive significant and very good training and it is merely a matter of good luck and good training that assaults are at the level they are not higher. Pepper spray and batons are a lower level of defensive forms of self-protection. The Minister of Fisheries not only does not understand the danger that he is putting these people in he does not want to understand—all in the name of upholding the law and guarding our coastline. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It is my view that we have quite a large responsibility as members of Parliament because we are able to access information that many other members of the public are not able to access. In my view it is part of being a responsible member of Parliament to use that information properly. I am outraged at the absolutely blatant deceit demonstrated by Tony Ryall in the House during question time this afternoon. In my view Tony Ryall egged on by his favourite leader-to-be Bill English portrayed a situation in such a way that will have parents up and down the country feeling concerned about the meningococcal B vaccine programme. He insinuated over and over again in supplementary questions that many people have had very serious repercussions as a result of having that vaccine. I think that that is a wrong thing for any member of Parliament to do. It is irresponsible it is lazy and it is dangerous. 
At the end of my contribution in the general debate I will seek leave to table the list of injuries accepted by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) from 33 claimants who received their injuries as a result of taking the meningococcal B vaccine. I do not want at all to undermine the seriousness of the one claimant who according to ACC records has thrombocytopenia as a result of taking the meningococcal B vaccine. But I have had it confirmed that the incidence of that immune disease is no greater at all in New Zealand following the meningococcal B vaccination programme than it was prior. For Tony Ryall to insinuate anything else is just a disgrace. Some of the other injuries that occurred included fractured upper teeth—frankly I think people need to know that—a frozen shoulder and rotator cuff impingement. Those injuries could be the result of an injection of anything at all. They are totally unrelated to the content of what was being injected—they are all about the process. 
It is that sort of deceit that has been demonstrated so strongly by the National Party under the leadership of Don Brash. Frankly I think he is a leader who deserves to go because his style of politics is all about division and deceit and in my view there is no room for that in our country. We should not have that sort of behaviour being demonstrated by anybody let alone by people who are elected to leadership positions in this Parliament. 
Don Brash’s track record in terms of deceit is quite frankly gobsmacking. For weeks and weeks he has been coming into this House with his pious sanctimonious bleating about taxpayer money being used on campaigning. On 20 October in the  
Otago Daily Times  
he said on the record then confirmed it subsequently to a number of journalists that he did not use any taxpayer money to fund Bryan Sinclair the campaign strategist. He said that not one dime of taxpayer money was used to pay Bryan Sinclair. But by the end of last week he confirmed on the record that he had lied in those previous interviews because Bryan Sinclair’s salary hotel costs travel costs office phone bill and cellphone bill were all paid by Parliamentary Service money—the same money that National members said we used inappropriately. Not only did the National leader use the money inappropriately he then lied to the public of the country for a whole week. 
Should we be surprised? This is the same man who simply forgot to pay GST on the broadcasting. So will that party refund the GST that is owed to the New Zealand taxpayer? No it will not because if it did pay the money back— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member said that Dr Brash lied to the country. She cannot say that he lied at all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been thinking about that. The member is right. Under Speaker’s ruling 40/4 the word “lie” is out of order and many other expressions can be used. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I withdraw. Dr Brash consistently told the country one story on the public record and by the end of last week he had changed his mind. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 There are not many occasions— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I indicated during my address that I would seek leave to table the list of actual injuries in order to correct the total misapprehension Tony Ryall created. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There are not many occasions in the general debate when I can actually agree with the comments made by the great Labour Party strategist Pete Hodgson. He said in his contribution that the Labour Party was united. I agree with that statement: the Labour Party is united in corruption. That is what most New Zealanders agree with. Over the Labour weekend I had people coming up to me at every function I attended— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In points of order in the House over the last couple of weeks it has been ruled that members are not allowed to say that other members are corrupt. That member has just said that and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the member was speaking about the Labour Party not the parliamentary party. There is a difference. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The people who came up to me during Labour weekend were telling me that the Labour Party was without principle and was totally corrupt. Its members in Parliament rushed through retrospective legislation in this House over most of last week in a blatant attempt to hide the fact that they stole taxpayers’ money. They used their numbers in the House—their majority—supported by Winston Peters and New Zealand First and by Peter Dunne and United Future. The people of New Zealand know that that legislation was rushed through under urgency and that Labour was not prepared to go to a select committee. It was a desperate attempt to right the wrongs that were correctly pointed out by Kevin Brady the Auditor-General. 
 The worrying thing for the New Zealand public is that while the Government is so intent on covering up its mistakes and what occurred at the last election it is forgetting its basic function which is to govern. I was absolutely shocked this morning to observe a photograph on the front page of the Christchurch  
Press 
 that shows very graphically a young New Zealander lying beaten in the street in downtown Christchurch. I say to Parliament that it is a basic function of the New Zealand Police to protect that guy and to make sure that that sort of incident does not happen in Tuam Street in Christchurch. 
I sympathise with the police because I know they are busy. They are flat out investigating Taito Phillip Field who at this stage is home on gardening leave on full pay so that Helen Clark can keep his vote. But we are seeing story after story in the media. We have only to think of the Television One programme last Sunday night that suggested very grave corruption. Yet it does not suit Helen Clark to bring that matter to a finality. That person is showing himself to be unfit to be a member of the House of Representatives yet Helen Clark leaves him at home on full pay simply because she needs that vote. 
So I say to this House that the incident of the poor kid lying beaten and probably unconscious is totally unacceptable. That is the sort of function a Government should be looking after. Darren Hughes might be interested to know what Annette King Minister of Police said when approached about the problem. She said the growing problem had nothing to do with the Government or with police strategies. That is outrageous. People in New Zealand expect a Government to provide safety in our streets. They expect a Minister of Police to be responsible. When that poor kid lies beaten and unconscious in Tuam Street that is a responsibility of the police and their strategies. It is certainly a responsibility of the Hon Annette King Minister of Police; the buck stops with her. 
But we are seeing a Government that is forgetting about the basics of governing. Information given to the Education and Science Committee today shows that 30 percent of schools in New Zealand according to the Education Review Office are unable to tell their students how they are progressing. What schools are in that 30 percent? We are told that the public and the parents of New Zealand are not eligible to know that information. In other words parents in New Zealand with kids in the State sector genuinely do not know whether their kids are being provided with a satisfactory education by the State. That is another basic function of this Government that is not being done properly. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Emotive politics that is what National is all about. But what is its policy what is its solution what is its answer? Nothing! Silence! Every time National Opposition members get up to say anything in the House it is negative it is dreary it is tired it is old and it is frustrated. National has not one solution. It is a tired Opposition. In fact the National Party is in disarray. It has leadership bids going on all over the place. National is not united. It has not been able to demonstrate at any one point that it has a vision for this country and that it has leadership that will take this country forward. 
Members opposite cloud the issues. In everything they said around election spending there is no transparency whatsoever about who bankrolled National’s campaign bid. 
Darren Hughes 
: 92 percent hidden in trusts. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Yes 92 percent was hidden in trusts that the New Zealand public do not know about. Members opposite stand up in this House and say they want transparency on the issue. Well the New Zealand public deserve it because this country is not about “cash for policy”. This country does not stand for secret funds being used to fund campaigns to enable others to run the agenda of this country. It is a transparency that all New Zealanders deserve. The National Party is in disarray. It has no leadership no direction and no vision. Secret funding is running its campaign. National is going nowhere. Every time we ask National members what their policy is there is nothing. When we ask what they are going to do about it there is nothing. They just moan and complain. There is a cover-up going on in and only in the National Opposition; what this Government is focusing on is clear and simple. 
We need a country that is going forward. We need a country that will lift opportunities for every New Zealander. We need a country that performs to its highest potential. We also need a country that builds bridges and creates a sense of unity. Those are three key themes that this Government is running on. We want to make sure that families young and old have a greater sense of well-being and quality of life. We want to see economic transformation. We have to lift opportunities for everybody in this country but more important we have to lift what underpins us as a nation. We may be small but we are smart. We are diverse and yes that is a strength. We have opportunities here in New Zealand that should not be limited by our size our geographical position or the ethnicity of our population. In fact it is about building a sense of national identity. So Labour does have a vision. We are not tired. We are energetic we are keen and we are enthusiastic and we know that the way to go is forward and to continue doing that. 
We need only look back at the track record of the previous National Government. In 1996 when I first came into Parliament unemployment was around 18 percent for Maori under a National-led Government. That is not acceptable. Now unemployment is below 9 percent—half what it was under a National-led Government. We have to say that we have taken this country somewhat forward. The National Government let the trade sector languish. There was no focus whatsoever on Modern Apprenticeships or anything. Labour knows that it has to fix that gap. There are skills shortages throughout the whole country. This Government is doing something about it. More Modern Apprentices that is what we say. More than 2000 people are currently in apprenticeship training and we will increase that. 
More important bridging the skills gap for the benefit of the whole country is good for all of us. That is leadership under this Government. That is going forward. In fact I was quite excited to see in Te Kuiti’s local paper that no young person is on the unemployment register in Te Kuiti. Shane Ardern will agree with me that that is a fact. Fantastic! That did not ever happen under a National Government but it has now under a Labour-led Government. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. That is in provincial New Zealand and in the rural areas. Shane Ardern will agree with me that never before has Te Kuiti ever trumpeted that kind of benefit. 
Under a Labour-led Government we have better access to health care and general practitioner services. People will remember that when National was in Government people were paying up to $45 to visit their doctor. Under a Labour Government if people are part of a primary health organisation they can be paying around $10. That is fantastic. That means that people will go to the doctor when they need to not to the hospital because they have to. Under a Labour Government those are the types of gains that we are starting to see. We can make real gains in the area of housing which is where I think a lot of New Zealanders who are really in need can really benefit from the direction and vision of a Labour-led Government. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 Last Tuesday when I arrived at Parliament I was told by our senior whip Lindsay Tisch that a really important bill would be introduced the most important bill that he had ever experienced certainly in the 7 years that he had been in Parliament. He was right! It was not because it was a wonderful bill or altruistic or selfless or an example of a great Government working for its people. It was none of the above. It was the worst bill ever and probably the worst I will experience in my time in Parliament. It was the absolute opposite of a wonderful bill. I sat through 2 days of appalling self-serving arguments justifying why this cowardly Government overspent its election budget then tried to validate its overspending. Well it did validate it. It passed the bill. I was ashamed that this Parliament which I have come to to serve was so sullied by such a bill. 
 But I say to colleagues that I was not alone. New Zealanders are angry. The whole of New Zealand is angry about this bill. It is discussed on radio talkback. If we talk to people in the street or meet them at local meetings they talk about it. They are very angry and they will not forget how this shameful legislation was rammed through at breakneck speed without even the by-your-leave of a select committee to which the public could make their submissions. Shame on this Government—shame shame shame! 
All the while while this Government has been distracted from its core business while this Government has been fiddling and stealing taxpayers’ money the whole of the health sector has been slowly disintegrating in front of us. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member made an inappropriate reference to members of the parliamentary Labour Party and I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member said anything inappropriate I ask her to desist in future and to come to the point of the debate. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: I withdraw and apologise. Just a few days ago regarding the health sector this stunning  
Annual Report 2005/06 including The Health Independence Report 
 was released. An amazing press release came out with it. It was so full of spin I was dizzy; I felt sick actually. I read through the press release and through some of the statements. One of them was: “Overall patient satisfaction ratings show that New Zealanders believe that the health services they receive are very good.” One has to wonder who the hell they asked to do that questionnaire. Did they ask the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who have been culled off waiting lists for data-cleansing purposes? 
Hon David Carter 
: They’re probably too sick to be asked. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: That is right. Did they ask the New Zealanders who are missing out on the crucial drugs that will keep them well and out of hospital? Did they ask the demoralised and striking health workforce? Did they ask the women who are desperately trying to fund-raise to pay for Herceptin to keep themselves alive for their children and their families? Did they ask the New Zealanders who do not have access to a general practitioner particularly in rural New Zealand? Did they ask the rural general practitioners who are so overworked and burnt out that they are packing their bags and leaving in protest? 
Here is another doozy. Here is another quote from this wonderful spin: “People are being treated earlier and are less likely to require hospitalisation.” Time and time again it is just the opposite and we have proved it on the National side. The exact opposite is happening. The culling of tens of thousands of people off hospital waiting lists for data-cleansing purposes means that people will get more sick and need more complex operations. It is false economy. 
It is also about what the report does not state. This wonderful book mentions that the hospital mortality rates are reduced but it does not talk about the adverse effects suffered by patients. Just in July this year a  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 article stated that 13 percent of patients admitted to acute care hospitals are associated with an adverse event. Dr Seddon who wrote the article said that 750 deaths are due to preventable medical errors. 
Very shortly after that I received an email from a concerned doctor who stated that yes it was all very well to have a workforce that is demoralised but what would turn it round would be excellent morale healthy incomes excellent ongoing education and adequate numbers of staff being rostered. This is not happening in our current hospitals. New Zealand has a health workforce that is so low in morale that health workers are leaving. They have no job satisfaction and they are not staying in New Zealand. They are going across the Tasman. Every time Australia has a deficit in its workforce it advertises in New Zealand for general practitioners for locums for specialists and off they go. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 October early November springtime is my favourite time of the year. Why is that? There are a couple of reasons. First of all is spring racing. The spring racing carnival is about to descend on us in the shape of the Melbourne Cup. It is one of my favourite times of the year. But the other key reason why spring is one of my favourite times of the year is that it denotes the Labour Party conference which comes along every spring. The Labour Party conference is a wonderful occasion. I have been going to it for many many years and it never fails to amaze me how it gets bigger and better every single year as the Labour Party builds and builds in this country. Not only does the Labour Party conference get bigger and better but there is always greater and greater diversity. In fact the diversity of the Labour Party conference will rival that of any political party’s conference in this country. No other political party in New Zealand can deliver a conference of the diversity that the New Zealand Labour Party can. That is the reason why a Labour-led Government is the best Government to lead this country. 
The Labour Party has the policies that fit the real New Zealand—not the whitewashed or the mainstreamed type of New Zealand that the National Party would like to see. The real New Zealanders on the ground come to the Labour Party conference and help form the policies that lead to the development of this Government. That is why this is the Government that leads this country and does it in such fine style. It is not just by accident that it has policies that work in this country. It is by great design great party membership and great involvement in our conference. We need only to look at the venue for the Labour Party conference this year. We are going to provincial New Zealand Rotorua. We are not sticking to the main centres. Rotorua—provincial heartland New Zealand—is where we are heading for the Labour Party conference so that people in provincial New Zealand can come along and have their views heard and can participate in an inclusive process of policy decision-making. 
But inclusiveness and leadership are nothing new for this Government. I want to talk about the leadership that has been demonstrated by the Labour Government particularly at the Pacific Islands Forum. There were issues that threatened the success of the Pacific Islands Forum. Who was it who came to the rescue? Who was it who showed real leadership in that area? It was Helen Clark Prime Minister of New Zealand. Trouble in the Pacific Islands is of fundamental importance to New Zealand. These are the issues in which we need very good strong leadership. I listened to Helen Clark Prime Minister this morning when she talked about her role in finding the common ground. We moved through this period of potential problems for the Pacific Islands Forum because we had a leader who could find the common ground. That is a real strength of Helen Clark. How fortunate it is that New Zealand voters were savvy enough to elect a Labour-led Government so that Helen Clark could bring about peace to the threatened Pacific Islands Forum. 
Imagine if Dr Don Brash had turned up to the Pacific Islands Forum to represent New Zealand. Dr Brash cannot even get peace within his own caucus let alone in the Pacific Islands! He cannot even find common ground in his own caucus nor amongst his allies. I watched yesterday in this House as Rodney Hide from the ACT party used one of the very few supplementary questions that the ACT party has to slam National to have a go at National. This is Dr Brash and his colleagues in the National Party finding common ground! They cannot even do it with their own allies in this House let alone go to the Pacific Islands Forum and find the common ground there. 
So it is just as well we have a Prime Minister of the calibre of Helen Clark. Dr Brash clearly is contending with a lot of problems at the moment. Just 6 percent behind him in recent polls on the preferred leadership of the country is John Key. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. A couple of weekends ago my whanau and I and the people of Ngati Hine along with a number of people from other tribes gathered on the Otiria Marae to celebrate my father’s 90th birthday. Some people may think that that is not such a great occasion. But given that the statistics suggest that as a Maori man he has been living on borrowed time for the past 18 years I think it is worth a mention in this House. Notwithstanding the pleasure he received in having so many people share this occasion with him I thought just how fortunate we are as a whanau in still having him with us. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on the effect he has had on my life and in particular on the few words of advice he offered me when I was starting to make my own way in this world. 
One such piece of advice that I particularly recall and still adhere to to this day is: kia whakapono katoa o mahinga ki waenga o iwi. This essentially means: “Always deal ethically with your people.” which I took to mean never to be economical with the facts. Others might take this also to mean never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
In a few weeks’ time this House will debate a member’s bill that was given great fanfare when lodged as it was touted as fulfilling the reason why the member’s party was in Parliament. Just to ensure that people understand which bill I am talking about I am of course referring to the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill. One would think that the title of this bill is clear and signals the bill’s intent. Alas a closer reading of the bill proves quite the reverse; it actually states that the foreshore and seabed be re-vested in the Crown. One needs to ask why this Parliament should go to the bother of dealing with a bill that is already covered by existing legislation that ensures that the present seabed and foreshore is already vested in the Crown. 
I have heard that the member’s party had not anticipated the bill being drawn from the ballot so soon in this parliamentary term. I can now see why. The bill falls well short of the expectations of the many supporters of the member’s party. The member is quoted as saying in her defence: “We only ever said that we would repeal (the act) and that is our intention.” Can I say that this bill is certainly not going down that line. I wonder also what my whanaunga from Te Aupouri thinks of this bill given his understanding of the intent of his party policy being to have the foreshore vested in Maori title. The Maori Party members will certainly have some difficulty in explaining all of this to their constituency to gain its support. 
Added to all of this of course is the question of what position the National Party will take given its stated opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Will it support the bill? Will it support the Maori Party? Will the Maori Party rely on National’s support? Will we see a new alliance being formed between the two parties? I say to both of those parties notwithstanding the invitation to dine together and the subsequent declining of that invitation to remember the old saying: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The scorn that will be heaped on their houses by their respective constituencies will certainly far exceed that of a scorned woman. 
The Maori people today are in a much better position socially and economically than they have been in a long time. Having said that I would be the first to say that there is still a lot of work to do. As my father continues to espouse the solution lies not in grievance mode but in the pursuit of education education and education. I say to any party that intends to support the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill that Maori would be better serviced socially and economically if the focus were on increasing and improving access to education. 
During this debate we have heard criticism about corruption and that the people of New Zealand have been misled. This has been said by members of a party who really believe that they exist and have been born to rule. As long as they forget that this country operates under a system known as MMP they will be doomed to sit where they are sitting now in this House irrespective of what amounts may be owed by various parties. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the New Zealand First member have a wee chat and not even mention the $160000 that his party owes. We are all interested in finding out from Mr Paraone when he is going to pay the $160000. [ 
Interruption 
] Another legal opinion! We will wait to see when and whether New Zealand First pays back the $160000. 
