Volume 639 Week 44 - Tuesday 15 May 2007 
Volume 639 Week 44 - Tuesday 15 May 2007 
[Volume:639;Page:9171] 
Tuesday 15 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Bougainville Autonomous Region—Speaker of the House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Nick Peniai Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair. 
Hon Nick Peniai accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Obituaries 
His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I move  
That this House notes with sadness the death of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II Head of State of the Independent State of Samoa that it extends its condolences to his family and the people of Samoa at this time and looks forward 
to continuing good relations with Samoa. 
His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili was elected to the Malietoa title in 1940 and has been one of Samoa’s four tama-a-aiga—paramount chiefs—since that time. His career of service to his people began in 1940 as one of the two fautua—leading high chiefs—who served as the official Samoan advisers to the successive New Zealand administrators and then as a member of the pre-independence Council of State in 1949. He played a leading role in guiding his country to independence in 1962 and on independence he assumed the office of head of State jointly with Tupua Tamasese Mea’ola. On the death of Tupua Tamasese in 1963 Malietoa Tanumafili became the sole head of State for life. 
Throughout his long reign as head of State His Highness represented Samoa with wisdom humour and insight. He defined his post through gracious dignity and sincere warmth of character. He was a man of great humility and a nationalist. He was immensely proud of his country but an intelligent leader and well aware of the need to offer a guiding hand rather than an oppressive one. He was regarded as the traditional father of both Samoas—not only independent Samoa but also the United States territory of American Samoa. He was regarded throughout the region as an excellent role model and an outstanding leader. Malietoa Tanumafili II was deeply respected throughout his life for the great service he carried out for his people in Samoa. He will be greatly missed—not only within Samoa but here in New Zealand and in the wider Pacific region. E ua malie toa! E ua malie tau!  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party wholeheartedly supports this resolution and pays tribute to His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II the father of Samoa. Malietoa Tanumafili as the head of State of Samoa played a very special role in the bond that ties our two countries. At the time of his death at age 94 he was the world’s longest-serving head of State. His links with New Zealand mirror his nation’s links to New Zealand and his special attachment to New Zealand mirrors Samoa’s special attachment to this country. 
He was educated in New Zealand at St Stephen’s College in Auckland and at Wesley College in Pukekohe. Like many of his people who are now one of the essential ingredients that make up the people called Kiwis he made a special contribution to this country. He visited New Zealand many times including at the invitation of the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu. 
But Malietoa Tanumafili was not just a figurehead to his people; he also provided them with real leadership. He is credited with preserving Samoa’s stability when some of its newly independent Pacific neighbours were suffering violence and unrest. Through those testing times he provided calm and strength. For that his people will be eternally grateful. 
To the Samoan people in Samoa and to the Samoan people who have made New Zealand their home we extend our deepest condolences at his passing. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The death of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II last Friday night is indeed an event of great sadness not only in Samoa but here in New Zealand and the wider Pacific region. His Highness was a great and valued friend of New Zealand. As has been said his secondary education was in New Zealand. He was well known to successive New Zealand Governments both as an official Samoan adviser and in the important role he played in leading his country to independence in 1962. It is significant that New Zealand has a treaty of friendship with only one country Samoa and our shared unique relationship is due in no small part to Malietoa Tanumafili’s influence as a founding father of modern Samoa. 
His Highness was one of the world’s longest-serving heads of State and one of the most respected and admired statesmen of the South Pacific region. He has always been held in the greatest respect in Samoan society as well as within New Zealand and the wider Pacific region. New Zealand First joins the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of this House in offering our sincere condolences and sympathies to the people of Samoa at the great loss of their esteemed head of State His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully endorses the comments made by Dr Cullen Mr Key and Mr Peters in mourning the death of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili the revered head of State of Samoa. It reminds us of the very close relationship—the warmth and friendship—that New Zealand has with the Samoan people. We extend to the people in Samoa and to the Samoan community in New Zealand our greatest sympathy and we stand with them on this day. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Kai te Rangatira kaiwhiriwhiri o to tatou Whare nei huri noa ki nga kaiarahi o nga pati me nga mema katoa o te Whare Paremata tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To you Madam Speaker adjudicator of this House of ours and party leaders and all members of Parliament greetings to you all 
.] 
Susuga Malietoa Tanumafili was born in 1913 and at the young age of 26 he inherited the title of Malietoa on the death of his father. In 1962 when Samoa gained its independence he was made joint head of State along with Tupua Tamasese Mea’ole. Unfortunately Tamasese died the following year but from that time right until this week Malietoa Tanumafili remained head of State or O le Ao o le Malo—king—of Samoa. It has already been said that he was long serving. In fact he was the longest-serving monarch ever. He was ahead of Queen Elizabeth II and the King of Thailand in the length of time spent as head of State. Therefore it is fitting that we here in Aotearoa should join the people of Samoa and the Samoans in New Zealand in mourning this king. He was educated in New Zealand at St Stephen’s College and Wesley College. 
Na reira kai te ariki takoto i te waka whakamutunga. Nau te karanga akuanei ka tae atu matou ki a koe. Kai te ariki kai te tipua kai te rangatira takoto i te waka whakamutunga kia uhia nga korero kai runga i a koe. Ka tae atu matou ki te mau atu ki a koe nga taonga mo koutou te mate ara ko nga roimata me nga hupe kia ringihia kai runga i a koe Na reira i te mutunga ake haere i to waka ki o tipuna matua na ki to papa a ki a ratou. Haere ki te kapunipunitanga o nga wairua ki te pae o mahara okioki pai mai. Kai te rangatira kai te ariki haere haere haere atu ra. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
And so the monarch lie there in the vessel of finality. Yours is the call and in time we will come to you. Oh monarch celestial being and chief of all chiefs rest there in the vessel of finality to be enveloped by tributes to you. We will come and bring with us treasures for you the departed in the form of tears and mucus to shed upon you. And so at the end of it all depart in your vessel to your ancestors your father and others. Go to the gathering place of the spirits to the horizon of memories; rest there well. So to the chief of all chiefs the monarch depart depart farewell 
.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with other members in expressing our condolences to the family and people of Samoa on the death of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II the revered long-serving head of State of that country. 
Other members have spoken about Malietoa’s length of service. I want to put another context to it. This man is an extraordinary link with all of Samoa’s contemporary history. When we consider that he is the descendant of one of four main princely families that he succeeded to the title Malietoa in 1940 and that he became a head of State jointly in 1962 and the sole head of State a year later we see that that period of time really reflects the total modern development of Samoa post the German colonial experience. I think the loss for his people is not just the loss of a revered respected and deeply loved leader but a loss of that continuity of history. The challenge for Malietoa’s successor whoever that may be will be to bring those strands back together. So our thoughts are very much with the members of his family at their time of grief but also of the people whom he loved so much who will be contemplating literally life after Malietoa. 
We stand by the people of Samoa in their moment of grief. We wish them well for the future and we salute a great leader who has left us and them. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises with the entire New Zealand Parliament to send this Parliament’s condolences to the people of Samoa and to the family of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II. It is amazing to think that he took over as king—as leader of his country—at a time in our history that was the darkest days of World War II. That seems to us like a wholly different era from today. This man was king and has been king for all of that time. This is a sad time but we should also celebrate what a tremendous life this man led what he achieved in his life and what the people of Samoa have achieved. I think that Malietoa can stand as an inspiration for all of us who feel as though we are just reaching our stride in our lives too because he shows that we can have a very very long life and a very very productive life indeed. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I lau Afioga le Fonofetalai Afio sui o tagata mauli o tagata fenua o Aotearoa. I le mamalu male päia o le Maota nei. Oute tautala atu ma le agaga faanoanoa aua le “tuu malo” pe ole valaau päia a le Atua i le Ao mamalu ole Malo o Samoa lona afioga mamalu ile tapaau Faasisina e afio i lona nofoa vaevaeloloa i lona tala na atoatoa ma lona fala folaloa e faalogo iai Samoa i le susuga i le Malietoa Tanumafili le lua. 
[ 
Madam Speaker representatives of tangata whenua of Aotearoa to the dignitaries and representatives of this Parliament I speak with a spirit of sadness in regard to the passing of Samoa’s head of State Susuga Malietoa Tanumafili II. 
] 
It is indeed a sad time for all Samoans to hear of the passing of His Highness Susuga Malietoa Tanumafili II head of State of Samoa. I pay tribute as other colleagues have this afternoon and honour to his life’s work and to his memory and legacy. It is a proud legacy to add to his forefathers’ and their ancestral history from the Tongan era to receiving the gospel and the conversion of Samoans to Christianity. 
Malietoa has served his people and his country well from before independence in 1962 and for 45 years as Samoa’s head of State. He gave committed service with humility and dignity as the father of the nation and he gained deep affection love and respect from his people which helped to forge stability and harmony for 45 years in Samoa. He encouraged and took pride in the achievements of his people both inside and outside Samoa. 
On behalf of the Samoan community in New Zealand I extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to Susuga Malietoa’s children and family and to Aiga Sa-Malietoa. Also to the Council of Deputies the Prime Minister and Cabinet Parliament and the people of Samoa I ask that God may comfort them during this time of sadness. We give thanks praise and honour to God for Malietoa’s life and service to the Government nation and the people of Samoa. 
“Ua pauu toa ua maimau ai aupega o le taua.” Ia pau se toa ae tulai mai se toa aua Samoa ma lona malo. 
Ia manuia le malagi i le susuga i le Malietoa Tanumafili le lua. Faatofa ma ia Soifua i lau Afioga i le Tapaau Faasisina le tama ole tätou Atunuu - Soifua. 
[ 
“Great warriors have fallen effective weapons of war are wasted.” 
A great warrior has fallen another great warrior needs to stand for Samoa and its Government. 
All the best for the journey of Malietoa Tanumafili II. Goodbye and farewell to Tapaau Faasisina the father of the Samoan nation—farewell. 
] 
Motion agreed to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask all members to stand and observe a moment’s silence. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave  
That notwithstanding Standing Order 277(1) if 
whenever the Clerk is to conduct a ballot under Standing Order 277(2) or  
(ii) on a Wednesday on which Government orders of the day take precedence  
it appears that there will not be four orders of the day for the first readings of members’ bills available for consideration at the next Wednesday’s sitting at which members’ orders of the day take precedence the Clerk may accept notices for the introduction of members’ bills so as to bring the number of orders available that day up to four.  
Just to explain that briefly it will continue to the end of this parliamentary session the experimental procedure that we have followed over the last year or so to ensure that we do not have an unnecessarily low number of members’ bills on the Order Paper. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an issue in relation to unanswered written questions and I have raised this issue before. There are now 82 overdue questions that the Minister for Social Development and Employment needs to reply to me on. Fifty-six of those have since been answered with a non-answer which simply stated that they would be responded to shortly. This matter is now becoming quite ridiculous. We have had weeks and weeks of this. I have written twice to the Leader of the House and he has acknowledged that. I would ask you Madam Speaker whether you could do anything to assist with this matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I will be discussing the matter with the member. 
Questions to Ministers 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
John Key 
: Does she agree with the majority of New Zealanders who according to the latest TV3 poll want Michael Cullen to deliver a personal tax cut in this week’s Budget and if there are no personal tax cuts want him sacked; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No; I agree with the National Party spokesperson on finance that this is not the time for substantial personal tax cuts. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that 44 percent of Labour’s own voters want Dr Cullen sacked if he does not stump up with personal tax cuts in this week’s Budget while only 41 percent of voters want him to stay; and if Labour’s own supporters want Dr Cullen sacked—let alone the rest of the country—how long will it take her to come to that realisation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member might do well to read the latest Australian opinion poll. Australians by a large majority said that the most important part of the Budget for them was tax cuts and promptly increased the lead of Labor in the opinion polls. 
John Key 
: If inflation concerns are the only reason Dr Cullen’s Budget will not include personal tax cuts this year why does she think Dr Cullen said yesterday that the election year Budget in 2008 will include personal tax cuts even though he currently has no idea what the environment will be like then? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: By sheer chance I happen to know what Dr Cullen actually said which was that he hopes in next year’s Budget to outline the Government’s long-term plans in respect of personal taxation. 
John Key 
: What is the magic that makes a tax cut under Labour a possibility in election year but totally unaffordable and inflationary the rest of the time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I just answered that question but if the member would care to even look at the latest economic data put out yesterday he will find that retail sales rose by 3.8 percent in one quarter. If that is not showing excess demand in the economy then I do not know what is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the two great tax cuts in the past occurred in the late 1980s when National was not occupying the role of Minister of Finance or Treasurer and in 1998 when again National was not occupying the role of Treasurer— 
Hon Member 
: Aw! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well it is a fact actually is it not boys? The last big cut in this country was $1.1 billion when I was Treasurer. Can the Prime Minister confirm that and could she give us any idea why given that track record National should be trusted on this matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true to say that the largest change to the taxation system including the biggest cuts in the top tax rate and in the business tax rate occurred in 1988 and that there were further substantial cuts in taxation in 1997-98. It is also true that both incumbent Governments lost the next election. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that Dr Cullen has confirmed in the House this afternoon that tax cuts are not necessarily on Labour’s agenda for election 2008? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said yesterday that I hope to outline in next year’s Budget what the long-term plans will be in respect of any changes around personal taxation. What I do notice is that if we had had $2.5 billion worth of tax cuts in the last year as proposed by the member then the figures for yesterday’s retail sales would be much higher than they were inflationary pressures would be higher and the current account deficit would be even worse. But this member said that we should borrow more as the answer to economic management in New Zealand 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with what in effect Michael Cullen has been telling the people of New Zealand for the last 8 years which is that “you can’t have a tax cut when the surplus is small because you can’t afford it; you can’t have a tax cut when the surplus is big because—by the way—there’s no correlation between the two; and you can’t have a tax cut when there’s a threat of inflation and so in fact”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this rubbish? 
John Key 
: Well the only time one can have a tax cut I say to Trevor is obviously when one is behind in the polls. That is what he said yesterday. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true in any simple understanding of macroeconomic management that if a large surplus is due to demand-led economic growth feeding that demand is the most stupid thing one could do. That is why Bill English has been saying that we should not do it. So Opposition members disagree with one another—even on their core policy. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Lester Brown in his book  
Plan B 
 that the overriding challenge is to restructure taxes to get the market to tell the ecological truth; if so how can she have confidence in a Minister of Finance who developed a billion dollar - plus tax-cut package for business without any consideration of using it to promote sustainability? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Officials are indeed working on whether the tax system can be used in that respect but I prefer to do the work—and I am somewhat sceptical about the possibilities—rather than picking a billion dollars out of the air for supposed tax incentives for sustainability without any detail about what they might be. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the ACT party has always said that it is a good time for a tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes even when it was the Minister of Finance it used to argue that as well. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What indications does he have of parents and early childhood education services being aware and supportive of the Labour-led Government’s 20 hours free early childhood education policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am informed that 40 orders a day are being rushed out to meet the growing demand from the early childhood sector for attestation forms to sign parents up for 20 hours free. That means we now have orders for 259000 forms; we have 107000 parent information booklets on order; and we have had 4200 calls to the information line. We have heard from the member’s electorate of Gisborne that that region will be celebrating the arrival of early childhood 20 hours free. I think the indications are positive. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the Minister aware of any opposition in principle to 20 hours free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is almost none. Virtually no one in the early childhood sector disagrees in principle with this policy. But I have heard that National’s Paula Bennett made it clear on  
Close Up 
 last Thursday that the National Party’s opposition to the policy was not based on money it was based on the fact that the National Party simply does not want all parents to have access to 20 hours free. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister have any idea how many 3 and 4-year-olds will actually receive 20 free hours come 1 July; if so what are his latest estimates because it seems he has no idea actually how many 3 and 4-year-olds will get it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I have frequently told the member in answer to her many many insightful questions on this matter up to 92000 3 to 4-year-olds will have access. I am optimistic that on 1 July we will have a good muster of centres. I am equally optimistic that over a period of time just as in the case of the primary health organisations we will see more and more centres take up this kind offer. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the member agree that the level of resistance to the 20 hours free policy has been greater than initially predicted and to what factors does he attribute the level of resistance countenanced thus far? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first question no. In answer to the second question there are people on the other side of the House who are paid to get up every day and oppose it. 
KiwiSaver—Average Wage and Default Contribution 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will a person on the average individual wage working full-time who starts a job after 1 July 2007 pay into KiwiSaver per week if they are automatically enrolled in the scheme at the default rate of 4 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Approximately $34 a week. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that to get a tax incentive of about $11 a week a person on the average wage of $45000 will need to put $34 per week into KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a very interesting question. I rely upon the member’s answer. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that Australia has in excess of $750 billion in its superannuation fund with compulsory contributions having started at 6 percent of people’s salaries and now being 9 percent; if so what would the total amount of New Zealand savings be if we had decided to commence compulsory savings of that proportion in 1997 as proposed by New Zealand First? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Off the top of my head I find it fairly difficult to answer that question given the number of variables that would come into play. But I think something approximately in the order of $100 billion—or getting towards that figure—would be about right. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he seen on support for the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received reports of support from a wide range of sectors including business the unions and overseas experts. I am also surprised to see a recent report from Mr English stating that his party now supported this scheme which his leader had slated as being a cheque book that we had used to pay for the pool boy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of people on the average wage who are facing significant increases in interest rates are likely to be able to afford to lock away $34 a week in extra savings until they turn 65 in order to reduce their taxes by $11 per week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is making a number of assumptions in that question which I think he should be encouraged not to do. Let me go further than that and say that the assumption when the KiwiSaver scheme was introduced in 2005 was that 25 percent of the workforce would join up within 5 years of the scheme starting. Some recent opinion surveys suggest a considerably higher figure than that may be likely and indeed a report out sometime today I think will show that propensity to join is actually largest amongst households in the income range of $30000 to $69000 a year. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he seen any reports on the impact of KiwiSaver on the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s saying that New Zealand is one of the best-prepared nations for dealing with the challenges of an ageing population. I have seen a rather strange report from Mr English questioning whether the political consensus on superannuation still holds. After reports from Business New Zealand calling for cuts in New Zealand superannuation this suggests that National is now really moving towards suggesting that New Zealand superannuation should be cut by means of income and asset testing in the future. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that for KiwiSaver to make a significant difference to national savings he would need to use the traditional tax incentive that works for higher-income people who can afford to save or who will shift savings from bank accounts or shares into KiwiSaver in order to get the tax benefit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Hon Bill English 
: What advice would he give to middle-income New Zealand households facing increases in interest rates: should they pay off debt in order to avoid the higher interest rates that he has partly caused or should they opt to stay in KiwiSaver and lock up a weekly amount until they are 65 in return for either a tax benefit or some kind of donation from the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I would advise those people to do first of all is not to vote National. They should not vote National because a $2.5 billion a year across-the-board tax cut would place more pressure on interest rates. They should not vote National because Mr English has said the only problem with monetary policy is that the Reserve Bank governor has not put interest rates up enough. They should not vote National because if there is a National Government when they get to 65 they will find that their superannuation is less than it otherwise would have been. That is what he did the last time he was Minister of Finance; he cut New Zealand superannuation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House why he is including in his Budget a reduction in company tax rates which he has always argued against and savings incentives which he has always argued against; is it because economic policy is now run by Winston Peters who forced him into tax incentives and Peter Dunne who forced him into a company tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait until Thursday afternoon to find out what is in the Budget. Unfortunately for him what is in the Budget is neither a cock-up nor a conspiracy—his two favourite explanations of life. 
Justice—Miscarriages of Justice and Imprisonment 
4.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with Sir Thomas Thorp who warns in his report into miscarriages of justice that up to 20 people could be wrongfully incarcerated in New Zealand’s jails; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Sir Thomas Thorp’s report is a valuable study of the United Kingdom’s experience of miscarriages of justice but as Sir Thomas himself acknowledges there is no definitive New Zealand data on the potential number of miscarriages of justice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that following the Privy Council decision in the Bain case there are a number of other cases such as that of Scott Watson Peter Ellis John Barlow and others that cause considerable disquiet in the public’s mind and among legal professionals and that until this country has a process such as that outlined by Justice Thorp—that is a criminal appeals review office of some kind—that disquiet will not be laid to rest? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The option proposed by Justice Thorp is clearly a credible one for some jurisdictions and the work we are doing right now is really examining that alongside other options. But without commenting on specific cases I would point out that a number of the cases the member cited have resulted in referral back to the court by way of the current royal prerogative system. So clearly it is not the case that the process has failed many of those who have made use of it in New Zealand. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What has the Government done in relation to the issues raised by the Thorp report? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: We have moved to adopt a simple three-stage case-management system for considering applications to ensure there is a straightforward process and have expanded the pool of legal advisers and added additional support from external lawyers. Also it is fair to say that at the front end the Evidence Act 2002 will have a significant and positive impact on how the courts operate as it brings greater clarity to the way in which information is offered to courts as evidence. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What explanation does he have for the finding in the 2006 report of Sir Thomas Thorp that Maori and Pasifika peoples use the existing processes for reporting miscarriages of justice much less than Pakeha? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot offer the member an off-the-cuff explanation but certainly it sits inside the work being done now in terms of the overrepresentation of Maori in the criminal justice system. I think that question and many others must be addressed in terms of— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s what you were saying 9 years ago. What have you been doing? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: With respect the member’s party was in Government 9 years ago. He really should focus on the facts. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that public concern about the way in which evidence was gathered and presented to the court in cases like the Bain case and the Watson case raises strong doubts that the amendments to the Evidence Act which he referred to will overcome the suspicion that in such controversial cases the determination of the police to “get their man” often gets in the way of ensuring that all the relevant facts regardless of their impact on the Crown case are presented to the court so that juries can reach a fair and balanced verdict; if so what is he going to do about it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member understands that it is absolutely improper for me to comment at this time on the case that is currently before the court. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not normally raise points of order about Minister’s answers but my question was a general one using two specific examples. I think the Minister can be invited to comment on the general proposition I raised if not referring to the specific cases. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am happy to expand. Frankly it is too soon to reach the sort of conclusion that the member’s question implies in relation to the changes to the Evidence Act. It was enacted in November last year and I think it is simply too soon to reach that sort of conclusion. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does the Minister agree with the explanations of Sir Thomas Thorp that the reason Maori and Pasifika peoples do not report miscarriages of justice is that they feel they are not understood by the justice system; if so what is he doing to particularly improve Maori and Pasifika confidence in the integrity of the justice system? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think Justice Thorp’s comments have some merit. The work that is in progress now is specifically addressing that issue both through ongoing policy and specific programmes that are already working. In particular the work is looking at proven programmes and how they can be better resourced particularly programmes working with Maori and Pacific communities that have a proven track record. We are looking right now at how the better resourcing of those programmes might expand the effectiveness of their work. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In light of the Minister’s previous answer when he talked about the satisfactory nature of the way petitions to the Governor-General are dealt with does he agree that justice should be transparent accountable and consistent in process; if so what does he make of the opinion of senior Queen’s Counsel Judith Ablett-Kerr who describes the current way of handling petitions to the Governor-General as “terribly arbitrary with no consistency of approach no transparency and little accountability” and does he not agree that an independent office as outlined by Justice Thorp would provide a transparent consistent and fair process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In answer to the first question I disagree with the Queen’s Counsel who has a particular view on these matters as an active defence lawyer. I draw to the member’s attention Sir Thomas’ view after examining the 53 files that he had asked for the opportunity to access that he had few disagreements with the conclusions reached. That suggests that the current process is a robust one. That is not to say that the alternative model he has raised is not worthy of consideration; it is under current active consideration along with other possibilities. As the member knows I think that policy work is due for report later this year. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the current process in light of the fact that it took Rex Haig taking a prison officer hostage before he got a fair hearing and does it require taking someone captive to get a fair trial in the New Zealand system? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I simply do not agree with the member’s assertion. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he is disputing that Rex Haig had to take someone hostage or whether he is disputing that that is what it takes to get a fair deal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member asking another supplementary question—because the Minister did address the question? There are no more supplementary questions. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter in respect of Standing Order 399. Prior to question time my office and also the office of Judith Collins received calls from Shane Wenzel who is linked to the company I will be asking questions about in the House today. He issued personal threats about what would happen should I pursue my question in the House. I seek your advice on what steps to take. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is a matter of privilege so the member will raise the issue with me in the appropriate way under the Standing Orders. 
Case Boreham Associates—Teacher-aide Training 
5.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Has he NZQA or the Ministry of Education received any complaints about Case Boreham Associates a private training establishment training teacher-aides for schools; if so what steps have been taken as a result of any such complaints? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes. Since February 2005 the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has received several related complaints regarding Case Boreham Associates Ltd. That led subsequently to a range of actions relating particularly to the auditing process. In 2007 following obviously legal action against the company its registration was cancelled by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission ceased its funding. The commission is now applying for a refund of the money paid out early in this current calendar year. 
Katherine Rich 
: On what date did the Minister of Education pass on to him serious complaints he received in June 2005 about the tertiary provider that the courses were so bad students had to “teach themselves” and that the tutors were so hopeless that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority reports noted that they did not know any course content and had “little or no idea what to teach” plus tip-offs about potential fraud—that is taxpayers’ money being siphoned off into dodgy property deals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will appreciate that at that point I was not the Minister of Tertiary Education. The then Minister of Education dealt with the matter himself. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has he received any other correspondence related to Case Boreham Associates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. National MP Judith Collins wrote to my colleague the Minister of Education last month requesting information on why Case Boreham Associates’ registration had been cancelled. The accompanying letter from Case Boreham Associates thanked Judith Collins for her support. I quote: “Dear Judith Thank you for your support.”. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table my letter to the Hon Steve Maharey including the answer I received from Mr Maharey. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Case Boreham Associates to Judith Collins. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister says that the Minister of Education dealt with the issue himself would he not expect that when one of his colleagues—in this case the Minister of Education—receives serious complaints about a tertiary provider namely problems with appalling course quality and the potential misuse of tertiary funds by their being siphoned off into dodgy property deals that Minister would pass that on to the Minister of Tertiary Education; and what discussions were had? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the time my colleague was the Minister responsible for both porfolios. Therefore there was no point in passing it on to himself. He did refer the matter to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. 
