Volume 656 Week 22 - Wednesday 26 August 2009 
Volume 656 Week 22 - Wednesday 26 August 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5879] 
Wednesday 26 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Extension 
1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received on extending the retail deposit guarantee scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received advice that the extension of the scheme until 31 December 2011 provides certainty for investors and institutions. The alternative was to allow the scheme to lapse on 12 October 2010 which would have created a high degree of uncertainty and could in turn have resulted in a loss of confidence in some parts of the finance sector thereby undermining financial stability. 
David Bennett 
: How is the extended scheme consistent with new Reserve Bank requirements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the commentary on the scheme there has been some confusion about the distinction between the Reserve Bank requirements and the deposit guarantee scheme. Last year this Parliament passed amendments to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that require all non-bank institutions with deposits of over $20 million to obtain a credit rating from a recognised agency by 1 March 2010. That is currently the law regardless of the deposit guarantee scheme. The deposit guarantee scheme extension will simply pick up the credit ratings that institutions already have. If they have a minimum of a BB rating they will be eligible for the scheme. If they cannot get a credit rating by March 2010 then that is a matter they will have to deal with with the Reserve Bank regardless of the Government guarantee. 
David Bennett 
: How is the extended scheme fairer to participants and taxpayers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The original scheme was put in place under duress at the beginning of the financial crisis. We have had the opportunity to refine the scheme when it is extended by introducing a new pricing system based on the institutions’ risk profiles. It will be fairer to participants because it is designed to avoid a situation where low-risk institutions are essentially subsidising the activities of higher-risk institutions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with sharebroker Chris Lee that there will be “no chance of many of the little finance companies getting a BB credit rating in the next 12 months” and with KPMG partner Godfrey Boyce that “Very small financial institutions are going to struggle to achieve that credit rating.”; if so does he still feel he has struck the right balance by limiting their eligibility while giving the larger banks an opt-out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I explained earlier already on the books there is a requirement for financial institutions to get a credit rating by 1 March. I understand that if they do not get a credit rating then they will either be prosecuted or have to negotiate an exemption with the Reserve Bank if they have deposits of over $20 million. That is a requirement that this Parliament passed last year independent of the deposit guarantee. 
Decision Making—Consultation 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his claim that as Prime Minister he is committed 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 
: Does the Prime Minister understand why people like Ngati Whatua spokesperson Ngarimu Blair has described his consultation as a masquerade and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 has accused the Prime Minister of ignoring due parliamentary process when the Government arrogantly goes ahead and makes announcements as to its decisions when the people’s submissions to that select committee have not yet been considered and deliberated upon? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: There is no hope for the Prime Minister. Would bodies like the Auckland Regional Council and the Kaipara District Council and the Rodney District Council today be expressing concerns about “major and secret changes” to the legislation and “worst possible scenarios” if the consultation process had been adequate and if there were trust in the Government’s good faith in this matter? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has gone through the select committee process on the matter. We are working through the decisions on boundaries which were part of that select committee process. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister claim to be committed to consultation and to be listening to people on the Auckland City reform bill when firstly his announcements after the royal commission reported were made without any process of consultation; secondly the legislation introduced was rammed through under urgency without any select committee process; and thirdly now with this so-called showcase of consultation without referring to those submissions he has made decisions that even his Minister of Maori Affairs described today as a sham? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition gets consultation confused with agreement. Just because some people advocate a position in a select committee does not mean the Government has to agree with it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: On another matter while calling on the Labour Party to support the Government’s decision to send SAS troops to Afghanistan why did he not on any occasion make any effort to consult with Labour or any Opposition party on the reasons why he made that decision if he expected our support? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was my opinion that the Opposition had already made up its mind. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That is a bit rich! Why as Prime Minister did he not consult with any Opposition parties either before or after making the decision to cut out pre-funding of New Zealand superannuation thus ending a period of consensus between political parties on superannuation that gave elderly people certainty in making plans for their retirement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Two things: firstly because we exercised the provisions that already existed in the law that the previous Labour Government passed; secondly unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do not currently live on Mars and presume that the country is not going through an economic recession in which some changes might be necessary. 
John Boscawen 
: Is the Prime Minister prepared to listen to the 87 percent of Kiwis who voted No in the referendum and support my member’s bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly we are listening to the 87 percent of people and that is why we are in a position— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: To issue guidelines and set up a committee! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: You can be on it; it would give you something to do because you have not got much else to do! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is not going to be on the committee. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am sure they will let you out of primary school early to do that. Anyway—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is on his feet. There will be silence. Could the honourable member be a little more courteous. I might advise the Prime Minister that the Speaker left primary school quite a while ago sadly with advancing years. He must not refer to the Speaker in answering the questions. I think we have heard enough of that answer. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have not begun to hear the answer yet. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the Government is listening to the 87 percent of New Zealanders. The way that we are doing that is that we asked both Child Youth and Family and the police to look at the process that we are working through. In direct answer to the member’s question about whether National will be supporting the bill through to select committee I say that is a decision I will be announcing at about 4 o’clock this afternoon. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister now commit to working constructively with Opposition parties in order to ensure that a credible emissions trading scheme is developed to protect our trade opportunities to allow us to meet international obligations and to ensure that we can give the forestry industry certainty to start planting trees and dealing with the problems surrounding climate change? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Unless I am missing something the Government has been working constructively with the Opposition. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition has written a letter to me expressing come concerns about the direction in which the emissions trading scheme negotiations are going. Like all letters I get from the Leader of the Opposition as expected it was delivered to the media at the same time as it was delivered to me. It would be a little more useful if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to have a constructive relationship with me if he could learn to deal with me as a grown-up and not through the media. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the following statement made by John Key in April 2007 which is backed by 87 percent of New Zealanders: “… if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly”; if not what has changed? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well very simply what has changed is that an amendment was put up. The amendment basically ensured I believe that the police had quite clear guidelines in the way the law would be administered and at this point we have to say that the evidence strongly supports that the law is being administered the way the amendment was designed. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Does the Prime Minister stand by his speech from the throne when he promised to see Maori standing strong economically independent and fulfilling the complete promise of their potential and how does he reconcile Cabinet’s recent failure to address the significant under-representation of Maori within local government with that earlier promise? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do stand by that statement. It has been my view that an advisory participation committee is the best way of representing mana whenua. I draw the member’s attention to a huge number of gains that have been made in the very short time that National has been working with the Maori Party. Those gains have included a review of the foreshore and seabed legislation an accelerated process of Treaty settlements and substantial work being undertaken around Whanau Ora. They have included the policy that I announced this afternoon which will see thousands and thousands of young Maori given the opportunity to participate in holiday programmes and the like. Although I can fully understand the frustration of the Maori Party when it comes to the Auckland seats what I do know is that we have achieved more in 9 months than Labour achieved in 9 long years. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 3 Kevin Hague. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called Kevin Hague. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Labour front bench—because no one else was interjecting then—that I have called Kevin Hague and they should show him some courtesy. 
Healthy Eating Projects—Funding 
3.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House last week that “The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The member’s quote is selective. What I said was “The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects. What the Government has done is sought more balance in the approach between physical activity and nutrition.” 
Kevin Hague 
: Does he accept that ordinary Kiwis might think the $31.6 million cut to the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action fund was a slashing? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am completely unaware of a $31.6 million reduction in the healthy eating fund and I invite the member to table the information he has that suggests that there has been such a reduction. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What new initiatives has the Government recently announced to help address unhealthy weight or obesity? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister recently launched the KiwiSport initiative which will provide $20 million a year to schools and regional sports trusts to have more opportunities for sports and other physical activity. This will certainly provide more balance to the message that New Zealanders need good nutrition and physical exercise. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does he accept that ordinary Kiwis might think the $24 million cut from the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme was a slashing the $1.2 million cut from the Diabetes New Zealand obesity programme was a slashing and the $3 million cut from men’s health initiatives constituted a slashing or does he think Kiwis might prefer to use a “chainsaw massacre” metaphor? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the member needs to realise that he should see this matter within the context of the fact that the Government is moving resources around the health sector. We inherited $160 million of unfunded services from the previous Government and we are seeking to move resources within Vote Health to meet those demands. 
Kevin Hague 
: What reports did he receive providing evidence that the programmes were not working and will he table them in the House? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There were a number of situations where those various expenditures were reviewed. The Government must make it very clear that we have moved resources within the health sector in order to meet new areas of spending and requirement. This Government has put an extra $750 million into the health sector this year. Half of all new spending is in Vote Health and New Zealanders are very pleased with that. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is it not the case that his decision to take the axe to the programmes was driven purely by ideology or was it driven by the fact that the benefits of the programmes in terms of reducing health-care need will not be felt until the future when he is most unlikely still to be Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member may not realise that we are in the worst recession since the 1930s and resources need to be moved. But I am interested that that member’s party has not criticised the party opposite for cutting $24 million from public health programmes cutting $17.5 million from primary health organisations and cutting another $20 million from the programme to immunise against the human papilloma virus and other immunisations. Let us see the member be fair in his criticism. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled “Budget 2009 and line by line review of Vote Health” the author of which is the Hon Tony Ryall which sets out the adjustments in funding that I have referred to. 
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. 
Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Opting Out 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why is he allowing banks to opt out of the retail banking guarantee scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Participation was voluntary under the current scheme and it remains so under the extension I announced yesterday. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What are the consequences for the average level of risk borne by the taxpayer if major banks opt out but small and less creditworthy finance companies stay in? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The consequences for the taxpayer are that the more institutions they guarantee the more risk there is. At the moment the contingent liability is around $120 billion and a big part of that is in bank deposits. Banks have operated in New Zealand for around 150 years without Government guarantees and it is possible that they will be able to do so in the future. As I said before participation was voluntary in the current scheme and it will remain so in the future scheme. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I submit that the Minister has not addressed the question. The question was very specific and asked what the consequences would be for the average level of risk. He attempted first to talk about the total level of risk which was irrelevant and then talked about the voluntary nature of the scheme which was also irrelevant. He has not addressed the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member still has further supplementary questions available to him. It is a fine line to draw on the matter. I invite the member to pursue it through further supplementary questions. I will give him that chance right now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Have the same major banks further reduced short-term interest rates in line with recent cuts to the official cash rate; if not what does the Minister propose to do about that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That issue has been discussed extensively in the House and I maintain the same position as previously. If bank customers do not like the margin that the banks are charging on floating rates then they can opt for the 6-month rate for mortgages which happens to be lower. The Government’s priority is and has always been that banks should keep lending because when they stop lending people lose jobs. 
Amy Adams 
: Is the wholesale guarantee scheme altered by yesterday’s announcement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the wholesale guarantee is not affected by yesterday’s announcement. The two schemes are largely independent. Under the wholesale scheme bank issuers are charged a fee of between 70 and 200 basis points which is considerably more than is charged for the retail scheme. There are recent indications in the market that banks will be able to borrow money without the Government guarantee as a number of their parent Australian banks are doing now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Having given the banks a free pass on the retail guarantee scheme and also on the interest rate pass-through issue when will the Minister start to stand up for the interests of hard-pressed Kiwi businesses and households or will he continue to just roll over in the face of pressure from the big end of town? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a pretty silly question. The banks do not get a free pass. If they want to have the guarantee they will pay for it. The comments they have made on how much they have to pay for it indicates that they do not like it. If they do not have the guarantee then they do not pay for it. That seems an entirely logical position. It would be pretty odd if we imposed the guarantee on them. 
Youth Support—Fresh Start and Break Away 
5.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to support young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Today we announced our Fresh Start programme for youth offenders and our school holidays Break Away programme for young people. These two programmes together will support New Zealanders aged between 11 and 17 years with both preventive programmes and programmes to help them when they are in trouble. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister give more detail on what activities will be offered in the school holiday Break Away programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Break Away package will provide activities and programmes for young people who normally do not have access to such activities. In excess of 30000 young people will benefit from the package through holiday programmes for 11 to 17-year-olds whose families cannot afford holidays; the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme which will reward 100 young people who have made positive life changes; and a personal favourite of mine residential respite camps which will give 500 places to children and young people who are cared for by foster parents or by grandparents raising grandchildren to give the parents a break. Those camps will be run by children’s health camps to start with. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why is the Minister trialling the first military-style activity camps as early as next month well before the public and the select committee have the opportunity to report back on her youth justice proposals; is this yet another example of a Government that refuses to listen to submitters especially when the vast majority of them are opposed to its ideas? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: These young people are ticking time bombs that are about to go off. They deserve our attention. They deserve our putting everything we can behind them to try to turn their lives round. Quite frankly all that happened under the previous Government was that they ended up in adult prisons really quickly and really easily. We are going to do something about it. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister give the House more details on the Fresh Start programme for young offenders? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I know that members opposite do not like to hear about the action that is going on under this Government and the difference that we are making but Fresh Start will target New Zealand’s most serious youth offenders. It also has a focus on turning round the lives of young people before they get into the youth justice system. We are bolstering the court orders available to judges and investing more in supervision programmes. We are combining those measures with police and community-based diversion mentoring and drug and alcohol programmes amongst many other programmes. This is a $59 million investment and it means that nearly 3000 Fresh Start places will be available. 
Telecom New Zealand—Employment Contract Advice 
6.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she or any Department of Labour official analysed the contract being offered to workers currently employed on behalf of Telecom; if so what advice has been given to those workers or their representatives? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: No. Neither the Minister nor the Department of Labour gets involved in contractual disputes between private sector companies and their workers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister or her officials read the emails received in her office on this subject over the last month? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am not in possession of that information myself but it would be extraordinary if a Minister did not read emails. I am sure that she would have read the emails or her staff would have. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with her colleague John Carter that the contracts are “a crock” and workers should not sign them? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Of course Mr Carter is acting on behalf of his constituents in his capacity as the member of Parliament for Northland. He is well known for representing their concerns and that is precisely why he has such a large majority and continues to be voted in by his constituents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister then explain why the contracts are a crock in Northland but are supposedly acceptable around the rest of the country? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: If the member had listened more carefully he would appreciate that the member for Northland was acting on behalf of his constituents. Like all members of Parliament we hear the views of our constituents. That is the normal role and activity of a member of Parliament; it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Minister refusing to meet with the National Distribution Union executive this week because according to the Minister’s office the Telecom workers who belong to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union another union are on strike; and will she be applying the same principle by for example refusing to meet with any business representatives this week because Telecom is involved in an industrial dispute? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am advised that the Minister was unable to meet the National Distribution Union because of a clash of commitments. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister agree that there is an inherent issue of employment fairness at stake when the chief executive of Telecom gets $5 million or more while the Telecom lines engineers are facing redundancy with no compensation; and will she be considering any measures to help to rectify this awful situation? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I would remind that member that these issues are all resolved under the Employment Relations Act which was passed in the year 2000 by the then Labour Government. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the National Distribution Union saying it was advised by the Minister’s office that the risks are too great for her to come to the meeting and she cannot meet with the union because Telecom workers are on strike. 
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 Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Minister’s response to my second supplementary question is he prepared to deny in this House that the contract being offered to workers formerly employed on behalf of Telecom is a crock? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I ask the Minister to respond to that I say the Minister is not actually responsible for an employment contract that is being offered by a private company like Telecom. Although I did permit the Minister to give his opinion on the comment made by his ministerial colleague once we get too far down the track on matters that are properly private matters of the company it becomes a bit difficult. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a relatively simple one. This is a matter that has been referred on a number of occasions to the responsible Minister’s office. It is something that I am sure the Minister has looked at. She may want to say that she does not want to comment on it but I think the matter is properly before the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. I invite the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp to answer the question. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As is well known Ministers do not get involved in private disputes between private companies and their employees. That is exactly how the Employment Relations Act is supposed to work. 
Auckland Transport Planning and Delivery—Auckland Transport Agency 
7.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve Auckland transport planning and delivery? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I confirmed as part of the Auckland governance reforms the establishment of a new Auckland Transport Agency to focus on delivering transport projects and services across Auckland. The single Auckland Transport Agency will replace the nine separate entities that currently govern Auckland transport and will be responsible for all local authority transport delivery functions in Auckland including local roads and public transport. The new agency will be responsible for an annual budget in excess of $1 billion. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How will the new Auckland Transport Agency improve transport for the people of Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Rolling the multiple current entities into one transport agency will provide the focus and continuity of decision making required to deliver a transport network that supports Auckland’s growth and economic success into the future. The Auckland Transport Agency and the new Auckland Council will work closely on urban and transport planning meaning that they will identify areas of population growth in the city and design improvements to transport infrastructure to support those growth areas in an integrated way. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How will the new Auckland Transport Agency be structured? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It will be structured as a quality delivery agency to be overseen by the new Auckland Council. The Auckland Council will set the strategic direction appoint the board—which will include up to two councillors—provide planning and guidance and determine the levels of regionally sourced funding. The new agency will undertake the sequencing of projects tendering and the procurement of operational decisions. It will work closely with and be partly modelled on the New Zealand Transport Agency which operates at a national level. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why on earth do we need a new agency in Auckland given that the Minister is so brilliant that the last plan for Auckland which would have delivered rail-track electrification electric railcars and rolling stock integrated ticketing and the very important Penlink road was disregarded by the Minister even though all the projects had been costed and funded? Now thanks to him all those projects are delayed. That is his brilliance at work! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If the member looks he will find that all those projects are going ahead. It is of course possible and indeed perhaps necessary for a Government to do more than one thing at once and that includes developing the projects and organising the governance. The important thing for the member to understand is that going forward we need to have a strong integrated process between the council and transport in Auckland. It is not enough for local body people in Auckland simply to announce they want a project here and a project there without any consideration of the overall plan to develop the big city. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members on both front benches that I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are there any Auckland motorway projects that he has announced must keep within their initial budget allocation even if that means they cannot be completed; if not why has he imposed that condition on Auckland’s rail electrification and the railcars to run on it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Absolutely we expect motorway projects in Auckland to come in within budget. In fact we have taken the step of halving the amount to be spent on the Waterview Connection to ensure value for money. That goes for all transport projects. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Northern Boundary of Super-city 
8.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “for all intents and purposes” the decision on the northern boundary of the super-city has been made? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It is my observation that the Prime Minister is invariably right although sometimes not as centre-right as I myself would prefer. Cabinet has decided the governance position on the northern boundary of Auckland but the final decision on the northern boundary will be made by the House when it considers the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Phil Twyford 
: What other issues have been decided by Cabinet in advance of the select committee recommendations given that Maori representation and the boundaries have been predetermined? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me inform the member that it is a standard part of the legislative process that when a department is preparing its report for a select committee it ensures that its departmental report reflects the Government’s position. Cabinet is the forum where the Government confirms or decides its position. I am sure that the select committee which the member is a part of will consider the departmental advice along with all other submissions that have been put to it and in the end the committee will decide on the form of the bill to be reported back to the House. That is the process that the Government and the House will follow and I look forward to the member studying it and getting the hang of it eventually. 
