Volume 622 Week 76 - Thursday 9 December 2004 
Volume 622 Week 76 - Thursday 9 December 2004 
[Volume:622;Page:17621] 
Thursday 9 December 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House I will be moving urgency for the following business to be debated: the remaining stages of the Aquaculture Reform Bill the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill; all first readings on the Order Paper; the introduction and first reading of the Prisoners and Victims Compensation Bill; the Government notice of motion relating to the setting up of the special select committee to review the constitution; and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and possibly the Identity Citizenship and Travel Documents Bill. The Law Society has requested that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be done under urgency next week. If the above business is concluded the adjournment debate will be moved. The motion will include the House sitting dates for 2005. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House tell members whether he is saying that the adjournment debate will be included in the urgency motion. Further can he indicate for how long he would expect a bill like the Aquaculture Reform Bill to consume the House’s time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I would imagine that bill would take the longest of the list of matters on the Order Paper that I have outlined. It is a matter for obviously the House in Committee and the Chairs of the Committee how long the debate will take. It is very largely also in the hands of the Opposition. But now that the Opposition is committed to 4 weeks’ annual holiday I am sure it would be keen to finish next week. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Leader of the House when the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) will be coming up because I note that we are now past the third anniversary of the interrupted debate on the second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. There is a convention that the leading Opposition spokesperson asks questions on behalf of the Opposition. If the member wants a question asked I am sure that if he approached Mr Brownlee Mr Brownlee could encompass that question. I did that often when I had that particular role when I was in Opposition. That is my ruling and that is the way it stands. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does raise an interesting point. How can the interests of the minor parties under an MMP Parliament be represented in the regime that you have just outlined? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order very briefly I say that there is no requirement at all for any questions to be allowed of the Leader of the House on the business statement. That itself is only a matter of convention and courtesy effectively on the part of the Government. Certainly I think it would become ridiculous if we had a round robin of every party in the House asking questions about items on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are doing this by leave of the House. Technically we should not be doing it. It has always been a tradition that we do it. I suggest that if members want to change the rules they have a Standing Orders Committee that sits and it can change the rules. But I am required to have the rules adhered to. 
Questions to Ministers 
China—OECD Seminar 
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What explanation if any has he received from the Chinese Government as to why it postponed an OECD seminar on raising labour standards in China and stopped CTU president Ross Wilson visiting China to talk with Chinese union leaders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have seen a number of explanations which seem to focus on logistical problems that China has advanced for postponing the planned OECD seminar which is actually on socially responsible investment not labour standards. I am told that the visas were issued for the purpose of attending the seminar and were cancelled when the seminar was postponed but that Mr Wilson would be welcome to apply for another visa should he wish to go to China for any other reason. 
Rod Donald 
: Does he agree with Ross Wilson that the actions taken by the Chinese Government raise serious questions as to whether it was willing even to discuss labour standards and does it not appear that the position of the Chinese Government is that there should be no constraints on or standards for any company operating in China those being two points that Mr Wilson made in his press release about his visa being revoked? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Given that the seminar is not cancelled but postponed one assumes that all the issues that were on the agenda for the meeting in December will now be on the agenda for whenever the meeting may take place early next year. In terms of labour standards for example I am aware that in the joint study New Zealand entered into on the free-trade agreement with China both sides acknowledge the importance of the International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the basic rights and principles underlying it. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Is it the Government’s policy to promote labour standards when negotiating trade agreements? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes under the Labour-led Government this country has sought to promote and improve labour standards in all of our recent trade negotiations. Arrangements on labour and for that matter on the environment have been negotiated for example as part of the closer economic partnership with Thailand. That includes undertakings on both sides to ensure that labour and environmental practices are in accord with international obligations such as those set out by the International Labour Organization. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why in addressing the inaugural China trade awards last night did the Prime Minister mention every issue surrounding the free-trade agreement being negotiated in Beijing this week—that is every issue except labour standards and human rights issues—and was her reason for ignoring them in her speech last night that Labour faces particular problems with its union supporters over those issues? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was not at the awards so I cannot say what the Prime Minister did or did not mention in her speech. But what I can say is that everybody in this country understands that this Labour-led Government puts a high priority on labour and environmental standards. That is why they are always part of the negotiations we have on closer economic partnerships and free-trade agreements. 
Dail Jones 
: Why should any New Zealand worker or employer have any faith in this minority Labour Government’s ability to negotiate decent labour standards for New Zealand workers during the course of a free-trade agreement discussion and arrangement with China when the president of the New Zealand of Council Trade Unions has been barred from entering China for very obvious reasons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I explained to the House before the withdrawal of visas was general not specific to Mr Wilson. The visas were withdrawn from all of those intending to go to the seminar given the fact that the seminar was postponed. As to the first question—why workers would have confidence in this Government—the Minister of Labour could rattle off a whole series of bills most of them opposed by the New Zealand First Party and the National Party that have improved labour standards in New Zealand. That is why they would have confidence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How is it that Mr Ross Wilson who was too far left to be granted access to Communist China apparently had free access to the Government lobby under this Government’s administration—to the point where he was recently reprimanded for being invited into the Government lobby of this House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure that if the Chinese Government knew Ross Wilson as well as we on the Government side of the House know him it would be more than happy to invite him anywhere on any occasion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was too much comment made while that last question was being asked. Members may comment while answers are given but not while questions are being asked. 
Rod Donald 
: Exactly what assurances has he received from the Chinese Government that trade unionists such as Ross Wilson will be able to have free and frank discussions with their Chinese counterparts if they ever get to visit China given that China refuses to ratify the ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand clearly does have different labour standards and principles including the principles of free association when compared with China. Part of the dialogue we have with the Chinese Government is of course on promoting those principles of free association and free discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Minister no memory of New Zealand First for a start supporting the minimum pay rates 4 weeks’ holiday and the raising of redundancy as a priority to name just three— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This is irrelevant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No the member is irrelevant and always has been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber. I gave a warning. That person will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister any memory of New Zealand First supporting for example the minimum pay rates 4 weeks’ holiday and the raising of redundancy as a priority with respect to contracts and having regard to that how is it that he has no sense of conscience that a New Zealand worker can be supplanted by 18 Chinese workers for a lesser pay rate in total? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I do not have any memory of the New Zealand First Party supporting those pieces of legislation perhaps it was that I was overwhelmed by the memory of the New Zealand First Party supporting the National Party in Government when it enacted anti-worker legislation. With regard to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is again a nonsense. It is not correct. There never was a National Government from 1996 on; after that time it was a coalition. The Minister should be brought to order or told to leave the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I often wonder if the honourable gentleman was Speaker whether he would then be able to confront some of the difficulties of his own questions and requests. As far as the Minister is concerned he was not answering the question. I now suggest that he come to the actual question concerned. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Having addressed the first part of the question I shall now address the second part. This is not about Chinese workers supplanting New Zealand workers. The free-trade agreement study with the Chinese indicates that the agreement will increase the level of trade with China by between $260 million and $400 million a year for 20 years. That is necessary to create literally tens of thousands of jobs. New Zealanders will benefit from that. That is why we are entertaining such an agreement. 
Keith Locke 
: Which is the real Government policy towards repressive regimes: the policy outlined by Michael Cullen last week which was essentially that more intimate and closer relations will help progressive forces to achieve democracy or the traditional position of Helen Clark that it was a combination of economic and political pressures that brought about the downfall of the apartheid regime in South Africa? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is working from the exception and trying to make that the norm. Yes Labour certainly supported sanctions gainstapartheid South Africa. That was supported by the United Nations General Assembly had overwhelming support around the world and had the effect that was intended. We do not have a policy of general sanctions against countries with policies that we may disagree with in a number of fields. If we had that policy of course we would be trading with very few countries. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those earlier answers will the Minister tell us how the negotiations are going in terms of New Zealand getting a proportionate share of the shipping that will bring all that trade back and forth between China and New Zealand or is the Government a total supporter of slave labour doing the job? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is very hard to report progress on any particular aspects since I think the negotiations started today. But no this Government is in support of all the ILO standards. We have consistently promoted those in relation to what we do internally and also in the agreements that we try to reach with other countries on trading matters. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Labour Government negotiating a preferential trade deal with a country that refuses to ratify core ILO standards such as the freedom to organise and the abolition of child labour slave labour and prison labour a country that has invaded Tibet and persecutes its people and a country that kills people who speak up for democracy—or does the Government have no bottom line? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government has consistently addressed the sorts of concerns that the member has mentioned in respect of the whole range of countries with which it has relationships. It has never said that we have to agree with what countries do in order to be able to trade with them. For example if we were to stop trading with the country under discussion China which is our fourth-largest trading partner that would have massive implications for employment for revenue and for social standards in this country and that member would be the first one in the House to condemn us. 
Trade and Enterprise—Grant Recovery 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: Does he intend to recover some of the $47 million handed out in grants by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise where those grants have been shown to be in breach of the Cabinet guidelines; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 In the style of the Tui advertisements I am inclined to say: “Yeah right!” but in the Christmas spirit I will address the question. As Minister for Industry and Regional Development I do not believe that money should be recovered that was received in good faith by hard-working companies that did not themselves break any rules or criteria for assistance. In terms of the process however the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General has recommended that in considering what action should be taken with regard to a grant for which the documentation has not been adequately kept or if there is some disagreement about the interpretation of Cabinet guidelines the following issues should be taken into account: the substantiveness of any breach; whether the application was made and the grant received in good faith; and following approval by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise whether the recipient may have incurred costs based upon the assumption that the application met the required criteria. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wanted to give a longer answer he should have asked me previously and I could have advised the House. That answer was too long. All other answers are to be very brief. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister telling the House that his Government is so awash with cash taxed out of the pockets of hard-working and enterprising New Zealanders that he considers the flawed spending of some $20 million as a trifling issue that requires no action whatsoever? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No the Government is telling the House what businesses and regional agencies all over the country are telling the Government and I quote from a regional economic development agency this morning: “It is all positive and this support for business is part of the reason the New Zealand economy is going so well.” 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Did the Auditor-General find any instances where money for grants given out by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise could not be accounted for? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No absolutely not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If this economy is going so well why are we facing the worst balance of payments deficit in this country’s history? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think the Minister of Finance would say—and we would support him—firstly that the economy is going so well which is why it is growing so rapidly and secondly that a good part of what we now owe overseas is used for productive capital investment and not for paying for the groceries. 
Jill Pettis 
: Did the Auditor-General find any suggestions of misappropriation or deliberate undermining of Government policies in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise staff in handling grants and grant applications? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Again no absolutely not. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister been asked by the Prime Minister to provide an explanation to Cabinet about how his department breached Cabinet guidelines in spending taxpayers’ money and will he be providing an explanation to his Cabinet colleagues about how his department breached Cabinet guidelines and kept no paperwork to determine whether in fact in many instances the guidelines were adhered to; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My ministry is the Ministry of Economic Development. It is not in any way associated with the Auditor-General’s report in terms of these grants and the administration of them. But New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is a Government agency and it is that agency that the Auditor-General has audited. I have of course kept my Cabinet colleagues informed and they know that this agency is dedicated to growing the New Zealand economy and to the well-being of New Zealanders. It has been extraordinarily successful. I would challenge anyone in the Opposition who wants to go into the next election saying that he or she will abandon economic development policies regional development policies and the agencies we have created to do that job. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that my “if not why not” may have been a third question but the specific question was whether the Minister had been asked for a “please explain” from the Prime Minister. Nowhere in his answer did he answer that. Is that the assumption that he has been asked to explain? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked three questions and the Minister addressed at least two of them. If the member wants only one questioned answered then he should ask only one question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he think it appropriate that New Zealand taxpayers should have been expected to stump up with $2617 for two people to stay at the Tongariro Lodge and fish for 2 days; if so what was the direct benefit to the New Zealand economy of that apart from the expenditure itself? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Mr Brownlee is about a year behind the times. That was actually Brunswick Corporation and it was looked at very carefully about a year ago. Nevertheless the reality is that that corporation is one of the largest in the world. It came in a joint venture with Navman New Zealand Ltd invested $100 million in New Zealand created hundreds of jobs and connected Navman to world global markets that will assist the development of our economy in a way that National-led Governments only dreamt of—or not even that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What hypocritical double standards apply where $85 of expenditure on underpants is to be regarded as revolting and sleaze yet tens of billions of dollars being robbed from the taxpayer under this Minister’s tutelage is OK? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I know of no evidence or even accusation that tens of millions of dollars from the taxpayer have been in any way misappropriated. This is about a process about documentation. It is not about the effectiveness of the programmes or their objectives or the results they are achieving for the New Zealand economy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If Brunswick Corporation had $100 million to invest in New Zealand as the Government indicated in a previous answer what on earth was the taxpayer doing paying for accommodation and holiday expenses? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member had had any semblance of connection with business development in his whole lifetime he would know that businesses invest money in order to gain development opportunities and that is what this Government has done. In fact it is working very very well. That is why the member is on that side of the House and is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to accept that as addressing the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am and the member is not going to dispute my ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker the Standing Orders do point out the specifics of how a question should be answered. For the Minister to stand and in some sort of lecturing manner suggest that we need to subscribe totally to his view of how business should be done in this country is I think unacceptable. It was a simple question. He told us this outfit had $100 million to invest here. We just want to know why it is that the taxpayer had to pay their accommodation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a simple question. The Minister gave a relatively complicated answer. That is not out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister been asked by the Prime Minister to explain how it was that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise came to be spending taxpayers’ money in breach of Cabinet guidelines with it being unable to be determined as to whether it was within or outside of Cabinet guidelines and will he be doing so? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The direct answer is no but the indirect answer in brief is that this Government works on the basis of consultation and full disclosure at all times and no surprises. I have always briefed the Prime Minister and I did so on this occasion about the Auditor-General’s report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does New Zealand Trade and Enterprise not monitor the success of grants beyond 12 months and what confidence can taxpayers have that their money is being well spent when New Zealand Trade and Enterprise does not even know whether the companies that receive the grants succeeded or failed? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Economic Development has a full evaluation and monitoring programme in place for the effectiveness of these grants. The Auditor-General’s report deals with process; it does not deal with effectiveness. I would have thought that Opposition members in the House would have been interested in the effectiveness of these not in whether every “i” was dotted and every “t” was crossed. 