It is interesting that members have talked about the Labour Party conference this weekend being all-inclusive. We have heard from Mrs Mahoney about that but I read with interest today in the newspaper that Taito Phillip Field has not been invited. I cannot see how it will actually be all-inclusive when right now Labour Party members are selecting who will be allowed through the door. 
Here we have a party the Labour Party that does not listen to advice. Its members were warned by the Chief Electoral Officer and by the Auditor-General about their election spending. They were rorting the system in 1999 2002 and 2005 and they stole those elections. On the bottom of the pledge card brochure in 1999 there is a quote from Helen Clark: “This card was paid for and delivered by Labour supporters.” Yet on  
Close Up 
 on Thursday 12 October the Prime Minister fronted up and said Labour had made no attempt to hide that the card had parliamentary funding. So here we have an example of the double standards that will bring the Labour Party and this Government down. The Auditor-General needs to be commended; Mr Brady hung tough. He was worked over by “H1” Helen Clark and “H2” Heather Simpson. He was worked over by both them but he hung tough. Well done to the Auditor-General. 
It was interesting to read the article on the weekend by Anthony Hubbard in which he termed Helen Clark “H1” and Heather Simpson “H2”. He wrote that Ms Simpson was the bulldozer and the Prime Minister was pulling the levers. Being experienced with bulldozer driving on our property I was thinking that that would not be a pretty sight would it—Helen Clark pulling the levers while sitting on top of Heather Simpson the bulldozer. 
Anyway I just want to know from some of the back-benchers how they feel about having to pay back $6000. How do you feel about that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
NATHAN GUY 
: How does Sue Mahoney feel about paying back $6000? 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is not using my proper name. If he is going to refer to me I would like that to occur. He can pay back the GST at the same time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s name is Moroney. The member has said it twice incorrectly. 
NATHAN GUY 
: How does one of the new members on the Labour back bench feel about having to pay back $6000? How does the member for New Plymouth Mr Duynhoven feel about paying? What is the figure he will have to pay back? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You mind your own business sonny. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Right certainly. I would say the figure is about $12000 to $16000. That will really really hurt. It was a dark day last week was it not when retrospective legislation was passed. I was out on the hustings over Labour weekend and in contact with some of the key constituents in the Otaki electorate— 
Hon David Carter 
: Did you see Darren Hughes? 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no I did not see him anywhere. That is the most marginal electorate in the whole country. Those constituents were saying it was terrible that the retrospective legislation had been passed last week. I was speaking to strong Labour Party supporters and they have turned against Labour. So they will not be driving from Otaki up to Rotorua on the weekend to put money into a bucket during a whip-round; they will be staying put. They have had an entire gutsful of this Labour Party and they all know that Labour is on the way out. 
 While the strategist Pete Hodgson has been out there fronting up to the media and talking about the election spending he has not been concentrating on some of the core issues facing our country. Health is of vital importance to the Otaki electorate and to the people of Kapiti and Horowhenua. While he has been out there trying to spin the way out for a corrupt Labour Party in a deep hole he has not been focusing on the core role of a health Minister. Health is of great interest up in Levin; we have a health centre being built up there right now. The roof is on the sides are going on and $16 million has been invested but no general practitioners are signed up. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is great to be taking a call in this debate and to have been incredibly flattered by the Opposition today whose members are busting to come to the Labour Party conference in Rotorua this weekend. Well they are not welcome because that conference is going to be focusing on building a better future for New Zealand and New Zealand families. National members can listen to the policies when they drop out as pearls of wisdom but they do not have any idea at all about policy. We have not even seen a little wee pearl of wisdom there. 
We will be talking about what we have done in Government to transform the economy. We have dropped unemployment to the lowest level in the Western World. That is what we will be talking about and that did not happen by accident. We are investing in health education and policing. As my colleague said we are maintaining our reputation overseas with our leader over in the Pacific Islands Forum. We are a proud principled independent and nuclear-free nation—and if the Opposition ever got into Government it would be the first thing to go. We are still delivering to the people of New Zealand and we are not destroying their morale or their sense of pride in who they are as New Zealanders. 
But it is spring and spring is an interesting time for Opposition members. Lots of things happen and not just spring rolls—they start to roll. That is what happens. In November 1997 Jenny Shipley overthrew Jim Bolger. On 8 October 2001 Shipley stepped down. On 9 October Bill English was elected leader. On 28 October Don Brash replaced Bill English as leader. What else will happen this spring while Labour is busy dealing to its policies and to its membership out there? There is a change in the wind; the change is there for the ghost who walks Dr Brash. Matthew Hooton has already said he does not think that National can ever win with Don Brash. 
We are all asking ourselves why John Key cut short his visit to America. He came back here saying that he had some things he had to focus on. Perhaps the issue he is worried about—if he is going to be the next leader—is what National’s relationship is with the Exclusive Brethren. He might get it right. He might also ask how men who profess to know about business do not understand their party’s spending on GST. That needs to be put right and that money needs to be paid back. He may also have to deal with National’s refusal to pay money it overspent on broadcasting. There are lots of things for John Key to get right and we will be watching with great interest. But one lesson I think he may need to know as a new wannabe leader is that tax cuts will not buy more surgery for New Zealanders. They will not buy more teachers more social workers or more police and they will not buy Herceptin. 
I want to focus on our leadership at the conference. It is secure and it is actively working out in the regions to build confidence. We will show them confidence in Rotorua this weekend. Our party membership is up and our policies are still delivering and they are still inspiring mum and dad Kiwis. We can look at KiwiSaver. It actually has New Zealanders terribly excited about starting to turn into a savings economy. What a great thing for this country! We will show the fruits of our Labour policies in Rotorua this weekend. We will be looking at things like economic transformation. 
In my electorate Rotorua we are seeing tourism surviving against a lowering trend in the rest of the country. We are looking at issues like the lakes restoration in our area. Forestry and manufacturing are confident with a new planer mill opened at Red Stag Timber by the Prime Minister just last month. We are looking at trans-Tasman passenger services. The board of the council’s bright economy strategy is looking at energy cogeneration bio-fuels and thermal energy production. These things are happening under a Labour Government with policies that help them happen. Unemployment in this region as in all regions of New Zealand is at an all-time low level. Today’s announcement at the Pacific Islands Forum about seasonal fruit pickers being able to come to New Zealand is fantastic for our kiwifruit and blueberry industries. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Racing Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the Racing Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill is an important contribution to the trans-Tasman single economic market. It is a pioneering step in cross-border banking supervision cooperation. The trans-Tasman market of course is not the only cross-border banking market in the world. We are showing the way in which regulators can work together on shared issues and be alert to each other’s interests in times of stress. The fact is that most—nearly all—of our retail banks are owned from Australia and that therefore cooperation is crucial to the financial health of the New Zealand economy. 
The Reserve Bank and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority the Australian regulator have already made a number of commitments to cooperate on prudential matters. The proposed changes in the bill and in the reciprocal Australian legislation currently before the Australian Senate will strengthen that commitment. They do so by creating upon each regulator a duty to consider formally the interests of the other regulator. There are specific duties to consult and to avoid interference with outsourcing arrangements when actions taken in one jurisdiction may impact adversely on the other. The bill draws a realistic balance between the desirability of trans-Tasman cooperation and the independence and discretion of each prudential regulator within international boundaries. That will help I think to enhance the maintenance of financial stability in both countries. 
There is also a technical amendment to the Racing Act to ensure that the Racing Board has the necessary flexibility in setting its policy to round dividends. That is in response to the withdrawal of the 5c piece. Members might wish to know or have probably already noticed that the old coins have just about disappeared from circulation but that only 30 percent of the silver coins have yet been returned to the Reserve Bank. This suggests that the 5c pieces in particular have largely disappeared because people have found them a nuisance to handle in relation to their actual value. But I do say that if people have lots of the old coins in their possession I am sure they can use those for the Labour Party “great whip-round” because they can still be traded in to the Reserve Bank in terms of being actual money. 
Hon Member 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would not want to give that member a whip-round. Again I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee those who made submissions and officials for their work on the legislation. I also thank the House for its rapid consideration of the legislation in the Committee stage yesterday. It is simple technical legislation and it has widespread support particularly from the major Opposition party. I would not be very happy about passing any significant amendments to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act without at least bipartisan support from the two main parties. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 As the Minister has just said there is support from parties for this legislation and National has been a supporter right along for the legislation and for splitting it into two bills. I want to re-emphasise some points we believe are important: that is that the Reserve Bank Act amendments in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill implement the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Joint Trans-Tasman Council on Banking Supervision. The bill would oblige the bank where reasonably practicable to cooperate with Australian authorities by supporting them and by avoiding actions likely to have a detrimental effect on the stability of the financial system in Australia. The plan is also to have matching legislative changes in Australia in cooperation with the Reserve Bank. 
Closer integration of banking supervision with Australia is appropriate given the degree of integration that already exists between New Zealand’s and Australia’s banking systems. Most banks here are owned by Australian parents and given the desire to move towards a single economic market the legislation strengthens the arrangements for coordinating with Australia in the event of a general crisis or a specific bank failure involving a cross-border bank. It will be an improvement on what we have at the moment and it will be better than the alternative the Government was looking at which was having an Australian banking regulator the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority being the sole regulator of Australian banks operating in New Zealand. 
The second bill the Racing Amendment Bill amends the Racing Act. Currently the Racing Act requires dividends on winning bets to be rounded down to the nearest 5c. However the 5c coin will be phased out of circulation by 1 November this year and that creates a problem. When I spoke in the Committee stage I gave examples of what that actually means in real terms to the punters and what the Racing Board will now be able to do. The amendments to the Act will allow the Racing Board to decide as part of the betting rules how dividends will be rounded. These betting rules are currently subject to scrutiny by the Regulations Review Committee and the bill does not change this procedure. 
The amendments to the Racing Act are obvious and necessary. One point to make though may be that the Act currently stipulates that dividends are to be rounded down not up or down. Supermarkets for example round up or round down to whatever the closest denomination is. In this case dividends are to be rounded down. If dividends are now to be payable only in multiples of 10c we hope for the punters’ sake that the Racing Board will not continue the practice of only rounding down. However rounding down is a possible way to go. I gave examples in the Committee yesterday of punters not being disadvantaged by this approach. 
It is important that we have commonality with Australia. We need flexibility in the marketplace to meet the market especially in racing where it is very easy to bet on horses overseas—not just in Australia but elsewhere. That commonality with Australia will bring the two countries into line and give us the flexibility we require. So National is very happy to support the two bills into which the original Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill is now split. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s member on the Finance and Expenditure Committee Doug Woolerton has already given some very erudite explanations of our position vis-à-vis this legislation during the earlier readings and also during the Committee stage. There is really no need for me to traverse the points he made so lucidly. I just need in fact to reiterate New Zealand First’s support for the splitting of the original bill and for each of the bills created by that split. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this legislation. In terms of banking supervision we support cooperation between Australia and New Zealand. Clearly the fates of the two countries are tied particularly as the four main trading banks in New Zealand are Australian-owned. The ANZ Westpac the BNZ and the ASB are all Australian-owned. They have a total market value of $36.4 billion which is equal in value to the assets of the 12 top listed companies in New Zealand and in 2005 they had net earnings of $2.63 billion. The impact on the New Zealand economy is huge so it is important to make sure that the banking sector is healthy. 
In previous legislation and arrangements we made sure there was relative independence of the New Zealand subsidies of those four banks. This was to ensure that if something happened in Australia and one of the banks fell over because of Australian factors ordinary New Zealand depositors would not suffer. Although we are a long way from any Australian bank falling over this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
has an interesting headline that reads: “Drought debts loom over banks”. The article explains that the long drought in Australia is having a huge impact on Australia’s rural economy and that many farmers will not be able to repay their loans. The drought is having an effect on the whole rural services sector and that also impacts on the banks. The situation could easily get worse particularly with global warming. One of the predictions in relation to global warming is that the east coast of Australia will become even drier and perhaps put into doubt the viability of more and more farms in Australia. Economies go through difficult times in some sectors and farming is one of them. Of course at the moment the situation is counterbalanced by the minerals boom in Australia which I suppose is helping the banks. But we do not want our economy to be hostage to the Australian economy in terms of its up and downs and even of the failure of one or more of its banks in the future. 
The measures we are taking here today to introduce more cooperation in the banking sector are good although I think we also have to look at the other end of things and try to reduce our dependence on Australia in the area of banking. It is good to see Kiwibank moving ahead somewhat. New Zealand has only two independent banks: the Taranaki savings bank and Kiwibank. It is important we assist them because one of the problems with the banking sector being largely Australian-owned is that it contributes very badly to our current account deficit. When net earnings from the Australian banks amount to $2.63 billion that translates into a big outflow in dividends each year and contributes significantly to our current account deficit. 
There is another side to the internationalisation of money flows and we are feeling it particularly in the housing sector. Interest rates in the finance sector and the banking sector differ so much internationally that we have the phenomenon of Japanese housewives as they are often described investing heavily in New Zealand bonds which are higher earning than the bonds they can get in Japan. So there has been a huge inflow into the banking sector often via the money controlled by the Australian banks. That money is then invested heavily in housing and that has put up the price of houses substantially particularly in the absence of any capital gains tax in New Zealand—on investment homes not personal homes. The lack of a capital gains tax has increased that phenomenon often via the Australian banks and I think this is to our detriment. It makes it much more difficult for young New Zealanders in particular to buy a home or to get within reach of buying a home. This situation has also put many families who do buy a home in a huge mortgage-debt situation and the situation could become even worse for them if there is as a lot of real estate people predict a crash in the housing market as has occurred in some other Western housing sectors over the last year or so. Such a crash in New Zealand has been delayed but we could be in for a bit of thump in that area and that could affect the banking sector quite significantly as well. 
For all of those reasons I think it is important to have cooperation between Australia and New Zealand in the banking sector and to make the best job of it we can. With those few comments the Greens will be supporting this legislation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa te Whare. The next time we see a 5c coin we might want to grab it because it will probably be the last time we handle Aotearoa’s unique and threatened tuatara. We had better be quick because we have only 7 more days to see the coin that features our taonga species before it is dumped by the Reserve Bank. Although I am sure that the Reserve Bank has perfectly good reasons for getting rid of the old silver coins it is sad that our oldest and most unevolved species—outside this House of course—will no longer be seen on the face of our currency. 
The survival of this unique living fossil prompted NgatiKoata to join with NgatiKuri Ngati Wai Te Rarawa NgatiPorou and Ngati Kahungunu to challenge the Crown’s failure to protect the exercise of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over indigenous flora and fauna. This is a far-reaching claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal and known as Wai 262 which asserts rights to indigenous flora fauna Maori traditional knowledge intellectual and cultural property rights and authority in environmental resource and conservation management. 
This legislation refers to addressing a problem facing the racing industry with the dumping of the 5c coin but in truth nothing is ever so simple and we would do well to consider the big issues at stake here. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill is supposed to promote better regulation of the trans-Tasman financial sector as part of a single economic market agenda. The Maori Party again questions the view that Maori and New Zealand’s economic future should be forever tied to Aussie apron strings. These last few weeks the Maori Party has been raising issues about the outsourcing of Air New Zealand’s finance work to Fiji Telecom’s shifting of its call centre work to the Philippines and other developments that show how control is fast moving offshore. We cannot help but express concerns regarding our own sovereignty and our capacity to participate fully in the developing economy. 
Perhaps now is also the right time for Maori to be considering the nature of profit and risk that may come from doing business abroad. The growth of land-based businesses across international boundaries may indeed enhance an iwi’s ability to serve its beneficiaries and the Maori Party is interested to hear what iwi think about the implications of the single economic market. I know that regulating bank activity in Aotearoa and Australia can reduce bank operating costs and help financial stability and I have no doubt that those improvements will help create better economic conditions for Maori commercial entities and better prospects for their beneficiaries. 
Maori have made great strides in developing economic opportunities and economic independence and we see how that growth is clearly noted year after year in the positive results of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reports which provide a detailed view of a major source of economic growth in the world across 35 countries. The most recent study released earlier this year showed that one in three Maori between 35 and 45 is an entrepreneur that Maori have the highest informal investment rate in the OECD that Maori have doubled the rate of informal investment of other Global Entrepreneurship Monitor nations and that Maori have higher growth expectations—12.3 percent of Maori entrepreneurs believe they will create 20 jobs in 5 years compared with only 8 percent of the general population. 
That entrepreneurial talent also has a positive crossover to exercising judgment identifying opportunities and handling market swings. Indeed Treasury says that entrepreneurial success encompasses risk taking innovation resource reallocation and coordination. These factors provide fertile ground for exploring economic options and in the particular context of this legislation the benefits that may come from cooperation between our Reserve Bank and Australian financial authorities. Of course the big question is whether the obligations that will be expected of us will be matched by those in Australia. All this remains to be seen but we are willing to support this legislation at third reading in order to enhance economic vision and opportunity for Maori and all other New Zealanders. 
In speaking of that vision I want to return again to our humble currency and to acknowledge the recent accolades from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind for the Reserve Bank’s efforts to ensure the new coins are cool for blind people. I see that a fortnight ago the Reserve Bank of New Zealand got the “extra touch” award from the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand in recognition of its commitment to ensuring the new coins would be easily identifiable by blind and vision-impaired people. Of course our view is that the unique form of the tuatara would have made it just as easy for blind people to tell the difference but perhaps that is something we can leave for the Wai 262 claimants to consider. 
The Maori Party will support these bills at third reading as part of its commitment to supporting financial stability for all indigenous peoples in Aotearoa Australia and the rest of the homeland we call the Pacific—as well as supporting the Labour Government. Kia ora tatou. 
Bills read a third time. 
Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Communications 
: I move  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.  
These bills have arisen from the Communications Legislation Bill which was initiated to improve the overall regulatory environment for both telecommunications and radiocommunications. It will be no surprise that an efficient and effective communications sector is recognised as being essential to support the economic and social outcomes to which this Government is committed. These bills continue the Government’s progress towards ensuring that the communications sector continues to deliver those broader outcomes. 
These bills are relatively minor pieces of legislation designed to maintain the effective and efficient operation of the communications sector. They contain largely technical measures that preclude unintended consequences correct certain anomalies in the wording of the present legislation and resolve some timing issues. The measures are narrow in scope but none the less are of an urgent nature. There were no fundamental concerns raised in submissions during the select committee process but rather the process led the Commerce Committee to make improvements in some areas of the legislation. The committee gave a unanimous report back. 
A robust up-to-date communications sector is an essential part of an innovative growing economy. The bills maintain a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for telecommunication services and in the use of the radio frequency spectrum. This will benefit both producers and consumers of goods and services be they providers of telecommunication services radio spectrum licensees customers viewers or listeners. 
The amendments to the Telecommunications Act are simply to prevent the premature expiry of the regulation of 10 specific telecommunications services. I reiterate the Minister’s comments made in earlier readings of the Communications Legislation Bill that this legislation is not related to the decisions being made on the broader telecommunications stocktake which is being considered under separate telecommunications amendment legislation at present before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. These broader changes will deliver much greater benefits and will necessarily be considered in depth before the select committee reports back to this House. This underlines the wisdom of proceeding with the more limited but relatively urgent amendments in this legislation. 