Katherine Rich 
: With reference to my colleague Judith Collins is the Minister trying to create the impression that even though this tertiary provider failed three New Zealand Qualifications Authority audits had tutors who could not teach was the subject of serious allegations of siphoning taxpayers’ money into dodgy property deals and received $1.2 million worth of taxpayer funding somehow my learned colleague Judith Collins is responsible for that when she was only writing a letter on behalf of a constituent asking that Minister to explain matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If all those facts were known to the Opposition it seems strange that Judith Collins should write to the Minister asking him to explain his actions in that particular respect. 
Katherine Rich 
: Which is worse: the Government dishing out money for courses of questionable academic merit such as twilight golf homeopathy for pets and radio singalongs or dishing out money to a training organisation that is under investigation for diverting taxpayers’ money—which was supposed to be used to train teacher-aides—into property deals; and what does it take for something to be done about these kinds of disasters? Do they have to be of wananga proportions before the Government actually does anything about them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That was a good try but in fact the Government has saved something like $200 million by cancelling low-quality courses which is why I have been able to redirect money into the polytechnics and universities. In this case the Tertiary Education Commission has to continue funding while the organisation has New Zealand Qualifications Authority registration. Its student component funding started in 1999. Its funding from the Government started in 1993. 
Katherine Rich 
: When this Government received continued serious complaints and tip-offs and three damning New Zealand Qualifications Authority audit reports and was aware that liquidation papers were filed back in July 2006 why did it take until after the beginning of February when the company had gone into liquidation for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to finally scrub it off its registration list? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we were to respond to every complaint I receive about every organisation by deregistering them then even Auckland University would not be receiving Government funding. 
Employment—Support into Work 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the Labour-led Government’s success at supporting people into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The household labour force survey figures released last Thursday show that employment in New Zealand was at a record high of 2143000 people in the March 2007 quarter. That means we have 347000 more people in work than we did in December 1999 which is an increase equivalent to the entire population of the beautiful city of Christchurch. The unemployment rate is at 3.8 percent remaining at historically low levels. It was the 11th consecutive quarter for which the unemployment rate was below 4 percent in New Zealand. The household labour force survey results also supported a continued reduction in the number of people on the unemployment benefit in the country. There are now only 26678 New Zealanders reliant on that benefit. That is an 83 percent reduction since this Government took office and the lowest figure since the middle of the 1980s—27 years ago. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister received about the numbers of youth on an unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can report that in December 1999 17514 18 and 19-year-olds received the unemployment benefit. As at the end of April this year that number was 1424. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How many? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is 1424. That is a reduction of 92 percent since this Government took office. There are now 28 Work and Income service centres in this country where at the end of April there were no youth in receipt of unemployment benefit and a further 66 service centres where the number was less than 10. That success is also reflected in the numbers of Maori youth aged 18 to 19 in receipt of the unemployment benefit which stands at 572 in April and Pacific youth aged 18 to 19 in receipt of the unemployment benefit which was only 162 in April—an extraordinary achievement. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. Is it true that one of the reasons for the success of the Government’s programme to support people into work is that the Government is paying employers $280 a week to take on workers; if so can the Minister please explain to the House why for all of that subsidising of private enterprise Maori still make up 36.5 percent of all those receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. It is true however that the number of Maori on an unemployment benefit is now below 9000. It is actually 8927 which is 77 percent less than it was in December 1999. I seek leave of the House to table a schedule of the 28 Work and Income service centres with nil unemployed youth and the 66 centres with fewer than 10. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
District Health Boards Auckland—House Officer Vacancies 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the estimated house officer vacancy rate for each of the three Auckland district health boards for the third quarter which starts later this month and does he expect the vacancy rates to worsen? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am informed that the three Auckland district health boards have house officer vacancies—interpreted by most people as meaning a shortage of doctors—estimated at less than 2 percent which represents seven doctors over three district health boards. I am also advised that it is not expected that the overall shortage will worsen in the next quarter. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How seriously is the Government taking this issue when senior clinicians from hospitals in Auckland are talking about a 21 percent shortage in Auckland and a 28 percent shortage in Waitemata when the country is facing a worsening shortage of hospital doctors and when the New Zealand Minister of Health Pete Hodgson is in Wales advising the Labour Party there on how to form a new Government—just as his own is falling apart? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This Government is the first Government since 1981 to increase the number of doctors trained—an increase of 40 since 2004. Also—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming difficult to hear the answer. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Mr Ryall does not seem to understand that the doctors are there. In many cases they are taking up locum positions so they can be employed on better pay and with better conditions—and why would they not? So there is not actually a shortage of doctors. Dr Stephen Child the director of clinical training at the Auckland District Health Board said on  
Morning Report 
 this morning: “Most importantly is we need to look at how we currently staff our hospitals. We have what is called fixed staffing ratios which means we have to have so many doctors on during the daytime rather than being able to roster doctors when we need them. And I think we need to look at the way we do the whole system and try to do things a bit smarter.” I would say “amen” to that. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister heard any reports of compromise to patient safety in respect of junior doctors in the Auckland area? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I heard that not unusually Mr Ryall on the radio this morning was luxuriating in some unnecessarily worrying and scaremongering statements. He said: “The real worry for Aucklanders is that unless these shortages can be fixed their services will be affected.” But in the same news item two senior clinicians in Auckland agreed that there will be no compromise in patient safety. I am also informed that there are no plans to cut back on elective surgical services as a result of any potential house officer shortages. I advise Mr Ryall to stop being an ambulance chaser in this House and around the country. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister concerned that the increased rate of locum use at Auckland hospitals is exacerbating doctor shortages as more are opting out of regular positions to take up better-paying locum work; if so what is he doing to improve the situation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I said that does not equate with doctor shortages; it means that many of these positions are being filled by locums on better pay and conditions. I note that the medical education and training report launched last week by Dr Cullen and Mr Hodgson states that following the first post-graduate year there is no specific clinical requirement for the second post-graduate year and many doctors decide to make what amount to lifestyle choices and become locums. This is clearly an area of the training system that needs further consideration; I understand that it is being done as a matter of urgency. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When will the Minister of Health Mr Hodgson return from Wales where he is giving the Government there advice on how to form a new Government; and does the shortage of doctors mean that services in the greater Auckland area will have to be changed in the way they are configured—for example will women in the Waitemata District Health Board area have to deliver their babies at Auckland City Hospital because of the shortage of obstetric registrars on the North Shore? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not think that Mr Hodgson will be returning any time soon in answer to any pressure that Mr Ryall puts on him. I do not know exactly what the situation will be for obstetrics. If the member wants a specific answer to that question he can submit it to me and I will see that he gets it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that Dr Pat Alley the training director of Waitemata District Health Board was lying when he said that hospitals in the Auckland region are facing the highest staff shortages ever seen; and does it not show that after 8 years 43 reports and numerous committees on the health workforce this Government has absolutely no idea of what is going on? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I do know is that Dr Pat Alley said on the radio this morning that he is absolutely convinced there is no compromise in patient safety because of so-called staff shortages. Dr Stephen Child the clinical director agrees. He says Aucklanders should be reassured that there are still a large number of doctors who are able to fill the gaps. However Dr Child says that in the long term staff retention and recruitment processes must be addressed and he concedes that a better approach is needed. It would be much better for the confidence that anyone might have in an absent National Party health strategy for Mr Ryall to start dealing objectively with these matters. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think it is an acceptable quality of care for New Zealand patients when even Dr Child from the Auckland District Health Board admits that patients see one locum doctor one night and then another locum doctor the next night and is it little wonder that there are so many problems in the public health system when doctors change more frequently than the bed linen? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that members of the House might just reflect on that description. It goes to the heart of the credibility of the member who said it. In fact the reality is that as I said the medical education and training report launched last week by Mr Hodgson and Mr Cullen indicates that there are necessary changes to be made in the system—not that there are shortages of doctors as Mr Ryall shouted out on breakfast radio this morning but that the way in which the doctors are actually used and resourced needs to be improved. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report that shows Pete Hodgson in Wales—while hospitals are facing record doctor shortages—advising the Labour Party there on how to form a new Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Pacific Nations—Trade with New Zealand 
8.  
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What is the Government doing to promote and assist improvement in trade between the Pacific nations and New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Trade 
: The Government funds the Pacific Islands Trade and Investment Commission in Auckland to promote exports from Pacific Island countries and investment from New Zealand in those countries. It supports efforts by the business community through the New Zealand Pacific Business Council to promote two-way trade and organises periodic trade missions into the Pacific. Offices of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in Suva Noumea and Papeete act as links for Pacific clients. Through New Zealand aid the Government supports capacity building in the areas linked to trade and of course my ministerial colleague does an enormous amount of work for Pacific countries in that way and I thank her for it. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the imbalance in the trade figures recently released for trade between the Pacific nations and New Zealand—for example New Zealand exports to Samoa are worth around $73 million a year although New Zealand imports just $2.8 million of Samoan products; the figure for New Zealand trade to Tonga is around $45.4 million a year and for Tongan products to New Zealand it is $2.3 million; the figure for New Zealand trade to the Cook Islands is around $66.5 million and for Cook Islands produce to New Zealand it is just $1.3 million; and the figure for New Zealand trade to Fiji is $284 million and for Fijian trade to New Zealand it is $56 million—what will the New Zealand Government be doing to improve that trade imbalance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to explain to the House that for most of those countries New Zealand is the route for their international trade. Often their trade comes through Auckland—that includes for example oil and other things. I think members have to take some care when taking those figures at their face value. They are gross not net figures. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the reliance of Pacific nations on agricultural exports and New Zealand’s problem with fruit fly what progress is being made to help the Pacific nations to meet the biosecurity requirements in order to improve their exports? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have a specific answer on the fruit fly question but I am sure if the member puts down a question to the Minister responsible he will be happy to answer it. 
Overseas Aid—Announcements 
9.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What recent announcements has he made with respect to New Zealand’s level of overseas aid? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the most significant ever increase in dollar terms to New Zealand’s aid spending. As a result of this year’s Budget New Zealand’s aid and development programmes will increase by 21 percent or $70 million in the next financial year and by a total of 69 percent over the next 4 years. This is by far the largest commitment for decades to increase official development assistance spending. The increase will take our official development assistance spending to $429 million in 2007 and 2008 representing 0.30 percent of gross national income. Further funding increases over the following 3 years commit us to reaching the gross national income figure of 0.35 percent by 2010’s Budget. On current figures that will see our aid budget reach over $601 million. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Where will the majority of the aid increase be directed? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The increased funding will go where it is most urgently needed in the Pacific and in Asia. Over half of the new money will be spent in the Pacific particularly in the Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu where the need is greatest. Pacific-wide programmes targeting education health livelihoods good governance and economic growth will all increase. New Zealand’s capacity to respond to humanitarian crises will also be bolstered in a region as vulnerable to natural disasters as the Pacific. This is an obvious priority. In conclusion funding for this work will increase significantly and will continue our long history of working closely with key multilateral partners such as UN agencies during times of humanitarian crises. 
John Hayes 
: What is going on when you increase the aid budget by $70 million against the background that $40.6 million spent last year on the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue resulted in depopulation of those countries; $26.7 million spent in Tonga and the Solomons resulted in riots and the capitals of Honiara and Nuku’alofa being razed; and $8 million spent in Fiji resulted in a coup—and now you plan to spend— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member has been here for a number of months now. Three times I think in the supplementary question he has mixed you up with the Minister and all of us can tell the difference. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. I let the member go because he does not often ask questions. But would the member please observe the normal rules. 
John Hayes 
: Madam Speaker I assume that you would like me to start again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I would also remind members both those who ask questions and those who answer them that they should be succinct. 
John Hayes 
: And why will we be spending more money in Viet Nam where Viet Nam’s aid will be the same as the aid going to Samoa plus the Cook Islands which is to be doubled and are you satisfied with the quality of the spending? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. We have got to the end of it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This country has had a long recognised special relationship with Niue with the Cook Islands and with Tokelau. It is one that has had bipartisan support over many decades and is a responsibility that we have undertaken with the UN. I would hate to think that that comment means that the National Party intends to abandon its support for those three special countries which has enlarged massively our footprint in the Pacific. The second thing is that depopulation is a priority in terms of the policy to rectify that and it is critical that the right policies be applied to those three countries—and that is our intention. The third thing is with regard to Tonga and the Solomons the riots there surely cannot be attributed to the aid that New Zealand has been giving in those countries but the issue requires us to better understand how we might act within the community to ensure that those sorts of reactions to the Governments of those countries are not to be repeated. On the issue of the coup in Fiji I do not recall the Governments of the day in 1987 or in 2000 being accused of initiating the coup in Fiji. So I am astonished that this member Mr Hayes seeks to follow some policy of recrimination against his former employers—namely the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—in this House and I would like to know whether Mr McCully endorses his approach. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was a very good example of a very long question with lots of issues getting a very long answer. So I would ask members to please restrain themselves. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister explain the attention being given to what could be called climate-friendly aid projects in the Pacific—renewable energy and the like—and the potential for using some of the commendable increase in aid that he has just announced for this purpose? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: For some time NZAID has been looking at the possibility of expanding for example biofuel alternatives in the Pacific and ensuring that we can facilitate if possible the technology in those remote islands to be put in place and used thereby saving substantially on the cost of fuel in those islands. With the rise in petrol costs that has become more and more imperative. So it is within the programmed extension of aid and increase in funding that we look seriously at those possibilities. I thank the Greens for their support for this policy and this increase and I just would hope that the ACT party and the National Party would get with the programme. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. How has the proportion of overseas aid spent on the Pacific changed since the incoming Minister pledged an aid focus on the Pacific in 2005? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Madam Speaker can I just say—[ 
Interruption 
] I just want to say that this is very interesting. Mr Hayes is a member of the New Zealand parliamentary Pacific group and has himself argued for an increase in aid within that parliamentary group. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You can probably anticipate my point of order. That was a most inappropriate way for Mr Peters to begin answering his question. We have noticed that he is struggling today but he should not be relying on notes from Brian Donnelly to get him through things. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but it is also an example that when there are interjections they tend to provoke a response. So would the Minister please just address the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I understand the complaint of the woodwork teacher— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is unnecessary. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The answer is—[ 
Interruption 
] But that is his background and training for this place—No. 3 in his party. 
John Hayes 
: He’s lost his mojo. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: A number of members are in the same boat actually. The proportion of overseas development assistance spent directly on the Pacific has increased—[ 
Interruption 
]—Madam Speaker could I— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please just get on and answer the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am trying to and I am on the first line and all I am getting is a barracking act from my right which is what the National Party is wont to do. With respect if those members want to make those sorts of comments surely I am— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There he is now—on a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. We are getting close to having to hear this answer in silence. I will have one more go. The Minister will please address the question so I would ask members to please let us hear the answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The change in aid focus that we pledged is seeing overseas development assistance spent directly in the Pacific increasing from an average of 41 percent to over 50 percent. These figures represent an increased focus on our neighbours in the Pacific as I have said as signalled by me as incoming Minister post the election 2005. I am also very pleased to see that people as eminent as President Bush have now declared that 2007 is to be the Year of the Pacific. At last we are getting our message away. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I know I have exhausted my allotment of questions for this week but could I just seek leave of the House to ask a question in relation to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask an additional supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the announcement of the increase of aid money to the Pacific should more independence for Pacific nations be promoted by way of trade rather than by continued dependency on aid money into the future? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is an excellent question and the answer is of course yes. Our aid budget should be designed to ensure that people who are currently dependent will be able to conduct their economic and social lives with as great a degree of independence as they are able to sustain given that in some parts of the Pacific the average age in society is under 18 years. That is pretty dramatic in terms of what the needs are if one is a Minister of Finance in that country. But I agree with the sentiment and our policies are focused towards that being the final outcome. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. Why has the overseas aid budget increased by such a significant amount? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Because I made a serious request to an enlightened Minister of Finance and he said yes. Tackling poverty and encouraging sustainable development in partnership with our neighbours is a central part of New Zealand’s national identity as a responsible international citizen. The substantial increase has resulted from a full assessment of future needs of our overseas development assistance programme. 
Energy—Renewable Energy Projects 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he stand by his statement that consents for renewable energy projects should be considered on “a case by case basis” by courts and councils and “that’s how it should be.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. All projects need to be evaluated on their merits and that includes evaluating them on a case by case basis. This can be achieved through a normal consent process run by local government or through the call-in options available to the Government. What it does not mean is taking a completely one-sided approach to large energy projects that would completely disempower local communities. To show the successfulness of this process I am pleased to advise the House today that following consideration of the views of all interested parties the Environment Court has approved 66 of the 70 turbines on the Project West Wind wind farm at Makara. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does he rest his hopes on the “successfulness” of that particular approach when in New Zealand today it is much easier to build a thermal electricity generation plant than it is to build a renewable one; when so many of the renewable projects are stalled through their spending months if not years in the court—3 years in the case of Project West Wind—and when costs which in the case of Project West Wind amount to $120 million are escalating at an enormous rate? Why then does the Minister not take some action to give a bit of teeth to his Prime Minister’s call for carbon neutrality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do apologise to the member for the invention of that word; “success” would do. I do not believe there is an issue here. I think this Government takes the appropriate attitude towards the Resource Management Act. We have no intent—unlike that party—to tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act to quote Mr Williamson. The fact is six wind farms have already been commissioned in New Zealand a further six currently have consents but have not yet been commissioned and a further 25 are in the planning process. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Why did the Government not call in Project Hayes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Early in the process both the territorial local authority and Meridian Energy expressed confidence in the normal consenting process. Therefore the Government decided not to call in the consent but instead to make a whole-of-Government submission in support of the project. I can advise the member that it was not until a matter of days before the consent process was about to begin that Meridian Energy wrote asking the Government to call in the project. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that under the current arrangements it would be many many years before those 25 proposed wind farms were adding to New Zealand’s electricity generation but that in just the short time of 7 years that his Government has been in power coal use has increased tenfold; and how does that sit with the Prime Minister’s goal of New Zealand being carbon neutral? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister noted that the approval process under the Resource Management Act sees thermal energy power stations consented to much more rapidly than renewable energy projects and that when they are appealed to the Environment Court the hearings take an average of 18 months to resolve and usually the project goes ahead; if so why will he not move to call in renewable energy projects or can he not see the urgency here? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do concede that many of these issues are urgent. I will not hesitate to consider and advise Cabinet accordingly if I think the local councils are not capable of running a robust process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why has he vaguely talked about developing a national policy on wind power that would give weight to national interest in the longer term when in the shorter term—from next year in fact—we start incurring a liability under the Kyoto Protocol for our sky-rocketing growth in carbon dioxide emissions most of which have come from greater reliance on thermal electricity generation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Because this Government is intent on working with parties including local government for good outcomes unlike National members who members will recall forced my local authority in Dunedin to sell the Waipori dam. But I am open as I have said publicly to developing a national policy statement around renewable energy should the need for it be identified as a result of the draft New Zealand energy strategy currently under preparation. I remind the member that I recently appointed an independent board of inquiry to hear public views on a proposed national policy statement on electricity transmission. I expect that board to notify the national policy statement shortly. That proposed national policy statement recognises the benefits of and the need for a robust transmission network and reflects the Government’s strong commitment to the development of clean and renewable energy sources. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister persist in saying that everything is OK when last year the Huntly station operated at record levels those records will be broken this year and the overall amount of energy produced from thermal electricity and used will be at record levels and what does that say about his Prime Minister’s determination to make us carbon neutral? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: My responsibilities as the member is only too aware exist around the consent process under the Resource Management Act. I believe that that process is a robust mechanism for balancing conflicting imperatives. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 For the benefit of the Speaker of the Bougainville Parliament who is sitting over there I seek leave to table yesterday’s official development assistance speech and to confirm for him that the views expressed by Mr Hayes are not the views of this Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Was that appropriate—to address somebody else in this House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it was not appropriate. The member— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well why was the leave put then? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: —is quite right. Because I normally let people finish their sentences! I have been reminded by that member in the past that that is the way this House should be conducted so I do not interfere when people are halfway through their statements. But it was inappropriate. Members know that when they are tabling documents they do it succinctly; they identify the document and they do not give any other interpretation to it. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Climate Change—Government Policy 
11.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on support for the Government’s climate change policy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I have received a report that a senior member of this House called Kyoto “a failure of a document” and a second report in which the same member says he would now honour Kyoto. Of course the member responsible for yet another climate change flip-flop is John Key. New Zealanders will judge whether his comments are as sincere as they were consistent. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding progress towards carbon neutrality? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have received a report that the InterCity group aims to operate the world’s first carbon-neutral national transport system. It recognises the business and environmental benefits of carbon neutrality. Despite National’s wish to the contrary carbon neutrality continues to break out all over the place. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government adopt John Key’s very realistic and credible policy target of a 50 percent reduction—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please continue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I will ask it again Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will hear this question in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government adopt John Key’s very realistic and credible policy target of a 50 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050 as announced at the weekend noting today’s announcement by Japan that it will propose this exact same target at the June G8 summit in Germany and that Japan has indicated the United States’ support for that target; and does that not show that John Key is right on the button in terms of where the international community is at on this critical issue of climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am gratified that the National Party seems to be getting in behind when it comes to climate change policy. It is now coming out in favour of emissions trading having recently supported us on the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. I would say that advancing towards carbon neutrality can be achieved through steady pursuit of sensible—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now hear the answer in silence. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would say that advancing towards carbon neutrality can be achieved through steady pursuit of sensible climate change policy—ensuring houses are adequately insulated rewarding those who plant forests on— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was straightforward: will the Government adopt the minus 50 by 2050 target? I seek that the Minister rather than giving us a generic speech addresses the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is addressing the question. If he had been able to finish I might be able to make a better judgment on that basis. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In addition to those sectoral efforts the Government is proposing other policy and of course this other policy will enable the Government to properly calculate what is an appropriate target for our emissions reductions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister having stated on 6 November 2006: “You ask me what date would New Zealand be carbon neutral. We haven’t picked a date yet. You’ll find it becomes clear in 6 months.” now make the situation clear given that 6 months have passed or was this just another example of climate change policy from him of promising answers in the never-never and never delivering? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Members who have had an opportunity to review the United Nations report on climate change and the different mitigation options that are open to countries to reduce their emissions will be pleased to see that the measures that have been proposed by this Government and that are being considered pursuant to the documents released prior to Christmas cover the ambit of mitigation potential. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked on what date New Zealand would be carbon neutral. The Minister said 6 months ago that we would know now. He made no attempt to answer that at all. He gave a generic answer about what might be happening around mitigation. No attempt was made to address the question of what date the Government would achieve carbon neutrality by. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but as members know they cannot specify the particular answer they want to the question. The Minister did address the question. 
Climate Change—Sink Credits 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does the Government stand by the advice of Cabinet Paper POL (00)26 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on climate change that “We also seek to maintain a high level of environmental discipline by allowing owners of sink credits to trade them freely on the international market.” and that “New Zealand made it clear during the Kyoto negotiations that we do not intend to use sink credits to—in effect—cross-subsidise our emitting sectors allowing them to avoid taking action.”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The advice referred to—by the Hon Phil Goff in 2000—needs to be seen in the context within which it was set. That was the international position for New Zealand in the negotiations that were taking place in 2000 on the rules of the Kyoto Protocol and in particular on whether any limits should be placed around the use of forest sinks to meet emission reduction targets. New Zealand’s position was that there should not be limits on the international trading of sink credits and that emitting sectors also had responsibility for taking action to reduce emissions. The outcome of the international negotiations was that the sink credits were able to be traded internationally. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What explanation is he giving as Minister of Foreign Affairs on why the Government reversed its policy of allocating Kyoto forest owners carbon credits; and does he support the Government’s decision to nationalise those credits? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member should really direct his question to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. Let me tell the member for his edification that the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative constitutes a sinks trading mechanism. It allows landowners to receive sink credits. Each credit is expected to be tradable on the international market. The Government’s recent discussion paper on sustainable land management and climate change included options to encourage afforestation. The Government is considering public submissions on this issue. No policy decisions have been made. The Government has announced its intention to investigate options for a broad-based emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. New Zealand expects all sectors of its economy to contribute to climate change mitigation in the long term. The question of the international linkages of such a scheme is under consideration. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has he had any difficulties in explaining the policy on nationalising Kyoto forest owners’ credits noting that in the last Parliament his spokesperson Jim Peters said of that Government decision: “New Zealand First is flabbergasted at this back-door socialism.” or is he now an apologist internationally for that back-door socialism? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: As per usual if the member is given two questions he gets his facts wrong again. What we said back then was in respect of the policy back then and there have been some changes. There are future decisions to be made as I said in my last answer. If Dr Smith wishes to make this an issue on the question of climate change I ask him to refer his questions to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. If he wants advice on foreign policy he has come to the right man. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has he had any difficulty as Minister of Foreign Affairs in explaining that in the 18 months since New Zealand First formed a confidence and supply agreement with the Government 8 million trees have been felled and not replanted given that with much fanfare he announced on 24 July “New Zealand First proposes an extra 10 million trees a year be planted over the next 10 years—as a minimum.”—or was that a typo and “planted” should have been “cut”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There are two parts to that question. First of all I have had no difficulty whatsoever internationally on this issue—that is a fact. If members ask my officials they will confirm that. But on the second part—the enlightened visionary policy that I announced on 24 July up at Russell one of our oldest settlements in this country—we still stand by the planting of 10 million - plus trees a year. That will change this country dramatically and better enable us as a country to meet some of our future obligations. It also gives us options. But when the Minister says it is not happening that does not mean we have abandoned our desire to persuade the Government to one day bring it to reality. We will not give up because getting the right policies implemented into Government programmes is what we are famous for. Some talk; some do. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports that show that 8 million trees per year have been cut down since New Zealand First announced its policy on planting 10 million trees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection to that? Yes there is objection. 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The third reading of this bill marks one of the final stages in paving the way for the SuperGold card to be launched in August this year. New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card at the last election. We made such a card a cornerstone of our supply and confidence agreement and we have worked since that time to bring it to fruition. The SuperGold card recognises the immeasurable contribution our seniors and veterans have made and continue to make to New Zealand society. From August this year the SuperGold card will be available to approximately 540000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over or who are aged under 65 and receive New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension. 