Holidays Act—Implementation 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has he received any reports on the implementation of the Holidays Act 2003? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: Yes he has seen reports that the Act is shambolic and that a fourth week of annual leave is “a massive cost to New Zealand employers and workers”. Those comments were made by Don Brash 3½ months ago. Dr Brash also committed National to repealing the Act “once we are in office”. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on the Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes because he has to keep up with these things almost day by day. The Minister has now seen reports stating that Dr Brash supports keeping the entitlement to a fourth week of leave. As we approach the summer recess it is clear that National is in a state of free-falling flip-flop flap. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why does the Government not allow workers to freely negotiate with employers to either work the fourth week—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not ever going to have anyone in the gallery at any stage participating in the proceedings of this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was him—David Benson-Pope. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was the member displaying a sign during the asking of a question? Was the member doing that? He will leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Benson-Pope withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I will start again. Why does the Government not allow workers to freely negotiate to either work the fourth week or take it as leave given that the entire cost of the additional fourth week will be reflected in lower wages than otherwise would be the case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For exactly the same reason. Throughout history there has always been a need for statutory minima because the member’s notion of what is freely negotiated often does not apply to some workers. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost to the health sector alone is $18 million to $20 million; and what is the total cost to the public sector of the Holidays Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A variety of estimates has been used and in fact there is no reliable estimate at this stage in terms of the health sector. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In respect of a small business who does the Minister think will end up paying for that extra week and what is his estimate of the cost to small businesses in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the end of the day the cost of any change such as this is spread across the entire economy not in the particular area where it falls. 
Taxation—Increases in Household Total Tax 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What has been the dollar increase in total tax including indirect taxes paid by the average household in the 4 years since the 1999-2000 financial year and what does this increase equate to when adjusted for inflation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Subject to the quite large technical difficulties of working out what private households pay as opposed to anybody else the average tax including GST has increased by $5200. The increase after inflation is $2910. 
Rodney Hide 
: Following the Minister’s answer to oral question No. 7 on Tuesday 7 December can he confirm that that means the average household has in real terms after direct tax become no better off in the last 4 years yet the same household is in real terms paying an extra $3200 to the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The numbers the member has just given are different from the numbers that I just gave. But no I cannot confirm that because the social wage has also increased and spending on health and education has risen faster than general income growth. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further warnings. I tell whips to control their members. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think he is treating the New Zealand public even-handedly when on the one hand he is prepared to come into the House and pass legislation to index petrol taxes but on the other hand he is not prepared to index income-tax bands; and is that just a case of what is good for the goose is somehow not good for the gander? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is probably the wrong week to be dealing with issues of gender identity in that particular respect. The difficulty with non-indexation of the petrol excise duty is that it declines in real terms whereas demand for roading increases. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Minister risk giving the impression that he likes being the beneficiary of inflation by refusing to adjust the tax brackets for movements in the cost of living when that is what UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has done; and might we see some change of heart any time soon? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My good friend Mr Gordon Brown certainly has done that but he has also significantly increased the tax take as a proportion of GDP by a variety of other measures which I have not. 
Whakaaratamaiti Marae—Lottery Grants Board Funding 
5.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What evidence does the Department of Internal Affairs have of reported allegations that Lottery Grants Board funding given to Whakaaratamaiti Marae has been misspent given that it has begun an investigation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Department of Internal Affairs has investigated the allegations and has laid a complaint with police. 
Tariana Turia 
: Was the Lottery Grants Board notified of the concerns that the department had about its funding of the marae and was it notified that an investigation was in progress; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: When the Department of Internal Affairs learnt of the allegations it started to investigate them. It has now passed that information on to the police so that the allegations can be fully investigated. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. He addressed it. The member may have another supplementary. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister inform the House why Mike Jarvis a senior investigator with the Department of Internal Affairs is conducting this investigation through the media and discussing these allegations with the police when the investigations have not been completed and why is he being allowed to deviate from the usual procedures required for investigations? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The media asked whether there was an investigation. The department investigated and has handed the information over to the police. What the media do is not part of the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Confidence 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What confidence does he have in the council and chief executive of Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I have an expectation that councils of tertiary educational institutions operate prudently and in the public interest. My confidence in this council will depend very much upon its cooperation with the Tertiary Education Commission to demonstrate the amount of learner engagement in the online computing programme and its ability to restore the public reputation of the institution. Confidence in the chief executive is a matter for the council. I would expect that in assessing the performance of the chief executive the council would take into account a range of aspects of his management of the academic and administrative affairs of the institution. 
Hon Bill English 
: What action does the Minister propose to take in the light of public statements made by the chief executive on behalf of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology that the institution believes that the Government’s proposal to withhold money is not lawful and that it intends to legally contest the Minister’s actions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Of course in the process of answering questions in this House it is not in my competence within the Standing Orders to give legal opinions but I understand that letters have been exchanged between the Tertiary Education Commission and the institution as the member would probably have expected. My understanding is that the commission stands by its decision and intends to have the courses evaluated. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister have the power to terminate the appointment of council members? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. The Minister appoints only four members of a full council of between 12 and 20 members. The Minister has no power to terminate the appointment of any council member including the ministerial appointees. I would note that the power to terminate the appointment of ministerial appointees was only ever proposed in the tertiary white paper of November 1998. I can imagine the views of the tertiary sector if Mr English intends to revive that proposal. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Minister have confidence in an organisation that continues to employ Ms Vicki Buck whose private company received $5.5 million for the COOL IT programme after she has made public statements that as a shareholder in that company she expects a dividend from it which would represent private gain from the holding of public office? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will be aware that his own efforts to have the Auditor-General inquire into that matter and the efforts of the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology resulted in a report which he has already discussed. We have asked and answered questions back and forth across the House on that matter. In relation to confidence in the organisation I answered that question fully in the first answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister advise the House under which legislation he intends to withhold funding from the tertiary institution for legitimate courses that have been fully certified and supported by the Government; and does this precedent mean that he will start withholding funding from any tertiary institution when he does not like what it does? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not intend to take the member’s advice—to sit at my desk and run the tertiary system as he says he will. Can I advise the member— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I answered the second part of the question and if the member will be quiet I will answer the first part now. It is normal business practice in both the public and private sectors where a funder does not have cooperation from a recipient of funds to offset a disputed amount against a subsequent payment. The commission’s monthly payments to institutions regularly include what is called a wash-up—both negative and positive—to reflect overs and unders that occur in the normal operational relationship between the two parties. What we are saying here is that the commission is operating in a perfectly reasonable and normal manner and will continue to do so. 
Prisons—Capacity 
7.  
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps have been taken to increase the capacity of the prison system to cater for increasing numbers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have announced this week the addition of a further 240 prison beds in Wanganui Christchurch and Rimutaka. Those are on top of 213 new prison beds announced last month bringing a total of 453 extra beds to be available by 2006. Four new prisons are also on track to open over the next 3 years increasing capacity by a further 1500 beds. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Why has there been increased demand for prison capacity when police statistics show a reduction of 18 percent in the crime rate since it peaked under the National Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is a good question because crime is down 18 percent from its peak under the National Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member might not believe that but he has to believe the Commissioner of Police who produces those statistics. There are two reasons why there has been increasing demand. The first is that in line with the 92 percent support for the referendum measures on crime in 1999 this Government has delivered on its undertaking to have tougher laws on bail parole and sentencing. These figures are proof of that. Secondly the police are better resourced than before. They have massively increased their crime resolution rate and as those people are apprehended and convicted they find their way into the prison system if they are serious and recidivist offenders. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister of Corrections agree with the view of the Public Service Association’s national organiser that “Salaries continue to be a major impediment to prison officer recruitment.”; if he does agree with that statement when is it planned to hike the pay of prison staff? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is really curious hearing the National Party demand that there be an increase in wages; that Government spent its whole career trying to drive wages down. The reason for recruitment problems is that this Government has been incredibly successful in dropping unemployment to 3.8 percent. The Department of Corrections has had considerable success in recent times in recruiting including recruiting internationally to get trained prison officers from other countries. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister of Corrections make claims about being on top of crime when the incidence of violent crime is up significantly in his time as Minister; and why does this Minister insist upon doing an impersonation of Saddam Hussein’s information Minister every time he rises in the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will not comment on the second part of the question which was out of order. He may briefly answer the first part. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will briefly comment on the first part of the question. Crime peaked when that member was Treasurer in 1997. Crime rates today going by police statistics are 18 percent down from the rates that that member was responsible for. 
Keith Locke 
: Would it not help our prison capacity problem if we did not have a system of unnecessarily jailing minor offenders like Neville Yates a paraplegic brain-damaged man who has been in prison—[ 
Interruption 
]—for 5 months simply for growing cannabis for his own medicinal use for pain relief? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would invite that member to look at the nature of the people generally who are being imprisoned; he will find that those people almost invariably come within the category of being serious or seriously recidivist offenders. Unfortunately in the short term the best way to protect the community against those people is to take them out of circulation. In the longer term early intervention policies and policies dealing with youth crime will ultimately bring down those imprisonment rates. 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sick and tired of other members interrupting Keith Locke when he asks questions. It seems to be persistent behaviour in this House. I raised the issue with Simon Power only 2 days ago in your presence Mr Speaker if you recall and I invite you to apply one law for all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that. I decide when people leave the Chamber. On this occasion I was a little overgenerous. I stand by my decision but I can assure the member that if Mr Locke asks any other question this session and there is any interjection during it there will be no warning. 
Immigration Minister—Confidence 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working conscientious and productive Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If he is a hard-working conscientious and productive Minister why do we have 79 people in New Zealand who came here with false deliberately lost or destroyed travel documentation who the Government now cannot account for or identify; and if the Prime Minister is not concerned about that what on earth is she doing heading our national security? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have any information on the question the member asked. I do have a great deal of information on other matters. If he cares to put down the question specifically I will provide an answer. 
Keith Locke 
: How does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when it appears that in all the court cases so far on the Ahmed Zaoui issue the advice given to the Minister and taken by the Minister appears to have been wrong—all the cases have been lost—and will the Prime Minister be launching a review of the Crown Law Office as to its advice and whether that advice is being followed by the Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a matter for the Attorney-General not the Prime Minister. I think the member is prejudging a range of issues—including certainly the review of the security certificate which is yet to be actually undertaken. The vast majority of New Zealanders wish it could be completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister ignorant on this matter given that question No. 9 of 2 December answered by Damien O’Connor gave information about the Government’s lack of knowledge as to those 79 people being in this country; and is the Prime Minister confident that next time a person with multiple convictions in Europe for links to extreme organisations arrives in New Zealand on false documentation from a country he or she is not immediately running from—a person who is not caught by the UN convention—her Minister will act swiftly to remove that person rather than spend over $2 million of taxpayers’ money satisfying bleeding-heart lawyers and their politically correct agendas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot comment on any details of the current case particularly because the court is still considering its decision on one aspect of that case—the decision comes out at 4 o’clock—and of course I am confident that one cannot predict the outcome of that judgment. But I can say that once this case is completed there will be a full review of the Act. This is the only case dealt with under that Act and clearly a whole range of difficulties have emerged with it. 
Water Quality—Government Initiatives 
9.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress have Government initiatives made towards cleaner water in our streams and rivers and what steps are being taken to ensure there is enough clean fresh water for every New Zealander now and in the future? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The clean streams accord signed last year by the Government Fonterra and Local Government New Zealand is good news. Many of the 2007 targets have already been met. Ninety-five percent of dairy farmers—over 12000 farms—are moving to fence off their waterways from stock and to reduce the amount of nutrients being put on their land that goes into the waterways. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture and I are releasing a public discussion document on managing our freshwater resources more effectively. 
David Parker 
: What options does the discussion document put forward for better management of fresh water? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The document provides 13 proposed actions to improve freshwater management. Those include national policy statements and national environment standards as well as developing special mechanisms for regional councils and to enhance water transferability. We want New Zealanders to tell us whether we have identified the right options and what others may exist. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Does the Minister agree that the measure of success for the clean streams accord and the Water Programme of Action will be the extent to which water quality improves in our lowland rivers and streams; if so what measures are in place to monitor and report on that water quality? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are a number of indicators available in every regional council taken from the indicators on the Ministry for the Environment website that are to do with water quality. As well the clean streams accord has afforded the time for Fonterra and farmers to be able to have a base standard to measure where they are now and how they will improve. 
Job Skills Courses—Course Content 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he satisfied with all the course content of Work and Income job skills courses; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: The content of every course run by or for Work and Income is not a level of operational detail that Ministers would normally be engaged in. I am completely satisfied that with Work and Income help over 86000 clients moved into employment last financial year and hundreds of thousands over the last 5 years. I am satisfied we have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD I am satisfied that more New Zealanders are in paid employment than ever in our history I am satisfied that employment programmes like Worktrack and Unitrack have excellent results helping thousands of people get a job and I congratulate Work and Income staff on doing so well. 