Without any further action regulation of these particular telecommunications services would expire in December 2006. The Government’s intention to continue this regulation was signalled with the introduction of the Communications Legislation Bill and this signal improved the level of certainty in the industry. The certainty has increased as the provisions have progressed through the parliamentary process. The extension by 2 years of the regulation of these services is entirely consistent with the recent report by the Commerce Commission. Submissions to the select committee were supportive and no submissions were received opposing the proposal. I understand that the select committee gave a unanimous report back supporting the 2-year extension. The only issue therefore is to determine the best process to achieve that outcome. 
The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) will create the greatest certainty in the earliest possible time frame and is therefore to be preferred. There is no reason why this House should not accept the collective wisdom of all parties concerned and enact this legislation. Under the present Act the Commerce Commission can recommend that regulation be extended or even discontinued. There is already a process consequently that gives the necessary flexibility in a relatively fast-moving telecommunications environment. Extension of the regulation on the 10 services until 2008 is necessary and is achieved through this legislation. 
The amendments in the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) are intended to keep the Radiocommunications Act up to date and to incorporate improvements that have been found necessary. The rights of existing licence holders who are complying with the requirements under their licence and the requirements of the Act and regulations will not be affected adversely by this legislation. The fundamental concepts in the present Act of a dual regime of administered radio licences and a parallel commercial property rights system are not changed by the legislation. However the legislation will bring the two regimes closer together in respect of licences that may be issued in the future. 
In addition to this certainty will be provided regarding certification of licences by approved radio engineers. The main amendments to the Radiocommunications Act concern criteria for certification of licences aggregation of consecutive management rights and extension of applicability of existing arbitration procedures. The provisions of the legislation will improve and clarify the requirements for certification of licences. The purpose of certification is to ensure that pre-existing licences are not adversely affected by any proposed new licence. As such it is a technical process of evaluation conducted by approved radio engineers. 
What the Act does and what the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) clarifies is establish exactly what criteria should or should not be taken into account in the certification process. Specifically the bill establishes a process whereby regulations can be created to define inappropriate receivers which need not be taken into account in certification. Making provision in certification for poor-quality or otherwise inappropriate receivers can limit the spectrum available for new licences and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole. There are obvious reasons why New Zealand should ensure that the full potential of the radio spectrum is available for use and this legislation facilitates that objective. It establishes a process whereby inappropriate receivers once defined by regulation are not to be taken into account in certification of new licences. Submissions on the Communications Legislation Bill were supportive of this approach and indeed some sought a wider approach. Useful additions were suggested by the New Zealand Law Society to clarify the purpose of defining inappropriate receivers and the Minister is certainly pleased to see these reflected in the legislation. 
A further issue raised in submissions was specifically in regard to receivers in imported vehicles designed for use in Japan and the potential prohibition of such receivers. I note the select committee commentary that this can be better approached as a consumer information issue and the committee makes a suggestion on how this could be achieved. Certainly the Minister concurs with this viewpoint which is also consistent with a recent declaratory judgment in relation to the narrow issue of certifying VHF FM broadcasting licences. However the legislation provides a framework for defining inappropriate receivers for any radiocommunications service not simply those receivers used for FM broadcasting. 
The present Radiocommunications Act provides for the management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years. This gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. In addition management rights termed successive management rights can be created prior to the expiry of existing rights. 
There is so much more to include in the third readings but I will cut to the conclusion. These bills are important in the overall context of an efficient and effective communications sector. They are recognised as being largely technical in nature but are critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. They address key issues in telecommunications and radiocommunications both of which are of crucial importance to the information age and to continuing to grow an innovative economy. The principle of the bills is not controversial. It is designed to extend existing regulation of a narrow range of telecommunications services for a further 2 years; to confirm the legal certainty that the radio frequency spectrum can be fully used despite potential use of inappropriate radio receivers by some parties; to open the opportunity for arbitration of potential disputes between holders of radio licences rather than place reliance on decisions made by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development to cancel or otherwise impose changes on such licences; and finally to enhance the regime of the Radiocommunications Act in several minor but significant ways thereby improving radio spectrum utilisation and the overall economic benefits of such use. Therefore I commend the bills to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Despite the exciting speech delivered by the Minister National remains very reluctant to support the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We do it only in order not to create more uncertainty in the telecommunications sector and for the current and potential radio frequency operators. 
In 2001 the Labour Government introduced the Telecommunications Bill which set up a 5-year time frame for the 13 regulated services to be investigated and finalised by the Commerce Commission. In 2001 one of the many Ministers of Communications in the last 7 years the Hon Paul Swain—it was his turn—proclaimed that the introduction of the bill would establish a framework to ensure that the telecommunications industry could move forward in an orderly manner. 
Well I doubt very much that anybody would believe that the telecommunications industry under Labour’s watch is orderly—it is anything but orderly. The uptake of broadband still remains slow. Billions of dollars have been slashed off the value of Telecom one of New Zealand’s biggest companies due to a U-turn and the incompetent handling of the unbundling issue. Of course now many staff working for Telecom are facing the prospect of job losses. What is worse after 5 years only three of the 13 regulated services have been investigated by the Commerce Commission. 
The House is now being asked to approve this legislation to allow for an extension of another 2 years. But the sad reality is that in the Commerce Committee when we listened to the submitters we learnt that they have by now come to accept slippage delays and the missing of time lines. Political meddling is now being accepted by those submitters as part of the Labour governance style. I doubt whether any business in the competitive world would have the luxury of simply extending a time line by 2 years without having to pay a penalty or go out of business. Sadly the Labour Government has no appreciation and no experience of business discipline or business risk. However reluctantly we will support the extension for another 2 years in order not to create even more chaos and uncertainty. 
During last evening’s Committee stage of the debate on the Communications Legislation Bill we learnt a lot more about the art of horse-trading and how the select committee process could be overridden. It did not reflect very well on how influential Labour’s rising star Shane Jones was on his Government. During the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the legislation it heard from the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand which is a non-profit organisation whose members include local authorities the transport and courier sector the farming sector and private individuals. The prime function of that association is to protect promote and preserve the rights of organisations and individuals who require lawful access to the radio spectrum. Its members use a number of different radio bands to provide a large number of essential services to the public. The association was outraged because no consultation was carried out with it in regard to the changes introduced in the bill and it was very nervous about the security of tenure for land mobile radio licences. The Commerce Committee members were all of one mind; we shared the association’s concern and we believed it raised very valid concerns. So Shane Jones MP generously volunteered to extract an assurance from the Minister to elevate its concern and the select committee sought extension of time for that to happen. No assurance was forthcoming from the Minister and Mr Jones threw his hands in the air and conceded defeat at that time. Nonetheless the Commerce Committee was assured by officials that there would be no drastic policy change and that they would consult the association on their policy paper due to be released soon. 
It was then interesting for us to find out that New Zealand First tabled an amendment to the bill to address the concern raised by the association. The Minister of Commerce then suddenly had a change of heart and was willing to issue a letter of assurance to that group and New Zealand First duly withdrew the amendment. The Labour Government had the numbers to pass this bill anyway but it had to do a deal with New Zealand First and had to issue that ministerial assurance. So the interesting question is what Labour wants in return for the concession made in this instance when it did not even have to make one. What price is Labour asking in return for New Zealand First’s concession in this instance? The public should be worried that horse trading is now a blatant part of this Government’s method in situations where such an activity does not even appear to be necessary. 
As a member of the Commerce Committee I feel despondent and offended because the transparent process in the select committee was overridden. The Minister could have given that assurance to the select committee because we were all of one mind and we all supported the giving of the assurance. It could have avoided the time delay and upheld the transparency of the select committee not to mention not causing Mr Shane Jones to lose face. So National—reluctantly and just for the sake of not causing uncertainty in those sectors—supports these bills. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the two bills: the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). It is clear that certainty and efficiency around the communication sector is highly desirable for the economic progress and development of New Zealand and this Government’s economic transformation agenda. These two pieces of legislation are critical even though they are not major pieces of legislation. 
The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) was as has been noted by previous speakers reported back unanimously by the Commerce Committee and concerns in fact a matter of an extension of time because of the imminent expiry of particular telecommunication services in December 2006. Therefore it is a technical bill and I do not think there is anything of major import in it. 
I come to parts of the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and will pick up points that were raised previously by the Minister David Cunliffe in particular. I will come to items about the select committee’s deliberations in a moment. First when talking about the management rights in the Radiocommunications Act it should be noted that the present Act provides for management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years; this gives certainty of investment. In addition management rights—termed “successive management rights”—can be created prior to the expiry of existing rights but as separate ones. The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) allows in limited circumstances the aggregation in time of an existing management right and a successive right. This will facilitate an efficient transition from one right to the next and give improved certainty and efficiency in the radiocommunication sector as rights created from 1990 onwards reach their 20-year expiry date from 2010 onwards. 
The Government has already completed the commercial offer and acceptance process for UHF television licences and will soon make offers to holders of licences for AM and FM sound broadcasting services. Policy on renewal offers for cellular services is now being developed. These renewal processes make it clear overall that this Government is committed to creating certainty on commercial terms for the major users of the radio frequency spectrum. The bill enhances the legislative environment for such certainty. The present Act has provisions that allow holders of spectrum licences to enter into arbitration regarding alleged interference between licensed frequencies. The criteria for arbitration are altered under the bill to become identical to the considerations used in initial certification of the licences. 
The bill also allows holders of radio licences to move into the arbitration process. This is an example of how the two distinct regimes are being carefully altered to bring them closer to each other. A residual power remains for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development who grants radio licences in the first instance to intervene if appropriate. But an agreed arbitrated solution is likely to achieve better outcomes for both parties than a solution using imposed powers of revocation. There was no opposition to these provisions in submissions to the select committee. 
The other provisions amending the Radiocommunications Act facilitate electronic processing by removing references to duplicate copies ensure correct wording relating to the expiry of successive management rights improve the efficiency of recovery of unpaid regulation fees and enact amended regulation-making powers. Concerns were expressed by some submitters about the proposed regulation-making powers in respect of the allocation of radio licences. But the select committee thought that this could be addressed appropriately through liaison with the industry as and when any new regulations were developed and the Minister concurs with that view. Apart from that point the other changes that I have just identified were generally supported by submitters. 
There was a submission to the select committee seeking a particular amendment to enhance the present transitional provisions of the Act for land mobile services. The legislation as introduced did not deal with such policy matters as this nor did it propose any changes to the transitional provisions. The select committee concurred that it was inappropriate to modify the legislation to address this topic but also recognised that the issue will be addressed by a wider policy development process concerning security of tenure of what are at present annually renewed radio licences. Such a wider process can consider not just the concerns of some land mobile licensees but other services such as fixed point-to-point links maritime and aeronautical uses and other similar applications. 
A Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by New Zealand First as the previous speaker Pansy Wong mentioned. That was done to further address the land mobile issues and has proceeded to the point where we now have the legislation ready for its third reading. 
 This wider policy development process will give an opportunity for all sectors of industry to provide their views and for a balanced outcome to be achieved. As with all such processes the Government remains open-minded as to the outcome of the intended discussion paper. Whether the eventual outcome will warrant legislation obviously cannot be determined at this time but it is important to welcome the recognition that the wider process is the appropriate mechanism to address these issues. 
All the provisions of the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) are intended to maintain and enhance the efficient operation of the regime prescribed in the Act. The radiocommunication sector is a fast-moving and dynamic section of our economy but it continues to require infrastructure investment and physical assets. In many cases investment in radio spectrum licences or management rights is quite small in comparison with the cost of physical infrastructure. 
The Commerce Committee had an amicable consideration of this legislation and despite the comments of the previous speaker Pansy Wong that would impute something to the contrary it did come down unanimously in support of these two bills. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution in which she was able to demonstrate with so much awe and wonder just how New Zealand First is able to punch so much above its weight. There is a lesson in this because she made a reference to that and asked what Labour wanted out of New Zealand First to be able to gain ground on this issue. It is a lesson on how MMP operates because I can say this: Labour wanted absolutely nothing. It was purely and simply that the Minister of Communications was prepared to listen to the case we were putting forward he saw there was some merit in it and he was able to take the necessary steps to move forward. 
As Nanaia Mahuta has said the two bills which the original legislation has been separated into are relatively minor and they are relatively technical. She did however make the statement that telecommunications is a fast-moving area. I would have to agree with Pansy Wong in terms of one criticism which is that the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) which was Part 1 of the Communications Legislation Bill extends for 2 years some work that should have been completed by December 2006. The Commerce Commission now says it cannot guarantee that it will be finished by 2006. That work was set in place by the Telecommunications Act of 2001. So one would have to raise some questions as to the rapidity with which that work is being carried out. Of the 13 services only three have in fact been completed. Nevertheless given the situation as it stands it is eminently sensible to extend the time frame. 
The other little issue covered by the legislation as people will know is to do with imported cars particularly Japanese imported cars which often have limited bands. So people put band expanders into their cars. If the band expanders are standard and decent there are no problems but some people have been putting in some el cheapo band expanders which are not standard. They have been interfering in a certain area—I think it is in Christchurch—with the correct usage of the spectrum and that could have affected the full usage of the spectrum. Therefore once again this is sensible legislation and New Zealand First will certainly be supporting it. 
It was Part 2 of the Communications Legislation Bill which has become the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) that New Zealand First had some issues with. We were not on the Commerce Committee but we did listen to the issues that were raised and I will just go through them. When the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 was introduced it was expected that the spectrum would be moved quickly to the then new management right regime. Spectrum that was identified specifically in the Act for early attention was that used for sound broadcasting television cellular services and land mobile radio. A land mobile radio spectrum was specifically identified in the sixth schedule to the Act. In the ensuing years all such identified spectra with the sole exception of the land mobile radio spectrum have been converted to the management right regime. 
This has resulted in security of tenure for broadcasters and cellular operators with much of it obtained under the favourable incumbency provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1989. A recent Government initiative for rolling over early management rights has continued this certainty. Certainty of tenure has permitted such operators to enter into long-term contracts and also to raise investments. The problem was however that those using the land radio spectrum have not had such good fortune because the land mobile radio spectrum was not brought under the management right regime. Therefore uncertainty hangs over the industry and investment has been hard to obtain. 
What the original legislation would have done was to create even more uncertainty as it seemed to create an environment that made it easier for officials to alienate current users from incumbency rights without compensation. I will just go to the part of the report back from the select committee to which this legislation was referred. It states: “We heard from an organisation seeking amendment to the transitional provisions in the Radiocommunications Act covering land mobile radio frequencies. We understand the Ministry of Economic Development intends to include a review of these provisions in its work programme. We recommend no amendment to the bill.” There was no minority report and no signalling that there was an issue of concern which is why New Zealand First had to step into the fray even though we were not on that select committee. 
The current use of this particular part of the spectrum includes back-up services for emergency services and the state of insecurity would have continued as a result of this legislation. That would have created a problem as far as New Zealand First was concerned. For example we were fully aware that during the recent severe snowstorms in southern Canterbury the only reliable form of communication for a lengthy period of time was dependent upon the very spectrum we are talking about in this legislation. We believe that it needs to be protected and not go to the highest bidder. It is now a matter of history that New Zealand First intervened on behalf of the radio frequency users and we take our hat off to the Minister David Cunliffe for his willingness to listen and to recognise that not every party has a mortgage on all good ideas. 
Meetings were facilitated between the Minister and the Radio Frequency Users Association and also between the Minister’s reps and Ministry of Economic Development officials. From those meetings came some memorandums of understanding and some letters. I had a phone call from David Thomson who said that the Radio Frequency Users Association is now extremely comfortable with the situation it finds itself in. 
Just to wind up although New Zealand First did not play a part in the select committee process we have played a part in the ensuing process of the second part of this legislation the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We are particularly pleased about the constructive role we played to make sure that the legislation does not lead to a worse situation than what New Zealand now has. New Zealand First is pleased about the role it has played and will provide its support to these bills as they are now presented to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National supports the splitting of the Communications Legislation Bill in this third reading into the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We have had some doubts and we have expressed some views about the legislation during the Committee stage. We are now happy to support the legislation but with some reservations which I will just highlight. 
There are two main objectives in splitting the legislation into two bills. The first bill amends the Telecommunications Act of 2001 by extending by 2 years—to December 2008—the regulation of 10 of the 13 telecommunications services that were originally regulated under that Act. I will come back to that matter and spend some time specifically on that point. The second bill amends the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 by updating the management of radio spectrum. Radio spectrum management rights run for 20 years and the legislation allows the aggregation of rights in order to simplify the management process. In addition adverse impacts of inappropriate receivers such as the band expanders used in imported Japanese cars are not to be considered when distributing radio spectrum as this could limit the full utilisation of available spectrum. An option of arbitration is introduced for resolving disputes between radio broadcasters. 
We support this legislation although it is mainly of a technical nature. Under the 2001 Act telecommunications companies can apply to the Commerce Commission for determination on the terms and prices of access to specific services. In 2001 Labour made it very clear that it was setting up a 5-year time frame for the 13 designated services to be investigated by the Commerce Commission. At that time the then Minister of Communications Paul Swain proclaimed that the introduction of the legislation would establish a: “framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” Well here we are with this legislation having to ask that that 5 years be extended out for another 2 years because after 5 years only three of the 13 designated services have been investigated. Now the Government is asking for another 2 years to be able to investigate the other 10 services. It is a sad reality of the Government. Although it proclaimed earlier that it was important we move forward it is now asking for an extension of time from 5 years to 7 years because it has been able to deal with only three services. 
Although submitters support the extension—because they have come to accept the delays the slippage and the missing time frames—I doubt that any business in a competitive environment actually has the luxury of time to be able to extend something for 2 years without having to pay a penalty for that. Otherwise it would find itself in a competitive environment and possibly going out of business. This Labour Government does not understand what makes the world go round. It does not understand this it has no appreciation of it and it has no business acumen at all. It thinks it is all very fine to extend out this period by 2 years. We are happy to support that—reluctantly as Pansy Wong identified in her speech—but we certainly have those concerns. 
In completing this short piece for National I say that we will be supporting— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Short but excellent. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: My colleague Maurice Williamson is an expert in telecommunications and he has allowed me as a layman to speak on the legislation. If we can understand these things in layman’s terms then we find they actually have more clarity. It is a great honour to take Maurice Williamson’s 10-minute slot to be able to say that we will support this legislation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. I am always wary about rushing bills through the House just because some guru reckons to do so will put us into a bigger better and faster world. This stuff all sounds a bit like  
Star Trek 
 to me. “Captain James T Cunliffe-Kirk” wants to take us boldly where no man has been before by updating the spectrum regime tidying up the licensing rules and procedures and making sure that everybody pays their unpaid fees. 
The problem with the whole  
Star Trek 
 analogy though is that we have already been here before—on 10 March 1999 to be exact. On that day Rangiaho Everton registered Wai 776 at the Waitangi Tribunal. It was a claim concerning the part of the electromagnetic spectrum known as the radio spectrum which is used for telecommunications and information technology—the Internet mobile phones search and rescue operations video links videoconferencing and all that stuff. At the time the Crown was planning to hock off the rights to manage part of the radio spectrum for 20 years. Funnily enough the legislation we have today says exactly the same thing. It is hardly a matter for urgency and hardly next generation stuff. 
This legislation is supposed to amend the Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunications Act in order to improve the regulation of the communications sector. But a major issue at the heart of the debate is that of control and how that relates to the management of spectrum rights. In 1999 Piripi Walker said: “It was the Crown’s attempts to sell licences to operate portions of the spectrum into private ownership that had provoked Maori claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Maori were concerned with the Crown’s ‘commercial approach’ which would see the alienation of the resource to powerful corporations.” 