The benefits of the card are many and moreover they can be expected to grow over time. Some members may know that seniors cards have been available in Australia for some 15 years now. We know from the experience there that the seniors card system over there has improved dramatically over time. As well as enabling senior citizens to access commercial discounts from SuperGold card business partners the card will help them to access the wide range of central and local government entitlement services and concessions already available to them. 
The card and the information services that support it will be a focal point for ensuring that seniors know all about the assistance currently available and to be available to them and ensuring that they can go about getting it. There are a host of benefits so legion that I cannot possibly list them all now. [ 
Interruption 
] For the benefit of the member for Coromandel who goes around disabusing people of the truth on this matter and says all sorts of things that are fictional when she knows from this House and from the law—if she only understood a part of it—that what she is foreboding as being likely to happen is not a fact is not the law and is not going to happen I ask her to forget about the mangroves and try to focus on something serious for a while in her political life as brief as that will be. 
In this way the card will be a platform—a vehicle providing our seniors with the help and information they need to live healthy and independent lives now and in the years ahead. It will replace the community services card for eligible cardholders aged 65 and over and the superannuation card. Cardholders will be offered the option of a photo—I ask members to notice the words “option of a photo”—on their card. That will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or other form of photo ID. Veterans with war and emergency service may opt to receive a specially branded veterans’ version of the card. There will also be a dedicated SuperGold card website 0800 phone number and printed directory promoting the range of entitlements concessions and discounts available to cardholders across the country from central government local authorities and businesses. 
Let us consider the provisions of the bill and clear up some of the confusion wanton and egregious as it has been that was apparent during the second reading debate. As members will be aware the bill makes two amendments to section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964 which is an existing provision that enables regulations to be made for the issue and use of entitlement cards. I repeat: it is an existing provision. The first amendment in Part 1 will allow regulations to be made allowing for cardholder photographs to be placed on entitlement cards. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It doesn’t say optional. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is optional. Section 132A provides a generic regulation-making power for the issue and use of entitlement cards. Although the amendment has been promoted by the probable desire to provide for an optional photograph on the SuperGold card the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill appropriately amends this generic regulation-making power. Now there you have it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: No word “option” in there. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not too difficult and I hope that member has finally got it instead of being some doomsaying Cassandra as Ron Mark says. But she does not know what the word “Cassandra” means or where it comes from and never will know. 
The New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the Social Services Committee asked that the committee satisfies itself that it is appropriate for a power of this scope to be conferred by the proposed clause. The select committee did consider that issue but did not believe it appropriate so therefore recommended no changes to the bill. The regulations relating to the issue and use of the SuperGold card to be made under the amended section 132A(1) will reflect the decision that the photograph will be optional. There are issues to do with accountability oversight processes and the Regulation Review Committee’s ability in the future to look at this issue. 
The second amendment provides for barcodes on entitlement cards in time as technology changes as it will and for microchip technology to be used in relation to entitlement cards. Now let us deal once and for all with the misleading and vexatious claims made by some in this House who have sought to sully this great development for our seniors. 
Ron Mark 
: They hate old people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not know whether they hate old people or what it is. 
Microchip technology will not be part of the card when it is launched in August but we must face reality. In the not too distant future banks and retailers will be moving to chip technology as it is more secure as a medium for storing information. Here in Parliament these members—all of them—are using microchip technology for their security. They have it on their person all of the time. I wish that some of them had it on their person between their lips actually and horizontally. So we would be very negligent if we did not future-proof this card against these developments. We are getting ready for the future. This is the 21st century. It is now 2007 for goodness’ sake. The Luddite National Party should wake up. There is a huge change coming in the world and we should ensure that one of the biggest consumer forces in this country—the elderly—can be part of this great change. 
The amendment allows for the potential use of a card containing a microchip only if all the safeguards are met. The safeguards are already in place to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission will be consulted before any future use of microchip technology. I have given all the assurances. 
It is coming up to the end of my time and I want to close by saying that the SuperGold card is an important initiative that will provide real tangible benefits that will make a difference to the lives of senior citizens. The benefits that are capable of being negotiated—business by business service by service—are huge. All the new passports today carry microchipping. Maurice Williamson wanted to microchip all of our cars; I recall that National’s spokesman on transport wanted to microchip every car. 
I say to National Party members that they should cut out this drivel and nonsense. They are trying to scare some good wonderful old country folk who after all know who can be relied upon here. Between the National Party and New Zealand First there is only one option. The National Party’s record is disastrous. It promised to get rid of the surtax and when it came into office in 1990 instead of getting rid of it it put it up! 
Judith Collins 
: You were part of it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I was in Cabinet and I was sacked on 1 October 1991 for spelling out the tragedy of the National Party’s betrayal to its constituency. What happened in 1993? Within 18 months National had gone from having the biggest ever win in an election to a hung Parliament—within 3 years. 
This card will honour the wonderful contribution that the elderly have made are currently making and will go on making to New Zealand society. The SuperGold card will be a physical reminder that the cardholder is a valued member of our society with the right to be treated with dignity and respect. I am glad that my colleagues in New Zealand First and other members of Parliament in the present Government including Labour United Future and others had the prescience of mind to support this great initiative the benefits of which are infinite and will be legion over time. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Unlike the Minister who has just sat down I do not intend to indulge in 10 minutes’ worth of personal abuse because that is certainly about all we got from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We got an awful lot of talk about the veterans card and the SuperGold card neither of which by the way is mentioned in this legislation. The legislation is called the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How do you know? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Minister asks how I know. I know because I was the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee and I also know because I can read. 
One of the things we can say about this bill is that it does not apply just to those two aforementioned cards—we have never seen those cards for a start. It applies to all social security entitlement cards should any be issued and that is something the public needed to know about. 
I thought it was actually quite lacking in generosity for the Minister not to acknowledge the fact that the National Party has supported this bill all the way through yet all we got was a whole lot of abuse. He should note that this bill does not deliver exactly what he says it does. What he does not understand is that this bill will entitle a social welfare Minister or an equivalent Minister to put out a card containing the microchipped details of all unemployment beneficiaries or all domestic purposes beneficiaries. If the State is to do that then I think it is probably something the public should know about. I am not saying that we oppose it; I am saying that we think the public should have known about it. 
That is why last week National members worked with other members of this Parliament including the Maori Party United Future Taito Phillip Field the Greens and the ACT party to make sure that Taito Phillip Field’s amendment came through. We wanted to make sure there was some overview from the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. It was an instance of some of the parties in this House working together to deal with an issue National members had raised legitimately in the select committee. The issue is that when we are to have microchips inserted into cards we need to know what it is all about who will be affected what information will be on those cards and also how the privacy of people will be protected. 
Most members in this House felt that point was legitimate. By working together they were able to make the Government and New Zealand First sit up take notice and go along with that because they had the numbers. I notice that the member Russell Fairbrother chortles hugely but it is true—61 happens to be more than 60 by anyone’s count I say to Mr Fairbrother and members worked together to make sure that happened. 
What did members get for the hours they spent on this bill? They got abuse from the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is very very angry because quite clearly the man does not understand that this bill does not relate just to a veterans card or to a SuperGold card. Neither of those cards is mentioned; the bill actually relates to any entitlement card for social security beneficiaries. As I said before we do not necessarily have a problem with that. It is something we would always have to look at take back to caucus and discuss. The problem is that this had not been known to the public until the media put it on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
last week. The point was picked up by the media because they suddenly realised that the SuperGold card was in fact a microchipping ID card by stealth. That was the problem. 
I take the Minister’s assurances that this bill will be meant only for the veterans card and the SuperGold card but I would ask the House why that is not actually stated in this bill. Why has this bill been allowed to be open slather in terms of those entitlement cards with no restrictions at all until we got that amendment through last week to make sure that there was some overview? 
We would like to see veterans be able to have some acknowledgment for their service through this bill. Although many veterans simply said to me that the SuperGold card is a Clayton’s card I think they should probably wait and see what actually comes from it because apparently they will be able to get discounts from some commercial entities and possibly even discounts on rates. Many other national superannuitants have said that for them it is just like the old-age pension card and that they can get a bus pass. 
Many people feel that the card will not actually deliver what it has been promoted as delivering. Also the veterans and old-age pensioners will be asking whether this card will get them their hip operations their knee operations and their cataract operations done in time. Will they get preference? They feel after many many years that they probably deserve a bit of preference in the hospital system. 
If one looks at the National Party policy on veterans one will certainly see that in 2005 we said we believed that that was exactly what should happen for our veterans and that they deserved to be acknowledged for the work they did for their country and for the fact that they risked their lives for us. As I have said we will support this bill. We have supported it through its passage but we have had concerns. I am glad that those concerns have been listened to in the House and I am glad that we have been able to come to a reasonable amendment. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I have just listened to the speech of the previous speaker Judith Collins who busily danced on the head of a pin. She tried to make fatuous comments so she could put out yet another press release on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill to take the credit for its passing—knowing that the bill would be very popular with the senior members of our society. She will want to obfuscate the fact that in her last speech in the House she said that it was bad legislation and that National members voted for the bill in the Social Services Committee only for some spurious reason of support and to get the matter through the committee. 
The last time Judith Collins spoke about the bill in the Chamber she noted that National always reserved its objection to the bill. But now of course as the legislation becomes a reality she rushes off to issue her next press statement and take unto herself the credit for work she has not done. She does not quite fully mention that this bill has gone through over her vigorous rhetoric and opposition and that there has been no constructive input into the process from either her or her party. If she omits that from her press statement that will perhaps be in keeping with the continued contribution—and I use that word in a very ironic way—of the National Party to the progress of this bill. 
What the National Party does not like about this bill is that it recognises the valued members of this society as the Minister said. The National Party being an entity that recognises value in terms of dollars is unable to see that a gold entitlement card is a statement to each and every senior citizen that the work those senior citizens have contributed to build up New Zealand to what it is today is valued even if each individual senior citizen with a card has no great material wealth. It is itself a statement of recognition and a statement that finally this country recognises the very many ways that it is a good country because of the work of our senior citizens. 
We heard again in the previous speech from that member who sought to dance on the head of a pin that she tried to suggest that there was some untoward conspiracy here—perhaps she should become a sub-editor on  
Investigate 
 magazine—and that there was an attack on recipients of social security benefits generally. I have to say that this matter was not raised at the Social Services Committee by her or by the National Party at any stage otherwise it would have been explicitly dealt with in the report and I would have voted against the bill. 
I repeat at this stage of the third reading that the purpose of this bill is simply to make amendments to the Social Security Act 1964 and the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to enable full effect to be given to the Government’s intention in regard to the SuperGold card. We are talking here about the SuperGold card. That is what this bill is about and that is the bill that has gone before Parliament and will be passed today in the fullness of time. 
Just as National members as they prepare for their press releases are trying to take credit where it is not due unto themselves they have also tried to take from Taito Phillip Field the credit for his amendment which reinforced the steps that are handy but not necessary to ensure the sanctity of privacy of information— 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a continuous barrage from across the Chamber each time somebody from the Government benches has spoken. It has been very irritating. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for her point of order. I just say that I do not believe the interjections were bothering the member who was addressing the House. Had the interjections done so then I would have pointed out Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1 to the member on my left. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling Mr Assistant Speaker but the point that the honourable Tariana Turia is making is not that the interjections are interfering with Mr Fairbrother’s speech but that she is trying to listen to the speech and cannot do so because members sitting close to her on the National benches are making too much noise. I do not think she is objecting on behalf of Mr Fairbrother; she is saying she cannot hear the speech that is under way. I think that is a reasonable request that is in her right to make as the co-leader of a party in this House. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Speaking to the point of order I am prepared to start again if that would assist— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not think we need to start again. But I have taken on board what the honourable member has mentioned and I will keep a watch on it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I am reminded of the saying that empty vessels make the most noise. Perhaps the honourable Tariana Turia would have drawn that conclusion too as she listened to the barrage that has now subdued—which is an obvious admission from the barrackers on the other side of the House that they were making extensive noise in an effort to hide themselves away from the facts of the handiness of this card. 
This SuperGold card recognises as I have already said the contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand. That is something the National Party cannot stomach. If people measure their success by the size of their bank balance then they will fail to recognise the contribution of those who measure their success in other ways. 
The other thing that sticks in the gall of the National Party is that this SuperGold card fulfils a commitment and fulfilling a commitment to our senior citizens is a matter that the National Party has struggled with in the past. I take just one example of that. On 1 April 1999 the floor used to set New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension rates was cut from 65 percent to 60 percent by the previous National Government. A cut was brought in to reduce the floor level of payment then Jenny Shipley explained to veterans in a letter of October 1998 that doing this—in some weird way—would be of benefit to the superannuitants and the recipients of veterans pensions. 
So this bill upsets National members because it fulfils a commitment made to New Zealand First as part of its confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government. Of course that confidence and supply agreement is well entitled because this country has confidence that this Labour-led Government will honour its commitments to its coalition partner and its confidence and supply partners and in doing so it will honour its commitments to the people of New Zealand and in this case to senior citizens. 
 So what does the card offer? It offers discounts from participating businesses for senior citizens. Here is the rub and the point that the Opposition has tried to exploit with its fear-based argument. Participating businesses are moving from the swipe card—the barcode access—to microchipping and it is becoming an increasingly regular form of commerce to move from a barcode to a microchip-type of database. To enable participating businesses to offer easy access to concessions to senior citizens the card needs to be framed legally so that the improvements in technology can be absorbed therein. 
This is not to suggest that this measure is any invasion of privacy. This is not intended to open the floodgates of rampant State intrusion into people’s lives. This is simply a logical and clear step whereby this Parliament and its laws can keep up with developing activities in the business world. Concessions on Government and local authority services and business concessions can be obtained by the use of the entitlement card—the SuperGold card—that this bill is all about. 
The card will be sent automatically to people receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension with a special version going to war and emergency service veterans. But that is not to say that recipients of the card have to have their photograph on it. There was an interjection during the Minister’s speech with a suggestion from the National Party that photographs would be compulsory. The interjection was to the effect of: “Where does it say it is optional?”. If I direct the interjector Sandra Goudie to clause 5 she will see that it provides merely “for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed”. It does not make it mandatory. It does not state that if people receive a card they have to have their photograph on it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It doesn’t say “optional” either. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I suggest that that member takes her time to look at the dictionary and see what the word “provide” means. When the bill states “providing for cardholders’ photographs” it means it allows a cardholder to opt in and have the convenience of a photograph. If that is too obscure for the member then I suggest she goes back to English 101—or perhaps she should aspire to English 101—and get an understanding of the language used in everyday life as well as in this House. 
The card will carry the holder’s name a number and whether the holder receives New Zealand superannuation a veterans pension or has a community services card. If the cardholder chooses to have a photograph for ID purposes then that will be done pursuant to clause 5. 
What the National Party does not like is that about 540000 people will be eligible to receive the card—over half a million people will be eligible to receive the card—and cardholders’ spouses who are under 65 will also be able to access the commercial discounts. What National members do not like is that these benefits will be available in less than 3 months. They will be available from August of this year. 
There is the rub for the National Party—this card’s basic premise is that of common sense. This card offers benefits it offers convenience and it keeps up with modern technology with the protections that surround that technology. This bill is a very good bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge that National is supporting this bill in spite of the rhetoric from the member who has just spoken and from the Minister in charge of this bill. This bill has been dubbed the “SuperGold Card Discount Bill” and we do have to ask ourselves why. All the rhetoric is about the SuperGold discount card yet the bill does not mention the SuperGold card once. 
National members have no problem with what has been achieved through this SuperGold card—well we think something will be achieved but nobody actually knows what will accrue to this card. We would be delighted if some real benefits could come out of this for our senior citizens and we acknowledge the great work that Grey Power has done. It is to be congratulated on all its efforts with regard to the SuperGold card. We recognise the importance of the advocacy role of Grey Power and we are pleased to support the recognition of that and its contribution and the contribution our senior citizens have made and continue to make to our society. We cannot overstate that in any way. 
But I do take issue with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Minister Rick Barker over the wording of the bill. At no time did they make much reference to the bill. It was all about the SuperGold discount card. Yet the bill has only two parts to it and not once in the bill are the words “SuperGold discount card” mentioned. 
The purpose of Part 1 is to provide regulation-making powers. What is that for? The regulation-making powers are to provide for photographs and to provide for microchipping. But the regulations will actually constrain what is going to happen around those two provisions. Not once is the word “optional” mentioned. The explanatory note of the bill goes on about the photograph being optional. Well given that that is written in the explanatory note I guess the Government can be held to account—if it is still there at any future date—to ensure that that provision is indeed optional. But there is absolutely nothing that says “optional” in this bill—we only have to read the wording. 
That was something that was made quite clear by the New Zealand Law Society. In fact the Rt Hon Winston Peters actually rubbished the New Zealand Law Society’s submission which pointed out that the wording is quite specific. Paragraph (ba) inserted by clause 5(1) states: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures requirements and other matters in relation to those photographs:”. Clause 5(2) also amends section 132A(2) by inserting the words “or a microchip embedded in them.’ ” So regulations allow for those two activities to take place with regard to entitlement cards not with regard to the SuperGold card. The bill does not mention the SuperGold discount card. The bill talks about entitlement cards—any entitlement card. That means any card issued by this Government that gives people an entitlement to something. The SuperGold card itself is not actually mentioned at all. I just cannot understand why there is so much rhetoric around the SuperGold card when the bill is actually quite clear quite simple and quite specific around a number of issues. 
However the one thing that is needed with regard to the SuperGold card is for the Government to be able to access the information in order to provide that SuperGold card to the 540000 senior citizens who are entitled to it who I am sure would include the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Not yet. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Oh not yet! A dead giveaway! 
The Government has to legislatively provide for itself to be able to access the information about the 540000-odd senior citizens who want to have access to the SuperGold card. But the bill is quite clear that it allows the Government just to access the information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages and it amends the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to that effect. 
Clause 8(1) amends schedule 1A of that Act by omitting the words “Department of Work and Income” and substituting “Ministry of Social Development”. That allows the ministry to have access to that information. But if we look at clause 8(2) we see that it states: “Paragraph (b) of the item relating to the Department of Work and Income in Schedule 1A is amended by adding ‘or a card the availability of which is based principally on the age and residence of a person or of his or her spouse or civil union partner or former spouse or civil union partner.” So basically the bill is about accessing information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages on any entitlement card relating to those specific matters. It does not state: “accessing information only on information for the purposes of the SuperGold card”. It is for any entitlement card based on those particular issues in the bill that I have outlined. It is important that when we are talking about matters to do with our senior citizens we do not mislead them in any way and that we give them the facts of the matter. 
When it comes to the bill those are the facts of the matter. There are only two parts to the bill. They are quite specific and quite clear and relate only in a generalist way to the SuperGold card by the mere fact that the bill is about entitlement cards per se. We do not know anything very much at all about the SuperGold card other than the rhetoric that has been espoused in this Chamber. We cannot say for certain what the discounts are. We cannot say for certain who might miss out and who might be those persons who are fully entitled to the SuperGold card. 
Darren Hughes 
: What would the member like to see on the card? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: We have no idea what the intention is for the SuperGold card. All we know is that we have a bill in front of us right now and there has been very little from the two Government members who have spoken thus far about the actual content of the bill. It has largely been rhetoric about the SuperGold card itself. We are in a position of waiting to see when that SuperGold card is revealed in the time to come whether the trumpeting has been warranted. We hope that our senior citizens will not be disappointed. 
We do not know what will be on that SuperGold card but we do know that in order to issue the SuperGold card access to information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages is needed. This is fascinating really because here we have a Government wanting to access that information while at the same time closing down the public’s access to the same information. I find that ironic in the extreme. It is to be hoped that in the future that will not occur. 
In essence the bill is quite simple. It is all about entitlement cards per se—any entitlement card—and the regulation-making powers in regard to those entitlement cards. National supports the sorts of benefits that may possibly accrue to our senior citizens. We absolutely agree that senior citizens have done their time and deserve some recognition for their huge contribution to our society. We also would like to support the acknowledgment of that. We have consistently done so which is why we have also consistently supported the passing of this bill. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First are very pleased to see this card becoming a reality. It has been very sad to hear in this debate the cynicism of the National Party speakers. They do not really like to see anybody receiving discounts or anything that they cannot get or have not initiated. I seem to recall that it was no hassle for the National Party to get information on superannuitants at the last election. I remember some letters were sent out. So how the National members can get up and say it is shameful to have knowledge of people’s superannuation details is really beyond me. 
I find it very surprising too that the National Party’s support for this bill has been quite reluctant particularly when we know that senior citizens and veterans are looking forward to the SuperGold card and to receiving some discounts from participating business so that their pensions can go a little bit further than they do at present. At last New Zealand’s senior citizens will be able to enjoy some of the benefits that their Australian counterparts enjoy—and have done so for some time. That is basically how it should be here in New Zealand. If it can be done in Australia it can definitely be done here in New Zealand. This type of approach is long overdue. 
It has been a very great shame that this card has been caught up in the general hysteria over microchipping. Seniors have nothing to fear over the SuperGold card. A card like this is used safely by Australian senior citizens and the same will apply here in New Zealand. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in question time last Thursday the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip but will have a magnetic strip and barcode. The information contained on them will be limited. It is quite interesting to see that the legislation has a clause that deals with microchips but that is basically aimed at future-proofing the card. We know that magnetic strips and barcode technology are rapidly going to become redundant. We are also very aware that banks and retailers are already moving towards the use of microchip technology. When it comes to this particular card it would be totally negligent for us not to at least think of trying to future-proof the legislation. If that clause had not been in the legislation New Zealand First would be castigated for a lack of vision or forward planning. Really in this particular case it is a bit like being the meat in the sandwich. The scaremongering directed at our seniors has been quite scandalous. If the SuperGold card is to be functional in the future it will require that technology. 
But again we emphasise that the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip when it is launched in August. Like all other MPs here in this House the New Zealand First members know that any move towards microchip technology will require a thorough review by both the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. That will always be the case despite the scaremongering we have heard. Microchip technology is not being slipped on to the SuperGold card secretly in the dead of night. We on this side of the House have no desire to see any information related to our seniors be abused or misused. The checks are already in place to provide the strongest possible protection against the misuse of information. Our seniors and veterans—and we know there are over 540000 of them—deserve far better than to have this sort of fear put into them. 
I believe that the SuperGold card is an excellent example of what can occur in the MMP environment and of how MMP actually works in practice. We must acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for Senior Citizens for her support and work to ensure that the SuperGold card becomes a reality. At the last election New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card and we have worked since that time to ensure that it has become a reality. We are very aware in New Zealand First that those with goodwill can work together in the best interests of all New Zealanders. With this particular card New Zealand First did not promise the moon and deliver dust—as many others have often done at election time. We followed through on the policy and we will continue to do so with regard to every one of the items in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government. 
We are very pleased to hear that a website is to be set up when the card is launched to keep seniors informed of developments. I accessed the Australian Seniors Card website and was very interested to see the competitions discount directories short-term offers latest discounts and travel discounts—the list just goes on. I am sure that if all of that information is included on the New Zealand SuperGold card website then our seniors will be absolutely delighted. For those people who do not use the Internet—and we know there are some—there is a freephone number. We must also remind them that a published printed directory will also be available to promote the range of entitlements concessions and discounts that are available to cardholders from central government local authorities and businesses. Really seniors will have all of that information available to assist them to make the best possible use of the benefits available. 
We in New Zealand First see the SuperGold card and the benefits that will be available as being complementary to the Grey Power card. Both of those cards will have the common objective of ensuring the best and most extensive use of the purchasing power of every senior’s income. We believe and we know particularly from the Australian experience that those cards—both of them—will provide tangible benefits that will make a real difference to the lives of our senior citizens. 
In New Zealand First we have always maintained that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. This card recognises the contribution that our seniors and veterans have made and continue to make in our society. We know for a fact that the voluntary sector in particular is helped hugely by our senior citizens—St John Ambulance Meals on Wheels SeniorNet and the many other organisations that our seniors belong to. There are far too many to list here. Our seniors make a really great contribution and it is timely to ensure there is recognition of that. I think that all of us here in this House have to recognise that many of our seniors—our parents—are busy looking after their grandchildren after school so that those children do not have to go into after-school care and caring for sick children on the days that parents have to go to work. Seniors do make a huge contribution. 
Our senior citizens can choose to use their SuperGold card as a form of photo ID if they so wish and that will be entirely at their own discretion—it is optional. I know that many of us use our drivers’ licences as ID for that particular purpose. Some of the senior citizens I have spoken to are actually looking forward to having their photos on their SuperGold card because they believe that it will actually safeguard their card. 
We can assure people that the benefits of the SuperGold card cannot be discussed prior to its launch because they are commercially sensitive. Nobody can say which businesses are participating in the SuperGold card before the card is actually launched. I know we have heard criticism of that from National members over the past few weeks but they should just wait—help is on the way the discounts are coming the directories will come and people will be able to find out. 
New Zealand First is very pleased that this bill has now reached this stage in the process. We support this bill and we look forward to the launch of the card in August. We believe that our seniors have earned the SuperGold card and we look forward to receiving their feedback on it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill on the grounds that it will enable pensioners to get better access to services and to discounts from various agencies—both Government and private agencies. We hope it will give an impetus to various firms and to those in the local body and Government sectors to provide greater discounts. If we travel to Australia for example or to Ireland we find that pensioners there or people getting superannuation often get considerably greater discounts on a greater range of things than is the case here in New Zealand. Hopefully this SuperGold card will be an advance for pensioners and beneficiaries on superannuation. 