Simon Power 
: Can he explain why participants in the Work and Income jobs skills courses are forced to take a pig-drawing test given that a registered psychologist has identified the test as “a joke with no scientific validity” and labelled the test “baffling it’s just nonsense.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. I will be tabling at the end of this question the Unitrack programme week by week with the components of the course and members will notice that as part of the introduction or icebreaker on the first Monday of the course people do this small test. The Unitrack and Worktrack courses provide people who are on an unemployment benefit and who have a risk of becoming long-term unemployed with an opportunity to go through a free work programme that clearly works. Just because people have a university qualification does not mean that they can fill out a CV or have job search or interview techniques. That is what they learn in the course. I say to the member that the people who run those courses have a staggering record of success. They are deeply deeply offended by the fact that that member has taken a 2-minute part of their course and trivialised their outstanding work. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister expand on what the basic contents of Work and Income employment courses such as Worktrack and Unitrack are? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. The courses of this type cover job-search techniques interview techniques and presentation CV writing covering letters and job applications. The follow-up after the formal course ends with independent job-search activities. People coming on to the unemployment benefit are required to take part in job-search activities. They are required to do so if they are at risk of being long-term unemployed and I am proud of the Work and Income staff who work hard to get people into work. I congratulate them on their efforts and I communicate their resentment at that member for reducing their efforts in this way. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the outcomes of the PATHS ProCare and Workwise initiatives piloted in Manukau by Work and Income; if so can he tell the House how many people have found work after participating in those schemes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I am satisfied. I am so satisfied that we have just opened the second pilot here in the capital-coast area which will impact on about 4700 people in this region. In the pilot in Auckland around 400 people were involved in the range of programmes that the member is covering. I do not have the exact figures here with me but I can tell the member that across the invalids and sickness benefit population the increase in the number of people moving into work has been about 14 percent for sickness benefit and 17 percent for invalids benefit out of those pilots. We will clearly make a difference. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister seen the statement from a graduate who took the course and said: “I was in hysterics. I thought it was a joke but they were serious—the facilitator said it was a test.”; if so what does this say about the quality of the course offered by Work and Income and if it is so good why would the Minister not take the pig-drawing test himself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say there were three questions asked and only two can be answered—[ 
Interruption 
] There is a member about to leave the Chamber for being stupid. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Phil Heatley 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is very lucky very lucky that I am so generous on a Thursday. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further jokes of that type. The first time was mildly amusing but the 10th time is distinctly unfunny. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have read the material from the one complainant in this course who is a young man who said he had a job next January to go to. I am afraid unlike the member no one sits on a benefit while we are in control. They will go to look for a job. He complained about that. I also have here the forms from the rest of the people who were on that course. Every single one of them said it helped them to get motivation to get skills and to get a job. Those are the people to listen to not somebody who complained about the fact that he had to go look for a job. Tough luck! Under this Government those people go looking. 
Simon Power 
: Is he concerned that the group of graduates forced to take the test found it demeaning patronising and ludicrous; or does he believe instead that these people were simply being precious about their pig-drawing abilities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is wrong. One person who said he had a job in January and did not want to take the job-search activities complained. I am sorry. He will be looking for a job whether that member likes it or not. Everybody else in that course reports that they found the course valuable so that they could go to get a job. If they do a 2-minute exercise at the beginning of it so they have something to laugh about something to get started with while they go on to those job-search activities tough luck. This is a successful course and the member can just eat the pork and swallow it. 
I seek leave to table the Unitrack programme showing what actually takes place there. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Waterways—Eradication of Introduced Fish Species 
11.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Why is the Department of Conservation planning to run trials involving the release of poison into flowing public waterways for the purpose of wiping out introduced fish species such as trout? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I think the member is referring to a small-scale trial that my department proposes to conduct in partnership with the Fish and Game Council. A poison containing a relatively benign natural toxin will be used in a small stream in the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary to test its effectiveness in eradicating unwanted fish from flowing water. A resource consent process will ensure all environmental impacts are fully considered. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister stand by the Department of Conservation claims as quoted in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that it can remove desirable fish from streams before they are poisoned and put them back a few days later or in the case of desirable fish that do end up being poisoned that it can rescue and resuscitate them afterwards; if so how much training will the Department of Conservation need to give the fish rescue crews in the event that it does decide to poison our rivers and when resuscitating fish will Department of Conservation personnel simply give them mouth-to-mouth resuscitation or is expensive medical equipment such as defibrillators already required? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were about four questions there. The Minister can answer two. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The questioner seeks to trivialise a very important issue: the healthy maintenance of biodiversity in our freshwater systems which particularly in the waters of the upper North Island are grossly infested with pest species such as koi carp  
Gambusia 
 rudd perch and other species. That is damaging to native fish life and plant life and contributes to the degradation of fresh waters. It is a serious issue and the department is working closely on it. 
Dave Hereora 
: What precautions are being taken in the trial to minimise any adverse environmental impacts? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The site is contained within the fenced Karori Wildlife Sanctuary. No one fishes there. The chemical will be diluted to insignificant levels by the time it reaches the first of the two dams in the sanctuary. Staff handling the chemical will wear protective clothing. I note that the particular poison is widely used in the United States and elsewhere for the eradication of unwanted fish species. 
Simon Power 
: Why does the Minister not stop the Department of Conservation from locking up tracts of South Island high country and poisoning fish in Karori and just tell it to get on with the business of preserving New Zealand’s iconic species like the kiwi? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation is a world leader in the preservation of endangered species. In addition the mission that we have to protect public lands so that all New Zealanders—even Mr Power—can use them is one that I am very proud of. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the department consider that the battle against stoats rats feral cats wild dogs possums weasels ferrets and wasps has now been won; if not how can he reconcile allocating resources to poison trout with his statement in the House on 12 October 2004 that “Those exotic species”—salmon and trout—“do not have quite the impact that say possums have. In allocating resources to deal with pests I would certainly concentrate on those that are doing the most damage—that is possums and stoats.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation has no plans to eradicate trout in New Zealand. It is doing a very small experiment with the active cooperation of Fish and Game New Zealand on a waterway within an enclosed sanctuary to see whether we can bring back native species. 
Larry Baldock 
: If the Department of Conservation does go ahead with the ridiculous idea of poisoning the trout in our rivers how will he reassure anglers that the fish they bring home for their family’s dinner have not been stuffed full of poison? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member seems unable to grasp the fact that this is a one-off experiment in an enclosed sanctuary where no one fishes. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister concerned that by adding trout poison to our rivers the department will simply add to the already existing waterway pollution problems with regard to 1080 poison and agricultural runoff; and does that not beg the question that with environmental guardians like the Department of Conservation who needs exotic pests? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No and the Department of Conservation does an excellent job. 
Smoking—Ban in Bars 
12.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How does the Government expect to enforce the ban on smoking in bars and what measures will be implemented to deal with patrons and bar owners who flagrantly disregard the law? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is the Government’s expectation that the vast majority of patrons and bar owners will abide by the law. Establishments that flagrantly disregard the law will face prosecution. 
Deborah Coddington 
: With only 24 smoke police in New Zealand how does he intend his smoking bans to be enforced in pubs RSAs working men’s clubs cafes restaurants and bars on the West Coast and how many of the 24 smoke police will be deployed to the West Coast? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: West Coasters are very very sensible people. They understand the value of this legislation. I feel confident that they will appreciate the efforts that this Government has made through this legislation to protect the health of workers in establishments up and down the region. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How has this Government been working with the hospitality industry in the lead up to the implementation of this Act? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Ministry of Health has worked closely with industry representatives including the Hospitality Association to develop guidelines and communicate strategies to the industry and public. Over 14000 licensees have received three letters on those guidelines and strategies and a media campaign is running to inform the public. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I let the other question go because I did not want to interrupt it. We heard about West Coast people being very sensible but the Minister was actually asked how many of the smoke police would be deployed to the West Coast. He did not address that. Are we to take it that none will be deployed to the West Coast? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not answer that question. That is not my job. I have to determine whether the Minister addressed the question. He did. It might not have satisfied the member but then quite often members are not satisfied. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that when this legislation comes into place an inspector will be able to walk into an RSA and if the management or staff are not available he will be able to take a photograph or a video of an innocent serviceman smoking; and if he is aware of that does he think that is an appropriate way to treat people who fought for the freedom of this country? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: While that may be one of the methods used the process to establish whether there has been any breach of the law is quite comprehensive. The RSA or any other establishment just has to take all reasonable and practicable steps to inform people that the area is smoke free. If they do that they will not be prosecuted. Any bar owners who flagrantly flout the law will be prosecuted. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he one of many New Zealanders who are literally counting the hours until midnight so that they can have a drink in a bar without putting their health at risk and coming out smelling like an ashtray and is he aware that many bars are recording record bookings for Friday night because office Christmas parties can now be held in bars? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware that there is very widespread support for this legislation. In fact the latest survey says that 78 percent of New Zealanders think this new law will be good. I have every confidence that the bars and hotels around this country will see increased patronage because of this law. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister concede that the answer to the penultimate question where he talked about bar owners taking every reasonable step to enforce the law and only those who flagrantly breached it would be prosecuted means that this law is nothing more than symbolic and completely unenforceable; and if he will not concede that can he demonstrate to the House one tangible way in which it will be even-handedly enforced across the country? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In 1990 legislation was brought into this country and people said the same things then that it was unenforceable. We now expect to be able to go to a restaurant and not have to face patrons who are smoking. I have every confidence that in 2 or 3 years’ time people will wonder why we ever allowed smoking in bars throughout this country. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I submit to you that my question which asked the Minister to agree or disagree with a proposition and then to give a specific example of how the law was to be enforced even-handedly was not even remotely addressed in the answer. We got the Minister’s opinion that all would work well. That is hardly an answer to the specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I agree with the member. The question can be asked again. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister concede that his comments that bar owners must take every reasonable step to enforce the law and only those who flagrantly disregard the law would be prosecuted mean in effect that the law is nothing more than symbolic and utterly unenforceable; and if it did not mean that would he please give the House one practical example of how it will be enforced on an even-handed and consistent basis right across the country? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: “Reasonable and practical steps” is a term used in many laws across the country. For example if a bar owner refuses to put up signs saying that an area is smoke free that is a clear breach of the law and that person will be prosecuted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think it is fair to men who put their lives on the line day after day in the Second World War to defeat the Nazis and were provided with cigarettes on a daily basis to settle their nerves that they should then come home and build their own clubs only to find they have been beaten by the Nazis back here in respect of their rights and that we are about to send people who are 82 years of age out into the freezing cold to have a cigarette some time in the night? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We appreciate the efforts of all those old soldiers and what they have done for this country. Many many RSAs throughout this country have welcomed this law as well because they now understand the value of having a smoke-free environment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Name one. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: To name one the Motueka RSA is subsidising its members to go on a smoke-free course so that they can give up the habit. So there is one. To offer some comfort to RSA members throughout the country they will be pleased to know that the same law applies to Parliament. Everyone will have to leave the precincts of Parliament to have a cigarette. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Will the Minister rule out the use of sting operations involving people deliberately lighting up in bars in order that officials can fine unsuspecting bar managers; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am pretty sure I can give an absolute assurance that that will not be the approach taken on the implementation of this law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so concerned about people’s health what is he doing about medical misadventure that sees 1500 people die every year in this country or the obesity-related diseases that see 7000 people die every year in this country which is a 434 percent or 2003 percent greater incidence of death than deaths associated with smoking or is it just too hard for him to do something purposeful on this matter? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This week the Government launched a campaign to try to fight obesity in this country. We are concerned through this law for the 400 people in this country who die every year from secondhand-smoke inhalation. We are focusing on all those areas of health. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s party has had 11 supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to ask a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to have one extra question. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Government think it is right to impose its own selective views in respect of this measure even when people have built their own clubs and have their own committees of organisation and their own articles of association to govern the way they might behave within those clubs; why is this Government poking its nose into their business and will the so-called attitudinal police have black uniforms and a very familiar salute with their right arm? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No I am sure they will be dressed very normally. We are concerned about the health and safety of workers right throughout this country. One of the positive things I can see for that member will be the extra exercise he will have to take in walking outside the precincts to have a cigarette. He might cut down on his smoking as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will not bring personal reflections on members into the House. The Minister will withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table news reports on the West Coast of the Hotel Association saying that this measure will close several hotels on the West Coast. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those news reports. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I seek leave to table a press release stating that the Nelson Suburban Club is also subsidising its members to undertake a stop-smoking course. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is. 