If we fast track forward to today we see that the same question can be applied to steps being taken to enable the telecommunications sector to catch up with the OECD. The one essential difference between then and now is that the Waitangi Tribunal in summing up Wai 776 accepted the claimant’s argument that the spectrum was indeed known to Maori and was a taonga. The tribunal also said that Maori had a right under the Treaty to the use of that spectrum after 1840 and the right to a decent share of radio frequencies being offered by the Crown. Its finding followed the  
Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim 
 which also said that Maori language and culture were taonga which the Crown was bound by article 2 of the Treaty to preserve. 
The tribunal said: “We think that the two Treaty partners could then work out a long-term plan for the management of future allocations of spectrum rights. As we have suggested above the ownership and management of spectrum frequencies perhaps in joint-partnership operations could facilitate Maori participation in the telecommunications industry.” Yet here we are in 2006 still in the same virtual space and the same virtual time where getting access to frequencies and spectrum management rights is still blocked by the unwillingness of the Government and bigger industry players. 
We have also noted the advice of the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand whose prime focus is protecting promoting and preserving the rights of organisations that need access to the spectrum. The association’s members collectively hold more licences than any group organisation or company in Aotearoa other than Telecom. So members can guess how surprised the association was that during the drafting of this legislation neither it nor its members were consulted. That is kind of like trying to pick the All Blacks without having any rugby players to pick from. One has to ask how the Government can put up legislation to improve the performance of our communications sector without including the players with the greatest expertise. 
The Commerce Committee report stated that the industry would be consulted before rules were made on allocation but given the Government’s history on the legislation itself and on its consultation with Maori on Maori issues we are not holding our breath. However the Maori Party will support this legislation because it extends the range of services subject to regulation it enhances the ability of the Telecommunications Commissioner to implement those services it empowers the commissioner to monitor and enforce compliance effectively and it provides greater certainty investment competition opportunity and consumer benefit. 
But the Maori Party is also aware of five other golden principles that we believe this legislation could have addressed. I refer to the Treaty principles of partnership rangatiratanga fiduciary duty mutual benefit and development. In the Waitangi Tribunal claim I mentioned earlier we note the statements supporting the Maori right to ongoing resource development as a Treaty right resulting from article 2. Those rights cannot be fossilised as at 1840 and limited to only the resources used back then. They are as current in 2006 as they were in 1999 and as they were in 1840. 
So in the ongoing development of the telecommunications and radiocommunications sectors the Maori Party would like to remind the Government of the need to involve the Treaty partner fully if our nation is ever to realise its aspirations to be a world leader in information and communications technology. Government plans to encourage the use of information and communications technology must include Maori shares in the spectrum and Maori participation in the industry as determined by the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal stated: “Maori must have hands-on ownership and management if they are to foot it in the ‘knowledge economy’ as we believe they must in the coming millennium.” 
The Maori Party will support the third reading of the telecommunications and radiocommunications legislation but we agree with the Radio Frequency Users Association that there needs to be a wider discussion about whether legislative change should be piecemeal with small but frequent changes or whether it should be less frequent and more substantial. We agree with the latter because major issues impacting on the principles of partnership rangatiratanga fiduciary duty mutual benefit and development still need further discussion and resolution. The Maori Party for one is keen to be there when those discussions are held. Kia ora tatou. 
Bills read a third time. 
Climate Change Response Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: I move  
That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In doing so I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of this bill as well as those who provided submissions and representations to the committee. 
The committee’s consideration resulted in a number of enhancements to the existing provisions of the bill. The bill deals with two issues in particular. Firstly it amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to refine the functions of the New Zealand Emissions Unit Registry in respect of greenhouse gases. New Zealand is required to develop and maintain a registry to ensure the accurate accounting of emissions units. Emissions units are defined as the various types of units specified under the Kyoto Protocol. The principal Act allows for only the Crown to hold accounts in the registry and therefore to hold emissions units. The bill allows individuals to hold accounts in the registry and to trade in emissions units. 
So at one level the bill advances mechanisms that will be able to be used in many sectors in the future. For example the National Party recently said that it is in favour of a “cap and trade” scheme for the electricity generation sector which would cap the volume of allowable greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity generation sector and require generators to purchase emissions units for increases in emissions. The first part of the bill sets out some of the mechanisms to achieve that. 
The select committee made amendments to clauses 5 and 13 and also to clause 23 in order to better protect the property rights and interests of unit and account holders. The committee has amended the bill by providing more specific criteria and circumstances—in which the powers of the Minister of Finance may be exercised to direct units to be transferred—under which the Ministers responsible for the registry may provide a direction to the registrar to close a holding account. The committee has amended clause 23 which limits the bar to bringing an action against the Crown or the registrar to cases where an inaccuracy in the unit register has arisen by adding that this bar applies only to situations where the Crown has reasonably relied on external information providers. The Government supports these amendments because they provide better transparency and specificity in order to better protect the rights of unit and account holders. 
Secondly the bill enables the establishment of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. Part 2 relates to the development of a mechanism that will allow landowners to access the value of carbon sequestration on land through the establishment of forest sink covenants. This Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides a business and land-management opportunity which will be created by New Zealand in this climate change policy. The bill will facilitate the initiative which has the potential to attract many millions of dollars of investment into the New Zealand economy. It will enable landowners to make better economic and environmental use of their land particularly isolated and erosion-prone land that is currently marginal for uses such as agriculture and conventional production forestry. A significant part of that land is owned by Maori who stand to gain from the passage of this legislation which is why the Maori Party supported the first reading of the bill. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides a world-leading opportunity for landowners to establish forests and obtain Kyoto-compliant carbon credits. There is a further incentive by which afforestation owners will be able to harvest a portion of timber from their forests. 
The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative will operate through contracts registered against land titles that specify the rights and obligations of the Crown and landowners. Not only does the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provide economic and environmental opportunities for landowners but it also provides opportunity for domestic and international firms to better manage their greenhouse gas emissions by establishing new forests. Many dividends will flow to New Zealand as a result. Landowners will be able to reap better economic returns through a diversified income stream. From a climate change perspective new forests planted under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative are likely also to replace stock numbers on marginal land thereby reducing some greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector. 
The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative will also facilitate improved flood protection and catchment management especially in areas where climate change might lead to increased impacts from extreme weather events. It will also aid in the protection of biodiversity and enhance the quality of our rivers and streams. 
I support the committee’s recommended amendments to address the issues raised at the select committee because they clarify the intent of the bill. They also clarify the relationship between the Resource Management Act the existing provisions in the Forests Act and the amendments to the Forests Act. The legislation allows for the possibility of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative to operate on Crown land. The Government intends to move amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House. Those amendments will address a number of issues including those raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee. 
I wish to thank again the members of the select committee for their work on this bill and also those who made submissions to the select committee. I commend the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The mess around this bill is very symptomatic of the whole mess the Government has around climate change policy. This is the first bill since the election that we have had on what has been described as one of the most important issues facing humanity and the Government has rolled out Minister No. 25 in the Government to give the second reading speech on it. Why was that speech not given by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues? Why was it not given by the Minister for the Environment or by the Associate Minister? I will tell the House why. It is because the Government is deeply embarrassed by the mess and vacuum in climate change policy. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite might explain this to me—that is the member who is going out of Parliament; I think the member for Rotorua is one of ones that in the latest poll is dead. 
I ask the Minister to explain this to me. This bill was introduced on 3 May last year. When it was introduced the Government said there was a big rush—that we had to set a very tight timetable for the Commerce Committee to report back. Submissions were limited to only 3 weeks. It was a truncated select committee process and the bill was reported back to the House on 28 July 2005. The Government said the bill was so urgent that it had to be reported back to the House immediately. What has the Government done for 15 months on this bill? Maybe the Minister can explain that. Why after the urgency and the truncated select committee process did the bill then sit on the bottom of the Order Paper for 15 months? Well the Government’s climate change— 
Darren Hughes 
: The member is missing the point again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can Mr Hughes explain that? Can he answer a simple question? Why when the select committee process was truncated because there was such a rush has this bill sat on the Order Paper for 15 months at the bottom of the list? The member does not want to answer that question because he— 
Darren Hughes 
: Absolute nonsense! Don’t talk politics; talk climate change. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not absolute nonsense at all. The member says we should talk about climate change policy. Well I am very keen to because the Government’s policy is as big a farce as is the process. 
 Let us look at this Government’s record on climate change policy. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says there is a vacuum in Government climate change policy. This Government has been in office for 7 years yet we have no idea what this country should be doing in respect of climate change. Let us look at some of the Government’s track record. It came out with an animal emissions levy. Do members remember that? It was abandoned. The Government had a policy that New Zealand should sign up to and ratify the Kyoto Protocol because we would make $500 million. Do members remember that? Well it is now acknowledged in the Government’s books after some dirty sneaky manoeuvres during the election campaign when the Government tried to hide this that rather than making hundreds of millions of dollars the poor old New Zealand taxpayer will be up for $500 million - plus as a consequence of this Government’s aborted mess around climate change policy. 
Then we had the carbon tax. Do members remember that? The Government announced that the answer to climate change was the carbon tax. At the last election Labour members said that—[ 
Interruption 
] I am coming to that I tell the member. I know that member belongs to a Government that has no policy. We have one and I want to talk about it. What Labour said about the carbon tax is quite extraordinary. When it was dumped the Minister in charge of it said that he was dumping it because it was not going to work. We had been telling him that for 12 months. There was no evidence at all that a carbon tax of $15 a tonne would have any effect on the amount of petroleum that was used or burnt. But we had a different message from the Prime Minister. She said that the policy was dumped because the Government could not get the numbers for it in the House. So today I ask the Minister in charge of the bill who is right: David Parker or the Prime Minister? The silence is absolutely deafening. He has no idea. The reality is that Labour made a mess of that. 
Let us go through some of the other things. We had a policy of tendering projects to reduce emissions. What happened to that? It was cancelled. We had a policy on reducing waste and improving energy efficiency; it was a real ripper. The Government spent $100 million on its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and after 6 years energy efficiency had become worse. That reminds me of the Department of Corrections. I know that the Minister who moved the second reading of this bill has no climate change responsibilities at all but he is the Associate Minister of Corrections. The Department of Corrections had a programme called Straight Thinking and the people who did Straight Thinking had a higher reoffending rate than those who did not do the programme. The Government’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy has been as big a disaster as that. 
I ask the Government this. After 7 years in office and after all the rhetoric about greenhouse gas emissions why have New Zealand’s emissions gone up at three times the rate of the United States’ and four times the rate of Australia’s? We get all these speeches from Labour members damning the United States and George Bush about climate change yet they are four times worse than that. 
Sue Moroney 
: The member is making it up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says I am making it up. Let me ask this question: is the Government making up its submissions and its reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? Oh it is not. Let me give members the figures. The figures that were submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change show that New Zealand’s emissions have gone up at four times the rate of the United States’ and three times the rate of Australia’s. Every Government member should be hiding his or her head in shame. In fact I challenge Government members to tell me a country any country in the world whose emissions have gone up by more than New Zealand’s under this Government. Can they tell me any country that has done worse than New Zealand—any country whose emissions have gone up by more than New Zealand’s? They are silent because they simply do not know. There is no country that has done that. 
In the wake of that policy vacuum we in the National Party have said it is time some leadership was provided around the issue of climate change. We produced a blue-green vision for New Zealand that provides a very sensible approach to the issue of climate change. One of the great tragedies is that during Labour’s period in Government the amount of electricity produced from coal has trebled. We all know that coal is the least friendly way in which to generate electricity so I would love a Labour member to explain why the biggest growth in electricity production in New Zealand where we have all sorts of renewable energy options—geothermal wind and hydro generation—has come from the dirtiest source which is coal. National has said that a sensible way forward is a tradable emissions permit system; that is what we have put on the table. We have said we should apply that system to the electricity sector first and that we will recognise the people who plant forests to absorb carbon because that is good for the environment. Planting forests reduces erosion and absorbs carbon out of the atmosphere and that provision is one of the more useful provisions in this bill. 
National will be supporting the second reading of this bill. It does provide for a sensible system of tradable emissions permits and that is where we want to go forward. But I really believe that the Government has to fill the vacuum that exists in climate change policy. Where the Government is at at the moment is a disgrace. It is an embarrassment for New Zealand. It is a disgrace for a country that wants to stand on its environmental credentials. New Zealand has had one Government policy disaster after another. I would like to know why it is that the Minister—whether it is the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues the Minister for the Environment or even the Associate Minister for the Environment—has not been prepared to contribute to this debate and move the second reading of this bill. 
The final point I make is to ask why the Government truncated the select committee process reducing it to only a few weeks last year and saying that this bill was urgent yet has allowed the bill to sit on the Order Paper for 15 months. That just shows the depth of the Government’s indecision—the depth of the vacuum—and the lack of policy from this Government around this very very important issue. So the Government has stuffed up. Leadership must be left to National in order to clean up the mess. We are happy to provide that leadership. The sooner the Government calls it quits the better it will be. Let some real solutions be put forward with regard to climate change. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I might disappoint the Opposition member by not being the Minister for the Environment or the Associate Minister but I want to say a few things about this bill today. Labour has a very large caucus that is very interested in green issues. I acknowledge that Dr Nick Smith does appear to be almost a lone voice over there in National. He is trying to convince his colleagues to adopt a more blue-green policy platform. I acknowledge that and I think it is very creditable. But it is a bit rich when the Opposition refused to sign up to Kyoto to carp and whimper in the House about New Zealand’s commitment to Kyoto and talk about a vacuum. The member opposite knows why we had to change our mechanism at the end of last year. He also knows that the election got in the way of what is a very good Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. 
I am very glad that the Nats are now starting to come around the table to discuss a sensible way forward for carbon trading and climate change. The poor Nats—and this is the fundamental problem—have never had a big group in their caucus to sign up to green issues so they have never been very keen to do anything about those issues. Carbon trading was Dr Smith’s position at the conference held just this month—in October. But his own leader—when we talk about leadership—Dr Brash said: “As you will be aware the document is just a discussion document at this stage. It’s not set in concrete and the proposals of the National Party we’re not saying we’re going to do them. We’re not saying we’re going to do A B and C.” That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when Dr Smith stood up with a good document and a way forward. Dr Smith was not supported by his leader this very month when he went to that conference. So where does that leave the Opposition? Slightly embarrassed I would have to say at seeing the Leader of the Opposition wearing his parka and out on a forest walk. That is not his natural territory for walking the talk but he had a go and it was a good look. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: We have been talking about the Government’s commitment to address climate change and the acceptance of the reality of climate change. In this House there definitely is quite a moveable feast in terms of a commitment to address climate change. Government members accept that climate change is real and that we have to do something about it. We also accept that there were some delays in reporting this bill back to the House because an election got in the way of that. Dr Brash the Leader of the Opposition—for a little longer but spring is in the air and climate change is certainly showing us some weather pattern changes here that are very real and cannot be ignored—is still not convinced of the science on climate change. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has a little more work to do to convince his leader—his leader until the end of spring probably—that climate change is real and we need to do something about it. 
This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002. With the amendments that have come through it certainly refines the functions of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions registry unit. What is important in this bill is that it sets up that registry. The Government is committed to the Kyoto policies on emissions as defined under the Kyoto Protocol. We have never swayed from that. National members have said that they are in favour of a “cap and trade” scheme for the electricity generation sector in which greenhouse emissions are capped and generators are required to purchase units for increases in emissions. That is quite a reasonable approach but I think National has to be just a little more patient. 
This bill is part of a subset of climate change announcements that have begun to roll out from Minister David Parker’s office and I think we will see a lot more work come out on this issue. It is important work it is detailed work and it is work that we need the support of the Green Party and other parties on to actually bind us all into it because it is very important for New Zealand’s future. 
The bill enables the establishment of a Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. That is to be applauded and it has been well received by the forestry sector. It will attract investment and enable better economic and environmental use of land. That has been a great concern for those farmers who have difficult aspects on their farms that they cannot farm satisfactorily and who would like to put that marginal land into forestry and also get some returns for doing that. That is very very important. We will find more and more tracts of our land that have been difficult to farm become afforested with this Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. 
The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides us with a world-leading opportunity and I am sure everybody in this House agrees that we need to do something like it. We felt great despair when we saw how readily people would convert good forestry land into agricultural land because of the exchange rate. That was not good around our area where we have seen the conversion of forest into farm land. It is also not good environmentally for our lakes and for sustainable lake water management. As a further incentive for afforestation owners will be able to harvest a proportion of the timber from their forests. The initiative will operate through contracts registered against land titles that specify the rights and obligations of both the Crown and the landowner. Not only does the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provide economic and environmental opportunities for landowners but also it provides opportunities for domestic and international firms to better manage their greenhouse gas emissions by establishing new forests. With our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol that is what we need to see in this country. 
Lots of dividends will flow as a result of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. Landowners will get an economic stream that is quite diversified. At the moment they are often locked into either forestry or agriculture. From a climate change perspective the new forests that are planted under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative are also likely to reduce stock numbers on marginal land thereby reducing some of the greenhouse gas emissions from stock. I think that is very important. It is what this Government tried to achieve last year when it brought in the emissions policy that was so soundly panned by the Opposition. 
I think this is a great bill. It is one of a subset of policy announcements that will come out from this Government which is working really well with the support of the Green Party and our coalition partners. Those announcements will aggregate up— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member does not believe that. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes I do believe in the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. I think it is fantastic and I am pleased to support this bill. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am happy to make a contribution on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. National believes that this is an area where we have had considerable mixed messages and impractical solutions from the Government. We will be supporting this legislation but we give notice that we want to bring in a number of amendments at the Committee stage. Let me talk firstly about the mixed messages then I will spend some time addressing the impracticalities of the proposed solutions and then I will talk about some of the decisions that could flow from that. 
Government members say we must enact this legislation yet New Zealand’s own performance on climate change under the stewardship of the Labour-led coalition has been such that we are performing much worse than the other countries that the Government has held up to ridicule such as Australia and the USA. In fact we are doing three and four times worse than those other countries. 
Then there is our internal policy. We have a Government that says yes it buys into the issue of climate change and that it is an important and a crucial issue. I agree that climate change is an issue that we have to deal with. If members look at this bill they will see some provisions around protecting forestry rights as a way forward—and yes we all acknowledge the sequestration of greenhouse gases particularly carbon dioxide into forestry sinks. But the Government’s biggest farmer Landcorp has cleared 25000 hectares in the central North Island. The process has not stopped there. Other speculators have said there is an opportunity with the leadership the Government has given to redevelop land for dairying or other land uses. So that process does not stop just with the 25000 hectares cleared by Landcorp. That is the first big mixed message from the Government. 
Then there is the Government’s performance in renewable energy. What has it done? It has quashed the Dobson dam project Project Aqua the Tuapeka dam project and any other opportunity that has been out there. Yes there has been a little investment in wind farms but not a great lot. There has been no real promotion of other forms of renewable energy. The Government has stepped up production from coal-fired generators so we have gone into thermal energy whereby we are adding to the greenhouse gas emissions. That is the second mixed message from the Government. 
