Volume 656 Week 22 - Tuesday 25 August 2009 
Volume 656 Week 22 - Tuesday 25 August 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Tuesday 25 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 18 August 2009 of Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO who represented the electorate of Hamilton East from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Visitors 
Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Kate Lundy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I further have much pleasure in informing members that Andrew Rosindell MP shadow Minister for Home Affairs of the House of Commons United Kingdom is also present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he also be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in my name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Decision Making—Consultation 
1. 
 Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he committed as Prime Minister to consulting with and listening to people prior to making decisions that impact on their lives? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why then did the Prime Minister engage in the sham of having a select committee go around marae in Auckland consulting on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council if he intended to make a decision before that select committee had deliberated or reported back to the House? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was not a sham. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can it not be a sham when the Prime Minister has made the decision without taking account of a select committee that has not even deliberated on the issue or reported back to the House notwithstanding the promise made to people that their submissions were being listened to in good faith? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We have heard from those groups directly. We have read the submissions— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition may not like it but on numerous occasions I had meetings with mana whenua groups and Maori groups around Auckland. In the end we reached a conclusion that we think is in the best interests of Auckland. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is the rejection of Maori seats compatible with the Prime Minister’s statement that “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions that are made before or during the select committee process” given that 60 percent of the submissions on this issue were in favour of Maori seats and only 20 percent were against them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We listened to the submissions. That does not mean we have to agree with them. When it comes to listening to submissions and not agreeing with them or listening to the public I am looking at the Leader of the Opposition who was previously part of a Government that was the absolute maestro when it came to doing that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister back down from his earlier support for having Maori seats which he said could be introduced as an amendment to the super-city legislation or when he indicated his intention to introduce an amendment was he just telling the Maori Party what he thought it wanted to hear at the time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I caution the member about making assumptions that are not necessarily factually correct. Secondly I make the point that what the Government is proposing in Auckland happens to be identical with what was passed by the previous Labour Government 6 years ago. If it was so bad back then why did it not change it when it had the chance? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the threat of the ACT Party leader to throw his toys out of the cot and resign his position on the question of the Maori seats the reason why the Prime Minister chose to prefer that view and ignore the view of the Maori Party on the issue; if not what was the reason? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No; it was a factor but as I said yesterday not the dominant factor. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will National members of Parliament with strong views on the issue who oppose Cabinet’s decision be given the opportunity to cast an individual vote on the issue in the legislation as Georgina te Heuheu did in 2001 on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because the Auckland governance legislation is a Government bill. If ever there was a caucus that wanted to have split votes it is the Labour caucus when it comes to its leadership from what I can tell. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is from  
Hansard 
 and is a speech from Georgina te Heuheu proclaiming that the National Party gave its members the right to do such— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a  
Hansard  
document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the second document which is from Stuff.co.nz where Mr Key says: “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions—”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table something from Stuff.co.nz. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Boscawen 
: Has the Prime Minister listened to the 1.5 million Kiwis who voted no in the referendum who were not seeking comfort from the Government but a law change so that a light smack is not a criminal offence; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have and yesterday I announced a number of initiatives that I think will go towards giving great comfort to New Zealand parents. They include a full review of police procedures a full review of Child Youth and Family procedures and a full review of the procedures that involve the transfer of referrals between Child Youth and Family and the police. A number of other initiatives are around reporting to ensure that New Zealand parents have clear and unbiased information. I think New Zealanders will welcome those steps as we look to refine the law. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Does the Prime Minister accept in listening to the people that it is Parliament’s job to make the law and the job of the police to enforce the law and that the issue in the referendum was the law itself and not the behaviour of the police? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think what people can draw from the way that the law is currently working is that it is fulfilling the intentions of Parliament; that is we are not yet seeing cases where good parents are being criminalised for lightly smacking a child. Yesterday I made it quite clear that we intend to document or record from the police on a 6-monthly basis that information on an unbiased basis. It is my view that that unbiased and unfiltered information should find its way into the public domain. If there are any cases that demonstrate to me that the law is not working I will personally ensure that we change the law immediately. 
Financial System—Stability 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure the stability of the financial system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In October last year the New Zealand Government guaranteed retail deposits of New Zealand financial institutions. Over 80 institutions accepted that offer. In total over $120 billion of deposits from around 3.5 million depositors are covered by the guarantee. The guarantees are due to terminate on 12 October 2010. Today the Government has announced that it will be offering a revised retail guarantee scheme that will extend to 31 December 2011. 
Craig Foss 
: In what ways will the revised guarantee scheme differ from the scheme currently in place? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Financial conditions have stabilised since last October and accordingly the need for support is now less extensive. The significant changes from the existing guarantee scheme will include the following: fees paid by institutions will be graduated to reflect their risk and will apply to all funds guaranteed; the limit on eligible funds guaranteed will reduce to $500000 per depositor for banks and $250000 for all other institutions; deposit-taking institutions will require a minimum credit rating of BB or higher to participate; and collective investment schemes will not be eligible to participate. All depositors currently benefiting from a Crown guarantee will continue to have their deposits covered until 12 October 2010. Whether they are covered beyond that date will depend on whether their institution joins the revised scheme. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister satisfied that every company receiving a Crown guarantee meets the published policy guideline requirement that the individuals controlling it have the relevant business experience and the track record of meeting payments as they fall due and of maintaining solvency? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Under the existing guarantee the Crown has the power to appoint inspectors where the Crown believes that institutions are not meeting all the requirements of the guarantee. I point out that the non-bank institutions covered by the current guarantee will in the next 6 months or so have to meet the requirements of the non-bank regime that were put in place by the previous Government. That will require all those institutions to acquire a credit rating and meet capital requirements. They need to get on and organise their affairs appropriately. 
Craig Foss 
: Why has the Government announced the changes at this time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government wants to strike a balance between ensuring financial stability reducing the distortions to market conditions and reducing the risks to the taxpayers who have so far paid out around $68 million under the guarantee. Today’s announcement provides certainty and means that over the next 2½ years depositors and institutions can make an orderly transition from the guarantee back to normal market conditions. The scheme will be legislated to cease at 31 December 2011. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister tell the House what it is about FAI Finance—wholly owned by the Hanover Group—that gives him confidence that the entity controlling that company has maintained solvency and displayed financial acumen; or is a 5 year billion-dollar so-called debt restructuring plan in order to avoid bankruptcy a good example of financial acumen? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In inviting the Minister to answer that question I am not a 100 percent sure about the Minister’s responsibility for the particular financial institution. But insofar as it relates to the guarantee I am sure the Minister can answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will not be commenting on individual institutions simply because the task of supervising the institutions is delegated to the New Zealand Treasury. Any institutions who are covered by the guarantee need to focus on getting their affairs sorted out—firstly to meet the requirements of the non-bank regime which will be introduced over the next 6 months and secondly to prepare for a transition to the extended guarantee. Then they will need to prepare for a time past 2011 when there will be no guarantee. Some of those institutions may find that a challenge but the intention of the guarantee is to protect the depositors on the way through. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister expect the major banks to participate in the extended retail scheme; if not given the ongoing benefits to the banks flowing from the wholesale scheme has he indicated his wish to see official cash rate cuts fully passed through into short-term interest rates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have not drawn any particular connection between the official cash rate and whether the banks take up because both those decisions are made by other people. The official cash rate is set by the Reserve Bank and the banks themselves will make their own decisions as to whether to take up this guarantee. My understanding on the wholesale guarantee is that there are indications in the financial markets that they would be willing to lend to non-guarantee issues by the banks and that is a sign of progress towards stability. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why has the Government failed to take any steps to help reduce interest rates which was identified as a key concern for small businesses in a business confidence survey from Research New Zealand—the same survey that said that 99 percent of small businesses thought that the Job Summit was a waste of time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In this context the overriding consideration has been to ensure that credit markets do not freeze up. I believe that the action taken by the previous Government in issuing these guarantees was an important part of that. The measures the Government has taken to help reduce interest rates have been primarily around restraining its own spending and its own debt requirements. The rationale for that was all laid out in the Budget. 
Health Care—Policy 
3.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the previous Labour Government left the new Government with $160 million of unfunded services to fill and stripped $150 million out of the health budget pre-election yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 12 percent increase in people waiting longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment which is a 12 percent increase since he became the Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not in a position to confirm or otherwise what the member has said in her question. I observe that often the member does not have the right story but I can tell her that we are certainly working hard to improve access to first specialist assessments and elective surgery. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 15 percent increase in the number of people who were promised treatment but did not receive it within 6 months a 15 percent increase since he became the Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We would have to check those numbers from the member but I can tell her that I am not interested in culling 30000 patients off the waiting list as the previous Government did. I can tell the member that what matters to those people on the waiting list is that they have more chance of getting an operation. I can tell the House that there have been more people getting elective surgeries in the last 6 months than at any other time in history. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he seen related to the delivery of better elective services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen reports to indicate that based on preliminary information around an extra 12000 patients had elective operations in the last financial year and a part of this successful year was under the previous Government of the party opposite. Amongst the biggest increases were in the Bay of Plenty at 14 percent in Tai Rawhiti at around 21 percent and in Whanganui with a 23 percent increase. In brief the Government had a goal of increasing elective surgery discharges by an average of 4000 a year from 118000 to a total of around 130000 over our 3 years and this was achieved by the end of June. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 20 percent increase in people who should have received treatment and who have not received treatment a 20 percent increase since he became Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Those figures would have to be checked but I can say that it is difficult making comparisons in some of these areas because it was the previous Labour Government that culled 30000 people off those waiting lists. What really matters for patients is that they have more opportunity to get operations and they certainly have that under the National Government. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he seen in relation to the increase in elective surgery particularly relating to the complexity of those operations? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen a range of reports but one in particular where the member opposite suggests the increase was achieved by doing “lots of minor surgery rather than to improve case-weighted numbers which give a true picture”. I am advised that case-weighted delivery has increased significantly. The average case weight is higher than the average of the 7 years since district health boards began. This increase particularly in the second half of the year reflects the Government’s very clear expectation of district health boards to provide more elective surgery for more patients to help improve patients’ lives. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is to table the correct figures given the Minister’s incorrect answer last week— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not use that kind of language in seeking leave to table a document. All we want is a description of the document. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I am seeking leave to table the correct figures showing that the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am unaware of any document entitled “The Correct Figures” unless it is one that has been made up. The document if it is a genuine document must come from somewhere and what we want to hear is a description of where the document has come from so that the House can make up its mind. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: These are documents in answer to a written question last year and this year showing that the increase in elective surgery procedures is double that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use the seeking of leave to table a document to make a point about figures. I take it the member is seeking leave to table the answer to a written question? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Two written questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have made that clear from the outset because the House can then make up its mind about whether it wants to give leave to the tabling of answers to written questions. If we could get the date of the answer to the written question and the subject of the question then the House can probably make up its mind but I do not want any further wasting of time. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Written question No. 4481 (2008) and written question (2009) both relating to discharge procedures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two answers to written questions. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a document printed from the Ministry of Health’s website showing there has been a 12 percent increase in the number of people waiting longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table information from the Ministry of Health’s website showing that the number of people who were promised treatment but did not receive it within 6 months has increased by 15 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table information from the Ministry of Health’s website showing there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of people who should have received treatment and who have not since Tony Ryall became Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the minutes from the Otago District Health Board showing that in May the district health board was running 4 percent below its plan for the month for case-weighted discharges of elective surgery. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Otago District Health Board showing that in the following month the board was running 5 percent below its plan for the month for case-weighted activity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the Northland District Health Board where the health board states: “The Minister of Health is focusing on patients’ numbers rather than case weights.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Auckland—Electric Rail System 
4.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is he confident that at least part of Auckland’s electric rail system will be rolling in time to help move the 75000 international visitors and countless Kiwi fans expected for the 2011 Rugby World Cup? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No and it was never going to be the case. The Auckland metro rail electrification project has always been and remains due for completion in 2013. 
Keith Locke 
: As Auckland’s regional fuel tax was cancelled in March how will the purchase of the electric railcars be funded; and if the funding decision has not yet been made when will it be made? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The funding decision for the half-billion dollar electric trains has not yet been made because agency officials are working on the scope of the project and on the funding for it. When that has been completed to the satisfaction of me and the agency concerned the decision will be made. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What work is under way to improve Auckland’s railway network in time for the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has made a commitment to enhance significantly the public transport infrastructure around Eden Park particularly for rail travel in time for the Rugby World Cup. That work includes redevelopment of the Kingsland Railway Station and Morningside Railway Station. In fact the Morningside station is now up and running; I as Minister opened it on 7 August. Other projects include track crossovers at the Kingsland station to enable trains to run to and from the central business district from both of Kingsland’s platforms a major new signalling system between the Britomart and Kingsland stations and improvements at the Newmarket junction. All of that work is part of the substantial sum of $1.6 billion that the Government has committed to investing in the Auckland rail network. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister guarantee that the 140 electric railcars which are needed will be purchased as originally planned? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I cannot. Once we put the agencies together in a room—which is something that should have happened a long time ago—we discovered a number of potential overruns with the project totalling up to around $200 million. These include the lack of any significant contingency planning at all for the project potentially between $50 million and $150 million of additional base infrastructure requirements and potentially up to $30 million of platform extensions. We have therefore decided in working with the agencies that we need to make sure that the scope of the project is properly done so that we can ensure 10-minute frequencies across the network once the project is complete. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What leadership is the Minister taking to remove any of the so-called stumbling blocks that he has outlined today that are preventing the purchase of 140 new electric railcars for Auckland something has already been delayed while he has been the Minister creating the distinct impression that this Government is not committed to public transport at all? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am encouraging the officials to use their calculators properly and carefully which is something that did not appear to have happened under the previous Government. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister guarantee that ONTRACK’s electrification plan “extending from Papakura in the south to Swanson in the west and including the Onehunga branch line and the future Manukau link” will still proceed; if not which parts of the network will not proceed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The half a billion dollars that was allocated under the previous Government for the electrification of those lines remains in place and provided that it can be done within that sum of money it will of course proceed to the full extent. 
Keith Locke 
: Will it not be embarrassing if international visitors to the 2011 Rugby World Cup see that we have been fluffing around with the electrification of Auckland’s rail system particularly when it is very obvious that we need it to get people around Auckland and to counter the effect of higher oil prices? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If that is the member’s view then probably he should have worked with the previous Government which the Greens were involved with to ensure that the planning occurred to enable it to be done by 2011 but it was scheduled for 2013 and it is on schedule to be done by then. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
5.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he consider advisory boards a good substitute for Maori seats on the Auckland City Council like the Hon John Key who said: “I do not accept the view that some sort of advisory board or some sort of participation board would be a sop.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I have made my views well known to the Prime Minister and the public as the co-leader of the Maori Party. However as a Minister I have no responsibility for this issue. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Has he received any reports from National Party Maori MPs signalling their intention to cross the floor and support a Supplementary Order Paper that would establish Maori seats on the Auckland Council seeing that the Prime Minister has not listened to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I invite the honourable Minister to respond to that question I say I am not sure of the responsibility the Minister has for the views of members of the National Party— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes on the matter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have raised this point of order with you on several occasions because we are often the victim of the ruling you are considering making when questions from Government backbenchers ask Ministers whether they have received any reports about comments statements or actions by members of Parliament who are in the Opposition and that then opens it up for the Government to have a whack at the Opposition. You have ruled that because those Ministers have been asked whether they have received any reports that is in order and that is what the Hon Parekura Horomia has done as well on this occasion. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Hughes would be right except for one point: the reports that get asked for have to relate to the Minister’s portfolio. Unfortunately for the Hon Parekura Horomia the reports he is seeking from the Minister of Maori Affairs bear no relationship to that Minister’s portfolio. The Minister would not be receiving such reports in his capacity as the Minister of Maori Affairs. He has no responsibility for such reports in this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think this goes back to a point that was made right at the beginning of the year about what the ambit of the Minister of Maori Affairs is. We have five six seven maybe eight quotes from the Minister of Maori Affairs who has said he wants to take a role on the leadership of Maori issues and make representations on Maori issues and he has particularly tied it to this issue. In fact there are Cabinet papers I understand in the names of the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Local Government together who have been taking ministerial responsibility for this issue. Clearly both Ministers are acting on this issue within both their portfolios. I would be happy to come back to the House very shortly with quotes from the Minister of Maori Affairs where he talks about his dual role both as co-leader of a party—which clearly he cannot be questioned on in here—and as portfolio Minister of Maori Affairs in which he says he will be taking a clear role in resolving this issue. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Again I am afraid that Mr Darren Hughes is wrong. He is seeking reports about the behaviour of MPs in another party. Mr Sharples as Minister of Maori Affairs has no responsibility for that even on a particular bill that he may be shepherding through the House let alone on a bill that he is not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that I have heard sufficient on this. I have been listening to the helpful advice because it has been helpful advice of the members who have contributed while I pondered what I freely acknowledge is a difficult issue. The dilemma I have with the question is that it did not ask the Minister whether he had received reports in relation to his ministerial responsibility; it asked specifically about letters from members of Parliament to do with something that may not have been his responsibility. I am sure that the Hon Parekura Horomia could phrase a question that did ask whether the Minister had received any reports in the area of his ministerial responsibility relating to the matter. I invite the member to see whether he can reword his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Has the Minister of Maori Affairs had any reports from other members wishing to cross the floor on this matter seeing that Rodney Hide and the Prime Minister are not listening to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that is within order at all— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This morning the Minister of Maori Affairs was in the media as Minister of Maori Affairs calling for there to be a free vote on this issue which directly affects Maori people in our country particularly in Auckland and for which the Minister himself has publicly on repeated occasions said is part of his ministerial responsibility to advocate for. So his responsibility in this area as an advocate is well established. He attended Cabinet yesterday to lobby on this particular issue and this morning he has called for there to be a vote on the very point that my colleague is now asking whether he has received any reports on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not unsympathetic to the point the honourable member is making. The dilemma is that if he reflects on the question that the Hon Parekura Horomia just asked he will realise that it did not remotely meet the Standing Order requirements. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for possible reports about members crossing the floor of the House. Neither does he have any ministerial responsibility for what the Prime Minister may have said. I am not saying the Minister cannot be questioned at all—the Minister most certainly can be questioned—but the questions must come within the Standing Orders. That is why I invited the Hon Parekura Horomia to try to bring his question within the Standing Orders. The last question—and I ask members to forgive me but we cannot allow this to go on for too long—was just nowhere near to complying with the requirements of the Standing Orders. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Will the Minister of Maori Affairs be calling for a personal vote on this very important matter to this nation? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes I will be calling for a conscience vote. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What response does the Minister of Maori Affairs have to Tukoroirangi Morgan who stated that Tainui would not take part in any advisory board because “Giving Maori people the crumbs at the second level is a nonsense and we’ve made it quite clear we are not interested in being a tekoteko … or tonotono … —people who are subservient to the top table.”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I believe that Mr Morgan is correct in saying that Maori representation at this level should not be symbolic or subservient. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What does he say to Tau Henare who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Maori seats and today is reported as saying “Why should I sacrifice”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume his seat for a moment. Clearly no Minister has any responsibility for what a backbench member might say. [ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on the matter. There will be silence in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Order I say to National backbenchers. I realise that this is a difficult area and there is no way in the world that I am trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister; some Minister has to have responsibility for these issues so I am not trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister. But clearly no Minister has responsibility for what a backbench member may say. This question cannot go on for too long but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question that is in order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for hearing our submissions on this. The supplementary question that you allowed previously asked what the Minister said to a quote from Tukoroirangi Morgan; a quote from that person was given and the Minister responded to it. Mr Horomia started his question by saying “What does he say to Tau Henare who last week” and then explained what the quote had been. In April 2009 in question time Dr Sharples said: “As the Minister of Maori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Maori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views.” We are trying to question him on an important constitutional point. A quote from a certain individual was put to the Minister for him to comment on he did that and we did not object to it. Now exactly the same thing is happening and you are considering ruling it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I may have— 
Hon Simon Power 
: There’s no ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Annette King 
: There wasn’t for Tuku Morgan either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will not be interjections. I may have misheard the previous question. I apologise to the House if I misheard it. I had understood that it was about some correspondence between Mr Morgan from Tainui and the Minister of Maori Affairs. I might have misheard; I apologise if I did. If it was my error I am sorry but clearly the Minister cannot be responsible for what either private citizens or backbenchers say. I allowed the question but perhaps I was in error in doing that. I apologise; I misheard it. Clearly the Minister has no responsibility for what a backbench member says—none whatsoever. It is not difficult in my view to question the Minister in a manner that comes within his ministerial responsibilities. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: As Minister of Maori Affairs does he agree with Tau Henare who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Maori seats and today is reported as saying: “Why should I sacrifice my career when other people aren’t? … The call has been made by the Minister of Maori Affairs that we should cross the floor. Maybe he should resign.”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Congratulations on the email! I have no wish to put people in that position. In fact a conscience vote means that people do not have to cross the floor. That is why I am going to call for it. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by his fellow Maori Party colleague Hone Harawira that “The last word we had from the PM was that he was supportive of the seats and that he had found a proposal that would prevent Rodney from throwing his toys out of the cot.”; if so when was he informed by the Prime Minister that he had in fact changed his position? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have not heard that and I am not aware of that comment. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does he think it is consistent for the Government with one hand to retain Maori electorate seats here in Parliament and with the other hand to deny Maori local representation on the largest city council in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question specifically asks the Minister about something outside his ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Maori Affairs has a portfolio that—with due respect Mr Speaker—pervades all sorts of situations in this country. Certainly there are not many things that Maori people as the other people in this country are not involved in. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As I mentioned earlier we went through this issue earlier in the year at quite some length. The Minister told the House: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people.” The Minister himself by his statements in this House has opened up the ability for the Opposition to question him on his portfolio. It is clear that the Minister of Maori Affairs’ remit goes far wider than the narrow portfolio boundaries that the Minister of Transport the Minister of Education or the Minister for Social Development and Employment might ordinarily have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes: obviously the Minister of Maori Affairs has a pretty wide brief. I allowed a number of supplementary questions from the Hon Parekura Horomia because in my view they came within the Standing Orders in respect of the responsibilities of the Minister of Maori Affairs. But the last question asked specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city. It was specifically about matters to do with the reorganisation of that city which the Minister does not have responsibility for. The Standing Orders permit Ministers to be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility and clearly the Minister does not have responsibility for the reorganisation of Auckland city. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that then mean that the duty that the Prime Minister has set for the co-leader of the Maori Party Dr Sharples and the leader of the ACT Party Rodney Hide on its way in relation to the composition of the city council is null and void through your statements? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but the honourable member has lost me. I cannot assist. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Mr Speaker I do not want to lose you. I want to bring some concise understanding to this debacle. At the end of the day the Prime Minister has through edict of his seat directed the co-leader of the Maori Party and the leader of the ACT Party to get their heads together and sort out something for the council’s composition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order have to relate to order in the House. What the Prime Minister may have asked Rodney Hide and Dr Pita Sharples to do is not a matter for the order of this House. I have allowed the member to ask questions that fall in my view within the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders these days permit opinion questions to be asked; questions that seek opinions can be asked and some of the questions that the member has asked have fallen I believe within the Standing Orders. But he cannot ask the Minister specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city because it is not within his ministerial responsibility. I think the House has spent quite sufficient time on this matter. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the point you have just alluded to. Many years ago one was not allowed to seek an expression of opinion from a Minister in a question and I seem to recall—and you will too Mr Speaker—that during the reign of Mr Speaker Wall the device emerged of members asking Ministers whether they had received any reports on a particular topic as a way of getting round their not being able to seek an opinion from a Minister. One would ask: “Has the Minister seen a report on the reported comments of so-and-so?”. Now that we have a more lenient view of questions that seek opinions it may be timely to look again at the device of members’ seeking reports or seeking advice; it is to some extent redundant in that there is the capacity in certain circumstances to seek a more direct opinion of a Minister. I just wanted to raise that point; I do not know whether it is within your jurisdiction Mr Speaker or whether it is something the Standing Orders Committee should look at. It has been of concern to me for some time that we have questions that exploit the device to the maximum when—as you said yourself—there are other ways of asking questions that comply with the current Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very interesting point but sadly the device of asking whether the Minister has seen any reports relates to more than the old ban on seeking opinions in asking questions. It relates to asking questions about matters that are very marginal in terms of ministerial responsibility and that are often to do with policies of the previous Government or the Opposition. The use of the device of asking whether the Minister has received any reports is a way of enabling Ministers to talk about those kinds of matters. So I doubt whether the House is likely to let go of that device but it is something that is certainly within the bounds of the Standing Orders Committee to give consideration to. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to labour the debate on this matter but I ask you to make a considered ruling because I think two points are germane. The first is that the last question from Parekura Horomia went to the point as you quite rightly said of Auckland representation and the chief Opposition whip pointed out that the Minister has written at least one Cabinet paper on that issue. I would like to be given a view from you as to how one cannot be responsible for an issue that one has written a Cabinet paper on. Secondly the Minister has also widened by his own quotes his definition of his ministerial responsibilities as they pertain to Maori affairs as the chief Opposition whip has said. Given those two issues with the first being specific—about a Cabinet paper relating directly to my colleague’s question that now the Minister is somehow not responsible for—and the second being wider questions around the Maori affairs portfolio with regard to which the Minister in historical quotes has widened his own definition of responsibility we have grave difficulty in defining what is and what is not his ministerial responsibility. I fail to see how one can pen a Cabinet paper on a specific issue and then stand up and say one is not responsible for it. I just invite you if it is more efficient in terms of the House’s time to consider that matter and come back to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the point the member has made. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In respect of the first point as members opposite will know from time to time when Prime Ministers require groups of Ministers to go away and look at an issue whether or not responsibility accrues to a decision-making process in that context is quite different from ministerial responsibility accruing to individual Ministers in this forum where the Standing Orders are quite specific about what individual Ministers have responsibility for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the contributions of both members. [ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on the matter. Both members have I think made very useful contributions; I thank both the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Simon Power. With regard to the interesting point raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that a Minister may be involved in the preparation and the presentation of a paper I say the Minister can certainly be questioned on that paper and on any statements relating to that paper but that does not alter the fundamental area of ministerial responsibility as was pointed out by the Hon Simon Power. So both members who have made points are correct. Where a Minister has been involved in the preparation of a paper for Cabinet he or she can be questioned on that paper even if it is on the margins of his or her ministerial responsibility. But in general terms the area of ministerial responsibility remains as such. 
I say to the House that clearly this area is difficult and the issue of a Minister saying he or she has no responsibility for a matter in my view is not good enough when questions are lodged earlier in the morning. If a Minister does not have ministerial responsibility then the question should be transferred to the Minister who has ministerial responsibility because some Minister has ministerial responsibility for every issue that is an issue relating to the administration of the Government and to Government policy. I make the point that I am not entirely happy with what has transpired today and that is certainly not the Opposition’s fault. 