Civil Union Bill 
Procedure 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we commence the third reading of the bill I want to say that when I called the second reading I said there were to be no injections and I thought that the resulting debate was a first-rate one with all points of view expressed. I am now applying that rule to the third reading. Further when I am asked for calls I will call in the order of the usual third reading party list but I will give preference to members who did not speak in the second reading if two people seek the call. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I clearly was not here when you applied that ruling but my real point is this: we are members of Parliament engaging in public debate in a debating chamber so surely members should have the right to interject if they feel moved to do so rather than have a restrictive environment in which no one may interject at all. Some of the views about to be expressed today are offensive to various members. I think that in the true tradition of a parliamentary democracy members have the right to reflect what their opinions might be even if that be by way of interjection. With the greatest respect I think to do anything less than that is to deny people their rights in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not. I applied the rule at the second reading of the bill and every single member of Parliament agreed with me—every single member who was present. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I don’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member is wrong on this occasion. If he has a different point of view he can raise it with the Standing Orders Committee. I am the Speaker and I am applying the rule. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I spoke to the second reading and I can tell you that the rule was not applied throughout the course of my speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was while I was in the Chair. I will be applying it in this debate and asking the other officers of Parliament also to apply it while they are in the Chair. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the second reading of the bill you permitted people to split their normal 10-minute slot into two 5-minute slots. Would you be prepared to adopt the same procedure during this debate as well? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is actually part of the Standing Orders. It can be done very easily. I have already been advised by one party that it will split some of its speeches. All the member has to do is to advise me and I will announce that there will be two 5-minute speeches. I will give a brief ring on the bell at 4 minutes and then at 5 minutes I will give a longer ring. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time 
. Today we will finally pass this the Civil Union Bill into law. We pass into law a bill that is necessary if the Government is to live up to its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. We pass into law a bill that will enable our country to join the ranks of the now numerous countries that recognise that same-sex couples no less than opposite-sex couples are entitled to have their relationships recognised and if they wish solemnised. And we pass into law a bill that signals our growing maturity as a nation. There remain a few who say they are sorry it has reached this point. I say I am sorry only that it has taken so long and that there are still members of this House who oppose it. After all what is being asked for here seems so modest. Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry or who do not wish to marry. Civil unions are to be a new relationship option that takes nothing from anyone else while providing choice to people currently denied it. 
Some argue that only a small minority of the population might ever want to enter a civil union. Does this make removing discrimination any less worthwhile? As the majority of New Zealanders who have supported this bill seem to have understood only too well human rights are not measured by numbers through a turnstile. The uproar over the Civil Union Bill has not been dissimilar to that that occurred almost 20 years ago over the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. There are of course some differences—most notably how much better informed people are today. The notable exception to that has been the many arguments proffered in this House from Opposition benches—the wild and woolly phantoms produced the lame excuses for not supporting something that is so clearly the right course of action and the almost total lack of intellectual rigour or common humanity. 
And in that way sadly one constant has remained from the debate of two decades ago—that is that the arguments put forward by those in Opposition are often just emotive fuelled by fear and misunderstanding. There is in fact no danger to the family from civil unions as the experience of Denmark and other countries that have introduced such arrangements has amply proved. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to enforce your decision in regard to the Opposition—or I should say those opposed to this bill because we are led to believe that the Government has not exercised a whip on its caucus—then I would have thought it reasonable that those who speak do so in a way that is about their view of this bill not about their view of those who oppose it or for that matter those who support it. If we are to have an extra insistence by the Speaker that there be a nice gentlemanly approach to this debate then those who are on their feet have some obligation to be respectful of those who are according them similar respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I am adopting not a gentlemanly approach but a parliamentary approach. A lot of people from throughout New Zealand congratulated the House on the way it conducted the second reading debate. I received hundreds of emails and I intend to reflect on that. The Standing Orders provide that there should be no interjection. I allow some because Speakers’ rulings allow some. The Standing Orders do not provide for interjections. The member should read them. As far as the Minister is concerned I just say that there is an obligation on the people who speak to reflect on their own point of view and not put words into the mouth of other parties. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the countries I refer to there has simply been no negative impact whatsoever on marriage by legislation such as this or on families in those countries. I predict that something else will prove to be similar as well. Once this bill is passed and the sky does not fall in the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate. 
There have of course been calls at the eleventh hour to delay the passage of the legislation until the holding of a referendum. But a referendum would clearly be inappropriate. I have not rejected the idea of a referendum because I think that a majority of people might vote against it. Public opinion tells us that in fact they are most unlikely to do that. Rather a referendum would be inappropriate because human rights are simply not the appropriate subject of a referendum. What could it possibly mean to say that New Zealand’s human rights legislation including the Human Rights Act should be applied in a particular instance only if the majority of the population decides that it should be so? What kind of protection for a minority is that? It is a not unremarkable coincidence that tomorrow is International Human Rights Day celebrating the signing of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The words of Louise Arbour UN High Commissioner for Human Rights seem particularly apt today: “Human rights are our common heritage and their realisation depends on the contributions that each and every one of us is willing to make individually and collectively now and in the future.” 
There are same-sex couples in New Zealand who have been together in a loving relationship for many years and in some cases many decades and who have throughout that time been denied the opportunity to make a State-sanctioned public declaration of that relationship that would be recognised and protected by the law. Today we will end that situation. 
Many people have spoken and written in favour of the Civil Union Bill in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the bill and in letters of support that have been flooding into our offices over the past few days. I will read a couple of them now. 
One states: “New Zealand has always been a front-runner in recognising that all people should have the same rights and I hope we can keep that fine tradition. As a Christian my support for these bills is consistent with and mandated by my faith. Christian teaching is based on the message of love and treating others with dignity and respect.” 
A second states: “My partner and I have been in a committed and loving relationship now for 23 years. I am thinking of what I wanted to write to encourage you to support the Civil Union Bill. I was thinking of describing the positions of responsibility we each hold in our work our contribution to the wider community in a variety of ways and our faith journeys. Then I decided not to. Why should I feel I have to convince you that as part of a lesbian couple I am a decent and honourable person and worthy of having my relationship given legal recognition? Ours is not a second-rate relationship.” 
The third states: “Currently our relationship lives only on the fringes of the law and we are not eligible to the legal protections that support those who are married. This is not only a matter of personal interest to us but an issue of justice. There are no valid reasons why we and others like us should be discriminated against.” 
We should listen to those voices speaking in favour of the Civil Union Bill. We should listen to the voices telling us to vote for what we know is right. They are the voices of the people who have been discriminated against for long enough and who have suffered from that discrimination. This bill takes away nothing but gives that simplest of things—the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders. I am honoured to commend the bill to the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 This Parliament has a greater obligation to the people of New Zealand than the debate that we have had over the last couple of days. I would have to say I am pleased that my marriage at least is valid due to the tradition and sacrament of the Catholic Church and does not depend on the type of debate or legislation that we are passing today. In fact it is an irony that a generation that has spent much of its time saying that marriage the certificate and the formality does not prescribe love has suddenly decided that a certificate and a formality are the ultimate expression of human rights in New Zealand. Where Parliament has an obligation is simply to make its law clear and the bill we are voting on today will lead to a legal mess. No one else in the country has the obligation to get the law right; we do. But what happened here is that the Government failed in its policy project. We are meant to be debating two bills: the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The second one is not here because the Government could not resolve all the problems that that bill creates in amending hundreds of pieces of legislation to make all relationships the same. It could not resolve the issues. So what we have here now is the horse without the cart. 
I listened to the debate carefully and took some part in it for 2 days. This Parliament does not know even now after that debate what the legal effect of a civil union is. We do not know. I asked the Minister to explain it and he never did because he cannot. I will give members just one example of the confusion. A number of speakers in favour of this legislation said that civil union is not gay marriage. They are saying that for political purposes because they do not want anyone to get the impression that civil union will be exactly the same as marriage. But when I look at the bill as reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee I find in clause 17 that the purpose of the clause is to allow couples who are married to change their relationship into a civil union and that clause 18 allows couples who have a civil union to change their relationship into a marriage. But everyone who supported this bill said it was not about gay marriage. The bill states it must be something like that because one can be the other. 
The commentary on the bill underlines that sense of direction when it states that the policy intent is to make sure that civil union is the legal equal of marriage. So what are we to make of this? I say to proponents of the bill that they have let down those people who have waited so long for a civil union as well as those people who are deeply concerned about it because we do not know what civil union is. The expression of civil union was going to be in the other legislation but it is mired in a mess of its own contradictions in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We may see it in March next year; we may not see it at all next year. It is much more controversial than this legislation and I doubt that this Government will want that bill in front of this House in election year. 
The policy intention of the Government is clear. It wants to make all adult relationships have the same legal effect—the same rights and obligations. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill pulls together civil union—which will be a new thing if this bill passes—marriage and de facto relationships. Every New Zealander should be worried about that project—not so much the married people because their rights and obligations are relatively clear but all those young people who are testing and trying their relationships. The Government intends with the passage of this bill and the companion legislation that people will enter adult relationships in New Zealand on the Government’s terms or not at all. People who shacked up 2 months ago will end up with the same rights and obligations as someone who has been married for 20 years with four kids. 
That is why there is widespread unease about the Civil Union Bill. People have an intuition that this is part of something that is headed in the wrong direction. The legislation will not bring the world to its knees. All we are now legislating is confusion about what a civil union is and we are legislating a ceremony and a certificate. No doubt some will celebrate that as a great victory and they are welcome to it if this bill is passed. But the intuition that there is more at stake is correct. I will tell members why. 
The second reason I oppose the bill—the first reason is that it is a legal mess—is Labour’s insistence that the State should be totally neutral about every relationship. That is a new point of view for a New Zealand Government. It is not how we have done it before. The Government is so determined on neutrality that it will impose legal rights and obligations on people who never chose them. The insistence on neutrality will override the personal choices of all sorts of couples including gay couples. If the Government fulfils its project gay couples will not have the choice of civil union—they will be civil-unionised whether or not they have the ceremony. They will be covered by the de facto law. The de facto threshold will have to be the welfare threshold which is very low—cohabitation of a matter of weeks or maybe a couple of months. The Government will override all those preferences. 
When we think about this issue of being neutral we realise the proponents of this and the companion bill are determined to override the customs and practices of the people which give different significance to different relationships. It is not anti - human rights to do so; it is a recognition of the reality of how people live. Some people commit in a way that is permanent public and long term and some people do not. The community attributes different values to those relationships and why should it not? Marriage is based on a tradition of 2000 years of Christian history. Civil unions will be picked up by a handful of people and the statistics tell us that only some of them will turn out to be long-term committed relationships. That is the international experience. 
The Government goes too far with its theory of bureaucratic neutrality when it says that every relationship will be the same. The Civil Union Bill is one step in that path. I say to those who are in favour of this bill that the biggest scrap is yet to come. That will be over the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which tries to equalise all relationships. I say to those who oppose the bill that I hope they share my view that we should have a legal structure that recognises the custom and the practice of the people but that also recognises the public benefits of the private choices people make. Long-term committed married relationships—in fact long-term committed de facto relationships—have fiscal and family benefits to the wider community. They are associated with higher levels of education and employment and with less troubled children. That is a fact not a prejudice which is what some members of the gay community keep trying to tell us. It is not a prejudice; it is not bigotry. It is how people live. If the law cannot recognise that then it is a stupid law that will be defeated. 
The Civil Union Bill on its own will not bring the sky down but the direction in which the Government is headed means that this is one more step in the wrong direction and that is why I oppose it. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Four years ago this legislation was a spark in the minds of a few people who gave their time and skills to grow the idea. I honour Regan Andrew Clare Bear Calum Bennachie Jay Ocampo and Nick Toonen. For the past 2 years this bill has been moulded by politicians and officials and for the past 6 months by Parliament. I thank Lianne Dalziel and David Benson-Pope for bringing their own particular style to the development and management of this legislation. I thank all those groups of ordinary New Zealanders who submitted on the bill both for and against at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank Victoria Crawford who advised the select committee so well and Cameron Law Margaret Mayman and Michael Wallmannsberger who as campaigners explained the issues to the public. 
A passionate debate etches memories on the mind. Young people and families with lesbian and gay members understand in their hearts the need for civil unions. Mark Peck Deborah Coddington Luamanuvao Winnie Laban Nanaia Mahuta and Brian Donnelly know that. Yet some do not understand. I thought that Tariana Turia understood. Having watched her through the last week advocate same-sex marriage then the abolition of marriage and then majority referenda for minority rights I now know and regret that she does not. I thought my colleague Stephen Franks understood. Instead having declared the issue of civil unions a simple one—and I think he was quite right in that—he then performed a remarkable self-administered intellectual knock-out blow and remains a little confused in recovery. On a good day I even thought Richard Worth understood. Instead he fronted a Maxim Institute amendment to the bill which came within a hair’s breadth of offering legal recognition to a friendship between a man and his horse. Then possibly realising the extent of his mistake he galloped out of town. 
Few laws offer win-win solutions; I believe that the Civil Union Bill does. Its opponents have not shown what harm it does to anyone and have failed to answer repeated questions on what unintended and negative consequences have flowed from homosexual law reform or from human rights protections for lesbian and gay people. The truth is that they were seriously wrong then and they are seriously wrong now. But it is never too late to repent. If any of their children or grandchildren are brave enough to admit to them that they are lesbian or gay the personal will quite properly take over from the political and the world will look suddenly quite different to them. It happened to Senator Barry Goldwater a famed Arizona conservative campaigner against diversity and particularly against homosexuals. His grandson came out as gay. With love came understanding. Senator Goldwater re-emerged as a campaigner for human rights side by side with his grandson. 
I am not easily moved to tears but twice in this debate I have felt them welling up. The human stories pull at my heartstrings and I will quote one example: “My great-uncle David met his male partner Harry in 1947 in Wellington. In 1955 David’s father found out about their relationship and threatened to have them arrested and jailed. Eventually he calmed down and instead told them that they must move away from Wellington and have nothing to do with the family. They moved to Auckland where they spent the rest of their lives together. In 1997 Harry died peacefully in his sleep lying next to the man he had shared 50 years of his life with. For 45 of those 50 years not one of David and Harry’s siblings nephews nieces great-nephews or great-nieces ever acknowledged let alone celebrated their relationship and for the first 40 years of their lives together they lived in fear of the police—a nagging anxiety in the back of their minds. Even in the 1990s they could not bring themselves to get rid of the second bed they always had in their bedroom just in case the police knocked on the door in the middle of the night.” 