At the same time as the Government is making noises internationally that climate change is an important issue the Prime Minister came to Southland and said that New Zealand’s future needs for electricity would be met by burning lignite in Southland. Well I have news for her: I do not think that is a good idea and the people of Southland have some other ideas about what lignite can be used for in Southland as well. Again that is another indication that the Government does not have a plan that will actually deliver what it is promising to the international community. 
I have just come from a presentation by Rio Tinto Aluminium—well the Tiwai Point plant is still called New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. I just look at what that company has done. It is a working example of what can happen with the right kind of stimulus. The company has not had that from the Government; it has got it from its international connections and the need to produce a product that shows it is doing something. In the last 15 years it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. Yes the company is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in New Zealand. I do not know what the figure is but I would suggest that it is around 15 to 18 percent of all greenhouse gases in New Zealand. So the Government will get its beady eye on that plant and say: “Ha ha! We need to close this down and then we will look good internationally.” Because we have had so many other mixed messages I do not trust the Government not to be thinking about doing that particularly because that would release some electricity to be available for other users and the Government has not had a plan for electricity. 
It is a matter of fact that out of the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point for every tonne of aluminium that is produced there are two tonnes of greenhouse gases. The Government would say that that is horrible—that it is terrible—but I ask members to wait. You see when we pick up and settle ourselves into a Kyoto agreement that excludes China India Singapore the Philippines and wherever else that is the nonsense and the mixed message this Government is giving. The Tiwai Point smelter produces 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases per tonne of aluminium produced but there are 18 or maybe now 19 smelters in China—I do not know the number because it is a growing feast—and over there nine tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced. So if we closed the aluminium smelter at Bluff an idea that I am sure has crossed the fertile mind of the Labour Government in order to look good internationally the slack will be picked up by a much dirtier less progressive smelter somewhere in China. 
We should be supporting aluminium production and I will tell members why we should. Even though two tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced at Tiwai Point the payback in the transport industry is multiplied by 20. If we put 100 kilograms of aluminium into a vehicle and reduce its weight so that in its lifetime the payback is times 20 we will get two tonnes back for every 100 kilograms. So one tonne of aluminium will give back 20 tonnes when invested in the transport industry. 
We must stop giving mixed messages to New Zealand. The year 2005 was the worst-ever year for forestry in New Zealand. The Government has been talking of sequestration into forest carbon banks and for the first time in perhaps four or five decades there has been less planting than harvesting. 
Jacqui Dean 
: 46 years. 
ERIC ROY 
: There we go—nearly 50 years. Why has that happened? It has happened because of mixed messages. The Government has said it will not give people a future they can bank on so people are out there harvesting their trees. They are cutting their trees down and there is no incentive for them to replant. I know and I accept that there is changing land use and that other viabilities are out there but the key factor has been that there is no blueprint we can hold on to. There is a mixed— 
Colin King 
: No leadership. 
ERIC ROY 
: The member for Kaikoura Colin King is absolutely right. There is no leadership. All that we are getting is mixed messages and we say that this bill gives us a variety of mixed messages. 
We had the Government look at our forests and at what members thought were our carbon credits. The Government said: “Ha ha! There are about 500 million or 600 million—terrific! That will look good on the balance sheet; that will let us buy another election; we can add that to the $11.5 billion. Oh boy what can we buy with that?”. But I say: “Ah ha—it is a billion-dollar bungle.” because in actual fact the calculation was wrong. That is another reason why buying into that Kyoto thing was a very very silly idea. 
Darren Hughes 
: Rubbish! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well absolute rubbish! The member is quite right; it was a rubbish thing to do. It was rubbish for all sorts of reasons. The member wants to create a world bureaucracy but who will get the job of counting the carbon credits in Russia? Russia said that hey it was not entering into the Kyoto Protocol then it went and recalculated its number to get 36 billion tonnes or some colossal number so that it could then go out and say that it was in credit. So of course it signed the protocol. But who is going to go and audit that process? 
We need to have clear messages about a way forward. Yes I accept and National accepts that we should be doing our part— 
Darren Hughes 
: This speech is not a clear message. 
ERIC ROY 
: I know the member is interested; I can see him paying attention. But we actually need to have a clear message. We need to have something that is not a placebo or platitude but is something that will actually deliver. Kyoto is nothing more than a talkfest. We need to take responsibility here we need to work in international forums and we need to include countries like China India Singapore and the Philippines which are not now included. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will the member answer a question? 
ERIC ROY 
: Unless the member accepts that responsibility anything we do here will shift dirty industries to countries that are not included in that protocol. 
We say that this bill is a small step but we want the Government to give some leadership on climate change. We are keen to be involved and we want to see a practical solution. We want to see some clarity around the rules that are out there and we want to see New Zealand buying into a future that is sustainable. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I always listen intently to the member who has just resumed his seat because he normally makes some very good comments. But he laboured on talking about mixed messages and unclear messages for quite some time so I want to ask the House how this is for a mixed message taken from the commentary on the bill. The heading is “Opposition members view (New Zealand First New Zealand National and ACT New Zealand)” and the paragraph states: “Opposition members oppose this bill on the grounds that New Zealand should not be implementing the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners.” 
Eric Roy 
: That’s right—absolutely right. We haven’t shifted from that. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I thought that the member— 
Eric Roy 
: No we want to give leadership; we want to get the solution. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not want to get into a debate with the member but I could have sworn he said that he was going to support the bill when here it says he is not. New Zealand First will oppose this bill for two principal reasons. The first reason is that we do not believe we should be ahead of our trading partners in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Secondly—and we have fuelled this quite a lot this evening—there are people in New Zealand who are worried witless about climate change. I have to say that that is unnecessarily so. 
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions in this country 50 percent comes from farming. The honourable member who has just spoken did not refer to that at all and he is a farmer. The other 50 percent comes largely from energy plants and whatever. But on a global scale New Zealand greenhouse gases do not register. They are a fraction of a percent. If we want to address the issue of climate change—and I am talking “we” now as internationally—then we have to target the big guys: the Americans the Chinese the Indians the Brits and the Europeans. On a per capita basis when it comes to energy and carbon dioxide our emissions are very moderate. When we take our population of only 4 million people that is only a very modest amount of greenhouse gases. 
But if we look at China for example on a per capita basis we see a very low emission per person but 100 times more greenhouse gases are produced than by New Zealand. Australia produces double on a per capita basis to that of this country. In total it is ten times more than this country but that is from a population only five times greater than ours. If we look at the USA we see it produces double in terms of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis but it emits 152 times the greenhouse gas emissions of this country. Britain is about the same on a per capita basis but it produces 15 times the amount New Zealand emits. And so it goes on and some of those countries generate power from nuclear plants. 
Coal gets a lot of blame for the production of greenhouse gases. Coal in this country produces about 8 percent of our electricity. In China coal produces 78 percent. In Australia the figure is 79 percent and in America it is 50 percent. An article in the  
Dominion Post 
 sometime last week reported that the Americans are building coal-fired power stations like nothing on earth. By the year 2030 57 percent of their power will be generated by coal-fired power stations. 
The solution to the problem of greenhouse gases when it comes to coal is not banning coal-fired power stations because obviously countries are not doing that. China is building them. India is building them. Australia is building them. The solution is exactly what John Howard said only 2 days ago in a radio interview: “A major part of the Government’s policy on climate change is to accelerate the development of new technologies which reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.” That will be the solution to greenhouse gas emissions particularly from coal. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What if it doesn’t work? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says: “What if it doesn’t work?”. These countries are pouring billions of dollars into it. Australia is pouring in millions of dollars and the Yanks the Americans are pouring in billions of dollars. For the member’s information Genesis Energy and Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd are spending significant sums of money in Australia on research there to address the problems of coal. I am told that the theory works now but that the cost of implementing has to be brought down. I say to the honourable member that I tend to believe that the scientists the people who are working on the issue full time day in day out will have it addressed in the foreseeable future. 
We must not lose sight of the fact that the average New Zealander is exceedingly concerned about climate change and New Zealand First is concerned about climate change. But let me say this and let me say it as clearly as I possibly can: there is nothing in this country that we can do as average citizens that will address the problem in any meaningful way at all. The problem lies elsewhere. We can do whatever anybody thinks we ought to do to address the problem—we can plant trees and goodness knows what—but it will not do anything meaningfully on a worldwide basis. This is a worldwide problem. 
I say to the honourable member who is sitting close by me that scientists tell me that trees absorb carbon dioxide. They also tell me that pasture with a predetermined level of topsoil will also do that. So we can absorb almost as much if not as much carbon dioxide by putting land into pasture. I am not a scientist but I believe what scientists tell me and I know that this information comes from dedicated people who are spending their lives addressing the problem. 
New Zealand First opposes this bill. We oppose it not because we are anti-environment or anti-climate change but because we want to keep the debate alive. We know that many many New Zealanders are being scared witless by the rhetoric in this House. They are hearing statements—and we have heard a few of them this afternoon and this evening—that make them feel guilty about putting on their lights let alone their one-bar electric heaters. 
This is a problem that will be solved in time but it will be solved in time by technology—not by New Zealanders planting trees. We should plant trees to address erosion problems so let us do that. But we should not fool ourselves that by planting thousands of trees we will solve the world’s climate change problem. If the member thinks that then she might as well think that the pig that is flying around here is real. New Zealand First— 
Gordon Copeland 
: It’s a world problem. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is exactly what I have just been saying—. 
Gordon Copeland 
: We’re only a tiny little planet. 
PETER BROWN 
: We are a tiny little player—and I appreciate the echo coming from behind—on the world scene and we cannot do anything to address the problem in a meaningful way. All we are doing to a very large extent is scaring witless the average New Zealander who is concerned about this issue. We in New Zealand First say that we should get this matter into perspective. If we want to address climate change on a global basis then to a very large extent it will come down to the Americans. It will come down to the Brits the Europeans the Chinese the Indians and the Australians. New Zealand’s attempt to help the problem by growing trees and what have you will have negligible if any effect whatsoever on climate change. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We have just heard the modern equivalent of the old colonial attitude that one Englishman is worth 20 Chinamen. We are told that a country that has a quarter of the world’s people is the problem when that country is producing far less than a quarter of the world’s emissions. We are told that somehow it is the Chinese who are at fault and that New Zealanders are OK even though one New Zealander produces about eight times the emissions of one Chinese. Well I do not subscribe to that old colonial mentality. I actually think that every human being on this earth has equal entitlement to the atmosphere and that is the basis on which we should set climate policy. 
It is true that New Zealand cannot solve this one on its own. Neither can the United States nor any one country. The United States produces about 25 percent of the world’s emissions. If that stopped and the rest of the world kept going we would still be in deep trouble. China produces less than that. If China stopped and the rest of the world kept going we would still be in deep trouble. We have to play our part or we will not have any credibility when we try to negotiate on the world scene for a collective agreement to improve the climate. 
The Greens strongly support the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. This second reading is hugely overdue. We were very hopeful that the bill would be passed before the election and be in force by now. I want to look at what has happened since this bill was reported back in I believe July last year. That is 15 months or so ago. The signs that climate change is accelerating have become incontrovertible. The climate-deniers no longer have a case. Whether we are talking about the ice-melt the slowing of the Gulf Stream Greenland and the glaciers the acidification of the oceans attacking the base of the marine food chain—creatures that need calcium to form their shells—or methane being released from the warming of the Tundra the signs of accelerating climate change are so worrying that many scientists say we are at a tipping point. If we do not do something very urgently it will be too late to prevent a runaway effect. That is one lot of things that has happened. 
Also in July last year both major parties had policies on climate change. Now neither does. Well that is progress is it not? Last July National had a policy of being opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and to doing anything about it and it used every opportunity in the House to question whether climate change was real and to deny that New Zealand should be taking action because of these so-called trading partners. Labour had a policy package that contained some flaws but nevertheless some strengths too. That was abandoned in December. 
National now has a consultation document out and I congratulate it on that. I also congratulate it on taking climate change seriously now and seeking a policy solution. That is good. It is also generally supporting a “cap and trade” system. OK that is something we can work with. Labour is developing a policy on climate change which we will see some time soon. But neither of those parties has policy in place unlike the Greens who have had policy for a very long time and developed it further in March this year. 
The other thing that has happened since July last year is that New Zealand’s forests have shrunk for the first time in many decades. We are now clearing more forests than we are planting and that is a tragedy in terms of the climate. It is a tragedy in terms of many land-use issues as well. It is partly because of the policy limbo we have been in for a while and it is partly because of the exchange rate wood prices and very high dairy prices and so on. But there are huge clearances under way now where forests are going and the land is being converted to livestock farming. One can see the smoke as one stands on the top of Maungatautere mountain in the Waikato unable to see to the south because of the pall of smoke rising from the burning slashed forests. 
Clearance for livestock of course gives us a double whammy. Not only do we lose the carbon stored in the forest—we lose our sink—but when animals are put on the land the methane emissions increase. So we are getting both less sink and more sources. 
 We urgently need to recognise the carbon that the foresters store in their forests and make some payment for that. But not by simply handing credits with the obligations that they entail for guarantees forever into the future to companies with short-term thinking. 
The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is a good programme. We are told that it will require the maintenance of a continuous canopy—no clear-felling—and that there will be a limited opportunity for harvesting for high-quality timber which is another benefit to the economy. There will then of course be other benefits. Afforestation on steeper land which will be the cheapest land to afforest permanently will reduce erosion improve water quality reduce flooding and improve flood control and it will provide a habitat for biodiversity that does not disappear every 25 years with clear-felling. Those are huge environmental benefits. 
I have met a number of forestry companies that are just waiting for this bill to go through in order to take up the commercial opportunities that it offers. Some of them want to plant native production forests with continuous canopy; that is something that we badly need. Some of them want to plant high-value exotics for the same purpose; that will be a very welcome diversification from pine. Some of them are forming exciting new partnerships with Maori using Maori land with Maori benefiting economically from that and with the forestry company providing the expertise and the investment capital. Those are very productive partnerships. I know of one with NgatiPorou; I am sure that there are others. 
Climate change will accelerate extreme weather events. It will make the flooding worse. It will make the erosion worse. It will make the droughts worse. We need to plant that steep land urgently for a whole raft of reasons in addition to carbon storage. I said earlier that we are told that the rules will entail all these things. But there is actually nothing in the bill at all about what the requirements will be on foresters planting these permanent sinks. I am sure that the policy is firm at the moment and that the regulations that will be written under the bill will express that policy. But what happens in the future? What happens if we have a Government that decides to weaken the rules that no longer requires long-term guarantees and says “Oh yes you can clear fell if you like as long as you plant.” and all the rest of it? It is a little bit worrying that the bill leaves it all to regulations because they are so easy to change without coming back to Parliament. 
I comment finally on the statement we hear so often in this House that we should not ratify the Kyoto ahead of our trading partners. Let us really be clear about what this means. The Bonn Agreement in 1995 which set up the basis for negotiating Kyoto said that all countries can be party to it. Only OECD countries will take targets to limit their carbon for the first period because it is the OECD countries whose emissions have overwhelmingly caused the climate change we are all now experiencing. The developing countries still need to feed their people. They will look at taking binding commitments when the OECD countries have acted. China India and the rest are waiting to see what the developed world does in the first commitment period. If by 2012 none of us have met our commitments do not expect them to come into a future agreement. The only way we will get those countries in is to demonstrate that we can do it and to develop the technology to help them do it as well. 
So what is happening? There was never any rort about China not being part of the agreement. China participates in clean development mechanisms. China is putting in more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is manufacturing more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is taking clean energy and energy efficiency extremely seriously and its emissions would be a great deal worse by now if it had not done that. So let us give China a break. Let us say that they have got a right to feed their people and have jobs for their people. They have a quarter of the world’s people. 
Let us show what we can do with all the benefits of our developed technology our developed economies the capital we have and lead the way then those other countries will follow. The only OECD countries that have not ratified are the United States and Australia. Yes we trade with them. We also trade in a major way with Europe who are taking this more seriously than any other block of countries. So let us be real. Let us play our part in the OECD of which we are a part to show a way forward for the world that the other countries can follow. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe. Tenatatou katoa. We are slowly but surely killing Ranginui and Papatuanuku our parents and we must quickly reverse the situation and care for them. The Climate Change Response Amendment Bill provides us with a mechanism by which we can do this. 
The year 2005 has been reported as the first year that ice in the Arctic continued to melt well into the end of September resulting in the biggest annual melt since records began. Aotearoa suffered two major floods in Gisborne in as many months and we have endured major flooding at home in Whanganui and the Rangitikei and in the Bay of Plenty. We have had droughts in Hawke’s Bay Otago Marlborough and Tasman. Human activity resulting in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide methane and nitrous oxide have significantly added to or even produced this effect over the last century. 
And so it is in this context that the Maori Party welcomes the return to this House of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. The bill sets up two mechanisms. It allows individuals to trade in emission units and it establishes a mechanism to allow landowners to access the value of carbon in their forests. In essence this means the Crown is able to give tradable emission units in exchange for carbon. The Crown will devolve tradable carbon emission units equal to the carbon contained in permanent forest sinks. 
So what does this mean in practice? Just over a month ago Christchurch City Council approved the sale of carbon credits to British Gas. The sale hit all the papers as it was New Zealand’s first overseas carbon credit sale to a private sector buyer and would generate more than $3 million in revenue for the council over 5 years between 2008 and 2012. 
This is where the Maori Party turns to the genuine progress index for some guidance. The Maori Party has advocated for a genuine progress index as providing a measure of comprehensive sustainable and inclusive advancement. The index distinguishes between positive contributions to progress for example a reduction in greenhouse gas and negative activity such as industrial pollution. The genuine progress index enables nations and communities to look critically and systematically at the massive challenges in front of us with climate change over-population over-consumption wastage peak oil oil depletion and GDP growth. And this is the crunch issue because although it is of course positive that the allocation of carbon credits recognises the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions the challenge lies in the thinking behind the dealing being done. 
The Maori Party has consistently supported the philosophy behind carbon tax and carbon credits as a key means of providing incentives to industry polluters to control and reduce their emissions. But the value of exchanging carbon credits—trading them off with other countries countries that are polluting the environment—seems to be rather confused logic. Let us trace back the history to this issue. 
In December 2004 the Government awarded the Christchurch City Council 200000 carbon credits or emission reduction units for the capture and transport of methane gas from the closed Burwood Landfill to Queen Elizabeth II Park Stadium Sports Centre and Fun Park to heat and power the sports facility. All praise where praise is due: it is a great initiative that this project will turn waste into a resource through the capture and use of landfill gas that might have otherwise have escaped into the environment contributing to climate change. 
Landfills generate methane one of the worst greenhouse gases as organic matter decomposes. So when methane is burnt it is converted to carbon dioxide which reduces its climate impact by a factor of 20:1. In some pretty impressive number crunching by the council we are told that by capturing the methane gas in this way the carbon emissions avoided by this project equal 10900 cars taken off the road each year. Now 11000 cars cannot be sneered at. We absolutely commend the council on being awarded these credits made through the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme and support it as part of an innovative approach taken at local government level in meeting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. 
But where we do have some questions is in relation to the ethical issue around the trade off of carbon credits to a private sector buyer. Under the genuine progress index one could not count the fact that credits have been traded for commercial gain as an example of genuine progress. For what changes? The industry—British Gas in this example—is still polluting but now it has credits up its sleeve by a commercial transaction with New Zealand. It does not seem to add up. 