What I would like to see happen in the future where there are questions about where ministerial responsibility lies is that the Clerk’s Office is advised very early that a Minister feels that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility so that either the question can be renegotiated with the questioner to bring it within the bounds of the responsibilities of that Minister or if the Opposition wishes to stick with the wording of the question it is transferred to the Minister who does have responsibility. I am not prepared to have this House trifled with by way of simply using the device of a Minister saying he or she does not have ministerial responsibility and that is the end of the matter because some Minister does have responsibility. I hope that is helpful to honourable members. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What will the Minister do to encourage the Government to invest in a true partnership with mana whenua in respect of the Auckland seats having received communication from Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua chair Naida Glavish that states that “continuing to treat Maori as ‘mere stakeholders’ will maintain the status quo of poorly managed natural resources ineffective consultation and ongoing inefficiency in decision making and planning for the city.”? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a question that we want to hear the answer to. The Opposition would like to hear the Minister’s view on that issue but the irony goes to the exact problem we have been raising with you this afternoon. In addition to the approaches you have outlined if we could have consideration by you of how Ministers who have responsibility for populations within this country across all portfolios could be handled then I think that would make for a much easier system of questioning. We want to hear Te Ururoa Flavell’s question be answered but this situation goes to the heart of the problem we have been having this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interesting thing about the question was that I believe that the first part of the question was in order because it asked whether the Minister was prepared to do something to encourage some outcome in respect of his responsibility as Minister of Maori Affairs. The second part of the question was irrelevant. The Minister has no responsibility for what some person outside this place may think. I invite the Minister of Maori Affairs to answer the first part of the question. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. My response to the question is as follows: Maori people will be here forever; we are not going to go away. As long as I have breath to breathe I will fight for opportunities for Maori people in a fair democratic and meaningful way. Kia ora. 
Youth Employment—Job Ops Scheme 
6.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on the Government’s Job Ops scheme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Since I stood up in the Chamber last week an additional 176 new Job Ops positions have been placed on Work and Income’s books. We now have a total of—members should listen up—590 Job Ops on our books. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Katrina Shanks I ask both sides of the House to be a little reasonable with their enthusiasm in interjecting applauding or whatever. It was extraordinarily difficult to hear the Minister. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has Work and Income tightened criteria around Job Ops? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. From day one careful guidelines have been in place to avoid displacement. The Job Ops scheme has always been about helping young people get work experience by creating new entry-level roles. 
Hon Annette King 
: Are existing vacancies not eligible to be used in the Job Ops programme as she claimed in the press statement on Friday; if so why are some employers publicly saying that they are not new vacancies but existing ones? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: These jobs are new. A job that exists in an employer’s head is not actually a job until it is on Work and Income’s books that the employer is actively looking for someone. These jobs are for new entry-level positions. The scheme is a positive thing. I know that that is hard for the Opposition to take into consideration. The scheme is giving young people new opportunities to get into work which is a good thing. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What reports has the Minister received about the Government’s Community Max scheme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have had 251 community groups registering their interest in the Community Max programme. These projects are a bit slower to come in because they take a bit more work to get up in the communities and get them under way but the interest is there. The interest is perhaps higher than we expected to start with. We are very pleased with how the programme is going. 
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has as its overriding goals minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community and the impact of injury on the community”? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The proposed changes of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis literature reviews questionnaires and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy psychology counselling education migrant resettlement indigenous issues and the mental health of children and older people. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister release the medical and scientific evidence that the Minister has relied upon to conclude that the current clinical pathway for the treatment of victims of childhood sexual abuse is not satisfactory and why were the professional bodies of the current treatment providers excluded from meaningful consultation? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am very pleased to table the report by Massey University commissioned by the corporation  
Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand 
. It was somehow totally forgotten and neglected by the previous Labour Government. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does the Minister reconcile the proposal to impose an arbitrary cap on accident compensation funding for counselling for victims of sexual abuse with the statement by the Prime Minister in a recent speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust that “where New Zealanders do become victims of crime National will give them the support and respect they deserve.”? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Indeed this is a new guideline. It has been proposed because it is not fair or right for victims to have one-size-fits-all treatment so this proposed treatment takes into account tailored treatment for survivors whether they are women men children adolescents Maori Pasifika or ethnic. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister reassure childhood sexual abuse victims that the proposed accident compensation cuts will not detrimentally impact their quality of life; if so how? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Indeed all those have been taken into account because this Government is committed to improving the life of survivors and— 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: This is a very serious issue. The Opposition might feel agitated and not want to know the real reasons but others might. According to this study victims’ traumatic ordeals should be seen as a complex life experience and not as a disorder or life sentence. That is why the best-practice treatment is being implemented. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Government requiring victims of sexual abuse to see at least three different health professionals and does the Minister think it is easy for victims to go over their traumatic experiences over and over again with strangers? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Indeed the clinical research conducted by Massey University is not asking victims to relive their traumatic ordeals. This is tailor-made clinical treatment that takes into account each survivor’s personal circumstances. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Given that the Prime Minister promised substantial increases in funds for victims of crime to the Sensible Sentencing Trust at its conference and that there have been cuts to prevention education from $170000 to $27000 does the Minister believe that childhood sexual abuse survivors are no longer considered victims of crime? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I hope that the member listened to my previous answer because I am forced to repeat it. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse will receive appropriate treatment based on their personal circumstances. This best-practice guideline will make sure that not all survivors are treated exactly the same. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table a letter to Nick Smith from the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists explaining the shock wave of disbelief at the proposed changes to accident compensation funding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
International Trade—Developments 
8.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What recent developments have there been in furthering New Zealand’s international trade agenda? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The trade Ministers of Australia New Zealand South-east Asia and the giant economies of east Asia—Japan Korea and China—agreed some 10 days ago in Bangkok to recommend to their leaders a study from an essentially academic level up to a formal inter-Government level of a free-trade agreement amongst those countries. If that recommendation is endorsed by East Asia Summit leaders in October it will be a considerable strategic advancement for Australia and New Zealand. 
John Hayes 
: How will those developments improve New Zealand’s standing in the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: If endorsed by leaders these recommendations or the formal study of the concept of a free-trade agreement will ensure that Australia and New Zealand are now definitively part of the Asian economic regional integration process. Asia accounts for over half of New Zealand’s exports at some $21 billion and offers some very exciting long-term opportunities. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have indicated that I would table a document so I am now seeking the leave of the House to table a document entitled  
Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand 
 by Massey University which was commissioned completed and buried by the previous Labour Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
9.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Will she reconsider her decision to cut $13 million from adult and community education delivered through high schools and the community organisations they support; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 No; the Government has had to fill a $520 million hole that was left in the tertiary budget by the previous Government in which the questioner was an Associate Minister for tertiary education herself. We have made the necessary decision to target our limited tertiary education dollars on younger students who are likely to be disproportionably affected by the economic downturn. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware that it is likely that only one out of a group of seven high schools in the Eastern Bay of Plenty will apply for the remaining $3 million and if she is aware of that what has she to say to the thousands of people in that area who will not be improving their skills next year because self-funding is not an option in that area? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is my understanding that high schools have until the end of this month to have their discussions with the Tertiary Education Commission and make their views available. I will await the outcome of those decisions. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Has she received any representations from her National colleagues about the closure of adult and community education courses; if so what have they said? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There has been a great deal of discussion from a number of people on all sides of the House. Some are concerned about the loss of adult and community education and some are looking for the opportunities that may well be taken up in communities by clubs and other organisations. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Which sign language training courses can the Minister guarantee will survive these cuts to adult and community education as she has suggested previously in areas where such training is provided only through high school night classes and organisations dependent upon the support of high school adult and community education funding? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I remind that member that no decisions have yet been made about the provision of services next year. I also remind that member there is still $124 million invested by this Government in adult and community education. 
Television—Switch-over to Digital 
10.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What practical steps is the Government taking towards the switch-over to digital television? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The Government has established the Digital Switchover Steering Group which is comprised of representatives from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) Kordia and Sky television as well as from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. The group has been established to manage the transition from analog to digital television and to advise the Government on issues relating to the switch-over. The group will be responsible for a comprehensive information programme to ensure that the public is fully informed throughout the transition process and that all New Zealanders know exactly what they need to do to switch to digital television. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What else has been happening to drive the uptake of digital television? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Last week it was announced that Prime Television would be joining the suite of channels offered on the FreeView platform. The National-led Government has always been keen for Prime Television to be available on FreeView and earlier this year it held a meeting of the relevant parties to identify the barriers to this happening. I am happy to report that FreeView Sky television and Kordia were able to reach a commercial agreement that means Prime Television can now be viewed on both the FreeView satellite and terrestrial platforms. This is a practical measure that will make the uptake of digital TV via the FreeView platform even more attractive to the public. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister assure the House that he will change his current hands-off approach to his portfolio and plan to use some of the digital dividend to ensure FreeView terrestrial reception extends beyond major centres allowing regional New Zealanders to see their local and other channels without having pay television as their only option? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: At the moment we have a discussion document out. It discusses all the options around the future of that digital spectrum and the digital dividend. I am sure we will take all the submissions into account before making any future decisions. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: When will digital switch-over occur? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: A firm date for digital switch-over will be set once the uptake of digital television has reached 75 percent of households or 2012 whichever occurs first. To realise the full economic benefits of digital switch-over it needs to occur by 2015 at the latest. 
Local Government Minister—Matters of Principle 
11.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Are there any issues other than Maori representation in local government that he believes are matters of principle and therefore worth resigning over? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 No. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will the Minister extend the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act to all of New Zealand on account of the Prime Minister’s new rule that local government legislation must apply to all councils across the country? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I fail to see what possible ministerial responsibility I would have for that. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my friend but we all know that the Wanganui bill was a local bill affecting only one local authority in the country. How can it be other than within the Minister’s responsibility to answer that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the honourable member has answered his own question that he posed with that point of order in that it is a local bill and not a bill for which any Minister has responsibility. 
Hon David Parker 
: It was brought to this House by way of a local bill but it is a matter of public policy for which that member has responsibility in this Government. As you have already said there is no matter of public policy for which the Government does not have responsibility. Who else within Government would have responsibility for that issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As Speaker it was my assessment that the Minister responded reasonably in that he said he had no responsibility for it. At the end of the day that is the end of the matter as far as the Speaker is concerned. The Speaker cannot second-guess a Minister as to a Minister’s ministerial responsibility. Had it been put down as a primary question I would have wanted to see the matter of ministerial responsibility sorted out. But as it has been asked as a supplementary question and the Minister has indicated he has no responsibility for that matter that is the end of the matter as far as the Speaker is concerned. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is it a matter of principle for the Minister to keep secret from the public his threat to resign when at the same time advocating openness and transparency in local government? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes it is. Let me explain. The Prime Minister approached me about what my position would be if such a compromise was possible between the National Party and the Maori Party and I said that the numbers would work for that in the House obviously but I could not have my name on such legislation and I would have to stand aside if Cabinet and then the Parliament decided that that would be the result in that legislation. I did not allow that to affect the decision to Cabinet because it was only a conversation between the Prime Minister and me. I did advise my caucus and my board of the discussion and received their full support. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does he reconcile his comment “we want people to get involved in determining the future of our region. We do understand that politicians aren’t the font of all wisdom” with his decision to substitute his own opinion on Maori representation for that of the recommendations of the royal commission which received over 3500 submissions and the majority of submissions on this issue to the select committee? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Very easily because at the end of the day I am only one vote in this House and what I was—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a bit difficult Mr Speaker; the member asked a question and I am answering it. At the end of the day I am only one vote in this House and the ACT Party is five votes. Ultimately it is going to be a decision of the Parliament and Cabinet and I was happy to accept that. What I did say was that because the legislation was in my name I would have to take responsibility for that legislation— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And it’s all about you. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No it is not all about me. What it is about is the ACT Party having a philosophy and a principle that says there should be one vote for all and every position of political power open to a free contest. If it was the will of Parliament or Cabinet to say otherwise I would have no option but to stand down. I assured the Prime Minister that the support of the five MPs would be for this Government because that was our agreement before the election and we have stuck to our word. In fact the only cost in the decision of standing aside would be to myself and to the ACT Party. 
Options and Advice Service—Establishment 
12.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What progress has the Government made with fulfilling the establishment of an Options and Advice Service? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce the launch of phase 1 of the Options and Advice Service which has eight pilot neighbourhoods. The aim of the service is to provide applicants with information and advice that helps them to identify housing options that may be available to them not just State housing but rental opportunities in the private sector or possibly even homeownership. I thank my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett and her ministry team for their support in working with us on developing the scheme. 
Hekia Parata 
: How will this service be rolled out? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Phase 1 of the roll-out will see the service operating in Whangarei Onehunga Panmure Manurewa Hamilton Manawatu Linwood and Timaru. These sites were chosen for geographical spread as well as to see how the service works in different types of neighbourhood units. Phase 2 will consist of a national roll-out of the service in 2010. Initially customers to Housing New Zealand Corporation’s front door will be the focus of the service. However we are looking to provide the service to existing tenants—for example offering them the opportunity to buy the home they live in in some cases. 
Questions to Members 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Consideration 
1.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: Can he confirm that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is currently being considered by the committee? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee): 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: What communications if any has he received from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Local Government about yesterday’s announcement about what can and what cannot be included in the bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I fail to see how that question has anything to do with the procedure of the committee. The member must make his supplementary question bear some relationship to the procedures or processes going on in the committee. Questions to members are somewhat different from questions to Ministers. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the processes of a select committee is the chair’s communications with Ministers about the progress of bills before the committee. My colleague is asking whether following yesterday’s announcement there has been any communication about things that can or cannot be included in the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a nice try by the honourable member but I am not sure the Speaker stands persuaded on that matter. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Submissions 
2.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: How many submissions were heard on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee): 
 The committee heard a total of 619 submissions of which 343 were oral submissions from individuals and 276 were submissions from groups organisations and experts. 
Phil Twyford 
: How many of those submissions supported Maori seats on the Auckland Council? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I do not have that analysis with me. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Progress 
3.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee): 
 The committee has made good progress and is on schedule to meet the report-back date of 4 September 2009. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the chairperson had any communications with the Associate Minister of Local Government the Hon John Carter about Cabinet processes relating to the bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the chair of the committee has any responsibility for Cabinet processes. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My memory of this particular matter is that you did allow supplementary questions like that from the Hon Trevor Mallard to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about communication with members of the executive the processes within the executive and how they impacted on the process of the select committee. That was what my colleague was trying to get to with this question—the process as it affects this special committee the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. There is a precedent for this under Speaker Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the difference on that particular occasion was that the Hon Trevor Mallard was specifically asking the chair of the select committee what he had done in response to certain things. On this occasion although the supplementary question might be asking about the same person it must relate to something that the chair of the committee is doing not what Cabinet might be doing. If the member has a further supplementary question— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue is that the chair of the parliamentary select committee is also the Associate Minister of Local Government about whom my colleague is asking the question—the very same person. Of any member here he should be in the best position to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again—[ 
Interruption 
] There must be no interjections when the Speaker is considering matters. The fact that it might be the same member is quite irrelevant to the Speaker’s ruling on the matter. The chair of the committee is responsible only for matters to do with the chair. The fact the chair is also the Associate Minister is irrelevant. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just quickly perhaps it would be helpful to Mr Darren Hughes and Mr Phil Twyford if you organised a seminar on asking questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I could rephrase that earlier question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called question No. 4. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Report Back 
4.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: When will the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be reported back to the House? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee): 
 As I said previously the report-back date for the bill is 4 September 2009. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the Associate Minister of Local Government the Hon John Carter advised him that decisions have already been made about the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—I think the member needs to have a look at the Standing Orders relating to questions to chairs of committees because that kind of question does not fall within the ambit of questions to chairs. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Submissions on Maori Representation 
5.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 
: What 
process did the committee follow for hearing submissions relating to Maori representation? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee) 
: 
 The committee received 2538 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A subcommittee heard evidence in all seven Auckland districts including Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island and on three marae in the Auckland region. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What integrity does the process have given that the submissions have been overridden by his Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was fine in asking about the integrity of the process but asking what the Government might have done is irrelevant to the responsibilities of the chair of the committee. That is outside the Standing Orders and that brings to a conclusion questions for oral answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled that the first part of the question was in order so maybe the chairperson could answer the first part. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already concluded question time. I think that members asking questions of chairs need to be a bit more careful about their supplementary questions. I think I have been fairly tolerant of that today. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Citizens Initiated Referendum on Parental Correction—Government Response 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Boscawen seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s response to the results of the citizens initiated referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. The Government’s response is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I am not persuaded that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test is a high one. There needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. The response announced includes a review of police and Child Youth and Family procedures to be reported back by 1 December 2009; the bringing forward to late September or early October of the delivery of a report on the effect of the law change; and the continued monitoring of the operation of the law. 
The setting up of a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. When a review is reported there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate but even then that is not always the case and members might care to look at Speaker’s ruling 177/1. In the circumstances I do not believe that the business of the House ought to be set aside today. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 Cabinet’s decision not to include Maori seats on the new Auckland Council. The decision is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. In considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is required to be reported back to the House by 4 September 2009. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the issue of Maori representation on the new Auckland Council. The application is also therefore declined. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave for the agreement of the House to have such a debate. The whole country is focused on the issues that revolve around Cabinet’s decision on the Maori seats. Of course normally Mr Speaker you would be absolutely right because legislation is coming before the House. But in submitting the letter I took into account the fact that the decisions that were made yesterday pre-empted that process through the legislature. I wonder whether you have taken that into account. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must not get into a debate with the member but obviously Governments make all sorts of decisions about legislation they are bringing into the House as a matter of general course so that is not a matter the Speaker can take into account. Leave has been sought for time to be set aside for that debate. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 August on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Employment ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. There is one word that dominates the report of the Social Services Committee on Vote Social Development and Vote Youth Development. It is a word that has been found throughout all the reports in this estimates debate: recession. In this vote we learn how Work and Income has changed the way it works since the economic downturn to concentrate more on relationships with employers. We are told about the various governmental responses to the recession including the Restart package the Job Support Scheme and the Community Response Fund. We read about the committee’s concerns for the impact of the recession on young people. 
There is no denial that we are caught in the grips of a volatile financial environment a situation in which around the globe nations have to react quickly to rising unemployment. We are seeing the traditional forms of social protection under threat as markets become fragile and publicly finance services feel the pinch. The Maori Party is of course particularly alarmed at the continuing high levels of unemployment for rangatahi Maori—a trend that was well advanced over the last decade tragically in a time of plenty. These young people are our leaders of tomorrow who will shape the policy direction of our nation who will confront the ever-increasing challenge of new technologies who will drive our economy and who will care for us when we age. We must take care of them as an investment in our future. 
The Social Services Committee reported that the Government would be considering various ways to provide young people with meaningful opportunities in employment and training. It is a commitment we have dedicated ourselves to in our efforts to ensure that there are relevant strategies for Maori and Pasifika youth. The package includes a massive plan to create close to 17000 new opportunities but I want to focus on two initiatives: Community Max and Job Ops. 
Community Max will provide 3000 places on local community and environmental projects over the next year. We know that our unemployed youth live in rural areas that will benefit from the $40.3 million investment in this scheme. The projects will be community based. They could be projects such as renovating community buildings working on marae and improving access to local environments. This will be real mahi in real locations. It is work that can make a difference for iwi non-governmental organisations local Maori and Pasifika groups runanga and incorporations. 
I was really delighted to learn last week that close to 40 percent of the 120 registrations of interest received for the Community Max programme have come from Maori organisations and I want to commend their initiative in coming forward to care for their young. I will be expecting our Government departments to be just as forward-looking in responding to the enthusiasm of communities. I have an expectation that departments will be helpful and that they too will demonstrate initiative to work together with our community in the better interests of our nation. The community groups that have been coming to my door have been saying to me: “Don’t tell us what we can’t do. Tell us what we can do and help us to do that.” That is a very distinctive message for Work and Income. 
The other focus is on the Job Ops scheme which pumps $20 million into funding around 4000 entry-level jobs. In essence Job Ops will subsidise employers $5000 for each young person hired. Just like Community Max the programme is there to support our young people aged 18 to 24 years if they are receiving the unemployment benefit. But it also creates opportunities for any young person aged 16 or 17 who is receiving the independent youth benefit and who has left school. 
When the Maori Party signed up to the relationship with National we gave voice to an aspiration that would recognise mana maintenance and enhancement. Although I would have to say that this is definitely a work in progress there is nothing that enhances one’s mana more than the opportunity to contribute through being involved in meaningful and productive work that helps to support our w’anau and our community. But of course and as the select committee report notes there is also a need to do what we can to support critical community and voluntary sector organisations that are having trouble maintaining their services in a recession and are experiencing much higher demand. 
The opportunity provided by Community Max is that some of these organisations will be able to immediately meet the demands placed upon them for increased labour and I want to call for a united effort on all fronts. None the less being in this House we must ensure that our community groups make the best of this opportunity so that it is a win-win for all. We often hear about the difficulties some groups face in trying to connect with youth and make their services relevant. There is no better time and no better way than using the youth opportunities packages to involve young people and organisations in order to integrate their perspectives utilise their knowledge about modern communication and ensure that youth are shaping our plan for the future. 
Finally I want to focus on our most vulnerable children—those who are referred to in the select committee report under the heading “Child abuse”. In the Families Commission report released earlier today we learnt that over 12000 children and young people were found to have experienced abuse and neglect. That information should break our hearts even more so when we read the statistics revealing that about eight in 10 abusers were family members or were living in a domestic relationship with a child. The facts and figures must provoke us to act and that means all of us. We cannot sit idle nohopuku pretending that it is not happening when it is happening behind closed doors within the sanctuary of the family home. What sort of sanctuary subjects its most innocent children to the devastation of sexual physical or emotional abuse and neglect? 
As the Minister responsible for the Government’s response to addressing and reducing the impact of family violence I am utterly serious about ensuring I live up to that responsibility. So today I have announced the establishment of a ministerial committee to ensure that this Government invests in taking our collective responsibility to protect and care for children. The committee will bring together Ministers from a whole range of agencies so that we can collectively look at the way in which the system responds to confronting such a significant social and economic blight on our nation. We must also live up to our collective responsibility as members of families and communities to do what we can to ensure that families are resilient respectful and safe places to grow up in. 
Child abuse cannot be addressed by a well-meaning caseworker a vocal advocacy group and a ministerial group in isolation. It will take all of us to work constructively and courageously to ensure that our children are protected from harm and are free to develop and experience their full potential. Tena koutou. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the Hon Tariana Turia. She just talked about the 12000 children who are subject to neglect and abuse. I quite agree with her that it is a subject— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I interrupt the member. We are actually on Vote Employment and possibly the points that you want to make come under Vote Social Development. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: So I will not take up your time. We will start again on that but I bring that to your attention. We are actually on Vote Employment. Are there any other speakers? 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. I realise that this is a time-limited debate and that there are a certain number of calls for each— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just ruled that I am not taking into account the few seconds spoken by the member because obviously he was not speaking on the vote. I am happy to start again. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Social Development 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand to speak about Vote Social Development. It was an interesting process to be there in front of the Social Services Committee. I expected a harsh examination and that morning I had heard via Twitter that members were out to get me and that I should be prepared for a fierce examination before the select committee. But there was not one question on unemployment benefits from the Opposition members—not one question on how Work and Income might be able to help those who were going on to benefits in such increasing numbers. There was not one question I tell members on youth employment or youth unemployment. Thank goodness for the Government because that was where the questions came from on child abuse statistics which we just heard the member before me the Hon Tariana Turia speak about. 
At the select committee we talked about 12116 children who had been assessed as abused or neglected—a number that was up from 9654—and that figure is our nation’s shame. But our nation’s shame should also be that 1356 of those children were abused again within a 6-month period. Yet there were no questions from the Opposition on that issue. Actually Ms Dyson did ask a question about unallocated cases. To be clear about this Government’s priorities I tell the Committee that in June 2005 under Labour there were 1054 unallocated cases with Child Youth and Family. This year on 30 June we had 254 unallocated cases. That is the lowest number of unallocated cases in the history of Child Youth and Family. That is where this Government’s priorities lie. 
This is a Government of action. For three consecutive quarters under the previous Labour Government the number of people on the unemployment benefit rose but did we see anything done? No. As this country went into recession Labour quite frankly hid its head in the sand. But this Government is a Government of action. Within weeks we had introduced Restart a package that thousands of New Zealanders have benefited from. This is a Government of action. 
Within weeks we had turned the focus of Work and Income into one that was about jobs jobs and more jobs. We asked how we could open up those opportunities for people who were coming through our doors and how we could focus our people who were there working to help those coming in to go the right way. This week alone we have had 1123 new jobs come into Work and Income. That is more than ever before—1123 new jobs coming into Work and Income. That is because we have people who are solely focused on working with employers and people who are on benefits to match them up and to get people back into the workforce. When we talk about action we mean that within weeks of the Job Summit we had introduced the Job Support Scheme with the help of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. 
We heard the call from community organisations. They were facing a decrease in funding from non-Government sources but an increase in demand in many places where people were asking for more of their services. We spoke to the community got representatives in put them around the same table and discussed the best way forward. What we came up with was the Community Response Fund. It has already had its first meeting. It has taken 293 applications. Decisions are very close to being signed off. I have heard there has been a very robust discussion into where that money will go within our communities and those decisions will be announced within the next couple of weeks. It will deliver $104 million to the sector over the next 2 years. We heard what the community sector was saying. 
As I heard the honourable member before me say we heard that young people were going on to the unemployment benefit at a rate of nearly one in three of all those who were then on the benefit. One in five young people were already on that benefit so quite frankly we had to open up opportunities and we had to see other things coming in to make sure that our initiatives worked. Currently 590 jobs through Job Ops have come through our door. Over 270 organisations are stepping up with Community Max. This is quite clearly a Government of action. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It is incontrovertible that the unemployment rate is going up more rapidly now than it has for decades. At the time of the estimates hearings 2 months ago over 45000 people were on the unemployment benefit but the number has gone up substantially since then. Just over 300000 New Zealanders were on some kind of benefit at that time and the net number of people going on to the benefit each week was 1100. The Social Services Committee politely reported to the House in something of an understatement that the decrease in vacancies was becoming an issue. Having heard the various forecasts made by Treasury at the time of this year’s Budget about the possible unemployment rates in the next few years it was interesting to hear the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett say that the number of people on the unemployment benefit was expected to reach 80000 in 2010 with a peak of around 90000 in 2011. The chief executive of the Ministry for Social Development Peter Hughes then said that in fact those forecasts were already too low and that the Ministry for Social Development expected the figures to be higher than that. 