Those tears were there when colleagues whom I have never associated with these matters were stung by the venom flowing in this House and came into the House to speak in support of civil unions as the debate went on over the last few days. On 1 May the morning after the first civil unions the birds will sing the dawn chorus the sun will rise our volcanoes will not simultaneously explode and some New Zealand couples will awake as civil union partners. Their friends and families will also awake feeling that the world is a bit fairer than it was the day before. Homophobia will not disappear but the State will have recognised that love and commitment between two men and between two women is of value to the wider society and is worth protecting and that some men and women in de facto relationships want something other than marriage. What can be wrong with that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: New Zealand First will split its 10-minute speech into two 5-minute speeches. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The real issue is whether we can give credence to people’s words. The supporters of the Civil Union Bill argue that this is an equality issue an equity issue a fairness issue and a one-law-for-all issue. The real question is whether that is correct right and factual. For that to be right correct and factual the proponents of this bill know full well that it would have only one clause in it: a clause that gave homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals under the Marriage Act. In order to be correct right and factual that is what this bill would state. Mr Barnett after all promised that to the gay community. Does this bill do that? No it does not. It does everything but that which is why so many fundamental homosexuals do not want a bar of this bill. Why is it that Mr Barnett says he supports it yet condemns those very people to second-class citizenry? He is condemned out of his own mouth. Fundamental homosexuals do not support this bill and the proponents of this bill know that. But not having the courage of their convictions they throw a sop to the homosexual community and say homosexuals can like it or lump it but they are here for them. 
What has happened to the courage of those members’ convictions? What has happened to their integrity? What has really happened to their honesty? They know that some gays want equality under the Marriage Act. Why do they not come here and admit that? Why do they not admit that this bill does not give gays that? Is this bill what Mr Barnett claims it to be or is it a lie? Is it deceit—more double talk? Is it more duplicity? As I said before this bill means that those who have argued for equality will not get it and members should not let anybody here disabuse them of that. 
My colleague Brian Donnelly quite properly put up the issue of a referendum in which the people of this country would decide this issue not Parliament. The argument to counter that was that Labour said it was here to govern and to make decisions. Members will recall that between 1984 and 1990 Labour sold about $9 billion worth of this country’s assets without any conference or consultation with the people of this country whatsoever. That is the kind of power Labour usurped for itself even though it had not promised to do that. Labour has also said that referenda are costly which is a palpable dishonesty when we know that at a general election we could run the two processes together. 
Mr Benson-Pope by denying us a referendum denies members of the gay community the opportunity to gain the public acknowledgment that today he claimed for them: the endorsement of the relationships they are in by the public of New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope meant what he said why would he not give members of the gay community the chance to have their relationships endorsed by the people of New Zealand—why not? That is quite ironic given that one of his real concerns is that they currently do not enjoy such acceptance. How odd is that? On the one hand we argue that the public should have a chance to give their view but on the other hand Mr Benson-Pope will not give the public a chance to decide whether they accept the issue. If Mr Benson-Pope is so confident that the Government would win a referendum why does he stand in the way of delivering to gay people a message from New Zealand that says: “It’s OK; we accept you.” Rather he has taken the dictatorial autocratic imperious arrogant elitist and superior view so often taken by Labour that the public cannot be trusted—the view that says: “Trust only we who are Labour.” I say to people today that if they are Labour voters and think that the people should have had a vote in a referendum on this issue then they should not vote for Labour in 2005. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Parliament is a place where we are supposed to set principles and standards. The Civil Union Bill has a conscience vote and I believe that the principle we must set is that marriage can be the relationship of only a man and a woman with a view to having children. I believe that that is a basic human right for a man a woman and their children. We have had many submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill and I refer to the submission of John Sax in which he made an excellent point in reference to the New Zealand Government’s civil union website which is headed: “love doesn’t discriminate … neither should the law.” Mr Sax correctly states in his submission: “… that is a lie.” He claims that if we love our children we must discriminate between good and bad right and wrong good behaviour and bad behaviour and good unions and bad unions. The Government website also states that the law should not discriminate but of course the law must and does discriminate. It discriminates right from wrong and it encourages good outcomes and minimises bad outcomes. It respects the freedom liberty and rights of all people for the good of all people not for the good of a select few. The Government website like so much of the other Government propaganda that is forced on New Zealand today in the words of Mr Sax is a lie. 
My colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly proposed a referendum. Every New Zealand First member supported that referendum and a large number of other members of this House also supported it. I was disappointed that Mr Richard Worth did not support it although he had an amendment that contained a referendum provision and every New Zealand First member of this House supported that. 
I will refer now to some of the things that happened during the Committee stage. I must congratulate the following members of the Labour Party: the Hon Taito Phillip Field the honourable John Tamihere the Hon Damien O’Connor the Hon Harry Duynhoven and the honourable members Clayton Cosgrove and Ross Robertson for their opposition to the bill. If certain movements in the south Auckland area are not to take foot then credit for that will go largely I believe to the Hon Taito Phillip Field and the honourable member Ross Robertson rather than to any action of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I also say that the honourable Tariana Turia largely voted against this bill although she did not support the referendum provision. When we hear talk of what future referenda there may be I suppose I am not surprised at that. 
This bill came into the House on 21 June 2004 and it is receiving its third reading today less than 6 months later. It is a bill that affects fewer than 10000 people and there is absolutely no reason why it should have been given priority over bills that apply to all New Zealanders some of which have been sitting on the Order Paper since last year and for more than 18 months. This bill is really very simply a present to the coterie of homosexuals and lesbians who surround the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It has cost the taxpayer about $10 million. It is the gift of a Labour Prime Minister who has no regard for the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders and who has no regard for the public good of New Zealand. One of the major advantages currently available to homosexuals and lesbians is their diversity but this bill as the Hon Bill English points out removes all diversity from all forms of relationships and makes life dreadfully boring—but of course that is what we expect from social leadership which likes to put everyone in the one straitjacket. 
New Zealand First has offered the people a referendum on this issue. I repeat the words of the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the only way for anyone to get full public approval for this type of behaviour is by way of a referendum. If a referendum supported it then I would vote in the House to give effect to the result of that referendum. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Mr Speaker despite your request and despite your satisfaction with the debate in this House over the last few days we have been trading insults some thinly disguised and some undisguised. Behind them have been a whole stream of messages to the country and from the country that reflect the fact that this has not been a debate about law or the meaning of words in law. This has been a debate about which tribe the Government wants to identify with. This debate was deliberately intended to divide. It has been a deliberate piece of wedge politics as Mr Cunliffe so carefully defined for us during the Committee stage. 
Why? Because the legislation itself is almost empty. The legislation talks about a concept that is never defined. It was swathed in fine language that we could all aspire to uphold: “commitment” “exclusivity” “caring” “stable” and “long-term relationships”. But there is nothing in this bill about those things and there is nothing in the companion bill about them either. 
We—probably 70 or 80 percent of members of this House—could have been celebrating instead the removal of disabilities from a minority that has been oppressed and that has good reason to feel that the law has not been on its side. We could have been extending to couples who have offered their communities a great deal and continue to do so the same legal treatment as has been extended to married couples for many years. Instead we have what I believe is a consciously nasty piece of political strategy. It has ended up as a political triumph because—as I think was calculated—commentators in the media did not choose to look behind the slogans. I believe that the Government did this deliberately. It has kept citing international precedent has kept citing its intentions in a very misleading way. 
I want to get to what is behind it. For example the notion that this legislation was first hatched up only 4 years ago belies the fact that the Law Commission in 1999—5 years ago—did a reasonably accessible summary of the laws in this area overseas and of what we could do here. We have heard a lot about Swedish Dutch Danish Norwegian and French laws. Well they are quite different from what this House is now voting on. The Law Commission stated in 1999: “… gays and lesbians should be prepared to acknowledge that they are not harmed by a legal code designed to avoid giving what may be seen as gratuitous offence to those for whom matrimony is a holy estate.” The Law Commission recommended that we do what Danish law does: provide for registration of a same-sex partnership. Well the effects of registration of a same-sex partnership would as far as the law goes make it virtually identical to marriage. As the Law Commission stated: “The necessary legislation can be elegantly succinct.” If the Government had cared to look at the recommendations of the Law Commission it would have seen that most of the changes were implemented on one page. It is very simple. 
The reason it is so simple is that the Law Commission did not set out to ape the ceremonial; it set out to give the substance. The New Zealand Government has instead deliberately set out a pantomime copy of the ceremonial around marriage and has left out all the substance. I believe that was deliberate. In fact so different is the law this House is voting on that I think the Dutch relationships will not even qualify to be treated as civil unions in this country even though Government speakers have been citing Dutch law as an example. Why? Because in the Scandinavian and European examples they dropped the paraphernalia that had to do with tradition only. Holland for example does not require a court to rubber-stamp a dissolution. The way we have drafted clause 34 means I think that those relationships will not qualify in New Zealand. In those examples they also dropped the solemnisation procedures. 
So we have the emptiness of this law. In the time we have spent on this law we could have been genuinely trying to restore respect for commitment stability exclusiveness and the other things that are cited; what we have instead is deliberate careful offence. I say “careful” because the offence goes only so far as not to cause enough people to vote against the bill for it to fail. 
I believe that the Government chose the ceremony and not the substance because this legislation is a political act to reward supporters and to designate tribal boundaries by offending those who are considered to be irrelevant or to be too stupid to remember this issue when the time for the ballot box comes around. I heard the dismissive language—the talk of “the fundies” and the sneering comments that the sky would not fall. I heard the Hon Chris Carter telling objectors in Hamilton that they must come from the Roman Catholic Church—that “archaic bigotry” as he described it. 
 These are people who are worried about morality. They are right to be worried about morality because the whole debate has been couched in moral terms. People have not bothered to look at the words in this legislation. There has been an attempt to make this a debate about what kind of virtue the people voting on each side reveal. When it is cast in those terms it is perfectly proper for a vast number of New Zealanders desperately concerned about the state of our family law and our children to come up here without reading the law and to say “Enough is enough!”. 
They might have chosen the wrong target—and I think they have; I do not think there is a logical connection between gay marriage or same-sex relationships and the 30000 or more children who are at risk in this country today. But I do think there is a logical connection—much more distant— between those children and the view of many in this House that we can play with our cultural institutions scoff at traditional morality and scorn those who express concern without there being a consequence. I think there are far more logical reasons for those people to be concerned such as a welfare system that funds breeding by sad women with vicious men who have absolutely no intention of caring for the women or the children or a marriage law—which should be the most important contract we have—that the State has now decreed cannot be enforced in any form. 
One of the interesting things is that the partnership agreements that can be registered in France for example are enforceable. We cannot do that. The only way that we can get an enforceable contract which might mean that the person who is grossly at fault in breaching his or her promise of a long-term stable commitment receives some sanction is by getting a lawyer for each side to write it and even then the court can overturn it so that all bets are off if it thinks things have changed. 
So the time that we should have been spending on strengthening family law and that we could have been spending on producing something that made all of us feel we were supporting gay couples same-sex couples to become what people said they were aspiring to become has instead been spent—deliberately in my view—on whipping up contention. 
I asked for some simple assurances. One of them is in the New South Wales equivalent—an old one. So that the courts cannot use their creative desires to get into law writing the legislation should simply state as the New South Wales law does that there is no intention to demean the status of marriage. I asked for an assurance that would keep the Jacquie Grants out of the Human Rights Review Tribunal and keep out the advertising standards authorities members and the film censors who have decided that this country’s interests are best served by suppressing people who want to argue that homosexuality is wrong. I may disagree with them but I will fight in this House as long as I can for the kind of freedom that New Zealanders once thought was axiomatic—that they could shun vice if they wished and they could argue against it without being labelled as bigots or hostile and without being victims of a cunning political plot to exploit this issue. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I wish first to thank those who have contributed to this debate. The enormous public interest shows that far from being apathetic New Zealanders have an acute interest in politics. I acknowledge in particular the commitment shown by members of the closed Brethren Church in being here for the duration of the debate. I want to thank all of those who wrote in support of the bill and the organisers of the civil union campaign and I want to thank the Green Party for having a policy commitment to equal rights for homosexual people. All nine Green MPs are voting for this bill because our consciences say it is the right thing to do and because our party thinks it is the right thing to do. That is our mandate. 
I have been trying to understand the reasons why people oppose the bill and I think I can boil it down to three basic arguments: that this is gay marriage which opponents see as an intrinsically bad thing; that this will weaken marriage thereby harming society; and that it is unnecessary. 
Firstly is this gay marriage? Well I wish it were. We would have preferred to amend the Marriage Act to allow homosexual couples to marry. This bill does not do that. But it is not quite as simple as that. Marriage has a cultural meaning and a legal meaning. When most people speak about marriage they refer to the practice of two people making a public and long-term commitment to each other. Those practices are culture-bound and what we mean by them changes over time. Until recently Christian marriage was akin to a property right over women’s fertility. For most of history marriage has not been enacted in legislation and across times and cultures marriage has included polygamy incest and paedophilia. John Boswell an admittedly controversial Yale scholar suggests that gay marriages were celebrated inside Christian churches until around 700 years ago. Same-sex relationships have been celebrated at one time or another by most of the cultures that now inhabit Aotearoa including Polynesian cultures. 