Of course there are many other players that are supportive of schemes created in this bill. We know for instance that NgatiPorouWhanui Forests support the concepts as they and other iwi can make income by trading the carbon credits accumulated in their forest assets. They could also create further employment by planting trees they otherwise would not have planted as it would have been uneconomic to do so. It also means that they can plant trees that previously would not have returned an immediate income stream as quickly as exotic forests. It may mean the return of the slower growing indigenous species and the creation of nurseries specialising in indigenous tree species. They can make money before the harvesting of the forests. It is a totally new income stream. They can also make money by planting permanent and indigenous forests on isolated or erodible land not suitable for farming and harvesting forestry. 
But the Maori Party would ask: is not the whole issue of climate change about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? If industry polluters are able to purchase carbon credits to offset their polluting emissions yet still do not make any efforts to reduce emissions does not the actual problem still remain? 
The question of how New Zealand deals with climate change is an issue of hot debate on which we have many outstanding questions and we look to the Committee stage for their resolution. We know that Maori have repeatedly called for action to preserve the ecosystem and protect land use and we know that the Crown has been challenged to look at the impact of climate change policy on the claim currently before the Waitangi Tribunal—Wai 262. The particular concern put forward was that any policy that promotes land use change must fully understand the impact on indigenous flora and fauna including unintended consequences. We also know that the Waitangi Tribunal has been looking into the issue of carbon credit allocation when Crown-owned forests are growing on Maori land. 
We will be looking to see whether the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill provides for Maori-owned forests and carbon credits and whether it provides responsibly for Crown forests on Maori land. We will want to see during the Committee stage evidence that demonstrates how tangata whenua have been involved. 
Climate change affects us all. It is time to look critically at the way in which we measure the national accounts and look for a more realistic and telling tale of the progress achieved in our nation. Our total wellbeing our health and our sustenance are dependent on the prosperity of the whole national environment—the big picture. Climate change is part of that big picture and carbon credits reward and recognise steps to protect our environment. To this end we support the further development of this bill with a view to genuine progress in Aotearoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise with considerable pleasure to take a call on behalf of United Future on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. Like Jeanette Fitzsimons I regret that it has taken so long for the bill to come to the House for its second reading. I had imagined that after the 2005 election this bill would have been well up the Order Paper but I guess it is better late than never and I am pleased to see that at last it has got to this point. 
I come to this debate after viewing  
An Inconvenient Truth 
 late in the afternoon on the Sunday of Labour Weekend. By the way Labour Weekend in Wellington was the wettest Labour Weekend we have had in a decade. We have had the wettest winter on record followed by the wettest spring on record. We have had landslips in the greater Wellington region in areas that have been without landslips for years. Anybody who doubts the reality of climate change would only have to have spent the last few months in Wellington to see that something quite dramatic has happened to our weather patterns. 
Let me say at the beginning of this speech that United Future fully accepts the reality of climate change. The evidence is there all around us and therefore we are committed as a party to ensuring that New Zealand pulls its weight in addressing the issues that affect all of the people on this planet at this point in time. If I were to signal one thing that New Zealand is perhaps uniquely placed to do in its response to climate change it would be to plant trees. We are actually quite a large country geographically. We are bigger than the United Kingdom and Ireland put together and we have millions of hectares of wasteland that at the moment are basically barren. Therefore United Future has had a policy for some time that we should incentivise the planting of trees as the singular greatest contribution New Zealand can make to address climate change. 
I am absolutely staggered and disappointed to find that New Zealand First will vote against the bill tonight. I well remember the leader of New Zealand First Winston Peters saying that the nation needs to plant 1 billion trees. When he said that I said “Right on!” yet tonight New Zealand First has come to the House and said that it will vote against this bill which completely baffles me. 
It is clear that trees have become a method whereby carbon can be sequestered. Carbon sequestration has the ability to make a huge difference to world climate and growing trees is one of the very best ways of doing that. I should also point out that it is important to have a sustainable harvesting regime in place for those trees and this bill allows a sustainable harvesting regime to kick in after 35 years. The reason for that is that once a tree matures and in fact starts to rot as old trees do then that tree is no longer absorbing carbon. So the wise thing to do is to cut that tree down at the point where it has optimised the absorption of carbon and to plant a new tree to start that process over again. Conceptually we can see that continuing on until the end of time. It is a good thing to do. Therefore United Future thoroughly supports the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative that is at the heart of this bill. 
I should say in relation to overly mature trees that one of the things that should probably be revisited in this country is the decision not to allow any sustainable harvesting of the West Coast beech forests. I know that that is a sensitive issue but the fact is that if we wanted to get really serious about carbon change we would turn back the clock and let many of those rotten old trees get cut down. Many of those trees are completely rotten right down the middle and they are sequestering no carbon at all. If we could cut them down on a sustainable basis and put in a new tree we would be making a significant difference. I know that that is a controversial suggestion but if we are to get serious about it and follow the science that is exactly the policy outcome that would come about. 
The way in which this bill will work will be by the devolution of tradable carbon emission units from the Crown down to land owners. It will include situations where the Crown itself is a land owner and where it makes sense for the Crown to make its Crown-owned wastelands available to people who want to plant millions of trees on those lands. That would be a wonderful thing to see and in United Future we call it a “no regrets policy”. We would have many more trees. It would increase biodiversity address climate change and absorb nitrate from the soil. Really there is just no downside. 
 Planting trees would also make our country much more beautiful. Funnily enough although New Zealand prides itself on being a forested country our rural countryside is actually denuded of trees compared with England for example. It is very noticeable that there are many more trees in the countryside there than there are here so planting trees is something that needs to happen and it is a very good thing to do. United Future also has a policy specifically of planting trees around all our rivers and lakes on their marginal strips where again that can contribute to climate change to biodiversity to absorbing nitrate and to improving the quality of the water in our rivers and lakes. 
There is huge scope in New Zealand for planting trees on erosion-prone land. Recently I flew from here to Auckland on a beautiful clear day and from Taranaki and all the way through to the King Country I saw a vast area of very hilly land with basically no farming and no trees on it. There is huge scope for us to go ahead and plant those lands. Based on the people who have come to see me and talk about the exciting opportunities this bill presents to them from a commercial point of view it is possible that when this bill goes through we will actually see money coming into this country—and God knows we desperately need that given our balance of payments situation—from overseas people who would be prepared to get involved in planting trees in this country simply in order to access the devolution of those carbon emission units. That would be a cash-flow driver for them. They do not want the land they do not want the trees; they just want to come here and make it happen. So I am very excited with this bill’s potential. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned the deforestation that is occurring at the moment. I think that that is a tragedy. I have done a graph going all the way back to the 1930s and every time there has been a Labour Government of any stripe the numbers in tree-plantings have gone down. I ask myself when the Labour Party will get its head around the importance of forestry to this country. To sit here doing nothing—as has been happening since the year 1999—and to see our forest estate going backwards I think is a tragedy. It is really counter to all that the Government gives lip service to in terms of climate change. Not only that tree planting even plantation forests opens up commercial possibilities for the future. 
When it comes to climate change United Future’s policy is unashamedly “Let’s pick the low fruit first.” We should do the things we can that are practical—and where there are no regrets no downside but only upside from every point of view—and do those first rather than try to get to the fruit right at the top of the tree and somehow to be some sort of world leader. That is not our role. The big European nations which Jeanette Fitzsimons and others have mentioned can do that. By the way those nations have made some terrible mistakes which we can learn from and we do not want to go down their route. 
I was amazed that Jeanette Fitzsimons said there was nothing much in the bill about the conditions around permanent forest sinks. I tell the House that there is a whole page of them under new clause 67Z inserted by clause 30 in Part 2. All of the obligations that landowners will have to enter into if they want to go into permanent forest sinks are set out there. They state for example that the landowner is required to be the guarantor or insurer of those forests or to provide any other risk management arrangement the Minister considers appropriate. The landowner is required to control the harvest of timber and to have a forest sink management plan. The covenant is to be expressed to have effect in perpetuity and so on. A whole page of conditions is laid out there so as far as we are concerned the template is in this bill. There is just time now for us collectively as a nation and as a Parliament to get on with the job and make a difference to climate change. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I have been so keen for my turn to speak on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill I have been popping up and down in a most unseemly fashion. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change is not here tonight for the second reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that; that is not acceptable. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change has not made a contribution to the second reading of this legislation. After all he would have us believe that unlike National the Labour Government not only recognises climate change but also is prepared to get in there and do something about it. Despite all the Minister’s endless talk all the endless conferences and press releases all the overseas travel to talk about it where—after 7 years in Government—is the Government’s policy on climate change? I fear that this legislation—the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—is it and the Minister responsible for it is not even making a contribution to it through its second reading. 
This bill was reported back to the House by the Commerce Committee—when was it in July 2005? It was certainly before my time in Parliament. That makes it a bill that is so important to this Government this bill on climate change that it has sat around at the bottom of the Order Paper for—let me count the months—15 months. That is how important this bill on climate change is to this Government. 
So what has the Labour Government achieved in the past 7 years on climate change policy—a policy it is so concerned about? Well we signed up to the Kyoto Protocol which was meant to save the world. Actually it was meant to save 0.02 percent of the emissions that we contribute to the world. At the same time signing up to the Kyoto Protocol was going to make us an absolute bundle. It was going to be fantastic. It was going to make us around $500 million. The problem is that the Government made a slight miscalculation and it turns out that instead of New Zealand making an absolute bundle we owe an absolute bundle because of signing up to the Kyoto Protocol. And how much is that bundle that we owe? It is around $500 million. 
What else have we had? We have had the carbon tax which they figured out eventually was not going to work. So that was another Government policy on climate change that was a resounding failure. We had the “fart tax”—the famous “fart tax” which they figured out was not going to work. That for the Government was another resounding failure. We have had an energy efficiency strategy. We have had an energy efficiency strategy—I love saying those words. I have to look every time I read them out because—[ 
Interruption 
] That is the problem—it took $100 million of taxpayer money to tell the Government that it was not going to work. 
So let me recap the Government’s climate change policy initiatives so far: we have the “fart tax” we have the carbon tax and we have the energy efficiency strategy. Have any of them worked? No none of them have worked. We have had the Kyoto Protocol which not only has not worked but also we signed up for it until 2013 I think and it is costing us half a billion dollars. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not very successful; one could only call it a tiny little bit successful—one would almost call it unsuccessful. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described the Government as operating in a climate change vacuum. As soon as I sit down next to someone on a plane who is in the energy industry or the climate change industry—anybody involved in the environment—and he or she knows I am a minor back-bencher from the National Party the first thing anybody says is: “Hi Jacqui would you please do something about the climate change and the energy policy?”. That is all I ever hear from anybody in the electricity industry. We are operating in a policy vacuum. 
What is the response from the Government? Well earlier this evening MP Steve Chadwick said in this debate when she was challenged by Dr Nick Smith about a lack of climate change policy: “Just wait it is coming.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So is Christmas. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thankfully so is Christmas and the next general election. So that I suspect will take care of itself in due course. In the meantime the National caucus have produced a policy and it is called  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. It has been so well received it is embarrassing. Often when I sit in this Chamber I hear the cry “Where’s your policy?” coming from the Government benches when we are in the middle of a debate. Members opposite are very fond of shouting out: “Where’s your policy?”. It is a funny thing because in this instance that cry applies to the Government. It is the National Party that has produced a  
A 
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. What has the Government produced? Oh yes that is right; let me find it—it is somewhere here on my bench. The Government has produced a minor bill after it has sat for 15 months at the bottom of the Order Paper called the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal! What strikes me when I look at this Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal—is that the select committee membership has changed in the time between the previous Parliament and this one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Half of them are gone. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well it look to me as if we have only half of those members still in Parliament so we would have to question how very relevant this bill before the House is. I was looking around today and I found an interesting yet worrying report from the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. It shows that humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate—well there is nothing new in that—and it claims that by 2050 the human race will need two planets’ worth of natural resources to feed current consumption rates. That is very disturbing but do people know what is even more disturbing? It is that the World Wildlife Fund for Nature ranks New Zealand ninth on a list of 10 countries using up the natural resources of planet Earth. We are the ninth-worst out of 10. What is the Government’s response to this? It is a climate change policy that states: “Just wait it is coming.” and that is all we have seen from the Government. 
National knows where we should go with our climate change policy because we have put out a discussion document  
A 
Bluegreen 
 Vision for New Zealand 
 which as I have said has been so well received it is embarrassing. We have proposals for tradable emission permits in order to manage New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Starting with the energy sector we will be capping electricity emissions by requiring all additional emissions from fossil fuel power stations to be offset by forestry planting. That is sensible and it gives a sense of direction for the energy and forestry industries. We propose a major boost into research for agricultural emissions. We will not clobber farmers with a “fart tax”. We will invest in making agriculture more efficient—that is sensible—and very important we will reform the Resource Management Act in order to facilitate the development of renewable energy. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ve already done that. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh no this Government has not I say to the member. This Government after 7 years’ stewardship of our environment can say that our emissions are growing at three times the rate of Australia’s and four times the rate of the United States—and those are our trading partners that are not hobbled by the Kyoto Protocol. This is a Government on whose watch we have seen a threefold increase in power produced from coal and it is a Government that has sat firmly on the picket fence over Project Aqua and will not or cannot recognise the impediment that the Resource Management Act provides to future energy project investments. 
We will support this bill and we view sensible climate change policy more seriously than clearly the Minister responsible for Climate Change does as he has not made a contribution to tonight’s debate. We will support this bill because we support tradable emissions permits and we look forward to moving amendments during the Committee stage. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Until the previous speaker spoke I felt that this was a day when I felt comfortable in the House. It was one of those rare occasions when I felt that we were really working together on an issue bigger than any of our individual tribes. But that last speech did not really encourage me in that prospect. 
However I will make one particular comment first and it is about Project Aqua. The resolution that occurred in terms of Project Aqua was actually about stopping the subdivision of environmental issues into separate baskets. There is no separate basket called the Kyoto Protocol there is no separate basket called clean air there is no separate basket called energy production there is no separate basket called irrigation and there is no separate basket called the conservation of rivers. When we did the work on the Waitaki scheme we used for once in our lives not an adversarial method but an inquisitorial method that gave people with an interest in every part of the river a voice. It was not a question of saying that some forms of energy are there and some are not. We will solve environmental problems only when we stop separating aspects of them into little baskets. 
I happened to agree very strongly with Jeanette Fitzsimons co-leader of the Green Party tonight when she said that every human being on this planet must act responsibly about greenhouse gas emissions. The issue is not about playing off one party against another or about playing farmers off against viticulturists or against trout fishers but is about saying that every one of us has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our lives—and we do not play nations off against each other. Fundamentally in the end that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol. We must play our part and unlike the previous speaker I know that this Government in the last 7 years has been playing its part. 
I can recall calling together the very first meeting of a number of members of Government departments on the issues around the Kyoto Protocol when I was a very raw Minister. I discovered at that stage that the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not know how many animals there were in New Zealand. The ministry had given up on having any way of accounting for them which meant there was no way of knowing what their methane emissions were. That was the inheritance we faced. Not only was that the case but we faced a Ministry of Transport that had no policy on vehicle emissions. That was what we faced. So we faced departments that not only failed to work together as one—it is not only parties that do not work together as one—but actually worked against each other. 
That situation has changed radically. I think about the scheme for clean air environment standards which has an absolute commitment towards reducing vehicle emissions and about the work it is doing in Auckland and the incentive that it causes to bring about energy efficiency in homes so that we have clean air and therefore lower emissions. If we turn to the research work on methane I do find it very hard to listen when a member of the Opposition stands up and goes on about the “fart tax” when what we were really asking for was a contribution from the farming industry towards finding out what was there in terms of methane emissions from animals. I think those members speak from a sense of shame rather than a sense of pride. Instead of going to the farmers we decided we would fund the research in another way because we need to find out why and how methane is emitted. I think that it is irresponsible to play those games. It is opportunist and populist and we should be well past populism if we are really working together on the issue of climate change. 
I believe that this Government has worked particularly hard on a very difficult issue but we cannot argue at the international level around the Kyoto Protocol issues unless we do something more than we are now doing. We must take action ourselves. We cannot go out there and point the finger at India or China unless we start to reduce our emissions. If we look at what is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment which has apparently tripled its carbon dioxide emissions since Tony Blair has been in Government—well that is what has been quoted—we see the United Kingdom is making even tougher rules far tougher than those we face in New Zealand to deal with those particular issues. We need to walk the talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions before we can start to point the finger at anyone else. 
But we also need to share the technology. The fact is that in the case of the islands that we are talking about on those atolls in the Pacific where the water is rising and lapping up nearly 5 metres higher than previously people burn diesel in order to generate energy. Lord almighty what are we doing if we are not sharing our technology! We have a long way to go on that issue in this particular society. 
I am really happy that National supports this bill—and I am happy about that I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith—because I think we are getting the message in this House that our community is concerned about the issue of climate change. So working together is positive. 
I welcome the fact that Tariana Turia talked about the importance of forest planters gaining benefit from carbon sequestration. When I think about another issue around Lake Taupo I realise that forestry and forestry planting and Tuwharetoahapu being able to claim benefit from that—rather than having to put in dairy farms in order for one hapu to catch up with another—is one way to make sure that we can gain some benefit from that. So there are two values: cleaner water and more variety of land use as well as carbon sinks. The cleverer we are about uniting the different impacts in terms of addressing environmental issues the better we will go. I also appreciate that the permanent nature of the canopy allows for indigenous forests as well as the monoculture of  
Pinus radiata 
 to be planted. That has a real benefit particularly for some of our furniture industries. 
We must reduce emissions though as well as mitigating their effects. So although we encourage permanent forest sinks we have to do work on the other side of the equation by reducing emissions. This bill is only one part of a whole programme that is being promoted by this Government. We should remind ourselves that there is an adaptation programme because this issue is about adaptation to climate change—and those of us who were in Wellington this weekend will understand about that. 
The programme is about our coastal areas and our farming sector but it is also about measures to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings. There is a consultation on minimum biofuels sales obligations and we have to actually be serious about using alternative energies to drive our cars. We can talk about heating our homes and we can talk about industry but we also have to look at the carbon dioxide that comes out of our cars and our vehicles as we move around. We can talk about increased public passenger transport and about better trains but we have to move what is transported by road also and that cannot always be put on trains—[ 
Interruption 
] I am finding it extremely hard to think with that person roaring at me from the other side of the House. There are also options to create links with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Those are the issues that we need to face when we are talking about our Pacific partners. There are options to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet in terms of what we import and what we manufacture in this country. 
There are ways in which Government agencies can lead the way in respect of sustainable practices. Today in a select committee I watched a member of the Opposition be very critical of one Government department that was taking Govt3 practice seriously. That concerns the whole notion of sustainable development. The member was querying whether there were too many bureaucrats trying to work things out when that department was buying smaller cars in its fleet doing work to reduce paper usage in its ministry and trying to be sustainable. So again I make a plea: if we are serious about climate change and if we are serious about sustainable practice in this country we must not look at the issue in terms of one-off boxes but look at it holistically. 