Phil Twyford 
: What does he say to the mayors of Kaipara and Rodney and the Auckland Regional Council chairman all of whom are opposed to Cabinet’s decision to override the select committee and the Local Government Commission and set the northern boundary itself? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It would be helpful if the member would listen to the answers he seeks. It is the practice for departmental reports to reflect the Government’s position. Rodney and Kaipara people along with other Aucklanders have had the opportunity to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee about all aspects of the legislation. I have been informed that a number of submissions on the northern boundary were received and those submissions have been carefully considered by the select committee along with all the other submissions. I am also aware that members of the committee have been listening to the people and indeed I have had very good reports from the people of Kaipara and Rodney that the local member John Carter is doing a great job. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with former royal commissioner David Shand that the Cabinet decision on the northern boundary will lead to substantial coastal development and who does he believe stands to benefit from turning our northern beaches into a mini - Surfers Paradise? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do not agree with him. 
Finance Companies—Oversight Changes 
9.  
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What changes is the Government proposing to the oversight of finance companies? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This morning I announced a number of changes to improve the regulatory oversight of finance companies. One of those changes will be to require debt issuers including finance companies that propose to go into moratoria in order to avoid receivership to produce clear and concise investment statements that disclose the details and merits of a moratorium proposal. They will also need to disclose the basis on which the relevant directors and trustees are recommending the proposal and any other relevant information. The aim is to ensure that investors are provided with information in a way that is transparent and easy to understand to enable them to make the appropriate decisions for their individual circumstances. 
Melissa Lee 
: Are there any plans to improve the oversight of corporate trustees and their relationship with finance companies? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes. The collapse of a large number of finance companies in recent years has raised some fundamental issues around the role of corporate trustees and in particular the competence and accountability of some of those trustees. Today I announced a package of measures designed to improve the quality of trustees’ supervision of issuers including a licensing regime to be overseen by the Securities Commission. Trustees will be required to meet a series of stringent criteria such as appropriate infrastructure monitoring systems processes and financial strength. The commission will also have an ongoing role in monitoring trustees and that role will include the power to prosecute trustees direct trustees to take action to protect investors strengthen trust deeds and require mandatory reporting to the commission when issuers may be nearing default. I can advise the House that I hope to bring legislation on this issue to the House by the end of the year. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will the proposed moratorium regulations require investors to be given an honest assessment of both the benefits and the risks of the moratorium proposal as against receivership; if so who will provide this information in light of the experience of certain companies overplaying the former to the personal benefit of directors and underplaying the latter to the detriment of investors? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is the intention. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other initiatives are being undertaken to improve oversight of the financial sector? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government is also undertaking a review of the Securities Act. The Act is now over 30 years old. The review will focus on ensuring firstly that investors receive relevant and timely information; secondly that the rules around managed funds are clear and consistent; thirdly that the regulatory bodies have the right roles the right functions and the right powers to enforce securities law and monitor issuers; and fourthly that the scope and objectives of securities law are clearly stated. I intend to release a discussion document that canvasses these issues by the end of the year. 
Biosecurity—Border Controls 
10.  
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Has he received any reports on the increasing risk to the biosecurity of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What is his response to the 2006 AgResearch report that identified that 77 percent of shoes inspected at the border contained fungi bacteria and plant material and how will he ensure proper biosecurity protection for New Zealand after the Prime Minister has just announced that the vast majority of travellers from Australia will not be inspected at all just to save an estimated 8 minutes in processing time when those travellers enter New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Prime Minister has not announced that the vast majority of people will not be screened at the border. This change is about delivering the most effective biosecurity that we can at the border and it would be irresponsible not to actively examine the system we have to see whether we can do it better. 
Shane Ardern 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to strengthen New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Just last week the Government moved to double the instant biosecurity infringement fine. This toughening up on those who put our country at risk combined with Biosecurity New Zealand’s more targeted approach of focusing on travellers who pose the greatest risk will significantly strengthen and enhance our biosecurity system. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How can the Minister protect New Zealand from unwanted pests and diseases when the report from his ministry investigated and identified 106 living species in storage containers of palm kernel destined for New Zealand farms; and considering his view that “there is no evidence to suggest that the current requirements have failed” in what circumstances will he start showing some concern and will he review the importation of palm kernel into this country? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Over recent days I have seen a number of reports around palm kernel and the risk it poses to biosecurity in New Zealand. Most of them are totally inaccurate. All shipments of palm kernel are fumigated before they arrive in this country. 
Economic Stimulus Package—State Housing 
11.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What progress is being made on the State housing economic stimulus package announced earlier this year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Good progress is being made: $20 million has been committed to the new build part of the package. That was for the delivery of 87 new homes making up to 1550 new State houses that are being added to the stock over 4 years. Although a handful of properties are yet to be finished due to the usual winter weather conditions these houses should be finished within the next few weeks. This is 18 more houses over and above what we first announced because of the new efficiencies in the Housing New Zealand Corporation under this Government. 
Todd McClay 
: What other good news can the Minister tell us about this project? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am delighted with that question because under the Healthy Housing component $3 million worth of work has been done on over 200 properties. Also the corporation has finished or is completing upgrades on over 1600 other State houses. But members should wait; there is more. On average over 1000 people each month have been employed since March and we are now working on the next phase in which we will upgrade the disgraceful and derelict housing stock that we inherited when we first came into Government. 
Moana Mackey 
: How can anyone take the Minister seriously when he gets up and brags about the number of State houses he is building given that he has personally stopped the building of 500 State houses in Hobsonville because the Prime Minister does not like them; and how many State houses could be built or renovated for the $1.2 million that is being spent by the Housing New Zealand Corporation every year in Hobsonville in order to be the master developer for what is essentially now a private development? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think I have previously outlined to the House that the previous Government started the process of Housing New Zealand Corporation being involved in Hobsonville in 2002. There were three elections between that time and now when no houses were built no consents were issued there were no earthworks and the promise of the 500 houses never came to fruition in 7 years. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does he think his housing stimulus package compares with the Australian Government’s nearly $8 billion social housing stimulus package which is saving 15000 jobs and does he believe that this has had anything to do with the Australian unemployment rate now holding steady while New Zealand’s continues to rise? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Australian housing package and John Key’s National Government package are stimulating the economies of both countries which is a lot more than what the hot air stimulated under the previous Government did. 
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims 
12.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has ACC abandoned all changes relevant to sexual abuse victims since question time yesterday? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is consulting providers on the clinical guidelines for sensitive claims. No final decisions have yet been made. I assure the member that the needs of sexual abuse survivors will be paramount. Decisions on the clinical guidelines will be made by clinicians not by politicians. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Given the Minister’s assurance in the Chamber yesterday that the proposals were in the best interests of victims followed by ACC’s back-down a few hours later because the proposals would not work can the Minister guarantee victims of sexual abuse that they will not be subjected to more cost-cutting strategies at their expense? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can assure the member opposite that in dealing with sensitive claims what is paramount in respect of ACC’s policy is ensuring the very best quality of service. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can the Minister provide any evidence of representations or submissions made by the Minister of Women’s Affairs to the Minister for ACC on behalf of victims of sexual abuse? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No and I will tell the member why. We on this side of the House believe that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians not by politicians. I am disappointed that members opposite think we want ACC’s clinical decisions to be made on a political whim. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What was the origin of the new clinical guidelines and when did the process being? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am surprised that Labour members are today criticising the clinical guidelines. In June 2008 the official launch of the guidelines was praised by none other than the Hon Steve Maharey. The origins of the guidelines go back to 2004 when concerns were raised about the effectiveness of sexual abuse counselling. That resulted in an $800000 comprehensive research programme which led to new guidelines being produced last year. Those guidelines are now being consulted on for implementation. 
I seek leave to table a photo of the Hon Steve Maharey at the launch of the clinical guidelines where he said what an important step forward— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Tena koe e Te Kaihautu o te Whare. I hope members are listening very carefully to the people in Kaipara because today they have been short-changed by the Government. The level of disdain for the Government now comes not only from the tangata whenua of Tamaki-makau-rau but stretches from the Northern Wairoa right through to Tainui. There has been erosion and destruction of faith and trust. Every opportunity was made available for John Key and Mr Hide to bring through in a gesture of goodwill something that would aid and advance race relations development in Aotearoa. But no they sent Mr Hide out as a whistle dog fomenting racial discord without realising that Mr Key who loves to be popular all the time had entered into a commitment with Ngati Whatua and Tainui to do the right thing.  
So it falls to this side of the House to do the right thing and to ensure that the new super-city and the governance model for the super-city are progressive and modern and capture the essence of what Auckland is to be in the future—not tired old leafy immigrants or ambassadors from the east who cast aspersions on Kelston Boys High School and look after their own kids in Auckland Grammar School. No. Tangata whenua and Pacific Islanders are all written out of the script. 
John Key went to Ngati Whatua marae listened to Ngati Whatua and made a commitment on that marae and to Tuku Morgan and now he welshes on the commitment and walks away from it. He blames Mr Hide but Mr Hide enjoys this type of reputation. He wants to let people know that not only is he a buffoon— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What’s the other word? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No I am not playing rugby and I am not punting. He also enjoys making a fool out of the Maori on that side of the House who I can tell members now will not be able to show up with any sincerity. They will not be able to show up with any mana to any Maori organisation because they had the chance to come to this side of the House and make a statement of principle on how important democracy is not only in our parliamentary processes but also in a proper trusted process for tangata whenua. Why do those members fear that? Georgina te Heuheu stood up to Don Brash unlike the rest of them. They let her speak and take an independent position and she crowed about how she enjoyed that entitlement as a consequence of being a member of that caucus. But that entitlement is absent today. 
The reason those members have lost their way is that they have sold out for short-term political gain to keep Mr Hide in place. Auckland City is turning into a mess. Assets are being readied for privatisation boundaries are being moved in the dead of night and Maori are being overlooked. 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: We hear from the back of the House evidence of necrosis of the mind in terms of those two Maori there. Rest assured they will have to give an account as to why they have sold their own people out and deliberately misled the Maori Party. We feel aroha for the Maori Party because its members are now realising having joined into a pact with the National Party that there is no way the pact will be delivered on and they will have to give an account on the marae as to why they are prepared to prop up a Government that favours the rich picks on the dispossessed and marginalises Maori. The Government is held in place by the Maori Party. The Maori Party members will have to give their own account to the voters of Tamaki-makau-rau and the people the tangata whenua who today have been sold out. 
What are they going to tell the tangata whenua Maori of Auckland? Maybe they can have an advisory committee. Maybe they can come and give a po’hiri or maybe they can change some of the names etc. Of course the first name they will change is porohewa which means bald head. We have seen two bald heads Mr Henare and Mr Hide reduce each other to a level quite unbecoming for this House. They are poor examples. One man ransacks parliamentary process and one man will not own the words he uses as he tells the truth about how he really feels about Mr Hide. 
The Maori population of Auckland has grown immensely. It is youthful; it trusted in what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has misled them. The Prime Minister has not stood up for the Treaty of Waitangi; he has failed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Chris Finlayson I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones for the noise going on in the House. I was most unhappy with what was going on but I did not want to interrupt the flow of his speech it being only a 5-minute speech. I say to Government Ministers who are holding discussions right now including the Prime Minister that if members want to have discussions during the debate they will go out into the lobby to do so. The noise was totally unacceptable. Half a dozen loud discussions were going on and it is just so discourteous to the House. I have no problem with interjections and interest being taken in the member’s speech but I do have a problem with a babble of discussions. It is longstanding practice that if members want to have discussions with each other they go out into the lobby to do so. I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Mr Jones was slow off the mark this afternoon but he proved once again that empty vessels make the most noise. That is the same Mr Jones who said that he and the Labour Party did not support Maori seats for Auckland. But I do not want to waste my time on Mr Jones. 
I want to say something about the Leader of the Opposition: Mr Goff is finished as Labour leader. He will never be Prime Minister and he will never lead a Government. Let me read to the House from a general debate contribution made by a senior member of the Labour leadership team in 1989: “Last week the Government caucus chose a leadership team for the 1990s … a team that is backed by … a united caucus .… The Labour Party and the Government caucus are united behind the new leadership team … The Cabinet the Government caucus and the Labour Party have been brought together in a manner that fills Government members with optimism.” Those were the words of Annette King speaking just a few months before Geoffrey Palmer was rolled as Labour leader. By my calculation if her previous predictions are correct then Mr Goff has about 2 months left. 
Despite this Labour is presently engaging in some strange branding exercise which is quite frankly embarrassing. Phil Goff may have been outfitted in a new camouflage jacket for  
Listener  
photo shoots but the party has not changed. While Mr Goff has been throwing lambs over his shoulder Helen Clark is busily text messaging MPs from the Big Apple for their general debate speeches. It is the so-called star-studded line-up of new recruits but they are nothing more than Helen Clark’s former employees. Mr Goff is supposed to be in charge. The same Labour Party comintern that gave us the Electoral Finance Act is still pulling the strings even if it has decided to dress Phil Goff in new clothes like some social democratic Ken doll. His re-branding which Clare Curran describes as “a real man” resembles only a left-wing women’s collective view of what a real man is supposed to be. Labour will take any opportunity to make Phil Goff look like a man of the people but he is no man of the people; he is interested only in his own career and he will say or do anything to advance it. To paraphrase what someone once said about Richard Nixon he is the kind of politician who would cut down a tree then mount the stump and make a speech about conservation. 
This is not a speech about conservation; it is a speech about contrasts. Labour may have been a really bad Government but it is a shocking Opposition. While the National-led Government is busily implementing a high-quality legislative programme Labour members have chosen to spend their time singing Viet Nam War protest songs on bus rides of doom while they drive through safe National seats. While I was working on an overdue reform of the Limitation Act that tribune of the working class that authentic representative of the proletariat Charles Chauvel was following behind the Labour bus in his convertible—“Take Me Home Country Roads” indeed. While my colleague Simon Power was getting on with the long overdue reform of the defence of provocation which Labour could have done if it had done something positive while in Government Mr Goff was talking about repealing the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008. While Chris Carter was coming to terms with not getting airpoints for travelling on the bus and with being ignored by his colleagues Steven Joyce was putting the final touches on a new transport agency for Auckland. While Annette King constantly abuses Paula Bennett that great and fearless Minister of the Crown has been working on her Fresh Start package for young offenders and that wonderful Break Away package for school holidays. And so it goes on. 
The current Labour Party leadership is useless unprincipled unpleasant and uninspiring. Chris Trotter was correct when he wrote in 1994 that the likes of Mr Goff and Mrs King were past their use-by dates; regrettably nothing has changed in the last 15 years. He said that in 1994 and nothing has changed in the last 15 years. The Labour members are totally unprincipled and they are worse in Opposition than they ever were in Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Nasty little man! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I hope Mr Robertson enjoys that place because he will be there for a long time. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I start by saying that if we were playing a game of rugby the old outdated rules would come into effect. One can tell when a team is losing because they forget to play the ball and instead they play the man. That is exactly what that previous speech from Christopher Finlayson was about. My whanaunga from Ngati Awa Paul Quinn knows exactly what I am talking about. Sadly the Attorney-General the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations forgot what the game was about. Maybe my whanaunga will take a call and highlight the issues that are really important today. 
I want to make a statement: the issue of representation for Maori in local government is a significant issue and not just for Maori. It has been around for a long time as evidenced by a notice in the  
Auckland Provincial Government Gazette 
 on Saturday 6 May 1867. J Williamson the superintendent of the Auckland province gave notice that he had appointed Paora Tuhaere of Ngati Whatua to give advice to him and the Executive Council on matters relating to Maori in the province of Auckland. It is a significant issue and an issue that will not go away. Maori will not let it go away. 
The person who brought that statement to the House was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu Associate Minister of Maori Affairs. If Government colleagues are not listening to her; if they are not listening to the honourable Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples; if they are not listening to Maori and the iwi of the Auckland province; and if they are not listening to New Zealand in general then who are they listening to? Let us take a guess. I take it that they are listening to one person whose track record on Maori representation has been obvious in this House for a very very long time and that is the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. In 2001 National allowed Georgina te Heuheu to cross the floor and vote in favour of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. Donna Huata as well sought permission from her party the ACT Party to do the same and both members did so. 
What has changed since that time? Absolutely nothing has changed which we will note from the statement by the chairman of Environment Bay of Plenty in terms of the quality of Maori representation on that council. Mr John Cronin made it very clear that the Maori members on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council give advice not only on issues relevant to Maori but on issues relevant across the council’s responsibilities. Here we are some 8 years later debating an issue that we should not be debating. The fact is that New Zealanders by and large have accepted that Maori representation on local government is very important that the voice of tangata whenua is very important and that Maori who hold important assets at regional level should have a say at the top table. We do not see that happening in terms of this process. 
It is interesting that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has yet to report back to the House on its findings as part of the process of hearing submissions yet the Prime Minister has already announced that Maori representation on this very very important body the Auckland Council is out of the question. There is not a sound from the other Maori members apart from the Hon Tau Henare. There is not a sound from the Maori Party members apart from the Minister of Maori Affairs. Why is that? I send a challenge to my whanaunga on the Government benches to get up and make a statement about just where the Maori members stand on this issue. It is all right interjecting and heckling and playing the player rather than the ball but sooner or later as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said there will come a time when those members will have to stand up before their communities and make a statement about their position. Are they pro Maori representation or are they not? Are they just going to sit here and do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to? Are they going to sit here and do whatever the Minister of Local Government dictates? 
As I said there will come a time when they will have to front up as all of us have fronted up over the years. Those members highlight the fact that the Labour Maori members did not cross the floor when voting on the Foreshore and Seabed Act although anyone can do that. That is easy. What is hard is to stay here and hold one’s ground to make a bad situation better. That is why people send members here: to be their voice in this House and to stand up for the issues they consider to be a high priority. That is exactly what Labour members have done over the years. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 What we did not hear that member Mita Ririnui talk about was the Labour leadership woes. There are big problems in the Labour caucus and anyone in New Zealand needs only to turn on a television set and he or she can see Labour’s problems in the regular polls coming through to people’s lounges right across New Zealand. The most recent TV3 poll rated the Labour leadership of Phil Goff at only 6.5 percent in the preferred Prime Minister ratings. In 1999 when Phil Goff called the barbecue and 12 MPs turned up to roll Helen Clark she was polling at 23 percent. Phil Goff currently is polling at 6.5 percent. Lo and behold what has Labour decided to do? The Labour caucus has decided that this Labour weekend it will go across all of New Zealand and have big barbecue meetings. That is probably because the Labour caucus is instigating these to get ready to roll Phil Goff. 
What did TV3 do? It sought public opinion on who should roll Phil Goff. These are the people whom New Zealanders thought would be a better leader than Phil Goff. We have the Hon Annette King who is polling at about 15 percent. We have similar poll ratings for the Hon David Cunliffe at about 15 percent. We have heard this afternoon from the Hon Shane Jones—another aspirant who is busy sharpening the knives with his Maori Labour caucus. He is sitting at around 7 percent in the polls. Lo and behold we have two people who are not even in Parliament whom the public think would be better leaders than the Hon Phil Goff. Laila Harré is at about 7 percent and the Labour Party president Andrew Little is at 4 percent. Wait for this! Twenty-one percent of New Zealanders in this poll did not support any of the people whose names I have read out. What is more 23 percent do not even care about Labour. The other interesting thing is that Helen Clark who is currently running the United Nations Development Programme in New York polled at about 8 percent. The other interesting thing that the Labour Party is extremely worried about is its membership which was about 50000 in 2005. Currently its membership is below 10000. 