I welcome the chief executive’s honesty but would also welcome more ongoing transparency and information from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour about both their forecasts and about the information on which they have based their forecasts including regular reporting of weekly net figures in regard to those going on and off the unemployment benefit. I would also like to know from the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Labour and Treasury—all of which engage in different forms of employment forecasting—on what basis they all think that unemployment will plateau in 2011 and then start falling after that. I am most curious as to what economic financial social or other basis there is for that sanguine prophecy repeatedly propagated by different ministries and Ministers but bearing no relation to reality—that I can find—other than a genesis in the “hope and pray” school of economics. Of course we are talking here not about numbers but about actual people whose lives and whose families’ lives are impacted on a daily basis by the fact that they cannot get paid work. 
Talking about people’s lives I am also most curious at present to discover what the Government has in store in the way of reforms for our benefit system. Not much was said during the estimates hearing about main benefits apart from a passing reference to National’s decision to postpone for at least a year its election policy of requiring domestic purposes benefit recipients to take up work or training when their youngest children turn 6. There was not a word or whisper about other possible reforms yet some of those have started emerging into public view in the last few weeks. Mr Key has raised the possibility of reforming the independent youth benefit in an unspecified way despite the fact that it is a benefit of last resort available to only 16 and 17-year-olds who have no other means of support and who have to meet very tough departmental criteria. I welcome the Minister’s answer on that issue that she gave late last week however. 
The Minister it appears is also carrying out several audits and reviews of so-called high-income beneficiaries and emergency special-needs grants of which she thinks there are too many. The Green Party is concerned that all that may be part of a softening-up process preparatory to actually cutting some entitlements and to reducing access to emergency assistance which is often the only thing standing between a family and total destitution. I call on Ms Bennett to look at the situation a bit more closely. One of the main reasons why so many people are having to apply for emergency special-needs grants is that benefits were never restored to levels equivalent to what they were before the 1991 cuts and also the discretionary special benefit was removed under the previous Labour Government. Those two factors have resulted in a situation in which many beneficiaries simply do not have enough income to meet their most basic costs much less deal with debt or other commitments undertaken while they were still receiving income as employed workers. 
The response of Government should not be further cuts to either benefit amounts or entitlements. Instead the Minister should be looking at how to increase core benefit levels and how to restore discretion to the benefit system and at ensuring that the discriminatory in-work payment is changed into a means-tested but universal entitlement regardless of a parent’s employment status. To focus as the Minister seems to have been doing lately on a very small number of beneficiaries who have comparatively high entitlements for very specific and unusual reasons is to deliberately distract from the fact that for most people benefits are too low for survival. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call this afternoon. Let us be clear: these are tough economic times and this Government is working on many different levels to combat the effects of this economic climate. We have to get the balance right in order to ensure that we have sensible financial management and in doing this we need to preserve our core benefits and implement our key programmes through Restart and the Job Support Scheme. The Government is committed to supporting these core social services. We are maintaining investment in services that people need in these tough economic times because the people of New Zealand are our priority. 
But what is the Opposition’s take on this? What have we seen coming from those members? Labour has total disregard for the economic realities and deficits that we are facing and it is just happy to rack up our debt. What is Labour’s answer? It is to spend more. That is great but there is no more to spend. We are no longer experiencing surpluses. We need good financial management. But Labour’s big idea was to put hundreds of thousands of middle-class people on benefits which is impractical unaffordable and unfair. It seems to be the case that Labour wants people to be on welfare. We want people in jobs. That is the distinction between a National Government and a Labour Government. A Labour Government wants people on welfare; it wants the Government to provide everything for them. The National Government wants to back people. It wants to back New Zealanders it wants to back jobs it wants to back independence and it wants to back people to be responsible for themselves which they desperately want to be. 
We have had media commentators political commentators and former fellow caucus members comment about the Opposition’s “welfare for millionaires” policy. Paul Henry described Phil Goff’s welfare proposal as the biggest blunder he has made since becoming leader. Mr Goff then suggested that his recession package once heralded as the solution to the recession was just a casual interview with the  
New Zealand Herald.  
That is yet another case of “Visa-nomics”. We have seen in the papers that Labour’s deputy leader Annette King is saying that Labour is contemplating extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries at a cost of $450 million. Whose taxes would those members increase to pay for this? Who can afford to pay more taxes? Which programmes would they cut instead? I ask those members to tell us which programmes they would cut to fund that. We are not experiencing surpluses; these are tough economic times. It seems as though the Opposition has no real policy to put forward for the country or for this area of need. 
So what has the Minister done? The Minister is supporting redundant workers with a package called Restart. Nearly 4000 people have received Restart since it was introduced—4000. The package gives support to redundant workers who face adjustments to their financial situation. What else has the Minister done? There are job support schemes. We help firms work through the tough times so that they can keep the staff they have; 32 firms have signed up. Collectively these employers are receiving support for nearly 3000 employees and this has saved 489 jobs. 
What has the Minister done? She is going to support community organisations with the Community Response Fund. We recognise that non-governmental organisations face increased demand from New Zealanders who are suffering because of the recession. At the same time those organisations are facing a decrease in funding. Over $40 million is to be invested in this sector in the next 2 years. We talked to the sector and introduced the Community Response Fund—another solution that Labour did not have. What else has the Minister done? She has supported the young people of New Zealand through Job Ops and Community Max. We have created new job and training opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds through Job Ops. We will pump $20 million into funding. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I thank Mr Chairperson for giving me the opportunity to speak. He was quite correct when I rose to speak a short time ago; I thought I was speaking on Vote Social Development and was quite surprised that it was Vote Employment. 
The Hon Tariana Turia said in the Chamber a short time ago that 12000 children were subject to abuse and neglect and that that should break our hearts. Yes it should break our hearts. She talked about families being places that are resilient and safe to grow up in. I think it is time to look at the real causes of child abuse. 
Over the weekend we had the results announced of the most recent citizens initiated referendum which asked the very simple question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. In this debate we are discussing the cost of Vote Social Development and I ask myself how much money has been spent by Child Youth and Family investigating parents when complaints were lodged against them. I understand that out of close to 1000 investigations only 13 have followed through with a prosecution. But what is the cost of investigating parents? What is the cost of prosecuting parents? 
If we are to address the real causes of child abuse we need to act on the results of the referendum. The public of New Zealand spoke overwhelmingly over the last 3 weeks through that postal referendum: 88 percent of people do not believe that a light smack should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. The Prime Minister I believe— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is straying from the estimates debate. This is a very narrow debate. Although there is some latitude what you are referring to is outside the scope of this debate. I invite the member to continue. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I thank you Mr Chairman. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Stop misleading the public! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am not misleading the public. Members need to look at The Yes Vote - NZ Referendum on Child Discipline 2009 website before talking about misleading the public. Child abuse has a real cost to New Zealand—a real real cost. There is huge opportunity— 
Moana Mackey 
: Isn’t Barnardos terrible like that the way they— 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is interesting that Moana Mackey talks about Barnardos. Barnardos was behind The Yes Vote website and I wonder how much money is spent by Vote Social Development in supporting Barnardos. Barnardos is sponsoring a website and I as a member of Parliament have received many many emails from people under the guise of that website. I note here that if I go to the website I can custom-make a letter to myself as a member of Parliament and no doubt other members have received such letters. 
I ask myself how much the Government is spending on Barnardos and how much the Government is spending on other agencies that are promoting this misleading information. They argue for example that the referendum was very poorly worded and has produced a meaningless result yet 88 percent of New Zealanders who voted did so to say that they do not believe that smacking for the purpose of correction should be illegal. I ask how much the Government has spent on supporting this website and supporting that misinformation. How much? How much has Child Youth and Family spent in investigating families? What is the cost of parents being concerned that they will be investigated? What is the cost of parents not being able to raise their children as they would like? There is a very real cost and a very intangible cost. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Youth Development 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I stand to speak with regard to Vote Youth Development and to look at its task of looking after young people—757000 young people aged between 12 and 24 years—with a focus on the Ministry of Youth Development. When I first came into Government and looked at this vote and the work it was doing I saw that it was doing a lot of good work. But equally I felt that the vote had moved slightly into doing more work with at-risk young people and young people who were serious offenders and that it was funding more programmes for them. I felt that the ministry actually needed to get back a bit to its knitting and look after the majority of young people who are doing positive stuff out there who are very successful who are getting ahead and who will have some pretty awesome opportunities ahead of them as they get further along. 
We had a good look at everything that Vote Youth Development was doing. We made sure that we moved some of that vote to where it needed to be. We moved some of it into—[ 
Interruption 
] The members opposite are welcome to take a call. I notice they did not take a call on Vote Social Development because they did not see the unemployment benefit numbers as being important enough. Now they have decided to sit and snipe from the sidelines like the headless turtles that they are and they hope that that sniping will make a difference. I will not do that when it comes to our young people. It is easy to look at the negatives and it is easy to think about everyone as failing and not doing well whereas the reality is that the majority of our young people have incredibly bright futures and are doing incredibly well out there in some pretty tough times. They are surging ahead and it is pretty exciting to be their Minister and to be working alongside them. 
When it came to looking at what we could do what was important and where we were going to move ahead naturally we looked at employment opportunities for young people who were not involved in upskilling. It was with real pleasure that I heard the Prime Minister announce that $152 million would go into the Youth Opportunities programme. It is no secret that job opportunities have been the biggest intake under that programme initially: 590 Job Ops applicants have come into Work and Income already. I do not have in front of me the number of those who have been placed in jobs; certainly from memory over 175 are already in jobs via Job Ops and it has been running for only about 3 weeks. 
Literally hundreds of community organisations have stepped up and are asking all sorts of questions about how to get a project together that young people can work on. Maori organisations are talking about how they can renovate a marae and get a bunch of young people together to work on that. I heard of one Maori organisation that is working at setting up a library and is getting young people in for 6 months to work on that community project. Another area is talking about getting young people to go around and check fire alarms. They will offer to go into people’s homes and check that the fire alarms are still working and that the batteries are going. There are awesome opportunities for young people to get involved in doing things like that which give them something meaningful to do in these tough times when there is not as much available to them as there was previously. We have to make some pretty tough decisions. 
It was interesting that the previous speaker Katrina Shanks brought up the independent youth benefit. About 1700 16 and 17-year-olds are on the independent youth benefit. From memory of that number about 1000 to 1100 are involved in education another couple of hundred are involved in other upskilling activity and about 400 are not actively involved at all in employment education or training. We make no bones about and no apology for the fact that we expect 16 and 17-year-olds to be actively engaged in society whether that is through education employment or training. So we will be putting measures in place against those on the independent youth benefit. We will say to them that we expect them to be involved in these sorts of activities. That will mean providing a commitment from the Government to make sure that those activities are there for them: that places are available in upskilling and that there are jobs for them to go to. We are willing to make that commitment to them but we will also expect those young people to step up and to be actively involved. Quite frankly it is National’s opinion that a life on welfare is not a life of full opportunities and we want more for our young people than that. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Three weeks ago the Prime Minister announced one of the most exciting and significant packages to assist and encourage our nation’s young people that has ever been seen. As the Minister of Youth Affairs Paula Bennett has just been alluding to it represents a total of 16900 new opportunities for New Zealand’s youth. Today I give credit to the Minister of Youth Affairs for the considerable amount of work that she put into developing this next phase in the Government’s rolling maul of measures to take the sharp edges off the very difficult and challenging recession that we are living in. As I am sure even members opposite will acknowledge we cannot ignore the conspicuous plight of our nation’s young people. 
As the Minister noted while wearing one of her other hats as Minister for Social Development and Employment young people are particularly hard hit by the shrinking job market in the current global economic downturn. In my city of Hamilton the consequences of youth unemployment are all too evident. Few sights are more depressing or worrying than young people out of school out of work and out of sorts. As a parent of teenagers I want to see my children and all our nation’s young people empowered to fulfil their potential. Alongside a stable and loving upbringing and a good education one of the greatest things we can and must give our young people is hope. So I was delighted this afternoon to hear of the initial success of these measures: over 500 employment offers have already been made in response to the Job Ops package and 251 community groups have registered their interest in providing and supervising opportunities under the Community Max scheme. That is a wonderful response so soon after the policies were announced and I look forward to hearing of further increases as awareness of the Government subsidies and incentives spreads. 
There is no question that the global economic downturn is forcing the Government to make some very difficult decisions and it will sadly continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Few members of society are not suffering some pain in the current economic climate but young people who are struggling to enter the workforce or to further their qualifications are particularly vulnerable. That is why this year’s Budget put such strong emphasis on enhancing educational and training opportunities and it is why the Prime Minister’s recent announcements and the unstinting efforts of the Minister of Youth Affairs since she assumed her responsibilities are so important in providing real hope and real opportunities to thousands of young people. It is worth repeating that the Job Ops package will inject $20 million into funding around 4000 entry-level jobs around New Zealand. The more of those that we see in Hamilton the happier my constituents local principals education providers youth workers Work and Income staff and others will be. 
Job Ops and Community Max are generous measures but they are also very astute investments and I know that they enjoy widespread support in my electorate and right around the country. I also have no doubt that the young people who take up these opportunities will benefit hugely and as a consequence so will the communities in which they live. The packages that this Minister of Youth Affairs oversees rely on a mutually advantageous partnership between the Government youth community groups and businesses. As we consider the appropriation for her department for the year ahead I urge the Committee to show its full support for the measures that have been announced and I look forward to news that they are having a very positive impact in these challenging times. 
Moving on to another aspect of the Minister’s portfolio I tell members that at any one time in modern New Zealand approximately 6000 children and young people are in State care or custody. Most of those young people come from deprived and often dysfunctional backgrounds. We do not sit in judgment; in fact in many instances we must acknowledge factors that undermine the health and quality of our society and that condemn our children to hardship dysfunction and abuse. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand nor ignore the plight of our most vulnerable young people for the consequences of doing so are devastating for those children costly for us all and often tragic as we know from some of the saddest criminal matters that have come before the courts in recent times. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Fisheries agreed to.  
Vote Housing 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It has been a delight to manage the housing portfolio over the last 9 or 10 months. The gains that we have made are quite tangible and I will go through them dividing them into two groups. One group is the initiatives that National campaigned on and that this Government led by John Key is pursuing. They are issues that Labour never thought of. We have gone ahead and pursued those. They are in the first list. The second list is issues that Labour talked about for 9 years and campaigned on but never did anything about. The two lists are what National campaigned on and have achieved and what Labour campaigned on and never did but National has achieved. 
I will recap with regard to the housing portfolio over the last decade or so. One particular matter is that the previous Labour Government increased the number of State houses available for State house tenants knocking on the door of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and that is a good thing. I reiterate that under a National-led Government we intend also to increase the net number of State houses by about 1550 over 4 years and that is laid out in the Budget. People will see an increase in the net number of State houses available for tenants in this country. Is it the same number that might have arisen under a Labour Government? Probably not. Labour may have done more but then its priorities are different. Our priorities fall into three categories. First we are increasing the number of State houses particularly during a time when many families are under stress and more people are coming to the Housing New Zealand Corporation for help during the downturn. Secondly we want to upgrade the State housing stock which has fallen into serious disrepair. Thirdly as I announced today we have the Options and Advice Service. As the Minister in the previous Government said the corporation never has housed and cannot house everyone who knocks on its door. The previous Government admitted this and said that those in the C priority and D priority categories may never be housed by the corporation. I would not necessarily echo that view but that is what it said. The number of State houses will increase. 
When I walked into the portfolio I knew that one of the issues was that State houses were in serious disrepair across the country—not all of them but many were—and that many State house tenants were living in slum conditions. But I never knew that the problem was as big as it was until it was laid out to me as an incoming Minister and I never knew the reason for it. Apparently over the last decade a deficit of about $2 billion in maintenance spending on Housing New Zealand Corporation properties had accumulated. In other words the previous Government decided to use the funding set aside for the upgrade of State houses and their maintenance to get more State houses. That Government was happy to get more State houses for new tenants but not to look after the State houses that current tenants were living in. One can argue the rights and wrongs of that but this National Government has said clearly that it is not prepared to be a slum landlord. We will upgrade the State housing stock over time and add new houses to the portfolio. That is where the capital injection of $124.5 million of stimulus spend came in. We said that we would like to insulate State houses top and bottom; put clean heating devices into State houses; upgrade kitchens and bathrooms; add rooms; and do all the house repairs roofing repairs and underfloor repairs as much as possible in the next 18 months. Why? First because we do not want to be a slum landlord and we want State house tenants to live in decent conditions and secondly we want to stimulate the construction sector and provide jobs. We did that and we are delighted. 
The Options and Advice Service which was announced today is another approach. As well as increasing the number of State houses and upgrading State houses we have the Options and Advice Service. That service is where State house tenants who may wish to purchase the home that they have been living in all their lives and who might like to move into homeownership can go. It might be that someone approaches the corporation and does not realise that he or she can get the accommodation supplement and rent privately. We are now able to help those people through the Options and Advice Service. 
I will move now to the second list: the list of a whole bunch of stuff that Labour promised to do but it never did any of it. National is now doing those things. The first item is the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. In 2002 Labour started to look at the Residential Tenancies Act and bring in a significant amendment bill. It never did it. There was never a bill and legislation was never passed under the previous Labour Government after 7 years of those members talking about it. I am intrigued to know whether Labour supports the legislation now that National has finally brought it forward because one of the things that we are doing in the legislation is bringing boarding houses under the Residential Tenancies Act so that boarding house tenants can be protected. I will be very surprised indeed if the Labour Party votes against that. It is very important that boarding houses are brought under the Residential Tenancies Act. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s our bill. We wrote it. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Labour member said that it is those members’ bill. It is. It sat in their bottom drawer for 7 years and they did nothing. Hobsonville is an area in Auckland where Labour since 2002 had promised State houses and new houses for first-home buyers. When we came into Government 7 years later we discovered that not a single State house had been built. There was not a single house for a new homeowner. There were no earthworks and no consents. In fact there had been 7 years of talking and no action whatsoever. I tell members that we have the consents that earthworks are about to begin and that first-home buyers will find opportunities in Hobsonville. 
Lastly the previous Government talked about insulating private homes. Labour members reckoned it would cost $1 billion over 15 years. It was not funded and not delivered. It was pie-in-the-sky stuff. What did John Key do? He provided $323 million—close to a third of a billion dollars—to insulate private homes across New Zealand. For the owners of any house built before 2000 that does not have underfloor insulation insulation in the ceiling or clean heating a capital pool of $323 million is available to them. What a delight it is to hear the phones ringing to see the emails coming in and to receive the thank you letters addressed to Gerry Brownlee John Key and me saying what a great idea it is. Private homeowners are also shivering in the cold. The previous Government talked about insulation for a decade. Finally we are seeing some cash and we can upgrade our State houses. I am overwhelmed by what John Key has done and has given me the opportunity to do which is to say that Labour made all these promises for 9 years and we are delivering on them. It is an absolute delight. It is a delight to deliver on our policies. It is a delight to deliver on Labour’s policies. It would be nice if members opposite could give us a list of all the other things that they will talk talk and talk about have focus groups about have committees about and call inquiries about so we could deliver on them. That is what we do. We are not about talk; we are about delivery. We are about housing vulnerable New Zealanders everyday New Zealanders because we do not want them living on the streets or living in the cold. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Women’s Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Immigration 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Vote Immigration is $197 million and is part of the Department of Labour’s vote. Immigration is obviously a very important contributor to the New Zealand economy. One in five New Zealanders is born overseas. Sixty percent of the growth of the New Zealand workforce between 2001 and 2006 was a direct result of immigration. Immigration has been a very important building block for the economy and it will continue to be so in the future. But there is no doubt that the previous Government left us with some considerable challenges not the least of which has been the performance of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
There have been some very highly publicised inquiries into Immigration New Zealand. We have had the review of the Pacific division the various inquiries around the Mary Anne Thompson affair and most recently the Auditor-General’s review which I have to say was quite damning of various aspects of the service. I emphasise that we certainly have very dedicated staff working at Immigration New Zealand but the issue we have had is that the current chief executive has inherited a dysfunctional organisation which has meant that it is very difficult for Immigration New Zealand to deliver the services we need so that it can contribute to long-term economic growth. Turning round the performance of the service is a major focus for the current Government. 
There are a number of elements to turning round the service’s performance. The first is implementing the changes that were recommended in the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General made I think 20 recommendations. He painted a picture of a service in which the decision-making quality was extremely variable. On any given day a customer could go into an Immigration New Zealand office and receive a different decision depending on whom he or she saw which day he or she went in there and which office he or she went into. Clearly that is not acceptable. One in five Immigration New Zealand decisions was not up to scratch. In the Pacific division 40 percent of the decisions were not up to scratch. Immigration cannot contribute to the economy in the way that we need it to if we do not have a service that meets the requirements so the first thing we need to do is to implement the Auditor-General’s recommendations. 
The second aspect of turning the service’s performance round is to pull apart all the processes at Immigration New Zealand look at what they actually do and put them back together in a functional way that delivers the outcomes we desire from the service. That is a big project. 
When we found out what we had inherited from the previous Labour Government after its 9 years in office the question was why that Government never did anything about the situation. And why has the Oppositon asked only two questions on immigration in the whole term of this current Government? Both those questions were asked last week. I think the reason for that is quite obvious. The reality is that the previous Government left a huge amount of rubbish behind it. The previous Labour Government left us a real hospital pass. People in the Labour caucus are telling Pete Hodgson he should not ask about immigration. They say there is stuff there that they just do not want to come out so they ask him not to bring the issue to a head. They do not want immigration to be talked about. That is the other thing we really have to deal with. 
On the plus side we really have to make sure that immigration contributes to economic outcomes for New Zealand. Recently we announced our business migration policy. The previous Government had a business migration scheme—[ 
Interruption 
] Labour members like to yawn but they know that this is the truth. In the last 3 years two of the three business migration categories attracted two applicants in total. Clearly under the previous Government the business migration policy did not achieve the aims that it was meant to. We looked at the policy very practically. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: How many are you predicting? How many? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We listened to the ethnic communities I tell Mr Prasad. We looked at the language requirements and the capital requirements. We asked what we had to do in order to make the policy work. We have come up with a formula for the Investor Plus category: $10 million no English language requirement and after 3 years investors will gain residency. It will be a small group of investors but they will be able to bring serious capital into New Zealand to add to the economy. Mr Prasad asked how many of those immigrants there will be. I can tell him it will be far more than the two whom his Government brought in. We have looked at the language requirements and the capital requirements and have come up with a realistic solution. 
But we also want to make sure that we can get more New Zealanders to come back here so we are streamlining the processes for them. We are making it easier for employers to get the labour that they need. 
There is a lot to do in immigration. We have the policies and the approach that will turn the service round. The service’s future is good. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Food Safety 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry but the Green Party has used its allocated seven speeches so I cannot accept your call. If you wish to negotiate with another party however that is up to you. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to make an additional contribution on Vote Food Safety. I understood from our whip that I was entitled to speak on it which is why I came to the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No your party has used its time so I cannot give you an allocation. But you could negotiate with another party. Are you seeking leave? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I have sought the leave of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is seeking leave. No I am sorry I cannot accept leave. This debate is a time-limited debate and the time would have to come off someone else’s allocation. I suggest the member negotiates with another party. I understand that the Progressive party has allocated its vote to Labour but Labour possibly will not be using it. Am I correct? I do not want to take a speaking spot away from someone else. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chair. Could I make a few phone calls before that negotiation is agreed to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If there is no other speaker I will be putting the vote. The member has sought leave so I will test the Committee on the issue. The member has sought leave to make a contribution on Vote Food Safety. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. I am sorry but the member cannot speak on that vote. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Labour agreed to.  
Vote Customs agreed to.  
Vote Lands agreed to.  
Vote Statistics agreed to.  
Vote Emergency Management agreed to.  
Vote Racing agreed to.  
Vote Senior Citizens 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 In Vote Senior Citizens there is an appropriation of $1.035 million. There was the same appropriation last year. There have been no cuts and in these testing times that is the way it should be for our vulnerable and older senior citizens. This National Government is dealing with senior citizens in an honest way and with compassion. This directly contrasts with the scaremongering approach from the Labour members. Right now in these times of recession older New Zealanders need to know that their entitlements are safe and National has pledged to maintain New Zealand superannuation at the current rates and the age of entitlement at 65 years. Such is the watertight nature of that pledge that our Prime Minister the Hon John Key has assured us that should we break that promise he will resign. I can tell members that older citizens have been absolutely delighted to receive a letter from the Prime Minister with that assurance. 
Vote Senior Citizens is very ably looked after by its Minister the Hon John Carter. He is a Minister who through his Northland electorate has shown time and time again that he has the interests of senior citizens in his very being. In fact he has so much experience in handling and assisting senior citizens that this is a fantastic role to see him in. In his role he supports advocacy for senior citizens. He provides the Government with policy advice on older people’s issues and a second opinion or advice to Government agencies on older people’s issues. He promotes positive ageing to Government departments and to local communities and there is a network of 50 older volunteer community coordinators around New Zealand. He works with local and national interest groups and all of this is in Vote Senior Citizens. 
New Zealand’s Positive Aging Strategy was introduced and produced by the previous Government in 2001 and it has been adopted by this Government. It established 10 positive ageing goals with 41 central government and 36 local government agencies contributing to the 2008 to 2010 positive ageing action plan. 
To champion positive ageing National intends to focus on some key goals such as the employment of mature workers changing attitudes about ageing and protecting the rights and interests of older people by raising awareness of elder abuse and neglect prevention. The Office for Senior Citizens is also leading work on a proposed amendment to refine the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 in relation to enduring powers of attorney. That will clarify the independence requirement for witnesses and allow couples to use the same law firm when making an enduring power of attorney and that has been called for for quite some time. 
There are other votes involved in the advocacy role of the Minister for Senior Citizens. The well-being of senior citizens relies on policies that fall across a range of portfolios—for example health housing and transport. The Minister works closely with his colleagues to ensure that the interests of senior New Zealanders are taken into account. This Minister and this National Government have focused on elder abuse and neglect prevention and I show the House this booklet that is finding favour around New Zealand. Groups are promoting it when striving to prevent and detect elder abuse and neglect. The Government provides $1.553 million a year to elder abuse and neglect prevention services. I have looked at the locations of those offices and there are 18 providing that service in the North Island and six in the South Island. Many of those agencies attended meetings that I held around New Zealand when I was looking at issues for ageing New Zealanders. There are 24 local elder abuse and neglect prevention services nationwide and they are doing a fantastic job. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.  
Vote National Archives agreed to.  
Vote National Library agreed to.  