This legislation has been controversial beyond the basic nature of the card in terms of the legislative provision for microchips to be added to the cards. There was an argument from the various parties in the House that were rather cautious about putting microchips on the cards at this stage—or about giving legislative provision for that at this stage—and they wanted much more investigation into privacy issues before that took place. So there was a difference between the Government side where members said they wanted this legislated in advance and the rest of us on this side of the House who thought: “Why not inquire first and if need be legislate later?”. If we did have a proper inquiry or investigation into microchips and all their implications there might well be consensus in the House and it would not be difficult to put through legislation for that—possibly even in statutes amendment legislation. I think all the scaremongering about how difficult that would be is quite wrong. It is much better to err on the cautious side. 
We did make some progress during the debate. Taito Phillip Field’s amendment for example talked about the State Services Commission the Privacy Commissioner and other State agencies being consulted before an Order in Council was enacted to put microchips on cards. That goes a little way towards satisfying our concerns but not the full distance. It is good that the Privacy Commissioner is to be involved there and perhaps the fact that the Social Services Committee recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology could lead to a fairly urgent review of some form—one involving public input. Whether that is another select committee review or some broader review I think that a review is required. 
The concerns of those who were worried about what the Privacy Commissioner called function creep—it could also be called mission creep in another circumstance—were that there are dangers there. It is said that the card will be voluntary but we can easily see how in practice a voluntary card can become a compulsory card either through reward or punishment if the use of the card is extended to other categories of the population—other beneficiaries or whatever—or if people are denied access to certain services without the card. That could take place in either public or private institutions. It could also become more obligatory if there are extra rewards or if people are being told that if they want extra rewards they have to have their cards on them. 
The other problem is that once we have a microchip system—and if the microchip has sufficient capacity if it is a fairly modern microchip—all sorts of other things can be added to it. We know that the microchips in our passports have facial recognition systems digitalised on the chips which are used particularly when we pass through the United States immigration service and when officials take photographs and compare those with the digitalised versions of our faces on the microchips in our passports. Of course when we go through US border control we have our fingerprints taken which are digitalised and kept in the records there. Those sorts of recognition biometrics can be added to a microchip at any time. 
The other thing about microchips that we really have to go into is the way in which the information on them can be easily transferred to databases and be the basis for a more general ID card in the community. We have to move very cautiously so that we do not go as quickly down the road as some other countries in Europe and Australia are going towards generalised ID cards. There are huge privacy problems involved when generalised ID cards are used for virtually everything in society—for what we are doing our preferences where we are moving and all sorts of things. Those can be so easily kept track of if we have a generalised ID card of course and we know that that ability exists to some degree already in the various cards we have. But if everything is wrapped up in one card it can be even more intrusive in a privacy sense. 
Although we live in a fairly tolerant society now I think we always have to work out our privacy legislation and what we do with things like ID cards on the basis that at some future time we might have a less democratic Government or in some ways a more repressive Government. We do not want to set up a system to enable a more responsive Government to control the population to a large degree. Someone said to me that if we think back to Nazi Germany if they had had all this really modern surveillance technology with universal ID cards we know that none of the Jews would ever have escaped from being sent off to concentration camps. They would have been so easy to track down. So we have to think of the use of this technology not in terms of the liberal form of society we have now but in terms of a more repressive society. 
That is not to say that we are against microchips on various cards. There is nothing wrong with bus cards debit cards cards for convenience and all those sorts of cards some of which have photo ID and some of which do not. No one is against the use of modern technology in terms of cards and in terms of microchips but we have to be careful how that is implemented particularly on State-provided cards. 
I also take up the point Judith Collins made that it is rather strange that on the one hand we have this legislation that enables people to in effect have access to birth dates and other information from the Births Deaths and Marriages register on the card but on the other hand we have a Births Deaths and Marriages bill before the House in which the Government is trying to reduce all public access to information in that register information that has been open since 1848 and that is so critical for historians biographers genealogists—anyone doing research of a historical nature. It is so stupid for access to the register to be closed to these people under that bill. There is no reason for it to be closed. It is so stupid to have provisions where one has to wait for 50 80 or 100 years to get access to information or one has to get the agreement of the immediate family one is trying to access information about. It is a rather confining sort of bill and it is in contradiction to the information being provided on the SuperGold card under this bill. 
As I say the Greens will be voting for this bill because of the advances it will make for pensioners. We will be looking forward to the inquiry into whether microchips should be put in the card and we will put a serious focus on the privacy issues involved. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Today is an auspicious day to be debating the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. May 15 was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 as the International Day of Families. So as we mark this international day of whanau we turn to thoughts of our kaumatua who are at the very heart and core of whanau. In thinking about elders and in farewelling the late head of State of Samoa the Maori Party takes this moment to express our sympathies at the sad passing of another revered elder kuia Maera Moekau Couch who gave her life to the communities of her beloved Pae-o-Hauraki and Rapaki. It was not very long ago that this 92-year-old kuia was honoured with an award that recognised the distinctive contribution she had made in encouraging other seniors to play an active role in society. Moe mai e te whaea rangatira ki to moengaroa. 
[ 
Slumber there in your sleep without end matriarch 
.] 
Any proposals that come into this House to improve the standard of living of our elders to enhance their access to Government services and entitlements and to improve the provision of information to them will earn the support of the Maori Party particularly because only 4.1 percent of our old people actually live long enough to ever receive superannuation. Our elders are those who provide us with the leadership and the vision to guide our future directions. We in the Maori Party are very conscious of wanting to protect the special place that they have in our communities to value their contribution and to put strategies in place by which we can ensure the continued participation of older people. 
We believe that the SuperGold card recognises the contribution our pakeke have made and currently make to Aotearoa and we are happy to support it. We thank New Zealand First for negotiating such a great opportunity for the elderly in its coalition arrangements and we thank the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for Senior Citizens for her support of the card. 
We have debated the pros and cons of this bill. We have been aware that in improving the standard of living for seniors we must also be mindful of the need to ensure that whanau members and caregivers are informed of the purpose of the entitlement card and the opportunities that it represents. Far too often individual entitlements are not promoted to the degree of attracting universal understanding. We do not want the eligibility for particular services to be granted only to those in the know. The well-being of all senior citizens must be guaranteed and if this card brings with it commercial concessions thereby reducing the cost of goods and services we must ensure whanau are supported to take up those rights. So we hope that when the first tranche of the SuperGold cards comes off the production line in August our senior citizens aged 65 and over—or aged under 65 and receiving the veterans pension in their own right—will be well informed of exactly what their entitlements are. 
But we have one very significant concern with regard to this bill. It is the hidden danger behind the honourable intentions of supporting our pakeke which is of course the element of intrusion and surveillance piloted in this bill: the microchipping proposal. The Maori Party supported the amendment by Heather Roy to have the microchipping clause removed from the bill and we did so on the grounds that this bill as the Law Society advised was the first occasion on which legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. We have heard all the arguments including those of the Minister that it would be irresponsible to introduce a discount card without ensuring it could apply the technology of the future and of course we know the future use of radio frequency identification tagging known as RFID is not very far off. The microchips introduced under this legislation are just one step along the way towards the global surveillance society. 
The concern for the Maori Party has been the way that such a significant proposal has been slipped in the back door riding on the coat-tails of a proposal designed to support our pakeke and enhance their golden years. I remember when George Orwell’s  
Nineteen Eighty-Four 
 seemed fanciful fiction and in that novel “thought crime” was monitored by the thought police who had “telescreens” in every home and hidden microphones and informers in order to catch the potential “thought criminals”. The “Ministry of Truth” exercised complete control subjecting the nation to a re-education to the newspeak of the totalitarian Government. At one point the key player—ironically also with the name of Winston—Winston Smith is told: “But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always at every moment there will be the thrill of victory the sensation of trampling on the enemy who is helpless.” But of course the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is set in 2007 not 1984 and we are given every assurance by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that under this legislation microchip technology will not be introduced without the Privacy Commissioner’s and the State Services Commissioner’s agreement. 
The tension for us is in allowing microchips to be introduced. None of us really know what else lies in store. Which other Government social service card will be next? Twenty years after  
Nineteen Eighty-Four 
 
the 25 privacy commissioners of the European Union adopted an initial position on the use of radio frequency ID technology. In their statement on 19 January 2005 they expressed their concern about the possibility of radio frequency ID technology being able to “violate human dignity as well as data protection rights”. The questions we raised at the second reading of this bill reiterated the concerns of New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff: concerns such as who controls the access to the information what sort of technological protections should be mandated to guarantee privacy and how to avoid function creep with the information from the microchipped cards being used for wider purposes than were originally intended. 
The concerns around microchipping are influenced by a paper from Dr Paul Roth a professor of law at the University of Otago. In his paper  
Workplace Privacy Issues Raised by RFID Technology 
 he describes a case in 2004 where a Mexican Attorney-General and 160 of his employees had rice grain - sized radio frequency ID tags implanted in their arms to regulate access to restricted areas of the headquarters. Then there is the VeriChip the very first Food and Drug Administration - approved human implantable radio frequency ID microchip. It was approved in 2002 in the United States and is typically implanted in the arm. It is code named by privacy advocates as a “spy chip”. The primary concern of course is that like Big Brother in the Orwellian tale the movements of a person can be traced without his or her will. These new types of electronic bloodhounds—the bio-chip implants and the biometric fingerprints—may indeed be part of a future that we must all be prepared for. 
So in the context of the SuperGold card we cannot be oblivious to the risks inherent in the microchipping device. It may not be a case of the “Ministry of Truth” or the thought police but there are certainly sufficient grounds for concern to have the members of the Maori Party worried. We welcome the amendment put forward by Taito Phillip Field to provide that the microchipping will go ahead only after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner the State Services Commissioner and any other relevant body. We will be following that process with great interest to ensure that every concern is explored. We remain convinced that the jury is out as to whether the use of microchip technology is of such critical importance to the senior citizen discount cards that one could not have been voted on without the other. But we will not stand in the way of our elders and it is with their interests at heart that we vote in support of this bill. Kia ora. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. One of the interesting things happening around the progress of this bill is the number of businesses and organisations that are sending very clear signals that they will be offering discounts for SuperGold cardholders. In fact one of the reasons why the bill needed to be amended to address the fact that barcoding provisions had been overlooked was that large retail chains have indicated their willingness to honour senior citizens with credible discounts and they wanted to manage that opportunity from head office rather than to have staff do that at the point of sale. 
The passing of this legislation is the beginning of a huge challenge to recruit as much buy-in as is possible to ensure that the potential this policy offers is fully realised. The cost of the card is justified only if there is an allocation of funding to promote it to the business and community sectors. The question remains for me as to whether Government departments will match the private sector in using this mechanism to provide improved and affordable access to health education and local government and social services for the over 65s. The tensions that exist between providing fair income rates for superannuitants and the maintenance of a sustainable superannuation scheme into the future mean that it is more than helpful if underpinning our system for seniors who are on low fixed incomes we have a system of community support that effectively reduces living costs while encouraging community participation. 
Perhaps the other potential for the SuperGold card that most excites to United Future is the opportunity it provides us to tangibly honour our over 65s. Honouring our elders is usually dished up—or neglected—at a family level. Where families do this well this card will merely supplement their efforts. However for those who live without significant appreciation and support this card could make affordable the chance for them to participate in community activities to belong to community clubs and organisations and to attend community events. I believe there is huge community goodwill that can be tapped into. 
Commercial advantages are great; social advantages are priceless. I hope that as this card is promoted as much effort is put into securing the support of the community sector as is put into gaining buy-in from the retail sector. Australian veterans are a classic example of people who revel in the status that their gold card provides them with. It is a simple mechanism—a simple card—but with the potential to deliver recognition status goodwill and advantage to our 540000 deserving older New Zealanders. United Future is happy to support this third reading. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. I would like to be standing today and saying that ACT proudly supports this bill because I think it has some very good initiatives in it particularly with regard to the SuperGold card—although it should be remembered that this bill is not specifically about the SuperGold card but is an amendment to the Social Security Act to cover all entitlement cards that fall under that broad heading—but sadly that is not the case. ACT will not be supporting this bill for the very reason that it does contain a provision for the use of embedded microchips in cards that are covered under this amendment bill. Sadly the work has not been done to support the safe use of these cards particularly with regard to privacy issues—and I will come to that issue in a moment. 
When the New Zealand First member talked about this bill she spoke about a good deal of hysteria and said that that was scandalous. In fact the issues raised last week during the Committee stage of this bill were not hysterical. They were not about hysteria. They were very real concerns that I had about privacy issues and those concerns were supported by 59 members in the Committee—almost half of the members that we have in Parliament. 
There were concerns around the use of microchips. This work has not been done. Overseas countries such as the United States and the countries comprising the European Union have all signalled their discomfort with the use of microchips particularly the use of radio frequency identification tags when some microchips are able to act in this capacity. Those countries have decided within the last 6 months to stall any decision-making around the use of these microchips for the purpose of the verification of human identification. 
When they are signalling such strong concerns I think it is pertinent that we take a moment to stand back and look at what the issues might be to look at the prospect of adding these microchips without the background work having been done either internationally or here in New Zealand and to look to the very good advice that we have in New Zealand around the use of such technology. 
The New Zealand First member said that it is scandalous and I would like to ask her just what exactly is scandalous. She talked about hysteria which to my mind does not exist at all. Very real concerns were raised and they were raised by a large number of people—not only by me in my amendment and other Opposition members in this Chamber but also by the Privacy Commissioner who is not normally a woman referred to as someone who suffers from hysteria. She normally gives very good respected advice. For the member to say that she is dealing in the area of hysteria I think is quite rightly wrong. 
The Law Society gave a very strong submission. Its recommendation to the Social Services Committee was that there should be a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology such as microchip technology on Government-issued cards generally and that the matter should be referred to the office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner had made some comments on this bill but had made no public statements until last week because she had not been asked to do so. The Privacy Commissioner said that this SuperGold card has some far-reaching implications that need to be explored thoroughly before a final decision is made. She went on to say that a microchipped card may mean many things especially if it is also used as an identity card for commercial purposes perhaps with a unique identifying number for each person. She said that security is a real issue both for the data stored on the cards and for the risk of identity theft. She also talked about the very real issue of the potential for function creep where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended. I think that far from being hysteria both of those comments from the Law Society and the Privacy Commissioner are very measured responses to a very real issue of privacy that exists in our society. 
 The other support for my amendment came from Grey Power and I think it would be very odd for New Zealand First to start saying that Grey Power is suffering from hysteria. I can see that the New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart is protesting at this very moment but when she uses words such as “hysteria” she should use them with a great deal of caution because I think that these people will take exception to the use of such words. 
So what is scandalous? It is not that people raise valid concerns about privacy with the use of microchips on these entitlement cards—and it is not just the SuperGold card. Of course we now know that that card will not come out with a microchip. The advice we were given by the Ministry of Social Development at the select committee was that if clause 5(2) had been deleted from the bill then there would have been no implications for the introduction of the SuperGold card. So my question relates to why we are racing this measure through in our legislation when in fact it is not needed for the SuperGold card at all—despite the fact that last week Mr Peters’ office told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the card would not be functional without the microchip. So there is a good deal of confusion within the New Zealand First office itself. 
What is scandalous is not that these concerns have been raised but that New Zealand First and Labour have a complete disregard for the privacy concerns of Kiwis—and in this case those people are some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens. I regret that I am not able to stand here today and support the bill. We had fully intended to until the issue of embedded microchips—or the potential for such—came to the fore. Until then we had certainly intended to support the bill. Identity theft is also something we have not talked a great deal about but it is a danger particularly with microchips that can act as radio-frequency identification tags. It could well be that cards with these tags in them could make it to somebody’s letterbox and the information on them read. This is actually the electronic version of steaming open an envelope. 
I do not for one minute mean to suggest that all microchips have this capability; they do not. But if we read clause 5(2) very carefully we see that it talks just about embedded microchips. It does not talk about the type of microchip and it does not specify the function that these microchips will have. So by passing this measure into law today this House is actually allowing a free-for-all in the use of microchips of any type or nature. 
When we consider our veterans—veterans who are also entitled to the SuperGold card and who have fought so proudly for our freedoms in this country—it is wrong that today we are putting in place legislation that could see their private details being stolen in many cases without their knowledge. 
I come back for a moment to the comments made by the Law Society in its submission. The general review of principles governing the use of highly functional technology—and the matter being referred to and looked at thoroughly by the Privacy Commissioner—is very important. This is exactly what should have happened with this bill at its very outset. Sadly it did not and as we are seeing today measures are being rushed through. 
The process that the Law Society outlined would have been absolutely the right process to follow. The Privacy Commissioner made some very important comments last week that are being disregarded here in the Chamber today as people vote in favour of this bill. She should have been involved. She should have been involved very thoroughly. 
In putting forward this bill as a Government bill Mr Peters and the Labour Government have neglected the security of some of our most vulnerable citizens. They have done this by by-passing basic privacy principles. We are seeing the potential for the playing of privacy poker with other people’s chips. ACT will not stand in this Parliament and condone this. For that reason we will be opposing this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his introductory comments the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is the next step in making the SuperGold card a reality. Its purpose is to enable the full effect to be given to our Government’s intentions in regard to the delivery of this card. Specifically the amendments contained in the bill will allow regulations to be made under the Social Security Act 1964 providing for implementation of a SuperGold card offering an optional cardholder photograph that will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or any other form of photo ID and containing a bar code that will help streamline the process by which businesses apply SuperGold card discounts to cardholders when they present their card at the point of sale. In order to future-proof the card the bill will also allow regulations to be made providing for an imbedded microchip in the card if and when this proves useful to cardholders at some stage in the future. 
The card as originally—and in fact always—intended will be launched without a microchip in August this year. Again as was always intended—and the bill now makes it explicit because of the amendment moved by Taito Phillip Field—any move to use microchip technology in relation to the SuperGold card or in relation to any other entitlement card will not occur without consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. 
The bill will allow a bar code or a microchip to contain only information that can already be stored on a magnetic strip. I know that some people have raised concerns about the information to be stored but I say that those concerns have been misunderstood and misrepresented for political point-scoring—and senior citizens will know this to be the case because the legislation makes it very clear what information can be stored on the card. It does not allow anything in addition to what can already be stored on a magnetic strip. 
Let me outline to the House exactly what can be stored. First is the cardholder’s name. A photograph if it is included—and it is voluntary as the Rt Hon Winston Peters outlined—will provide additional security. The strip can include an identifying number assigned by the department to the cardholder—the superannuation number. It can have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. An identifying number can be assigned to the card. The commencement and expiry dates of the card and a code number for mailing purposes can be on the card. 
If members had bothered to read section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act they would have seen that that is the limit in law of the information that can be stored without any further legislative amendment. So in order to merit the concerns raised by the “bordering on hysteria” member for the ACT party the law would have to be changed. There is no issue about breach of privacy. The legislation ensures that as future opportunities for discounts and concessions for senior citizens become available and if they are available only through the use of a microchip we do not have to spend hours of time in this Parliament using up legislative opportunity to do something the law will already allow us to do. This concern is political point-scoring by both National and ACT to the detriment of over 550000 New Zealanders who are interested in seeing the outcome of this legislation rather than being scared by deliberate misrepresentation. 
I think the progress of this bill through the House will be welcome news to all those senior citizens throughout the country. I know that having heard the entire debate they will understand that their private information is not under threat. It is the sole intention of this measure to ensure that senior citizens are able to access smart technology as it advances at the earliest possible opportunity so that more concessions and discounts can be added to the SuperGold card. 
Finally this bill will also allow the Ministry of Social Development to obtain and use information from theRegistrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages for the purposes of verifying a person’s eligibility or continuing eligibility for the card. The Labour-Progressive coalition Government and New Zealand First are proud to have worked together to establish the SuperGold card. As well as providing access to discounts on goods and services from businesses around the country the SuperGold card and the information services that support it—a website directory and 0800 number—will help ensure that seniors are easily able to access the range of services entitlements and concessions available to them from central and local government. 
The SuperGold card is the last in a long list of policies and initiatives that our Government has enacted to ensure that seniors have more support to help them to live independent and healthy lives. As the SuperGold card is part of Labour’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First we have committed to adjust New Zealand’s superannuation annually to a minimum of 66 percent of the average ordinary wage for a married couple—1 percent higher than required by legislation. We first fulfilled this commitment on 1 April last year. On 1 April this year we adjusted the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension rates yet again raising them by 5 percent. More than 508000 New Zealanders have been benefiting from extra money in their pockets since that time. 
Since 1 July 2004 New Zealanders aged 65 and over have been eligible for lower-cost general practitioner visits and prescription charges through their local primary health organisation. Two-thirds of SuperGold card holders will have an identifier on their card that also indicates their entitlement to income-tested community service card benefits. That means they will have to carry only one card instead of two. 
In July of last year we increased income thresholds for the rates rebate scheme to $20000 per annum—up from $7500—meaning that more people than ever are eligible for this assistance. Couples whose only income is New Zealand superannuation will now receive some level of rebate if their annual rates bill is more than $1150. As an example a couple in that situation who have a rates bill of $1900 are now eligible for the maximum rebate of $500. 
We are also developing a code of practice for home equity conversion schemes in order to ensure that the financial interests of older people are protected. Financial protection of older New Zealanders is also a focus of our work to amend the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to ensure that older New Zealanders and others have greater legal protection when setting up an enduring power of attorney. 
Of course we have recently made a number of changes to the licensing requirements for older drivers doing away with mandatory age-based road tests. For those older people who no longer drive other forms of transport can provide the means for their independence. For example the total mobility scheme provides a subsidised taxi service to people with serious mobility constraints. People who qualify receive taxi discount vouchers usually of 50 percent off the normal taxi fare. 
Last but certainly not least in 2001 we launched the New Zealand  
Positive Ageing Strategy 
. That strategy provides a framework for integrating policies and programmes across the whole of government at central regional and local level and ensures that our Government departments and agencies consider older people before making decisions. The new SuperGold card sits alongside and compliments these Labour-led Government initiatives. 
Importantly it encourages the private sector to get involved in improving the lot of older New Zealanders. Businesses around the country are able to sign up as a SuperGold card business partner. People may have tuned in to listen to or they may have watched Parliament this afternoon. I encourage all businesses that have not already done so to pick up the phone and call the SuperGold business partner freephone 0508 650 000. Not only will they be giving something back to senior citizens they will be doing themselves a favour. Older people are loyal customers. They value word-of-mouth recommendations especially from their peers and they are a growing group. There is also a contact phone number for cardholders—0800 254 565. By August a website will also provide a wealth of information on the entitlements available to older New Zealanders. 
The SuperGold card honours the contribution older New Zealanders have made and continue to make to New Zealand society. It is an acknowledgment of the respect they deserve. It will be a physical reminder of the Government’s commitment to seniors and to veterans and will improve their standard of living through the commercial discounts available through the card and by helping them access the range of services entitlements and concessions available. 
This bill is a fine example of how a modern-day Government works. Cooperation and delivering on promises and arrangements made—in this instance a confidence and supply arrangement with New Zealand First—leads to something of this kind: the SuperGold card for our senior citizens the first-ever card of its kind in New Zealand. 
I commend the perseverance of my colleague my Associate Minister for Senior Citizens the Rt Hon Winston Peters for making this bill and the SuperGold card a reality. I conclude by also acknowledging the officials and the select committee for their work. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I have listened to hours of debate on this bill before Parliament in the last couple of weeks I have read the  
Hansard 
 of the debates and I have pretty much absorbed what everybody has been saying. The discussions have ranged over a huge topic from Russell Fairbrother talking about homophobes to discussions about passports being microchipped in order to allow Americans to track us to my fellow National colleagues being called bizarre—often quite absurd—names. And so the debate has gone on. But the intention of the bill is that this amending legislation be used as a vehicle for the SuperGold card to allow concessions and discounts for New Zealand residents who are aged 65 years and older. The intention of the card is to provide commercial discounts to cardholders from participating businesses and it will help to facilitate seniors’ access to concessions on central government and local authority services. 
There really is no debate that senior citizens have contributed significantly to our community and deserve to be treated with respect and where possible given concessions in their retirement in recognition of the great contribution they have made to our society. It is important that we recognise the efforts of Grey Power which has lobbied hard and efficaciously for this card. Whether the card can deliver commercial discounts and concessions from central government and local authorities we will have to see. Many are touting this card as a failed attempt at Fly Buys. We have not been told yet whether anybody has signed up to the card or how committed central government is to giving more discounts to senior citizens than those that they already receive. But I am sure that people will be lining up for the card and that sooner or later we will hear from those who are committed to helping our senior citizens. 
There are only two parts to this bill. Both are quite simple. The first part relates to an optional photo on a card and the ability to microchip the card at some time in the future. The second part relates to the Births Deaths and Marriages register database being used to collate the necessary information. When this bill was first introduced only three submissions were received so it is not a very contentious bill. The submission from the Law Society was the biggest submission received. It made a submission on the entitlement card in which it stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded on cards issued by the Government did raise a more general concern due to the functionality that microchips can possess including the ability to operate as radio frequency ID tags. 
The society went on to say that as far it was aware this bill would represent the first occasion when legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. At least it is the first time that such use has been authorised on such a large scale. This provision impacts on 540000 senior citizens. We are talking about a massive scale of use and one whereby the cards will be reissued with a microchip whenever the Government decides to do so. The Law Society recommended that the Social Services Committee call for a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology on Government-issued cards generally and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 
Strong views were voiced at the select committee that a more general inquiry particularly around the use of microchips is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted. There was debate at the select committee raised by the National Party initially concerning microchips. So National was concerned from day one about these microchips and what could be recorded on them. The officials came in many times to tell us exactly how the microchips would work even though at the time they could not give us a figure as to how much the cards would cost. 