Labour has huge issues. Not only are New Zealanders not listening to Labour but Labour’s membership is leaving in droves. What did Labour members decide to do? They decided to get on a bus and reconnect with New Zealand. They came through my electorate the wonderful electorate of Otaki and thought they might be able to reclaim it. No one was listening to them there apart from the cafe owner who was very pleased to take money from them when they had their lunch in the cafe in the main street of Levin. On TV I saw the Labour members sitting in the back of the bus with David Shearer strumming on his guitar and leading the songs. But this is a Labour Party that is not focused. New Zealanders are not listening to Labour. 
What New Zealanders are listening to is the positiveness coming out of the new Government and they are seeing the great job that the Hon John Key is doing as Prime Minister. Just today the Prime Minister announced along with the Hon Paula Bennett that $84.5 million will be going into youth initiatives. National will be getting tougher on youth offenders and it will be focusing on a great initiative which I think is wonderful called Break Away to help schoolkids to be able to attend programmes in the school holidays. It will be focused into high deprivation areas of New Zealand—indeed I have some of those areas in my electorate—because as many people in this House will know if youngsters do not have something to do during school holiday time they roam up and down the main street of our towns and cause havoc. If we can get them into the programme that has been announced today it will be a fantastic way to get them off the street. 
The other important announcement today is about the 500 places in respite camps. These are for those being cared for by people such as foster parents grandparents and other people who are looking after kids particularly in the 5 to 8 years age group. I know as a young parent that it is particularly difficult to look after kids at times. If we can give them an opportunity to go into health camps in areas like mine that will be fantastic. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in this debate and it has been a telling week has it not? This week has been where the rubber hits the road. Despite all the photo opportunities and all the nice hollow words we have heard from National members about supporting the Maori Party and Maori issues when the rubber hits the road what happens? They back off. It is the same old National Party that stood behind Don Brash the Orewa speech and the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards. We really should not be too surprised. 
I will refer back to the  
Hansard 
 of what has been said before in this House on this issue. The first quote is from the  
Hansard 
 relating to the bill of my colleague Mita Ririnui the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. This allowed the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to have Maori seats. Those seats are there now and they work very very well. The sky did not fall in. Racial segregation has not descended on the Bay of Plenty. But here is what Dr Wayne Mapp had to say about that legislation allowing for Maori seats in local government. He stated: “If we look at the lessons of other countries—those countries that have divided their franchises on the basis of race—we see that almost universally there is a sad picture.” He went on to state: “The reality and Mr Ririnui would try to deny it is that this bill has served to divide the community that he comes from. This bill makes it harder for people to think of each other as equals”. Well the reality is that that has not happened. 
Then we had Tony Ryall’s Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill where he stated and this is very interesting: “If this bill passes”—to repeal the Maori seats—“it will repeal the provisions of the Local Government Act that allow there to be separatist race-based legislation”. He stated: “They are not necessary and they are divisive … The National Party view which we enunciated in our election policy … is that race-based representation is no longer needed in New Zealand … We believe that it is divisive.” That was from Tony Ryall. 
I will also speak about the Local Government Act 2002 because there is some really good stuff in the debates on the Local Government Act where we allowed councils to have Maori seats. We also provided for Maori consultation. Dr Nick Smith stated: “Then we have the separatism provisions: the way in which we are to change a long-term 160-year tradition in the way we elect local members by introducing apartheid. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter who proudly boasts that he protested against apartheid in South Africa—but he is going to introduce it into New Zealand—that he should get on his feet and defend that. It will divide New Zealand. What is separate representation if it is not apartheid?”. That is what the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. 
Then Wayne Mapp stated: “the foundation stone of democracy is the equality of citizens whereby we have equal right of participation. Some people say that we should have separate legislative provisions; I say we should be able to learn from experience and not have provisions that advance inequality.” [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite might want to listen because they may come up on my list very very soon. 
Bill English stated: “[The Local Government Act] creates two standards of citizenship:”—remember that phrase: two standards of citizenship—“one where my relationship to my ancestral land sea air … counts for nothing; but if a person has a brown skin it is in the law.” That is what Bill English had to say. 
I have to mention the quote from this member because it is such a good one even though he is not in Parliament now. It is from Brian Connell. Do members remember Brian Connell? He stated: “Anyone who has sat in this Chamber and listened to Dover Samuels for any length of time will be forgiven for forming the opinion that getting Maori to speak up is easy but getting some of them to shut up is the problem. This strange little clause guarantees the voice of Maori groups in the consultation process and it seems like another of the Government’s separatist agendas.” 
I ask whether any members are really surprised that we are standing here today with a National Government once again refusing to allow Maori representation on the Auckland Council. I ask Maori Party members when they will say that enough is enough. When will they say that it is not good enough to be rolled out for photo opportunities with the Prime Minister at every single opportunity and then to be ignored on all the things that count? 
What did the Maori Party get in the Budget? The Green Party which is part of the Opposition had a stand-up press conference with the Minister it got a press release in the Budget pack and it was lauded by Gerry Brownlee and what did the Maori Party get? It is National’s coalition partner! I tell National members that they should start treating the Maori Party with respect. Having a flag flying over the Auckland Harbour Bridge for one day does not make up for this kick in the teeth for Maori. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 The member who just resumed her seat Moana Mackey is very good at showing righteous indignation and having a genuine righteous fierce debate. But let us face reality. The Labour Opposition is in disarray. It is in disarray. Labour members are clearly still smarting from the comprehensive rejection the New Zealand public handed out to them in November last year. We have only to look at their faces. Their faces tell the story of anger and self-entitlement; it is written all over them. Labour members cannot get past the fact that New Zealand did not want them. The public had Labour for 9 years. It took the New Zealand public nowhere. New Zealand said “Enough” and sent Labour packing and the Opposition cannot get over it. 
Members opposite have spent the last 9 months flailing around looking for answers and now they are turning on each other. It is like watching flesh-eating bacteria as it turns in. Any illusion of cohesion is dissolving in front of us. The Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff sits at an astounding 6 percent—6 percent and dropping—and we can only assume it is due to the constant stream of texts from New York. The texts from New York keep him going. That is where the leader gets his advice from. He says: “What do I do now? Quick! Text Helen! She’ll tell me. We know how to do it! Don’t worry Helen is on the end of the phone and she’ll tell me what to do. Never fear Vodafone is there.” 
Why is Phil Goff still there? When Helen Clark was at 23 percent the party tried to roll him and now the leader is at 6 percent but he is still there. Why is that? I will tell members one thing we know. Annette King told us that “Crown Prince David Cunliffe” is not ready. He is just not ready. “Take a pill David Cunliffe. You’re just not ready.” And as Dover Samuels quite usefully points out the rest of them are basically retreads. They have done their time. In 1994 even Chris Trotter—that eminent left-wing spokesman—was telling us that those members were past their use-by date. Yet still they are being wheeled out. 
So why is it that Labour members continue with this absurd illusion that they are behind Phil Goff when they know that they are not? Do members know why it is? It is because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen made them promise to support Phil Goff for 3 years. They said: “Support Phil for 3 years.” It is a pact. We knew it. They have a pact to back Phil Goff come hell or high water. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is certainly enjoying the debate. I just wish members would cut me in on it because I cannot hear a word the speaker is saying. I apologise to Amy Adams for interrupting her speech. I do not mind interjections but my goodness I just cannot hear the speaker and it is helpful if I can. So I ask members for just a wee bit more reason please. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Frankly it is not surprising that I am getting to members opposite. The truth hurts. They know it is the truth. They know that the only reason they are still backing Phil Goff in the job is that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen made them promise to do so. They said: “Give him 3 years. Back him for 3 years come hell or high water.” So now they are wondering how long they can last. How long will that pact last? I can tell members that it is not looking good. The cracks are showing. The numbers are being worked. 
Do members know what is happening? Labour members said: “We have been in the centre long enough. We don’t actually live in the centre.” The left-wing forces are gathering. They are going back to their socialist roots. The numbers are being done. The trade unionists are coming out. They are going back to their socialist roots. The pact will not last long and if I was Phil Goff I would be worried. Despite the fact that the options are few and pitiful when one is on 6 percent pact or no pact— 
Paul Quinn 
: Parekura? 
AMY ADAMS 
: Parekura Horomia could challenge we never know. We have already had Shane Jones’ bid. We know that Shane Jones wants to make a bid. 
On this side of the House we are more interested in getting stuff done. Our leader has our support which is more than the Labour Party can say. We are focused on the young people of New Zealand. We are focused on opportunities. We are focused on futures. We are providing solutions for our young. We are addressing youth employment and we are addressing youth offenders. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 From listening to the debate in the House over the last 2 days one would think that Parliament lives in a vacuum. On Friday we had the result of the referendum on smacking. On Friday night we were told that just on 1.5 million people had voted No in the referendum—87 percent—but has anyone raised that issue in Parliament? Have any other parties raised this issue in Parliament? No they have not. Only the ACT Party has raised this issue in Parliament. It was an overwhelming No vote of 87 percent. Fifty-six percent of people voted in the referendum. More people voted in that postal referendum than voted in the MMP referendum in 1993. The question was very simple: should a light smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? The answer was an overwhelming no. As the Family First organisation pointed out the percentage of people who voted No in that referendum was higher than the percentage who voted for the Labour National and Green parties combined in the general election last year. The figures were National 45 percent; Labour 34 percent; and Greens 7 percent. Eighty-five percent voted for those three parties and 87 percent voted No in the referendum. 
That vote was achieved against a background of a massive campaign of misinformation. We even had the Prime Minister no less talking about the Dr Seuss question. What it showed is that New Zealanders are not fools. I say to Carmel Sepuloni that New Zealanders are not fools. They are not fooled by politicians. They knew exactly what they were voting for. We owe it to them to listen. My colleague Heather Roy quoted John Key when he spoke at a function at the Salvation Army just on 2 years ago. John Key said: “in reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly.” That is what John Key said. He said that we should not pass laws if we do not intend to enforce them. I say to this Parliament that the people of New Zealand have spoken. Eighty-seven percent of those who voted have said to us that we should not pass a law to make this illegal. 
I tried to get an urgent debate on this subject yesterday and you ruled against me Mr Speaker. I stood here at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon and I moved the adoption of my member’s bill. The voices of opposition came from throughout the House. At 12 noon today my member’s bill was drawn. I say to all members of this House and in particular to the National and Labour members to listen to the people of New Zealand. Very shortly my bill will come up for first reading and they will have a chance to send it to a select committee. I say to the Labour members that they should not ignore those 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted in the referendum. But to those in the National Party I say that they can do better than that. They can make this a Government bill and refer it to a select committee. The Prime Minister and Cabinet can vote to make this a Government bill. We cannot afford to ignore that 87 percent of people. When I moved the adoption of my bill yesterday the ACT Party stood alone as the only party in this House that was prepared to represent the 87 percent of New Zealanders who were not fooled by the people from Barnardos and the Green Party who tried to dismiss this referendum. 
The people who supported the yes vote knew overwhelmingly that the law was opposed by the great majority of New Zealanders. They sought to dismiss this referendum and to undermine it before the first vote was ever cast. What New Zealanders have said is that they are not fools. I say to members and in particular to National members that they should listen to those people. This issue will not go away. The timing of my bill being drawn from the ballot could not have been better. If National members think that this issue will go away I say that they should look out for the 2011 election. The people of New Zealand are not prepared to be treated with contempt. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. We know the statistics surrounding Maori. We know we live shorter lives we underachieve at school we fill unskilled low-paid jobs and many of us have lost touch with our language and customs and our culture whereas 170 years ago we Maori were in control of our lives. We Maori had our structures; we Maori had our lores—l-o-r-e-s. We had our laws—l-a-w-s—and we had our beliefs and ways of doing things. Now we have very little. Maori have been relegated from the position of decision makers and masters of our own destinies to being powerless marginalised observers which is a shame because we have so much to offer. 
We have so much as a people to contribute and if we were just allowed to have a meaningful voice at the Auckland Council table maybe we could contribute to turning round those statistics that plague us. What is this National - Maori Party - ACT Government so scared of that they are unwilling to give Maori seats at the council table? What is it that scares this Government about Maori contributing to the running of Tamaki-makau-rau? Do they not like us? Do they not trust us? Do they not value us? This is not an issue about race; it is about honouring the Treaty of Waitangi which I was taught at school and as a teacher I myself have taught to schoolchildren is a partnership. I apologise now to those schoolchildren for the deception: there is no partnership. 
I recall a Ngati Hine kaumatua the Rev. Charlie Shortland describing the Maori world and Pakeha world as opposite banks of a river. The Treaty of Waitangi was the bridge that connected those two worlds. But the question he asked was this: since the signing of the Treaty who has crossed that bridge most often and stepped into the world opposite? How many Maori have made that short trip and have accepted the language customs laws and culture of the Pakeha? Almost all of us have. 
I ask members to contrast that with the number of Pakeha who have crossed back the other way and accepted the language customs laws and culture of Maori? Except for a few courageous Pakeha souls the traffic has virtually been one-way across that bridge to the point now that there is a barrier across one end. In the case of the Auckland super-city council that barrier is preventing people from even starting to cross into the world of the Maori. That barrier allows the Maori perspective to be seen only from afar and the distance between those two banks of that river is growing and preventing the voices of Maoridom from even being heard. 
Pakeha have nothing to fear from Maori. If diversity is strength then Maori faces at the Auckland Council table can be only a good thing. If the Maori Party partnership with the National - ACT Government is meant to be a mana-enhancing relationship why would Maori seats at the council table be any different? The precedent for Maori seats at the council was set by Mita Ririnui who introduced a similar piece of legislation in 2001 that established Maori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Environment Bay of Plenty Chairman John Cronin said just yesterday that the Maori seats there were working well. If it works well in the Bay of Plenty it will work well in Auckland. 
I have concern about the way the Maori Party has been treated. It voted for a Budget that cut funding and services to Maori communities because it had an agreement with John Key. Pita Sharples said recently that being in Government is about compromise. So those members ended up compromising on what they knew was right for a shot at being influential. It appears that John Key’s understanding of that agreement is to wheel out the Maori Party for photo opportunities when he wants to win brown friends and influence people but then he disregards those wishes when the wishes may upset the nice white folk who voted for him last year. 
There is no Maori influence in the National Party or the ACT Party but I along with many other Maori across the country acknowledge the Hon Tau Henare for trying. New Zealand has no reason to be afraid of Maori. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I could not help but notice that one of my colleagues across the way was reading a paper and I presume imagining tomorrow’s headline which will say “Shane Jones rolls Phil Goff”. Members can look at the smile on Mr Jones’ face. Let me tell the House something that Labour’s own people are saying. We have talked about quotes that Chris Trotter has made. He has asked “What’s the matter with Labour? Why is it making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters? And can anyone explain why Labour’s strategists still believe it’s intelligent politics to have their MPs recorded singing songs on a bus in the Tory-blue heart of Taranaki?”. 
I have a photograph here of Phil Goff and Annette King sitting on the front seat of the bus but they are soon to be sent to the back seat of the bus if Dover Samuels has his way. He has said that Mr Goff and his deputy should go: “My message to the leadership to Phil and Annette is it’s time to step aside. The retreads of yesterday have gone past their use-by date.” But I think he more poignantly said: “We have fundamental problems in the Labour Party. Right now the leadership does not resonate with the ordinary working people.” 
The bus travelled through Taranaki weaving its musical way to wayward New Plymouth which had turned its back on Labour where Labour members tried to resonate with the people. They sang “Hotel California” “You Are My Sunshine” and “Take Me Home Country Road”. I am sure that Mr Hughes would have liked to sing “The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round” and perhaps Shane Jones would have liked to say “Phil Goff’s polls go down and down”. What great songs! But Annette King was quoted as saying: “We are telling the people we are still here and we are in good heart.” You know I think that probably a band whose songs those Labour members should have sung was a band called The Pretenders. John Armstrong quoting the one he called or determined “Mr Hapless Hipkins” who had made a faux pas said that it was a lesson in why politicians are less than honest because even when the wheels are falling off the political vehicle in which they are travelling it is said that things are always going swimmingly well no matter how bleak and desperate the reality is. 
I very much enjoyed what Harriet Palmer wrote in the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 that day: “Taranaki is oozing with schmooze like it has never oozed before. Yesterday the region hosted no fewer than 25 Labour Party MPs after their ‘magical mystery tour’ hit the heartland.” The mystery is why they keep insisting on singing. The magic I think is that that is what it will take—magic—to turn heartland Taranaki anywhere near red. In fact it will never ever get beyond deep purple which in the end Phil Goff will get used to and eventually accept because Deep Purple was his favourite band back in the 1960s. 
But the good news for Phil Goff and the team is that Cliff Richard is coming back to New Plymouth this summer so Phil can bring the boys and girls in the bus back to town. This time they can sing: “We’re all going on a”— 
Hon Members 
: —“summer holiday”! 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: While they are on their summer holiday we the members of the National-led Government will be doing the hard work of turning this country round and getting us back on track on those roads that our fantastic Minister of Transport is building. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Government! 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I have to ask the question that Chris Trotter asked: what is the matter with Labour? I ask Mr Hughes why it is making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters. It is because its members are all on a summer holiday or maybe they are in a season of winter solace instead. But we know that coming up very shortly in October they will be into their barbecue season and barbecues of course can be very dangerous places as we heard the Hon Nathan Guy say. He said that it was in January 1999 when Phil Goff invited 12 Labour MPs to a barbecue where a challenge to Helen Clark’s leadership was cooked up. This is the amazing thing. That frying roasting and broiling of their party leader occurred at a time when Helen Clark was polling very very positively—at 23 percent—in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. I fear what is going to happen in this barbecue season. I fear what is going to happen on Labour Day this year when the barbecues are rolled out and everybody around the country is talking about how Labour is getting on where we are going and what is going to happen. 
In this week’s poll Mr Goff has slumped 2.6 points to just 6.5 percent in the preferred Prime Minister rates—still behind Helen Clark who is no longer in politics or even in the country. Her legacy lives on like a ghost keeping the Labour leader awake well into the night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is some honourable member going to take the call? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it correct that the next call is a Green call for the general debate? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is my understanding if the Green Party wishes to take the call. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to explore further some of the issues that were debated on the last members’ day concerning the issue of aggression through the use of armed force and New Zealand policy on this matter. On 19 August Government MPs expressed some views on the matter of aggression and it may be worth—respectfully—seeking to correct any misunderstandings on their part in this respect. Their view was essentially that observing the crime of aggression imposed unacceptable political constraints on our national leaders. It is I think salutary to reflect on the global movement that is gathering pace in criminalising aggression and to realise where the international community actually stands in 2009. 
For most of the history of human conflict—for the better part of 5000 years—there has been what is best described as the “free market of war”: political and military power combined in the one person who has been always free to engage in indiscriminate slaughter with impunity. The measure of greatness was in the art of conquering. It is only in the last two centuries or so—almost in the blink of an eye—that it has dawned on our nations that we should develop a political framework to avert war. Yet war remained lawful. It is in fact only in the last century that humankind has sought to make war illegal. The League of Nations commenced that movement yet war remained legal if all avenues of pacific settlement had been exhausted. It was within the living memory of only the older generation among us that war was finally made illegal; under the United Nations Charter there is only the legal and the illegal use of force. 