Vote Local Government 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. This speech will focus on an egregious failure of our parliamentary system in relation to the responsibilities of the Minister of Local Government. A select committee dealing with matters of vital interest to local government the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has been diligently working up and down the country and it has been held to ransom. Money has been squandered and the process has been undermined. Every day up and down in and around the broader Auckland area people have been told by that Minister the Hon Rodney Hide that their issues not only would be addressed but also could be considered and successfully resolved once they participated. The Minister did not like the nature of the participation. He has abused the system. That member has been here since 1996. Sadly although in earlier years he sought to make himself out as a valiant defender of the parliamentary system he has used it now for his own miserable wretched short-term political purposes to try to cause his party and his profile to grow on the back of racial discord. 
Of course that will not save his bacon. However it will enable him to reward the interests that he has been sent here to advance in terms of local government. There was every right for members of iwi and the broader Maori community in the city of Auckland to expect that this Government and this Minister would give them a fair go. There was $5.5 million spent on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. There were countless submissions numerous hui meetings and deliberations and they have all been swished aside on the basis of the Minister’s personal political short-term agenda.  
Paul Quinn 
: Your $5 million! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I know we will be warned to stick to the topic but that interjection was from one of the Maori members who has refused to stand up and be counted. This is a bad day for local government in relation to Maori. At least with Tau Henare we know what he thinks. The fact that he reflects what he thinks is causing him to be very unfavourable with the party he is in. 
Maori have been shut out and Mr Hide is well and truly aware that this agenda of his is cruel to young Maori voters. It has also been demonstrated that he is no defender or ambassador for the interests and the system of this House. It is quite simple. There is major legislation the implementation of which will be funded by the budget that he has stewardship over but he has written out of the script at least 50 percent of the population in terms of the partnership principle under the Treaty of Waitangi. He does not care about their interests. I can understand how he would think it was relevant to humiliate and undermine the Maori Party but he did not need to do that; its members are doing that to themselves and I will have more to say about that later. 
There was a host of very impassioned and well-informed young and old participants and they have been shown that democracy in Auckland will not work for them. That man does not want it to work for them. He has a narrow agenda and it does not include the interests of the Pacific Island communities. In fact he is totally disinterested in the diversity and the pluralism that make up Auckland. He has a very narrow Epsom-centric approach. His stewardship of this portfolio has hit a low ebb in terms of all the previous members who have had to rise to the occasion and be good stewards of this particular role. 
When we go forward there will be more legislation to come back to this Chamber. But it is sad that money is being put aside to drive that local government agenda. There has been a very divisive and gross slur placed upon the tangata whenua of Auckland. They have been told there is no place for them under the views of that man that there is no place for them under parliamentary procedure and that there is no place whatsoever for them in the pact that has been entered into between the prevailing major party of the day and Mr Hide. It is highly likely in the short term that his stewardship of this portfolio will be lauded by the deeper corporate interests of Auckland but that is not an adequate basis to run the super-city. The super-city has to be about people. This man has turned his back on the people. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just want to say that this debate is about the estimates. I think the Hon Mr Jones the previous member who spoke might have referred occasionally to them but the substance of his remarks was an attack which did not really focus on the estimates. I want to draw the debate back. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I shall spend a little while addressing what the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has done and the trouble he has caused. Watching his performance over the first 9 months was like watching  
Yes Minister 
. He makes courageous decisions and unfortunately the Prime Minister has not seized the wonderful opportunity he presented to him only this week. When a Minister puts his or her head on the block the chopper should be got out—that is what should have happened. We could have had two Ministers from Epsom gone in 3 months. I think that would have been rather good. This Minister not only is not treating Maori properly—and it is not just in Auckland; it is across the country—but he is treating the mayors and the councillors throughout New Zealand in a way that is not very satisfactory at all. 
We have a Minister who wants to bring things back to narrowing local government down—core business. This is going on as he runs it as a smokescreen for what will happen to Auckland. Why did that Minister not proceed with a referendum after the royal commission made its report? Why did that Minister run away from making a referendum a part of Aucklanders having their say? That Minister has his hands on a big chunk of money and he could have done that. Yes I am talking about money Mr Chairperson. That Minister has control over it. He could have got someone else to go along to Cabinet for him and argue for a referendum. He could have talked to the Minister of Maori Affairs not just about what was going on in local government; he could have made sure that not only do they get a fair go when it comes to representation but also a fair share of the money that that department has. I think that one just cannot isolate one from the other. 
The Minister was going to keep rates down as well. There are lots of people who have received their rates demands in the last few months and who have found out that rates are going up. It is interesting that the opportunity that he talked about before the election that he talked about as soon as he became Minister and that he wrote about to mayors all over the country has not resulted in very much pleasure in terms of local government. He talked to the mayors of Auckland he talked to Bob Harvey he talked to Len Brown he talked to Calum Penrose and they are all disillusioned that they have a Minister of Local Government who is hell-bent on his agenda and will not listen. 
I am really sad about that because I thought Rodney Hide as a Minister dealing with a big budget would do something. I thought he would listen to people. But of course it helps to be listened to by the Minister if one is a Pakeha—he will listen a wee bit. But if one is a Maori it seems that his or her views are swept to one side. When we hear people in the Chamber today asking the Minister of Maori Affairs what he is doing and we see that they have to work together—how cruel can one get! What is happening is that two people are being sent away—one with the ammunition and the other with an empty basket. We have a Minister who has his own agenda and it is supported by the Prime Minister John Key. He supports it. He is not supporting the Maori people of Auckland. He is not supporting Maori people throughout New Zealand in having a say in local government. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course there is one of the Maori members from National calling out. Why does he not cross the floor? I invite him to cross the floor but he will not have the nerve. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First of all it is really pleasing to be here as Minister of Local Government. 
Hon Member 
: Didn’t think you were going to make it! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Let me please see if I can respond to that very sustained incisive and critical attack on the estimates of Vote Local Government in the time available to me. 
It is good to have an opportunity to highlight the key areas of interest in the Local Government portfolio. In particular following on from members who have previously spoken I want to focus first on the work being undertaken to reform local governance in Auckland. To put it simply if Auckland’s economy thrives New Zealand’s economy thrives. That is why the Government is so determined to set up governance arrangements that enhance the productivity and the competitiveness of Auckland’s businesses. 
Second I want to talk briefly about the work I have directed to improve local governance transparency accountability and financial management. There is much good work being undertaken by local councils but I am convinced that we can do more and that we can do it better without burdening ratepayers further. 
The Government has moved quickly to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Working to strengthen Auckland’s governance is one of the key areas of the work of the Department of Internal Affairs in local government in 2009-10 and beyond. This work is critical not just for the prosperity of Auckland but for the country as a whole. The Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 was enacted in May—and I thank Labour members for their support in this—to allow implementation of the new structure to get under way. That Act established the Auckland Council and formed the Auckland Transition Agency. The Auckland Transition Agency is empowered to design to establish and to manage the transition from the existing eight councils to the new core local governance arrangements for Auckland by October 2010 in time for the next local body elections. Budget 2009 included funding to facilitate the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency and the board. The department has assisted with the set-up of the agency and has developed a framework for monitoring its performance. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the second piece of legislation was introduced in May. That bill provides for the high-level structure of the Auckland Council and allows for the determination of boundaries and the membership and number of local boards. 
Aucklanders have recently had the opportunity to have a say on these important matters. Over 2500 submissions were received by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The committee is expected to report back to the House by 4 September with an enactment expected by late September 2009. A third bill will be introduced late this year to provide further detail on the governance structure functions roles and powers of the Auckland Council and its local boards. 
That bill is expected to be enacted in either May or June 2010. Over the coming months the department will be developing detailed policy for the third bill on issues relating to water transition issues interim arrangements the ongoing governance framework and advisory panels for ethnic and Pacific people. Work is also being undertaken by other agencies relating to transport planning economic development and key projects waterfront development and social development. Some of this work is needed for the third bill. 
Over recent years there has been widespread concern about the growth in local authority rates and the choices some councils have made in their funding decisions. There is strong evidence that rates have been growing faster than local authority input costs. The Government has agreed therefore to review aspects of the Local Government Act to improve the transparency the accountability and the fiscal management of local government which is something I know the Hon Shane Jones is vitally interested in. I want to ensure ratepayers and citizens have better tools for controlling the cost of council rates and council activities and I will be looking at ways to ensure local government operates within a defined budget and focuses on core activities. 
The review is not about prohibiting local government from doing things; rather it seeks to enable the sector while at the same time providing greater opportunities for the involvement of ratepayers and citizens in authorising what is done on their behalf. The review is guided by the following principles: first that local government should operate within a defined fiscal envelope—that is to say a budget; secondly that councils should focus on core activities; and thirdly that council decision-making should be clear transparent and accountable. 
The review will look at how to make local government’s long-term planning processes less complex and costly and look at ways in which each council’s financial reporting can be improved to provide better and more readily understood information. Firstly the department will be working on options for simplifying long-term council community plans and making them more strategic. This will reduce councils’ costs and ensure that ratepayers have access to material they can understand. Officials will also consider mechanisms for plain English financial disclosure and for developing comparisons between councils. Secondly we will look at where the changes are needed to the current requirements around community outcomes. Officials will examine options for a more focused and less costly service performance system. Finally the work will also look at ways of enhancing councils’ accountability to their ratepayers and citizens. I believe that some councils go ahead with expensive projects without gaining a clear mandate from ratepayers. Officials will consider options for the use of referenda to ensure councils have a mandate for those projects. 
That is a very hefty work programme and let me with your indulgence Mr Chairperson take a minute to also say how wonderfully I have been served by the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs. I could not ask for better people in terms of their intelligence their experience their insight into local government their commitment and the hard work they have provided to the Government and to me in particular as a new Minister in getting this work stream under way. I consider myself truly blessed to have such a wonderful team assisting me and I think all Governments are very lucky to have had people of such— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Creating another grievance. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I hear Steve Chadwick jumping up and down about creating another grievance. I have three words for her: foreshore and seabed. Thank you very much. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 We have heard a whole lot about Auckland today and as an MP from Christchurch I want to talk about local government right across the country. This Government’s priorities are to grow the economy and create prosperity and with that to provide security and opportunities for all New Zealanders. Effective local government is an important part of this equation. 
A critical issue for many New Zealanders is managing their rates payments. Rates are increasing and are placing a bigger burden on ratepayers who are already stretched in these difficult economic times. In the past rates have risen much faster than inflation. From March 2001 to December 2008 under the previous Labour Government the consumer price index for all groups increased by 23 percent but the consumer price index rates subgroup increased by 61 percent over the same period. This level of rates increase is totally unsustainable and it is no wonder that ratepayers were in revolt. 
The problem is significant because rates are the single-biggest source of council income and the costs of local government continue to increase as the demands and expectations of citizens outstrip the ability of ratepayers to pay. The result is that many councils are struggling to meet their statutory commitments. They are struggling to provide for the necessary infrastructure and services that their communities demand. An analysis of data from the newly released long-term council community plans shows that the upward trend is continuing. Despite efforts to keep the costs down inflation growth and community expectations continue to generate increases. The projected cumulative increase in rates income over the next 10 years is 59 percent and at the same time public debt for the sector is forecast to increase by 100 percent and operating expenditure by 37 percent. These figures are unacceptable and they are unsustainable. Something has to change and this Government is absolutely focused on finding ways to manage the cost of rates. 
But in the meantime the Government responding to the pressure from struggling low-income homeowners of which there are over 110000 this year has allocated $65 million out of the total funding of $90 million for Vote Local Government—that is 72 percent of that funding—to the Rates Rebate Scheme. In 2008-09 the average rebate was $483. These changes will lift the maximum rebate from $530 to $550 and raise the income threshold for eligibility from $21180 to $21910. 
But this is only a stopgap measure. It does not address the real problem. We must find ways to control council costs capital expenditure and activities and to improve the transparency accountability and fiscal management of local government. We have heard the Minister pledge today to do just that. Over recent years there has been widespread concern about the growth of local authorities and the choices some councils have made in their funding decisions. Ratepayers and citizens want to be given better tools to be able to have their say in what is done with their money and on their behalf. After all ratepayers have to carry the consequences of expenditure decisions by their councils so it is only fair that they have a greater say in council decision-making. We are looking to simplify the long-term council community planning process. It is enormously expensive with some councils spending up to $1.3 million just on doing the planning every year. We want to develop plain-English financial disclosures so that every ratepayer has at least a chance to understand where the money is going. We want to streamline the compliance processes. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I shall address my initial comments to what should have been the bright shiny new centrepiece of the Government’s local government programme of work. I am talking about the Auckland super-city. This should have been a bright new day for local government in Auckland and instead it is turning to custard and it is only August. First is the question of local boards. They were a blunder an ill-judged and ill-advised decision made in the heat of the moment presumably by the Minister of Local Government that caused a backlash by Aucklanders— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is with some reluctance that I interrupt the address by my learned colleague and friend Phil Twyford but I think we have reached a point where numerous Labour speakers in the estimates debate have taken the opportunity to canvass much wider issues. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I know where the member is going but that is not the way to raise a point of order. It is not an opportunity for a speech and Speakers’ rulings state clearly that points of order should be made tersely. I think the member was about to say that the speaker was straying from the debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Now we have got to it. This debate is theoretically about the Government’s spending and estimates and the Chair has shown some tolerance and allowed some opportunity for members to bring in illustrations etc. The member should draw back to talking about estimates expenditure. He can exercise his mind as to how he might bring in the points he wants but they need to be connected to Government expenditure. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I shall focus my comments on the money and resources that have been expended over the last 6 months on the exploration of Auckland governance reform. I have talked about the boards and the backlash that that provoked in the Auckland community. The second point is that the proposal of the Minister of Local Government for a quota of “at large” councillors on the new Auckland Council has put the Government under enormous pressure because public opinion has now decisively rejected that proposal. The third key plank in the Government’s super-city model regarding Maori representation has left the Government and its coalition partners in disarray whereby members of the Government are subjecting themselves to name-calling and abuse in these corridors. 
Today the newspapers say that leading figures in Auckland local government are appalled by rumours of Government decision-making on the question of the northern boundary of the Auckland super-city and the negative planning and environmental effects that that would have on the super-city were it to happen. 
So why is that very important project in tatters even before the select committee has reported back to the House? I say to members opposite and to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide that they should look in the mirror and ask themselves why Aucklanders feel so disillusioned and so despondent about the way the super-city project has been handled. The process has been deficient. Money has been expended wastefully every day of every week for the last 6 months by Rodney Hide from the day that he released his own pamphlet which was less than 2 weeks after the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Then we saw the process ride roughshod over the National Party’s manifesto promise to consult Aucklanders. We saw the first super-city bill being bulldozed through the House. We saw the denial the confiscation of Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. Now we see an ongoing fear that the super-city project is not only about curtailing the voice of local communities and corporatising our democracy but is a prelude to privatising our assets. 
In the last few days the select committee which is such an important part of our parliamentary process has been reduced to a farce because the Minister of Local Government and the Prime Minister pre-empted the decision making and deliberation of the committee. Two people are responsible for this parlous state of affairs— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Debacle! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —this debacle as my colleague says. The first person is John Key the Prime Minister. He is the man who wants to be everybody’s friend or tell everybody what he or she wants to hear but he seems incapable of providing the leadership. The second person who is responsible in this estimates debate for such gross mismanagement of the local government programme of action is Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government. He is actually exercising too much leadership. For a man who represents a party that is capable of summoning 1 percent of support in the poll he is the tail that wags the dog; or as a commentator said this morning he is the tail that bites the dog. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Tails don’t bite! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This one did. This is a tail that bit the dog. 
The Minister of Local Government claims to be the champion of ratepayers and I quote a number of things he said on  
Q 
+ 
A 
 not long ago: 
“I don’t think it’s about me getting my way.” in relation to the super-city. He said it was ultimately not up to him; it was ultimately up to the Parliament. The reality is something quite different. Mr Hide has got his way every step of the way. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to the estimates debate and I say to the members of the House that councils should be about communities not corporations. Mr Hide’s Local Government Act reform is about gutting local government and clearing the way for the privatisation of income-generating assets and services. Those assets and services were built up by ratepayers over many many years. Many people in Mangere would find the words used tonight by the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide in referring to accountable and transparent councils to be hollow when we consider that the Auckland reform disestablishes the eight local councils in Auckland and instead establishes the Auckland Transition Agency made up of people who are not elected by the people but appointed by the Minister and accountable only to the Minister. 
Local Government New Zealand is critical of Mr Hide’s suggestions about core services and we ask Mr Hide how he defines core services. We ask whether housing for the elderly is a core service or whether social housing is a core service. We ask whether community art is a core service. We ask whether social well-being or cultural well-being is a core service. We ask whether economic and environmental well-being is a core service. We ask about Maori participation Asian and Pacific participation and indeed youth participation. All of those things currently exist in local government throughout Auckland and it appears that the Minister is attempting to get rid of those things. 
Yesterday Radio 531 PI invited callers to express their views when a caller complained about an Auckland billboard that states: “At least our brownies won’t eat your pet dog”. Pacific callers were outraged at the insensitivity and racism that those remarks portrayed. This is 2009 we say and still some people in New Zealand—and I have to say with the greatest respect to this House they are mainly Papalagi—cannot seem to live in one of the world’s biggest multicultural cities without making derogatory remarks about people’s race or the colour of their skin. 
Then again we heard that Mr Hide was prepared to throw his toys out of the cot because he could not support race-based seats. Yet Maori see themselves as New Zealanders as Kiwi not as a race. Maori are mana whenua tangata whenua. We have Maori of Samoan ancestry and Maori of Tongan Cook Islands Niuean Indian and Pakistani ancestry. We even have Maori of Dalmatian Scottish Welsh and English ancestry. Some of them are good-looking; others on the other side of the Chamber may not be. All of them see themselves as home-grown Kiwis who are proud to be New Zealanders. Those are the people who make up local government in Auckland. All of them share a vision of being inclusive. They recognise that we each have great strengths and that we would be a better country if we accepted that Maori have a special place in our history and in the culture of Aotearoa but more important they recognise that if Maori are not included in local government decision-making processes in this country then we perpetuate the minority view that what is European is best. 
I say to members that is not the view held by the majority of the people who live in the Greater Auckland region. Pacific people are united in our support for Maori and for Maori seats on the Auckland super-city. Manukau was one of the first local councils to establish Pacific advisory committees and they exist today. That was followed by the establishment of such committees in Waitakere Auckland central and North Shore. Those advisory committees exist today and they desire to be part of the future Auckland super-city. We know that if Europeans were able to recognise the strength of Maori then they would be more open to recognising the strength of Pacific and Asian people in all facets of New Zealand decision-making. The Pacific Island advisory committees of Manukau Auckland central Waitakere and North Shore all advocated strongly for there to be Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Organisations and individual submitters who represented people from the Cook Islands and from Samoa Tuvalu Niue and Tonga all supported the establishment of Maori seats. Pacific people were prepared to sacrifice their own ambitions regarding the super-city in order to ensure that Maori were treated with the mana and dignity that they deserve to be treated with in their own land. 
Sadly this is not to be. One wonders about the mana-enhancing relationship that the Maori Party has with the Government. Many people in my electorate are asking whose mana has been enhanced by the decision to deny Maori a seat on the new super-city. This decision is very short-sighted. It reflects the lack of long-term vision the Prime Minister has for the building of strong and inclusive cities in New Zealand. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Consumer Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Maori Affairs 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak briefly on the great work that this new Government under an outstanding Minister of Maori Affairs is doing this year. I want to talk about the allocations in the appropriations for this financial year and compare them with the wastage that occurred under the previous administration. One of the things the new Minister took on was the early challenge of the Maori economic summit conference in terms of developing new ideas and a fresh approach to how we could better allocate the appropriations for this financial year. I would like to compare the output from that Maori economic summit with that thing called the Hui Taumata set up under the previous administration. I cannot believe that it was set up under the previous Minister of Maori Affairs because he is such a great guy so it must have been that in the Cabinet of the day he was driven to set it up. 
I think this Hui Taumata was formed in 2005 and the Government spent millions of dollars of previous appropriations on it. But what did it achieve? It achieved absolutely nothing for the millions of dollars thrown in those appropriations at these grand talkfests yet along comes the new Minister who is focused on the job and who immediately realised that Maori economic development is the thing that will take our people forward. Increased opportunity and aspiration for our tamariki are critical to ensuring the future economic benefit of the Maori people. 
I want to share some of the things that came out of the Maori economic summit. For instance let us talk about the infrastructure industry training organisation—InfraTrain. It is a new programme to give hundreds of Maori adolescents the opportunity to upskill to enable them to take on opportunities in the infrastructure industries that our Government will be focused on. We as a Government intend putting billions of dollars into the infrastructure that lagged behind under the previous administration. It is one of many steps to improve productivity in this country. This Government has ensured that Maori will be part of that by providing money in the appropriations this year to enable funding to develop skill sets in that area. 
Another area of training for our young Maori adolescents and tamariki is in the Aviation Tourism and Travel Training Organisation. Another one is the Seafood Industry Training Organisation. Again we have put money aside to enable young Maori adolescents to uplift their skills so that they can partake in the fishing industry which is an industry that provides enormous opportunities. I want to compare that against the record of the previous Government which used to dish out money to support its cronies. I read in the newspaper about Charles Waldegrave—now there is a doyen of statisticians! Let me tell members about Charles Waldegrave. He was on Te Puni Kokiri’s books for $20000 a year supposedly to produce some reports on social health and well-being but he never produced one report. That is the sort of thing that Te Puni Kokiri used to do with its money under the previous administration. 
Again I feel sorry for the previous Minister of Maori Affairs because I know that Parekura Horomia would never have employed that man. It would have been done under the direction of the then Prime Minister because one of Labour’s cronies had to be on the payroll of a Government department. However he did not produce one report while on Te Puni Kokiri’s payroll. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I welcome the report of the Maori Affairs Committee on the 2009-10 estimates for Vote Maori Affairs. In this tight fiscal environment my focus for Budget 2009 is on bringing about a change in focus for Maori development. Although the vote was reduced by $27 million this was largely due to some one-off commitments made by the previous Government that we were quite happy to honour. The new initiatives include the Maori Economic Taskforce and the Whanau Advocates Programme which is a flagship in terms of a change in direction. These initiatives are to be administered amongst the Maori community by Te Puni Kokiri. 
As the Minister of Maori Affairs I will be seeking to empower Maori communities to develop their own solutions to their issues. In doing that I propose to put people into the community who will be responsible to community organisations and not to Te Puni Kokiri although the funding will go through Te Puni Kokiri to them. This will empower communities to get involved with their own people and create their own solutions. Workers will be selected by the community and not by Te Puni Kokiri; they will be the people whom the community identifies as ideal for that kind of whanau development work—whanau awhina. I also intend to put a number of our nannies—our kuia—into the community so that they can work amongst women who are expecting babies and can get into the homes of children. Perhaps while they are visiting and caring for those children they can take cognisance of their situation in terms of resources in the house the tone of the house the behaviour and so on. Hopefully this initiative will bring some information forward that will allow us to apply the appropriate social service. This is not intended to bond people to social services but rather to put them on their feet so that they can make their own decisions. 
In addition the economic task force that we have developed which in these hard times does not have a big budget and will not be in the field of creating employment will prepare Maori for coming out of the recession in terms of opportunities for development of small businesses for investment for training and for various other ventures that I will not talk about at length here. That is what is happening. 
Once again I say that I am very pleased to take this call to represent the vote. I thank the Committee for its support on this vote. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Kaihautu o te Whare. This is the first time that the Minister of Maori Affairs in a much diminished status—not as a member of the Cabinet—has stood to address the estimates. The fact that the position has been deprecated is shown in that very poor speech this afternoon. Of course there was a richer speech from Mr Tau Henare and I now know that the buffoon he had in mind—my apologies to Rodney Hide—was actually a colleague of his sitting closer to him based on that previous speaker’s miserable contribution. The Minister of Maori Affairs has a very important role and his stewardship of the lives of our rangatahi our kaumatua our whanau our hapu our iwi has been critically undermined in the way in which he has been marginalised in Tamaki-makau-rau—and this does relate to te reo Maori and the broad interests. 
Of course the Minister has a broad writ and I would invite the Chairperson to show a little indulgence. The Minister’s writ is so broad. This afternoon he had every right to stand and give a view on Tau Henare because mental health and employment prospects are within his writ and those two things are at stake in relation to the Maori members on that side of the Chamber. However this Minister needs to come back to the “meat and potato” basic issues of employment housing and education. He should not be diverted by singing a new waiata about the flag. “The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.” because that is what this Minister has delivered as a consequence of this Budget: a great deal of wind. It is wind that might cause a flag to flutter but there will be no rangatira there will be no kanohi Maori at the top seat of council tables up and down Aotearoa—no. He has been listening to cheap rhetoric and going to endless numbers of hui and has been hoodwinked by the National Maori members who after this turn will no longer feel proud enough to regard themselves as authentically Maori given that they turned their backs on New Zealand’s largest concentration of Maori voters and Maori whanau in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
Maori members may have had the opportunity to visit the area that the Minister of Maori Affairs hails from in terms of his residency etc. in Tamaki-makau-rau but they brought none of that message back. That is why he is marooned. This Budget did not grow one inch one dollar more from what my proud colleague from Hikurangi mountain Parekura Horomia was able to secure in years gone by. Rather the Minister of Maori Affairs played a dangerous and childish game of moving bits and pieces around on a chess game. This Minister is now about to find that this Budget will not advance his calls; it will show that the Maori Party in the context of this Budget is more interested in trophies more interested in symbolism and not the essence—not the ngakau not the mauri of the people. That is why his short stewardship of this role is an enormous disappointment. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding! Outstanding! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: His contributions are in inverse relationship to the loud noise that comes from that member over there Paul Quinn—no content here lots of noise there on the outside. The Minister may have organised the hikoi through Tamaki-makau-rau but it is Rodney Hide who has marched over this Minister and it is John Key who has walked over the Minister’s Party. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena koutou e te Whare. It is a marvellous time to be a Maori in New Zealand. It is indeed a wonderful time given our fantastic Minister of Maori Affairs who is doing some wonderful things and our fantastic Associate Minister Georgina te Heuheu. What a good job our Minister is doing! He is highly regarded in this country by Maori and Pakeha alike. Between him and the leader of the National Party John Key a close strong and mature relationship has emerged that I am sure will long continue. I also pay tribute to the Minister for securing an additional $120 million over 4 years in Budget 2009. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: One hundred and twenty million dollars. That of course is in tough times—times when budgets have had to be carefully examined. The Minister has done a very good job to secure additional money. 
Of course it is not just about the dollars and cents. A lot is going on that the Maori Party working together with National has been able to achieve going forward. There has been a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act which I am sure will right some of the wrongs created by the previous Labour administration—wrongs that Parekura Horomia could not stop. I know that the women Maori MPs tried to stop the wrongs and stood up strong on them but even they could not stop them. A Maori flag being able to be flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge is important to a lot of people. We have a Prime Minister who goes to both the lower and upper grounds of Waitangi during the Waitangi Day celebrations and a National-led Government that is continuing the good work—in fact speeding up the process—in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. So there have been some very proud achievements by this National-led Government and by Pita Sharples and Georgina te Heuheu. 