The debate in the House on this bill has related mainly to microchipping. Microchipping is something that I do not believe this country or this Parliament has had an opportunity to speak on. I believe that the people of this country need to have a discussion about it so that they can make a decision themselves about whether microchipping on the scale of this measure is a path that New Zealand really wants to go down or even whether we are ready to go down that path now. I believe it is wrong that we are passing this legislation without hearing the opinions of New Zealanders on that issue. 
Last week one of my colleagues spoke about the bill being a Trojan Horse saying the legislation is not about the gold card at all but about developing legislation that allows all cards to be microchipped in the future by only a change in regulation. National is very concerned about the information that may be stored on the microchip and we believe that the provision regarding microchipping should be deleted. 
We believe that senior citizens deserve something—and something good—but that the way to really help them is by truly raising their standard of living and the only way we will do that is by raising the average income in New Zealand. National is committed to raising the average income which will then have a flow-on effect on to the superannuation that our senior citizens receive. We believe that this card is a good thing in general and say we are committed totally to the senior citizens of New Zealand. Thank you. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am really pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill which we are debating here today in Parliament. I think it is very important legislation for older New Zealanders and it is not only a good sign from a policy point of view of what we are doing for people over the age of 65 but it is also another reminder of how Government works under MMP. 
I would like to start off by congratulating the Minister in charge of the bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The card is not a new idea from Winston Peters—he has been in favour of it for a very long time. It was one of the things that New Zealand First brought to the table as Labour worked with New Zealand First after the last election to put together the governing arrangements for New Zealand. We have now been able to put the idea into legislation and make it happen. It is a good reminder of the way our governing system works under MMP. A Government is formed and other parties that support that Government bring their ideas to the table and we are able to turn those ideas into legislation. So I welcome this legislation not only for the policy and what it does but for what it represents as well—yet another contribution to the great MMP system that our country voted to have at the referendum in 1993. 
Speaking as the member of Parliament for Otaki I remind members that that electorate has a higher number of people over the age of 65 than any other electorate in New Zealand. 
Hon David Carter 
: They deserve a decent member. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Carter that they have a decent member. I can assure him that they look at the candidates and make the right decision and that is what they did at the last election. It was a privilege and an honour to be elected and I hope they do it again. But I will not be taking any electorate advice from David Carter. I will not be going to David Carter and asking him for any advice on elections at all. Seeing that he lost three times on the trot I do not think I will be asking him for any advice—but I hope he dishes it out to his colleagues so effective has he been. 
I return to the point I was making about my constituents in the Otaki electorate. There are a lot of people over 65 who look to see what the Government is doing to make life a little easier. I think this Government’s record since 1999 shows that at every step we have tried to make a whole lot of improvements for people. This bill is just the latest in a whole series of attempts by the Government to assist those who have served our country in many spheres and who are now in retirement. 
The third reading of this bill will set up what we will call the SuperGold card. Opposition members have got themselves into a twist about the fact that the bill does not actually mention that name. We had a long dissertation from Sandra Goudie about that. What Sandra Goudie needs to understand—if possible—is that we are setting up a legislative framework here from which the card will be derived and will have its own name. We are trying to bring together in an easy and simple way for older people all the services that are available to them from the Government. There are a lot of those services—and Mr Carter will be experiencing them shortly—and there are also services and benefits that the business sector and the community and voluntary sector want to offer people over the age of 65. I am convinced that if we can have those all in one place—all with the SuperGold card—that will be a great advance for older people. 
One of the things the card will be able to achieve for us is a much more coordinated approach—not necessarily from the Government because I think the Government is very focused on having policies and frameworks for older people. We have an excellent Minister for Senior Citizens in the Hon Ruth Dyson. For a long time we have been trying to coordinate things better with such things as our  
Positive Ageing Strategy 
 and all the different work we have been doing. But for the private sector there has probably not been a mechanism for businesses to be able to put forward the services and discounts they might want to offer in order to get more market share. That has not been easy for them to do. So the Government is introducing this provision which is a very business-friendly approach in terms of getting access to the market of senior citizens who of course are a growing number in New Zealand. There are already 540000 people over the age of 65 and clearly that figure will continue to grow. So we will need to come up with continually fresh policies like this to make sure we are delivering for that group of New Zealanders. 
I was interested to listen to the Hon Ruth Dyson earlier. She reminded me that on 1 April this year—and this is another example of Labour’s working agreement with New Zealand First—the rate of New Zealand superannuation went up quite significantly. I have very good feedback in my electorate about this. The fortnightly payment has gone up by $26 for married couples and $13 for single pensioners. That is actually significant money. I sat down and worked out that for some married couples when that increase every fortnight is added up over the course of a year the Government through that increase alone is basically paying the power bill in their home. The Government has put in place something whereby pensioners can save that money specifically as a contribution towards the power bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove has just interjected to say— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: He shouldn’t have done that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Doug Woolerton said he should not have done that but it was quite helpful. While I was talking about the pension going up Mr Cosgrove said: “Hang on. Haven’t there been times in New Zealand when the pension has gone down?” and in fact the Minister is quite right. Do members know what the National Government did in 1990? National came into office and said it was going to get rid of the surtax. Did it do that? The surtax did not go down. It did not get wiped; it went up. National campaigned on getting rid of the surtax and then put it up. Later on when it wanted to give tax cuts guess how the tax cuts were funded? Did National put the pension up to fund the tax cuts? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no. National put the pension down to fund the tax cuts. In order to make sure it could give tax cuts to people when it had the choice it cut the pension. Nobody would want to put that on a SuperGold card and the Labour-led Government with the support of many parties would not do that. But the National Party in Government when it was faced with a choice about cutting taxes went ahead and did that and paid for it by cutting the pension. It also paid for it by putting up university fees for young people trying to get ahead in life. That is what the National Party did for older people. It did not inflation-adjust the pension—something that Labour does every single year. 
The SuperGold card might also be able to build on some of the improvements we have been able to make in health-care services for older people. Every pensioner now has every pharmacy item subsidised and pays no more than $3 per item. It used to be $15 per item so for pensioners that is a huge improvement. The cost of going to the doctor has fallen as a result of the primary health organisation money that has gone into that provision. It was voted against by National. National members now say they support it. Who would know? Do members remember what National members told us in 1990 and 1999? 
I am also thinking of the rates rebate scheme which is proving to be very popular. It was opposed by National members though goodness knows what their view is now. They want to tell everybody anything they want to hear. So I suppose that because the rates rebate is popular they are now in favour of it even though they voted against it. It is just as well there is no electoral integrity legislation in front of Parliament any more because people who get elected on one platform by saying they are against things and then get into Parliament and say they are for those things disenfranchise the people who voted for them. That behaviour from National members was a good example of that. 
The rates rebate scheme which we have to try to administer more efficiently for older people has to go into that category as well. I think also that the KiwiSaver scheme which will be a saving scheme lasting over a person’s whole working life might be something that can be tied in with the SuperGold card. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear my friend from New Zealand First say it is a great scheme. I think it is a great scheme. We have to address the problem of people not saving enough in New Zealand. For every dollar a household earns it is spending $1.18. We have to come up with some smart policies to try to turn that round for New Zealand. That is very important. 
I remember the last election campaign when I campaigned on the KiwiSaver scheme. I said that for every person who joined the scheme the Government would kick in a thousand bucks to help that person get started on his or her savings. I remember members of the National Party at that election campaign saying they were against KiwiSaver. I remember debating on it with John Key in the House. He said it was so silly because it meant that one’s pool boy could get a KiwiSaver scheme. I thought that not many New Zealanders I know have a pool boy but that remark tells members about the Parnell side of things. But the link with the KiwSaver and the SuperGold card is quite important in terms of the savings people are able to make over their lives. 
This bill delivers actual benefits to older people. It is a very good thing. The reason a card is needed is as a means to keep all the data so that one can be sure of what is being said. With the flip-flops coming out of the National Party on every single policy I think every citizen should have one of these cards to keep track of where National is on all these sorts of things—so ridiculous are they in what they are doing. 
 What the Government is saying is that it will guarantee that people will retire at 65 and it will guarantee that people will get at least 65 percent of the average wage going forward—and I acknowledge the fact that it is 66 percent at the moment with the confidence and supply agreement. It is important that these things are guaranteed for older people. Unfortunately members such as David Carter vote to cut the pension. I am afraid it is pretty hard to take him seriously when it comes to dealing with older people. I know about that bunch over there; any time they have the chance they will vote to sock it to older people. I am not saying that because I am being unkind or ungenerous about them— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s their record. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: —but because that is their record. I am sorry that so many new National MPs know so little about National Party history but the reality is that whenever they are confronted with that choice that is what they do. By voting for the third reading and putting into legislation the SuperGold card we are protecting that entitlement for older people and making sure that no Tory can ever do the old people in again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment be now read a third time.  
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2; 
Bill read a third time. 
State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: I move  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a second time 
. In speaking to the second reading of this bill I first wish to thank the Commerce Committee for reporting this bill to the House in a short period of time although giving full consideration to the public submissions it received. I am pleased to see a majority report back recommending the bill be passed subject to the incorporation of two additional clauses proposed at the select committee. I will come back to those clauses after briefly reviewing the two key objectives of the bill. 
Subpart 1 of Part 2 concerns directions to AgriQuality. This part permits shareholding Ministers to direct the board of AgriQuality not to provide certain services under the Animal Products Act 1999 without risking a breach of Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986. AgriQuality indicated in late 2006 that it wished to enter the export red meat inspection market. Currently Asure is the sole player in that market. As the owner of both companies the Government wishes to prevent AgriQuality’s entry to the export red meat inspection market because that would erode shareholder value—in particular due to the potentially large redundancy costs involved. 
I wish to clarify one point in the Commerce Committee report which states: “If the Government issued a direction under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 to prevent AgriQuality from providing export red meat inspection services without merging the two entities the Crown might run the risk of breaching Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986 …”. Inclusion of the words “without merging the two entities” is not strictly correct as such a direction risks breaching the Commerce Act irrespective of whether the companies merge. 
Subpart 2 of Part 2 concerns the merger. This part of the bill enables a merger of AgriQuality and Asure to occur provided the shareholding Ministers are satisfied that a merger is viable. To enable a possible future merger legislation is required to remove one or both companies from schedules 1 and 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and consequentially amend a number of other enactments. The bill enables that to occur. 
Public submissions raised concerns that by reducing the prospect of competition in the export red meat inspection market the bill could result in higher prices and lower service levels than would otherwise be the case. The Government has worked closely with United Future to develop a Supplementary Order Paper that incorporates two new clauses to address those concerns. These clauses provide that firstly export red meat inspection prices will be subject to Commerce Commission scrutiny within 3 years of the enactment of the bill; and secondly should overseas regulatory authorities in countries responsible for importing a significant majority of our red meat exports change their policy to recognise the private provision of export red meat inspection services the Crown will review its policy in relation to those services. These amendments combined with the ongoing constraints imposed by the Commerce Act and Asure’s relatively transparent pricing model for export red meat inspection services go a long way towards addressing the key concerns raised during the select committee process. 
Another concern raised during public submissions relating specifically to the prospect of a merger is that if a merger of AgriQuality and Asure takes place it will reduce the amount of competition in the provision of TB testing services until such time as the current contracts expire in 2009 potentially resulting in reduced service levels and higher prices after the expiry of the current contracts. Those concerns are mitigated by the fact that any merged company would be obliged to honour its existing contracts which I understand specify price and quality parameters and by the fact there are other actual and potential providers of TB testing services that are likely to show great interest in the next tender round due in 2009. 
Although the benefits of the merger are still being assessed preliminary indications suggest that the bill will firstly protect and enhance shareholder value through economies of scale and scope and through reduced risk of costly redundancy; and secondly enable a more effective and efficient biosecurity response capability. In short the bill by enabling a merger of the two companies should this be viable will have significant benefits for shareholders and the New Zealand economy as a whole. This bill is critical to maintain and enhance shareholder value in AgriQuality and Asure—companies owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders. It also enables a more effective national biosecurity response capability. 
The main principles of the bill are designed to firstly enable shareholding Ministers to direct AgriQuality not to provide export red meat inspection services in competition with Asure; and secondly to enable a merger of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd provided shareholding Ministers are satisfied that that is viable. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National will oppose the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill for the following reasons. This has to be one of the strangest pieces of legislation that Mr Mallard has ever advanced before Parliament. I guess that is not surprising when one considers his track record on any matter concerning finance. This legislation promotes the merger of two State-owned enterprises Asure New Zealand Ltd and AgriQuality Ltd but it does so on very very spurious grounds. What Mr Mallard is suggesting to Parliament today through his junior Minister Clayton Cosgrove is that this legislation will allow the merger of these two enterprises but that before they decide to merge these enterprises Mr Mallard will rush away and do a financial analysis to see whether there really is any benefit. 
I suggest that that is a real case of putting the cart before the horse. Surely any Minister in touch with his or her portfolio would do the economic analysis first then if there were merit in merging the two enterprises come forward with the enabling legislation. But that is not the way the Government has worked. For those who sat through the select committee process what has become painfully obvious to all of us is that it has nothing to do with economic benefit to the New Zealand taxpayer by enhancing shareholder value in these two enterprises. It is totally about delivering to the wishes of the Public Service Association (PSA) which is New Zealand’s largest trade union. 
 At this stage I want to thank Gordon Copeland for the constructive role he played in the Commerce Committee hearings. I am not normally a member of that particular select committee but I sat through the very hastily arranged submission process and Gordon Copeland asked some very good questions. In fact I initially gathered from his questioning that he would be on the side of the angels would see that there was no merit in this legislation at all and would support the National Party in voting against it. However I do understand the closeness between United Future and the current Labour Government and Mr Copeland has apparently come up with a number of amendments that certainly soften the thrust of this legislation. I was hopeful of seeing those amendments today but Mr Copeland has just informed me that he has not seen the amendments either so obviously they have been written by the Government not by Mr Copeland. 
Suffice to say though what was really interesting was that the Meat Industry Association received absolutely no consultation at all from the Government on this legislation. The association was told that that would happen by none other than a visitor from the trade union the PSA back in the middle of last year. I will quote something that Mr Bill Falconer Chairman of the Meat Industry Association and a well-regarded international figure within our meat industry said to the select committee: “I have to say that in the 47 years I have been in and around Government I have never seen a major trade organisation”—the Meat Industry Association—“be treated so shabbily”. I say to all on that side of the House that it is a shame that that is the way they treat this major export market. 
So why does the argument occur that these two State-owned enterprises should be merged? Opposition to the move goes right back to the PSA representing all of the meat inspectors. I say that if this legislation finally proceeds to allow the merger we will see our meat industry again being held to ransom. 
I will refer specifically to clause 10 and signal today in the House that I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to delete clause 10 in its entirety. I take the opportunity to explain this to the House today. The Animal Health Board is charged by the New Zealand Government with ensuring that we succeed in obtaining TB-free status by the year 2013. I think the board is doing a very credible job in that area. That therefore requires that it is involved with setting up a TB testing regime for all cattle in New Zealand. Quite recently the Animal Health Board has been able to competitively tender its TB rounds between both Asure and AgriQuality thereby achieving significant savings of costs. 
Because the board was concerned that the PSA would finally win the day within the Labour Government when it signed contracts with AgriQuality and Asure it specifically said that it would reserve the right in the event of a merger taking place to immediately cancel those contracts and seek more competitive tendering. Clause 10 cancels the Animal Health Board’s ability to do that. Clause 10 states that any contractmust then be maintained because Mr Mallard and the Labour Government have overridden the sanctity of the contract that the Animal Health Board quite independently negotiated some time ago. 
That means we have removed the ability for competitive tendering for TB testing. It means we are now back to having a significant monopoly in the short term in administering TB testing. That then means that the costs will go up and those costs will be borne by the New Zealand farmer. So I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage. I understand that Gordon Copeland is aware of this issue. I certainly hope he will support my amendment and I certainly hope that other smaller parties—cognisant of the value of New Zealand agriculture to the economy cognisant of the value of achieving TB-free status by 2013 and cognisant of the fact that at the end of the day beef and dairy farmers in New Zealand are paying for this service—will also take the opportunity of making sure that we at least within this legislation ensure the ability of the Animal Health Board to contract as it likes to the providers of these TB testing services. 
As we went through the submissions we found that they were fulsome and there were very very few submissions in favour of the legislation—one of which was quite a substantial one from the PSA but given the fact that it had announced this move to the Meat Industry Association last year I suppose that it is not surprising that the industry submissions were totally opposed to the bill. The Meat Industry Association was very disappointed upon hearing rumours of this legislative change being proposed by the Labour Government and taking the opportunity of writing to the Minister of Agriculture and asking whether it could have a meeting to discuss the issue that Jim Anderton refused even to meet with the industry. This is something we are seeing happen quite often with Mr Anderton in his other portfolios. He was not prepared to meet with the industry association and try to explain the rationale for rushing the legislation through the House with indecent haste. So I say to Mr Anderton that if he is genuine about working with the industry then he has to be prepared to front up to it and justify a move such as this. 
So overall National has wholehearted opposition to this bill before Parliament today. National will oppose the legislation. We will certainly support the good work of Gordon Copeland through his amendments but we stand to vote against the legislation at the end of the day. I will take the opportunity of seeking again the support of particularly Doug Woolerton’s party in making sure that we at least get rid of clause 10 which defies the ability of the Animal Health Board to stick to the sanctity of the contract based on good faith with both these providers. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill particularly in the wake of the previous contribution which was more a form objection than anything else. It was really difficult to discern what the key objections of the National Party are to this legislation. 
To give a bit of background I say that the two State-owned enterprises were created in November 1998 out of the corporatisation of MAF Quality Management’s business units. For the benefit of people listening outside of this Chamber I say that AgriQuality’s core business is the provision of food safety and biosecurity services while Asure’s is the provision of export red meat inspection services. The two State-owned enterprises also overlap in their work—for example in TB-testing services which the Minister Clayton Cosgrove referred to in his second reading speech and in biosecurity response services. 
AgriQuality advised the shareholding Ministers in November 2006 that it intended to provide export red meat inspection services in competition with Asure. Shareholding Ministers wish to prevent competition in the export meat inspection market as they consider that competition between the two State-owned enterprises in that area is undesirable and would result in a net cost to the Crown—and I will develop that point a wee bit further in a moment. Therefore legislation was required: firstly to mitigate the possible Commerce Act implications of the AgriQuality board’s decision to withdraw its intention to enter the export meat inspection market—and that is the argument around section 2 of the Commerce Act—and secondly to enable the possible merger of the two companies at some time further down the track. This legislation does not create that merger but it creates the possibility of the merger should Ministers decide that this makes sense. 
The shareholding Ministers had written to AgriQuality and Asure informing them of decisions taken and inviting them to collaborate to develop a business case for a proposal to merge the two organisations and they agreed to do that. Let me just explore some of the rationale behind this because it is important. The Labour-led Government prefers to see State-owned enterprises collaborating and coordinating their activities to provide a quality service rather than competing at a cost to the taxpayer. There was no particular purpose in having two State-owned enterprises competing with each other to provide the same service and we have not heard any argument from the Opposition to gainsay that. There was no overt or even covert purpose in having these two State-owned enterprises compete with each other. 
The issue about the reduction of cost is one I will come back to in a moment because one of the key premises of the National Party’s opposition was that the prevention of any competition would keep costs high and not allow costs to reduce as one would normally expect to be the case in the event of a competitive market. In considering that point I put it to the House that competition frequently does two things. Frequently it does indeed lower the cost of services or goods and a competitive market can ensure a better price for services. But in this instance it was not only meaningless to have two State-owned enterprises compete with each other to deliver price reductions but I would suggest also dangerous. It is also dangerous in this instance because competition in the pursuit of lower prices frequently means lower standards and corners being cut. This is an area that is far too important for the export industries of New Zealand far too important for consumer protection and far too important for New Zealand’s reputation overseas to allow meaningless competition for the sake of competition only. That is the critical point and that is the key difference between our position on this side of the House and that of the National Party. 
New Zealand’s reputation around the delivery of food standards and the safety of our produce overseas is intimately bound up with this legislation. If we have one State-owned enterprise and the possibility of a merger to make it even more sensible as to how we deliver the standards required to maintain the treaties agreements and contracts we have particularly with the United Kingdom and the United States then I am very much in favour of ensuring that this remains within the domain of one State-owned enterprise and that competition does not reduce the quality of product we deliver to the international market. It is important to note that the contracts we have particularly with the United Kingdom and the United States recognise Government-guaranteed standards. It is the New Zealand Food Safety Authority that verifies the inspection services on our red meat exports. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority is the one that guarantees to our international contract partners the standard and the quality of the produce we sell to them. 
Clearly we do not object in any way to the two amendments Mr Copeland is introducing. The first amendment simply asks that there be a review within 3 years of the passage of this bill. It is always good to make sure that legislation is doing what it was meant to do. The second allows the possibility of competitive tendering should overseas regulatory authorities change their policies to recognise the private provision of export red meat. Should that happen then indeed let us see whether competitive tendering will cut the mustard. At the moment it is not a relevant consideration because the overseas regulatory authorities require a Government guarantee of quality for the product being sold. 
I have one further comment to make. I want to respond to some of the points made about the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) by the speaker who resumed his seat a moment ago. The PSA does have an agreement with this Labour-led Government—it is true. It is called Partnership for Quality. The PSA is an independent union. It is the biggest union in the country as the member who spoke a moment ago said but it is absolutely committed to quality services within the public sector in New Zealand. Its support of this legislation is based not on any sycophantic kowtowing to a Labour-led Government but on a long-held commitment to the delivery of quality services in the public sector. That is the nature of this Labour-led Government’s agreement with the PSA in the signed Partnership for Quality. 
This bill allows for the consideration of a merger at some time in the future. That may be a good thing. I for one if I were to express a personal opinion would be very happy to see such a merger occur because I consider the extent of corporatisation that resulted in these two organisations in the first place to have been something of an atomising process. I commend this bill to the House. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this very important State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. We have just heard from one of the former trade unionists who had a real slant on why this bill is good for the unions. What that member failed to mention is what is good for primary production. What is good for the farmer—for the people at the coalface who are actually growing lamb and beef? This merger will surely hike up the costs that will roll on through to those people who are producing a very valuable product for our economy. 
It is interesting that these two State-owned enterprises have been split for 10 years now and we have not had a problem at all with any of our quality meat standards around the world. I was fortunate enough in 2000 to go on a Winston Churchill Fellowship to America. I have been through their plants and our standards in our meat plants here in New Zealand are fantastic compared with America. Our products meet the United States Department of Agriculture standards to a brilliant condition. Our meat processing plants and meat quality standards are at a very very high level. 
So I struggle to see how merging these two identities will be beneficial when we have not had a problem for 10 years. If we were to amalgamate Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy would we do that in a month? The answer would be no. Here we have a bill that the Government was trying to ram through in about a month although that has been extended out to 6 weeks. I think that is absolutely shocking. As we have heard from the Hon David Carter the submitters are really concerned about the panic with this bill. Would we merge Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy without a full economic analysis or a business case? This bill says to me that we will not amalgamate now but that we want to have the provisions to amalgamate. We have not even seen the business case yet. No one has done the numbers to see how they stack up. 
So what is the real panic about the bill? I believe—and it has become apparent through the submission process—that when AgriQuality signalled its intention to move into red meat inspection at the end of last year Mr Mallard came down with a heavy hand and said: “You dare. You dare do that.” He warned AgriQuality and as a consequence he may well have breached a Commerce Commission law. Now we have a mad panic to try to get this bill through because Mr Mallard has come down with a heavy hand on AgriQuality right in the area where he should not be. 
It interesting that in 2006 Mr Mallard wrote to all the State-owned enterprise chairs saying: “I think you should diversify and get into a few other areas—so long as it is within your area of business.” On one hand Mr Mallard is saying that they should diversify. Would we want to see Landcorp actually setting up a milk plant with taxpayers’ money and competing against Fonterra? The answer would surely be no. Mr Mallard is out there saying: “Have a go have a go. Diversify.” Then on the other hand he wants to see State-owned enterprises merged into one identity. 
The real concern we have with this bill is that it has been rushed through. It will affect farmers’ bottom lines. I do not think that has been talked about today. We have heard from the trade unionist from the Labour Party movement that it will be wonderful for its people. But it will not be wonderful for the people who are producing the product and who will have to pay higher fees for meat inspections and higher amounts for TB testing. That will roll on and mean that the people buying meat in the supermarket will have to pay higher prices for it. 
One of the things I also want to raise is the weather bombs we have had recently in Northland. When we think about and analyse a State-owned enterprise and a Crown research institute that should be working closer together the example that springs to mind is the Meteorological Service and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has a multimillion-dollar supercomputer model that can predict weather bombs—particularly flooding events—12 to 36 hours ahead of the Meteorological Service. But hello the Meteorological Service has the contract for weather forecasting so the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is hamstrung from putting out this information to the people who really value it in our provincial rural communities. We have there a State-owned enterprise and a Crown research institute. We have Mr Maharey on one and Mr Mallard on the other. There is tremendous infighting there. We do not have that coming into Parliament to be sorted out. 
In Asure and AgriQuality we have two State-owned enterprises that are performing extremely well and the National Party has a real concern that this legislation is being rammed through at a great rate of knots with very poor consultation. The Minister of Agriculture Mr Jim Anderton should be appalled that he would not meet some of the key industry people to even hear their position. National has real concerns with this bill and that is why we are opposing it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the proposal to amalgamate AgriQuality and Asure either now or in the future. As the speakers do their stuff we are starting to hear a few of the underlying problems coming out. I want to reiterate some of the things that Maryan Street said. One of them is that these demands are those of other countries. These demands are those of other Governments that will not deal with private enterprise. They will not deal with private contractors. They will deal with Government agencies— 
Hon David Carter 
: These are two State-owned enterprises. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Yes they are State-owned enterprises. We have spent a lot of time making sure that these countries overseas understand that these State-owned enterprises are actually Government organisations. That is what they are no matter what point one makes about them. They are controlled by the Government to one degree or another and their shareholders are Government Ministers. 