In 1947 the trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo made it clear that aggression was a crime in customary international law and that leaders would henceforth be called to account as individuals for such a crime. We have hanged people in that name. In 2002 the International Criminal Court came into force with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the three core crimes: genocide war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court there is a fourth crime for which the court will soon have jurisdiction: the crime of aggression. The preconditions are twofold: agreement on a definition and agreement on the jurisdictional relationship between the UN Security Council and the special prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The necessary work is almost complete on this and it is expected that at the review conference in Uganda in May or June 2010 the 109 countries that are members of the court will adopt aggression as a crime justiciable by the court. When that happens these 109 countries will proceed to implement that international agreement in their domestic law thereby making aggression a crime in their own domestic penal codes. 
New Zealand is one of these countries. We have maintained a longstanding policy under both Labour and National Governments since the early 1990s of unswerving support for the International Criminal Court and for its jurisdiction over the four crimes of greatest concern to humanity. That includes aggression; aggression will be a crime. I mention this background because sooner or later—perhaps next year or a little later but before very long—this Government will be required to agree along with all other 108 States that are parties to the International Criminal Court that aggression is a crime. That crime will be a crime in domestic law in the first instance and an international crime through the International Criminal Court in the second instance. It is therefore important that any comments that Government members make in this House on the question of aggression remain consistent with longstanding New Zealand policy and do not make that policy look inconsistent when the Government confronts this issue in the very near future. Thank you. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The most forlorn and wishful words uttered in this Parliament in modern times came at question time this afternoon when the current Leader of the Opposition in one of his long-winded questions said: “There is no hope for the Prime Minister.” Already the Tui beer advertisers having salivated at the very prospect have started printing their latest billboards. 
The fascinating thing when Mr Goff makes such comments is watching his Opposition colleagues collectively sinking lower and lower in the benches opposite until we are left with just furrowed brows and shaking heads visible above the bench tops. It is no wonder their former colleague Dover Samuels is calling on the current Labour leaders to fall on their swords. It is surely better to have an honourable acceptance of the inevitable than to succumb to the knives that are being sharpened behind them. Or perhaps the Labour leaders should take their lead from the garrulous blogger from Rimutaka Mr Hipkins who admitted this week to his adoring readers in the Cayman Islands and Kazakhstan in 5000 breaths of fresh air that fair-minded Kiwis like what the National Government is doing and will not be turning their attention back to the Labour Party any time soon—certainly not while the fresh young team of Goff King Mallard and Hodgson are setting the pace. 
The member is spot on in his assessment though whether he finds his analysis personally career-enhancing will ultimately depend on which of the many pretenders to the throne is left standing when the looming battle in the Labour caucus room is over. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s political commentator John Armstrong wrote a few days ago it was an important political lesson for “the hapless Hipkins” that “even when the wheels are falling off the political vehicle in which they are travelling:” he needs to insist “that things are always going swimmingly well no matter how bleak and desperate the reality.” 
So what have Mr Armstrong’s media colleagues had to say about Labour’s problems lately? Bill Ralston wrote: “The problem is at the moment the Opposition is pursuing a scatter-gun approach attacking … the Government with a knee-jerk hostility. This largely falls on deaf ears”. Labour’s very good friend Mr Christopher Trotter laments: “What’s the matter with Labour? Why is it making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters? And can anyone explain why Labour’s strategists still believe it’s intelligent politics to have their MPs recorded singing songs on a bus in the Tory-blue heart of Taranaki?”. 
Television New Zealand’s Guyon Espiner picked up the theme when he noted: “It was probably a good thing Phil Goff wasn’t driving the bus”—to nowhere—“because right now he appears to have little sense of direction.” The problem is as John Armstrong concluded: “It took a while for Goff to work out that people were simply not listening to what he and Labour had to say.” Mr Espiner even recommends that Mr Goff should take a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book. I ask members opposite to listen up. Mr Espiner suggested to Phil Goff: “Maybe Phil you should cuddle up to Key a little bit. See what happens.” That is excellent advice. 
Nine months into the new Government’s term a wonderful contrast is apparent. I am proud to be part of a Government that is united and determined and is tackling the issues that matter in these challenging times. The focus of the new Government is on easing the pain of the recession. It is on responding to New Zealanders’ concerns about law and order with a huge raft of measures being capably driven through by the Hon Simon Power the Hon Judith Collins and others. The focus is on increasing resources to the health sector and on redirecting efforts and funding to essential front-line services. We have committed to boosting education to fixing the school buildings that were falling down under Labour to dealing with special-needs funding and to boosting literacy and numeracy which will help New Zealanders to get ahead in life. 
We have been out and about listening to New Zealanders who hold a wide range of views on climate change and we have set a realistic—demanding but achievable—carbon emissions reduction target that is in line with our pre-election commitments. We have been enhancing our relationship with our Maori Party colleagues focusing on raising educational and training aspirations for Maori and facing up to their health challenges and the list goes on. We are getting on with the job and New Zealanders love it. What does Labour offer in response? It offers weak and divided leadership in the House and disingenuous tut-tutting outside it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Just for the record I point out that that was the member for Hamilton West Tim Macindoe. I never thought there would be a worse member for Hamilton West than Grant Thomas but I think such a member has arrived now. 
Paul Quinn 
: What happened? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have won three different electorates I say to Mr Quinn. When that member wants to run I hope he runs against me every time. I will take him around and introduce him to people; it will do my vote a lot of good. 
I was in Hamilton yesterday at the funeral of Rufus Rogers. He was a member of Parliament who was born in 1913. He was involved in the Labour Party from the mid-1930s up until as recently as a month ago at the Rufus Rogers branch of the Labour Party. When I came back and looked at the news it caused me to reflect on the Waikato members in Parliament not so much in Dr Rogers’ period—1972-1975—but those immediately afterwards: the Minogues the Shearers and the Warings. They were the true people of the National Party the people who had the intense integrity to stand up in this Parliament for their views and to cross the floor—the way that the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs has done in the past on the question of Maori representation in local government. I thought that Mr Henare was misdirecting his anger yesterday when he was addressing Mr Hide. The person whom he should have been addressing was the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who indicated that Mr Henare could not vote according to his conscience; that he could not stand up and do what he thought was right. He indicated that Mr Henare could not take a principled stand. 
Mr Henare has been made a fool of. He went around Auckland with a subcommittee of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which he led from marae to marae and he told the people on those marae that the Government was listening. We know now that back in June before all that had occurred the Prime Minister and the leader of the ACT Party had done a sweetheart deal and all those visits were a total charade. It was an embarrassment to this Parliament. It was a personal embarrassment to Tau Henare who was leading the subcommittee. I say to Mr Henare that it is about time he stood up to the Prime Minister and talked to his colleagues who believe the same as he does. It is time he crossed the floor and supported the amendments that will be moved by this party and by—I am almost certain—the Maori Party as well in order to do what is right in Auckland and do what he campaigned on. In fact if we look carefully we see it was something Rodney Hide campaigned on as well. 
I want to make one other point in this short debate: I like the comments of “Honest” John Carter. “Honest” John Carter has been talking about the fact that the contract that is being offered to workers in his electorate—and in that of every other electorate member in the country—is a crock. The people who are working on behalf of Telecom through a contractual arrangement are being forced out of their employment. They are being made redundant with no redundancy pay at all. They are being offered a contract that will in some cases halve their wages. They are being made to pay $60000 for equipment yet there is no guarantee of work. I say to “Honest” John Carter: “Thank goodness there is one Tory who will stand up for his electorate.” It is a pity there are no more. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a second time 
. The passage of the appropriation bill and the Imprest Supply Bill through Parliament signals another step in the parliamentary administrative process which on the face of it is pretty simple. But these bills underpin a process where the incoming Government is trying to get hold of the momentum of Government spending to wring some productivity and effectiveness out of it and to work with the reality that on current forecasts for the next 10 years the New Zealand Government will be showing deficits. I think those forecasts should be taken reasonably seriously. Although we have seen a lift in confidence among businesses and consumers and although we have seen commentary about green shoots in the recovery it would be a brave economist and I think a brave politician who would see our path over the next few years as a smooth path of sustainable recovery—that is possible but it is not very likely. When we have events of the scale of the global financial crisis alongside the most coordinated world recession since the 1930s it is unlikely that all the consequences will wash through the international economy or the domestic economy in just 9 or 12 months. The road to recovery is likely to be somewhat twisty with a few rocks along the way. 
These bills underpin a process going on in that context. Over the last 5 years this economy has become quite significantly unbalanced. Some of the work we have done shows just how far it has become unbalanced. If we look at what has happened to GDP going back to 2004 we see there are some pretty interesting statistics about the rate of change. The tradable sector which is the export sector and tourism largely has actually shrunk by around 10 percent since 2004. Further analysis shows that in the last 10 years that tradable sector—which is the income-earning sector of the economy—has not had any growth in terms of jobs. Within that tradable sector service exports are down 13 percent. Manufacturing is down 16 percent in the last 5 years. The primary sector has grown a bit—around 2 percent—despite the fact that we went through a cycle of very high commodity prices. Over that time GDP grew and it is now 7 percent larger than it was in 2004. 
What has actually grown in this economy is the non-tradable sector. That is the part of the economy that does not compete internationally and it includes the Government domestic construction and quite a lot of our services such as restaurants. The non-tradable part of the economy has grown by 15 percent in the last 5 years and within that the Government part of it grew by 32 percent. Here we have a pretty stark picture of imbalance in the economy: the export sector shrank by 10 percent and Government administration grew by 32 percent. Over the next 5 years that simply cannot happen for the very simple reason that to maintain the rate of increase in Government spending that applied over the last 5 years New Zealand would have to borrow at an unsustainable level. It is no different from a household budget. Over the last 5 years Government revenue has grown at half the rate of Government expenditure: Government revenue grew at 25 percent; Government expenditure grew at 50 percent. No company no business no Government and no household can grow its expenditure at twice the rate of its income. It is not a matter of ideology or politics. Over the next 5 years that simply cannot keep going. The reason is not that it would not suit most people; it is just that to finance that rate of Government expenditure we would have to borrow a very large amount of money and the world may not be willing to lend it to us. 
In the last Budget the Government took a number of steps to limit the amount of borrowing it would have to do. Even with the steps taken in the last Budget Government debt will more than double over the next 4 years. The New Zealand Government will borrow around $40 billion in that time; the current stock of Government debt is about $34 billion. That means that the Government has to pay a good deal of attention to getting value for the taxpayers’ dollars and there are a few high-profile examples of where that will be a challenge. One example is the accident compensation scheme. The accident compensation scheme system is run through levies. People pay levies and those levies are likely to substantially increase because the previous Government expanded the coverage and held the levies down. The moment of truth has now arrived. But there is one account—the non-earners account which is for people such as older people who fall over and break their hip—that the Government finances directly. When we came into office we discovered that there was a hole in that account of $300 million a year. Over the fiscal forecast period that represents $1.2 billion. Well the bad news is that the hole is a lot bigger than we thought. It is now about $420 million a year which over the forecast period represents $1.7 billion of unexpected expenditure. That is the scale of the problem this Government has to deal with. 
All the fiscal momentum that was built up under the previous Government has created a high level of public expectation. Our revenue has dropped considerably and although in the short term there is a benefit to the economy because of the stimulus effect of that increased expenditure in the long run it is unsustainable. I challenge Opposition members to argue that it is sustainable. I do not think it would help their credibility very much if it did— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What credibility? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a good question. When we listen to Opposition members we find that for each and every decision the Government makes they claim that more money should have been spent. Well more money being spent means more borrowing from a world that is being fairly careful about whom it is lending to. 
The Government is working assiduously with the public sector and I must say that the leadership of the public sector has shown a ready willingness to get to grips with the new realities. It is not just getting to grips with the new Government as it is part of the professionalism of the leadership of the public sector to handle a change in Government; probably the bigger change is the change in the fiscal outlook. In health for instance it is simply not tenable that health expenditure can grow at 8 percent per year. It just cannot keep going. That is just a matter of fact and fortunately the leadership of the health sector is starting to get a realistic grip of that fact. Right through our discussions with the public sector we aim to provide improved services for the public. That will mean sorting out priorities and making decisions based on those priorities. The fact is that some things matter more than others. Where there has been low-quality and ineffective expenditure we will need to reallocate that money because there are still plenty of high-priority needs in our community and sometimes in a recession those needs grow. But I think we need to be straightforward about the need for that prioritisation and the will of this Government to do it. 
We are heading out to rebalance the economy after 10 years of economic mismanagement—10 years of too much borrowing and too much spending. The next 10 years have to be about saving investing exporting and reward for effort and these bills indicate some of the decisions that the Government is making to achieve that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That all words after “and” be omitted and the following substituted: “that this House condemns the decision of the Government to pre-empt the democratic process through the select committee on Auckland governance regarding Maori representation and in doing so ignored the views of submitters and members of the public on this issue.” 
First of all I will touch on the financial side of what the Minister has just said. Every morning Bill English gets up and thanks God that the previous Labour Government never followed his advice when he was in Opposition which was to spend the surplus. Mr English inherited from a Labour Government—a responsible Labour Government—a zero net Government debt situation and one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. That is why New Zealand is weathering the recession as well as it is. It is because of the very situation that Bill English inherited. 
We have major concerns about the direction that the Budget took and about its ineffectiveness in countering the soaring levels of unemployment. In the last quarter of the household labour force survey unemployment went up at the fastest rate in 20 years—the fastest rate in 20 years—and Mr English has done nothing in the financial appropriations that will turn that situation round. We are concerned about the lack of fairness and the poor priorities in this Budget. 
We are concerned that Mr English can bring in legislation that slashes the funding for therapy for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged kids in schools. We are concerned that he can bring in legislation that kills adult education with its proud history of more than a century of delivering to the needs of continuing education although the Government somehow has the money—$35 million—to fund private education and kids who are already advantaged. 
We have concerns also that this Budget lacks any real plan to seize the opportunity that will be created by the upturn in the international economy. Ironically our economy will do better probably out of the stimulus packages of Australia and the United States than it will do out of anything that Bill English has moved through this House. We know that there will be an upturn and surely this Budget should have prepared New Zealand for that with investment in research and development and investment in skills and training so that we approach that upturn able to take advantage of it and able to improve the standard of living and the well-being of our people. 
I come back to the amendment I have moved to the motion. It is about our concern that once again this Government has refused to consult genuinely with people and to listen to what people were trying to tell it. It is no wonder that the personal relationships amongst the members of the National Government and the coalition parties came apart in the outburst from Tau Henare yesterday. His calling the leader of one of the parties that gives the Government supply and confidence a “buffoon” and a “jerk-off” underlies the frustration of people in the National Government—including I believe Georgina te Heuheu. I read her speech back in 2001 in which she supported the creation of Maori seats in the Bay of Plenty. National which was then in Opposition gave her the right to vote for that legislation but it is currently denying that right to its members. 
It is no wonder that Tau Henare was as angry as he was. He was given the job of going around the Auckland marae talking to people about the bill on Auckland City telling them that they would be listened to and telling them that the Government would take account of what they were saying to the select committee. I believe that Tau Henare did so in good faith. But the good faith was not followed by Mr Key and his Government who pulled the rug out from under the select committee said they had already made the decision on Maori seats and did not even want to hear what the select committee was considering what it might deliberate on and what it might report back to the House. 
It is no wonder that the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated that that was an abuse of the due process of democracy. New Zealanders and Aucklanders turned up to a select committee to give their submissions on what the Government might decide to do only to find out that the Government had already made the decision. The Government did not want to know about their views. Rodney Hide had promised earlier in the process that he would respect the select committee. He did no such thing. He threatened to throw his toys out of the cot and resign if there were to be Maori seats and John Key who had made it clear to Pita Sharples and Rodney Hide that he was supporting Maori seats caved in to that pressure backed down and left Tau Henare in an impossible position. 
Maori representation is not a new concept. There are seven Maori members of Parliament here and they were elected in precisely the same way that we would have Auckland councillors represented from Maori seats in Auckland. In 2001 Labour passed a bill that gave Maori people the chance to have representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The chair of Environment Bay of Plenty came out yesterday and said that that situation has worked well not only for Maori people but for all the people of the Bay of Plenty. If we get people involved get them participating and ensure their representation then we will have a strong democracy—and it is not just about the issues themselves; it is about consultation and this consultation programme was an absolute sham. 
Ngarimu Blair is the spokesman for Ngati Whatua. He called the process a masquerade a sham and a farce. For political reasons the Government had already decided what it was going to do regardless of what the public said. I have a quote here from John Key. He promised 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.” That statement is sheer hypocrisy and is not sustained by what the Government actually did. 
The submissions were 60 percent in favour of having Maori seats; 20 percent were opposed. Mr Key said he would listen and would not be arrogant. He did not listen and he was arrogant. The Government disregarded entirely the submissions that were made and the process through which those submissions were put forward. 
I recall that straight after the royal commission’s report John Key and Rodney Hide made a decision about where Auckland was going without any consultation at all. I recall that a bill was rammed through this Parliament—on a Saturday night under urgency—without being referred to a select committee. What did Government members tell us at the time? They said that there would be consultation and that there would be a second bill on which people could have their say. It was to be the showcase of National’s consultation on Auckland City. What did we find? We found—again—that it was a sham and a fraud on the people of Auckland. There has been much rhetoric about the select committee process but it has not been taken seriously. 
I will finish by mentioning a quote from the other major tribe in Auckland Tainui. Tuku Morgan said of Mr Key that “He says the relationship with Maori is a significant relationship. Well clearly that’s amounted to nothing.” The Maori Party went into a coalition with National on the basis of a mana-enhancing relationship. The decision by National not to have Maori seats has stripped that relationship of any mana. The decision by National is contrary to democratic process. The decision by National shows that it is utterly contemptuous of and arrogant about the right of people in Auckland to be heard on what will happen to their city. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the debate on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. I will make some comments relative to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech a minute ago. Yes there is no doubt disappointment over the Auckland seats issue. There is no doubt about that; the disappointment is around us for all to see. Yes I did cross the floor in 2002 to support Mita Ririnui’s bill. I did that partly because the Bay of Plenty is an area I know well and because it seemed to me that that was the thing to do for that area at the time. Thankfully my party allowed me to do so. But in the end it may be that the best way for the seats to eventually come in across this country at local government level is for it to happen in exactly the same way that Mita Ririnui did it for the Bay of Plenty. The Bay of Plenty wanted to have Maori seats and the fact that they work shows what a wise move that was. In the end the Tuku Morgans of this world will find a way to ensure that their voice is heard as mana whenua. Maori in Auckland will make sure they find a way to do that. 
This House—and this Government in particular—wants to focus on some of the things that really matter at this point in time: literacy and numeracy for Maori and Pacific children training initiatives more support for training and job opportunities. Those are the things that lift the lives of Maori individuals Maori children and Maori young adults today not the issue of seats. Seats are an important issue but they are not as important as the things that this Government wants to focus on which are about lifting the lives of individuals families and communities and the rebalancing of the economy which the Minister of Finance talked about today. Rebalancing the economy is absolutely critical to ensuring that every individual family and community flourishes and grows into the future. 
I will focus briefly on the area of Maori development and Maori advancement. National believes in and supports the notion that the job of a Government is to create the framework that allows individuals and communities to flourish. That is what is happening in our approach to Maori issues across the board. The seats are important but they do not necessarily lift Maori families at this point in time. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh cut it out Georgie. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: They do not and that member knows it. Mind you when that member was in Government he did not know what would lift Maori families. He did not know that then and he does not know it now. 