Let us just look at where some of that $120 million in tough economic times will be spent over the next 4 years. For Maori education initiatives—educating our youth—there is a $19.9 million boost. Kohanga which are doing well and thriving in places like Tauranga are about to do even better with this money. There is an additional $12 million to keep key aspects of the rural housing programmes going. I very much enjoyed and got a lot from going to a marae out Te Puke way with my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell seeing some of the things going on there and hearing what we as a Government are planning to do with the papakainga lending programme for Maori housing. 
There is an additional $4.5 million for te reo over the next 3 years in a whanau development programme to help Maori families access te reo. Iwi radio stations will receive additional money. How good is that? And the Treaty negotiation process which also receives substantial assistance from Minister Chris Finlayson will receive an additional $22.2 million to reduce the time taken in Treaty settlements. What does that mean? Well it is more than just pie in the sky; it recognises the wrongs of the past but also importantly it creates and unlocks economic potential. Iwi around this country including in Tauranga Moana with the money they will hopefully receive will see tourism initiatives— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They don’t even know who you are boy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I tell Shane Jones that my voters do and that is all that matters. I say to members that in Labour we have a party that is very keen to be holier-than-thou on these issues. Clayton Cosgrove has been quite happy to talk against Maori prison initiatives and Trevor Mallard likes to blog on these issues. What a disgrace! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Mihi atu ki te Minita Maori ki a Pita tena koe. Mo te raru inaianei kia kaha kia maia. 
[ 
I acknowledge you Pita Minister of Maori Affairs greetings. In regard to the current problems be strong be courageous 
.] 
I just respond to that young chap from Tauranga Simon Bridges. One thing I know about the previous Minister of Maori Affairs is that he was pioneering. A lot of the stuff that is being painted up as brand new is actually about 6 or 7 years old. Fishing training has been going since 1999; 684 people have gone through it. The trade training in Tai Tokerau has been going for 5 years. There are a host of things. I commend the present Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples for staying on the same track as the previous Minister because that is where he is safe. He understands the nuances of Maoridom unlike the shabby buffoonish shallow leadership that will not even recognise Maori and has used all sorts of excuses. It is outrageous. 
I can talk to members about the appropriation for Vote Maori Affairs because the Maori Party members came and said they wanted to do a lot of things. They wanted to have a $15 minimum wage. That did not happen. They promised no tax on up to $25000 earned and instead they voted to reduce tax cuts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the debate has now expired. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: This is outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. I will now put the remaining votes as one question. 
The question was put that Vote Maori Affairs Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Revenue the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Infrastructure Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 I move  
That the Infrastructure Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that the Infrastructure Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration but note that the committee may wish to ask the Social Services Committee under Standing Order 283(1) for its opinion on Part 4 which includes amendments relating to affordable housing and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 November 2009 and that the committee has authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
The Infrastructure Bill progresses a suite of amendments across several Acts to facilitate infrastructure development by removing unnecessary barriers and improving the consistency of regulatory arrangements. The Infrastructure Bill is an omnibus bill of four parts covering three areas. Parts 1 and 2 improve the arrangements for managing access by utility operators such as electricity gas telecommunications and water operators to road and rail corridors. Current arrangements are inconsistent across utilities which creates inefficiencies uncertainty and disputes. This leads to delays and to higher costs for operators for local authorities and for the New Zealand Transport Agency. Part 3 amends the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 to remove some of the statutory restrictions that negatively affect the running of the Railways Corporation’s business and to bring the entity’s governance arrangements more in line with equivalent provisions in the Crown Entities Act 2004. All of this is relevant to the operation of KiwiRail. Part 4 repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 while retaining an amended prohibition on restrictive covenants affecting social housing. 
In Part 1 the bill establishes a framework for a national code of practice that governs how utility operators and corridor managers coordinate their activities. To enable industry participants to develop and take ownership of the code the bill allows anyone to prepare a code but the code must meet certain requirements before it can be approved by the Minister of Transport. The code must have broad agreement between stakeholders include the method by which any statutory criteria are to be applied and must include operational and dispute resolution processes. A code approved by the Minister under this legislation will be deemed a regulation. It will impose an obligation to comply on all utility operators and corridor managers unless parties otherwise agree. This obligation is backed by the ability of the court to order compliance with the code and to impose a fine if that court order is not complied with. There is no requirement to have a code in force. However if there is no code suitable for approval and the Minister identifies a need for one he or she may make regulations in place of a code. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 and the Local Government Act 1974. This is to provide for consistent provisions across the Acts around reasonable conditions of access to the corridors allocation of costs when utility operators are required to move assets and time periods for notification and response. The Crown has a particular interest in the passage of this bill as it contemplates the roll-out of broadband around the country. Amendments to the Railways Act 2005 and the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 provide time frames for responding to requests for access to rail corridors and motorways and require corridor managers to publish the criteria on which they will base their decisions to grant access. This will hopefully overcome what one would describe as a patchy performance across the country by those who look after our rail and road corridors. 
The Railways Corporation is a Government agency that manages New Zealand’s rail infrastructure and almost all rail services. Many of the provisions of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act are outdated because it was written when the Railways Corporation was a Government department and the major reforms of the State Sector Act had yet to occur. This of course has become topical since the Crown purchased KiwiRail and fitted it back into the Railways Corporation structure. While KiwiRail was in private ownership these provisions of the legislation obviously did not apply to its operation. But now many of the provisions of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act are anomalous when compared with the equivalent arrangements in the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the Crown Entities Act. Part 3 of the bill amends the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act to bring those provisions in line with equivalent provisions in the Crown Entities Act. The changes proposed in the bill include normalising the appointment and dismissal of directors changing to a simple majority the number of directors who can call a meeting establishing the power to appoint a deputy chairperson and streamlining arrangements for changes to the Railways Corporation’s capital—probably the most important of the changes suggested. The bill also removes a requirement to annually provide the Minister with a programme of capital works removes the limit on how much the Railways Corporation can expend in 1 year and permits the Railways Corporation to effect insurance cover for or give an indemnity to a director or employee. 
Part 4 repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 while retaining an amended prohibition on restrictive covenants affecting social housing. The Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act was intended to provide local authorities with regulatory tools to address problems of housing affordability. However the Act has been viewed as a potential impairment to increasing the housing supply. In fact it was a very misguided regulation passed by the previous Government that was consistent with its usual interfering and nitpicking way of doing business. 
For instance local authorities are rightly concerned that the Act is complex costly and overly prescriptive. Developers have pointed out that the Act is probably counter-productive and likely to reduce rather than increase the supply of affordable housing whatever that is. I might say that it did not really define affordable housing. The associated processes create regulatory barriers that contradict the initiatives of this Government to reduce regulatory barriers and compliance costs. Recent evidence demonstrates that the regulatory powers are in fact inadequate in increasing the supply of affordable housing. Moves to encourage the building of new housing need to ensure that regulatory and other costs are contained and that opportunities for development are enhanced. It seems pretty obvious: we should write some rules that make it easier to build housing not harder. In addition the supply of residential land using existing planning systems through rezoning could result in an increase in the housing supply which would make housing more affordable. 
Section 30 of the Act currently addresses growing concern at the use of covenants to exclude social housing. These covenants unfairly discriminate against some of our most vulnerable people: older people children and people who require assisted living. Restrictive covenants against social housing in one area lead to concentrations of social housing in another. To address the growing obstacle of restrictive covenants a modified version of the prohibition relating to certain restrictive covenants will be included as an amendment to the Property Law Act 2007. 
This legislation deals with a number of issues relating to enhancing infrastructure investment in our transport and rail corridors enabling better operation of the rail infrastructure of this country and taking a step in the direction of cleaning up the regulatory mess that is preventing the development of affordable housing. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the Minister for Infrastructure Bill English on an area in which both the main parties share similar concerns. Firstly I say that Labour will be supporting this bill to go to select committee. It has reservations about Part 4 which have been unwisely exaggerated and distorted by the earlier speaker but that comes with the territory of his type of politics. We hope that when the matter is referred to select committee at the end of the first reading debate some thought is given to the carve-out of Part 4. I will deal with that part first. 
Part 4 reflected a policy initiative at a time when housing affordability captured a great deal of political attention media words and quite frankly societal anxiety. Indeed Phil Heatley and a host of other National politicians who sat on the Commerce Committee if I recall were very enthusiastic about the affordability inquiry run by that committee into the housing prospects of everyday New Zealanders and what a Government at a point in time could do. 
That initiative—which as I recall my colleagues Mr Carter and Maryan Street were advancing—was an attempt to deal with the inexorable rise in the cost of providing infrastructure as developers sought to expand housing estates. At the end of the day councils needed a clear way of ensuring that future ratepayers were not saddled with excessive bills in terms of maintaining infrastructure and they had a way of ensuring that the developers contributed along with local government to make some of the housing affordable. My suggestion is that that part actually be taken out of this proposed legislation and dealt with separately although it is highly likely that ongoing friction and movement in the market will address it in a way that none of us can fully comprehend. 
Let us deal with the three areas that this bill touches on. It is beyond cavil that anyone who has a vision or aspirations for modernising our economy has to continue to invest in infrastructure just as Labour in 2006 advanced with some studies of its own and dealt with the fact that there were far too many blockages in the system according to infrastructure developers. For those reasons this party has already reflected in the Local Government and Environment Committee that it will be taking a very progressive stance in relation to the amendments that are coming back to the House via Nick Smith and the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which is a small part of what this bill tries to address. 
Access to roads motorways and rail corridors is an essential part of ensuring that we do not slip off the radar and end up in an economic international category that is not a part of the OECD or that does not suit our aspirations and dreams of ensuring that our children have a modern economy and that communications transport and a whole host of other goods and services we take for granted can continue to be delivered in a very efficient way. That is why we are very keen for this bill to go to a select committee and hear as many submissions as possible. 
The bill proposes changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act. This area will always be a source of some debate between the two main parties as will another area of infrastructure which unfortunately has been completely overlooked in any meaningful way in this bill: the role of coastal transportation in terms of our broader transportation infrastructure. We will no doubt hear more about that area in the future but we may need to wait for a change of Government to hear anything lucid on such matters. 
I direct members’ attention to a key portion of this bill: the code of practice. This code proposal has been kicking around for quite some time. It has had some vigorous proponents who brought it to the attention of those of us sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee during consideration of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. It provides infrastructure developers and infrastructure corporate leaders with a chance to put their rhetoric into practice. There will be the ability for regulations to be passed and punitive remedies will be available for people who do not abide by this code. But in fairness to the architects there is some innovation associated with the notion that the code should be posited in this kind of legislation and it will actually help coordination between the infrastructure developers. The problem does not lie just with local government but also with the way in which they work with each other. 
A key area where I believe we will encounter more submissions has to do with what kinds of organisations in 2009 2010 and 2011 in New Zealand ought to enjoy privileged status in terms of the designation procedures and requiring authority status. I say this because it is an area that has been held over to the second part of the Resource Management Act reforms but it is vitally important and it must be debated in relation to infrastructure. I have no doubt that these submissions will come to the select committee. On one side of the debate are those who are guided by anxieties about social democracy who believe that foreign-owned bodies should not enjoy this privileged status. Others—and I must confess that I myself have been quite persuaded by the arguments of a number of our big utility developers etc.—believe that because of the essential importance that their services represent to modernising the economy and ensuring that the lifeblood of the economy continues to flow there has been historically a case for them to enjoy that status. 
I hope the committee remains alert to those submissions because anything that simplifies the process in terms of ensnarlment in the bureaucracy needs to be both studied and hopefully agreed to. But of course that cannot take place if the thresholds to do with good environmental management are punctured. 
Those of us who have been hanging around the Auckland governance debate have been told of some gross and egregious mix-ups in simple things such as laying pipes. It beggars belief that between the different Auckland local government authorities it has not been possible to have a uniform measurement type of pipe. The continuance of that situation is actually a big source of cost etc. and presumably one of the good things flowing from the consolidation of all the local bodies into the Auckland super-city is that we will see an end to that. 
The other thing we need to bear in mind is that it is wrong for this House to be told continually that only over the last 9 months has there been a positive fillip in relation to investment. We know that that is rubbish. The new Minister has come in and in many respects I am quite impressed by the progress he is making but to really improve it he has to change a number of key personnel in his own party. 
The key point that both parties need to bear in mind though is that this is not just a National or a Labour issue. This is an issue of central government constantly looking for ways to improve the manner in which we invest in infrastructure we consent to infrastructure and we upgrade infrastructure. I will just recite that over the last nine Budgets for example annual funding for roading more than doubled—from $850 million in 1999 through to $1.9 billion in 2007—and whether or not members on the other side of the House want to admit it it has led to an improvement in highways motorway extensions etc. No doubt we will remain disappointed that those members do not have the same level of either commitment or confidence in public transport and they certainly have no interest whatsoever in coastal transport but that is possibly because constituencies that have propelled those members into power need to be rewarded. 
The implications in this bill in relation to KiwiRail and the various telecommunications companies need close attention. One area that I think will enjoy close attention is the spectacular failure of Mr Joyce’s proposal to set up a public-private partnership in relation to growing the size of the pipe moving electronic data around the country. It reflected heroic assumptions but political naivety. Most of the people who might have access to capital do not like the terms of the proposal that are currently on the table. These sorts of things will I think be the subject of submissions to this Infrastructure Bill which we want to see go to a select committee but Ministers on the other side of the House—in particular Mr Joyce and Mr English—need to not show us but to do it. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Infrastructure Bill and to have the opportunity to talk in the House about infrastructure because I think that infrastructure is such an important underpinner and enabler of economic growth and productivity. I do not suppose that there will be much disagreement in the House about that fact although there may be some. The evidence is all around us in the development of this country of the great ability of the right infrastructure at the right time to assist and encourage economic growth that otherwise perhaps would not have occurred. 
I think of an example like a certain bridge in Auckland the Auckland Harbour Bridge which is probably the most dramatic example in New Zealand’s history. The development that has occurred north of that bridge over the last 50-odd years is absolute evidence of the enabling ability of great infrastructure. Another example that comes to mind is a little place called the Coromandel which is not far from Auckland and a bridge that crosses the estuary there Kopu Bridge. The current piece of infrastructure has had a restricting effect on the development of the Coromandel for so many years. We approved that $40 million project a short time ago. The Prime Minister and I did some sod-turning: he was the turner of the sod; I was the sod. It was such a powerful day to be there— 
Hon Members 
: 9 whole months. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —because we did it a heck of a lot earlier than Labour members were going to. That $48 million bridge should have been done years ago. For $48 million it should have been done years ago but it is now under way and will be completed in a couple of years. 
The Victoria Park bottleneck which is the most notorious outstanding bottleneck in Auckland causes the congestion problems on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It is not the bridge that is the problem; it is the Victoria Park bottleneck just south of it. The previous Labour Government had not advanced that project. Each day 165000 vehicles go through that bottleneck. In the New Zealand context that is a massive number. Most of those vehicles go through it at 20 to 30 kilometres an hour if that. This Government not only has proudly stepped up and provided the funding to enable that project to start ahead of time by a year or two but also has done that in the face of a planned postponement and the possibility that the project would be put off because of what the previous Government was proposing to do with State highway investment over the next 3 years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was this the Government that was spending more on roads than the current one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No actually: the member opposite is wrong. I always worry about the counting ability of the spokesperson on finance for the Labour Party. In the last year around $800 million was spent on State highway infrastructure construction which is to his credit the largest amount to date but it was due to a decline under the Government policy statement of the previous Labour Government to around $650 million a year for State highway infrastructure for each of the next 3 years. If Mr Cunliffe needs me to give him the information I am happy to do so. This Government has increased that amount to $1 billion a year or an additional $1 billion over the next 3 years. Those are the facts. That is the commitment that this Government is placing behind transport infrastructure. 
It is not just roading infrastructure either; it is also public transport infrastructure. Despite the best efforts of the Opposition the public of Auckland know that the Government has followed through on the investment in public transport infrastructure without whacking on an additional 14c a litre—or possibly more given the way that some of the numbers are turning out at the moment—of petrol taxes for the people of Auckland. That increase would have been a direct drain on productivity and economic growth. 
On top of that this Government is prepared to look closely at the cost of infrastructure projects. It is prepared to look at a project like the Waterview Connection which is a crucial project for New Zealand and say that $2.8 billion including the finance costs during construction is too much and that we need to look again and find a better answer. I am pleased to say that the Transport Agency is in the process of finding a better answer. I note that the Labour Opposition has gone very quiet on its commitment to the deep-bore tunnels at Waterview. I invite Mr Cunliffe if he is planning to speak on this bill at some stage to share with us what those members’ current position is on that project. This Government has made the call that the project will come out of the National Land Transport Fund so it will in effect save the Government debt position by the full cost of the project. That is the sort of sensible infrastructural investment that this Government is undertaking. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When’s the start date? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I say to David Cunliffe that we do not know when the start date is yet but I can tell the member that I would even be prepared to put it off for 6 months if it would save me $1.4 billion. I do not know about him but I certainly would be prepared to do that. 
This Government has made big investments in infrastructure. It has made commitments in areas such as the ultra-fast broadband initiative which has been very enthusiastically received—[ 
Interruption 
]—and much to the Opposition’s disappointment and anguish the Government will soon confirm how it will proceed. Although those members are getting a couple of weeks to have a bit of a crack once that is done they will be rather disappointed as the Government proceeds successfully not only on urban broadband but also on rural broadband. Members should not forget that although the previous Government had a few successes late in its reign— 
Hon Member 
: Name one. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well it made a bit of a contribution in terms of the ADSL roll-out with Telecom but that did not happen until about 2 years ago. The first 7 years were very very quiet on the telecommunications front. The previous Government was very very quiet on the roading front. But in a late sprint as it was heading to the finish line just before the voters turfed it out it started to do a few things. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Were they funded? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually a few of them were funded. A lot of them were unfunded but a few of them were funded. The members of the previous Government did a few of these things. Now they have the temerity to suggest that they are as interested in infrastructure as we are and that they understand it. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
This Infrastructure Bill is one of the many things that this Government is doing to support investment in infrastructure. It is not just about the Crown making a contribution although there are some areas obviously where the Crown is well suited to making a capital contribution. It is also about facilitating the development of infrastructure by other people. A lot of what is in this bill is about that. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I am slightly relieved not to be the previous speaker—the Associate Minister for Infrastructure Steven Joyce—but I will pay him a compliment. The Minister walked into a bit of an infrastructure buzz saw early in his tenure when he cancelled the regional fuel tax in Auckland and then woke up the next morning and realised that he had thereby cancelled $137 million worth of railway stations. The locals were none too happy about that. However unlike Minister Joyce’s colleague Anne Tolley—who has also made a rather unfortunate cut in the area of adult and community education—he had the foresight and listening ability to realise that he was faced with an unintended consequence and he took steps to reverse it. The solution he came to was a 60:40 split between the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Auckland Regional Council. The bottom line is that those stations are now being built. Good on him. I hope his colleague Anne Tolley will take a leaf out of his book. 
Labour supports the Infrastructure Bill with enthusiasm in respect of Parts 1 to 3 but does not currently support Part 4 which we believe needs to be carved off and given careful separate analysis for reasons I will go into. In my remarks tonight I will say three things. Firstly Labour is an enthusiastic supporter of infrastructure development and our record proves it. Secondly the key provisions of the bill in Parts 1 to 3 are necessary and with due select committee consideration should be worthwhile and deserve support. Thirdly Part 4 is complex and does not belong with the rest of the bill. Indeed we suspect that it has been placed with the rest of the bill to confuse two things in the minds of the public: first the accepted need to smooth the way for needed infrastructure; and second what appears to be a push-back from some in the real estate community against the necessary provisions to require affordable housing in certain economic circumstances. That is why we think Part 4 needs separate consideration. 
I will begin by discussing the first of those three major points. Labour is incredibly enthusiastic about infrastructure. We want to see New Zealand moving. We like the Government accept that infrastructure barriers can be a significant block to investment. How would investors feel about new industries if they could not be assured of an adequate energy supply of the ability to transport goods to market or in the case of intellectual property of the ability to transport ideas to market around the world using good old fat broadband pipes? 
Labour’s record on infrastructure proves we have much to be proud of in that area. Post-election I do not normally in the Chamber hark back to the good old days of being in Government. This speech is not an exercise in enthusiasm of that kind but it is relevant to recognise where the country has come from in the last decade. When the Labour-led Government was elected in late 1999 New Zealand’s infrastructure was in need of serious investment. Many new major roading projects under construction were virtually non-existent investment was barely adequate to cover road maintenance and Auckland was in danger of becoming permanently gridlocked. The railway system had been sold and was then asset-stripped. Investment in energy generation and transmission languished. 
Labour was elected to Government on an agenda for change with an investment in infrastructure signalled as a high priority. Over the Labour-led Government’s nine Budgets annual funding for roading for example more than doubled from $850 million in 1999-2000 to over $1.9 billion in 2008. Let us put that $1.9 billion into perspective. The National Government in its latest Budget has heralded the fact that over 5 years it might spend around $7 billion on roading infrastructure. On a per annum basis that is less than was spent in the last year of the previous Labour administration. Although we are very pleased to see the Government making that investment and we support it let the country not be under any illusions: that spending is no great increase. Indeed on a pro rata basis it is a slight decrease from what was spent in the last year of the Labour Government. 
Investment in public transport in 2008 was over 15 times greater that in 1999-2000. Major public transport projects such as the building of the Northern Busway in Auckland have been completed. A $600 million project to improve train services in Auckland is under way. Of that $600 million some $300 million has gone end to end for the New Lynn underground rail trench a project that will transform that community get new businesses into the area and un-gum a huge bottleneck of transport services to the city. For transport investment as a percentage of GDP we cannot really go past that example as an indicator of commitment. Transport investment was at 1 percent in 1999 at the start of the previous Labour Government and nearly doubled by the end of our term. There was the buy-back of the railway sector and in the energy sector there were major investments in generation capacity with over 1600 megawatts added to capacity since 2000 equating to $3.5 billion to $4 billion of investment. Nobody armed with those facts could possibly argue otherwise than that the outgoing Labour Government had a solid and proud record that was well based on developing New Zealand’s infrastructure needs. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! Oh dearie me! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Some members opposite may laugh through pure ignorance but they have inherited a party that traditionally has not represented an activist view of the State. Going back to 1935 Labour has been the Government and the party of change activism and getting New Zealand moving especially in recessions. 
I will give another example: broadband. The issue was controversial in the election campaign. Labour had committed an initial $500 million of grant money with a further $500 million to follow. That is $1 billion all up. Because it was regional because the projects were shovel ready—or I should say fibre ready—and because no return to the Crown was expected from that investment we were able to guarantee leverage of greater than one for one: closer to two for one. The projects were ready to go; the project plans had been approved and banked. The new Government came in on a promise of a $1.5 billion package which sounded good. It seduced some people but there were three problems with that package as we have now found out. First fibre to the home was never going to actually be to the home. It would have been to the kerb at best leaving the householder with $1500 to $3000 of connection cost. Second our package was ready to go whereas National has been waiting for a year thinking about its package. Third and most important our package was regional and competitive whereas unless National has a road to Damascus experience all the signs are that it may fall back on the old Telecom monopoly and put the grant money into the hands of the incumbent. Let us hope it does not do that. That is one reason why we believe that the part of the bill that guarantees reasonable and consistent access to utility corridors is absolutely essential; it was on our work programme. 
Network infrastructure providers have to make the best use of assets that are already there. For example it is well known that KiwiRail has massive amounts of optic fibre running the length of the main trunk railway line. The trouble has been that others could hardly use it. Another example that everybody knows is that because we could not get councils and infrastructure companies to work together as productively as they could have done a street was dug up to lay pipes resealed and then dug up again to lay fibre or wires. Why not get councils and infrastructure companies to work together do it once and do it right? That is why Labour introduced provisions like developer contributions and upfront consultation. We think this bill will assist that situation and we think it is a good step forward. 
Let me come to something the Government probably will not want to hear: an OECD report which Treasury officials submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that revised downward the OECD’s estimate of the fiscal stimulus from this Government from the 5 percent of GDP we left it at to only 3.5 percent. Part of the reason for that is the OECD has found some double-counts like Kopu Bridge. It was brought forward 9 months as it was a good project. National members said: “Let us do it!”. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 There is a lot of obvious good sense in providing a code of practice for infrastructure providers. There is a huge amount of waste when there is no coordination and no planning in terms of combining the wires pipes and fibres in the same corridor. It is high time to attempt to bring about that kind of rationalisation. I understand the work on that began under the previous Government and it is good to see it being brought to completion. The Green Party certainly supports that. 
We do think there is quite a mystery as to how we can combine in one bill this Infrastructure Bill such a load of disparate amendments to nine different Acts. We could make a case for Parts 1 to 3 hanging together and being something to do with infrastructure but how Part 4 on housing has anything to do with wires pipes trenches railway lines or any other kind of infrastructure totally beats me. However we will come to Part 4 in time. 
The provision in Part 2 that gives us some concern relates to the old tension between territorial local authorities saying to someone who is going to dig up a street that it would be very sensible to do some amenity improvements at the same time and infrastructure companies saying that is nothing to do with them and they do not feel like cooperating. This bill resolves that conflict totally in favour of the infrastructure companies and totally at the expense of territorial local authorities. The status quo is that infrastructure companies and territorial local authorities tend to share those costs unless other arrangements are made and we are concerned that this bill errs too far on the side of making things difficult for councils. We want to look at that matter in the select committee in order to see whether the right balance has been struck because we suspect that it has not. 
Likewise we have no objection to cleaning up the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and effectively bringing the corporation under the same rules that apply to other State-owned enterprises. It is time that was done too. The corporation is a Crown entity and there is no particular reason why it should have its own set of provisions that are different from those of all the other kinds of State-owned enterprises. 
Part 4 repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act and initially that concerned us considerably. But we believe that the most important part of that Act is being saved by keeping the provision that kills exclusionary covenants. Those covenants insist that development has to be consistent with somebody’s idea of a good standard which can be very discriminatory to anybody else who wants to build in the same area. We very strongly supported that provision in the Act and we note that it is protected in this bill but we wonder whether there was a drafting mistake that means that the replacement clause is not retrospective in terms of all of the exclusionary covenants already entered into. The Act is repealed but the replacement clause applies only to covenants entered into on or after the date that this Infrastructure Bill comes into force. So there will be a gap period. We wonder why if Government members believe that exclusionary covenants are a bad idea and should not be allowed—and they believe that sufficiently to have rescued that provision from the legislation that they are repealing and put it back into law—they think that it should not apply to the ones entered into up until the date that this bill is enacted. I very much hope that this is some kind of drafting oversight or mistake. If it is then we can rectify it at the select committee and the Green Party will certainly be arguing to do that. 