Mr Gordon Copeland’s amendment which New Zealand First intends to support is along the lines of: “If these countries overseas agree to private contractors or other agencies taking up meat inspection then they will be allowed.” Now there is negotiation on a continuing basis to try to convince overseas countries that we should be allowed to have private contractors or non-Government agencies carrying out these tasks. But they have not been approved as yet. The Chinese the Americans and the English demand that these things be done by a Government agency—be it a State-owned enterprise or other. That is the fact of the matter. Even Mr Gordon Copeland’s excellent amendment accepts and recognises that. 
The other thing that people should know is that there is not real competition between these agencies especially in the red meat business as the Meat Industry Association would have everybody believe. There is the potential for competition. When the Meat Industry Association talks about its submission it says it is concerned that the potential for competition is being removed. It is not competition that is being removed; it is the potential for competition that is being removed. I say as an ex-farmer and a person who advocates for farmers that that is not good enough. The potential for competition is not good enough—either there is competition or there is not. That is the honest way. 
If there is not real competition if there is only the potential for competition then it is in the Government’s and the farmers’ interest to do everything they can to drive down the cost on the enterprise that is supplying that service. That is precisely and exactly what this bill is about. Instead of having two organisations with some sort of phoney competition let us have one organisation. There will not be competition because the overseas Governments will not allow that to happen. Let us get the price down and let us get on with it. 
I get a little bit cheesed off quite frankly when people talk to farmers about phoney competition because farmers know what competition is. Farmers understand what competition is. This is certainly not competition as we all should understand it. I think that rather than what the National Party is saying this will be good for the farmers. 
Nathan Guy 
: You go out and tell them. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I will tell them. When the National Party fronts up to farmers and starts telling them the whole issue instead of part of the issue then we may get somewhere. I thought it was interesting that Nathan Guy just because it occurred to him thought that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd should combine with another State-owned enterprise and that somehow or other that would give him better information regarding weather bombs. It is not the information regarding weather bombs that is lacking; it is the ability to do something about them. Again the National Party is holding out hope when there is none. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Before the House broke I was talking about the perceived competition that the Meat Industry Association is worried it will be missing out on and the perceived competition that the National Party is making such an issue of. Mr David Carter mentioned that he will be moving an amendment to clause 10. The Minister has evidently said that where the contract with the Animal Health Board for tuberculosis testing is able to be cancelled at the moment clause 10 makes sure that the Animal Health Board cannot cancel that contract even under a differently constituted State-owned enterprise which we are talking about here. 
I presume that everybody knows—but in case they do not I will tell them—that here we are dealing with another Government agency the Animal Health Board. So National is worried about competition between Asure and AgriQuality which are two State-owned enterprises dealing with a third State-owned enterprise and the Meat Industry Association is worried about the lack of competition. Well I tell members that there is very little competition in this area and as I said before where there is no real competition one has to make these enterprises as efficient as they can be in order to deliver a low-cost service—which is what is being attempted. Obviously it will be up to the managers to ensure that that happens and it will be up to us in Parliament to keep an eye on that. I am sure that between us and the farmers that will certainly happen. 
I will use the last minute or two I have remaining to talk about the people who are involved in this industry the people Mr Carter attempted to—not demonise but he did start to go down that track and to talk about them in terms of their being unionists. Let me tell members that these people are in a highly specialised field. They have to learn to identify shadows in a carcass. They have to learn to identify things that are not immediately obvious to us. In fact Mr Assistant Speaker people like you—and I say “you” advisedly—and I could not detect those things. However these people can and most certainly if they did not the inspectors in our overseas markets absolutely certainly would. They would reject our cattle and they would reject our meat and there would be horrendous cost to us as a country downstream of that. 
So I want to give these people—unionists or not—a little bit of praise for what they do. They work in bloody—and I am not using that as a swear word—conditions. They work often in cold conditions and they work in conditions where they simply cannot afford to make a mistake. So I give credit to them and I do that on behalf of the many farmers I know personally who appreciate what they do. I give that credit to them on behalf of myself and my party New Zealand First. These people are at the cutting edge of what we do in this country—that is produce extremely high-quality produce and extremely high-quality consumables for the world markets. 
We are right at the top end of world markets. We are not producing cheap cuts. Maybe once we did and maybe we were proud of that once but we do not do that any more. We produce high-end consumables for the most sophisticated markets in the world and I close by saying to those people—the meat inspectors and the people who are at the coalface of this industry—that we understand what they do and we appreciate what they do. New Zealand is the beneficiary of what they do and long may they continue to do it. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 On the first reading of this bill—the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill which United Future supports—I proceeded on the assumption that Asure New Zealand Ltd was undertaking red meat inspection services on behalf of New Zealand meat exporters in a manner akin to what the Customs Service undertakes for imports. I was probably misled by the name “Asure” into thinking it provided assurance to exporters that our vitally important meat exports meet all relevant health safety and quality standards as set by the regulators within those markets—the main markets being the European Union China and the USA. 
However that has proved not to be the case. The New Zealand regulator is actually the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. That agency sets the quality standards and other standards for our red meat exports. The inspection services themselves are carried out by Asure and are audited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Importantly the costs involved in providing the services of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are met by the taxpayers of New Zealand but—and this is an important point—the cost of the actual meat inspections are met by the meat growers themselves. It is Government policy—and this was actually reaffirmed by the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority the Hon Annette King a couple of years ago—that such red meat inspection services can be undertaken only by the Crown. So when those realities became clear to me it likewise became clear that the effect of this bill will be the deliberate formation of a State-owned monopoly for red meat inspection services. 
The bill enables that by overriding the Commerce Act by forbidding AgriQuality Ltd also a State-owned enterprise to compete with its fellow State-owned enterprise Asure in the provision of meat inspection services. That in itself is contrary to the provisions of the Commerce Act. So in forming this monopoly it is necessary to override the provisions of the Commerce Act. That is unacceptable to United Future. We believe in free and competitive markets which is why we voted for example to bring an end to Telecom’s monopoly over the local loop for telecommunications services. 
It is obvious I think to anyone who has studied competition law that a monopoly always carries with it the risk that price gouging will follow and also that quality will drop. In the absence of a competitor why should a company not try to get from the market the maximum possible price and why should it care too much about quality? In this particular case quality will not be an issue. I have no doubt about that because as I have mentioned we have the New Zealand Food Standards Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry auditing the quality of red meat inspections. Nevertheless the creation of a monopoly in terms of the price that can be charged along with the possibility of price gouging put New Zealand farmers—the producers of our multibillion-dollar meat exports—in an untenable position. They cannot sell meat until it has been inspected so a monopoly in those services means that they are forced to pay whatever Asure chooses to charge. Asure in the absence of competition has no incentive to minimise costs and no incentive to be efficient. That in our view is completely unacceptable. 
Accordingly United Future has made its support for the bill subject to two conditions. The first of those is that 3 years from the enactment date the Commerce Commission will review the position to ensure that the prices being charged conform with the general principles of the Commerce Act. The second is that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority will be authorised to continue to negotiate with New Zealand's trading partners for the competitive supply of export red meat inspection services by private sector organisations. Should those negotiations be successful the Government will then permit competitive tendering to occur for those services. 
I need to give some background as to what has been happening. The Meat Industry Association in association with the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has been in negotiations and discussions with our major export markets—the European Union China and the United States of America—for some time. The association has been saying that because of the quality assurance that is already in place through the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and through the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry it would make sense to open up red meat inspections themselves to private sector operators. The association is gradually convincing those markets that that could go ahead. If that happens then of course the association wants competition to come in for the reasons I have mentioned so that farmers prices remain reasonable. So we were delighted when the Government saw fit to agree to those conditions and I will move an amendment to that effect in the Committee stage of the bill. 
I am grateful that both New Zealand First and National have signalled that they will give their support to the amendment ensuring it they will be accepted with wide cross-party support in this Parliament. This kind of initiative is becoming a bit of a habit for United Future in bringing some much-needed rationality to the polarisation that sometimes occurs when the two old parties fail to address issues in a reasonable way and instead go back into their ideological bolt-holes. It is very good from that point of view to be working with people like those from the Greens and the Maori Party who are also prepared to come to things with somewhat more of an open mind. That is a good initiative. 
The net result of this is that subject to those conditions that I have outlined which will be in my amendment it will ensure that costs to farmers are minimised through competition between Government and private sector providers to the benefit of New Zealand’s vital multibillion-dollar meat exports. 
I thank in particular the Meat Industry Association and also Federated Farmers Business New Zealand and the Deer Farmers Association for the very sound submissions they made to the Commerce Committee on this issue. Their arguments were well presented logical and reasonable and I am very pleased that the House seems now to be on track to accept those arguments which will enable the bill to proceed. 
The bill also provides for a merger between AgriQuality Ltd and Asure. The bill does not mandate it; it simply says if a feasibility study a cost and benefit study and so forth support a merger going ahead then the legal authority will be there for those two State-owned enterprises to become one. United Future has no particular view about that. We would be guided as the bill provides by those preconditions being met. It may be that merging these two State-owned enterprises is a move in the right direction. Our position is one of neutrality in that regard. 
So really having addressed the issue regarding the important meat inspections aspect having assured ourselves that the pathway is there to at least open up the possibility of competitive services for red meat producers—thus ensuring that we continue to maintain our competitive advantage in respect of our meat exports—we are generally speaking very satisfied indeed with this bill. 
I mentioned earlier that our three main export markets for red meat are the European Union China and the USA. It may be for example that China is the first major market to agree to the provision of red meat inspections by private companies something that the Chinese Government—amazingly given it is still officially a communist government—is now very open to. Should that occur and when it occurs those plants that are producing meat exclusively for the Chinese market for example with Government support will be able to seek competitive tenders for red meat inspections in those plants. On the other hand a plant that is producing red meat for let us say both the Chinese and the European Union markets may or may not be able to avail itself of those competitive tendering processes at that point in time. One can foresee a situation where China may agree in a year’ s time but the European Union might be 5 years away and the USA might be 7 years away. But eventually I think because of the logic of the case it should happen. When it does happen our red meat producers will be assured of the best possible prices and the most efficient delivery of red meat inspection services whilst continuing to adhere to the high standards now demanded by those markets—standards that today mean that those markets basically want traceability from the farm paddock right to the plate of the consumer. We will be able to deliver that kind of assurance to our important overseas customers. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. In preparation for this bill the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill 
our caucus had a deep and meaningful discussion with all the members wanting to make this speech. We usually farm out our speeches but in this case 
everyone except Mrs Turia came at it like a bull at a gate. When I asked Dr Sharples why he wanted to make the speech he admitted that they had not 
 “ 
herd” 
much 
about the topic. Hone Harawira said that he needed to take some stock and decided that he was a fence-sitter and would leave it. Mrs Turia suggested that I am a cow because I get to deliver all the good speeches. So here I am to ram home some specific points. In the end my declaring that I would make 
the speech myself was really putting the lambs to the slaughter. All I can say to my colleagues is “grass-ias”. Actually I made no race of it.  
The Maori Party is interested in considering the implications of a possible merger between AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd.Last week in our lead-up to Budget week we released our Treaty settlement package which included the proposal to consider joint ventures with State-owned enterprises along with innovative approaches to other forms of development. “Shearing” resources is a good idea. The Maori Party is interested in “moooving” to investigate the full range of approaches to respond to settlement priorities and a joint venture with a State-owned enterprise is an idea that many of our iwi are interested in. It is not about pulling the wool over your eyes—not at all Mr Assistant Speaker. What we are interested in is the best interest of the nation.  
“Ewe” know Mr Assistant Speaker that what we see in the case of AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand is their commitment to succeed as commercial trading enterprises. Clearly they are committed to making hay while the sun shines.They are required under the State-owned enterprise model to operate as successful businesses and although they return a dividend to the Crown as a shareholder they nevertheless operate on a commercial basis. 
In the case of AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand we indeed see ample evidence of commercial success and it would be “udderly” silly not to support this.The New Zealand meat industry is by anyone’s estimations more than an essential part of our economy. The industry has beefed itself up over time.Anyone who would deny the reliance of our economy on the $5 billion in export revenue earned by the New Zealand meat industry or the $1.22 billion earned from domestic meat sales over the last year would have to be more than a lamb sausage short in the great “bah-bah-que” of life. 
Of course Maori feature as the master chefs the producers the marketers the exporters the meat processors and of course the consumers. There would not be a marae or a Maori home in which the classic cuisine the all-time favourite boil up has not appeared on the menu. Surely most have “Hereford” of it before! We know that the annual contribution of Maori primary sector producers to the GDP is now very significant “paddickularly” when Maori agribusinesses are demonstrating considerable commercial success. There is also significant involvement of Maori working in the plants. Some would estimate it at about 80 percent of the workforce. 
We come to this bill then aware of the undeniable profits that accrue to the economy from the meat supply chain. The sheer volume—some 24 million lambs 4.4 million sheep and 4.2 million cattle and calves are processed and slaughtered every year—is phenomenal. Since the first sheep landed in Aotearoa in 1773 courtesy of Captain Cook and settlers flocked to this land we have developed a reputation as a land of milk and honey primarily due to the export meat industry. 
When we spoke during the first reading debate on this bill a mere month ago we spoke in favour of the possibilities of achieving economies of scale. There was “farm” more here than “meats” the eye! We considered the possibilities that a merger could yield—benefits such as lower operational costs and higher profits. As the Commerce Committee report noted bringing the two key entities of the meat industry together under one stand shepherds in the distinct possibility of a strengthened link between meat inspection services and other components of the meat supply chain. Now this is really cutting to the chase. 
The Maori Party anticipates that with such a high level of expertise and cooperation we should expect to see improved information flow innovations and use of resources; better coordination of skills experience technology and infrastructure across the food and agriculture markets; scale-related efficiencies from having a single national service provider; and additional revenue opportunities from offering integrated quality assurance services to the wider food industry amongst other factors. We supported the first reading knowing that AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand are currently the only entities that are able to in practical terms provide export red meat inspection services. Competitors get slaughtered or left cast. 
It would seem from all probabilities that a merger could maximise the commercial and non-commercial ownership benefits of both. With the market success of these two State-owned enterprises then how major will be the impact of this bill in preventing the State-owned enterprise AgriQuality from providing export red meat inspection services? What provisions might be needed to ensure that AgriQuality will not be in competition with Asure prior to any merger or are we just flogging a dead horse? What precisely will be the ramifications of the net cost incurred to the Crown as the owner of both AgriQuality and Asure if some competition were to occur? Would we be milking the system or creaming off the profits? 
Those are the sorts of questions we have fielded. Although it would appear to be very good business sense for the business case of AgriQuality to not be in competition with Asure New Zealand we know that there are some concerns associated with the ante and post-mortem meat inspection services the downstream impacts for the global food safety regulatory environment the implications of virtually creating a Government-sanctioned monopoly on the provision of meat inspection services the risk of rising costs for purchasing such services and wider precedents attached to the management of State-owned enterprises. 
We also note with frustration the all-too-familiar concern about what the Meat Industry Association described as the “extraordinary haste” of the process of receiving and hearing submissions and reporting back to the House and the lack of involvement in a process spanning some 4 years. Well welcome to our world. We note that such concerns have led United Future to submit additional clauses to guarantee by way of review that the prices charged will conform with the general principles of the Commerce Act. We are also aware that a number of the submissions received described concerns that the bill did not contain either a business compliance cost statement or a regulatory impact statement. The submitters views were that they had not been given sufficient information on the impact of the bill. 
We in the Maori Party are among the list of groups who were not offered the opportunity for consultation on this bill—a process that began in 2003 yet raced through the House in a timetable of a month. We bring to this bill a prevailing interest in a genuine progress index which weighs up the costs measures the benefits against the deficits and leads us to consider other questions. Although we recognise that primary beef and sheep production are key features of our wealth we also know that that wealth is dependent on the exploitation of our natural capital—our soil our water and our air. We will continue to support this bill at its second reading but we intend to carry out our own consultation within the sector in order to consider our final position and to shed some light on the concerns before this bill comes back to the House. Kia ora tatou. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I take this opportunity to stand and take a call in the second reading debate of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. Before I go on to my comments I want to thank the previous speaker for his rendition and his attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by shearing the Maori Party policy on the hoof. 
The Labour Government prefers to see State-owned enterprises collaborating and coordinating their activities to provide a quality service rather than competing at a cost to the taxpayer. The bill will prevent direct competition between the two State-owned enterprises in delivering export red meat inspection services. 
I think it might be good sense to talk about the issue of competition and the fear of a monopoly. I think back and recall that in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s particularly within the meat industry we were seriously faced with being locked out of the European market. To be phased out of that international market in terms of our red meat exports would have been a huge blow to us as a country. 
I recall vividly that at that time the meat companies gathered together along with the freezing workers to analyse the problem and ensure we maintained the opportunity to export to the European market. Both groups set up a committee that was tasked with ensuring that we were able to meet the various standards required particularly by the European market. The conditions that the committee placed on upgrading the entire export plant were huge. The conditions not only referred to ensuring confidence in the inspection of our red meat but also to the handling of meat the manner in which it was stored and to the whole plant in terms of cleanliness and standards that were required. 
It took about 3 years during the 1970s for us to get those plants up to a standard that was acceptable to the European market. I recall very clearly travelling to the Moerewa freezing works Hellabys in Auckland the Southdown freezing works and the freezing works in Horotiu and Rangiuru as a part of our own internal inspection to ensure that we were meeting those standards and to make sure that those workers particularly the freezing workers were up to the level and standard of meat handling required by the European market. 
We managed to do that and as part of the ongoing inspections from the European market they came regularly like clockwork every 3 weeks to every plant to ensure that the plants were delivering those standards to their requirements. I use the chillers as an example. In those days chillers were buried in concrete. If a chiller buried in concrete was not covered by any white substance then it would be shut down. Hence the plant would be shut down. That was a real threat at the time and there had to be some genuine attempt to ensure we gave the European inspectors confidence that we were able to deliver on the standards they wanted. We went through that process in the 1970s. 
Also as a part of the strategy I suppose with the meat companies we lifted our standard beyond their standards. We had to to ensure we delivered. We found that there was a subtle change to the second tier of the meat inspection criteria through the State-owned enterprises being formed—I think that was in 1998—to perform separate functions. Asure was set up to deliver meat inspection to the meat industry and AgriQuality was established to provide auditing of food production systems laboratory testing—including TB testing—and stock movement control. 
We viewed that as a second tier to implementing our own standards but the importance of that second-tier introduction was to ensure that our meat inspection was maintaining that standard and quality required by those markets. To do that Governments had to have some management and a watchful eye and control over that process. We heard earlier from other speakers that that is done through the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and we are now enjoying the safety of our red meat exports and the confidence of European and international markets. There is safety and confidence—we have no problem dealing with them because they have confidence we are delivering to their standards. The fear with the creation of competition and the issue surrounding a monopoly is that it may damage that standard. It may lower that standard thus putting us back into the awful situation where we may be faced with having to lose that export market. That is the last situation obviously that we want to find ourselves in. 
So this bill is designed to ensure we prevent direct competition between the two State-owned companies in delivering export red meat inspection services. The bill also authorises the shareholding Ministers to issue a direction to AgriQuality preventing it from providing export meat inspection services. It enables more effective and efficient biosecurity response capabilities which is a must and it enables a merger of the two companies should that be viable to benefit shareholders and the New Zealand economy. 
In the very short time I have participated in the Commerce Committee’s hearing of evidence from submitters I took note of the concern particularly from the Public Service Association that a change could bring about a reduction to meat inspectors’ terms and conditions of employment. I do think we need to be conscious that we maintain—particularly if there is a transfer of undertaking—the opportunity for those meat inspectors to enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment. This bill is designed to ensure that they stay within those ramifications—those limits—and that they enjoy the confidence of being assured that their terms and conditions stay in place. Also I do not think we should put ourselves into a situation where we become vulnerable and might be faced with redundancies that may cause an extra cost if we were to look at another opportunity or option. Without specific legislation the Minister cannot order a direction to AgriQuality to prevent it from providing export red meat inspection services. The competition between both companies may erode shareholder value through potentially high redundancy costs as I mentioned. The legislation is required to allow for a possible merger providing that shareholder Ministers are satisfied that such a merger is viable. 
I also want to talk about the position taken by United Future as noted in the report of the Commerce Committee. United Future made two points in the amendments it put forward. The first is: “That three years from the enactment date the Commerce Commission will review the provision of meat inspection services to ensure that the prices charged conform with the general principles of the Commerce Act 1986.” It appears that we do not have a major problem with that. I think we should have an opportunity to review it and I am sure there should not be any problem supporting that. The second point is: “Notwithstanding this Act the New Zealand Food Safety Authority is authorised to continue to negotiate with New Zealand’s trading partner or partners for the recognition of the competitive supply of export red meat inspection services by organisations other than the Crown. Should such negotiations be successful the Crown shall permit competitive tendering to occur for those services.” That primarily relates to the option that the bill provides as time progresses of merging if that is the case. I think the bill before us is a good bill. It provides some confidence and some security in our red meat inspection. I commend it to the House. Kia ora. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National’s position is well known. We will be voting against the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill as previous speakers have said. However we will be supporting Gordon Copeland’s amendments. We think they are a desirable move and we will be supporting them during the Committee stage. 
The bill provides a mechanism to prevent two State-owned enterprises—AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd—from competing against one another in the provision of red meat inspection services. It is interesting that in June last year the Minister for State Owned Enterprises talked of flexibility and of how there needs to be competition. Yet AgriQuality Ltd did exactly what the Minister said last year should happen—it signalled its intention to move into the field of meat inspection—and now this bill comes along to prevent that from happening. 
The Government is also considering in the bill the possibility of merging AgriQuality and Asure to maximise both their commercial and their non-commercial ownership benefits. The business case for a merger still has to be established. The economic benefits from a merger are expected to come from the establishment of a single integrated provider of services related to primary sector food safety and biosecurity. That provision of the bill expires 2 years after the date of assent. 
National opposes the bill. We believe in competition. We oppose the bill but will support as I mentioned Gordon Copeland’s amendments on behalf of United Future. I mentioned earlier that last year the Minister for State Owned Enterprises wanted to move away from Asure’s monopoly on red meat inspection and said that there should be the flexibility for State-owned enterprises to be able to compete. Already in the energy sector we have State-owned enterprises that compete. In the North Island we have Genesis Energy and Mighty River Power on the Waikato River and in the South Island we have Meridian Energy. These three State-owned enterprises are State generators that compete in the energy market. So why can we not have competition within the meat inspection area? It is about providing meat inspection services to the meat industry which is a $5 billion a year export market and is very important to New Zealand’s economy. 
AgriQuality took up that challenge last year to move into the market of meat inspection. Unfortunately this bill will stifle that initiative and not allow it to happen. Clearly the Minister thinks that competition is duplication. That is not something we subscribe to. National considers that the loss of competition is not in the primary sector’s best interests—that it could lead to lack of innovation and an increase in the costs of red meat inspection— 
Dianne Yates 
: You don’t have innovative meat inspection. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We do. Technology and science are innovative around the world and we have to keep up with those sorts of technologies. That is why we are leaders in the field. Fancy saying that! So we could have a lack of innovation and a fall in the quality of services. We need competition to keep them on their toes—to keep the costs down. Of course the submitters who came forward—there were only nine of them because of the short time frame during which submitters were allowed input into this bill—all talked about the importance of competition the importance of keeping costs down and the importance of accountability which they believe this bill does not cater for. In fact— 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh rubbish! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well that member says “rubbish” but a person who probably knows more about meat and meat inspection is the Chairman of the Meat Industry Association Bill Falconer who comes from the Waikato. He said that the competition between AgriQuality and Asure was a key driver in improving cost efficiency within the industry without which costs would inevitably rise. He is a person who understands what this is all about. He is a person who is recognised in the commercial sector and in the industry as a very prominent director and as somebody who knows what makes the world go round. He made the statement which I think is significant that in 47 years of being in and around Government he had never seen a major trade organisation treated so shabbily. That is what he said. The Government should be absolutely ashamed of what it is trying to do here. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh stop it. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: What would the member know about meat inspection services? This is a very important industry to New Zealand’s economy. Here is the chairman of the Meat Industry Association telling it how it should be. He goes on to say that the possibility of competition is an important check against the abuse of market power and he cannot believe that the Government is indifferent to that reality and wants to take away that check without putting something equally effective in its place. That is what he said and I would put his word and his understanding of the meat industry well ahead of what any member on the Government side would have to say about this. He goes on to say how ironic it is that this is the year designated as Export Year yet the Government is trying to stifle initiative and stifle innovation. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh don’t be ridiculous. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is the reason why you are languishing in the polls. It is because you have lost touch with the reality of what is happening in the marketplace. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am sorry for bringing you into it Mr Assistant Speaker but you know where I am coming from. 
An important point as I mentioned before is that within the short time frame this bill was before the Commerce Committee there were only nine submitters and another thing that was brought up was that no cost-benefit analysis had been done and that there was no regulatory impact statement. One would have thought that if the bill was so important we would be able to look at what the compliance cost regime would be but that is not there. It is absolutely not there and that is an indictment on this Government. It is trying to push through legislation that has absolutely no merit at all. One of the important things about scrutinising legislation is that there is a compliance cost statement and a regulatory impact statement so that we can assess and look at the compliance costs and what they actually mean. But no because this legislation is being rushed through and there has not been a chance for other submitters to have input we find that that has been done away with. 