What does marriage mean here today? When I was younger many of my friends and I rejected the concept of marriage because of its connotations of ownership. Then two close friends of mine got married. I asked whether it made a difference. My friend replied that it did and that living together was about individuals but the marriage ceremony joined their families. When I asked my beloved this year on the banks of my ancestral river the Tisza to marry me I was not thinking about the law or about our property arrangements. I wanted to pledge our lives together—for my kin to become hers and hers mine. 
So does this bill create gay marriage? No. In that cultural sense gay marriage already happens. Homosexual couples already go through commitment ceremonies. This bill will not change that but neither in a legal sense does this bill create gay marriage—and this Parliament can enact only law not culture. What this bill does is allow homosexual couples to register their long-term relationships as civil unions with the State. It does not allow them to be married but it does allow them to be coupled. 
Why would gay marriage be bad if the bill did allow it? If marriage is good for society and for individuals we need more not less. This is not the All Blacks where only 15 elite players are allowed on the field. I say the more the merrier. The more people play club rugby the stronger the All Blacks will be. Some say it will be bad because marriage should be only or primarily for the purpose of having children. But we do not forbid people to marry because they are menopausal or because they have had a vasectomy. In any case the Lavender Island survey of gays and lesbians showed 37 percent of female and 14 percent of male respondents had some kind of parenting relationship. Their children also deserve the protection of the law. 
The real issue is the belief that civil unions will destabilise marriage. I have strained my brain over this and I simply do not see how they will. If civil unions destabilise marriage we would see that reflected in the countries with civil union - like legislation. My colleague Sue Kedgley challenged opponents of the bill to show a single example where that had happened. None has been forthcoming. Marriage-rate trends are unaffected by the introduction of civil unions. In Denmark the first country to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they have been since the 1970s. I believe that many opponents of the bill have a genuine concern for the future of our country but I believe that their fears are misguided. 
Finally the weakest argument is that the legislation is simply not needed that homosexual couples can go to a lawyer sign a bunch of documents and relegate their love to a legal contract. Let me read briefly an extract from a gay couple who said: “We have had to spend considerable sums of money on legal fees for the drafting of a relationship property agreement wills and enduring powers of attorney. Despite these moves our relationship still lacks any legal protection even approaching that automatically conferred on our heterosexual friends who choose to marry. In the event of a third-party challenge to any of the documents mentioned for example if one of us fell ill and required someone to consent to his medical treatment the only certainty that the law gives us at the moment is the hope that a judge will regard the arrangements we have made as fair.” 
This bill is not about gay marriage. There is no reason to think it will do anything other than strengthen marriage. And the bill is clearly needed. Let me finish my speech by reminding us all that New Zealanders will be celebrating Christmas in a few weeks—celebrating the birth of a man who embodied love and compassion and was the antithesis of self-righteousness. It is a time to spend with family members of all types regardless of what we think of them. It is a time to show particular compassion and love. It is a time especially to show love to our children. This Parliament today has the opportunity to make a significant contribution to one of the most precious gifts we can give to our children who are the future of this nation. That gift is an Aotearoa grounded in human rights equality and respect for all its people. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am simply amazed that so many MPs have uncritically repeated the claim that civil unions will not interfere with people’s marriages. Nobody has ever claimed that this bill will interfere with people’s marriages. Rather it is society’s understanding of marriage and the false signals that will be sent out especially to younger people that are being distorted when marriage and same-sex partnerships are simply put on a par. They are not equivalent or equal. Marriage is unique. It is different from same-sex relationships—sexually reproductively and therefore morally. 
Today if this bill becomes law we will have removed yet another moral signpost from the landscape of our beautiful country. It will change what our children and grandchildren are taught in the school system. Good law should always conform to basic moral principles. If Parliament has any desire to build strong families it should pass laws that reinforce the moral values that people not only endeavour to live by—not always successfully—but wish to see taught to their children and grandchildren. If we pass this law giving the stamp of legal approval to same-sex partnerships as distinct from tolerance for such partnerships which is the status quo then the law and the morality of many New Zealanders will be in contradiction and in conflict one with the other. 
New Zealanders then face a most cruel choice. Either they lose their moral sense or they lose their respect for the law and the lawmakers. A new and unfortunate step will have been taken whereby Parliament holds itself out not only as lawmaker but also as a new and rival source of moral truth itself. The tragedy is that this most unsatisfactory result is completely unnecessary. Only one of the more than 150000 de facto couples in this country has indicated to me any interest in civil unioning and that came only after I put out a press release last Monday stating that I knew of none. 
Information provided to all MPs by the Parliamentary Library and overseas evidence show that once the novelty factor wears off only about 55 homosexual partners a year will be civil unionised. The public easily forgets that the majority of gays and lesbians have no interest in entering into civil unions. I know many who are of that view. 
So why do we risk perpetuating the deep division within New Zealand society? It makes no sense. The deep division now evident in our country reminds me of the 1981 Springbok Tour—of divided families divided workplaces and people afraid to voice their real feelings. People now fear being labelled homophobic. People have marched to Parliament. People are gathering in silent protest outside Parliament as I speak. 
In the second reading on a conscience vote all of Cabinet voted in favour of this bill yet the polls show that the people of New Zealand were divided about fifty-fifty. This House should shelve this bill while there is still time. We should pull back from the brink. I appeal to members of Parliament today that when they vote in the third reading they vote according to their own conscience. They should not be afraid to follow their conscience. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 It has been a cornerstone and persistent argument of the supporters of this bill that this issue is about human rights. This is not a human rights issue. The issue of same-sex marriage is not a human right. It is not a human right to have one’s relationship recognised by the State. It is not a right akin to the rights of free speech freedom of religion or freedom of association. Those rights are not created; they exist. The State simply is implored to uphold and defend them. 
Human rights are typically unconditional except on the one condition that they do not infringe on someone else’s human rights. Nor is this an issue really of civil and political rights. Civil and political rights are created and granted by the State are usually conditional and are frequently discriminatory. The right to vote is not provided for people under the age of 18. The right not to be arrested without charge is currently being challenged with regard to Mr Zaoui. Even the right to appoint another person as one’s next of kin could be considered to be a civil right. Marriage is not a civil right. It is an institution like Parliament. Until now it has been unique and it is illogical—indeed nonsense—to suggest that creating a parallel to that institution will not affect that institution. In removing its uniqueness clearly it will. 
The State’s recognition of marriage is therefore not a human right a civil right or a political right. It is a privilege. It is a recognition given by the State to people who meet four criteria: that there are two people only that they are not too closely related that they are not already married and that they are of the opposite sex. It is a recognition the State gives because the State recognises that society has an interest in providing for the next generation and in particular in providing the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Marriage overwhelmingly does that and that is the reason and the sole reason in my view that it is endorsed. 
Should that privilege be extended to civil unions? The answer is no. Firstly we do not know what civil unions are. We do not know whether they will be relationships that are permanent or exclusive and any suggestion that that might be the case and what Parliament wanted was removed by those who supported the bill. To the extent that civil unions will duplicate marriage then extending that privilege is clearly unnecessary. To the extent that it extends to same-sex relationships it breaches one of the four key criteria—that partners must be of the opposite sex. That is not discriminatory. The Court of Appeal in the Quilter case made that abundantly clear. 
So is it a realistic provision that there should be a marriage that the State endorses only of opposite sexes? Yes it is. We recognise that a mother and a father are necessary to give the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Male and female are complementary. Boys need fathers and mothers; girls need mothers and fathers if they are to grow up to be whole and fulfilled people. That recognition was endorsed only this week by the United Nations by consensus. In its document celebrating the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family the United Nations this Monday stated: “We emphasise that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses and that the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised and that husband and wife should be equal partners.”; “States should take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by among other things encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship.” So the United Nations is clearly stating that marriage has a unique and an important function—a function that this bill is watering down. 
The real motive for this bill is not to recognise another form of relationship but to encourage society’s acceptance of homosexual relations as equivalent to and of the same value to society as heterosexual ones. As such it will not deliver without additional rights being granted. Typically overseas we have seen those additional rights to be the repression of human rights the freedom of speech in particular and the freedom not to associate. The public knows there is a qualitative difference between the two. 
This bill is a watering down of an institution that although not perfect has been tried and tested over centuries. I make a final plea to each of those who have supported the bill thus far to in all good conscience vote against it. This bill should not pass. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 This morning I looked up my third reading speech on the Human Rights Bill in 1993. On that day I said I was proud to be a member of Parliament and I am proud again today. I spoke about prejudice that day and I want to speak about it again today. Prejudice is a bias—a preconceived opinion. It can involve prejudging people based on a characteristic like race or ethnicity or on a grouping they belong to like a political party. I have often said that prejudice is based on ignorance and that knowledge is the most powerful weapon against it. Prejudice against people because of a lifestyle choice is often based on ignorance because it is not a lifestyle choice that they would choose for themselves nor one they can readily understand. It is therefore vital that we build understanding between people who are different. 
The classic example is religious belief a lifestyle that many New Zealanders are born into or adopt during their lives. People often do not understand the faith that others place in their God and they can be prejudiced against them as a result. One does not have to share the faith to have an understanding of and respect for the right of such people to hold that faith and to worship their God in their own way in the privacy of their own home in a church or even on the street as long as it is not illegal or offensive. I was brought up in the Catholic faith. We were taught and this was reinforced every Sunday that ours was the one true faith. How lucky was that—to be born into a family that was Catholic the only faith that counted! 
Actually I had a lot of luck on my side when I chose the circumstances of my birth. I was born into majority status in every respect—white female and heterosexual. The year 1960 was a great year to be born with a parent at home and a parent in paid work grandmothers available to come and stay when babies were born no TV until after I started school no videos no PlayStation and no Internet. It may have left me ill-equipped for the information age but I learnt to read I learnt to use my imagination and I learnt to think for myself. 
The ability to think for myself is something that is challenged by calls from the Church within which I was raised for me to set aside one of the principles it stands for one of the values it taught me and that is the one that affirms committed faithful loving relationships between two people who wish to share their lives together. It asked me to set aside that principle because the couple is same-sex. The hundreds of New Zealanders who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee spoke of their love for their country love for their husbands wives and partners and love for their children. It did not matter which side of the debate they were on; they all spoke of those things. But there was a sense of loss from those who were opposed to this bill and I think others are right when they say that the slogan “Enough is enough!” found a convenient home with civil union when it was really about a whole lot of other things. 
But are those people looking back at the golden era of my childhood with rose-tinted glasses? It was a time when parents stayed together for the sake of the children even if they had unhappy or unfulfilling lives or worse the relationships were violent and abusive. If people were the minority race they dared not even speak a word of their own language at school and if they were homosexual well they did not really suffer prejudice because they hid their sexuality from everyone—sometimes even from themselves. 
This bill is important because it provides recognition for relationships that matter. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I do not stand here as one who supports the bill because I have an immediate family member who is gay. As with everyone who has a wider family there is a gay union within my family but that is not why I support the bill. I support it because for 25 or 30 years of legal practice I was proud to represent the marginalised in this society. I do not need to be marginalised to know what it is like to be marginalised. If someone is treated as a classless citizen without full legal rights that person is easily put down and subjugated. Too many people accept that treatment with humility and tolerance and try to get on with their lives but the barriers the unspoken barriers the hurdles the preconceptions—the shifting of a shoulder the glance—are hurtful to the individual although not recognised by many others. That is why I support this bill. Any effort at all to remove that social hurt that discrimination that treating of a fellow citizen without humanity I stand against. 
I therefore support this bill enthusiastically and I do hope it is passed today. As my good friend Tim Barnett said in his speech the sun will rise tomorrow the world will be the same but there will be some people in this country who can treat the world with a little more optimism. Winston Peters was correct in his speech when he said that this bill falls short of providing marriage. He is absolutely correct. He is correct when he says it offers a sop to the gay community. It is sad that that is the case. But if someone is a second-class citizen if someone is marginalised one piece of bread is better than two if that person cannot get anything at all. Maybe the day will come when those who do treasure marriage as I do will appreciate that the world will not end if others who have a different orientation can also enjoy that status. But then society will be ready for it. We have heard the speeches in this House we have read the emails and we have heard the submissions before the select committee and clearly many many people are not ready for that big move because their own emotions their own barriers their own set ways of thinking prevent them from embracing such a move. 
So Winston Peters is right: this bill is a sop to the gay community but it is one that many of its members welcome with open arms and some of them reject because they still feel as though they are being treated as second-class citizens. It is a sop because we are not offering the gay community and others those who cannot marry in this country but want to have legal relationships the equality of society. We are not offering them the warmth of humanity. We are offering them the cold face of legal equality. The cold face of legal equality is only that. So when people say they do not know what a civil union is I say they do not need to know. If we try to describe what a marriage is we cannot do that either. Most people who marry do not read the Marriage Act. But those who do get married know what it means to them. I expect that those who enter into a civil union will also know what it means to them. 
It will not open up amazing doors for them. There may be problems in our subsequent legislation as we try to define the cut-off point between marriage and civil union but at least this measure is a step along the way. All of those out there today who cannot speak up and say they love someone else those who cannot have that affection recognised publicly at least can take that step. We can see that they do not have horns on their heads. We can see that they are human beings with the same emotions as those of us who are not gay. We heterosexual men and women can walk around this community in the knowledge that we are not harming the lifestyle of others who are born and act differently. 