We inherited a long tail of dysfunction and that member knows it. Over 50 percent of Maori boys cannot read and write. That is what was bequeathed to our Government when we came into office. Maori seats will not fix that but national standards in schools will and literacy and numeracy will. More training and job opportunities are what fix the issues that Maori families worry about on a daily basis. The previous Minister of Maori Affairs did not get that. He was good at going around the marae and I give him credit for that but ultimately we inherited a long tail of underachievement which Labour should be absolutely ashamed of. 
I will look at some of the things we are doing in terms of education—I see Minister Tolley in the House. Despite the economic downturn we have a whole raft of initiatives designed to lift Maori and Pacific individuals particularly those individuals and families in our communities who are not doing well because Labour which was profligate when in Government wasted the surpluses and did not address the issues at all. 
Regarding the spending on public services I say there is a $3 billion boost for health services $1.68 billion of spending on education to raise student achievement plus 600 more police 246 more probation workers more infrastructure—roads in particular—and more schools. Maintaining people’s entitlements is absolutely important. There is $1.68 billion over the years 2008 to 2013 to improve facilities for education. We will be building new schools modernising existing ones helping students to meet the national standards and making sure that if young New Zealanders are not in training they at least have opportunities to look towards that. The things that matter are education health boosting Maori providers strengthening Maori business and developing a Maori tourism strategy which the previous Government never did. All of those things will improve the lives of Maori way way before having seats in local government would. 
Labour thinks that we appear to have a slight hiccup here—and that is all it is. We know my colleague Tau Henare and we know that sometimes he just has to make a comment; he cannot help himself. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is a very affectionate comment; it is not a criticism. I admire him and he has been here way longer than any of those members. Tau Henare will say what he wants to say but that does not a rift make. Labour wishes it would. It has the temerity to think that somehow over this one hiccup it can get the Maori Party on its side. Labour does not have a hope of doing that. Those members would not have a clue about how to respectfully court the Maori Party. Helen Clark called the Maori Party the last cab off the rank but the Labour members think that this one hiccup for us will somehow get that cab to go to them. It absolutely cannot. The Labour Party did not treat its Maori members properly; otherwise Tariana Turia would still be sitting over there. Where is she? She is not there; she was totally humiliated by that party. 
Paul Quinn 
: Where is she? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: She is still on our side of the House. Labour would not have a clue about what respect or mana is. Labour trampled on Tariana Turia when she was there and it has not done anything this year to win the affection or respect of the Maori Party. 
The Maori Party will be with us for a long time to come. There is no doubt we will have our ups and downs; that is what happens in a family. But essentially we have laid a long-term plank for the Maori Party to hopefully remain with us. Labour with all its Maori support for all of those years trampled on the interests of Maori people and does not have a show of winning the Maori seats back. Certainly for the time being Labour does not have a show of winning the Maori Party to its side. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in this debate today on the third reading of the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill and the second reading of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill. It seems a long long time since Budget 2009 since Bill English walked through those double doors with his brand new shirt and tie on clutching his blue Budget in his hands. He was so excited and eager. It is a long long time since the Government primed up the National backbench to clap at every pause and every apostrophe in his speech. Every punctuation mark got a round of applause from the National backbenchers. They looked adoringly and longingly at the Minister of Finance. There has been a lot happening in the New Zealand community since Budget 2009. 
Since that time 2000 people a week have been thrown on to the unemployment scrap heap in this country. That does not matter much to the National Party but the public is certainly starting to take notice of it. They are feeling it in their families and in their pockets. They know that we have a big problem. The Minister for Social Development and Employment said that unemployment was just a blip but I have to tell her that that blip is becoming a blight on the landscape of New Zealand. Then we have the Prime Minister telling New Zealanders that the recession will be over by Christmas. Unfortunately his Minister of Finance does not agree with him and I note that last night when the Minister of Internal Affairs was shovelling out some cheques from the Lotteries Commission he said that organisations were going to need that money because it was not known when the recession would be over. The people of New Zealand have been looking at what this Government’s response is to the growing number of people who are being made unemployed. We were told that there was a rolling maul of initiatives but it seems to me that it is a rolling maul where they seldom find the ball. There is a lot of eye gouging going on. We have seen that in the last few days between the ACT Party and the National Party and the Maori Party and the ACT Party. It seems to me that whenever they get near the ball all the Prime Minister does is kick the ball for touch. 
The Government held a summit where it was going to solve the unemployment problem in New Zealand. It was billed as refreshing exciting and collaborative. It was idea-generating and visionary but it produced a 9-day fortnight in which 33 companies showed an interest. It produced a cycleway that was going to be from the North Cape to the Bluff and create 3700 jobs but unfortunately that big idea is now a number of little bike rides and there is no talk of jobs at all. This Government has been unable to produce a decent idea to help New Zealanders who have become unemployed. What does the business community think about that summit? The Research New Zealand business confidence report for July said that it was very very disappointed in this Government. Only one in every hundred businesses signalled that they had any faith in the Job Summit producing any gains for small business. Nearly 50 percent were convinced it would have zero impact on their business— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How many? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: “Zero percent impact” said 50 percent of the businesses surveyed. They thought the summit was a joke; it was a joke. That was that Government’s response to the unemployment rates. 
In the meantime the numbers climb every day. People are going on to benefits every day in New Zealand. We now have 310296 on main benefits in New Zealand. That is up from 258000 and growing fast. What has this Government’s response been? It has been a whole lot of slogans. Let us name them. We have ReStart and today we heard about Fresh Start for young offenders. We have Job Ops we have Community Max and today we got boot camps. They are a whole lot of flash names and very little action. The number of people going on to these programmes in relation to the number of people who are becoming unemployed is minuscule. I ask members to look at the ReStart programme the flagship programme from Paula Bennett a few weeks ago. We know the number of people going onto the ReStart programme has gone down every week in the last month. The unemployment numbers are going up but the number of people who can access this flagship programme are going down. 
Then we had Job Ops. We know that one-third of those on the unemployment benefit are young people. It is a serious issue. Paula Bennett rolls out her latest slogan which is Job Ops. Employers will get $5000 for each new job they create for a young person. Only there is a problem—they are not new jobs that are being created. Employers around New Zealand are saying they are existing vacancies that would have been filled by a New Zealander; they are not new jobs. What have we got? We have exactly what Grey Power said to me would happen; we have the old unemployment merry-go-round under way. So $5000 is given to an employer to take on a young person and deny an opportunity for an older person who then goes on the unemployment benefit. It does not make a jot of difference to unemployment in New Zealand. It has a feel-good factor for the Government and that is all. As Grey Power said we have many people aged 50-plus who are now not getting jobs at all and not getting a look in. They are not getting a subsidy. If they have a partner who works they get no help at all. They have families they have mortgages and they are under considerable stress. 
This is the time when one would have thought that a Government would invest in skills and in education and would train people to be ready for the uplift in the economy that will happen. But what did it do? It cut many of the important programmes that would have helped New Zealanders into jobs. It cut community education cut scholarships and cut the training incentive allowance—the very assistance that got the Minister for Social Development and Employment into a job. At this time when we should have these tools to help people get jobs the Government cut them. It does not make sense. No one can make sense of it. 
So what is this Government doing? It has decided that it will rule by committees. It has set up 40 committees since the election one for every week that National has been in Government. 
Hon Members 
: How many? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Forty committees! The Government has set up review committees and regulatory review committees. It has set up advisory groups and technical advisory groups. It has set up ministerial panels boards of inquiry task forces expert panels policy forums and working groups. It is a Government run by committees and bureaucrats. Every one of those committees has to have a whole lot of people to run them. They have to have a travel budget and they have to have consultants to run their committees. This is a Government that cannot make a decision. It kicks the ball for touch. It sets up committees reviews task forces panels and forums but will it make a decision that will benefit New Zealanders? No it will not. 
We are very very concerned at the lack of action by this Government when it comes to people who are unemployed in New Zealand. Over 50000 people are now on the unemployment benefit. Over 138000 people are out of work and by next December we are looking at 180000-plus people out of work. In the meantime let us have another committee! Let us have another task force! Let us have another review! But for goodness’ sake do not put in place anything that will make a difference to the lives of New Zealanders. This Budget could have done so much for so many people; it did so little. It is a real disappointment. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Last year in the equivalent debate—this debate happens every year—my colleague and co-leader of the Green Party Russel Norman said that the defining realities of the 21st century were threefold. The first was the real constraint of resource depletion particularly of oil fresh water and arable lands. The second was the decreasing capacity of the planet to absorb our pollution and our waste like carbon dioxide. The third was our addiction as a species to exponential growth in both resource use and waste production. These are global realties but they are played out every day in our own communities. They are made real by the current twin crises that our communities face—the crisis of the global recession and that of climate change. 
Each Government is required to deal with these constraints in a practical and effective way that protects the community and the environment that prepares for the consequences of an oil-constrained world and that ensures our country will continue to prosper in the world. This was the opportunity for this new Government to demonstrate that capacity. But doing so required a New Zealand Government to understand one basic fundamental truth about the New Zealand economic context: no environment—no economy. In a climate crisis action now saves us money. In a recession every job counts. 
The Green Party of course has had the common sense to recognise that our economy is 100 percent dependent on our environment. That is why prior to the Budget announcement we released a Green New Deal stimulus package of a very modest investment of $3.3 billion over 3 years that would create 43000 new jobs for New Zealanders. Unlike this Government’s stale 19th century approach of taking money from the most vulnerable in order to provide subsidies to the most powerful our Green New Deal package would help to develop a stronger more resilient and more prosperous economy for everyone in our country. 
Alongside the stimulus package we have produced a range of measures in a report called  
Getting there 
 to reduce our carbon emissions in order to meet a responsible emissions target of 30 to 40 percent. We must reduce our carbon emissions and increase our carbon sinks if we are to protect our economy and our environment from the worst costs of climate change. These are the Green twin solutions to the twin crises. Our Green twin solutions will help to ensure we have a prosperous nation ready for the challenges of the 21st century. Our Green twin solutions propose major energy efficiency improvements—for example the reduction of the demand for energy and the reduction of carbon emissions—while saving money for our New Zealand families. Home insulation will reduce energy demand and save families money in their power bills. Business efficiency upgrades will increase productivity and save energy costs for businesses. Speeding up the replacement of the Huntly coal-fired power station by new geothermal and wind generation which is already in the pipeline will also help to reduce costs and save on carbon emissions. These investments in major energy efficiency and reduction in energy demand will create some 2700 jobs. In a climate crisis early action saves us money. In a recession every job counts. 
This Government has dedicated huge amounts of public money into the building of motorways. The Greens’ twin solutions clearly show that this use of public funds is grossly irresponsible. The Government argues that because 85 percent of New Zealanders go to work by car we therefore have to spend all our money on roads. But we know that our public transport system is creaking at the seams. Indeed just this year there was a 10 percent growth in the use of public transport in Auckland. Public transport usage grew by 3.9 million trips. But the Government is stuck in the 19th century and is failing to deal with these real issues of climate change peak oil and the costs that are therefore borne by our families. Our Green twin solutions will reduce our emissions reduce families’ transport costs and reduce our current account deficit in part through the lessening over time of our dependence on oil and therefore in the spending of some $8 billion a year on oil imports. Our solutions would reduce our oil imports by moving funding from low-quality spending on new motorways into high-quality spending on increased public transport capacity. We know that we can create 40 percent more jobs through spending on public transport safer cycling and walking than on roads. We would reduce congestion pollution child road deaths and costs to business. We would help our current account deficit as I have outlined. In a climate crisis action now will save us money and in a recession every job counts. 
The Government’s decision to axe funding for children and their families was a key means by which big business and wealthy interests were subsidised through tax cuts and other subsidies. It was a key means by which this Government took money from the most vulnerable to give to the most powerful. Funding is being slashed in adult and community education. Enviroschools funding has been slashed and 675 schools and over 200000 children are losing the support that the Government provided to that important programme. Three million dollars a year has been axed from the Nutrition Fund which was set up to help schools have healthy eating and edible garden initiatives. We know that poor diet contributes to poor learning outcomes and that poor diet contributes to some 8000 preventable deaths in this country yet the Minister has axed food and nutritional guidelines. There have been cuts to funding for 80 projects that were supported through the Enterprise Allowance scheme. These were projects that provided employment in local and rural areas the basis of quality economic development in those areas where it was most needed by New Zealand families. 
Our Green twin solutions will protect our families and our country’s children. We want New Zealanders to be warmly housed to be healthy and well and to have access to affordable food and clean water so our kids can learn better at school. More of our communities will have warmer drier and healthier homes under the Greens’ twin solutions including the 6000 extra homes built by otherwise unemployed builders plumbers and electricians. We will get the families that are desperately in need of homes off the waiting lists and with a roof over their heads. Social cohesion will be better encouraged during these particularly tough times especially for our older folk who rely on programmes like adult and community education to stay connected to the communities they have supported through many many years of work and volunteering. We will support communities by investing in community economic development initiatives. Recycling and waste initiatives if they are locally and community-owned return much more to the local community than do national or international companies. We will invest in free low-cost health care community transport community gardens river and coastal restoration projects and the creation of some 700 extra jobs. 
This Government through its Budget initiatives has returned this country to the 19th century. The provision of more roads and the development of more coal-fired power stations through some of the legislation the Government has passed denies the reality of an increasingly constrained resource-constrained environment. Our country must be prepared for the new challenges of the new century as opposed to looking back to the old century. Our Green twin solutions to the twin crises would set New Zealand on a path to a low-carbon less oil-dependent more prosperous future. Our twin solutions will ready our communities and help to protect them by providing new jobs and protecting the environment on which our economy is so completely dependent. In a climate crisis early action—action now—will save us money. In a recession every job counts. The Green Party’s twin solutions to the twin crises would provide that; this Government has taken us backwards. Thank you. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 Listening to the Committee stage of the appropriations debate reminds me how many of the issues that we have debated over the last few months are precisely the same issues that have been debated in this Chamber for at least 40 years. In 1979 I wrote a paper advocating broadening the tax base and lowering tax. That paper got me sacked from the front bench. Today the Tax Working Group is undertaking the same project. 
Although some things have not changed there are some things that have changed and I am not sure that all of them have changed for the better. Today’s political parties it seems to me are obsessed not with goals not with things that we want to achieve but with the way that things operate. There is no rational political discussion about setting goals and determining the best way to achieve them. Instead politicians pigeon-hole each other according to how they want to manage things. A brief look at what the parties have been saying during the debate on this legislation demonstrates this particularly well. 
When I was a member of the Labour Party we almost always agreed on what we wanted—a decent education for our children an economy that ensured people had jobs and a welfare care system that looked after people. We used to debate how to get there and there was a lot of disagreement on that. Some believed in centralisation and clever bureaucrats and others thought that we needed to make people responsible for themselves and to ensure that those who fell through the cracks had a safety net. We agreed in other words on the ends but we argued about the means. 
Listening to the debate on this legislation and other legislation in this House I cannot help but realise that today’s Labour Party is the complete opposite. The ends its members seek are different. Some want a growing economy some want to eradicate poverty— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This is National’s bill. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: That is all right. I am talking about that member’s debate. Some Labour members want to stop economic growth in the name of the environment. But the one thing they all agree upon is the means. They all agree that the best way to achieve the diverse ends they seek is through larger Government and the centralisation of power. That is what we have heard over recent times. They never tell us why centralisation is a good thing. They just tell us that it is so. There is no better illustration of this than the recent member’s bill introduced by Phil Twyford which sought to protect and retain State ownership of assets owned by local councils. To Phil Twyford State ownership is all-important. He never talked about the best way to get value from the assets he never talked about the proper role of Government and he never talked about what he wanted those assets to achieve for the people of Auckland. As long as the State had its hands on the assets he was happy. That is Labour today. 
The same narrow view is present in education. When Anne Tolley and Heather Roy announced education scholarships for up to 250 students from low-income backgrounds Labour members were opposed. They said it was the privatisation of education. They were never willing to argue the merits of a few vouchers over State monopoly. State monopoly has become their goal. It is obsessed not with goals but with structures. The reality is that Labour’s inability to argue sensibly over means ensures that it will always be blindsided by National. National is hardly radical; it is just aiming to manage things better than Labour. If Labour was to come out in favour of increased competition between State-run schools—or State-run hospitals—as a means of increasing education quality which is something entirely consistent I would have thought with its principles that it could easily outflank National and put it on the back foot. 
Labour as currently structured however and as evidenced in this debate has a situation where the privileged special interests that lurk amongst it—the unionists the teachers the ex - student politicians—have control of the party. It is predictable that these people are more concerned with preserving the current structures that privilege certain groups at the expense of the general public but the policies are not in my view doing Labour a favour. 
During this debate National also confirmed what we have come to know and that is that National is a party that is fundamentally conservative. It largely accepts the status quo and seeks to manage it better. There have been a few exceptions such as National under Ruth Richardson but people do not necessarily last if they are in that camp. We are seeing a sense of conservatism in National. From 2005 to 2007 Labour increased Government spending by over $7 billion. From 2009 to 2011—and some of that period is covered by the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill—National will increase its spending by over $5 billion. It may be slowing down the progression to an even larger State but it is certainly not reversing it. National is and always will be timid. That was evident in the selection of some of the Cabinet Ministers who were placed in various positions 
Grant Robertson 
: Tell us which ones! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Do members want me to mention one or two? 
Grant Robertson 
: Yes! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I am happy to do that if called on but on the other hand I think it is self-evident who they are. 
National has become the political manager. It engages in political stunts and short-term opportunism. The cycleway the Job Summit and the housing insulation scheme are current examples of political expediency. The problem with such a tokenistic approach to politics is that people are smarter than most politicians think. People are well aware that in their private lives sacrifices are often made to improve their prospects in the future. People save to buy a house and go without to get a tertiary education. The voting public grows weary as politicians continually try to massage the polls by adopting short-term popular policy. 
I will finish by saying that in many ways I have been disappointed with the approach of the Maori Party as well. It seems to me that the Maori Party more than any other party has the opportunity to help its people. Unfortunately I think too often it grandstands on one small issue after another. But I believe that Maori people rightly have very real grievances in some big issues. Let me very quickly take the example of superannuation. Maori people often pay into superannuation early and they often retire but do not live as long as others. Maori people are not treated equally in terms of superannuation. That is the sort of big issue the Maori Party should bring to this House because I think that if it was pushing that issue it might just win. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 When I spoke on Vote Health a couple of weeks ago I shared with members the warning issued by the World Health Organization that in the past we have seen the social sectors robbed in times of economic downturn with dire long-term consequences. Little did I know that now the picture would look even worse. We know now that the unemployment rate for Maori 15 to 24-year-olds was 20.8 percent for the year ended June 2009. That is up from 16.9 percent a year ago. In absolute numbers that is an increase from 11500 to 15600. The Maori Party has received considerable expressions of concern from around the motu about the shock announcement in Budget 2009 that restricted eligibility for the training incentive allowance for tertiary study at level 4 and above. As we know about 4500 beneficiaries a year will be affected by the change. Beneficiaries already getting the allowance for university degrees will continue to do so for another 2 years but anyone enrolling in new courses at level 4 or above since Budget day will not qualify. 