I welcome the fact that most members of this House have supported the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Business of the House 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
Madam Assistant Speaker I believe that you are about to call Government Order of the Day No. 6 which is the Committee stage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. In noting that the Committee has done an extremely good job with this bill and that there is widespread support for it throughout the House I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as a whole and for one question to be put at the conclusion of the Committee stage. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Because I was not here I point out that amendments to that bill have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in my name so some questions will be put around those amendments as well. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no problem with that; the questions will be taken together. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. All the parts will be taken together? Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 October. 
Parts 3 and 4 schedules and clauses 1 and 2 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when one can stand in this Parliament and find total support for legislation from all parties in the Chamber. So to some extent this is something that is quite good to be involved in. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport and it puts at risk the ethical principles and educational values combined in the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport of Unesco. For that reason the National Party is very much in support of this legislation. The anti-doping programmes therefore seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport which is characterised by values such as honesty ethics fairness health respect courage commitment and solidarity. It is not often that one can find all those words strung together in one bill. It is just a pity that one or two of the political parties in this Parliament could not exercise what is being attempted in this legislation. 
The code that seeks to harmonise international efforts to address doping in sport was finalised at the World Conference on Doping in Sport which was held in Copenhagen from 3 to 5 March 2003. Clearly that was a good position to take. I understand the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard might have been somewhere near there at the time so he is to be congratulated on taking us to that position. 
It is heartening to see that this Government which is not well known for this characteristic has decided not to introduce charges when it comes to Customs Service checks at the border and other checks where charges take place. When we think about other border control measures put in place by this Government it has introduced charges on a scale that we have never seen before. I am pleased the Government chose not to do that in this case. The sharing of information or evidence by the New Zealand Police the Customs Service and others is eminently sensible. So those who drafted the legislation and of course the very good Government Administration Committee that looked at it condoned all those measures. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who chairs that committee? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That committee is very ably chaired and I welcome interjections from my “Nigerian” brother across the Chamber and suggest that some of the measures brought before the committee had all the aroma flavour and taste of—what was it? 
Darren Hughes 
: Nigerian cowhead stew. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Nigerian cowhead stew. Of course it would have had the same effect on one’s running ability if one had ingested it. I suggest that the Minister in the chair go back and look at some of the things that the select committee had to deal with. We really did tidy that up. 
Part 3 deals with the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. Membership consists of at least five but no more than nine members. Each member is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Sport and Recreation on the basis of his or her qualifications and ability to represent the sporting sector. That is very sensible as well and once again it is almost out of character for this Government to get so many things right. I am wondering what has happened to the Minister! Perhaps his hopes and aspirations for higher office were at the forefront of his mind therefore he did not give this bill his usual attention and thereby it did not get mucked about. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that goal. 
Around the world New Zealanders are known as a group of individuals who box above their weight and no more so than in sport. Our New Zealand All Blacks are the best in the world. They are world-famous. Our basketball players our netball players our golfers—you name it; we are the best. It is a great thing because it brings everybody together and is good for the health of the nation. I say to the Minister that anything that minimises the use of drugs in this regard has to be positive. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed an honour to speak to the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I would like to concentrate just a bit on Part 3. My learned colleague talked about the tribunal and it surprises me to some degree that it has taken this length of time to put these very important structures in place so that we can move forward. Having come from an organisation—Shearing Sports NZ—that received funding from Sport and Recreation New Zealand we had to have a drug policy and implement it. Anybody who ever went for a shearing record had a blood sample taken for testing. So it is quite interesting to see that we are putting in place the Sports Anti-Doping Bill now and to see how it is structured. It is quite significant that this be given quite a bit of credibility if confidence is to be built based around this function. 
We have Drug Free Sport New Zealand the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand and rules that must be upheld. It is interesting that membership of the tribunal consists of a minimum of five and a maximum of nine members. When we look at the requirements for appointment as a member we see that those people must be very appropriately qualified so we could say they do not just fall off the back of a truck. The seriousness of this statutory tribunal is recognised by the fact that those people are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister who consults with the board of Sport and Recreation New Zealand. 
The Governor-General appoints the chairperson and that person must not only have a good knowledge of sport but also legal knowledge. That is very important. If the tribunal does not have the overall trust and confidence of the entire institutions of sport when it is dealing with matters brought before it then it will collapse and will not uphold the good intentions of the sports anti-doping legislation. So Part 3 is very important. The Governor-General also appoints the deputy chairperson. The chairperson deputy chairperson and at least one other member must be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand with no less than 7 years’ practice and must have substantial experience in legal issues affecting sport or have had a substantial involvement in sport. They need a minimum of a 10-year aggregate period of experience in a sporting body or a high level of sporting experience. 
The tribunal in itself has to be quite robust and because it is a statutory body its functions go to considerable lengths to ensure that its powers are carried out. It has the power to summon witnesses. It also has the power to ensure that those people who refuse to turn up do so at the risk of a fine—the fines are spelt out in Part 3—so there can be no doubt in the minds of those concerned about what they are undertaking. However the tribunal’s importance is also recognised by the fact that costs can be imposed where those people do not turn up or do not subscribe to the appropriate course of conduct. An order for those costs can be filed in the District Court and may be enforced as a judgment of that court. 
This bill is a foundation cornerstone to having robust sporting anti-doping legislation and as such finds its place appropriately—although considerably later than it should have been—on the statute book. Interestingly only two submissions were received. I would not say that in itself would indicate a lack of interest. I would probably say those two submissions were quite appropriate but it also indicates there was a universal acceptance of the importance of this legislation. 
So as we go forward supporting this Sports Anti-Doping Bill we recognise that New Zealand does have a good record to uphold in the world of sport. We want to be able to hold up our sporting heroes as examples and sport is probably the very best activity we can encourage our young ones to participate in. When one drives back from the airport in Blenheim one goes past the sign “A child in sport stays out of court” and as long as our young ones do not dabble in drugs that would tend to be the case. 
If people who are involved in sport aim to be at the top end and are tempted to cheat we say that cheating is not allowed. If those people take stimulants of a prescribed nature that exaggerate their performance whether in training or in competition that is cheating—and they will be punished by the tribunal. The tribunal has a set of rules which it will uphold with integrity and honour. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 By popular demand I am back and I thank you Mr Chairperson for the call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill though my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber might regret having supported my call when I get to the substance of what I want to talk about. 
Let me start by saying that anything that sends a message that drug abuse in sport will not be tolerated has my support. Anything that sends a message that says that cheating will not be tolerated no matter under what guise has my support. But if ever there was legislation that did not need to come to this Chamber this is it. Let me articulate why I believe that. 
This bill will provide the legislative framework to facilitate New Zealand’s compliance with the World Anti-doping Code. That is a voluntary code but what would have happened had we not signed on to this? Let me tell the Committee that the perfect market effect would have taken place. Sportspeople cannot participate in elite sporting events anywhere in the world unless they abide by the code. To waste Parliament’s time legislating this is simply unnecessary. The real reason for doing it is that the Minister for Sport and Recreation wants to be able to tell the world that New Zealand was one of the first to sign on to the Unesco convention. A self-governing model was in place yet here we are at 9 o’clock on 25 October 2006 talking about this type of legislation. 
The other thing I want to refer to is information sharing which is something that throughout the course of the bill in the Government Administration Committee I felt rather strongly about. There is a conflicting message in what we are suggesting in the stamping out of drugs and in what we have decided to do as a committee. I respect the select committee process and I respect the fact that my arguments there were put and lost but there is still an opportunity to raise them in the course of this debate. 
“Evidence of a prohibitive drug in an athlete’s blood may be sufficient to affect the athlete’s rights under a sporting code but it is unlikely to be sufficient evidence for Police purposes.” That is what we have written in the commentary on the bill. I want to raise this objection and I want to raise it now. If we do not say to elite athletes that we will not tolerate their using class A drugs then however will we get the message out to the wider community that taking drugs in any guise is simply not acceptable? We have an agency that has now proudly changed its name to Drug Free Sport New Zealand yet at the same time the committee would not write into the legislation that it has no tolerance whatsoever of class A drugs. 
A high-profile example is the case of Wendell Sailor the Wallabies right-winger who was caught with a class A drug by his blood tests. The argument rages that that may not be enough reason for a conviction but for goodness’ sake does it not put the police on notice that there is a member of society a member of the wider community who is getting access to an illicit drug regardless of whether it is sports-enhancing? He was engaged—and he has now admitted it—in illegal activities. 
We have lost the opportunity as a Parliament to send out a very clear message that we object not only to drug cheating in sport but also to drug use full stop and that the full force of the law will be brought down upon those who engage in these types of activities. 
I realise that we do not want to prolong this debate but I want to take the opportunity to thank the select committee members for the way they have worked on this legislation. I also thank the advisers who came to the select committee and offered their assistance. Before I conclude I will reiterate the message about drugs. In order to set a precedent that says drug taking of any sort will not be tolerated we need to write it into our legislation when the opportunity presents itself and we need to be firm and walk the talk. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Darren Hughes 
: The athletic prowess himself. 
JOHN HAYES 
: The member for Otaki might laugh but I have been out every morning for weeks doing my 30 minutes Push Play. I say to that youthful member of this House who probably cannot remember back to the 1960s that at that time when I was young—[ 
Interruption 
]—yes I say to Ms Dalziel; about the same time as she was young—our parents had to demand that we come in from being outside. Today under this politically correct cringing administration we have trouble getting our kids to go outside. They are glued to the Internet they are glued to television— 
Martin Gallagher 
: It’s all Darren’s fault. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is—the bikie boy from Otaki. Because we are dealing with a leftist administration I suggest that we could find useful because we are supporting this bill together the words of Nelson Mandela who extolled the virtues of sport in the following way: “Sport is very important for building character”—the member might pass that on to the Prime Minister—“because when you’re involved in sport your individual character comes out your determination your ability to be part of the team and the acceptance of the collective effort is extremely important in developing your country as well as patriotism.” It is in this context that I want to reflect for half a minute on the issue of role models because they are extremely important to the development of our community. 
Over the last 20 years I have seen the development of commercial sport with people earning very very significant amounts of money. When they have finished with their sport having earned quite a lot of money they seem to move on to the entertainment industry where they earn more significant amounts of money. But there is a common denominator—drugs. I think the people who have found themselves tangled up in this way are very poor role models and that is why I welcome and my party welcomes this bill and supports the Labour Government in promoting it. I think that is a very important issue. 
As I said at an earlier stage of this bill sport is a thriving and vital part of our economy. We see it here in Wellington in the impact of sporting events at the Cake Tin. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The what? I thought the member came from the Wellington region. It’s not called that in the Wairarapa. 
JOHN HAYES 
: The Cake Tin yes. The member’s Wainuiomata ratepayers contributed as did mine in the Wairarapa. I think sport also helps project the nation on the international stage and I particularly welcome the activities of our yachtsmen who are competing in and preparing for the America’s Cup campaign. I think sport plays a significant role potentially in our international relations. 
The habits developed in childhood remain with us for life. Coming back to what I said at the beginning I think there are many reasons for the diminishing rate of participation in sport among children. A glimpse inside the average suburban home in the Wairarapa provides the clues: television computer games and the Internet. Our communities now—and I am talking particularly of the Wairarapa—have far more two-income families and single-parent families for whom getting children to and from sport is very difficult. I think we need as a community to address these issues. 
Let me refer now to the bill and in particular to Subpart 3 “Rules” in Part 2. Clause 16(4) states: “Before making a rule under this section the board must give national sporting organisations athletes and the Privacy Commissioner”—God help us—“a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.” Having the Privacy Commissioner involved is an example of political correctness. Then I refer to clause 17 and in particular to subclause (1) which states: “The following written material may be incorporated by reference in the rules: (a) standards requirements or recommended practices of the World Anti-Doping Agency:”. That is fair enough. Then that is repeated: “(b) the World Anti-Doping Agency’s International Standards:”. It strikes me that that is superfluous and unnecessary. Paragraph (c) states: “the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Models of Best Practice.” This is very poorly drafted legislation. 
Let me go on. Clause 18 “Effect of amendments to or replacement of material incorporated by reference in rules” states—work this lot out—“An amendment to or replacement of material incorporated by reference in the rules (the principal rules) has effect as part of the principal rules only if rules made after the making of the principal rules state that the particular amendment or replacement has that effect.” What is the Minister for Sport and Recreation up to here? This is gobbledegook—absolute nonsense with no meaning at all. And he is asking us to support it? For goodness’ sake he should get his drafting sorted out. 
Let us move on to clause 20 “Effect of expiry of material incorporated by reference” which states: “Material incorporated by reference in the rules that expires or is revoked or ceases to have effect ceases to have legal effect as part of the rules only if rules made under section 16 state that the material ceases to have legal effect.” I say to the people of this country that they are paying millions of dollars for bureaucrats to write this gibberish this absolute and utter nonsense. It hurts me to have to get up here and support this bill because I disapprove of this absolute nonsense that the Minister is promoting to us and to the people of New Zealand. 
Next I refer the Minister to clause 33 “Term of office of members of Tribunal” which states: “Except as provided in section 34 a member of the Tribunal holds office for a term not exceeding 5 years.” Well what is wrong with 3 years? We should keep it near to a parliamentary term because in that way we can keep a balance in appointment processes. 
Next is the real hole in the Minister’s legislation clause 43 “Privileges and immunities” which states: “(1) Witnesses appearing before the Tribunal have the same privileges and immunities as witnesses have in proceedings in a District Court. (2) Every counsel agent or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same privileges and immunities as counsel have in proceedings in a District Court.” If I were from another country such as China which exports dope and drugs and in particular sport-enhancing drugs I think I would put all my athletes on diplomatic passports because straight away the whole lot of them would be exempt from the Minister’s rules. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 My colleague has raised some very interesting issues. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and elucidate what he thinks will happen in terms of District Court rules applying to overseas athletes here in New Zealand and how that will be addressed. I commend yet again my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell for their sterling efforts at the Government Administration Committee to ensure we have something that we can at least manage to some degree. [ 
Interruption 
] What is the bleating over there from that member? He cannot even get himself to a select committee. 
In relation to this bill the issue of the sharing of information about positive drug tests has been raised a number of times in the House. I would like to share with members a report that came to the select committee with additional detail on the implications of amending the Sports Anti-Doping Bill to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand or the Sports Tribunal to share information with the police about the results of blood or urine tests if the test results indicate that an athlete has used a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to consider whether the bill should require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share drug-testing results with the police. These officials advised the select committee that Drug Free Sport New Zealand should not be required to share information about alleged criminal offences with the police the Customs Service or any other agencies. Under the bill Drug Free Sport New Zealand will not be prevented from sharing the information and the decision on whether to share it will be made on a case by case assessment. Drug Free Sport New Zealand will have the ability to share the information if it feels it is a serious issue. I know that my colleague Brian Connell was particularly concerned about this point. He took a very strong position on this and I commend him for that. 
The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to provide further advice on this issue and to canvass this matter with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and other interested agencies. They discussed the issue with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and perhaps he might like to take a call and explain his view. They also discussed it with Drug Free Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Police the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Ministry of Justice. Based on these discussions the view of the officials remained that it would be undesirable to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share with the police the results of blood and urine tests. It is good to reiterate this point to settle people’s minds about the reasoning for not including mandatory sharing of information. 
The World Anti-Doping Agency has a code that sets out a decision-making formula which can be found in some of the reports. When an athlete is subject to a doping test under the World Anti-Doping Code the blood or urine sample is divided into an “A” sample and a “B” sample. At step two in the diagram the “A” sample is where the sample has tested positive for a prohibited or specified substance under the code and for the purpose of this example has also tested positive for a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is what is in the “A” category. 
The Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials considered it was premature for Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share information about the test result with another agency at step two in the process because Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to review the testing process to ensure there had been no testing error—which can of course occasionally happen when there is a laboratory malfunction or there has been a confusion of the samples. Step two was also a point where Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to check whether the athlete had used the substance illegally or legally as a prescription medicine and where the athlete had not been given an opportunity to have the “B” sample tested. Also Drug Free Sport New Zealand is obliged under the World Anti-Doping Code not to publicly release the name of the athlete until after there has been an administrative review. That of course is all part of the process; it is actually step three. Drug Free Sport New Zealand would undertake an administrative review to see whether the athlete has a therapeutic-use exemption. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I support this Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is a great thing that we have a bill that really encapsulates what all of us must feel about the association of drugs with sport. I guess we have all seen examples of bodybuilders and weightlifters ruining their kidneys and falling victim to taking muscle-enhancing drugs. I do not know much about the drugs themselves but I do know the message that this bill is sending out to young people and young sportspeople in New Zealand. 
I understand that the bill will provide a framework that will allow New Zealand to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. So the spirit of the bill reaches out well beyond New Zealand shores and brings us into line with the thinking on drugs and sport throughout the world. It is good that the bill retains the former New Zealand Sports Drug Agency and renames it more aptly and more appropriately Drug Free Sport New Zealand. I support the very clear message that the renaming of this agency brings with it. This of course is the organisation responsible for the rules that reflect the code in New Zealand. It is good that the bill also retains the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand renaming it the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand which is fine. 
National sporting agencies will be able to adopt the rules as provided in the bill through the anti-doping policies. The bill outlines the functions of Drug Free Sport New Zealand which will include consultation with Government sporting organisations local authorities the New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc. national sporting organisations and any other bodies on any matters concerned with doping in sport. So it brings me to the point of wondering why the Minister responsible for drug policy is undermining the very spirit and intention of this bill by not clamping down on the sale of benzylpiperazine-based products which are drugs that are also freely available to our young people. 
 How can it be that within our Government we have one Minister who is promoting a Sports Anti-Doping Bill that sends all the right messages to our young people but within that very same Government we have another Minister who is also concerned with drug policy and the message that that drug policy sends to New Zealanders—a message that absolutely without doubt irrefutably undermines the very spirit of this bill? It makes me wonder what it will take for the “Minister of Drug Policy” the Hon Jim Anderton to get off his hands stop looking up at the ceiling stop travelling overseas stop sending funny messages out to farmers and finally do something about tightening the regulations around benzylpiperazine in New Zealand. It is an embarrassment for the Government. It is so embarrassing! I mean on the one hand Government members are going out there with the Sports Anti-Doping Bill saying that it is sending all the right messages to young people but on the other hand they are saying that people can go down to their dairies and buy benzylpiperazine-based products. Where is the consistency in our message on drugs in New Zealand? 
I can tell members that as far as the National Party is concerned our message is extremely consistent on drugs which is why we support this bill. I believe we should be sending one extremely clear message to our young people. Whether it is rugby hockey or drama they are involved in I do not care; the message we should be sending to them from this Parliament should be very clear and very simple. It is that all recreational drugs or mind-altering drugs are bad. But what is this Government sending out? With the Sports Anti-Doping Bill it is sending out one message —a very good message I say to the Minister—but in our drug policy and in the Misuse of Drugs Act it is sending out a completely different waffly “Oh I’m not quite sure if it’s bad and is it doing any harm?” message. I think that that is entirely wrong. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is interesting that the word “doping” was probably derived from the Dutch word “dope” which was an alcoholic drink made up of grape skins and used by Zulu warriors apparently. It made them pretty macho in battle. So that is a little bit of history about where the word “dope” came from many many centuries ago. 
The important thing is that performance enhancement through foreign substances—oh the Minister is going to get out the dictionary now. We will look forward to something from the “Mallard Concise Dictionary” shortly. 