I saw the celebration outside Parliament today. There were orange balloons and there were protesters protesting against civil union. That is the New Zealand I want where both factions in a social argument can express themselves openly and joyously. It is amazing that those who are against the legislation were sullen and quiet and those who are in favour of it were exuberant and noisy. That is the New Zealand where we can exchange our views we can learn from each other and we can share the warmth of humanity without labelling people but loving one another. That is surely a basic Christian message. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill comes down to a contest. We have a Government that is more interested in the wants of adults than in the needs of children; a Government more interested in the politics of the present than in the future of our nation. I make no apologies for being a staunch defender of the importance of family and by family I mean a mum a dad and their children. 
Not a single week goes by in this Parliament without hand-wringing concern about issues like child abuse declining literacy declining immunisation rates youth suicide drug abuse and increasing youth crime. In all those areas where this nation’s statistics have become worse so too has there been a decline in the number of children being raised by their mum and their dad. So why on earth would we want to pass a bill that kicks the family union in the guts again? We passed the Prostitution Reform Bill. Only 2 months ago we passed legislation that said that women could be fathers. Well natural law is actually even more important than parliamentary law. It is simply a matter that all relationships are not the same. The relationships of a de facto couple a married couple and a same-sex couple are not the same. 
I also want to put on record the appalling way our democracy has been treated by the way that this bill has been advanced. Why is it needed urgently? Why has this Parliament been in urgency all week? There is only one reason: the Government wants this issue off the agenda before the election next year because it knows that the majority of New Zealanders know in their heart of hearts that this law is wrong. Secondly I want to know why we have only the door of a bill not the complete house. Why have we separated the two bills when every member in this House knows they sit side by side? Why were 93 percent of the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee completely ignored? I say shame on the members who have referred in a derogatory manner to those New Zealanders who because they cared about families made submissions to the committee. 
Also let nobody pretend that civil union is anything less than gay marriage. In 1034 pieces of law marriage and gay union are to be identical—absolutely identical. The Government is proposing that in education in health in family law in superannuation law—in every single area—there will not be any difference and I question why it will not be honest and simply front up and say that civil union is gay marriage. There is a simple historical quid pro quo: that this Parliament provide in the law of the land special recognition of marriage because marriage between a man and a woman is the beginning of the next generation of a family and of the future of our country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If any further comment is made by anyone other than a member of Parliament the person making it will immediately be leaving. I want to make that clear. Members of the public are here because they have been invited to hear our citizens who have been properly elected in a democratic way. I am sorry to have interrupted Dr Smith and I will not take time off his speech. I just say that all speeches will be heard in silence by those people who are witnessing the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is a further flaw in the whole approach to this important law and it is about men and women. Men and women are equal but they are different. When people try to pretend that men and men relationships and women and women relationships are the same as relationships between men and women they are wrong. I plead with members opposite to read the statistics about the appalling disparity in relation to the boys of our country. I say to the people in this House that until we recognise those sorts of social statistics and the background to them there is a sorry future for this country. The boys in this country need mums and they need dads—not mums and mums and dads and dads. 
I also want to say that this is the most anti-family Government in the history of New Zealand. That is a fact. I fear for what will come next. I know that work is going on with the adoption law. I am sure that gay adoption will be the next piece of legislation this Government will attempt to ram through this House. I note that Georgina Beyer wants to introduce another bill to the effect that in this country we not only will have men and women but will separately recognise through another set of legislation a third so-called sex transgender. I say that too will be a step backwards for our country. 
It is a sad day for Parliament today because we are failing to recognise the most important institution in this country and that is the institution of family. I say that the only way in which we will stop the ongoing undermining of and attacks on families which provide the best future for the children in New Zealand is to sack this Government. That is the only way in which I have confidence that this Parliament will start to recognise that families are the foundation of our society and if we want a strong country and a strong future we need to start passing laws that back strong families. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in support of the third reading of the Civil Union Bill. In my second reading speech I outlined why this bill does not provide for gay marriage and I was pleased to have that view validated by a high-profile opponent of the bill. Mr Brian Connell said on the radio this morning that his gay friends do not support this bill because it is “a cop-out”. He went on to say that they want to have gay marriage and that this bill does not deliver gay marriage. I say to Mr Connell that for once in this debate we are in complete agreement. The administrative procedures for civil unions are based on the Marriage Act because as a relationship-registration process it has worked pretty well for the last 60 years. Having civil unions registered with the same organisation will not undermine marriage any more than the fact that we also register deaths with the same organisation. 
Although I have some recollection of the emotions and turmoil that surrounded the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 I was quite young at the time. I have grown up in a generation that views homosexuality very differently from previous generations. I do not believe it was the mere passing of a law that so drastically changed opinions. It was because freed from the threat of prosecution gay people did not have to hide who they were. We found out that they were actually successful business people artists sportspeople politicians and pillars of our community—dare I say it just like anyone else. Maybe with the passing of this bill and the subsequent civil unions that will follow we will be able to recognise the long-term committed relationships of gay couples as well and maybe the beliefs about the promiscuity of homosexuals held by those who would deny them the ability to formalise their relationships will also disappear. 
I do not remember whether gay people said they wanted to be different from everyone else at the time that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passing. I can certainly understand though how a group of people who were forced for so long to pretend to be something they were not might have felt liberated at finally being able to be who they are and that they would have wanted to celebrate that difference. But my friends who are gay and who were at primary school when that happened want their voices to be heard now. Apart from their sexual orientation they are no different from myself and my straight friends in any respect. They want to meet someone and settle down have a family or maybe get some cats. Some are commitment-phobes while others lurch from one tragic Bridget Jones - style relationship to another and many are in long-term relationships. But all of us want to have the support companionship and emotional fulfilment that comes from a loving intimate relationship. We are not very different from one another even though the inordinate amount of time we spend on talking about our difference could lead us to believe otherwise. 
In talking about the destructive effect that this bill will have on families it seems we are suggesting that gay and de facto couples do not have or are not part of families. Of course they are and if this bill does not pass today that fact will not change but their families and in particular the children in their families will not enjoy the security of family status that the rest of us take for granted. They do not know what will happen to their families in the event of the death or incapacitation of one partner particularly if that partner is the only biological parent. Not everyone can afford to put in place complex legal arrangements and those who can often do not get around to doing it as we do not always plan for the unthinkable. Heterosexual de factos may not feel as concerned as same-sex couples about having a secure family status as they are more likely to have the support of their families. But for those who do not have the support of their immediate families and who do not have the option of marriage there is no security for them or their children. How is that good for the fabric of society? A civil union certificate is all that those couples need in order to show that their relationship is legally recognised under our country’s law and it takes from third parties the onus of having to decide between the partner and the family when there is a conflict. 
Research is clear on the fact that children do better in two-parent families than in single-parent families but what opponents of gay and de facto parents then do is try to extrapolate the outcomes for children from single-parent families to those for children from any family outside of marriage and that is not the case. Peer-reviewed methodologically sound research shows no significant differences in outcomes for children raised in same-sex families from those raised in marriage. Marriage on its own does not make good parents. The existence of good de facto and gay parents and of bad married parents is proof of that. Some people have pointed to worse outcomes for children in de facto families and have claimed that is because of the family structure. Do they honestly think that the many de facto couples in this House who are parents are more likely to abuse their children than married couples? Did they even know those couples were not married until this week? In reality marriage does not make good parents; good parents are simply more likely to marry. So are we serious about supporting families and the children in those families or do we want to support only the children who grow up in married families? Does it not seem illogical to say we will support all marriages from the great ones right down to the destructive ones but not the many other functioning relationships and families that do not adhere to the traditional nuclear family structure? How does that help the fabric of society? 
All relationships are not equal but I challenge members to resist the temptation to take the easy road of simply blaming gay and de facto couples for all society’s ills. I urge all members to think about the taxpaying law-abiding real families and real people who will actually be directly affected by this bill. They deserve our support. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 May this Civil Union Bill be passed this afternoon. This bill gives people choice in the formal recognition of their relationship choice to the rainbow community who have had no choice up until this time and additional options to those couples who do not wish to be married. Rather than go through an expensive array of legal processes to gain the legal protections that a couple needs the civil union will provide another avenue. 
This bill affirms equality for all New Zealanders regardless of their sexual preferences and this sends a message of hope to adolescent gays and lesbians. For too long those young people have faced discrimination at a time when they so much want to be part of a group want to be accepted and want to dream of a future. Suicide is far too high among our gay and lesbian adolescents. I say to those who box for the charity for preventing youth suicide that they could well achieve as much by voting for this bill. 
Passing this legislation today says to gay and lesbian people that they are important that they are valued by society and that they are able to form loving relationships that are recognised by the State. Some have argued that the prime purpose of marriage and a loving relationship is to bear and rear children and that a civil union therefore should not be allowed. That argument ignores that marriage and civil union are different. For myself I would wish for a clearer distinction between church and State ceremonies as has been adopted in some European countries where a Catholic couple can have their relationship blessed by the sacrament of matrimony but where the State registration is the compulsory ceremony. But at least we in New Zealand will have I hope civil union. 
The argument about the prime purpose of marriage being children also ignores that marriage does not always result in children. Members should consider a marriage between two 70-year-olds. It is considered quite legitimate—and having children would defy all possibilities. It also ignores those relationships that are not marriage but which provide a loving stable environment for children. 
Some in this House have argued that civil union will weaken their marriage. I find that so strange. Strong relationships are worked on by those inside the relationship. Outside factors can put a stress on the relationship: war unemployment the death of a child and discrimination. But a law that grants human rights to others? How can that make any marriage weak? My puzzled reaction to that claim is mirrored by the hundreds of New Zealand Christians who have emailed me to say that their marriage is not at risk and that they feel the passage of this bill will add to the fabric of social justice necessary for the health of New Zealand. 
I hope that tonight will be celebratory. I hope that with the passage of this law there will be many celebrations formal and all of wonderful loving relationships. I hope that those who have felt threatened will come to see in the next few years that any imagined threat has not come to pass. Their marriages are safe and their kids are growing healthily—some of them may even be gay. I support this bill with my mind my spirit and my heart. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am saddened that this is an anti-family Government. In the curious world of MMP we need to remind ourselves that this is a minority Government with a clear agenda of social engineering. It is difficult to legislate on moral issues and it is often unwise to do so. It is also not certain even at this point that the Civil Union Bill will pass the third reading. I was privileged to be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was to that committee that this bill and its companion bill which is now in a state of disarray were referred. I was one of a minority on that committee. I stated the following things in a minority report that was provided to the House: “I am strongly opposed to the passage of the Civil Union Bill without a referendum from New Zealanders as to whether they support this controversial legislation. That referendum should be binding. A binding referendum would enable the country to express its views and in particular for concerns to be indicated on issues such as: The fact that the legislation is Labour Party manifesto policy. Marriage is a valuable institution in civil society and it is important that its value is not degraded or diminished by Act of Parliament. In the case of heterosexual couples there is no significant difference between civil union and marriage. Both events are registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Act. The significant law change proposed by the Civil Union Bill is to enable the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.” 
As a member of the select committee that heard submissions on both bills I spent literally days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills. Not only did this issue receive more submissions than any other has received but it has been one of the most emotionally charged that I can remember. It is relevant to reflect on the numbers. There were about 6000 submissions and 91 percent were opposed to this legislation. Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise their loving and committed relationships in law but with equal sincerity most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage in New Zealand—something that they believed would undermine the unique status of marriage. 
I think we should also remind ourselves that as New Zealand is moving in one direction in other parts of the world quite contrary directions are being followed. In Australia for example the federal Senate has set its heart against what the New Zealand Government proposes. In the United States as we have seen in 11 referenda held in separate states in the context of the presidential election the populace has said no to what our Government proposes. 
I believe that both sides of the debate have raised valid concerns that deserve consideration. Unfortunately the Government’s haste to be done with civil unions before the next election has dominated the debate. That should never be the case. It is completely wrong that in circumstances of urgency the Committee stage of this bill has been rushed through. There are hallmarks all the way through of the Government’s determination to see this legislation passed no matter what the cost of that is. We see that in the early reporting back of this bill. We see it in the urgency that has characterised the Committee stage. We see it in what seems to be the short-circuiting of a clear Cabinet rule that requires a specific time period to elapse before regulations can come into force. There is in every sense an urgency to clear the decks of this controversial legislation. 
One of the things that the select committee heard about was that not being recognised as next of kin has created a daily uncertainty for many same-sex and de facto couples who fear for example that they will not be able to visit their partner in hospital if he or she becomes ill. The right to be at the partner’s bedside and the ability to be buried together were understandably of great importance to many submitters who supported the bills. I believe that there may well be supporters here today who actually believe that the passage of this legislation will deal with those issues. It will not at all. We heard accounts of people being denied the opportunity to view their deceased partner’s body or to be involved in important medical decisions. Although those stories are tragic and the situations should not have happened the fact is that this bill and its companion piece the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will do nothing to change those situations. 
That is why I embarked on another course which was to propose in the Committee stage a set of detailed amendments to the bill that would have enabled in a very simple way a next-of-kin relationship structure to be set up and recognised. The result is that although that proposal secured about one-third of the votes in the Committee it has failed to pass into law. The Civil Union Bill does not grant certainty regarding a person’s next of kin as claimed. What I proposed would have done just that. I am interested in seeing law passed that considers the long-term consequences for all—law that is honest about what it will and will not achieve and that protects important social institutions like marriage. The passage of this bill will simply not achieve those objectives. 