We have to question the logic behind some of these changes. Sometimes it appears the Government is taking away with one hand and giving with another and it is not always clear why. It is hard to understand the rationale for targeting solo parents or those on the invalids benefits doing tertiary courses such as diplomas or university degrees. They are no longer eligible for support. It is hard to understand the cut to the Health and Disability Innovation Fund to help disabled people into employment. It is nigh on impossible to understand the reason for disestablishing from 2010 Skill Enhancement and in particular its very effective Rangatahi Maia programme. In a similar vein we have many questions around why the adult literacy educator grants will now be significantly reduced and reprioritised. 
One of the more well-read lines in the coalition agreement negotiated between the Maori Party and the National Party pertains to the “agree to disagree” provisions. We will continue to articulate our concerns when we see budget cuts. We will persist with the hard questions and we have no qualms in doing so. To paraphrase the poet Alfred Lord Tennyson ours is to reason why not but to do and die. We have too much at stake to sit in this House and not hold each of us to account for the grim reality of the current economic situation. All of us must heed the warning of the Family Centre social policy research centre and Waikato University which suggested earlier this week that New Zealand’s baby boomers could end up living in poverty if critical issues of income housing and health are not addressed. 
Any one of us in the House could stand and report on the grim state of his or her electorate: the impact of rapidly rising power bills the consequences of redundancy being realised in the increasing length of the queue lining up for food parcels poor health and compromised housing. But this is not the Charge of the Light Brigade. I will highlight some of the critical steps that are helping to lift our people out of these dire consequences. The groups I have met with appreciate the timely support of the Community Response Fund designed to assist non-governmental organisations affected by the recession. With an announcement imminent any day I know that many social service providers will be waiting eagerly to hear whether they will get the extra support necessary to help them cope with either a funding crisis or a significant increase in demand for their services. There is also the Community Max programme led by my colleague Tariana Turia. It is fantastic to learn that over 250 community groups have already registered their interest in this programme. With the help of the Maori Party networks we will make sure that that number grows. Other announcements have provided a source of comfort to many of our families as they negotiate difficult times. I am really proud of the work the Maori Party has done with the Minister of Housing to help draw attention to the need for social and affordable housing. I know that many of our families are keen to look further into the opportunity to build houses on multiple-owned Maori land that the Minister announced last week. 
Of course it is not all plain sailing. We have noted today the announcement of the Fresh Start package for young offenders. This issue arose during the select committee consideration of strategies to address the country’s worst youth offenders. The Maori Party was concerned to read the submission to the Social Services Committee from Unicef which advised: “Children are in danger of being victimised to respond to somewhat populist but ill considered proposals to satisfy the ‘pitchfork and torches’ mentality calling for more punitive harder harsher treatment of young offenders.” I think it is of value to refer to the research of Lipsey who developed a meta-analysis of 20 different studies of wilderness programmes involving more than 3000 juvenile offenders. Lipsey found that programmes involving a combination of relatively intense physical activity and therapeutic enhancement—such as individual counselling family therapy and group sessions—were especially effective. The key theme across all of these studies is that rolling out national programmes based on inadequate evidence can do more harm than good. 
Although we are pleased with some of the projects that have been included in the package today I want to end with a conclusion from a range of studies looking at mentoring high-risk minority youth in particular the Brothers Project. That study concluded that caring adults make an important difference in the lives of vulnerable youth. There is a message in that for all of us. It seems to me that in a caring nation our priority would be to support and keep warm those people at the front line of our families not to push them out into the cold. A caring nation would also be a nation in which we deal with the chronic levels of abuse and violence that keep occurring. I am pleased at the announcement that my colleague Tariana Turia made yesterday regarding the establishment of a high-level ministerial group to address family violence. At the end of the day all of the infrastructure in the world having all the assets in place and all these economic developments will mean nought if our children are not able to reap the benefits. We must put the foundations in place to achieve the vision of well-being for all. 
So in the debate on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill I want to plant the seed for future appropriations to work towards strategies to achieve the aspiration of whanau ora. The achievement of whanau ora has to be the most significant pathway to move us onwards from talk to action and from a time of crisis to a focus on prevention. At its very heart it is about restoring our homes to places of safety and love where healthy partnerships are the norm. It is an aspiration that the Maori Party has firmly staked its future on. As a final word I have to wonder at the value of the efforts that have gone into seeking the opportunity to smack rather than thinking of more nurturing and loving alternatives. I would love to see a referendum that asks New Zealanders: “Do you agree that the greatest gift of all we can give our children is the commitment that we will provide them with unconditional love security and safety?”. That is a referendum I hope the whole nation could sign up to. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Following on from the speaker who has just resumed her seat can I say that a caring nation is also a responsible nation. Caring families are also responsible families. That is why it is with such pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in relation to the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. 
This is a caring Government that has produced a responsible Budget. Nothing could say that more than the fact that this Government has delivered on its election promises. It has in the worst economic times we have seen in three generations been able not only to deliver on those promises but also to increase spending in the areas where it was most needed and at the same time have our credit rating saved despite all the doom and gloom talk from the Opposition. 
I will touch on just a couple of the things that I am most pleased about in this Budget and they are in relation to corrections. This Government took over a Department of Corrections that had been seriously underfunded in particular in relation to the probation service. This is an area that has come under increasing stress over the last some years and the reason is that there are more and more community-programme sentences for the service to look after. We had an increasing offender population to deal with in community services but unfortunately not sufficient funding. There was a small increase in the number of probation officers but actually so much more was needed. 
One of the things I found out when I came into Government was that the previous Minister the Hon Phil Goff had received an application from the Department of Corrections in September last year outlining just how critical the parole system and probation service were and how there was a need for urgent funding. That request for help did not even get a reply. That was the service that we got to take over. We were left with the Auditor-General’s report into the status of the parole system. It was a damning report. But in a very short period of time we have been able to work closely with the chief executive and the senior staff at the Department of Corrections and with a great deal of support from around the justice sector we have been able to turn round the Community Probation and Psychological Services system that was in dire need. All of that required funding. 
We are injecting a further $255.9 million into the probation service. I would like to thank my colleagues for the support they have given me in helping to turn this service round. Budget operating funding of $133.8 million over 4 years will enable Community Probation and Psychological Services to recruit an extra 134 probation officers 26 front-line managers and 20 psychologists which will ensure that it can effectively manage almost 100000 sentences and orders a year. These are good people who are doing their very best many of whom are very well trained people who have come into the Community Probation and Psychological Services to do good work and it is important that they get support. 
Another $71.2 million operating funding has been approved over 4 years to recruit an extra 112 probation officers three front-line managers and three psychologists to improve the quality of parole and home-detention management. We cannot continue down the path of simply locking people up in jail for year after year consistently increasing sentences and sending out into the world people who are damaged by their time locked up in prison and who are certainly not made better people. It is appalling that we have gone down this track. We had years of it under the previous administration and it has to be brought to a close. We need to deal with the fact that we have 8500 prisoners today locked up in our jails. 
Our population in New Zealand is about 4 million. The population of Queensland Australia—not a state known for its soft-on-crime attitudes—is about 4 million. We have 8500 sentenced prisoners; Queensland has 4500 prisoners. I think that says it all really. We are locking people up and letting them come out of the prison service worse people than when they went in not better. It is appalling for members of the previous Government ever to try to take any credit in the area of law and order because they should not. Most of our prisoners have drug and alcohol problems. Many of them are addicts. Yet only 500 places were made available in our prison service for drug and alcohol treatment programmes. In the first 3 years of the John Key - led National Government we are doubling the number of treatment places. 
That is 1000 places but it is still not enough. I note that the Green speakers have often said to me that we should have more. Well we should but we have to start somewhere. Not only that but previously they have been available only to people near the end of their sentences and to people who have been sentenced to long sentences not in fact to the people most likely to benefit—in other words those who will be there for 2 years or less. The Department of Corrections has been working very hard on getting a programme available for people who are sentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment. I believe that that is great work from the Department of Corrections. I would like to thank its staff for all their support and the work they are doing because they are particularly dedicated towards this area. 
We also obviously have to increase the number of prison beds because we will run out of them by February next year. As well I found out to my horror that the previous Minister the Hon Phil Goff was advised of new projections in the prison population back in 2007 and that the Government of the day refused to accept the new projections because clearly they did not suit its rhetoric. We have therefore been left with a number of problems: an increasing prison population people sentenced to very long sentences very few drug and alcohol treatment programmes and the situation of the prisoners we are sending back out into the community. We are having to fund $385.3 million over the next 4 years to make sure we have enough prison beds. This is a problem that we have inherited but the Department of Corrections is working very well in this area. 
I now turn to the role of the New Zealand Police. I am one of those people who believe that the police have a huge job in the role of not only catching criminals but also preventing crime. One of the great things that members will have seen from the Prime Minister’s announcements today on youth justice is the role of the New Zealand Police in running programmes to help young offenders and to get them back on to the straight and narrow. So many of the young offenders whom the police deal with come from homes where really nobody is responsible and those young people are in fact victims of the homes and the families they come from. The police are the right people to be involved in the mix to help bring those people around so they do not end up going down the inevitable pathway that they had before of going through the system and into our adult prisons—essentially going through the revolving door of a prison system that lets them come back time and time again. 
But apart from that the police also need the tools to be able to catch the criminals. That is where the roll-out of digital radios is so important. Digital radios are already having an effect in the Wellington area and I am very hopeful— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right; very good. And it started in the Hutt! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very pleased that the previous Government did some work on that; it is working well—and it is good to hear from Mr Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It started in the Hutt! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: And we are funding it. We are also rolling out Tasers for the police. The police increasingly have to deal with methamphetamine-fuelled crime and violent criminals—people who on a previous day might have had the armed offenders squad called out and could have been shot. The introduction of Tasers early next year will give the police another tool to deal with offenders in a way that is safe secure and in the vast majority of cases not life-threatening. That is a major breakthrough for the police. 
I commend this legislation to the House. It is a pleasure to be part of the John Key - led Government and to work so well with our support parties in Government: the Maori Party the ACT Party and United Future. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow that Minister Judith Collins. She made one of her usual astounding speeches. I remind that Minister through the Chair that her party only after the election and despite the crocodile tears we see now said how shameful it was that we have the second-highest incarceration rate in the world—and it is shameful. It was the National Party in Opposition though that said the previous Labour Government was not locking up enough criminals. It was the National Party in Opposition that said the Labour Government was soft on crime. It was the National Party in Opposition that talked about flat-screen TVs but I have now been around to 12 of our 20-plus prisons and I have not found one. I have not been shown one. No manager in a prison that I have been into—and I have been to over half of them—has shown me one and I have asked where these flat-screen TVs are apart from showing me the data screens in the central control unit where they actually observe prisoners and protect prison officers. 
Secondly this was the Opposition of course who said we were not locking up enough people. This was the now Minister and her ilk who said before the election that prisons were “Hotel Hiltons”—I think one of the expressions was—and that they were all holiday camps. So I was then astounded to see the Minister walk into the Law and Order Committee with a photo of a cell—I believe it may have been at Mount Crawford or Mount Eden—and say: “This is terrible. Look at what these poor prisoners have to put up with. We want to give them flash containers. It is terrible that prisoners are treated in such a way.” She said that after the election. So unless there has been a sort of road to Damascus experience for that Minister or unless some medical miracle or miracle of technology has happened that I do not particularly know about in respect of her personality it is the usual from Judith Collins. She said before the election that we were not tough enough and that we were not locking up enough of them but now she comes to the Chamber and wrings her hands about how terrible it is that the incarceration rate is so high. 
She went on to say that the police whom she is proud of—indeed I am very proud of them; I think that every New Zealander is proud of our police force—need adequate resources to fight crime. But did she mention the 343 cars that she has required to be cut out of the police vehicle fleet? Did that Minister at any stage say that she has required a $21 million cut in the police budget? Howard Broad the Commissioner of Police confirmed that for us before the Law and Order Committee when I asked him: “Commissioner Broad if police do not have vehicles aren’t we going to have a rerun of the 1990s where the police under that crew over there when they were in Government had to wait for an hour to get a car to go on a call-out? Will there not be a greater risk of degradation in response rates a longer time to respond to crime because”—and he agreed with me—“that is what happened under the National Government of the 1990s?”. He went so far as to say: “Yes there is indeed an additional risk to those response times and to those service levels.” 
But did we hear the boastful Minister talk about that? Did we hear her say that on the one hand—I think we did—she had given 43 police cars to the fleet but that on the other hand she had required 343 cars to be taken out of the fleet? She says “Well that is only non - front-line vehicles.” But I have not met a police officer or a police manager and I have questioned a number of them who can identify for me a non - front-line vehicle. I went to a police station the other day and I asked one of the officers: “Which of the fleet in the car park mate are non-frontline vehicles?” The police officer said that all of them were front line. Yet this Minister has stood up and said that the police need—as they do—adequate resources to fight crime. So does that mean a situation as we had in the 1990s where the community constable’s car is non - front-line? When the community constable identifies the shoplifter the bank robber or whoever and the offender jumps into a fast car to get away the community constable—as they had to do in the 1990s when that Government pulled this trick on the community the first time—will have to thumb a ride or get a cab. 
Is the community constable’s car non - front-line? Is the youth aid officer’s car at the Kaiapoi police station in my electorate a car that has now gone? Is the youth aid officer’s car non - front-line? So when we have a spike or movement in youth crime because the youth aid officer cannot get a vehicle to go and deal with young people in a rehabilitative sense or on occasion to go and chase them up and put the cuffs on will that Minister stand up and take responsibility? Oh no. I challenged that Minister at the select committee. I said: “If there is degradation in service and in response times for police because you as Minister have required a cut of $21 million out of the police budget and a cut of 343 cars will you as Minister take responsibility for that?”. Do members know what the answer was? She said: “Oh that’s an operational matter.” She said that it was an operational matter. Oh but it was not an operational matter when she spoke in the first police bulletin for which she was interviewed as Minister—when she said she had no problem in wading into the police’s operational authority to tell them she wanted her policies implemented as in where to put 300 extra police and we will get to that fudged number in a minute. Yet she now says: “Oh no it’s operational.” 
So I then said to the Minister: “Hang on if you had given the police an extra $21 million and there had been a wonderful increase in the level of service I’m sure that wouldn’t have been an operational matter.” I am sure the boastful Minister would want to come to the House and take credit for that. There is silence. It is operational when it is bad news; but she takes credit for what happened under a Labour Government. She puts out a press statement on every police station she has opened in the last 6 to 9 months and the last line of the press statement states: “This demonstrates the National Party’s commitment to the police in fighting crime.” 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hang on! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can anticipate what Darren Hughes is going to ask: “Weren’t all those police stations budgeted for and funded under the last Government?”. But that is not “operational” is it because this boastful Minister takes credit for that. 
Then we come to the notion of 600 extra police which is the Minister’s stated commitment. It is interesting because she unpicked herself before the Law and Order Committee. We finally got out of her that there will not be 600 additional police over and above the 1200 staff put in place and funded by the last Labour Government. And how can I prove the great lie that keeps being perpetrated in this House that these people are unfunded? The problem with that is that over 40 of them were recruited under the last Budget of the last Labour Government. They were recruited and they have to be funded to be recruited. She unpicked herself before the select committee because we finally got out of her that it is not an extra 600 police it is an extra 240 over and above the 1250 whom we put in place. If we add the two figures together it is 600 but half of them were provided for and funded from the last Labour Government. 
The boastful Minister gets up and plays fast and loose with the facts and the truth. This is a Minister who thrives on selectively doling out information. This is a Government that has put a Budget together and now every week we lose 2000 extra people on to the dole queue. The Prime Minister criticised Phil Goff and others on our side for saying before the latest unemployment figures came out that the figure was 1300; now we know it is 2000. Added to that are the 2800-plus young apprentices who lost their jobs part-way through their apprenticeships and Government members crow that through their Job Ops scheme they are doing something about youth unemployment! Well we know about that. There are 9000 16-to-24-year-olds who will get 6 months maybe at “McD’s” flipping the old Big Mac—I am sure Gerry will line up for one of those. Then what happens to those young people? They will be back on the scrap heap. What happens to the 49000 other 16 to 24-year-olds who are not catered for under the Job Ops scheme that Mr Ryall and Ms Collins boast about? They get nothing. 
Then there is also a different sector. Unlike in the 1990s for the first time under this awful recession there are middle-class folk who were qualified and have worked hard all their working lives who never thought they would lose their job—they thought they were in a stable position; they thought they had a career right through life—who are losing their jobs. Suddenly that quartile of people—a new quartile a new sector of people—are losing their jobs and they do not quite know what to do. And this Government is doing nothing for them—not a thing. But Government members get up and talk about this Budget after they have gutted superannuation and KiwiSaver and tinkered around the edges of health. They gutted special-needs funding and then reversed that. Mrs Tolley is so proud of the fact that she reversed a $2.5 million cut that sold young kiddies with cerebral palsy down the river. She reversed it after weeks and months of stress for the families. That is the biggest $2.5 million “let’s get it off the front page” strategy of any Government in history. Then she sold those people out again by saying that if the children changed schools their funding was gone. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It was very interesting to hear the member opposite Clayton Cosgrove talk about policies for middle-class people who have lost their jobs. The one policy we have heard from the Labour Party this year is that millionaires who lose their jobs should get welfare entitlement. That is what we heard from the members opposite and that is what Phil Goff said. It is the one policy idea we have heard from the Labour Party this year. The other idea is that we can borrow our way out of this recession; whatever we want we can just borrow. That is what the Labour Party says. It is completely unaware that eventually everything needs to be paid off and Labour has no record whatsoever for dealing with that. 
I am pleased to be following the Hon Judith Collins the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections in this debate. She is a Minister of Police who will deliver an extra 600 front-line police officers for New Zealand—many of them into South Auckland where they are desperately needed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Law and Order Committee estimates hearing where the Minister admits that what the member said is not the case. It will not be 600. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You don’t like the truth do you? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Actually it is Labour members who do not like the truth. They do not like the fact that violent crime in this country increased dramatically under the previous Labour Government. They do not like the fact that our police force became completely disenchanted and disconnected because of the leadership of that failed party opposite. They do not like the fact that this Government is serious about dealing with violent crime and keeping criminals behind bars where they belong so that we can keep our streets and communities safe. 
I want to talk about the dreadful problems that we inherited in the New Zealand public health system. We inherited a public health system tracking towards financial crisis. We found that district health boards were delivering about $160 million of unfunded services. That is a deficit and we are expecting it to go up to over $200 million next year. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: So you’re going to cut that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mr—what is his name—Hughes who used to be the MP for Otaki and was defeated asks “What about the cuts?”. I will tell him about the cuts. He was a whip in a Government that weeks before the 2008 election cut $150 million out of the health budget and never put out a press statement. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not true! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is what previous Government members did. If we look at the estimates we see that they cut $50 million out of health for this year and another $50 million out of the next year. Altogether $150 million was cut out of the public health budget. We also inherited $600 million of capital infrastructure claims for beds and wards but next to no money to pay for them. It is just dreadful. 