The main thing is that for years and years there have been performance-enhancing drugs in sport. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Doop” was the word. 
NATHAN GUY 
: “Doop”? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes that was the Dutch word. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh I thought it was “dope”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No “doop”—d o o p. 
NATHAN GUY 
: OK I am using another dictionary from Holland. Anyway it is a small debating point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a derivative so to speak. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Thank you. Thanks for that. I will look forward to hearing a call from the Minister shortly. 
What is actually happening is that this legislation is a bit of a tidy-up as I look at it because the old legislation looks to be a little bit fragmented and haphazard. I think that now what the Government Administration Committee and the Minister are trying to do—which we are supporting—is actually to modernise the rules around this subject and in particular around professionalism. It is really a matter of having a level playing field. I think back to the days when I used to play a little bit of rugby—that is rugby to National Provincial Championship standard. I remember coming off the field from one particular game and seeing a colleague of mine being given a jar and having to do a urine sample there and then on the spot. So he went away to drink a whole lot of water— 
Brian Connell 
: That was Jerry’s problem. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh I am not sure about that. So this legislation will actually tidy up a few things that need to be done in order to move our sporting ethics into the modernised world. But I think the key thing with sport—and the Minister knows this being a bit of a sport buff and having a history of playing for the parliamentary rugby team. Unfortunately I do not think he will be putting on his boots next week for the golden oldies tournament will he? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I’m history. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Yes. That is actually a good comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In a rugby sense. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Yes. We will wait for 2008 or before to see whether that becomes true. 
The good thing about sport though is that it enables participation and I would hate to see this legislation stop people from playing sport. For a lot of rural and provincial areas around New Zealand it is extremely hard to attract people into our rugby clubs and sports clubs so the important thing with sport is actually to make sure that people are able to participate. 
I was pleased to see that the select committee did not want to refer to the police people who take some of these substances because that to me would seem a bit ludicrous. Someone may have to take a substance on the advice of a doctor. Pethidine or morphine are examples. It would seem stupid to refer that to the police because right now we have problems in our society and we need the police out there solving those problems. Notwithstanding that if a major drug ring were involved in sports then it should be referred to the police. 
I alert the Minister to new subclause (2A) of clause 30: “In recommending a person for appointment as a member of the Tribunal the Minister must have regard to the person’s personal attributes qualifications and skills.” There are a couple of people up in Horowhenua whom I think the Minister might like to consider. One of those of course is Dean Kent a fantastic swimmer who did extremely well in the Commonwealth Games of 2006 when he obtained a silver medal in the 200 metre individual medley in the pool. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You don’t think he might have a conflict at the moment? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Ah—not that I am aware of. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Being a current athlete? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh yes—fair enough. I was meaning in more futuristic terms. The other one whom I think in the future the Minister might want to have a look at is a great sporting icon from Horowhenua who is still playing a little bit. It is Carlos Spencer. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh we thought you were talking about you. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no not myself I have actually retired. It is Carlos Spencer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s he playing? 
NATHAN GUY 
: He is playing at the moment over in Northampton in England but he will be coming back to New Zealand at some stage soon. He got his first tattoo at the age of 15 while at Waiopehu College. So I say well done; it is a good bill and we support it. I look forward— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Say “Mr Chairman” and you can keep going. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Mr Chairman? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you are praising me you can keep going for another 5 minutes. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I look forward to the Minister taking a call because I think he needs to do so on a couple of things. One is the definition he has got out of his dictionary and the other is his talking about himself being history. I think it would be great if he could take a call and further explain that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I thank members for their contribution. I think it has been light-hearted and members who know my rugby history with the parliamentary rugby team will know that they are not losing too much through my not being there with the team although I will be thinking of them as they play. The member is absolutely right on the derivation of “dope”. It does come from the Dutch and the spelling is “doop”. We would probably have to consult with Mr Duynhoven to get the exact pronunciation later on. 
I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it has done on this bill. One point I would like to make is that although it was a spirited attack from Mr Hayes he was entirely wrong. International athletes will not be able to become exempted by having diplomatic passports because they will not appear through the system. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Parts 3 and 4 and clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 3 and 4 as amended schedules clause 1 and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Business Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Business Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. This is the third Business Law Reform Bill to come before the House. It is part of a programme of regular incremental reforms to improve our business laws. Most of the changes in the bill are not dramatic but improve the law in small ways. When those changes are taken together the bill will make a significant contribution to keeping our business laws efficient effective and up to date and will reduce unnecessary costs for business. 
The Business Law Reform Bill contains 60 clauses amending five business law statutes. It includes amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 the Companies Act 1993 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953 and two technical changes to the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988. 
As the explanatory note of the bill states most of the amendments are based upon suggestions from business law practitioners enforcements agencies and the business community itself. It was these practitioners and members of the business community as well as industry associations who took the time to make submissions on the bill to the Commerce Committee. I acknowledge their experience and thank them for their advice in getting the bill to this stage. 
Some of the changes the bill makes are purely technical and I do not want to discuss those. Instead I want to talk briefly about areas of the bill where significant changes to our business laws are being made. The first relates to financial reporting. The proposed changes to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 are aimed at generally improving the workability of the financial reporting system and reducing business compliance costs. In particular the bill will remove excessive compliance requirements on many small companies and overseas companies. Exempt company provisions are expanded to now include a two-out-of-three test: total assets of no more than $1 million and/or turnover of under $2 million and/or five or fewer fulltime-equivalent employees. I note from the select committee’s report that there has been some debate about clause 28 which allows for these thresholds to be amended by the Governor-General by Order in Council. I appreciate the select committee’s report. Basically as the specialist committee it has determined that the risk of proceeding with this provision would be minimal so I thank it for considering that matter and reporting back in that regard. 
The bill also includes a new exemption-making power that will empower the Accounting Standards Review Board to make exemptions from approved financial reporting standards. This is intended to be a safety-valve provision. The purpose of it is to recognise that on rare occasions international financial reporting standards may not always be fully applicable to New Zealand circumstances. This exemption power has been designed to be used very rarely if ever. Divergence between standards in different sectors can lead to lower levels of accountability and transparency and applicants will need to make very strong cases in order to obtain an exemption. The select committee in its report has drawn attention to the submissions that opposed the granting of the exemption-making power and I know that the Accounting Standards Review Board was one of those. I appreciate the detail with which the select committee has both considered and responded to the concerns that were raised by the Accounting Standards Review Board and others. I accept its reasoning in rejecting those submissions and pursuing what is indeed intended to be a transparent process. 
One of the key aims of the bill is to reduce compliance costs resulting from administrative procedures. In this regard the bill also proposes to exempt some overseas companies from some of the reporting requirements imposed on those companies registered under the Companies Act. Changes are also proposed that are aimed at reducing the cost of distributing reports to shareholders. Companies will inform shareholders that the annual report can be obtained in hard copy or electronically. 
I think though that the most important change in this legislation—one that I believe will help shareholders have a clear understanding of what it is that is being reported to them—is the ability for companies to offer shareholders concise annual reports more suited to the needs of ordinary investors and not requiring legal or accounting advice to interpret what in many instances are much more complex statements. 
Currently inactive companies are required to file financial statements with the Registrar of Companies that contain little or no new information. The bill removes these filing requirements for inactive companies. It will also improve enforcement by introducing an infringement notice system for company directors who fail to file their company’s financial statements with the Registrar of Companies by the due date. This will have a significant deterrent effect in my view and ensure that financial statements are indeed filed on time. 
Proposed changes to the Companies Act 1993 further improve enforcement by extending the management and director banning provisions to persons who have been banned in certain overseas jurisdictions. Together with the exemptions of some overseas companies from some of the filing requirements imposed on overseas companies registered under the Companies Act these changes will improve the trans-Tasman business environment and promote single economic market agenda objectives between New Zealand and Australia. 
 The bill also proposes to prohibit entities incorporated or established in New Zealand from using the word “insurance” or other similar terms in their names or from holding out overseas that they are New Zealand insurers when they are not in fact carrying on insurance business in New Zealand. There are now automatic exemptions to this proposed ban for insurance workers and industry associations; both groups submitted on the bill and actually fall outside the objective we had intended to meet with this legislation. This change to the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act is to prevent entities from representing that they are supervised under New Zealand’s insurance regulatory regime when they are not and is necessary to prevent potential damage to New Zealand’s reputation internationally through companies behaving in that way. 
The changes to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 provide some of changes that have been long awaited. However substantive reform still awaits the review of financial products and providers that is currently in the market for consultation. 
In conclusion although the bill deals with a range of amendments the amendments are united by the aim of keeping our business laws up to date clear efficient and effective. The changes will help business by removing unnecessary compliance costs. I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering this bill—I actually believe they were quite outstanding—and again acknowledge the contributions of those who provided submissions on the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 That passionate delivery by the Minister of Commerce just shows the excitement and big dreams she has for the business community. Actually the Minister’s delivery reflected very fairly the way she treated the recommendations that came from the Small Business Advisory Group. It asked for courageous bold steps such as relief for small business from the terrible employment situation where employers are too scared to employ inexperienced workers and give them a chance. It asked for a 3-month trial period for new employees but what did this Minister deliver? Nothing. Instead she announced in the bill today just small incremental steps to improve the business environment. Even though the Commerce Committee is a hard-working committee I must admit that its members felt a bit underwhelmed by this legislation. None the less any improvement for the business environment will be welcomed by National and we fully support this bill. 
I want to touch on two subjects that are quite interesting. The first subject is in regard to the provision that allows the Accounting Standards Review Board to make an exemption for certain entities not to comply with a financial reporting standard. Some of the submitters particularly chartered accounting firms put up objections to that. I was not surprised because the accounting profession has a high degree of integrity. It is very nervous about making exemptions; it wants one standard for all. 
Our recent champion with a high profile was the Auditor-General Mr Kevin Brady who believed absolutely that there should be one standard. He should be “Sir Kevin Brady” and we should bring back the honours system for him for insisting on one high standard for Labour. No political party should use parliamentary funding for electioneering purposes. 
Arguments about the same type of standard were put to the Commerce Committee by submitters from chartered accounting firms. They were very nervous and said they did not believe that exemptions should be granted in that case. The Commerce Committee took their concerns to heart. We debated long and hard and ultimately accepted that the risk was really small so we went along with the provision. But I want to acknowledge the high integrity of the chartered accountants who in their submissions said that a standard should be set at a high level and that compliance should be enforced at all times. 
The second subject is in regard to the relaxation of the rules governing credit unions. This is another interesting story. The Minister was right; these amendments are long overdue. In fact relaxation of the rules governing credit unions was promised by one Hon Jim Anderton before Kiwibank was established. The credit unions met with the Hon Jim Anderton and he actually hinted that the rules would be relaxed for them and that they could in fact take on banking functions. The credit unions were promised but it did not happen. They were very disappointed when they brought their concerns to me which was about 2 years ago. So we are happy to see these amendments at long last but I am afraid to inform the Hon Jim Anderton that that is another broken promise. He raised the expectation of the credit unions many years ago that there would be a relaxation in their operation but it was not delivered. The whole package has not been delivered even today. Labour Ministers do not aim for a huge improvement so National has now learnt that it is obliged to support any small concession that Labour is prepared to make towards improvements for the business community. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I will start by saying that anything that reduces compliance costs for my constituents has my support albeit what has been suggested in this legislation is rather superficial. The Minister in her introductory remarks told us that the Business Law Reform Bill is an omnibus bill that makes a number of changes to commercial legislation as suggested by Government officials and lawyers. That is an oxymoron if ever I have heard one. 
Government officials and lawyers are the sorts of people who in my experience perpetuate compliance and have a vested interest in making sure that it is not reduced. If the Minister wants to rely on that quality of advice I say to her that it is no wonder she has problems intellectualising what needs to be done to reduce compliance costs across New Zealand. The Minister went on to outline a number of amended Acts and she pointed out that the Companies Act 1993 the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act the Financial Reporting Act 1993 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953 had been amended. I have to say that they are all worthy changes albeit relatively minor in the scale of things. The two that are most noteworthy are firstly the Companies Act where directors banned overseas will be banned in New Zealand and that makes sense. The bill goes on to say that it will remove filing requirements for foreign companies if information is supplied to the home regulator and provides an option of electronic accounts for shareholders. They are sensible amendments and of course we support those. Secondly the Financial Reporting Act 1993 is amended to provide for the removal of unnecessary reporting requirements and to increase the eligibility for small businesses to have minimal filing responsibilities. 
I am pleased to say that the Minister has taken heed of two things that were concerning business people across the country and they are probably the two items that business people advised the Minister of as opposed to Government officials and lawyers. Let us have a look at some of the more substantive issues not addressed in this bill. The first thing that comes to mind is the correlation between lawyers and the Resource Management Act. Am I the only one who has noticed in the last 10 years the huge explosion of legal practices that have developed based solely on the Resource Management Act? The Minister said in the House that she has taken advice from lawyers who have been telling her how compliance costs could be reduced. Lawyers who have practices substantially based on the Resource Management Act have a vested interest in making sure that the Resource Management Act continues unabridged in its most complex form. It is rather naive of the Minister to think that she can rely on their advice. 
This Government has increased 40 different taxes fees and levies since taking office and a further four are proposed. And the Minister says that she is serious about reducing compliance costs! The Business New Zealand latest publication  
Regulation Perspectives 
 calculates that over 2000 new regulations have been introduced since 1999. I know that the member from New Zealand First will probably take a call after me. He has a habit of quoting things I have said so I hope he gets it right. Two thousand new regulations have been introduced since 1999. Many of these regulations affect businesses and the average cost to each firm was $53000 in 2005 which is an increase of nearly 17 percent up from $43200 in 2003. 
The issues addressed in the Al Dunn report in 1999-2000 are the critical issues that the Minister should have addressed in this bill but did not. The Al Dunn report highlighted 162 compliance issues that were of such importance the Government needed to take heed of them. 
Pansy Wong 
: And this is for only minor issues! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Pansy Wong points out that this bill is for only minor issues. I am sorry; I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought it was a bill that would reduce the costs of compliance per se. 
 Of the 162 items that the Al Dunn report highlighted 143 of those said tax the Resource Management Act Occupational Safety and Health and industrial relations are the four critical issues that the Government has to come to terms with. So I read the bill carefully I looked for the components that were going to deal with tax the Resource Management Act Occupational Safety and Health and industrial relations and I am sad to have to report to the House that they have not been addressed. That explains I say to Pansy Wong why the Minister when she took her call did so in a very dispirited way. She mumbled and murmured into her microphone because she knew that the acid test of this bill would be in the detail and that when the business people whom she did not consult sat down and read this bill they would be terribly terribly disappointed. 
I leave the House with just one quick example of why compliance costs and red tape in this country have got out of control. I suggest to the New Zealand First member that if he is ever down in Hinds there is good little hotel there called the Hinds Pub surprisingly enough. I was in there speaking to constituents and a drink was forced on me. I was having a conversation with a chap who said: “Five years ago I relied on the dole to maintain my livelihood but that was leading me nowhere. So I started a business cutting firewood and have been doing that job for 5 years Mr Connell.” He was one of the respectful constituents I have. “But today I am extremely annoyed because when I got home this evening before I came down to the pub I got a letter form OSH saying that in order to pursue my chosen career I had to get a certificate that demonstrated that I knew how to use the chainsaw that I have been using for the last 5 years.” That certificate was going to cost him 250 bucks. And do members know what he said? He said: “I feel like throwing it all away.” Actually that is the polite way of saying it. What he actually said was: “I feel like taking my chainsaw to Wellington and dealing with the bureaucrats and your colleagues up there who think that this type of legislation is sensible.” 
Nowhere in this legislation do I see anything that has come to grips with those concerns that drive hard-working business people across this country to distraction. With that contribution I conclude. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the Business Law Reform Bill. In doing so I have to say that New Zealand First has never been in favour of increasing compliance costs taxation or any of those sorts of things. The two big parties in New Zealand have increased taxes and done all of those things perfectly well for many many years without our assistance. New Zealand First has a record of voting for tax reductions and we will continue to do so into the future. I will talk a little bit about reducing compliance costs and a little bit about the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act for just a short period—in general terms I might add—then I am happy to leave it to other speakers. 
Before I do that for those who preach doom and gloom whether it is in New Zealand or anywhere else in the Western economies people like Brian Connell and others who are well versed in these things and whose business expertise I respect will tell them that around the Western World and in New Zealand businesses across the board—not small businesses I might tell members—are getting bigger and better and wealthier day by day. That is not always for producing the same things—the right things—or for exporting which New Zealand First favours. Often they are importing companies and financial companies. New Zealand First certainly believes in incentivising the tax system for companies—we have said that consistently—and businesses in the racing industry are some that come to mind. 
I will talk about compliance costs. We in New Zealand First believe that compliance costs should be reduced. We are certainly not in favour of extra regulation and the sorts of occupational safety and health things that Mr Connell talked about but those things are coming in. However we are in favour of reducing compliance costs where we can. 
I will talk just for a minute about dumping and countervailing duties. In this country unfortunately we have come into the situation where we are importing just about everything we use mainly from Asian countries such as China and India. Those countries have excessively low wages and excessively high inputs from their Governments—in the case of China it is a communist Government at that—yet those countries can still get their products into New Zealand. We talk about anti-dumping legislation and countervailing duty legislation that we do not use but we should be using these sorts of mechanisms to ensure that at least to some degree our manufacturers and exporters have more of an opportunity. 
I was in Australia just a little while ago— 
Craig Foss 
: How were the apples? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I will not talk about apples but Australians are pretty good at keeping our apples out of their country and at protecting theirs. But more interesting was a place called—now I have forgotten the name of it— 
Craig Foss 
: “Appleville”. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No it was where the tornadoes went through and wrecked the banana plantations down on the Queensland coast. The Prime Minister of Australia no less promised the banana growers that the Australian Government would not import bananas from other countries because it would hold the faith with the banana growers of Australia. It would hold faith let the prices rise and would not import bananas from Fiji South America or anywhere else. The price of bananas when I was over there was $14 a kilogram—huge! 
Brian Connell 
: That was the last week’s special. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I know that it is last week’s special and I know that it is last week’s news. But if we are going to talk about business business costs and countervailing duties then we need to talk about what the Australians do compared with what we do here in New Zealand. In Australia—as New Zealand First would advocate—the Government looks after its businesses. My goodness gracious me does it look after its businesses or what! 
In New Zealand if we had sectors of our manufacturing areas or our farming areas wiped out the stuff would come flooding in from any country in the world at the cheapest price possible and to heck with the local producers. But not in Australia. John Howard himself got up and promised the banana farmers that as they had had a reversal of circumstances and an act of God had come through and destroyed their crops the Government would hold the faith with them and would not import bananas in competition with theirs. The price would rise so that for the few bananas the growers had they could receive a high dollar which in some way would compensate for the losses they had had. 
We in New Zealand First believe that that is a sensible way and it is indeed a way of looking after industries in one’s own country. New Zealand First is happy to support this bill. It goes some way towards attending to the problems that we have in our industries but not nearly far enough as far as we are concerned. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 There will be no bananas or any other fruit cakes or anything like that in my speech which will take a quick few moments. Yes National is supporting the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill. I thank the Minister and the Commerce Committee as well because I think they did listen to some amendments. But I want to pick up on one point that my colleague Pansy Wong alluded to. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.