We will support the referral of this bill to the select committee and we will see what happens to it there. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. The priority accorded arrangements to facilitate infrastructure development has been welcomed by iwi certainly from the feedback that the Maori Party has received. I would not go so far as to say that iwi would be flooding our offices with requests for changes to the umpteen range of Acts that are amended by the Infrastructure Bill. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Government Roading Powers Act 1999 and so on. That detail is properly reserved for the members in the House who are fascinated by the fine print. The people out there are excited by the bricks and mortar of infrastructure development and the dollars and cents. 
Iwi are embracing the investment opportunity for ownership of infrastructure projects as part of public-private partnerships. At the start of this year a tribal assets workshop chaired by Ngati Tuwharetoa paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu was a forum for iwi leaders from around the country the motu to discuss their enthusiasm for engaging in infrastructure projects. From Ngapuhi Erima Henare spoke passionately about the desire of Maori to have a viable partnership with the Crown and with private enterprise. In his words: “They don’t want to be bit players and bulldozer drivers.” Tainui chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan also spoke very positively of iwi being poised and ready to go just waiting for the opportunity to be opened up by the Crown. 
The last 24 hours have given us a very sobering context in which to consider both the capacity of iwi to take on the challenge of infrastructure development and the readiness of the Government to respond. As I indicated at question time today Tukoroirangi Morgan was not impressed after the shock announcement of the decisions made in advance of the select committee report into the governance arrangements for Auckland. Yesterday Mr Morgan said and I repeated his words at question time today: “Giving Maori people the crumbs at the second level is a nonsense and we’ve made it quite clear we are not interested in being a tekoteko … or tonotono …—people who are subservient to the top table.” Perhaps the bill provides an opportunity for the Government to again reflect on its recent actions and consider whether it intends to restrict Maori to positions as bit players or bulldozer drivers—tekoteko or tonotono—or whether it can reconsider ways and means to honour the Treaty relationship with mana whenua. 
The bill will improve the arrangements for managing access by utility operators—gas power phone water electricity and the like—to transport corridors roads railways and motorways. The Maori Party stands today as it did yesterday and will do tomorrow to remind the Government that infrastructure development is as appropriate an avenue for iwi investment as any. If that was not obvious from the outrage that has been expressed across the land at yesterday’s announcement it should be obvious that iwi are as Tuku Morgan described so well the sleeping economic giant in this country. The Maori Party will encourage iwi to engage with the nation’s essential hardware just as we encourage iwi to engage in every sphere of activity across the Government sector. 
The co-leader of our party Dr Pita Sharples told the House this afternoon that Maori people will be here forever; they are not going to go away. The Maori Party will continue to advocate for Maori representation to be fully engaged in every aspect of a fair and meaningful democracy. Investment in infrastructure is a way of providing for employment enterprise and economic development. Iwi see participation in infrastructure development as a way of advancing economic interest beyond the more traditional tribal pathways of primary industry fishing forestry tourism and property. We support every opportunity that we can to enhance economic growth for iwi and in doing so to improve the nation’s productivity. 
The Maori Party seeks to bring other considerations to the debate. As a party we have placed great priority on any commitment to further invest in public transport by strategies such as developing Greater Wellington’s public transport network of buses and trains and network of walking and cycling tracks. We need services that are frequent reliable and inexpensive for users. We note a press release today by the Sustainable Energy Forum that calls for a rethink of the Government’s transport policy. It directly challenges the Government to take a precautionary approach to the construction of State highways in the context of the dual challenge of peak oil and climate change. The forum’s concern was generated by a report of the OECD’s International Energy Agency that oil production is declining at almost twice the rate that had previously been predicted. The other issue is around the capacity of the Government to meet the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target—a challenge that will require significant cuts in transport greenhouse gas emissions. 
Those are the issues that we take very seriously as a party. There is an urgent need to prepare for ongoing oil price increases and a future downturn in availability by providing people with affordable alternatives. We will be looking to the select committee process to see exactly how the legislation will take into account the imperatives for sustainable development. We all appreciate that there is an urgent need to reduce dependency on oil by using strategies and to that end we will be interested to see a wider-ranging debate around the consequences of the bill for those wider energy and environmental issues. 
We reiterate the genuine readiness and enthusiasm of iwi and Maori to be actively involved in any future discussions surrounding the issue of infrastructure development. Just 1 month ago my colleague Dr Pita Sharples announced the signing of an agreement with InfraTrain the industry training organisation for the civil infrastructure industry. The Maori trade training initiative will allow an additional 1820 Maori to receive training in industries that have strong employment prospects. How can we not be enthusiastic about that sort of initiative? Maori make up more than one-third of the current civil infrastructure workforce in the North Island so there is plenty of interest. Maori are a strong and reliable component of the human resources that will be required to make this bill work. We are proud of the Minister’s initiative to provide 250 training places in the civil infrastructure industry—50 places in Waikato 100 in the Northland and Auckland area and another 100 in the East Coast and Hawke’s Bay area. Of course the great Waiariki region for which I am the MP will be first in line for the next stage of the development I hope such is the level of our people’s enthusiasm for industry training opportunities the prospect of job creation and a focus on high-level training. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs called for a Maori economic summit conference and that was held earlier this year. There was a focus on Maori party policy and the flourishing of economic enterprise and skills development. Members should make no mistake; that issue is very clearly on the agenda for iwi. 
We support the first reading of the bill and look forward to the doors being flung wide open to ensure Maori participation and representation in this process which hopefully will be encouraged. Kia ora tatou. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in the debate on the first reading of the Infrastructure Bill. I was not expecting to take a call because I do not think anyone was expecting that a bill on infrastructure would repeal affordable housing legislation. But indeed here we are and I am happy to put my comments on the record. 
First of all I endorse the comments made by the previous Labour speakers on this debate: we support any investment in infrastructure. When we look around the globe currently at what various Governments are doing to put stimulus packages in place to lift their countries out of recession earlier we see that they are in fact doing far far more than this country. 
Hon David Parker 
: South of Christchurch. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: My colleague David Parker raises the very real concern that there is nothing in this legislation for any community south of Christchurch. That is a real concern because those communities are also suffering from the impacts of this recession and deserve to have the same kind of treatment as every other community in this country. But in saying that I also say that Labour supports any investment in infrastructure. 
My colleague Clare Curran will comment more on the broadband issue. That issue is a real concern particularly for provincial communities. When Labour was in Government we had a clear strategy for rural broadband. I sincerely hope that the New Zealand Regional Fibre Group is able to get this contract. I believe that they are best placed to use existing infrastructure far more efficiently and far more cheaply to deliver a service that will better benefit people in provincial regions. I certainly hope that is the path that the Minister for Infrastructure will take if we ever see an announcement from him on this issue. 
I want to talk particularly about Part 4. It repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act which was put in place by the previous Government. I was the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this legislation. I want to say that I am pleased that the clauses on the restrictive covenants are being carried through. I think that is extremely important. At the select committee many cases were raised with us where such covenants were being used to exclude certain groups of people in society from housing areas. That is unacceptable to this Parliament and I am pleased that part will remain. 
I want to know why the Government feels it is so necessary to repeal this Act. I have had contact with a number of groups who have sent me emails asking whether it is true that this has happened and that they were not told about this issue which affects them. They never would have thought to look in the Infrastructure Bill for that issue if they had not been tipped off that it was there. I think that is an important point to raise; hopefully these people will have some input at select committee. I note that this bill will go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which is appropriate. The problem is that the issues around housing are normally dealt with by the Social Services Committee. It is a shame that that committee is not able to fully consider these issues and also that the Local Government and Environment Committee cannot given that this bill also affects territorial authorities. 
When the last Government passed the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act National members said that it was just another layer of bureaucracy and something else that territorial authorities had to do. The fact is that territorial authorities did not have to do it. This was just one tool in a tool box that we put forward containing a number of affordable housing initiatives. There was significant legal uncertainty around whether territorial authorities could require developers to include affordable housing or social housing as part of the development mix or to put money and land aside so that the affordable housing could be built elsewhere. This Act provided that certainty. It said that yes people were able to do it and if they were going to do it then this was the process to take. 
This is not an unusual kind of arrangement. North America uses this arrangement extensively. Where a large development takes place territorial authorities will require a number of different things; it will vary across the states. They might require that the infrastructure—such as the roads the lighting the sewerage the fibre for the broadband and all that kind of thing—be provided by the developer. If the developer is doing a commercial development such as a large shopping mall the territorial authorities might require the developer to build housing close by for the people who are going to work in the mall or to provide transport for them. Labour did not think up this arrangement out of thin air; it works very very well overseas. 
My disappointment with this part of the bill is that if the Government had taken the time to seriously look at the Act and think about whether it could make some changes we would have been absolutely open to that—to looking at whether we could make it work better or be more accessible. A lot of the Act was taken from the Queenstown experience of course. It is not right to simply repeal it as the local authorities were not required to use it at all; it was there to use at their discretion. 
I think it is important to mention that one cannot address the issue of affordable housing in isolation from the territorial authorities. Anyone who thinks that affordable housing can be done just by the Government and that if we just keep the territorial authorities out of everything it will work is dreaming. Territorial authorities are a really important part of the solution. This Act which is to be repealed simply provided them with the legal certainties to carry that arrangement out if they wanted to now or in the future. When a big developer comes in and decides to do a big development they could have said to them that they want 5 percent of it to be affordable housing or if they did not want it in that area they could say that they want land put aside somewhere else. Why should they not be able to do that? Why should other ratepayers always have to pay for the cost of all this infrastructure? They are not able to get access to affordable housing—they are locked out of the housing market—so they are renting. They are paying higher and higher rents—the rates are going up for their landlord and some of that is being passed on to them—or they are in a house and they would like to move to another house but they cannot afford it. They are ratepayers. Why should they have to foot the bill for absolutely everything for a developer who comes along and makes an awful lot of money from a new development? Why is it not OK to say that in some situations we may want to get 5 percent affordable housing or we may want the bulk of the infrastructure paid for by the developer? I think it is the right of the territorial authority to make that decision based on what is best for their ratepayers and what is best for their district. That is what this Act does. 
It is interesting that there has been so little movement on affordable housing from this Government. The fact is I think it was relying on the recession to see housing prices drop so significantly that the issue of affordable housing would go off the boil. The fact is that housing prices have not dropped. Working families are still locked out of the housing market. The Minister of Housing Phil Heatley stood up and took credit for every single Labour policy that was introduced under the last Government. He has not come up with any new ideas and he is repealing one now. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Like former housing Ministers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. Excellent former housing Ministers attacked head-on the issue of affordable housing. They said that we would never have only one solution; we would have to have a mix of solutions which is what we had. We had the Welcome Home Loan scheme we had shared equity and we had this legislation enabling territorial authorities. We had a number of initiatives. We were putting affordable housing into the mix at Hobsonville and we were looking at it in Tamaki as well. We were attacking this issue head-on. The fact is that the recession has not made housing more affordable for most New Zealanders. In fact they are losing their jobs their salaries have stalled and housing prices have not dropped so they can offset that. 
The Minister of Housing’s No. 1 promise for affordable housing was tax cuts. Well they are out the window and he still will not answer the question: how do significant tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand help low and middle income New Zealanders get into housing? The answer is that they do not. He then said in the House last week that he was responsible for the lowering of interest rates. I wish he would tell us how he did it and then maybe we could put that in legislation. The fact is that this Government has not tackled the issue of affordable housing. I think the Government is just hoping that if it does not talk about it it might go away. We welcome increases to Labour’s very good Welcome Home Loan policy. We think that is really good. 
The other issue is that the Housing Innovation Fund which received an increase in this year’s Budget—we acknowledge that—is no longer available to territorial authorities for upgrades on their social housing. That means that some territorial authorities might get to a point where they have to consider whether they can even keep that housing and whether they might sell it given that the choice is to either upgrade it or sell it off like they have in Whakatane. What did the Whakatane District Council say in when it gave a reason? The council’s reason for selling off the housing was that the Government told them it was no longer a core activity and it not something that it should be focusing on. 
I come back to my point that we cannot address affordable housing without bringing territorial authorities into the mix. I would welcome the next speaker answering that question. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that the National Government puts forward the Infrastructure Bill of 2009. This bill reflects the National Government’s commitment to building a stronger economy that will provide growth for all New Zealanders and to providing the social infrastructure that New Zealanders desire and that has been sorely lacking under previous Labour Governments. This legislation contains a number of components all of which relate to each other and relate to economic growth. They are related to building a stronger economy for our country going forward. 
I turn to the four areas that have been noted in the legislation. The last area that the previous speaker Moana Mackey mentioned in respect of affordable housing is quite interesting. She summed up Labour’s approach to economics and to the management of resources: it feels that the Government of the day in setting the rules and regulations would determine the best approach. Labour believes that the Government in determining the nature of how and when land can be used and under what process will be the determining factor in whether it is successful. I have news for the Labour Party: it is not that way. The last Labour Government tried that approach. Did that Government help people who wanted affordable housing? It did not. 
This Government’s approach will deliver some serious results for people who want affordable housing who want to achieve the Kiwi dream of having their own home. We will not stagnate the process through the Government and say that the Government knows best. We will have a much better system—one that takes into account the market the purchasers local government and the economic realities of buying one’s first home. This legislation incorporates that and leads to that outcome and that is the advantage of this legislation when we look at affordable housing. 
When most people look at an Infrastructure Bill the first things they think about are the traditional forms of infrastructure such as roading rail and power. That is the nature of the heart of this bill—the first part of the bill—which deals with access by utility operators to transport corridors. Before we talk about infrastructure I want to first of all set the scene and look at the future of New Zealand. If we look at what areas the predominant economic growth that New Zealand will experience will encompass we see that it will be predominantly in the Hamilton Tauranga and Auckland regions. That area is commonly called the “golden triangle” and it represents what will be three of the biggest cities in our country in a short period of time. Auckland will be the most dominant city by a long way but Tauranga and Hamilton will be a considerable size. They will challenge the Wellingtons and Christchurches of this world within a generation. Those cities will represent a new breed of New Zealanders: the ones who want to see an economy that is successful that is based on strong education that is based on a strong work ethic and that is based on having a future that is progressive and successful on the world stage. Those cities represent the New Zealand of the future. 
The Infrastructure Bill is giving the New Zealand of the future the opportunity to achieve its real mandate. Without this legislation those cities would continue to be hamstrung as they were under the previous Government. We are not in the mood to let that continue nor do we intend to let it continue because we have better dreams for New Zealand. We see a country where we can grow; we need the infrastructure to achieve ambitious targets. 
This bill talks about having a code of practice on how utility operators and corridor managers coordinate their activities. Codes of practice are probably unique to New Zealand legislation. It is not something that we do every day. We tend to have an approach that is based not so much on a code but rather on legislation amending and building on itself. Having a code probably represents more of a European approach to legislation and also to management and structuring of Government involvement in infrastructure. That code will be an important instrument and it will be part of creating an environment whereby companies that are investing—Government companies as well as private sector companies—will have the ability to invest with confidence. They will see that they have a process that will enable them to build the strong infrastructure that we need in this country. 
It is not about just that part of New Zealand that will be the growth engine we can perceive in the future; the rest of New Zealand also has an important role in managing and taking advantage of that growing area. Also important are the parts of the South Island that provide a lot of the power for the North Island; the likes of Wellington which has a central role in providing governance; and the rest of the North Island and the South Island which provide a lot of the agricultural and primary production infrastructure that provides the exports for our country. Those areas will need these codes and will take advantage of them because rail-tracks and roads go through their territory and so do power lines. We need to consider those instrumental parts of the debate on infrastructure and we need to develop a strong process for them. This code does that going forward. 
Part 2 talks about the standard process in regard to the Telecommunications Act the Electricity Act the Gas Act the Local Government Act and other Acts. It provides consistent provisions for access to transport corridors allocation of costs and time periods for notifications and responses to requests. It essentially provides standardisation so that business has some certainty. That certainty was lacking under the previous Labour Government: business had no certainty. Long-term investment is a key part of infrastructure. If we are to build a long series of roads then investors want to know they can invest in the equipment and the people so that they can continue to build over a certain period of time get a return on that investment and get paid for what they have put in. The previous Government did not do that; it did one-off projects on the whim of the day. It did what it thought was in its political interest. This Government will not take that approach. We will give some certainty to the community that we will provide this infrastructure. That is why we have those kinds of provisions in the bill: they give some long-term direction so that people know the rules they will be playing under. That certainty is vital in business because the last thing investors will do is invest in technology or people if investors do not have certainty in being able to get those things in order to take advantage of that investment. 
Part 3 of this bill amends the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act. Rail was one of those things that the previous Labour Government bought on a political whim. It wanted to own the trainset. It did not do due diligence on its purchase of rail. It missed out on a great opportunity to take advantage of Toll’s management capabilities and it ended up paying far too much for an asset that needs a lot of investment. This Government has been left with the baby and we have had to deal with this issue. The Minister of Transport has done a great job so far in restructuring the nature of rail’s involvement in the transport sector. Some more changes need to be made to the corporation and they are included in Part 3. They deal predominantly with directorships and the requirements and roles of directors and chairpersons. 
All in all the bill has four main parts but the heart of it provides opportunity certainty and direction for New Zealand investors New Zealand infrastructural companies and the New Zealand Government—which is a big player—so that they know what the rules are. They will have a long-term capability and a long-term vision which are needed in the provision of infrastructural services. We also have rules that will enable people to take advantage of opportunities such as affordable housing and rail transport to make sure the Government gets the results in those industries that it intends. All in all this is very important legislation because it sets a platform for growing the New Zealand economy. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I shall take a call on the first reading of the Infrastructure Bill. The bill is the Government’s attempt to lift New Zealand’s national productivity and improve New Zealand’s future economic growth. 
I shall put the bill in context. I am the Opposition spokesperson on communications and information technology. It is incumbent on Labour and on me to be across all forms of social media and new technological advances in this important industry so I want to read a posting on Facebook that I came across tonight while preparing this speech. It seems particularly relevant: “Unemployment doubles workers get zero percent wage increases food and electricity prices continue rising Bill English has a $900 a week housing allowance Sir Roger Douglas gets free trips to visit his family in the UK and while Telecom engineers have their jobs contracted out their CEO is handed a cool five big ones. That’s about $13698 every single day of the year. Our society continues to get sicker.” That just about sums things up. 
I shall talk a bit about the bill then I will talk more broadly about some infrastructure challenges for our nation. Labour supports the bill although we reserve the right to question or oppose individual clauses. The bill appears sensible in its intent and was the result of a review process which the previous Labour Government had started. Labour has some reservations about some provisions in the bill particularly Part 4 which repeals the Affordability Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008. Broadly the bill deals with three areas. The first is utility access to roads motorways and rail corridors which among other things involves amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001. It also includes changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation and repeals as I said the affordable housing legislation enacted in 2008. 
The previous Labour Government always recognised the importance of good infrastructure for economic development. Infrastructure is hugely important and getting it right is especially important. Infrastructure can be defined as the basic physical and organisational structures needed for the operation of a society or an enterprise or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function. As the global recession has bitten many Governments around the world have poured funds into infrastructure spending in an effort to stimulate the economy and save jobs. Many sources quote that total infrastructure spending around the world will reach $35 trillion over the next 20 years. Saving jobs and stimulating the economy are important roles for any Government and in times of recession they are an absolute. This Government has waited for too long to introduce legislation to stimulate the economy and the Job Summit that was so talked about failed to act as fast as was imagined. My electorate of Dunedin South has seen the effects of the recession. In the last 12 to 18 months there have been multiple closures of plants. There has been no Government-led initiative since this Government was elected to provide jobs for any of those people. So far it has all been tinkering around the edges. 
Today I want to talk about an important piece of infrastructure that is in limbo but before I do that I will put a few facts out there. National will spend $7.5 billion on infrastructure over the next 5 years $3 billion of which will be spent on roading in the next 3 years. That is nearly half although it does include the $1.5 billion to be spent on broadband. Over the Labour Government’s nine Budgets which we have heard about already tonight annual funding for roading more than doubled from $850 million in 1999 to over $1.9 billion in 2008 but annual investment in public transport in 2008 was over 15 times greater than that of 1999—15 times! This Government will not be going down that route. There are some commitments to public transport but mainly in Auckland; around the rest of the country it will not be a top priority. That is a tragedy and a missed opportunity for our nation. 
Instead roading is the main priority of the Minister of Transport—that is roading for the North Island. In the Budget earlier this year the Minister announced an extra billion dollars for the seven roads of national significance. Of those seven roads the only South Island project is the Christchurch motorway. There is nothing at all from further south. As the representative for one of two Dunedin electorates with a highway heading south out of town in need of urgent attention I have to say that our part of New Zealand does not seem to be a priority. In fact there is no infrastructure spending at all of any note anywhere south of Christchurch. So it is all about roads. 
At some point the Minister will get round to that other important piece of infrastructure that is currently languishing while he is making up his mind what to do about it and that is ultra-fast broadband which is an important utility and is fast becoming an essential service for all New Zealanders in their homes their schools and their workplaces. The National Government was elected more than 9 months ago. A central component of National’s campaign strategy was its $1.5 billion commitment to roll out ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealand homes within 10 years. It was its big-ticket campaign pledge. The first thing the new Government did was axe the existing broadband programme introduced by the Labour Government the Broadband Investment Fund which had dozens of regional broadband projects poised to roll out and had widespread support in the industry. Members heard my colleague David Cunliffe talk about that earlier. The new Government axed that programme and there is now a vacuum in the industry. It took this Government until the end of March to release its investment proposal for consultation. Since then there has been nothing. We are now approaching the end of August and there is no indication of how and when this Government will start rolling out broadband. 
This Government has a dilemma—several dilemmas. The first is whether to choose between a Telecom-led roll-out or a growing coalition of electricity lines companies and independent fibre operators called the Regional Fibre Group. Choosing the Telecom-led roll-out would be somewhat controversial given what is happening right now with the country’s biggest telecommunications company. Telecom is embroiled in an escalating drama with its own workforce of 900 service technicians and engineers in Northland and Auckland—unionised and un-unionised—who are fighting attempts to turn them into dependent contractors of Visionstream the new contractor awarded the contract. Essentially these employees will lose the protection provided to them as employees and will be forced to buy their own equipment and vehicles to pay for their own holiday and sick leave entitlements and to accept all the other financial obligations and risks associated with their own employment costing them 50 to 66 percent of their income. They will be at the mercy of the parent contractor with their remuneration based on how many jobs they can get through rather than the quality of their work. There are real and genuine concerns that that will have a devastating effect on Telecom’s skilled workforce at a time when it is needed most and on the services that Telecom delivers. 
Last week myself and Trevor Mallard our spokesperson on labour sent an open letter to Wayne Boyd the Telecom chair asking him not to put Telecom at risk to intervene in the dispute between Visionstream and the service technicians and to re-examine the terms of the contract. New Zealanders expect that Telecom will act as an efficient customer-focused communications provider and a responsible corporate citizen. We also expect the Government to take a close interest given that it needs a skilled workforce to roll out its ultra-fast broadband. We know that there are industry players who have grave concerns about these issues. Momentum is growing. There is growing alarm within the industry about the risk to the skilled workforce Telecom’s ability to deliver on its regulatory undertakings and its ability to deliver a quality service to its customers. Surely that is a matter for the Government. MPs across the country including National MPs are raising concerns about the contracts that these workers are being force to sign. One of them—Northland MP John Carter—personally acknowledged to me today that he is advising technicians in his electorate not to sign that the Visionstream contract is a crock. 
The second dilemma that this Government has is that it cannot deliver on its election pledge. It left out the entire rural sector. It knows now that that was a huge mistake. So what does it do? It looks likely that it will come up with a new proposal that is about equitable distribution of broadband across the country investing in the rural sector where our primary production exports are dependent on—[ 
Interruption 
]; and that is good—our having a technological competitive edge and where the social benefits of broadband access will make such a difference to rural communities. But if the Government does that what will happen to the campaign pledge? Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders certainly will not have broadband in their homes within 10 years so that pledge is out the window I say to Mr Joyce and Mr English. If broadband is going to be rolled out in the rural sector as well that is a reason to put Telecom firmly in the frame for that roll-out. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is indeed a privilege to speak in favour of the Infrastructure Bill and to commend it to the House. The National Government’s infrastructure policy will be admired and imitated for generations to come. Historians will be breathless at the scope of the development that took place under the Key National Government. They will be breathless at the impact that the infrastructure policy had on the prosperity growth and standard of living of New Zealanders. But above all else historians will comment upon the contrast between a National Government that developed New Zealand’s potential and gave its people the opportunity to enjoy success and prosperity and the 9 years of adhockery hit-and-miss and wasted money of a failed socialist Government. The contrast will be commented upon by historians for generations to come. 
The development of infrastructure is essential if New Zealand is to lift its national productivity and improve and expand its future economic growth and prosperity. For this to happen it is necessary firstly to improve the consistency of regulatory arrangements for infrastructure development; secondly to streamline governance arrangements; and thirdly to remove regulatory barriers. That is what this bill does. Each of these actions to be achieved by this bill will contribute to improving the timeliness of infrastructure provision and reducing the cost of infrastructure development. The purpose of the Infrastructure Bill is threefold: firstly to facilitate infrastructure development by removing unnecessary barriers; secondly to improve the consistency of regulatory arrangements; and thirdly to review regulation and remove red tape. That is what this Government is all about: getting rid of the red tape that gets in the way of development of New Zealand and in way of New Zealanders’ opportunity to enjoy prosperity. 
The Infrastructure Bill repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008. The purpose of this Act was to provide councils with regulatory tools to address problems of housing affordability in their districts but it did not work. It has been interesting to listen to Labour speakers try to defend that legislation—their legislation—which did not work. Many developers and many territorial authorities have raised concern that the Act is counter-productive and likely to reduce rather than increase the supply of affordable housing. It is one more example of how the socialist Government got it so badly wrong. So the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 is to be repealed. 
The Infrastructure Bill proposes substantive amendment to a number of pieces of legislation six of which are dealt with in Part 2: the Telecommunications Act 2001 the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Local Government Act 1974 the Railways Act 2005 and the Government Roading Powers Act 1989. The purpose of the amendments to these Acts is to provide for consistent provision across the Acts being amended. One of the things the Government is looking for is reasonable conditions of access to road and rail corridors. Controlling authorities will have to have publicised criteria on which they will base their decisions for granting access. Part 3 amends the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 to remove statutory restrictions that negatively affect the running of the Railways Corporation’s business. 
The Infrastructure Bill is a major step towards cleaning up a regulatory mess that is getting in the way of New Zealand’s economic development. I am pleased to note that the Labour Party has at least been gracious enough to indicate its support for this bill’s going to a select committee. 