The worst part of the health system we inherited was the workforce crisis. We simply did not have enough doctors and nurses engaged in the running of our public health service. [ 
Interruption 
] The previous Government did about 55 reports over 9 years. It never actually dealt with the problem but it decided to set up another committee. That committee had endless reports those reports spurred further reports that needed to be dealt with and we ended up having 55 health reports. This Government took decisive action to encourage our young doctors nurses and midwives to stay in New Zealand. We introduced a voluntary bonding scheme that says to our young midwives nurses and doctors that if they stay in the country for 3 to 5 years after they graduate we will write off their student loans or give them a cash incentive sufficient that after 5 years working in New Zealand in a hard-to-staff area or in a specialty their loans will be paid off. That scheme has had a huge response. We originally thought we would get about 100 doctors and 250 nurses and midwives wanting to enter the scheme. We ended up getting 950 young New Zealanders wanting to be in the voluntary bonding scheme. I went to the Prime Minister and I said “Prime Minister we have money for 350; I have 950.” The Prime Minister John Key said “We’ll take every single one of those people who want to be in the voluntary bonding scheme.” and we had to find resources in the health sector to pay for that. We are bringing in policies to keep those young people in New Zealand. 
This Budget deserves the support of New Zealanders because half of all new spending pledged in it goes to health. Health got half the new money and the other 30 departments and Ministers got the other half. That demonstrates the strong commitment and leadership that John Key and Bill English have towards the New Zealand public health service. We have $750 million of new health initiatives being funded in this Budget. That shows that this Government is committed to dealing with the crisis in health that we inherited. 
What have we spent some of that money on? Do members know that there are no more general practitioners working in the country today than there were 9 years ago? Despite doubling the health budget and putting a huge amount of money into tertiary education there are no more general practitioners today than there were 9 years ago. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s a mark of Labour failure. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a real failure by the previous Labour Government. So what are we doing? There are 60 new medical training places in 2009-10 which is the first tranche of the additional 200 new places annually that we will be producing. There will be 25 extra places this year for general practitioner training increasing to 52 extra places next year. We have set aside $70 million over the next 4 years to train the additional health professionals we need to help support New Zealand’s move to dedicated elective surgery capacity in the next few years. We have also put more money into training for health professionals in rural areas. 
The Government has put a huge amount of money into district health boards—$2.1 billion over the next 4 years $536 million this year. We get little Opposition spokespeople jumping up and saying we have cut $500000 here and $300000 there. That is what Labour members tell me I have done but in fact the Government has put $536 million extra into district health boards this year. It is the single biggest input into district health board funding that there has ever been. We are working diligently with the health sector to improve services for New Zealanders. 
We have put in an extra $40 million to increase the length of stay in hospital for New Zealand mums. New Zealand mums made it very clear that they were sick and tired of having problems thrown at them such as when Wellington Hospital was planning to give $100 Pak ’N Save vouchers to young mums if they got out of the hospital within 6 hours. That is what was planned under Labour. Did the Minister stop it? No; it was going to happen. Did the National Opposition stop it by blowing the whistle? Yes. The hospital was going to give young mums $100—[ 
Interruption 
] It might interest Mr Hughes eventually. Does Mr Hughes support that plan? Yes his head is nodding. We do not support that on this side of the House. We want to have longer stays in birthing facilities. We want improved support services for parents. We are funding 24-hour PlunketLine. Why would Helen Clark not fund 24-hour PlunketLine when she promised she would in 1999? National is funding it. 
We are doing a lot more. Why is the Labour Party opposed to an extra $15 million this year for hospices? Why is Labour opposed to me contributing $100 million to the home insulation fund? When the Government announced that health was contributing $100 million to the home insulation fund Ruth Dyson said it was a cut to the health budget. One move that will make a huge difference to respiratory disease in New Zealand and keep kids out of hospital was opposed by that party opposite. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Tony Ryall has battled humility all his life but appears to be winning the battle. He appears to be getting there. He is also a former Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand. I wondered why he was so busy ingratiating himself to Judith Collins because she has never struck me as being a particularly popular member of the National caucus but then the reason was revealed to me: Tony Ryall has been invoiced for the expense of the Diplomatic Protection Squad that was tailing him around the Bay of Plenty while he was the Acting Prime Minister. Judith Collins has said it was a waste of public money—she is such a hard-liner on these things—and she has charged Tony Ryall for the services of the Diplomatic Protection Squad during his tenure as Acting Prime Minister of our country. 
It was not a very good tenure—not that anyone will be too shocked to hear that. During Tony Ryall’s grand moment when his address to the country was all about a new shirt and tie at the very same moment on typewriters around this country the  
Dominion Post 
 was labelling him the loser of the week. The  
New Zealand Herald  
was writing stories about him saying he was fudging the health numbers and we saw evidence of that in his speech before. 
One of the things Tony Ryall was complaining about was the number of committees and reviews the previous Labour Government set up but as the Hon Annette King told the House this Government has initiated 40 reviews after just 8 months. That is a lot of Tories being appointed to do a lot of jobs if you ask me yet the Minister Tony Ryall in his other portfolio of State services set up a scheme that he said would redeploy State servants who lost their jobs. Obviously when people are losing their jobs first and foremost is what we can do about that. He said 1500 people who had lost their jobs would be available to be redeployed across the State sector. Well Labour thought that was quite interesting so the Labour spokesperson on State services my colleague the Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson went and found out exactly how many people had actually been redeployed. Out of the 1500 people who could be redeployed over the State sector Tony Ryall has managed to find jobs for two people. 
Hon Members 
: Two! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Just two out of 1500. So when Tony Ryall is lecturing Labour about committees and reviews he needs to know that his own policy is spin. Two people have been redeployed out of 1500. Mind you we did not count the police officers who were redeployed from the front line to tail him around as Acting Prime Minister of our country. 
Let us not worry too much about Tony Ryall. In this Budget debate Labour is focusing very closely on the message that the Government is not listening that the Government has gimmicks for the real problems of our country and that the Government has no plan for the real problems and challenges that New Zealand faces. There has been nothing from the Government in this Budget debate on how to lift up the New Zealand economy by several gears in order to get it going for the recovery. 
We see all around the world signs that a recovery is under way. It will come to New Zealand and whereabouts is the National Government in New Zealand doing any work or coming up with any creative ideas in order to try to harness those opportunities for New Zealand? There are none. There are gimmicks everywhere. There are half initiatives everywhere. The cycleway is the greatest gimmick of them all and it keeps changing in terms of its nature. All National’s initiatives are half-pie half-thought-out and not really focused on what matters for the people of New Zealand. The Government cannot get its act together. 
On the issue of Maori representation in Auckland—and the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment to the legislation criticising the Government for the way it has behaved in pre-empting the select committee process—the Government is all at sea. The Hon Georgina te Heuheu once acted with great honour on the question of Maori seats on councils in the Bay of Plenty. When the previous speaker Mr Ryall said Maori seats were racist she acted with a great deal of honour and crossed the floor in order to support Maori representation. Today she said that she did so only because she lives close to the area of those seats. That is not a very credible argument. It is amazing the difference a Crown car can make to a member’s position on an important issue like Maori representation. 
We know that options were put to the ACT Party so that there would be one person one vote which ACT members say is the No. 1 argument for them. There is no reason to deny Maori in Auckland the right to representation like any other Aucklander by way of the new super-city that is being set up. Denying the Maori seats is all about the personality and ego of the ACT Party and not at all about the needs of the people for representation. 
I feel sorry for parties in this House that have been let down by National which is running a sham consultation. Let us remember what National has done. It put through a bill under urgency and then said the select committee would be the point at which the Government would listen. Then it made the Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter—the guy who does all the work—the chairperson of the select committee. When the most contentious issue about the council—the question of Maori seats—came up National decided to pre-empt the select committee process and abandon Maori representation. The Government said that is democracy. 
The Government does not listen. That is all it has to do—listen to the arguments give people a chance to have their say and then make a call. In the end we have to respect that the Government gets the final call but to not even listen is unbelievable arrogance particularly when we were told that everything was going to change. National said it would listen if it became the Government. The nanny State would be gone when National became the Government. Actually there are more rules about how to run one’s life now under National than there were under Labour. 
Of all the things that were done under the Labour Government that National complained about not one has been reversed. In fact Gerry had to try to reopen an incandescent light bulb factory because the bulbs are not being made any more. Steven Joyce put up his hand because he is the guy who wants to charge us 80 bucks to talk on our cellphone which is the most expensive mobile termination rate that a Minister for Communications and Information Technology could ever come up with. 
What else is the Government doing? It is looking— 
Paul Quinn 
: Shower heads—what about shower heads? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I will tell members something about shower heads. That member should take a shower because he will get 3 years 6 years or 9 years at the end of this parliamentary term. If ever there has been a one-term wonder it is Paul Quinn. If I were him I would not be asking for an early shower quite so soon as his is not going to be a glittering and distinguished parliamentary career. 
What is the National Government doing? The National Government is saying it wants to change tax policy. It is true that those members are always focused on tax. You know they campaigned on the issue of cutting income tax and they came in before their parliamentary—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Barracking is unacceptable. Interjecting across the floor is OK but that noise was not acceptable. Members need to keep the noise level down. I am sorry to interrupt the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While you are at it I think that saying: “You have done nothing with your life.” is also out of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I would hope that I have done something with my life. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We know you have. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is amazing how one can touch a few nerves in this place from time to time. I think we might have just done something along those lines. In fact if the member Paul Quinn wanted to get some publicity for himself all it would take is for four members of the National Party out of 58 to vote for Maori seats and we would have the seats. Labour has 43 votes the Progressive party has one the Greens have nine and the Maori Party has five. We need only four National MPs to vote for Maori seats and there would be Maori representation in Auckland. We could have Georgina te Heuheu and Tau Henare and we need to get Hekia Parata and Paul Quinn. He could have his 5 minutes in the sun on this issue. Actually he would probably stuff it up and get only 2 minutes in the sun but publicity is something. The member would be keen on it. All we would need is the four votes to be able to do it. 
National campaigned on tax. National was going to cut taxes and initially it did. The top 3 percent of income earners got one-third of the value. Then in the Budget which we are debating here National put taxes back up for the people who had voted for it to bring down taxes. Now National members are running round the country wanting to put GST up to 20 percent. Well how does that help working families in this current economy? It does not help them at all. National wants to put GST up to 20 percent. Its second option is a friendlier 15 percent. That is the kind of bright friendly face that the National Government has—wanting to put up GST. 
At the moment the rates bills are going out around our country and people will be applying for a rates rebate which is a scheme of the third Labour Government that was improved and made better by the fifth Labour Government. The value of that rates rebate will be totally undermined three four or five times over if pensioners have to pay higher GST as the National Government proposes. 
Everywhere we go we find that the Government is not listening. It is not listening in the area of transport. The Government has taken a plan for Auckland that was comprehensive funded costed and ready to go and it did not listen. At the moment in my area in Kapiti the Government is doing the same old trick. At the last election I campaigned on Transmission Gully Western Link Road electrifying the railway line to Palmerston North and doing something to sort out peak weekend traffic at the Otaki roundabout where the major retail centre is causing congestion at that time. The National Party said “Me too!” and campaigned on the same thing. Yet now National has got into Government for the whole year while the council was working on those options it had the Transport Agency working behind the council’s back on an alternative plan for Kapiti that no one had seen and which the Government turned up with on Monday. Consultation on the plan started on Monday. 
The proposed motorway does not include Western Link Road and it does not include one extra dollar for trains. The proposed motorway rips through the communities of Kapiti and totally bypasses Otaki. Do members know how long the Government which said it would listen is giving people to have a say about the plan? Six miserable weeks. It is a scheme that no one had heard of and people have to decide in 6 weeks whether they lose their house. [ 
Interruption 
] National members might be yelling at the moment but I know that they have so many homes individually that if their home was run over by a motorway they would just shift to another home. I know that they do not understand the problems of working families. But the people of Kapiti have only one house to live in and if a road—a four-lane 100-kilometre motorway—goes through it then they cannot simply shift to another home. 
That is an example of National members’ arrogance. If the Minister thinks he will get away with the plan which is wiping out our community overnight in this way then he is sadly mistaken because people want to have a say on it. They want the right to be able to put up a plan and National should have campaigned on the proposed motorway if that is what it wanted to do. We have experience with this Minister because he did the same with the Waterview Connection as well. National campaigned on it got into office and then wanted to rip through houses all around the place and take away the homes of working families there as well. 
The Government is not listening. It is focused on gimmicks that do not matter—like cycleways—and it has no plan to take the New Zealand economy up a step in order to give real opportunity to people. That is why we are opposing the Budget bill. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There we have it do we not? That was Mr Darren Hughes the failed candidate and former member of Parliament for Otaki. He says that the terrible thing about National is that we have a plan for Otaki that we are willing to go out and consult on. He says that that is a terrible thing. What he forgets of course is that in the 9 years under the previous Labour Government there was no proposal and nothing to consult on at all. That is exactly the reason why he lost his seat. That is what the voters have said to him. I would ask Mr Darren Hughes why he does not go and talk to his deputy leader. Surely he could do a trade with her and get her seat because he will never get back in Otaki. I tell Darren to shift. He should shift to a better opportunity. 
National had to deliver its Budget 2009 in the most challenging circumstances since— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh give it a break. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There we are. The member is disconnected from reality completely disconnected from reality. “Recession? What recession?” he says. Should that affect the Government accounts? Oh no it is nothing to do with that just borrow a bit more and it will all be solved! That is the approach that we have grown to expect from Labour and the public saw through it precisely. 
The National Government had to deliver a Budget in extremely difficult circumstances. I will say this about the last 9 years under a Labour Government. During that period of time New Zealand’s productivity growth was virtually zero—virtually zero. That is why we continue to decline down the OECD ratings. Yes the Labour Government paid off a bit of debt. How did it do that? It paid off the debt by not giving a single tax cut during the whole of the 9 years and the public got sick of that. The public were hanging out for that tax cut and that is why there had to be a change. Labour’s solution to the extent that one could discern a solution from the incoherent ramblings of members on that side of the House is to borrow more to have more Government programmes to have more borrowing and to have more Government-created schemes. It was to have a continuing growth of government. I say to members opposite that during Labour’s 9 years in office it did have a continuing growth in government. The consequence was a decline in productivity output. That is an indictment of those members’ failure. New Zealanders fundamentally saw through that and that is the reason for the change of Government. 
I will turn to a couple of specific points around productivity. We have focused on this issue more than on anything else and the reason is that we are focused on growth. Yes we did provide a tax reduction. We had to do that to get more growth into the economy and to stabilise the effects of the recession which I might add had started under Labour in early 2008. That is the difference between us and Australia. We have a more constructive approach to growth than Labour had here and the current Labor Government in Australia inherited a more constructive approach from the Howard administration. We inherited difficult circumstances. The Rudd Government inherited circumstances that were fundamentally more positive. 
We are focusing on reducing the size of government in a practical and considered kind of way. We have focused on reducing taxes and in a very difficult set of circumstances we will restrain the growth of debt. It is clear that debt will grow over the next few years undoubtedly and I certainly concede that. We have to allow that to sustain a certain level of activity within the economy. The fundamental difference however is that we are taking a moderated approach to that. We are also concentrating that extra borrowing into infrastructure. I know that Mr Joyce would want me to mention the National Government policy on broadband for instance. It is hugely important as a driver of productivity. He would want me to focus on issues around transport. It is hugely important to get more effective transport. That reminds me yet again of Mr Darren Hughes’ signal failure as a member of Parliament for Otaki to deliver good outcomes for his electorate and the public there made a judgment on that. So I say to Mr Hughes that he should talk to his deputy leader encourage her to shift aside and then go for her seat. It might give him a better opportunity and a more sustainable future in politics. 
I will talk about two particular issues that are directly relevant to the portfolios I am responsible for. The first one is research science and technology. I will focus on that issue in particular because it is right at the heart of the productivity machine in New Zealand. We as a Government had to make some very careful choices as to where we put in extra funding. We heard from Mr Ryall about health which is fundamental to people’s confidence in their country and in their own personal well-being. Research science and technology are part of the productivity growth machine. We specifically focused on fundamental research as our first priority. We increased the Marsden Fund from $37 million to $47 million. That is a 24 percent increase. 
Grant Robertson 
: Robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member should just listen to the figures. There was a 24 percent increase to fundamental research funding. The second element of fundamental research we focused on was the Crown research institute capability fund. We increased that from $51 million to $61 million which is a 20 percent increase. The increase gives much more confidence to those Crown research institutes that they have a platform from which to grow. Thirdly in the area of fundamental research the Health Research Council of New Zealand has grown from $63 million to $71 million which is a 13 percent increase. Obviously that research funding is part and parcel of our overall objectives in health funding generally. 
Why did we focus on fundamental research? Fundamental research underpins economic growth. That is the first phase of our delivery. The next phase of our delivery will be looking over the next 12 months in particular at the commercialisation process. The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman is also particularly focused on that issue. Over the next few months the commercialisation process will be the very particular focus of our research science and technology policy because we understand—unlike members on the other side who had 9 years in which to deal with these issues but simply took an ad hoc approach of bolting on extra policies to make it more complex and more complicated—that this country needs to do better especially in research science and technology. 
The other vote I am responsible for is Vote Defence. By and large there is a multiparty consensus on foreign policy and defence. I realise that there are some differences because inherently we are a Parliament of parties but by and large there is a high level of consensus around these things. Our deployments are particularly in the Pacific but also in Afghanistan where I think every party acknowledges there is a challenge and that New Zealand has a particular role to play. I know there are some divergences as to how that role should be carried out but by and large people accept that there is a proper role for us to play there. We have to deal with those issues because it is about New Zealand’s security. 
Therefore Vote Defence was increased by $52 million. I advise members that $15 million was in relation to infrastructure; $10 million was in relation to increased activity and maintenance for aircraft which is inherent in operations of the New Zealand Defence Force; and an extra $5 million went to the new Project Protector. I acknowledge the previous Ministers of Defence for their initiative in relation to Project Protector. Although one has to note that HMNZS 
 Canterbury 
 has been problematic the Defence Force is improving it. It has a truly excellent commanding officer and there is a make-work programme to fix it. But there is a fundamental lesson about HMNZS 
 Canterbury 
. A small Defence Force like New Zealand’s simply cannot go for one-off projects. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Last Sunday I spoke at a migrant forum at the New Zealand Diversity Forum in Wellington which was sponsored by the Human Rights Commission. I spoke alongside two colleagues Darien Fenton from the Labour Party and Jackie Blue from the National Party. There was a big crowd there particularly of migrant workers who are here on temporary visas. In the midst of the recession in New Zealand migrant workers are having a lot of problems with staying in the country when they lose their jobs. According to this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 
38000 people are here on what are called work-tested temporary visas. They are skilled people. We need the people who come to our country to replace the skills we are short of. 
The Government has been under a lot of pressure because of stories in the newspaper about particularly hurtful situations of families of migrant workers here in New Zealand. The Government has conceded a bit. If people are working on a 90-day probationary period and are laid off in the middle of it they are given up to 3 months to get their affairs in order and leave the country. We were told at the forum that Immigration New Zealand will offer some assistance to people who are laid off and whose work visa expires. If those people talk to the Immigration Service nicely they do not necessarily have to get out of the country the next week. But this is a huge issue and I do not think the Government has taken full responsibility for it. 
Also in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
the Minister of Immigration Dr Coleman is quoted as saying that migrant workers come here knowing that there is no automatic renewal of their work visa. Although that is technically correct I do not think it takes into account the real responsibility New Zealand has to migrant workers on two levels. One is the simple moral level of not hurting people who come to our country in good faith because they like New Zealand because it is a country they would like to settle down in and because a work visa is a way in. The second practical level is that instead of viewing such people as people whom we are helping by giving them a job we should view them as skilled people who are coming here because we need them. 