I will talk in summary about my concerns. I put them in this very simple way. First of all civil unions do not guarantee certainty regarding a person’s next of kin. Second civil unions are not inclusive. All people deserve certainty regarding their next of kin. Civil unions discriminate against non-sexual relationships. The third and final point I would make is that civil unions imitate marriage because in both the marriage context and the civil union context there are ceremonial requirements. In the marriage context there are religious celebrants. In the civil union context we similarly have celebrants. There is dissolution of a civil union and dissolution of a marriage. Finally there is the point I made relating to the registration of both sets of relationships—civil union and marriage—under statutory legislation. I express the hope that this bill will not pass. There are better ways than this of achieving the outcomes that some of the submitters who came before the select committee sought. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support the Civil Union Bill and I do so with a tremendous sense of joy optimism and an understanding that tonight we are making history. I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the House at the moment of the Hon Fran Wilde the former member for Wellington Central who oversaw the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill almost 20 years ago. It must be a strange sense of déjà vu for that former member to listen to the same tired old arguments against this bill as she was subjected to all those years ago. 
I am confident that this bill will pass in the vote that will follow soon after my speech. Tomorrow all New Zealanders will wake up in a country that has enhanced its reputation as a society that respects human rights and cares about all its people. Tomorrow all New Zealanders will wake up with a new freedom and we will not have taken anything from anyone. For the first time every citizen in this nation will be able to formalise with the State his or her long-term relationship. For the majority they will have a choice between a marriage and a civil union. For the nation’s same-sex couples we will have an opportunity that we have always been denied. For my partner Peter and I the ability to register our relationship will come almost 32 years after we met. 
I have attended many weddings in my life. I have stood beside good friends as they marry. I look forward to the chance to extend a similar invitation to commemorate my partnership. In the months and years following today I expect that tens of thousands of loving stable couples—both homosexual and heterosexual—will participate in civil union ceremonies all over New Zealand. In doing so they will celebrate with their friends and their families gay and straight everything that makes us human in the same way that other couples do when they get married. 
 I would like to take this opportunity to say congratulations to those who will take up a civil union because the more couples who are encouraged into loving committed long-term relationships the stronger our society and our families will be. Sadly in other people’s happiness some see disaster or worse still a chance to display their own innate prejudice. This bill appears to have stirred some churches and MPs more markedly than entrenched social problems such as poverty child abuse youth suicide or the trafficking of drugs ever have. When did an MP ever fast to ask God to ensure that the poorest of our children had food in their mouths or were free from the scourge of child abuse? Never! But we have one here today fasting to stop the Civil Union Bill a piece of legislation without any victims—talk about a distorted sense of social justice! 
I do not understand those priorities but I like all gay and lesbian people everywhere am painfully aware that for some people prejudice about homosexuality still runs deep. A famous author and clergyman once said: “Bigotry warps the soul by shutting out the truth.” and the truth is that gays and lesbians are flesh and blood. We have always been part of New Zealand society. Indeed all cultures throughout history have recorded the presence of gay and lesbian people. We are mothers and fathers brothers and sisters and friends. We are ordinary and we are flawed. We have emotions likes and dislikes. We are nurses lawyers policemen artists singers farmers and even—occasionally—politicians. We are obvious but we are also invisible. 
We are people and we deserve to be treated like all other people. A gay doctor saves a life just like a straight one. A gay soldier dies for his or her country just like a straight one and a gay person falls in love just like a straight one. 
Last month I received an email from a gay officer in the armed forces. I thought I would quote a short section of that email. He wrote: “I am not a political man; I am one of your warriors. I believe in common sense guided by a sense of duty and polished with sound judgment. The many emotions surrounding the Civil Union Bill homosexuality and sexuality in general are all valid but they are not based on these factors. I would ask you to put aside your emotions for this vote and consider the real people who will be affected by this bill. I am an ordinary considerate and sensible New Zealander. I am not a family-breaker I am not abominable and when I attested for service in the armed services I did so on a Bible.” 
This bill recognises the essential decency of that young officer and of many others like him. But it recognises something even more important. It recognises that New Zealand has a proud legal history of tolerance that has made us a great nation and we will grow greater if we continue this tradition. Do we as a society judge people for what they are or do we as a society judge people for who they are? Do we ignore the quality of people’s actions their contribution and their compassion? Do we look first at their sexuality the colour of their skin or their gender? Is that what we should be teaching our children? We do not but unfortunately for a long time now the law surrounding relationships has done just that. It is time it was changed. Our society has reached that point. Polls show that a majority support this bill which comes as no surprise to me. 
I am an openly gay Cabinet Minister. I travel the length and breadth of this country and people greet me warmly knowing who I am. That is the New Zealand way; that is what our people do; in that the law belongs to the people. This bill needs to pass. It is part of the progress of this country as a modern liberal tolerant nation. 
The previous speaker said that this legislation was out of sync with what was happening in the rest of the world but last week the British House of Commons passed its civil union bill. Do we want to be a country like Britain—a modern liberal social democracy—or do we want to become a country like George Bush’s United States of America? I know where I would rather live. I would rather live in a tolerant liberal democracy—and that is what this bill is about. I commend it and urge all members of this House to support it. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Chris Carter for allowing me to share this time-slot. The Progressive Party has supported these two bills from the beginning. As a caucus we have been 100 percent in support of the legislation and I believe we share that with the Green Party in this Parliament. 
I am speaking today on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton the Progressive leader. This is what Jim Anderton wrote in reply to the open letter from the Catholic bishops on the Civil Union Bill: “I also believe the letter has unnecessarily associated Catholics and the Church alongside the more strident Destiny Church and its very obvious prejudices. I recall that some churches led the charge against Homosexual Law Reform in the 1980s hopefully to their regret later on when they were exposed as bigoted and alarmist. The walls of civilisation did not collapse. Civilisation was enhanced. The moral issues of life continued to be debated. And more people were able to be openly involved in a more tolerant and less discriminatory society. 
“This Bill before Parliament provides a non-discriminatory means of State-recognition of people’s choices to live as partners. For those who believe adults are moral individuals before God this Bill leaves them with the same sorts of moral choices in life that they have always had. I find it naïve to think that a Bill will end civilisation or the family or the sanctity of marriage or going to Church. Whatever changes are taking place in those areas have their own momentum. The key for a sensible society is to find ways of clarifying the legal relationships that people are forming and giving them a measure of dignity without discrimination. 
“There are moral issues in all personal choices. Of course the Catholic Church wants to express a voice in such things and it has an absolute right to do so. But it is a pity that this voice echoes the Destiny Church’s misunderstandings rather than adding to sensible debate about building partnerships and families with love and dignity. And it is even more of a pity that some Catholic leaders aligned themselves with the Destiny Church on political and electoral suggestions. Progressives support laws encouraging long-term loving relationships where people take responsibility for their actions their families and their communities particularly if those same laws reduce discrimination and reinforce the principle of equality …”. 
That is the end of the quote from Jim Anderton; now I take responsibility for the rest. The Progressive Party supports the legislation before Parliament because this legislation will help strengthen long-term meaningful and loving relationships between sovereign and moral adults. The Progressive Party believes that any honest attempt to strengthen meaningful relationships deserves support because there is no doubt that society as a whole benefits from individuals being in caring stable and long-term relationships which deliver more social stability. The action we are taking in Parliament today is a step forward for justice—just as across the road the step taken by the Supreme Court today is a step forward for justice—in New Zealand. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson 
Laban(P) 
Simich 
Barker 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother 
Mackey J 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Tanczos 
Beyer 
Gallagher 
Maharey(P) 
Tizard 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta 
Turei(P) 
Burton 
Gosche 
Mallard(P) 
Ward 
Carter C 
Hartley 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson 
Chadwick 
Hawkins 
Parker 
Wong(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Peck 
Yates 
Clark(P) 
Hide 
Pillay 
Coddington 
Hobbs 
Prebble 
Cullen 
Hodgson 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel 
Hughes 
Robson 
Donald 
Hunt 
Roy(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan 
King 
Shirley 
Pettis 
Noes 55 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Oconnor(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Perry(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley 
Power(P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Collins(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott 
Connell(P) 
Mapp 
Smith L 
Copeland 
Mark 
Smith M 
Cosgrove(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Tisch 
Bill read a third time. 
Appointments 
Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 3 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Beverley Anne Wakem of Wellington as an Ombudsman for a term commencing on 1 March 2005. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on behalf of National in support of this appointment and in doing so to acknowledge the contribution that Beverley Wakem has made to date in the New Zealand business community. She is the deputy chair of the Remuneration Authority and chair of the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman’s commission. She has been widely involved in a range of community activities and I single out for special mention her position as chief executive of Radio New Zealand from 1984 until 1991. She has also been a commercial director for Wrightson Ltd and she has had positions in the area of human resources and corporate affairs. 
I would say though that we are confronting a quite unusual situation in the context of the appointment of Ombudsman because we now have three Ombudsmen who do not have legal qualifications. I would argue that a critical part of the role involves legal analysis and in particular analysis of legal material. So there is John Belgrave the Chief Ombudsman from 1 July 2003 who has a commerce background—sure he has been Secretary for Justice but law is not his mainstream activity—and there is also Mel Smith who has a BA in political science. 
There have been circumstances over the years where there have also been Ombudsmen without legal qualifications but it has been relatively rare. Now we have all three Ombudsmen without legal training. I think that is a pity and an issue that would be addressed by an incoming National Government. 
I would also say this in reinforcement of the points that I have made today. We all know that Ombudsmen are independent Officers of Parliament appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House which is what we are doing today. But they have only three functions and those three functions are substantially legally loaded: first of course to form opinions on the merits of complaints from citizens about the administrative acts and decisions of Government agencies; second to conduct reviews of decisions to decline release of official information either under the Official Information Act or the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act; and finally to provide guidance and information to employees who have either made or are considering making protected disclosure pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act. In that context of the purpose of Ombudsmen it is not a wholly satisfactory circumstance that we are seeing no Ombudsmen in this current round who have legal qualifications. 
I do not want to detract though from the qualities that Beverley Wakem undoubtedly has and National will support the appointment. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Due to retirement we need a new Ombudsman and Parliament has selected that person. The process was efficient effective democratic and fair. The result is that we have appointed a lady with considerable ability a very impressive track record and one who will make a very competent Ombudsman. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to see her appointed and I take the opportunity of wishing her every success. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 For the ACT party I want to add our congratulations on this appointment. I was in Radio New Zealand’s building last night and looking along the walls I saw a photo of a very young-looking woman who must have been—I will not say surprisingly—an extraordinarily youthful interruption to the normal line of chief executives of Radio New Zealand. 
I came across Ms Wakem again when she had left the comforting arms of the State and had gone to Wrightson in I think a human resources role but it ended up being a lot more than that and I believe she did an extraordinary job there under trying circumstances. I certainly appreciated the wisdom that she offered and the balance that she was able to bring to a position that was quite tough at that time. The panel I am sure was delighted to have someone of her calibre as a candidate for this job. 
 I endorse the concern that when there is no one with legal training in a position such as this there may be something lost from the Office of the Ombudsmen. I spent 2 years as an investigating officer in the Office of the Ombudsmen. I started under Sir George Laking who I think may have had a law degree but certainly had never practised as a lawyer. I believe that he performed in a way that built on the credit that the office had had from the time of Sir Guy Powles. So I am not overly concerned about the absence of a legal qualification but endorse the noting of it for future reference. 
We are very pleased to be able to add our voice to those welcoming this new parliamentary commissioner to our service. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I am also delighted to support the appointment of Beverley Wakem as an Ombudsman for our nation. Beverley has had a most distinguished career and that fact of course says a lot about her as an individual. The career has flowed from the qualities of the individual and I have no doubt at all that she will continue to serve our nation in this new capacity to a very high standard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is an Officer of Parliament position and I was chairman of the Officers of Parliament Committee. I know Beverley Wakem personally and I just want to say how pleased I am that this was a unanimous appointment. We are very pleased to welcome her as an Officer of Parliament if this motion is carried. 
Motion agreed to. 
Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint for the financial years ending on 30 June 2005 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 CST Nexia Audit of Auckland as auditor of the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General relating to those financial years.  
This motion answers that old question “Quis custodiet custodies?”; in this case it is CST Nexia Audit. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is happy to support this motion. For the public to have confidence in the processes and work carried out by the office of the Auditor-General it is important that all audit processes applied to that office are of the same standard as those applied by the Auditor-General to other public entities. Further under the Public Audit Act any independent auditor is to exercise the same powers that the Auditor-General has in relation to the audit of public entities. We need an independent auditor who has the capacity to audit financial statements statements of service performance legal compliance waste and probity issues and to undertake performance issues. There must be no conflict of interest. The term of an independent auditor should be for a period of 3 years as indicated in the motion and what we are approving today is the reappointment of CST Nexia Audit. 
 It is interesting to note that 3 years ago when this exact appointment took place on 18 October 2001 the firm then was known as Curran Sole and Tuck. I checked with the Auditor-General’s office to make sure that we were talking about the same firm. I note that “CST” are the initials of the original name of the firm proposed to undertake the appointment. So we are dealing with the same firm. I wanted to check that we were in fact dealing with the same company. 
National is very happy to support this resolution. We look forward to the same performance being provided over the next 3 years by this company. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Government notice of motion which states: “That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint for the financial years ending on 30 June 2005 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 CST Nexia Audit of Auckland as auditor of the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General …”. I confirm the words of Lindsay Tisch who spoke before me by saying that we are happy to support the motion. CST Nexia Audit has done a good job in the last 3 years and we look forward to it doing a good job in the next 3 years. As a Parliament we need to ensure that there is total integrity in the system and an absolute willingness by all parties to make sure that this is a transparent and good process so that at the end of the day all New Zealanders are served well and with the utmost honesty and integrity. We do support this notice of motion and the reappointment of the auditor. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 5.33 p.m.