Hon David Parker 
: We started the work. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: There goes Mr Parker who says they started the work. It seems to me that all they ever did was start work but never finish it. I suggest that members opposite who keep interjecting about starting things start to talk to us a little bit about why they never finished anything. Have members noticed that in 9 years they never finished anything? As the historians will say it was 9 years of adhockery—9 years of socialist adhockery. 
Let us take a moment to consider the scope of the infrastructure development that this Government is talking about. Budget 2009 increased the capital spending allowance from $900 million to $1.45 billion—$1.45 billion. This is just the first part of a planned $7.5 billion boost for infrastructure over the next 5 years. Under the planned spending capital spending allowances will remain at $1.45 billion for the next 4 years then rise to $1.65 billion in 2013-14. The historians will be breathless at the scope and scale of the infrastructure development in this country that has resulted from the work of the Key National Government. 
Let us have a look at the spending in some detail. In health $245 million of capital spending will address demographic pressures particularly in Auckland and will enable consideration of hospital upgrades and dedicated elective surgery theatres. That is $245 million of capital spending for health. For broadband—and I noted one of the Labour speakers talking about broadband before—$250 million in capital funding and $56 million in operational funding will be given for telecommunications infrastructure. This includes $200 million as the Government’s first contribution towards its $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband plan $34 million of which will support schools. 
Hon David Parker 
: When? When? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: We listen to the Opposition members asking when and why. They had the opportunity. They had 9 years of adhockery and now all they can do in this debate is ask why and when. It is little wonder that the people threw them out of Government. 
In education there is $325.6 million and so it goes on. In housing there is $124.5 million in transport there is $142.4 million in rail there is $90 million and it goes on and on. 
I conclude by commending the Infrastructure Bill to the House. I note that historians will be speechless when they write the history of the development of New Zealand under the Key Government and then compare that to the adhockery of 9 years of socialist rule. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise beside my esteemed colleague Allan Peachey in support of the Infrastructure Bill. Although the bill itself is a pretty technical one I think its overall purpose to facilitate infrastructure development is a very very important one. I will take a slightly broader view in relation to this issue than some other members have. As we have heard from the Minister and other members the sector is a really broad and complex one. We do not actually have a Vote Infrastructure as such but the bill broadly covers a number of areas. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is Dunedin getting? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well I will come to that. I will illustrate with one example at this stage how important the Government’s focus on this is. I will focus on electricity in particular. In the adjournment weeks of July and August I was guest of New Zealand Aluminium Smelters at Tiwai Point near Bluff as part of the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust. As members know the trust enables MPs to go out and visit businesses to find out what the issues are that face them and for senior managers to come to Wellington and understand how the lawmaking process works. I spent 5 days down there. The focus of my interest was on quality and process improvement programmes and how they might be applied to the public sector and the health sector in particular. But as one does with those sorts of visits one cannot help but get drawn into some of the other issues that face businesses particularly from a public policy perspective and that was certainly the case in my visit to Tiwai. 
One of the significant issues that face organisations like the smelter is the reliability and cost of electricity supply which as some members know is a huge component in the costs of producing aluminium. The smelter when it is at optimum operation I think consumes about 85 percent of all the power that comes out of the Manapouri power station. Members will recall that last year was a dry year. I know that one particular member will recall that very well because there was quite a big demand on the Government of the day to introduce demand-reduction measures and conservation measures. The then Minister of Energy the Hon David Parker pretended for quite a long time that it was not occurring but eventually the clamour from the organisations for a conservation strategy became so great that the Government put in place a campaign. But what was going on in the background— 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s because the commercial users didn’t want to pay— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that is what I am coming on to. In the background Crown companies were going to very large consumers of electricity like the smelter at Tiwai Point and saying “Please shut down.” In the case of the smelter a whole potline was closed down which made a significant positive impact on the demand at that time which was when the price of the very high-purity aluminium the smelter was producing was very good. Notwithstanding that the electricity price was by world standards high things were looking pretty good for the smelter. So in return for that magnanimity in reducing output and saving energy for the country the company was rewarded with an increase of about 15 percent in its contracted price for electricity at the same time as the world price for aluminium plummeted. That is a really clear illustration that an organisation—one of our largest exporters one of the largest employers in the deep south and one of the companies that makes a huge contribution to our economy—is extremely vulnerable because of the lack of a reliable electricity infrastructure. 
I am aware that the Minister of Energy and Resources is doing some really good work on highlighting those issues with the electricity market performance review and also with planning for the increased capacity that needs to be brought online straightaway much less saved for the increased demand we are predicting for the future. But I think we have got into a situation where there is a really quite woeful lack of infrastructure planning not just around electricity but around roading broadband hospitals prisons ships ports and everything else. So it is very necessary that the 20-year plan the Government has will spell out what those investment objectives are. 
As we know it is not just central government that invests in that sort of infrastructure; I have seen some figures that indicate there will probably be a fifty-fifty split between central government and local government investment needs over the next 10 years—needs that could cost as much as $60 billion. Given some of the demographic changes and I am quite sure that members have mentioned Auckland City in that context it is really appropriate that a national plan that looks forward into our infrastructure needs for the next 20 or 30 years is developed; I congratulate the Government and the Minister on doing that. 
One of the sorts of things that this coordination will do is give organisations like the smelter a much greater level of confidence to be able to invest in itself. So it is not just the direct infrastructure investment that we will get; we will get the industry investment as well. I did not talk about this when I was at Tiwai but I have no doubt that the owners of the smelter will not be putting any further substantial investment into the smelter unless they can be certain—or at least more confident than they are now—that they can get security of supply and get it at a reasonable price. If members think that that is tripe I can tell them that while I was there the news came through that one of the sister smelters in the group in North Wales will close next month and it will close simply because it cannot get reliable electricity at a competitive price. Without sounding like Chicken Licken I have no doubt that if the same conditions were imposed on the smelter at Tiwai Point that risk would be very real. 
Hon David Parker 
: But they’ve got a contract with Meridian for years out. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes but contracts do not deliver supplies; sources of electricity do. We can talk contracts and price all we like but if every time we have a dry year Ministers go running to large industry groups like that at Tiwai Point and ask them to switch off we will not have an environment and an economy where people want to invest with confidence—it is as simple as that. It is not rocket science. Jobs get lost overseas investment is lost and capital for investment is lost. Those are the sorts of things on which taxes are paid and health and social services are built. I want to move on to the issue of— 
Stuart Nash 
: So you say we fix the electricity problem by building roads. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes there are connections with all of those things and that is why the national infrastructure plan is so important. Now we have talked about central government and we have talked about local government but of course the private sector has a part to play in this as well and I think the broadband investment plan is a very good example of where the Government and the private sector can collaborate. It will probably be a slow journey into those types of arrangements by the admission of the Government organisations that briefed the Minister for Infrastructure—the likes of Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development the Electricity Commission and so on—whose officials admitted that “there was currently no practical experience and relatively little knowledge of public-private partnerships.” 
We have talked a lot about it have we not for the last 9 or 10 years? I heard a lot about it in health in energy and in other industries. But very little was done to invest in that knowledge and expertise. One of those areas where we do not get a lot of private sector investment at the moment is in the health care sector. It is what I know well and Mr Peachey mentioned— 
Stuart Nash 
: You want to privatise the hospitals! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Not at all and I think the member is disingenuous by saying that. I say now that the future of this country’s health sector has to be built on a strong and sustainable public sector but the private sector has been there for a long time. But even with public sector investment—Mr Peachey talked about $250 million of planned investment—there is another nearly $700 million of capital that is backing up in the Minister’s office looking for approval. That is the sort of thing that the national infrastructure plan is designed to address because if we do not we are going to get a bow wave of these things and at current growth rates it is simply not affordable. So I congratulate the Minister. I think this legislation is very important it is part of stepping up that infrastructure planning and I look forward to seeing it when it is rolled out. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 consider the bill and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 November 2009 and that the committee has authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Later I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). The purpose of this motion is to bring forward the report back of this bill to ensure its enactment before Christmas. 
At the outset it is worth remembering that although this bill may be comparatively small in scope the student loan scheme represents over half a million borrowers and has a nominal value of about $9.6 billion. It makes sense therefore to take continuing steps to ensure that this substantial Crown asset continues to be managed in a way that is both efficient and consistent. With this in mind the bill introduces a suite of mainly technical changes to the student loan scheme repayment rules. Their purpose is to ensure that the law on the repayment of student loans is clear that it is consistent and that it operates as intended. 
The bill also extends interest-free loans to two special groups in recognition of the high value of tertiary education in building a strong economy. The first of these changes makes interest-free loans available to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand provided they are present in one of those countries for at least 183 consecutive days. This change will give borrowers from Niue the Cook Islands or Tokelau the same interest-free privileges as New Zealand - based borrowers. It recognises the importance of further education in building an informed and well-trained workforce in these countries which share a special relationship with New Zealand. As the Ross Dependency is also part of the realm of New Zealand borrowers who go there may also qualify for an interest-free loan. 
The 183-day requirement to be present in the country is the same criterion that has to be met by New Zealand - based borrowers to qualify for interest-free loan status. It was introduced on 1 April 2006 to encourage borrowers to remain in New Zealand or to return home from overseas and make their contribution to New Zealand’s economy. The bill also applies the same 183-day requirement to borrowers from what I would describe as realm countries so that they have an incentive to return home after their studies to make a positive contribution towards their own country’s future. 
Recognising the similar value that students who pursue study overseas bring to New Zealand the bill also extends interest-free loans to include students who further their education overseas through full-time study under formal exchange programmes or under formal agreements between New Zealand and overseas tertiary education providers. This has been an area of some debate in recent times and it will be a significant and welcome provision for a number of students currently studying overseas. 
The remaining changes in this bill are of a technical or a remedial nature to ensure that the bill works as it was intended. They include an amendment to correct an unintended change to the hardship relief provisions that were made by the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2007. That unintended change had the effect of restricting the years for which hardship relief from repayments could be claimed. The bill restores the position that applied previously and allows hardship relief to be granted for any earlier tax year to borrowers for whom payment would cause serious hardship. 
To help ensure that borrowers pay their correct loan repayments the bill also introduces a change allowing the Inland Revenue Department to raise the compulsory repayment deduction rate from 10 percent to 15 percent. That change can be applied to borrowers who have not had the correct deductions made or whose repayments are overdue. 
A further amendment corrects a technicality so that borrowers returning to New Zealand who wish to fully repay their loans before they have met the 183-day requirement to qualify for an interest-free loan will be able to do so. It is simply absurd to penalise students who return home to New Zealand earlier than that and who want to start making repayments. This legislation corrects that anomaly. 
These amendments and the remaining technical amendments will help ensure that the student loan scheme works as it should and that it fulfils its purpose of maintaining a well-educated workforce for our country’s current and future needs. On that basis I am very happy to commend this small but significant bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the bill to the House. Labour will be supporting the measure. 
I just want to make a couple of points in response to what I see as some of the major provisions in this bill albeit one that is fairly technical in nature. First of all interest-free loans were introduced effective from 1 April 2006 by the Labour Government specifically for the purpose of encouraging New Zealand students to stay in New Zealand to study or to work. One of the patterns that became apparent during the exercise of the student loan scheme was that students would complete their degrees and leave New Zealand as soon as possible because they could get a stay or a holiday from payments while they were overseas. The purpose of making interest-free loans applicable was to encourage our brightest and best to stay here. This bill seeks to provide that same facility and same motivation to students who reside normally in what are still quaintly called parts of the realm of New Zealand—that is Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency—for half a year. The 183-day figure simply represents half a year. Extending the interest-free loan provision to these borrowers is justifiable because our particular relationship with these people is more than simply administrative and legislative; it binds us quite closely to them in all sorts of ways. So extending this provision of being able to access interest-free loans even when they return to their home country for a period is a reasonable thing to do. 
I also make mention of some of the anomalies that have been corrected which the Minister alluded to briefly in his introductory speech. Restoring the hardship relief provisions to reflect their original intention is I think an appropriate thing to do. The intention of legislation sometimes gets a little distorted in practice and over time we can see where things are beginning to strain at the outer limits of legislation. Corrections of anomalies that become apparent are required; that is a good thing. 
I also wish to refer to the provision in this legislation that allows for students who are going overseas to study on arrangements that are reciprocal or scholarship arrangements to also access interest-free loans. That provision is hugely important for the development of our human capital in New Zealand. If all our brightest and best students go offshore to pursue postgraduate study and we cannot entice them to come back with an interest-free loan then we defeat the purpose of New Zealand’s very good tertiary education system. It seems to me that this mechanism is useful and will encourage New Zealand students to take up postgraduate study in the first instance. Although I would not for a moment denigrate any of the postgraduate facilities that we have in this country because they are exceptional and they hold their own place in the world’s league tables of tertiary and postgraduate research institutions sometimes having the opportunity to study postgraduate courses offshore allows our young people to come back with a different perspective a renewed vision of what is possible for New Zealand and in fact an overseas degree that can only help to enhance the human capital in New Zealand. 
The other technical amendments in this legislation do not require a great deal of analysis or comment. I am willing and keen to support this bill as it stands. Thank you. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. The bill has two parts. I acknowledge the two previous speakers Peter Dunne and Maryan Street and I generally endorse their comments. I think the previous speaker alluded to the fact that Labour will be supporting the bill being referred to the Education and Science Committee. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Yes. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes it will and I appreciate that. I also note the Minister of Revenue’s comment in his introductory speech that this bill will hopefully pass through its stages and become law before Christmas. That is very good and sensible. 
As the two speakers said the bill is very useful and timely. They noted as I do that it introduces a number of remedial and technical changes to ensure the student loan scheme continues to function as intended. The bill also extends interest-free loans to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand; I have not actually heard the term “realm” for quite some time. 
I turn to some of the numbers. The impact of the student loan scheme on our economy and on our accounts—on the books if you like—is very very significant. There are over half a million borrowers under the student loan scheme and the nominal value is something around $9.5 billion to $10.5 billion. It is quite a significant Crown asset and it should be managed in the best way possible just as any other asset of the Crown—or of the taxpayer at least—should be managed in an efficient and consistent manner. 
We all know that the interest on student loans is now zero percent yet they are still an investment. Yes there is a financial impact on the Crown’s accounts depending on how that interest is written off from day one—how the opportunity cost of that interest is foregone. It goes without saying—I will say it anyway—that the lower interest rates across the economy are the less the investment in interest-free student loans costs our economy. None the less the scheme is still an investment. It is an investment in the future of New Zealand and in future taxpayers. So anything we can do to make it more efficient better more transparent and fairer—as this bill does—we should continue to do. 
The Minister outlined a number of technical aspects in his first reading speech. Interestingly the bill will make interest-free loans available to borrowers who live in countries that are part of the realm of New Zealand—as I said before Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency. 
The Ross Dependency part interests me and it may also interest you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy as your electorate is a bit closer to that part of the world than where I live is. It is a simple change to align borrowers there with other New Zealand borrowers who must meet the requirement to be present in one of those countries or in New Zealand for 183 days. One could argue that those in the Ross Dependency have their interest frozen if you like or that it is on ice—to be a bit light-hearted about this bill. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Good try! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes it is. 
A taxpayer-friendly piece is also proposed in the legislation and that is a change that allows the Inland Revenue Department to increase the standard repayment reduction rate from 10 percent to 15 percent where borrowers have failed to have the correct deductions made. The higher rate will apply to the under-deductions including any late-payment penalties to be fully repaid. The taxpayer has on-lent to borrowers at zero interest cost so there is already a significant subsidy or advantage to write-off for or investment in—whatever one likes to call it—the borrower. I think most parties across the House will applaud anything to make the scheme more efficient fairer for other student loan borrowers and more transparent. I think we have heard that so far. 
A point I would like to pick up which one of the other speakers spoke to is one of the technical changes. It makes student loans interest-free for borrowers who return to New Zealand and fully repay their loans before they have been back 183 days which is of course the tax residency threshold. That is welcoming home New Zealanders who return and pay off the loan early. Technically before this bill is passed that is actually the case. From the taxpayers’ point of view we do not want that liability on the books if we do not need it. From the borrowers’ point of view they have been overseas have done their OE and have got some money together. They come back to New Zealand with some capital and lo and behold if they are able to pay off the loan within 183 days they fully qualify for the interest-free provision. That is a very very good part of this bill. 
The bill has only two parts. As other speakers have noticed it is quite short. I look forward to speaking on the rest of the bill during its passage through the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak in support of the first reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. As Mr Foss mentioned the name is almost longer than the bill. This bill is by and large a technical bill but it enshrines a couple of important philosophies that we as the Labour Party value and that is one of the main reasons why I support this bill. 
It has always been Labour Party philosophy to help foster the economic development of our Pasifika brothers and sisters. The bill also builds on Labour’s fantastic law of giving interest-free student loans to all students. What wonderful legislation that was! It was Labour legislation of course. Education has to be the cornerstone of economic development. I have a poster on my wall that has a quote from Malcolm X. That quote is: “Without education you are not going anywhere in this world.” Those powerful words are from a man who discovered the power and value of education as a tool to instigate change in a world that demanded change and to make a difference in a world where difference is needed to drive independence sustainable economic growth and a higher standard of living. 
This bill makes some technical amendments but by and large it does three things. First it allows those from the nations of Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency who have come to New Zealand to seek educational opportunities to return home in order to put their education and learning into practice. Secondly it provides an incentive to those currently resident in the aforementioned countries to come to New Zealand to be educated then return home to families friends and jobs while achieving the same advantages as citizens domiciled already in New Zealand. Thirdly it provides opportunities for New Zealand citizens who may wish to travel to Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau or the Ross Dependency in order to pursue professional opportunities for any number of reasons. This bill also allows interest-free loans for students engaged in full-time study overseas under a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a New Zealand education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider. 
But I have one problem with this bill. I have a grave concern that the National Government will look to repeal the interest-free student loan provisions thereby necessitating my being back in this House within 2 years in order to repeal this amendment legislation. That is a real fear. We have discussed it and the National Government has actually signalled it. Why do I have this concern? Well the National Government has shown that its priorities are all wrong. In fact when it comes to education which is what this bill basically deals with Mr Key’s priorities are dreadful. He has effectively been robbing the poor to give to the rich. I ask members where all that education money has gone. Where has all that education money been stolen from? The Prime Minister Mr English every other National member—including Mr Hayes—the Maori Party and the ACT MPs have stolen $13 million from adult and community education by arrogantly closing night classes thereby taking away the ability of thousands of New Zealanders to better themselves through education in order to become productive members of their communities and society. 
The irony is that we are agreeing on the first reading of a bill—I do not know the fiscal implications of this bill but I am sure that the Minister of Revenue will explain it at some stage—that enhances educational opportunities for those wishing to go to or return to Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau or the Ross Dependency. This bill is aspirational. With regard to this bill the Minister of Revenue Mr Dunne has said: “This is another positive step that will allow people to further their studies overseas in a way that will benefit New Zealand in the longer term.” I totally agree with the Minister and that is why I am supporting this bill. But with all due respect I ask: what about those who live here and who want to stay in New Zealand and study in New Zealand? The National Government including that member over there John Hayes has stolen the educational opportunities of thousands of New Zealanders. This is simply not fair and it represents incorrect priorities. 
Where else has the money been stolen from? There is the $11 million that the Prime Minister Mr English and every other National Maori Party and ACT MP have stolen from those who are least able to afford to get into education through the training incentive allowance. Solo parents who make a proactive choice to engage in education whilst bringing up their children have suddenly had that opportunity taken away from them. Can members believe that? These people are depending on the State at the moment. They wish to engage in education and to contribute yet they have had that opportunity taken away from them. That is a true travesty. These guys would be paying tax for the rest of their lives if they became educated yet the Government has pulled the rug away. That is dreadful. Where are those members’ priorities? They have gone; they have disappeared. 
Then there is the healthy food in schools guideline. Mr Hayes would be interested in the healthy food in schools guideline. It may be a little late for him but people in his electorate would love the healthy food in schools guideline. But his Government has removed it. You have taken it away. You get my point Mr Assistant Speaker Roy but members opposite do not get the point. This Government has slashed cut burnt decimated and butchered educational opportunities for many New Zealanders from the cradle to the grave. Educational opportunity from the cradle to the grave is what generations of Labour Ministers of Finance Prime Ministers leaders and Mr Goff have delivered and that is what this Government is taking away. 
Where has the money been taken from? It is from the high school night classes adult and community education and the training incentive allowance. Where has it gone to? 
Carol Beaumont 
: Private education. 
STUART NASH 
: Dead right. I can report that $35 million has been stolen from the poor and given to the rich—$35 million. It is Robin Hood in reverse. Key is a modern-day New Zealand Sheriff of Nottingham or the “Sheriff of Nothing” stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Actually I tell members that we see in the pre-commentary on Bill English’s Tax Working Group report that it is suggesting raising GST to 15 percent so that the Government can drop the top tax rates of 38 percent and 33 percent down to 30 percent. This was said by the Treasury representative on the Tax Working Group. I tell the 75 percent of New Zealanders who earn under $48000 to watch out. 
I come back to education. Do members know that $35 million has been given to private schools? Do they know why? I will tell members. It is because Minister English believes that everyone is entitled to free education. That was the reason he gave in this House. I tell members that I completely agree with Minister English: everyone deserves a free education. The parents who send their kids to private schools have the option to send their children to State schools as well. They can send their children to the local State school. However they choose the option of sending their child to a private school. Many who are undertaking adult and community education or who are taking up the training incentive allowance do not have that same option. Now they have no options thanks to Mr English Mr Key and all those on that side of the House who voted for this Budget. For example Mr Tremain and Mr Foss from Hawke’s Bay voted for cuts in adult and community education. These cuts affect over 6000 people in Hawke’s Bay as well as 314 tutors. The irony is that Minister Tolley used to be an adult and community education tutor in Napier. That irony is not lost on the vast majority of people whom I have talked to in the Bay. 
The Labour Party has always believed that the first charge of a Government is to ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to become productive citizens be this through health education or any area that allows New Zealanders to optimise their opportunities. That is what this party is about: cradle to grave. Savage Fraser and that other chap all spoke about this in years past and it is still the guiding philosophy of our current party and our fantastic leader the next Prime Minister Phil Goff. National has never had such a mandate or a belief system. That is why those members can slash and burn to such an extent without any conscience. That is why they can attend public meetings and pontificate about nothing whilst ignoring the voices in the crowd that are baying for their blood. In 9 long months the priorities of this National Government have proved that those members cannot be trusted. 
I support this bill but I certainly do not support the approach of this Government of robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. The Green Party likes some of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill especially the bit providing interest-free loans to overseas borrowers but I am sorry to say that the love fest for the legislation stops right there. I will speak very briefly on the bill because Metiria Turei who is our spokeswoman on tertiary education is not here tonight. 
I acknowledge that if Malcolm X were here—he was referred to by the previous speaker Stuart Nash—I very much doubt whether he would be supporting any aspect of any bill in the House that supported the student loan scheme in any way whatsoever. I am sure Malcolm X would have been horrified by the impact of the student loan scheme on this country and on the aspirations of young people in this country—particularly the impact of the student loan scheme on indigenous youth. 
However I will get down to the detail of the exemption and miscellaneous provisions of the bill. The bill makes several changes to student loans and replaces how the interest rate where applicable is set by a formula. The formula is identical to the formula currently in use and the change is to take it out of regulation and put it into the principal Act. We do not have a problem with that provision. The bill also enables the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to increase the standard rate for repayment deductions from salary and wages from 10c in the dollar to up to 15c for borrowers who have failed to make the correct deductions. We have a problem with that provision because for many people that increase is quite serious. The bill extends interest-free loans to borrowers from Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency. That is all good. We would really like to be able to support the bill because we really believe in providing interest-free loans to our Pacific neighbours. That is very important. The relationship is absolutely vital and it enriches both our country and the rest of the Pacific. We also do not have a problem with a number of the non-controversial technical amendments in the bill. 
But we have to look at the context of the changes to the deductions. When we were consulted on the bill’s predecessor last year we opposed its introduction on the basis that increasing the powers of the Inland Revenue Department to recover debt in this manner is a very bad move. One of the drivers of the bill which was stated to us at the time was that the Inland Revenue Department had mistakenly failed to collect from some borrowers who are now in arrears. Compulsory student loan repayments already kick in at a low threshold. Increasing the deduction to 15c in the dollar would have a severe impact on some borrowers because that low threshold which is $19084 gross is not enough to live on. It is a scary amount of money to try to live on. Changing the deduction level could have a major impact.  
The bill suggests that alternatively the department could simply allow those who are behind in their repayments to take longer to pay off their loans. We would rather see that happen. We are very very concerned about the fact that the Inland Revenue Department made the mistake. Why should the students of this country pay for the tax department’s mistake? I do not know how many members have had the experience—I certainly have—of the tax department making a mistake and trying to make them pay for it. I do not think that approach should be applied to the students in this country. The Inland Revenue Department has to take responsibility for making mistakes. We should not penalise our students in that way. Regrettably we cannot support the bill although we support the overseas borrowing provisions.  
I make a general comment about the bill. The student loan scheme is possibly the most effective tool with which to depoliticise and alienate an entire generation. Here many of us sit as recipients of a publicly funded university education system. We paid maybe $125 per year for books for our courses. We left university debt free and burden free. We grew up thinking we had the right to an education and that we were valued members of a caring society that invested in us.  
John Hayes 
: Some of us were. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Some of us were. Some of us who are making the decisions here tonight got that free education. It did not work so well for tangata whenua who were still experiencing the loss of lands resources and taonga katoa including their language. But for those of us lucky enough to go to university there was no debt. There was no questioning of whether we could ever afford to have a family or to buy a house. Sure now everyone can go to university but everyone must pay. Some of us who did not pay are not even listening to this speech. We did not have to pay. That is the irony of the situation. We who were privileged enough to feel that our society invested in us and that we did not have to go overseas to get the money to pay back our debt sit here in judgment deciding that our students should increase the amount they are paying because the Inland Revenue Department made a mistake. The Green Party does not agree with that.  
University used to be a place where students debated ideas and engaged with civic issues. Now they talk about how to pay back their debts. Now students are hard to enrage or activate. They are a passive compliant and debt-ridden mass who are focused on what they need to know in order to pass the test and get their qualification so they can get a job and pay back their debt. That is not an intellectually rich environment; it is a place where ideas take second place to the debt mountain—the food bank for some—and to the pernicious individualism of immediate personal indebted survival.  
I was lucky to be a young person and a student when participating in political activity and lively dialogue within an education about ideas was the norm. But now if one goes to a university one will find people scurrying through the corridors not focused on anything to do with a civil society or a political society but focused on how they can pass the test on not being asked to discuss ideas and on just getting through so they can get a proper job in order to pay off the debt. Now that we do not even have proper jobs because we are in a major recession the Government is talking about increasing the amount some students might have to pay.  