Jill Pettis 
: You can tell how enthusiastic the National Party is because there are only two of you in the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well it is about quality. We have had a number of speakers who actually understand these issues. It is about getting through the important message that this Government is trying to rush through legislation that does not have the support of the industry at all. The Government allowed only a month for submissions. It does not want competition in the marketplace. National wants competition and we are asking this Government where the regulatory impact statement is and where the accountability is for an industry that is bringing in $5 billion a year. The Government does not want competition; it thinks that competition is wrong. I say to the Government members opposite that we believe in accountability. We believe in a very robust transparent system and the only way we can have that is to have competition in the marketplace. 
I say again that National is not prepared to support this legislation. We will support the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland. I take solace from the fact that Bill Falconer who is from the Waikato and is the Chairman of the Meat Industry Association has said that this is absolutely shabby. This is important legislation; we cannot let it go through as it is because it impacts on New Zealand’s standing internationally. Our reputation is at stake here. Competition is important. It is not a monopoly position. We want competition and having AgriQuality and Asure providing red meat inspection is important for the scrutiny transparency and robustness of a very important export industry. That is why National opposes this legislation. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the second reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. I agree with the previous speaker Lindsay Tisch that the Meat Industry Association Chairman Mr Bill Falconer is indeed a highly regarded individual. I was most pleased to read his comments about the amendments to the bill which he says take away the bulk of the industry’s concerns. That is very good news and I thank Gordon Copeland for the amendments he brought to the House. 
This is a very important bill. I was not a member of the Commerce Committee but I am a member of the Primary Production Committee which has dealt with the financial reviews of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd over a number of years. Asure has come before the select committee on a number of occasions. I think AgriQuality has come before the select committee every year for about the last 5 years at least. They are certainly two organisations that we on the Primary Production Committee know very well. Of course I also used to work for AgriQuality Ltd. It is an organisation that I have quite a bit of knowledge about. 
Certainly one of the concerns that has been raised over a number of years is the idea of two State-owned enterprises coming into the same market together. I do not believe that this ensures real competition in that area and let us not forget that this is a unique area. It is not really an open market. A lot of what we can and cannot do in this area is dictated by international agreements and international regulatory authorities that prefer to recognise Government authorisation schemes. It is also true though that the Government is not in any way opposed to the private sector being involved in this but it would need to be accepted by the overseas international regulatory authorities that decide whether our processes are good enough to allow our products to be imported into their countries. That is the most important thing. The last thing that anyone in this House across the board wants is for our export markets to be affected. So we do need to tread very carefully. 
But let us be quite clear that this is not open slather in the open market right now anyway. What we are asking is where is the sense the logic and the value for taxpayers’ money in having two State-owned enterprises―two taxpayer-owned enterprises―going into the same area. This is not an uncommon problem in the sector. Great changes happened in this sector in 1998. AgriQuality split away from MAF Quality Management into its own company. One might have thought that at that stage people would anticipate some of these problems arising. My understanding is that at that stage the meat inspectors all worked under one ministry. What we have seen since then with the splitting off and the corporatisation of this area is big problems when contracts are lost by one company and picked up by another with workers potentially being laid off and redundancies being paid out of that taxpayer investment only to be then picked up by the other State-owned enterprise and re-employed. I do not think there are many people out there who would think that is a good investment of taxpayer money at all. 
Of course this legislation also deals with a possible merger of AgriQuality and Asure. It is by no means certain and a lot of water will go under the bridge before that happens. It is certainly not a new idea. It has been kicking around for a long time. AgriQuality through its annual reports and statements of intent has made no bones about the fact that it has been very keen on a merger with Asure for a long time. It sees a lot of strategic value in that because after all AgriQuality works on the premise of “from the farm to the fork”. It has a fantastic network across all the farms of New Zealand―a great database. I am sure the services provided by Asure could be greatly enhanced by the intellectual property that AgriQuality already owns. I think that over time we have seen a continuing overlap of the services that these two organisations provide. 
Last year the select committee visited Asure in the process of its financial review. I have to say that it is an enormously impressive organisation. The service that it provides really is first class. Of course it is not just the inspection of the meat that is carried out. There is also inspection of the plants in order to ensure that we never face barriers into overseas markets because of the quality of the product and the quality of the plants that the meat is going through. When one goes there to see the work that is carried out one realises as the staff in the plants go over thousands and thousands of carcasses looking for a single speck of dust just how efficient and just how careful they have to be in carrying out that work. 
When we visited the plant we talked to meat inspectors who were on the floor while they were having their break. They told us that it is a constant concern to them that they may be shifted from one organisation to another with very little notice. Often these contracts are handed over quite abruptly. It is a very work-intensive area. When they have a lot of work going through they work very very long hours. Certainly they relayed their concerns that in terms of their job security they were constantly worried about contracts being handed over. They accepted that that was an important part of that process and that those services needed to be tendered out but they felt that this was made even harder in the knowledge of the fact that it was another State-owned enterprise that was tendering against them. The question about whether that was appropriate was being asked even back then. 
Coming back to the United Future amendments I think they are very sensible. It is important that if we come down to one organisation and if Asure is the only organisation carrying this out we can have an assurance from it that the prices are not going to spiral because we now have this enormous monopoly. I have seen Asure staff come before our select committee; I have seen their work ethic and the work they carry out in their business and how seriously they take their commitment to the primary production sector. They really do see themselves as a very important part of that sector. They hold enormous respect for it as the rest of us do. They appreciate as the rest of us do the importance of that sector to the New Zealand economy. I think it is unfair to suggest that they are suddenly going to want to strip—to gorge—the sector of cash and to damage the sector in any way. Any one who has visited Asure and who has talked to its board and its management team would be able to say that the commitment of Asure staff to this sector is undeniable and that they are not out to rort the sector for every cent they can get. But I still think it is wise to have prices subject to Commerce Commission scrutiny and I am sure that that will be welcomed by many members in the House. 
The second amendment just reiterates that the Crown will permit competitive tendering for services if those overseas authorities that we talked about recognise the private provision of export meat inspection services. I think it is important not to put the cart before the horse here. It is important that we continue to get our product into overseas markets. If overseas regulatory authorities are not going to accept private provision of these services for any reason then that has to be the guiding factor in any decision by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to allow private provision in that area. As we know the New Zealand Food Safety Authority is negotiating with overseas authorities to gain acceptance of these private sector operations. I think that would be a good step forward and I welcome the amendment that makes it explicit that there is nothing precluding that from happening. It is important also to point out that it has been questioned that the quality of this meat inspection might suffer if there is a monopoly—if Asure New Zealand only is carrying it out. Of course this is audited by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the quality will not drop in relation to that. 
One final thing is TB testing which is one of the concerns that has been raised again if there is to be a merger of AgriQuality and Asure. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before that happens but a lot of the contracts to 2009 are set. The conditions in those will remain the same and there are already actual and other potential private providers of this service who could come into the TB industry. So it is not really comparing apples with oranges to compare the meat inspection industry with the TB testing industry. 
I reiterate that I think these were inevitable pitfalls in the corporatisation of this sector. They should have been thought of at the time and we are working through them now. Both AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd definitely view themselves as an integral part of the primary production sector. They both work very much as a cog in that wheel and I think any suggestion that they would be out to sabotage the sector is grossly unfair. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
Social Security Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 May. 
Part 1 Provisions coming into force on 28 May or 2 July 2007 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 When I was speaking last week about this matter I was talking about the extraordinary performance of this Government or more accurately the extraordinary performance of Work and Income front-line staff and their dedication to the delivery of the wonderful results we have seen recently in New Zealand in relation to reduced youth unemployment. Most New Zealanders are already only too well aware of the delivery of this Government in terms of its policy around supporting people into work. But for most New Zealanders the most rewarding of Work and Income’s successes is the breaking of a cycle we inherited from our political predecessors in terms of unemployment work expectations and the proper work ethic for young people. That is perhaps the most rewarding of the initiatives of Work and Income and I compliment it on that. 
I would like to finish this call by reinforcing the contents of the document I was fortunate to be able to table in Parliament with the leave of members of the House earlier today. The fact is that at the end of last month April 2007 there were 28 Work and Income service centres with nil—zero—unemployed youth aged 18 and 19 receiving the unemployment benefit and there were a further 66 Work and Income service centres with fewer than 10 such unemployed youth on their books. That is an extraordinary achievement and a very serious compliment to the efforts of the policy analysts who designed the Working New Zealand policy which is so successful and the people on the front line who are already delivering what are in fact the effects of this legislation on a voluntary basis. A number of calls were taken by myself and my colleagues last week about this issue. This legislation is about the legal mandating of an approach that is already delivering results for New Zealanders. 
I guess that is why I and my colleagues find it so inconceivable and illogical that the Opposition—despite its support of these amendments in the select committee process and its voting for them at deliberation time—continues to oppose this legislation in the House. I just say to members opposite that they need to consider the fact that the residents of Alexandra Ashburton Blenheim Christchurch City Hastings East Hastings West Hawera Helensville Hornby Kamo Kilbirnie Linwood Matamata Mount Maunganui New Brighton Opotiki Otaki Papanui Point Chevalier Queenstown Riccarton Richmond Sydenham Tauranga Te Kuiti Thames Turangi and Warkworth are the lucky centres where Work and Income offices have no unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds on their books. 
Hon David Parker 
: None? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: None—zero. And the Opposition is opposing the legislation! I will not dwell on this matter further but that was a list of 28 Work and Income service centres. There is a further list of 66 which I am happy to dwell on if the member asks. I will now dwell on that. There is a list of 66 service centres where there are fewer than 10 unemployed people in that 18 and 19-year-old cohort on the books. 
When one considers that there are only 135 Work and Income service centres the fact that 28 have zero unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds on their rolls and the fact that that 66 have fewer than 10 unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds one can see an extraordinary record of policy delivery to New Zealanders and real support for them by our Work and Income front-line people. For the benefit of those National Party members who find this so hard to take I will detail those. The real high count starts with Cambridge. It has nine unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds. 
Jill Pettis 
: Nine? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It has nine on the roll as do Ponsonby / Grey Lynn and Wairoa. They are the only three with nine 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment roll. The fortunate front-line centres with only eight are Lower Hutt Onehunga and Tokoroa. The three centres with seven are Huntly Otahuhu and Takapuna. There is a very long list of centres with six 18 and 19-year-olds receiving the unemployment benefit. I will detail these for the National members who have asked. They are Avondale Greymouth Highland Park Horowhenua Masterton Mount Albert Mount Eden Queen Street Three Kings Waitara Waiuku Westport and Whakatane. Those with five—a group about the same size—are Feilding Johnsonville Kaitaia Kawakawa Kawerau Orewa Papatoetoe Ruatoria and Waihi. The group with four is Glenfield Gore Kaiapoi Kaiti New Lynn Palmerston North Terrace End and Rangiora. 
I reinforce that these achievements are the result of the policy that this bill mandates. It is operating currently on a completely voluntary basis and it is being extraordinarily successful despite the opposition of the National Party members who clearly do not want to see Work and Income supporting people into work. Before I get to the centres with zero 18 and 19-year-olds on their register I have a long list of areas with only three or two. That list starts with Birkinhead District Foxton Kaikohe Marton Mosgiel Ngaruawahia Oamaru Stratford and Waiheke. The centres with only two are Albany Dargaville Napier Paeroa Stanmore Road Taihape Taupo and Waipukurau. 
Just before we get to the big zeros—and I am happy to repeat all 28 of them again for Opposition members when I get the opportunity—let me tell them that in Balclutha there is only one 18 or 19-year-old. Only one! I am sure we do know the person’s name and he or she will not be on the register receiving the unemployment benefit for very long. Similarly there is only one person on the list in Browns Bay Greerton Kerikeri Morrinsville Motueka Nelson Shirley Taradale Taumarunui and Te Awamutu. So in all those areas only one 18 or 19-year-old is receiving the unemployment benefit. 
It must be incredibly frustrating for Mrs Tolley to sit over there bleating about these figures but the fact of the matter is that when those members appropriately located on the Opposition benches were in Government there were 161000 New Zealanders on the National Party’s scrap heap—like the National Party members—unemployed. One of the most impressive achievements of many impressive achievements of this Government which will sit on the Treasury benches for many years henceforth is the fact that that number went to 30000 6 weeks ago and to 28000 a month ago and last month it dropped to 26000. 
Now that is too many people unemployed—of course it is. But the policies of this Government and the amazing front-line work of Work and Income has moved hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders from a position where they were parked by the previous Government—which used economic settings including unemployment as a tool to balance its books—to a situation where tens of thousands of them have been assisted into productive work. That is what this legislation is about and that is why I find it so absolutely incomprehensible so indefensible and frankly so despicable that the very people who are bleating now and constantly beat on sickness and invalids beneficiaries who need support from this community are not supporting this legislation. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and in particular to Part 1. I found those figures from the Minister very fascinating because what I would like him to explain to us is why the household labour force survey does not come up with the same sorts of figures. In fact in March 2000 there were 24200 unemployed 15 to 19-year-olds yet the March 2007 household labour force survey states that there are 27800 unemployed 15 to 19-year-olds. Now that is an increase not a decrease. So what is happening? The answer is probably that apart from the fact that these people are being shoved from one benefit to another and are being put on to dopey training schemes which will give them absolutely nothing except probably student loans that they have to pay off— 
Jill Pettis 
: Name the dopey schemes? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Twilight golf. Did Labour have that? That was one of Labour’s was it not? Yes it was. Unfortunately what we have is figures that nobody actually believes. We have a situation where the household labour force survey which most people think is a pretty impressive survey and is accepted everywhere keeps showing there are all these 15 to 19-year-old unemployed people. If the household labour force survey is so wrong then we should know why it is so wrong. 
Obviously there is not enough work. The Minister is very quick to take credit for getting all these people into work but how many jobs has he created? I can tell the Committee that the answer is lots of jobs in the Ministry of Social Development and given that he is always so keen to talk about the fact that the number of beneficiaries is coming down at the moment he might like to explain why it is that the budget for the welfare system keeps going up far surpassing the modest increases in the national superannuation payment. 
 Why is it that we have more bureaucrats in the Ministry of Social Development when according to his records there are two people in some places and no people in others? Well obviously the staff there are not needed to do anything. Clearly there is nothing to do. The mayors who got together and said they needed to do something to get youth off the street and into work—those 27800 youth—have given themselves an extension until 2009. The reason they have done that is that they know there is not a lot of point in shifting a young person from an unemployment benefit on to a sickness benefit and telling them that that is the way to go just so that these numbers can look better. Unfortunately that is in fact what is happening. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: That’s not right; you know that’s not right. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say to Mr Fairbrother that we know it is right. According to the Minister’s own figures 8500 people just last year were shifted from the unemployment benefit on to the sickness benefit. Doctors are saying they want better criteria because the criteria they have been given are simply not working. Instead the Minister says: “Oh you’re blaming doctors.” Not me. I am not blaming doctors. The doctors are saying the criteria are wrong. This Government loosened up the criteria and now everybody is supposedly stressed. 
Well I find that to be something we should take very seriously. It is an absolutely chronic situation when we have young people being told they should be on a sickness benefit because that would make the figures look better. It is a cynical manipulation of the welfare system and it is one of the reasons that the welfare budget keeps going up despite the supposed fall in beneficiary numbers. When we in fact— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: But you support the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No I do not support the bill. The reason we cannot support the bill is that some of its parts are so contrary to our views. Some of the parts are good and I have tried to list as many good points as I can. But it is hard to do so when I am being abused so much from the Labour side. That must be because that is the way Labour members behave when the polls are so bad that everybody has turned off their phones and no one wants to take their calls any more. Everybody does this because Labour members get very very nasty and trot out these figures that nobody believes. 
I saw a notice the other day from Rick Barker who used to be the MP for Tukituki until he got beaten by Craig Foss. Well he is now no longer there. He put out a notice saying no one was unemployed in Flaxmere. Unfortunately some of the locals got together and said that 20 unemployed people were actually on the court list and were about to be tried for criminal activities—and they were supposedly unemployed. So we have to wonder what we are talking about. Have members ever wondered about magical numbers? This Government has them. It magically twists around numbers. One of the other funny little things that this Minister does is that he has 82 questions he is not answering at the moment. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill. It seems that there is a bit of an irony when we have the Minister David Benson-Pope going through a long long list of figures—a very very long list I might say—then bringing in such complicated bureaucratic legislation. 
One of the things he has just accused the previous Government of doing—and he finds it in his words “despicable”—is the use of economic tools to get people off work. Well I think it is important to look at the explanatory note of this Government bill when it was brought into the House. Mr Benson-Pope was quite happy to talk about sanctions then. The explanatory note states: “When people fail to meet their requirements without good and sufficient reason a sanction will be imposed.” That is what Mr Benson-Pope’s bill stated and the explanatory note actually goes into the details of it: “The sanction regime for people on domestic purposes or widow’s benefits is unchanged. Failure to meet their PDEP requirements”—that is the personal development plan and of course it is one of Labour’s pieces of bureaucracy which one does not actually have to keep to any more—“results in a 20% reduction in the benefit for the first 4 weeks and a further 30% reduction after that …”—to a maximum of 50 percent—“until they comply.” 
That is the true Mr Benson-Pope who was using economic tools. It was not until he finally went out and was browbeaten by fellow members of the union he belonged to and by others who supported him—and those numbers are crumbling after all—that he relented and said he would not have the sanction regimes any more. So Mr Benson-Pope had better take a call and explain to the Committee why in the explanatory note there are details of sanctions and economic tools and comments about how successful they would be in moving people into work from the unemployment benefit. 
Mr Benson-Pope has also gone through a very wearying list of centres where there are offices with very little to do because of the low number of unemployed youth. We are happy about that. It follows a trend that started from 1990 when the last National Government came into office and gradually inflation came down interest rates came down employment came up and unemployment came down. That is all that is happening. It has occurred despite the Labour Government not because of it. I was interested that Mr Benson-Pope said only five youths were still on the unemployment register in Waiuku but he has not talked about all the problems in that town. It is the same in Turangi—he said no one was unemployed in Turangi. I wonder whether he has been to those towns and had a real look at the youth crime that is going on—the youth crime that this Labour Government has failed to do anything whatsoever about. In fact it has become much much worse during Labour’s tenure. 
Of course the major problem is the absolute way that this Labour Government has reconfigured the figures regarding sickness and invalids benefits—the 50 percent increase over the last 7 years. That is a contortionist act of the same magnitude as Mr Benson-Pope saying that this Government does not want to use economic tools. Of course it does but he has been browbeaten by his supporters into not doing so. When it comes to sickness and invalids benefits Mr Benson-Pope cannot hide. He has been protecting large numbers of New Zealanders without making any changes at all to the eligibility criteria in terms of getting on to those benefits. As my colleague Judith Collins said doctors want a better system of criteria for eligibility and the Labour Government has time and time again failed to address that very important question. We have had no major epidemics in New Zealand over the last 7 years. A 50 percent increase in invalids and sickness benefits during that time is just a figment of the reality of what is happening. The reality is that Labour has not adjusted the criteria so that they are realistic and it has shifted people from the unemployment benefit on to an invalids or a sickness benefit. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill. The National Party is opposing this bill but it does recognise that a handful of good amendments are contained in it. 
The most important changes in this bill are that it introduces a new pre-benefit activity requirement for applicants and that the unemployment benefit will enhance the current requirements for people who are work tested. The bill introduces planning requirements for sickness and invalids benefits it introduces an activity requirement for young people receiving an independent youth benefit and it updates the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks. 
This bill is meant to change the focus from a “benefit first” mentality which Work and Income had adopted to a “work first” mentality. Unfortunately this amendment is not inspirational enough for either Work and Income or its clients. Work and Income and its clients can still think of their unemployment entitlements first as opposed to considering what work they should be looking for what work they can do and how they can get there. 
 Even though Labour claims that the number receiving the unemployment benefit has dropped it is a fact that the numbers on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit have risen. It is also a fact that there has been a movement of people from the unemployment benefit to the sickness and invalids benefits. Can this be interpreted as those beneficiaries actually getting sick as a result of decreased personal expectations the stress of not being employed or the lack of social interaction that results from unemployment? 
Recently I spoke to a constituent who was on a domestic purposes benefit. She stated that she had been on the benefit for a number of years. She had not once been asked whether she would like to go back to work. She had not once been asked by Work and Income what type of work she would like. She had not been once been asked how Work and Income could help her to find work. The sad thing was that she wanted to work she wanted to improve her standard of living she wanted to improve her life and she wanted to improve her children’s lives. She wanted to retrain; she wanted a good job. She has done this now all on her own. She has had no help. This legislation this change for her will not help her at all. It will not improve her life. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Because there was not a “work first” mentality; it was a “benefit first” mentality. 
This bill also talks about children—16 17 and 18-year-olds—who can go on to the domestic purposes benefit to look after those who are invalids or sick and those who could be hospitalised. This is a good thing but do we really want to trap these young people into being on the domestic purposes benefit to provide for relatives and others in need? Surely the Government itself can provide for these people in need. Surely we can provide a safety net for them without 17 and 18-year-olds doing so. 
The sanctions in this bill make interesting reading. It is clear that when people fail to meet requirements without good reason a sanction will be imposed. However activity in the community is exempt from that sanction. We do not support this bill but we do recognise that there is the odd thing in it that will help. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 9 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 15 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Provisions coming into force on 24 September 2007 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 In speaking on Part 2 I will try to find something nice to say and I think I have found it. What I can say is that National is very pleased that there will now be a section 33A to enable a person in receipt of an invalids benefit granted on the grounds of his or her sickness injury disability or total blindness to be absent from New Zealand in order to receive vocational training or disability assistance training if the chief executive is satisfied that the training is particularly good for the person. We think that that is a reasonable provision and something that actually looks at the fact that sometimes people will need to travel overseas and it would be extraordinarily counterproductive for people to suddenly not be entitled to receive their benefit because they are overseas for a short period of time in order to increase their ability to find work when they come back to New Zealand. We think that is a good move. 
One of the things we do not like about Part 2 is the provision in relation particularly to clause 30. It follows on from clause 29 which is all about personal development and employment plans. We heard quite a bit about personal development and employment plans in the submissions to the select committee. One of the things we heard which deeply disturbed many of us was that a recent study for the Families Commission—presumably paid for by the commission which certainly contracted for the study and apparently peer reviewed it—by the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre found that personal development and employment plans were all very well and good except that most of the people whom the centre came across had never actually received a copy of their plan. According to the submitter from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre when the Work and Income person was asked why beneficiaries do not get a copy of their plan the answer was: “Because nobody expects them to do anything with it.”—or words to that effect. We thought that was quite disturbing. 
One of the things I see in the bill is that there are significant sanctions in relation to some of these personal development plans. But I do not think I can see anywhere here a requirement that the beneficiary be given a copy of his or her plan. I would have thought that that was a pretty basic requirement for a plan that is supposed to be an annual plan a plan that should be able to be looked at and worked on but also a plan that has some sanctions with it. 
Perhaps I am missing the point here in terms of the actual section where it should state that but I do not see any obligation in the bill. I am particularly concerned when there are going to be sanctions relating to these plans that they be treated seriously. There is an ability here for instance for the chief executive—in other words the person working at Work and Income—to decide that the beneficiary has not demonstrated commitment to the goals in his or her plan. I am just a little bit concerned about that because I think that that quite blanket discretion gives a huge amount of power to a Work and Income staff member. That power might be well exercised—in most cases no doubt it will be—but there does not seem to be much in the way of ability for the beneficiary to actually say: “Well look I have been doing my very best according to this plan but I am going to be sanctioned because I am being told that I am not doing my best.” We think that that is something that should be looked at. 
In particular I note the quite interesting new amendment that the Government wanted in clause 30(3A) which inserts section 60S(5A) relating to the chief executive not being able to take into account a refusal or failure to undertake activity in the community. What we are saying to beneficiaries with this bill is that they have to undertake all sorts of plans and training—everything except work experience. So the one thing that is most likely to be able to get them into a work situation where they can start working alongside other people in order to get the idea of what to do and to get their confidence going is not going to be part of the plan—certainly not part of the sanction parts of the plan. What is really the point of these sanctions when we are actually saying to beneficiaries: “Well you don’t have to do the work experience bit. You don’t actually have to get out there and do anything. You just have to go to endless seminars.”? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. In doing so I once again commend Russell Fairbrother for his very good chairing of the Social Services Committee. I also acknowledge the many submitters who came along and told their stories. I believe that at the end of it the majority of the select committee members had listened very hard and taken on board the issues that had been raised and I believe that we brought back to the House a really good report. I think the bill is the better for the select committee process. 
I am proud that the purpose of this bill is to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate. The bill is to help people to support themselves and their dependants while they are not in paid employment. But the bill’s real focus is to help people find or retain paid employment. It will help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate—because of sickness injury disability or perhaps caring for a young child—to prepare for a future career in the workforce. 
The bill accepts that there are certainly circumstances in our society whereby it is not appropriate for people to be in paid work. Indeed it is the role of a good society of a caring society to care for and support those people—whether they be mothers or people who are impaired in some way through sickness or injury. We will have a richer better more benevolent society if our citizens are supported in that way. 
I want to talk about the basic principles. Working with people to assist them into paid employment means offering the best opportunity possible for them to achieve their full potential. Indeed the best way that we can do that is by offering job opportunities by offering training by considering what is the best training for that person by having a department that does not treat people as just a mass but whose staff sit down with them talk realistically about their aspirations and goals and steer and support them in the right direction. Clearly that is happening. Clearly we see our unemployment statistics going down dramatically. That can only be because we are supporting people into work. We are actually working with people’s strengths rather than focusing on their weaknesses which the Opposition members are very much into. In the past through the 1980s and 1990s we saw very much a blame mentality; if someone was not in work he or she was somehow lazy or deficient in some way. That is often not the case. It is frequently not the case. It is most often not the case. We need to work on giving people a hand up rather than a handout. 
Government members believe that the Social Security Amendment Bill actually enhances the opportunities that we already have in place for people. Those opportunities are seeing our people in work thriving providing for their families and having the dignity of having a job. When it comes to self-esteem and to people feeling they have reached their full potential the dignity that comes from their having a job where they are contributing where they feel they are valued and that is not tokenism cannot be measured. Of course it also economically is more beneficial. 