Much as we support the idea of interest-free borrowing for overseas students we regret this bill. We stand as we have stood before and will stand again against the student loan scheme as a disempowering and ineffectual way to invest in young people. I listen to all the rhetoric in this House about the value of education. The bill is not about education; it is about the dollar. We have forgotten that education was once about investing in our young people yet we wonder why they rush overseas are deeply alienated from our communities and think only of themselves. Let us look in the mirror. We cannot support the bill. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatau e te Whare. I a tatau e korero nei i nga take o te matauranga e tika ana kia huri nga whakaaro ki tera o nga matanga nga tohunga o roto o Tainui waka kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi i nga ra tata kua hipa. Ko Tui Adams tera. Kei runga ia i tona marae o roto o Ngati Maniapoto i tenei po taku mohio koi nei te po poroporoaki ki a ia. Apopo ka tukuna atu a ia ki te kopu o Papatuanuku e koro haere. Koia tera i kaha tautoko nei i te ahuatanga o te Wananga o Aotearoa i nga tau kua hipa. E ka tangi te ngakau ki a koe e koro. 
Ara ano tera o roto i Ngati Tuwharetoa. He pera ano te korero. Ko Arthur Smallman tera he uri o roto o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Pera ano hoki te ahuatanga o te korero. Apopo ka tukuna atu ai ki te kopu o Papatuanuku. Korua tahi. Koutou te hunga mate haere whakangaro atu. 
Ka hoki mai ano ra ki tenei pire a-matauranga nei. Tona mutunga he take matauranga tenei. Me ki ara noa atu te rarangi korero mo nga momo turanga mahi e kimi haere nei i etahi hei whakakiki i nga whawharua. Ara ko nga takuta ko nga kaiako ko nga kaimahi hiko kaimahi korere wai nehi niho kaiputaiao kaihoahoa kaiwhakatauira whare ranei a tae atu ki te hunga kaiahuone ara noa atu ara noa atu. Koi nei nga momo mahi i rongo nei i te ngau o te tapahi o te putea e ki ana ko te putea tautoko akoranga. Ko te tikanga ko enei putea he mea awhina i te hunga e kimi mahi ana e pa ana ki ta ratau i ako ai na runga i tona ake hiahia na runga ake i tona ao na runga i te ahuatanga o nga hiahia o te hunga mahi. Engari ko te tahua putea o tenei tau ae i tiaki pai mai te putea tautoko akoranga nei engari no te hunga anake i ako nei tae ra no ki te taumata tuatoru me ki ko te mea nga wari noa iho ki tera taumata. Engari mena e hiahia ana ratau ki te kimi haere i nga pukenga mo te mahi ara ko nga pukenga e hiahiatia nei e te hunga tuku mahi kia eke atu ai nga tangata ki nga taumata e wawatatia ana katahi te Kawanatanga ka whakaputa i tetahi whakataunga heahea rawa atu he taiapa i whakaturia i mua i te aroaro o te hunga ako. Me ki he mea ngau nei ki te ngakau o te tangata puta noa i te motu kua puta te korero te awanga nui nei ki te Kawanatanga engari auare ake. Kaore te Kawanatanga i aro mai ki ta ratou i whakatakoto mai ai. 
Ara no te whakatauki o roto i te ao Maori ko te kai o te rangatira he korero me ki kei te putake o tera ko tenei mea te korero he korero rangatira ki te rangatira ara no te tikanga o roto i tera momo korero me whakarongo ki ta te iwi e korero nei ka mutu me wananga i roto i te ngakau ka mutu a me whakaputa korero i muri mai. He ahua pera ano hoki te ahuatanga o te taone nui o Tamaki i pera rawa te korero. Ko te tikanga me ki tenei Kawanatanga me whai te Minita Hide nei i tera korero ko te kai o te rangatira he korero he wananga i te ahuatanga o nga turu Maori i roto o Tamaki. 
Pera ano hoki tenei pire kare te Kawanatanga i tino rongo i nga hiahia o te hunga i whakatakoto korero ki mua i a ratau i haere tika tonu ia a-Kawanatanga ki runga i tona ake huarahi. Ko tenei pire me ki i whakawhanui te titiro ki tenei mea te utu hua moni kore ki te hunga i tono nei i etahi putea. Ara me ki te hunga e noho mai rara i Niue i Kuki Airani i Tokerau tae atu ki tena whenua o Ross Dependency me ki roa ake i nga ra e 183. Na ko te tino putake o tera take me penei rawa te korero he pai tonu i te mea i tautoko nei i te hunga o era whenua ki te akoako i konei ka mutu ka hoki ratau ki o ratau ake whenua a ka taka atu nga painga ki reira ki era whenua. He pai tonu era mea katoa. Na he paku rawekeweke nei i te hanganga ture kia taea ai nga mea tono moni nei me ki he hunga mahi nei mo te kore moni ara o roto i nga ropu whakahaere awhina tangata. Me ki kare ratau i rongo nei i nga tikanga o tenei o nga pire mo nga ra e pera ano te roa ara e 183 ra. E ahei ana te hunga na aua tauira me ki kua uru ki roto i nga whare wananga kei roto i tetahi wahi ako ki te whai i ta ratau e pirangi nei i tawahi e watea ata ki a ratau tenei mea ko te utu hua moni kore. 
Ara ano etahi atu painga kua rahi ake te utu moni whakahoki mai i te tekau heneti o roto i te taara kotahi eke atu ai ki te tekau ma rima heneti mo te hunga kua ahua tureiti te whakahoki moni mai. E whakarahi ake ano ra i te wa hei whakahoki mai i te moni me te kore rongo nei i tetahi moni nui nei i runga ake i tera i whakaritea mai ai mai i te 15 ra ki te 30 ra. Na tena kaua koutou e noho i te pohehe he pai tonu enei mea he hua o roto o enei ahuatanga katoa. E hangai tonu ana ki ta te Pati Maori i whakatakoto mai ai i nga tau kua hipa ara ko tenei mea te matauranga o roto i nga whare wananga he koha hei whakatutuki i nga moemoea o te iwi. Te tikanga me whakawatea mai nga huarahi katoa kia haere a-ao Maori nei a wai ake ki roto i nga whare wananga mo te kore utu. Engari ara no nga patai kaore ano kia whakautua a ka mutu kaore ano kia pataia. Ko wai te hunga e whakariterite nei i nga whainga matua o te Kawanatanga? Kei te whakarongo te Kawanatanga ki a wai? He aha nga momo huarahi o muri mai e mirimiri nei i te ahuatanga o te whainga matua? 
Ko ta matou o te Pati Maori i ki nei i mua hiahia no matou ki te whakatakoto i tetahi utu whakaheke ara kia whakapapaku i te utu a te roanga o te wa. E ngana nei matou ki te whakarahi ake i nga huarahi katoa ki te tahua tauira na runga i te ahuatanga o te whakatakoto i tetahi tahua tauira ara kia orite tona taumata ki tera o te putea mo te kore mahi. 
He korero whakamutunga pea ko ta matou e ki nei kia orite te whakautu i nga nama. Me timata i tera a te wa ka whiwhi i nga kaitono i te putea tahi me te hawhe i runga ake i te utu tau toharite. Me ki me whakawatea mai ai ko te rima tau o waenganui hei whakahoki i te moni i muri mai o te putanga i te whare wananga ka mutu ka noho kore utu hua moni nei. Ae tera korero. No reira ehara i te mea he kino tenei pire kao he pai tonu. Ara no nga painga mo te hunga e tono moni nei ka whiwhi painga. Me ki ka whakakao mai tenei pire i tetahi hunga o roto i tenei kahui ara o te utu hua moni kore. Engari koi na te putake kai a wai nga painga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all the House. As we debate matters concerning education it is appropriate that we turn our thoughts to that scholar and expert of the Tainui canoe in this field Tui Adams who passed away recently. He lies in state on his Ngati Maniapoto marae tonight. My understanding is that farewell tributes will be made to him tonight. Tomorrow he will be interred in the bowels of mother Earth. Depart old one. During the past years he was a staunch supporter of aspects relating to Te Wananga o Aotearoa. Oh how the heart grieves for you old one.  
I acknowledge that loss in Ngati Tuwharetoa with the passing of Arthur Smallman one of its descendants. Tonight is his last night as well and tomorrow he will be interred in the bowels of mother Earth. That is both of you. Farewell to you the dead. Disappear from view.  
So I come back once again to this bill. After all it is about education. There is an extensive list of occupations that have an ongoing skill shortage of trained staff: doctors teachers electricians plumbers dentists scientists engineers architects horticultural specialists and so on. These are the occupations that were directly affected by the recent cuts to the training incentive allowance. Training incentive allowances help people to undertake employment-related training appropriate to their own situation and the demands of the labour market. Budget decisions this year retain the training incentive allowance if one is studying under level 3— the basic foundation skills at that level. But to achieve employable skills those that employers actually need skills that pave the way to a well-paid job or career the Government made the crazy decision to place an obstacle in the way. It was heartbreaking and demoralising and right throughout the country the people have spoken of their concerns but to no avail. The people were ignored again.  
We have a proverb in Maoridom: “Talk is the food of the chief.” In essence that means that real chiefs listen to what the people say. They take it in contemplate it reflect on it and then make informed decisions. The situation in the city of Auckland is somewhat like that proverb. Strictly speaking this Government should be saying that Minister Hide should heed the proverb about talk being food to the chief and debate the circumstances relating to the Maori seats in Auckland.  
This bill is similar as well. The Government did not really hear the wishes of those who put submissions before them. Instead of listening the Government went ahead and did what it wanted to do. This bill extends eligibility for interest-free student loans to borrowers living in Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency for a further 183 days. The point is that if we support people from these countries to study they will then return to their lands and contribute to development there. And that is all good. It also means legislation to ensure that borrowers who volunteer for overseas charitable organisations are exempt from the requirements to be home for at least 183 days. And it enables those students enrolled with a New Zealand provider but engaged in full-time study overseas to be eligible for interest-free student loans.  
It does some other things along the way. It increases the repayment deductions from 10c in the dollar up to 15c for those whose accounts are overdue. It increases the period in which a loan may be fully repaid without incurring additional interest from 15 to 30 days. Do not get me wrong—these are all significant achievements in their own right. And they do fit well with the advocacy we have made from the Maori Party that t 
ertiary education is a front-end investment in the nation’s future and should be freely available to all. But questions must continue to be asked. Who is calling the shots in determining Government policy? Who does the Government listen to? What are the deals being done to influence policy?  
In our policy manifesto the Maori Party made the commitment to introduce a fee reduction policy to reduce fees to a nominal level over time. We also sought to increase access to student allowances by introducing a universal student allowance that will be set at the level of the unemployment benefit.  
In conclusion we recommended that student loan debt repayments perhaps should start only when borrowers are earning 1½ times the average wage that there be a 5-year grace period for repayments after graduation and that student loans remain interest-free. Yes indeed. So this is not a bad bill—not at all. It has its positives for those seeking loans. It brings more people into the loop of interest-free student loans. 
 But I ask—and it is the nub—who precisely is benefiting from it 
.] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise tonight to take a call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. The student loan scheme has become a central part of our tertiary education system. This bill is all about ensuring that it is working in the way in which it is intended that it is a balanced scheme and that it is applied fairly equally and appropriately. Most important it is about ensuring that repayments are incentivised. That is a big plan for this Government because we work on the basis that it is not good for people to have that debt hanging over them for longer than need be. It is not good for the country; it is not good for the borrowers. So anything we can do to incentivise borrowers to have that debt cleared away we would certainly support. We have this bill before us and later in the year we will be looking at the repayment bonus which will help achieve that goal. 
The scheme as we have heard has over half a million borrowers. It has a nominal value of approximately $10 billion. The really important thing about the scheme is not the numbers; what is really important about it is that it enables every single New Zealander to advance his or her tertiary education. No New Zealander can say that funds are not there to be taken advantage of for his or her education because the scheme is available to all. 
I had just started my university education when the scheme came into force. It was really interesting to see the transition from the previous scheme where that was not the case; fees were low and students could do the proverbial 7-year scenic tour BA. Students suddenly realised that they were there to get an asset that would help them and enrich their lives for many years to come. They realised that their education was an asset and like every asset it had a value. By attributing that value to it students started to understand that they were there to get an education that would put them in a better position for the rest of their lives. I for one had no problem paying for it. I had no problem racking up debt and I certainly did not get any State assistance in terms of welfare allowances. I had to work very hard and I had my student loan but I knew that tertiary education was my path to a brighter future. That is why I took it on. 
I am a big proponent of the scheme and as I said anything we can do to incentivise borrowers to pay back that debt sooner is worth supporting. As we have heard from the Minister of Revenue the bill will encourage those within the realm of New Zealand—which is a bit of an antiquated term—to study. We have a special relationship with the Cook Islands Niue Tokelau and the Ross Dependency and we want to ensure that people there are treated in the same way as our own residents are. We are also ensuring that New Zealand residents who are studying full-time under approved schemes are entitled to an interest-free loan. 
There are some very interesting and important technical amendments within the bill that tidy up issues. An interesting one is that the setting of the interest rate is moved from a matter set by regulation to a matter of primary importance that is in the primary legislation. That is a move I endorse. The rate now is the average Government bond yield rate times a multiplier of 0.74 percent. It is moved to the primary legislation which emphasises the importance of it. 
The other important point that I want to touch on briefly is the entitlement of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to issue a 15 percent deduction rate where there is a shortfall in repayments to ensure that that shortfall is caught up with quickly and to move borrowers towards the goal of getting themselves debt free sooner. 
The bill is an excellent bill. It is an overdue bill. I commend the Minister and I support the bill. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Here is a little bit of a history lesson for the member who just spoke Amy Adams. She may have forgotten what her leader John Key said about interest-free student loans on the day that the previous Labour Government announced them. John Key called them unaffordable and irresponsible. He said it was a sad day for New Zealand. 
Grant Robertson 
: He was going to oppose it! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: In fact John Key said he was going to oppose interest-free student loans with every bone in his body. How times have changed. He must not have any bones left— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The medication will fix that! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —the medication will fix that—because here we are debating the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill a bill that actually extends interest-free student loans despite the change of Government. How times have changed indeed. 
I am very proud to take a call on this bill which extends interest-free student loans. Labour is incredibly proud of the policy. It was introduced in 2005 and it was another step to making tertiary education a lot more affordable after the massive increase in the cost of tertiary education that students experienced in the 1990s. Fees were rising by thousands of dollars a year and there was very little support for students in the form of student allowances. What was even worse was that students were being charged interest on their loans while they were still studying and it was compounding daily. When students were in no position to make any repayments on their loans and when they should have been focused on studying they were busy worrying about the massive growth in the interest on their student loan. The longer they studied the higher it became. 
John Hayes 
: Have you paid yours off? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I say to John Hayes that I have paid off my student loan. In fact I made the final repayments only about 2 months ago. There is a little bit of a story behind that. There are one or two administrative problems with the student loan scheme. I paid off my student loan and I changed my tax code from MSL back to M. At the end of the year when my tax return was done I had overpaid some tax so the Inland Revenue Department gave me a cheque for student loan repayments that I had overpaid then created a new debt for me which I would have had to start repaying under the MSL code. That was absolutely ridiculous. It is fair to say that I returned the cheque to the Inland Revenue Department thanked it very much for the free money which I had not asked for and told it that I did not need the student loan any more. I gave the money back to the department. That highlights an administrative error I think in the way that student loans are administered. But there are other things too. 
I also want to talk about the fact that although interest-free student loans apply to diplomats and those on overseas postings and I am sure Mr Hayes will be familiar with this they do not apply to their partners. A diplomat who is sent offshore gets an interest-free student loan for the duration of the time that he or she is away and that is something we support. But if the diplomat’s partner goes as well from the advice that I have been given by a number of people who are affected it is my understanding that he or she does not get an interest-free student loan. That appears to be an anomaly and I hope the Education and Science Committee will look at it when it considers the bill. For it to do so would be consistent with the purpose of the bill which is about extending interest-free student loans to a new group of people particularly those in the realm of New Zealand—that rather antiquated concept—and we also need to think about the people who fall through the cracks at the moment. 
I want to pick up one or two of the comments made by Catherine Delahunty. I very much agreed with some of the concerns that she raised. She was lamenting the impact that the cost of tertiary education has had on the ability of students to participate in wider social activity particularly student activism. I would say one thing in response to the points that Catherine Delahunty raised. The interest-free student loan scheme came about as a result—at least in part—of over a decade of student activism on the issue of student fees student loans student allowances and the cost of tertiary education. Student activism is by no means dead but students are now much more focused on making ends meet and that is having an impact on some students’ study. They are more worried about the cost of education than they might have been 20 or 30 years ago when the majority of the members of this House would have received their education at a fraction of the cost that students today have to pay for their tertiary education. I agreed with a lot of what Catherine Delahunty said. 
The Labour Party supports this bill however because we support interest-free student loans. The previous Labour Government introduced interest-free student loans. It was an affordable and responsible commitment that the Labour Government made in 2005. Although the National Party did not think so at the time it seems to have come round to the idea. That really highlights a difference in values. The National Party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where it adopted the interest-free student loan scheme; it did not do so willingly. The previous Labour Government was very proud to introduce interest-free student loans because part of our belief is that Governments should strive to reduce the barriers to participation in tertiary education. 
One of the big barriers is cost. Rather than looking at increasing the cost of tertiary education we should be looking all the time at ways that we can reduce the costs involved. Interest-free student loans built on as I said before our policy of no interest while studying. They built on the fee freeze that the Labour Government had introduced. Immediately upon taking office Labour froze fees at their 2000 levels and then it introduced a fee maxima policy which stopped fees increasing by huge amounts year after year which had happened throughout the 1990s. Students would start their tertiary studies with no idea of how much they would end up paying by the time they finished. Fees would go up by thousands of dollars a year. A student might go into tertiary study thinking he or she could afford fees of $10000 but by the time the student finished he or she might have paid $15000 or $20000. Putting that cap in place underscored the commitment of the previous Labour Government to control the cost of tertiary education and progressively work towards lowering the cost and lowering the barrier. 
Labour did a number of things. We increased the access to student allowances. Significant numbers of additional students were made eligible for student allowances in the 2005 Budget and a further swag of them I believe were made eligible in 2007. I do not have the exact year at the top of my head but I think it was in 2007 that the next major increase in allowances was made. The goal of the Labour Government was to work towards a universal student allowance which many members of this House enjoyed the benefit of when they undertook their own tertiary studies but over time it has been taken away from future generations of students. We would like to see it reintroduced. 
The Labour Party values quality publicly funded education. In contrast the National Government’s most important priority in the area of education was an extra $35 million for private schools. An extra $35 million for private schools was more important than funding for adult and community education. It was more important than funding to increase the number of apprentices. It was more important than increasing the number of training places in industry training. It was more important than increasing the funding for polytechnics and for trades-based training. Increased funding for private schools was this Government’s No. 1 priority for additional education spending. There is no planning and no sense of priority whatsoever from this Government. It took an extra $35 million and gave it to the most privileged students in the country who already— 
Carol Beaumont 
: To 3.6 percent of them. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It gave it to 3.6 percent of students. It thought that was more important than funding special-needs education. It thought that $35 million for private schools was more important than funding special-needs education. That says a lot about this Government’s priorities. 
In conclusion I support this bill. It makes a number of quite common-sense technical amendments to the student loan scheme. It is a shame the National Government is not more supportive of the whole concept of interest-free student loans. It is a shame it is not doing more to decrease the cost of tertiary education for students because education is an investment in the future of our country. It is an investment in increasing productivity. It is an investment in a brighter future for New Zealand. Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will not traverse all the issues that have already been covered tonight but will just cover two short points. Firstly the provisions of the Student Loan Scheme Act will be extended to students who live in countries that are part of the New Zealand territories—Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau. I was on the recent Pacific mission led by our Prime Minister and it was the most celebrated mission in many a year to go to the Pacific Islands. The people of those territories will see this bill as a very welcome addition to the services that New Zealand already provides for them. 
Secondly interest-free loans are to be extended to include students who are furthering their education overseas and through full-time study. They will be doing that through study programmes exchange programmes and formal agreements between New Zealand and other nations. I spent some time studying overseas and had to look for ways to fund my own education so I say this provision will be very welcome to those people. We welcome students going overseas to pick up on new ideas new ways of thinking and innovative methods of doing things and bringing those ideas back to our country in order that we may benefit through their contribution to our local economy and our local people. So this is a very welcome provision. 
We should celebrate the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. Much has been said across the Chamber about student loans and their value. Having had my student loan for a number of years I can say personally that it is a valuable scheme—not necessarily the interest-free scheme but certainly the student loan scheme. It is a benefit to our country. I support the bill and I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak to it. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take this call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill because it strikes me that National still needs a re-education on the steps that were required before we could extend this policy to some of our overseas counterparts. As my colleague Chris Hipkins has already pointed out this change would not be welcome on behalf of some of the young students from Niue Tokelau or the Cook Islands if it were not first welcome for the students of New Zealand. 
I remind the National Party and now the National Government of its response to the most recent changes we saw in 2005 and also perhaps will give a little history lesson on where we started back in 1999. I can personally attest to the initial stages of the policy we are now discussing. When I started university in 1999 the policy meant that while students were still studying at university they had to pay interest on their student loans. A full-time student studying and paying interest on his or her student loan had absolutely no ability to start paying that loan back at that time. It was an unfair system it was an inequitable system and it changed people’s behaviours as a consequence. 
Students decided either not to go into tertiary education—a fact that my colleague across the House Mr Gilmore seems unaware of; it was not a question of simply not taking a loan as that was not a choice for a lot of students—or they simply made choices about the types of tertiary education they entered into. For instance I know of students—I was one—who considered where they studied based simply on whether they could reduce their loan by trying to study at a cheaper place and in a cheaper course. The access to the loan system and the way in which the loan system operated changed behaviours and it changed lives and I do not think we can forget that. 
I remember when it was first removed when the Labour Government came into office in 1999. It was one of the first things that Government did and it is something I remain immensely proud of. But let us fast-forward to 2005 because I think this is again relevant to the bill we are discussing today. The change in 2005 to remove interest on all student loans was not just a policy; it was a reflection of Labour’s values. It was a reflection of the view that education is a public good. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Education laughs at that notion which I find quite shameful. On this side of the House education is viewed as a public good that everyone can benefit from. We can see from the National Government’s view on accessibility to education that that is not a view that it holds. National’s response to that policy was first and foremost from its now Prime Minister John Key. He called it a bribe. Not only did he call it a bribe— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It was. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I hear the Minister say yes. If she thinks it is a bribe why was it not removed? Why did the Minister not reverse the policy and why is she now extending it if she thinks it is a bribe? I would be interested to hear her take a call on that. I think it is useful to reflect on what the now Minister of Finance also said at the time. One of his statements when this policy was introduced was: “Why would voters support a policy that benefits a few … but costs everyone else right now?”. Taken out of context I thought I was reading a response to the National Government’s tax policy which as we have demonstrated benefits 3 percent of the population but takes up one-third of the tax spend. So in my mind it is perhaps a statement that is misappropriated. Again I reiterate that we did not see that policy as benefiting just a few. The number of students whose lives are changed by this policy is enormous and this bill will do that for a number of students but in particular for students from Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau. 
As I have already pointed out sometimes there are two sides to the National Government’s position—in general on a number of issues but in particular on education issues. In fact I would liken its policies to playing a game of memory. We can flip over one card and get a short view of National’s view of the world but we need the matching card to understand the full game. Let me explain what I mean by that. Let us look at the Youth Guarantee policy. Youth Guarantee gives 2000 places to young people in our polytechnics. One card on its own does not look too bad but if we flip over the other card we see that the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand say that 6000 young people will be turned away from their places of education this year due to the caps that the National Government has put in place to restrict the access of our young people into these tertiary institutions—and this is in a recession! So we are robbing from 6000 and giving to 2000. In my summation we are depriving well over 4000 young people of a placement in tertiary education. 
Let us continue the memory game because I am having a little bit of fun with this. Let us flip over another card: the Government’s view on simplifying the loan repayment system. Peter Dunne made that announcement earlier in the year. There are a few fish-hooks in it that I am looking forward to discussing with the Minister in greater detail and I respect that consultation on this policy is going on. I think it is important to understand that we have the technicalities right. I have concerns about earnings from holiday jobs being forced into loan repayments. From my understanding and my experience of working around those who are trying to accumulate funds in their holidays that is the time when they build up the funds to get them through the following term. If loan repayments are automatically being deducted from those funds then I have concerns about the sustainability of that. But we can debate that issue further in the House and I look forward to that. But on student loans generally on the one card we see the Government putting through bills like this that extend them and make technical changes. On the other card I still see the rhetoric of the National Government which tells me that it never did and never will support this policy in its entirety and for what it actually stands for which is accessible education for all. So I am still waiting to see that other card being flipped over in this game of memory. I am still waiting and I do have dire concerns on that point. But I am sure that this side of the House will continue to hold the Government to account on what has been a flip-flop on this very important policy. 
I will reflect though on a particular provision of this bill which I have mentioned briefly and that is section 38AIA inserted by clause 13. It has been touched on by some of the members on both sides of the House. It explicitly sets out a provision for borrowers who are present in Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency for 183 or more consecutive days in order to encourage borrowers from those countries or that territory to return to their country and contribute to its development. And the bill goes on. It does not include just those students; it includes those who are enrolled with a New Zealand education provider and engaged in full-time study overseas—either a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a new Zealand tertiary education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider. Both are covered. 
Why do I think this is important? Well recently I had the opportunity to travel to Niue and participate in and lead seminars on youth engagement and building youth opportunities for the young people in Niue. I have a particular connection to Niue through my family which I am very proud of. The strong message that came through from there was that Niueans are struggling to make sure they have both the opportunities and the necessary pull factors to bring their young people back to the island. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years of misguided Labour aid policy. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The least that we can do in New Zealand I say to Mr Hayes is ensure that we ourselves are not creating a deterrent for that to happen. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years of misguided aid policy did that. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I would be very happy to debate outside of this particular discussion Mr Hayes’ perspective on the New Zealand Labour Government’s position and the extensive work that it did with the Niuean Government. He perhaps holds some insights on this that he has not shared with me before. Perhaps outside of the Chamber we can discuss this. For now I welcome a change that will encourage young Niueans to return to Niue to contribute to the economy there and to lend their skills to that island nation. I am sure that will be well received in that place. 
John Hayes 
: Nine years to fix that and you have failed! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I say to Mr Hayes that I look forward to having what I am sure will be a very shallow discussion with him on the policies on Niue. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to support the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I have one thing to say: I say to my friend Frosty the snowman who is currently in Antarctica that this bill will allow him to get an interest-free student loan. How wonderful that will be! I say to Mr Frosty the snowman: “What a wonderful thing!”. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education and Science Committee consider the bill  
that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.