I acknowledge that there are many times when it is not appropriate for people to be in the workforce. It may be that because—as I said before—they have an impairment or an illness be it a physical disability or a mental illness it is not appropriate or in their interests for them to be at work at that time. I acknowledge the submitters who came to the select committee and spoke very openly about such situations to us. I also want to acknowledge single parents—especially women—who contribute much to this society. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am proposing to amend clause 23 which will insert purpose and principles sections into the Social Security Act by way of Supplementary Order Paper 113 that is on the Table in my name. The Green Party fully supports legislation having purpose and principles sections to aid in its interpretation. In that context given the plethora of amendments that this Parliament has made over the years since the 1964 Act was passed I find it strange that only now are we considering inserting purpose and principles sections into it. 
However many of the submissions to the Social Services Committee on this bill were highly critical of the particular purpose and principles sections that the bill proposes. I agree with most of the criticisms raised by those submitters. The first problem is that the purpose and principles sections proposed in this bill advocate a “work first” approach to welfare. There is no statement in the purpose and principles sections of any significant role for the welfare system that does not have an underlying focus on paid work. Work is seen as the ultimate goal no matter what the conditions or the pay are. No recognition is given to the value of the unpaid work that beneficiaries undertake in caring for children for the elderly or for people with impairments or to the valuable voluntary contribution many beneficiaries make to their communities. These purpose and principles sections treat people as nothing more than economic units thereby reinforcing the attitude that people on the benefit system are somehow less worthy of dignity and respect than anyone else and that they are not fully realised and recognised members of our community unless they are part of the paid workforce. 
The other substantial criticism raised by submitters is that the purpose and principles sections contained in this bill provide for an interpretation of the Act that promotes rigidity and parsimony. They provide for an Act that is regulated inflexible and mean-spirited and designed not to help eliminate poverty—which is what the Green Party believes should be the objective of the social security system—but to alleviate hardship and to do so only to the extent provided for by the Act. 
The Treaty of Waitangi is our country’s fundamental constitutional document and any legislation concerned with the welfare of this country’s citizens be they tangata whenua or tauiwi should be based upon it. My amendment also recognises this. The two royal commissions on social security provided the basis for a valuable vision for our society—one in which all people could participate and feel part of their local community promote and maintain the well-being of their families and be actively involved in meeting their potential and creating fulfilling lives for themselves and their families. My amendment also proposes to incorporate the vision of those two royal commissions into these purpose and principles sections. 
Our children are our taonga and our future and that vision is already acknowledged in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 principle that their interests should be paramount. I am also proposing that this principle should be a principle of the Social Security Act. It is no more acceptable for children to grow up in poverty and to be denied a healthy upbringing than it is for them to be beaten or sexually abused. 
I am also proposing to add a principle expounding the paramount nature of the provision of full and correct entitlements. That is already supposedly the policy of the Ministry of Social Development but the anecdotal evidence I hear on a weekly and almost daily basis indicates that it is a policy that is often not followed. I hope that to insert a principle around that as part of this legislation will go some way towards rectifying that. 
Finally I am proposing to amend the principles to provide that although seeking suitable and sustainable employment should be a priority activity for people who are unemployed the priority activities for people receiving financial assistance for reasons other than unemployment should be determined in consultation with them and in accordance with their individual circumstances. This reflects the reality that the personal and family circumstances of many people means that paid work is simply not the most important activity for them to be undertaking at that particular time. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call to discuss three matters. The first of them is in response to the previous speaker and I say to her that I have absolutely no doubt that the information she hears anecdotally about policies not being followed is passed to her in the best of faith. I have absolutely no doubt of her integrity and commitment from her historical commitment to people who are less advantaged in this sector of our New Zealand community but I say to her that I the Government and those who work in a very efficient—I have found—Ministry of Social Development are unable to help individuals who have issues unless they can be identified. So I make an appeal to that member that if she has particular instances where she believes that the policy I am articulating and the policy that is clearly articulated by the ministry is not being followed then I think she has a responsibility to pass that to me or to appropriate people in the ministry so that those issues can be corrected. I repeat my appeal to her to do that. 
The second issue I want to raise is in relation to the comments of Ms Collins about so-called research that as such was presented to the Social Services Committee by Mr Paul Blair from Rotorua. It is true that Mr Blair’s research—oh sorry Mr Blair’s work is probably a better description—was commissioned by the Families Commission. It is not true to suggest that the Families Commission had completed a full peer review of the work or indeed had authorised its release. In fact that work has not subsequently been released because the Families Commission found it—shall I say charitably—“seriously wanting”. The fact of the matter is that that work covered a sample of we believe fewer than 15 people. Given that the cohort we are talking about sole parents receiving a benefit is around 90000—it has reduced but it is still too many I know but these are people who need that support—then 15 out of 90000 is not what one even in National Party circles would describe as a very robust or credible basis for any research. I guess I am therefore not surprised to hear Ms Collins basing her specious arguments on that matter. 
The most important thing I want to say to the Committee is that for me the important thing about this legislation is what it means in reality for New Zealanders. I cannot better characterise that than by using the words of Leanne Keep. Leanne is a young woman who lives in Christchurch. She is a beneficiary of this policy actually—the policy that the National Party is continuing to object to and that the Green Party is continuing to oppose. I would like to tell the Committee her story. Leanne’s situation is very different now from the one in which she found herself last year. Leanne has authorised me to use her name and circumstances to talk about the effects of the changes that are now operating on a voluntary basis. She first visited a case manager about a year ago seeking help. She was struggling with a small child—she had a 3-year-old with health and behavioural issues—and she was referred by her case manager for advice and support on parenting skills. As she put that advice into action she has been able to begin planning for her and her child’s future. The first of those steps was a course at the Next Step Centre for Women in communications skills goal setting and self-esteem job search and computer skills. I quote Leanne: “When I was struggling I felt supported by Work and Income. I am grateful for the help I have received to study to have my son in childcare to help with disability costs and to have a referral for parenting support. All of this has contributed to me being able to work.” 
With her support systems in place Leanne was able to take the next step into full-time employment. Now she works full-time at a local primary school. Leanne has a good reason for celebrating her success in finding a job that interests her as well for providing a better lifestyle for herself and her son. Leanne of course also gets substantial support from the Working for Families package. She cancelled her domestic purposes benefit from 23 April this year. She is working full-time at the Allenvale Special School and PreSchool. She gets per week from Working for Families $372 worth of support—$82 of that is the family tax credit $60 is the in-work credit she gets a $75 accommodation supplement and she gets $155 of childcare assistance. That gives a total of $372 a week. Starting a full-time job therefore has meant that Leanne is better off by $127 a week. That is what this legislation is about and that is what National is opposing. This legislation is about supporting real New Zealanders with real issues to go back into the workforce. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill and I particularly want to address the concerns that the Green member Sue Bradford raised because I am on the Social Services Committee obviously and heard the submissions and the concerns. 
I also met with several groups of concerned people in my office privately and listened very closely to their concerns. I agreed with them that if the work focus which is now being built into the principles of this Act was such that it meant that everybody was assumed to be able to work then I would be unhappy with that. But I have checked and rechecked very very carefully what is written and I do not believe that the work focus being introduced into the principles of the Act in any way disadvantages people for whom work is not a reality. 
The bill says very clearly in clause 23 that “people for whom work may not currently be an appropriate outcome should be assisted to plan for work in the future and develop employment-focus skills:”. This is talking about people like mums and dads on the domestic purposes benefit. This is about people who are currently committed to parenting their children but who see this as a season in their lives at a time when they require some support and who also see that in the middle of this season they are well able to start focusing on their futures and what employment may be round the corner for them. No one is saying that they must drop their kids immediately into day care and take any job that comes along; that is not what the principles state at all. 
Another thing that is stated in the principles is the acknowledgment that there are “people for whom work is not appropriate” and who “should be supported in accordance with this Act.” Therefore the work focus is a new provision that is layered into the legislation and focused on people who are already able to take up work should they be willing. Because of the type of benefit that these people are entitled to they are required to be willing and ready to take advantage of all the opportunities that Work and Income may put their way in order for them to become further work-ready to hone their skills towards achieving specific employment opportunities and to take advantage of all additional help that may come along. 
United Future welcomes the work focus being put into the principles. I think it is something that has been missing from this Act for a long long time and that has created a lot of angst for taxpayers who worry about benefit dependency and who worry that it is too easy to get a benefit and stay on it when one is well capable of employment. The new wording of the principles makes it really explicit that this department is focused on finding suitable work for all people who are capable of doing it. 
The other thing that I think is really important to note is that the work focus creates an understanding that there are people for whom work expectations are not appropriate but who actually have some dreams and ambitions. These people could never hold down a 40-hour-a-week job. It is beyond their capability because of the challenges they live with. But they would really love the chance—I have met a number of these people and they would just love the chance—to find some productive areas of employment that may take them an hour or two a week and for which there is some remuneration. I accept that where these people would like some employment even if it is on a limited basis Work and Income should try to facilitate that. 
A lot of people particularly those on disability benefits really would like to participate in the workforce at a level that is suited to the challenges they live with. A work focus requires the department rather than disregarding them because of the small amount of work they are capable of doing to actually take them seriously and look for opportunities. One of the things I have experienced with people in this category is that often they start out with a couple of hours’ work they kind of get their heads around it they organise their life around it and over time they surprise themselves that they can take on a few more hours—not because anyone is pressuring them or putting their benefit under threat but because they want and enjoy the contact and the reward that employment offers to them. 
I think that the member proposing the amendment Sue Bradford is well-intentioned in this regard but that she has really misunderstood the fact that there is nothing oppressive in the new wording in the principles of the Act. The wording really just makes sure that work focus is available to all those who are able to work under that focus and who want to. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Like my colleague Judith Collins I too would like to find something nice to say about this bill. Indeed if I look at the purpose I think there are some sensible and supportive things to be said about the purpose “to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment;”. Surely that is very much common sense. We like common sense. Unfortunately the Labour Government tends to depart from common sense very rapidly and far too often. 
Another purpose is “to help people to find or retain paid employment;” which we agree with entirely. Another is “to help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness injury disability or caring responsibilities to support themselves and their dependants:”. That is where we depart from Sue Bradford who said I think that work is seen as the ultimate goal no matter what the circumstances of the individual are. Well that is not the case in that purpose in section 1A(a) in clause 23. It is explicit that those for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness are indeed catered for and I think that is right and proper. 
I did notice though that Sue said it would be appropriate to make reference to our children being our taonga and our future. I must say that all too often we do forget that the implications of this sort of legislation absolutely fall heavily on our children. I think we have groups in this country such as the Every Child Counts group who would very much like to see child-impact reporting in this sort of legislation. It is absent from the bill; the Labour Government has not taken any notice of it. I agree with Sue that this is something that should have been thought of. 
I note that Mr Benson-Pope cited the paper from Paul Blair from Rotorua. In fact he belittled the figures from Paul Blair in Rotorua. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s rubbish! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He says it is rubbish in fact. I just wonder why he says it is rubbish. Is it because Paul Blair actually has the temerity to criticise the Labour Government? I think that might be the case. 
Paul Blair states: “The first set of key findings of this research related to the nature of work-life balance for the sole parent DPB family. The participants in this study experienced a work-life imbalance due to the particular exigencies of sole parenting most notably lack of support and an inadequate income. The nature of the imbalance was not due to insufficient paid employment”—which is quite interesting; it was not due to insufficient paid employment—“as the dominant discourse around the needs of sole parent beneficiary families would suppose but rather to the simple fact that the parent had sole responsibility for meeting all of the needs of his/her children. It was found that the sole parent faced several challenges including stigmatisation from Work and Income …”—from Work and Income after 7 years of a Labour Government. I repeat that: “It was found that the sole parent faced several challenges including stigmatisation from Work and Income and society in general…”. So why is Mr Benson-Pope smiling away there? His Government has been trying to do something about this for years and it has dismally failed. That is why he is so critical of Mr Blair from Rotorua and his submission which was given in good faith. 
Mr Blair’s paper goes on to state: “Overall the participants wanted recognition and support for the work of sole parenting and felt that any consideration of work-life balance must prioritise their children’s needs.” It goes on to state: “The second set of key findings related to the sole parent DPB recipient’s relationship with their financial provider MSD’s Work and Income service”—again this is a criticism of Mr Benson-Pope’s department which has miserably failed—“and how the statutory PDEP process”—that is the personal development employment process—“helped or hindered striking the ‘right’ work-life balance.” I think Mr Blair has very legitimate reason for criticism here in that the infamous plan is just useless. It is ignored by this Labour Government. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The reason this Government will be returned to the Treasury benches after the next election is contained in the bill before the Committee that we are addressing right now. The reason the National Party will be returned to the Opposition benches in a much depleted state is because of the bill we are talking about right now. What does the bill tell us? It tells us that this Government is committed to ensuring that all people who are on a benefit get the right services right from the start. Who can argue with that? There is not a voice from the National Party. Beneficiaries will get the right services right from the start. One cannot complain about that can one? That is what Part 2 of this bill delivers and that is why this good Government will return to the Treasury benches after the next election. 
Working New Zealand which this bill is really about is a substantial reform package that will stand the test of time for future generations and it should be read along with the Working for Families package which is the first part of this dramatic policy of putting people back into a working environment. For once our beneficiaries will be assessed because of who they are and their potential rather than by the type of benefit they receive. As soon as that happens every speech made by Judith Collins will no longer have any substance at all because she has repetitively gone on about sickness benefits and invalids benefits and she has classified people by their ailments rather than by their potential. What the National Party has failed to grasp is that this is a bill that recognises potential. This is a bill that says to people: “We will assist you to get the work that you’re capable of doing.” And those in the rare circumstance of being totally unable to work will be given assistance to make them feel and become valid members of the community albeit not in the workforce. 
Mr Clarkson should listen to this because his companies will be direct beneficiaries of this bill. He knows as I know that he would have many more workers if they were encouraged back to the workforce which this bill does. His private business interests would profit from that and he must know that. He should get up and explain that and explain why he will be crossing the floor to support the bill. 
In Napier there is a teen parent centre. If one chooses to visit the teen parent centre none of the teenage parents there—the young women who gave birth at a relatively early age—say they want to go ahead and study to become doctors of philosophy or learn about Greek literature or Greek history. Each one of them says that they are delighted for the chance to have another go at education so that they can enter the workforce. Their sole aim of returning to the teen parent centre is to get the training to return to the workforce and that is what this delivers. Who can argue with that? There is not a murmur or a voice from the Opposition because this bill delivers that very thing. 
I am fortunate enough to be married to the lovely Mrs Fairbrother who has a very busy family law practice. She has noticed already among her clients the change in expression and the change in attitude to life of those people who are benefiting from Working for Families. She knows very well that when this bill becomes law and people are judged on their potential not on their benefit label the people who attend her family law practice will do so with an attitude of hope and a belief that they have a valid place in society. 
It is against that background that we should read the principles in clause 23 of Part 2. Clause 23 brings in new section 1B “Principles”. Paragraph (a) states: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. Who can argue with that? Dr Hutchison could not argue with that. The National Party does not argue with that. There is stunning silence on that one because everybody in this Chamber understands that to be valued one needs some work that reflects one’s ability and one’s skills. People who had been out of the workforce because of the previous economically ruinous policies of the National Government during the 1990s when they had no hope of getting employment and who were then categorised because they were in receipt of a State benefit were permanently on the heap of disappointment. If people are now encouraged back into work then the principle of paid employment as being the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being will be seen as a fundamental tapping into the vein of hope and prosperity to which this country is heading. 
This is a very good bill for those very reasons. It is a good bill because the philosophy of the bill is one of encouragement hope and support. The philosophy of the bill is not the philosophy of the National Party of damning people by labels and sticking them away so they cannot be seen and not talking about them again except to be critical of those fellow human beings. Anybody who falls upon hard times will be delighted that the Social Security Amendment Bill went through this House this year. They will be delighted because when they approach the Work and Income office or the Ministry of Social Development they will immediately receive assistance. No longer will there be a bureaucratic stand-down while the paperwork is done because as soon as a person who needs assistance fronts up to the counter he or she will be directed into the appropriate avenue to take on successful employment. 
We can offer that because the economic boom times that this Labour Government has brought about over the last 6 or 7 years mean that there is work for everybody out there. What we really need now is to have everybody working so that in a positive environment the benefit system is now there as a fall-back provision and as a step-up to employment. There is work there even for those who are not keen to get it and those who are not keen to get it will be identified by the very good staff in the department. They will be given assistance to work through the expectation bred into them in the 1990s by the National Government which was that we had to have a permanent pool of unemployed and they will come to realise that that is one of the mean terrible myths of the neo-liberals who are sitting opposite and listening spellbound to this dissertation on the future well-being of this country. 
So I commend the bill to the Committee and I am delighted that the National Party has not come up with one serious riposte or response to the many aspects of the bill. I take for example Dr Hutchison’s speech of just a few minutes ago. He was long on rhetoric but gave no analysis whatsoever. He accepted that the principles clause was a sound ideal. He accepted that. He then made some vague criticism that the bill fell short of something without giving any analysis whatsoever—and this is a man who has had the benefit of a high degree of sophisticated analytical training in his academic life. This is a man whom we expect should be easily employable if he went to a Work and Income office because he would get the assistance to refine those skills of analysis and to refine the ability to apply his mind to the task in hand and hopefully he would be ushered once again into gainful employment after his last 9 years of resting on his previous academic laurels. 
So I commend this bill to the Committee. It is a bill of hope opportunity and aspiration and it is a statement to our fellow New Zealanders that we care for them that we want to work with them and that there is a place for them in our society. This bill is one of the reasons why we are becoming a knowledge-based economy and why we are punching above our weight on the world economic stage. I say to members opposite that they should wait until Thursday afternoon which is when they will get their comeuppance. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for this second opportunity to speak in this part of the debate as I have a further Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 113—in my name that deals with the section that relates to pre-benefit activity requirements for applicants for the unemployment benefit. The Green Party has no difficulty with unemployment benefit applicants being required to undertake certain activities while they are waiting for their benefit. The combination of a stand-down and delayed entitlements due to holiday pay and similar payments that may have been received often means that it will be several weeks before an unemployment beneficiary becomes entitled to payment of his or her benefit. I agree that it is incongruous that people should be expected to do nothing during that period when they are expected to take reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment once the benefit comes on stream. 
The difficulty with clause 36 as it currently reads is that it is an administrative shambles that is likely to result in instances of quite unnecessary hardship. It provides that a requirement by the Ministry of Social Development that an unemployed beneficiary undertake a pre-benefit activity may be given orally or in writing. That has the potential to cause misunderstandings regarding the precise nature of the activity required of the applicant. That in turn can result in benefit applications being inappropriately declined or their investigation and eventual granting being inappropriately deferred. 
The substituted subsection (3) of section 96A of the principal Act proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper provides that a requirement for an unemployed benefit applicant to undertake a pre-benefit activity must be given in writing and is a decision subject to review and appeal rights under sections 10A and 12J of the principal Act. Beneficiaries deserve to be advised of their obligations in a written form so that if they do not understand them they can take them to someone who does and have them explained to them. We had a number of submissions on that matter. Beneficiaries also deserve to have the right to challenge obligations placed on them that they may consider to be inappropriate. 
I am also very concerned about the implications of the new subsection (5) of section 96A of the principal Act proposed in clause 36 of this bill. Under that subsection the Ministry of Social Development will have no obligation to investigate a claim for an unemployment benefit until the pre-benefit activity has been completed. In some circumstances eligibility for the benefit will occur before the pre-benefit activity is finished. The new subsection (5) will inevitably cause unnecessary administrative delays in the granting of a benefit which may well cause consequent hardship. Although the benefit will eventually be backdated that is no comfort to a beneficiary who has been evicted from his or her accommodation in the interim solely because of the delay inherent in section 96A(5) or to one who incurs other financial difficulties. We are talking here about people who often have nothing at all or less than nothing. I am proposing to omit subsection (5) thereby ensuring that claims for the unemployment benefit like claims for other benefits are investigated as expeditiously as is practicable. 
The new subsections (6) to (8) of section 96A of the principal Act relate to benefit applications lapsing in the event of pre-benefit activities not being completed. Those subsections become redundant if the ministry is required to investigate unemployment benefit applications as promptly as practicable without deferring investigation until a pre-benefit activity has been completed. The ministry will still have the proposed power under new section 96A(10) to refuse to grant an unemployment benefit or to terminate one that has already been granted in the event of a pre-benefit activity not having been completed satisfactorily. That I think is sufficient to adequately sanction beneficiaries who do not meet their statutory obligations. I call on parties in the Committee who have understood what I have just said to support the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper. 
Finally I will take just a moment to respond to the Minister’s response to my earlier comments about people not receiving their full and correct entitlements. The reason I do not take every case I hear about off to the Minister is that those are mainly cases that have already been dealt with in my own out-of-Parliament office in Auckland by other MPs’ out-of-Parliament offices or by information provided from beneficiary advocacy groups. They deal with those kinds of cases every day. In fact beneficiary advocacy groups would go out of existence if they were not dealing on a daily and weekly basis with people who do not receive their full and correct entitlements. I think the Minister and the department would be the first to acknowledge that that happens every day. I certainly respect the department’s efforts to do better—and it is doing better. But it is just simply a fact of life as I think every MP in this Committee knows that many people are still not getting what they are entitled to receive. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First. We welcome new sections 1A and 1B in clause 23 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. We believe that the purpose of the bill and its principles should be clearly set out. We believe that New Zealanders as a whole would find it very difficult to argue with this part. We totally approve of the work focus. 
People are far better off when they work even if it is only for a few hours each week. My son goes to school. He also has a part-time job for a few hours a week pushing trolleys at the local supermarket. The change in that boy has been quite phenomenal. We believe that it is absolutely essential to interact with people in the workplace. The growth in people’s self-esteem from being part of a team is absolutely phenomenal. 
We also want to see the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit decrease. We are pleased to support any efforts to assist this group to work if they possibly can. We acknowledge too that there are times when people for whatever reasons just cannot participate in the workforce. The bill signals the commitment the Government has to work with people to assist them in moving into work that is appropriate for them. We cannot argue with that. We believe that any Government should have this focus. It is something we would criticise any Government for not having. All of the research shows that it is imperative for people to get into work if it is appropriate. Benefits are not the best lifestyle for long-term living. We want people to have more money than they can get on a benefit and to get all the other benefits they do not have when they are on a handout. 
We believe that the hardest thing when one is on a benefit is to take the first step and determine what area one wants to work in. If people have been out of work for a long time that gets harder and harder. So we believe that the personal development and employment plans are essential to help this come about. What is the point though in having a plan or in being told that one has a plan if one is not a part of it? We believe that people should have some time to reflect on their plans so that they can get behind them and push them. Most people have dreams and ambitions that they want to fulfil and those dreams and ambitions are far greater than being on a benefit. We really support the work focus that the Government is showing in this bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage to Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Parts of the bill were showing promise that it was moving towards a “work first” mentality. Let me highlight a part of the bill that makes interesting reading—the sanctions part. It is clear that when people fail to meet requirements without good reason a sanction will be imposed. However “activity in the community” is exempt from the sanction. For those who do not understand what “activity in the community” means let me explain. The definition in clause 4 states: “activity in the community means an activity associated with a community project under the supervision of a sponsor who is contracted by the chief executive to provide the activity”. 
The National Party is disappointed with subsequent changes to the bill that remove the requirement for a person to undertake “activity in the community” from sanction provisions. In our opinion these changes will lessen the ability of the bill to remove barriers to employment. We believe that the requirement on a person in his or her personal development and employment plan should have to be fulfilled regardless of the source of that activity. The consequence of not meeting the requirement of his or her personal development and employment plan provisions in regard to undertaking “activity in the community” cannot be sanctioned. 
The National Party is pleased that beneficiaries will be expected to engage in activities such as training to prepare them for work but we are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to enable part-time non-commercial work to gain work experience. We are concerned that some beneficiaries who engage in a number of training courses without work experience will find employment opportunities closed to them. We believe that people who work in the community have a lot to offer the community they work in. We believe they have valuable skills good work ethics and the ability to offer good work experience. In not recognising this workforce which can contribute to the training and transfer of skills we are not doing that workforce any justice. We are not even recognising them. 
Many of the people who work in the community have come from professional backgrounds—backgrounds of relevance to the sector that they are working in. They are highly skilled and they bring a lot of skills that they transfer quite easily. They are invaluable to the organisation that they work in and they can easily pass on these things to others. We are talking about caregivers administration clerks event organisers people with information technology skills people with good communication skills social workers—a huge number of people. 
This legislation is closing a door to employment opportunities. In fact the National Party felt so strongly about this that it submitted a minority view which I will share with members. It was not only our view; three other parties on the Social Services Committee also attached minority reports based on “activity in the community”. “While generally agreeing with the stated purpose and aims of the bill the National and ACT parties are disappointed with subsequent changes to the bill that remove the requirement for a person to undertake ‘activity in the community’ from sanction provisions. In our opinion these changes will lessen the ability of the bill to remove barriers to employment. We believe that the requirements of a person in their personal development and employment plan should have to be fulfilled regardless of the source of that activity. The consequence of not meeting the requirements of his or her personal development and employment plan provisions in regard to undertaking ‘activity in the community’ could be sanctioned. The National and ACT parties are pleased that beneficiaries will be expected to engage in activities such as training to prepare them for work but are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to enable part-time non-commercial work to gain work experience. We are concerned that some beneficiaries might engage in a number of training courses but without work experience will find employment opportunity closed to them.” Thank you very much. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 23 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 33A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(3) in clause 36 to omit and substitute the subsection be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(5) to (8) in clause 36 to omit the subsections be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(11) in clause 36 to omit and substitute the subsection be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Social Security Amendment Bill no progress on the Arbitration Amendment Bill no progress on the Succession (Homicide) Bill and no progress on the Wills Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.