Why did New Zealand bring these people here? Why did New Zealand need them? There are two reasons. First there is quite a big outflow of New Zealanders migrating to Australia and beyond. Those New Zealanders are often very skilled people and we need to replace those skills with temporary workers. Secondly sometimes because of deficiencies in our system—when the apprenticeships schemes were run down in the 1990s in particular—there has been a shortage of skilled workers. We have had to replace them with migrant workers who then want to live here and become full New Zealand citizens. 
A lot of these people have uprooted themselves and their whole family from the other side of the world and at great cost to come here—sometimes spending all their life savings—and have a fairly good expectation that they can get work visas can work towards residence and be able to become full participants in our society in every sense. They are doing that to help us so we should feel the human tragedy of the people who have been laid off in the recession. We should not develop a first-class or second-class citizenship attitude that somehow we who have been here for a long time are the true New Zealanders and that migrants are just temporary workers so we can kick them out when there is a recession. Sometimes a racist element can creep in there as a lot of the people who are in this situation are non-European and are perhaps seen as having fewer rights. We should not have any of that; we should see everyone living in this country as being fully equal. 
What are some of the solutions that would take into account the real needs of those workers? One solution that was very strongly pressed for at the forum was the extension of their visas—say for a 12-month period—for a number of reasons. A solution is to allow them to find other employment and also just to help them. There is also a good practical reason for New Zealand to help them. After we have gone through a recession there is generally an upturn. There is talk already that perhaps an upturn has begun. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Before the dinner break I was saying that it would be useful to give migrants here on work visas who are laid off because of the recession an extension on their work visas. I said that 12 months would be a good figure and it was what was pressed for at the migrant forum I attended last Sunday. This is also a practical measure for New Zealand because when there is an upturn we will need skilled labour. The construction industry will expand and we do not want to have to go through the hassle of recruiting people with the same skills from overseas when we could have kept people with those skills here. We could also look possibly in the interim at giving migrants openings in other jobs such as caregiving. There is a shortage of skilled caregivers in rest homes. We could give a little bit of retraining to keep them in the country so that they and their families do not suffer a huge disadvantage after they have packed up all their worldly goods to come out here only to then have to go back somewhere else. 
I also think it is important to treat the children of migrants well according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to not deny them anything because they happen to be the kids of migrant workers in a disadvantaged situation. We should give them proper health and education. In fact under the Immigration Bill which is currently before this Parliament schools will be able to take on without any cost all kids who are in compulsory education. That will be a step forward and it is one of the good things in that bill. 
In terms of support for new migrants and those on work visas the Government should also support not cut back the funding for courses teaching English as a second language that it has cut recently. We need proper support for migrants so that they can be fully part of and integrate into our society. 
With regard to the Immigration Service a catch-22 came up at the forum I spoke at. Workers go to employers and say that they want a job and employers say that as they will be on a work visa for only so long they will give them only a fixed-term contract if they get a work visa. Workers then go to New Zealand Immigration which says that because those workers are on only a fixed-term contract it will not give them a work visa. The Immigration Service has to take a better position. It has to look at the totality of the situation and give out work visas where there is a genuine commitment between the employer and the intending worker. 
The other issue that came up at the forum is a lot of professionals are still not getting the appropriate attention. Doctors are finding it hard to get jobs because of a more restrictive attitude towards registration from the Medical Council of New Zealand. Similarly nurses are suffering some problems because of restrictions by the Nurses Organisation affecting particularly Filipino nurses. Filipino workers predominated at the forum. 
On Monday I attended another event where I came across a number of other Filipino workers. They had predominated at the migrant forum I attended in Wellington on Sunday and they were also very strongly represented in the protest action taken by the employees of Telecom who are to be kicked out of their status as employees to become contractors. These Filipino workers these new migrant workers are the last to be able to afford to be moved under contractor status. This is effectively happening under Telecom even though it is being done through another organisation called Visionstream. In order to become contractors and do that essential repair work on the fixed lines so we can have a good service they have to fork out $20000 $30000 or $60000 to get trucks and tools and they are not even guaranteed to get 40 hours’ work a week because they will be contractors who can be given work at the whim of Visionstream rather than full-time employees of Telecom. They are suffering. 
Migrant workers in New Zealand have a lot of concerns during this recession and because of the way that companies like Telecom are acting. It is almost a crime that someone like Paul Reynolds gets $5 million a year including his bonuses while these workers who are fairly lowly paid as it is as full-time employees of Telecom are now to be given very little as contractors. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating the Budget. We heard earlier from the Minister of Finance that the country is in a recession and that there are a number of challenges facing us. We all know that taxpayers’ money is not always wisely spent. In my speech this evening I want to address a particular item of expenditure. I refer to the recent referendum on the issue of whether smacking should be a criminal offence. There was a lot of coverage given to the referendum and its cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of $9 million. That cost has been paid by the taxpayer and I believe it is a cost we need to discuss this evening. Although the organisers of the referendum received a lot of criticism I believe such referendums or the access of the New Zealand public to referendums to call politicians to account are absolutely fundamental to our democracy. The referendum could have been held at the last general election but the previous Government chose not to do that. I believe very strongly that the reason this referendum has cost us far more than it should have lies firmly with the previous Government and the Prime Minister in particular. 
Earlier today my member’s bill was pulled from the ballot and within 4 hours the Prime Minister of New Zealand had called a press conference to say that the National Government would not be supporting it. I think that is a very very big shame for the people of New Zealand. At 2 p.m. yesterday when Parliament sat for the first time this week I sought leave for my Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill to be introduced and there was opposition from throughout the House. Yesterday afternoon the ACT Party stood as the only party prepared to stand up and represent the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted No. From discussions I had with other members of the House earlier this afternoon I was optimistic that I may have been able to get support for my bill. But within 4 hours the Prime Minister ruled it out. 
I think that is very sad because the public of New Zealand were asked a specific question: do they believe smacking for the purposes of correction should be a criminal offence? It currently is an offence. The amendment that was passed in legislation 2 years ago clearly sets out that a smack for the purposes of correction is not a valid defence in a charge of assault. The people of New Zealand were told by members of the Government and by various other lobby groups that this was a make-believe referendum and that it was confusing. I do not believe the people of New Zealand were confused at all. There will be people listening to this debate tonight who voted No in that referendum who were not confused. The only way that we can make smacking for the purposes of correction not a criminal offence is to change the law. 
I think the Prime Minister dismissed my member’s bill out of hand without I assume consulting his own caucus because it was dismissed very very quickly. I say that in particular because I would like to again quote from a speech that John Key gave as Leader of the Opposition at a function organised by the Salvation Army in April 2007. He said “In reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child then don’t make it illegal.” It seems to me that the Prime Minister— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has spoken now for 4 minutes. This is a debate on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply Bill and I ask the member to relate what he is saying back to the Budget. This is a Budget debate and the member has 6 minutes left. I would like him to come back to the Budget. It is all very well what he is saying but he must relate it to the Budget. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I can relate my comments back to the Budget in very many ways. The cost of the referendum and the cost of child abuse in New Zealand is spread across many many departmental votes. I see the Minister of Police Judith Collins is smiling. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I’m a happy person. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The Minister of Police tells me she is always smiling. There is money spent in her budget that covers the cost of policing and the police are involved in enforcing the current law. There is money involved in the Ministry of Social Development budget in the Child Youth and Family budget and for Child Youth and Family staff. I am told there has been something close to 1000 investigations by Child Youth and Family into families over the last 2 years. They may have resulted in only 13 charges but a huge amount of taxpayer money has been spent on investigations—a huge amount of wasted money. 
The reason I say this is important is that the Prime Minister clearly said 2 years ago that people will not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. He said that if that is the case then why have a law that makes it a criminal offence. Mr Key has again said to the people of New Zealand this afternoon that he gives his assurance that people will not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. I say to Mr Key that if it is not his intention that police prosecute people who lightly smack their child why have a law on the statute book that provides for it? 
Eighty-seven percent of people were not confused by the referendum; they voted No. Look Mr Deputy Speaker you want me to bring this debate back to the cost but what is the cost to New Zealand? What is the cost in the policing budget? What is the cost in the Child Youth and Family budget? An amount of $9 million was spent on this referendum and it is a pity to ignore what the people of New Zealand are saying. I ask members to think of the money that we spend in this debating chamber and to think of the money that is spent on the salaries of parliamentarians and their officials. Think of us as lawmakers who have to pass laws that will be of benefit. It would seem as though the five ACT Party MPs are the only MPs prepared to represent that 87 percent; we have become the “87 Percent Party”. I see the Minister of Finance is smiling. He knows that what I am saying is true. He must be embarrassed that the five ACT Party MPs have become the “87 Percent Party”. Members can smile but ACT has become the “87 Percent Party”. I have been sent correspondence this afternoon that members of the public have forwarded to National Ministers and National members of Parliament in the last 2 days. There is huge disappointment that the Prime Minister has decided that that $9 million should be wasted that the people of New Zealand will not be listened to and that we the ACT Party are left as the only people who will listen. 
I ask this Parliament these parliamentarians and the people here this evening who are being paid a salary by the taxpayer to think again about the children of New Zealand. Good parents are trying to raise their children as law-abiding citizens. Now parents are forced to tell their children that there are some laws it is OK to break. That is right; parents are being forced to tell their children that there are some laws it is OK to break if the Prime Minister has said it is OK. That is confusing and inconsistent for children. How can we be helping children if we pass laws that we acknowledge are not intended to be enforced? When the section 59 amendment was passed 2 years ago there was a provision in the amendment that said the police will have some discretion. In other words our parliamentarians knew that they were passing a law that was never intended to be enforced. I say to the National members what their Prime Minister said 2 years ago to the Salvation Army: if the reality is that people will never be prosecuted for lightly smacking why make it illegal? Do not make it a crime. 
Mr Chester Borrows is in the House this evening. I put up a member’s bill that was based entirely on what Mr Borrows promoted 2 years ago. I might add that it was a bill that Mr Key talked about on breakfast television on 3 August—his Prime Minister’s salary was being paid by taxpayers. He said that had National been the Government 2 years ago it would have passed the Chester Borrows amendment. My member’s bill was drawn out of the ballot this afternoon. The salaries of the people administering the drawing of the ballot were paid by taxpayers— 
Hone Harawira 
: Thrown in the dustbin! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes it might have been thrown in the dustbin Mr Hone Harawira tells us. But we stand here very proudly as the party prepared to represent 87 percent of New Zealanders. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. The Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill includes within its schedules the commitment and departmental output expenses to implement the Government’s decisions on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. It is pretty straightforward one might think until one gets to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Then it starts to come unstuck. Yes there were issues about cost. But the real issue for us as the Maori Party and for the whole nation was the arrogant dismissal of the issue of Maori representation. This House knows well of our commitment to strong Maori representation at every level of governance in this country because of the value we placed on the Treaty partnership and the honouring of that partnership by both Maori and the Crown. In fact our agreement with National includes a line that reads: “Both the National Party and the Maori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi the Treaty of Waitangi.” We take that line seriously because the Treaty partnership is the basis of the Crown’s relationship with Maori. We expect the Government to do its best to uphold the Treaty. 
The issue of the Maori seats was just the vehicle for the Prime Minister to use to advance his philosophy about taking the country forward. He would have had the support. Heck even before he came along the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance travelled all over the region talked to hundreds of people received more than 3500 submissions and publicly recommended Maori seats. It made the point that Maori have simply not been represented in local governance at all. Eight Maori councillors in 150 years is an indictment on the current system not an endorsement of it. 
On election night 2008 the Prime Minister famously spoke of looking forward to a positive relationship with the Maori Party. The Maori seats in Parliament have been there for more than 100 years without there ever being a collapse of Government. With the emergence of the Maori Party there is finally a recognition that the Maori seats provide the opportunity for greater participation by Maori in the electoral process and more independent thinking from Maori MPs. The newly minted Minister of Local Government thought he could run a sly one past the Maori in Auckland by talking up the importance of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee process probably expecting people to oppose the Maori seats there. But what do members know? The select committee also travelled all over the region talked to hundreds of people and received more than 2500 submissions. Guess what! More than 80 percent of non-Maori submissions also came out in support of the Maori seats. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How many? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: More than 80 percent. One hundred percent of the Maori submissions supported them but that is to be expected. Most of the councils in Auckland have come out in support of the Maori seats as have three of Auckland’s mayors. The Prime Minister himself thought the seats were a deal worth doing. The Leader of the Opposition supported them Russel Norman and Metiria Turei added their weight as leaders of the Greens and of course the Maori Party’s Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples were clearly in favour of the Maori seats as well. Thousands of Aucklanders marched in support of the Maori seats and for heaven’s sake even the good old conservative  
New Zealand Herald  
spoke out strongly in favour of those Maori seats. 
Yet what do we get from the Minister of Local Government? We get a threat to throw his toys out of the cot if he cannot get his way. We get a threat to resign if the Maori seats go in as part of his legislation. Well so much for democracy! In fact the Government caved in completely by announcing its rejection of the Maori seats before the select committee report was even in. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on the exercise; never mind the will of the people; and never mind even thinking about the overwhelming support for the Maori seats from all over the place and from all kinds of people—black white and all shades in between. 
What a bloody joke the select committee turned out to be! I am glad that I did not bother hauling my little black ass around all the hearings because at the end of the day the word was sent down from on high: “We do not care what you National and ACT members of the select committee saw we do not care who you met and we certainly do not care what you heard. You will put together a mealy-mouthed report that uses petty little words like ‘substantial’ instead of ‘overwhelming’ and prattles on about different models as the reason for trying to deny what people were actually saying.” 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened very carefully to this speech and thus far I have not heard one reference at all to expenditure on anything. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Probably prior to the member coming into the Chamber an amendment was put in the name of Labour that talks about the Maori seats in Auckland. This member is speaking to the amendment in Labour’s name so he is in order. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Word was sent down from on high: “We do not care what you National and ACT members of the select committee saw we do not care who you met and we certainly do not care what you heard. You will put together a mealy-mouthed report”— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot bring me into the debate. He has mentioned “you” many times. The member should concentrate please on the substantive nature of his speech without bringing the Speaker into it. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: —“that uses petty little words like ‘substantial’ instead of ‘overwhelming’ and prattles on about different models as the reason for trying to deny what people were actually saying.” Eighty percent of those submissions can be summed up in five little words: “We support the Maori seats.” 
Ngati Whatua chairperson Naida Glavish described the Government’s unequivocal no to Maori representation as a slap in the face. She said that the future now looks bland and unrepresentative. Ngati Whatua o Orakei spokesman Ngarimu Blair described it as “one more chapter in our long struggle.”—a struggle to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations; a struggle to live by the promise of the Treaty of Waitangi. Tainui chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan said that he was disappointed in Mr Key saying he had “caved in to Rodney and his 1 per cent party.” Mr Morgan went on to say that Mr Key said the relationship with Maori was a significant one. Mr Morgan said: “clearly that’s amounted to nothing.” He said further that Tainui would refuse to take part in any advisory board: “That’s not where the decisions are made. 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.” Mihi atu ki a ia. I wanted to present those views up front because this House needs to understand how seriously Maori view this breach of the relationship between Maori and the Crown. It is hugely and massively disappointing but surprisingly unsurprising. 
I put all this before the House today as we consider the appropriation bill because it also signals a substantial cost that this nation can ill afford. In the same way that this country agonised over MMP and finally accepted it as a model that would better enhance democratic representation in the Parliament of this nation so too should we be bold enough to consider other ways of enhancing representation at local body level. In the same way that Maori seats in Parliament are a means of enhancing democratic representation for a Treaty partner in a plural society so too are Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council. The facts tell us that Maori representation does not happen as of right and that it will not happen unless there is the political will for the Treaty to matter. When the Government says that if the new Auckland Council wants Maori seats then it can choose to establish them it is consigning those Maori seats to the dustbin of history. If there are no Maori seats on the council to begin with who on earth will advocate for them to be established? 
The long history of Maori participation and representation in local government is all the evidence we need to support the view that this House has an obligation to provide for Maori representation in the governance structure of the proposed Auckland Council. Pita Sharples said that Maori will never go away and that Maori representation is inevitable. All that Rodney Hide’s political tactics are doing is putting off the inevitable putting this Government on the wrong side of history and bringing discord to the relationship between Maori and the Crown. The Maori Party will continue to work with mana whenua and with other Maori in Auckland to fight this attack on our rights as Treaty partners and to push for those Maori seats. 
I make one final statement about those seats. Getting Maori seats at local government is like using Pantene shampoo: it may not happen overnight but it will happen. The sadness is that when history looks back at this time it will not see a head of shining hair. All it will see is a balding scalp full of kutu because Rodney will not share his shampoo. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I proudly rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in this appropriation debate. Before I begin to comment on things that were in the Budget I will comment on the speech made by the previous speaker Hone Harawira. I listened with keen interest to his presentation. I say that the Labour Party will be supporting the Maori Party amendment. I concur with all the things he said. I am not sure about the condition of Rodney’s hair but the rest of his speech made a lot of sense. It is about participation and it is about recognition of the special role that iwi play in this country as recognised by the Treaty and as represented in our Parliament by Maori seats. It is given a good example in the Bay of Plenty where there is iwi participation as of right on the regional council where it is working very successfully. The Labour Party believes that in Auckland City which has the largest Maori population in the world and with Maori the indigenous people of our land participation in the governance of that city by Maori is critical to successful local governance in Auckland. 
I have sat through I guess 12 Budgets in this Chamber. I have to say that for 9 years under the previous Labour Government that left office in October last year Budget time was a time of excitement in New Zealand. It was a time to be proud to be a Kiwi. Amazing things were announced in this Chamber over those 9 years. I could spend all night talking about the initiatives that came through in Labour Budgets everything from KiwiSaver the Cullen fund saving our national airline and saving our railways to creating the most amazing initiatives in education in health in housing in conservation and so it goes on. 
I think of education in which I held my last ministerial portfolio. Amazing things were announced in previous Budgets for education such as Schools Plus the programme that Labour was bringing in. I can hear Mrs Tolley the present Minister of Education chuckling. I say thank you to Mrs Tolley for being here. This woman is known throughout New Zealand as the invisible Minister. Indeed  
Craccum 
 the Auckland University Students Association newspaper ran a weekly column called “The Great Craccum Tolley Hunt”. The students wanted to know whether she actually existed. Sadly for New Zealanders she does as does the Government that she is part of. This Government has done the most astonishing things in education. 
First of all this Budget put $35 million into private schools. It put $35 million into the schools attended by the children of the wealthiest New Zealanders. Private schools are not part of our State system. The Government put $35 million into private schools but it cut out special education funding for some 23 schools. The programmes for children with cerebral palsy and other children with special needs were cut. Of course there was such a hue and cry about that that she did a flip-flop. New Zealanders were so outraged that $35 million went into private schools and 23 schools with physically disabled students had their funding cut. Of course there are all sorts of other funding cuts going on in education. Fruit in Schools—that is out. That came from the woman who had a stomach stapling operation to deal with her own obesity and she cut fruit out of schools. She also reintroduced junk food into school canteens. Was that not a wonderful message to all New Zealanders! Junk food is back into schools and fruit is out. And this comes from the Minister who has had a stomach stapling operation. What sort of message is that to New Zealand education? It is actually incredibly shameful. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the most outrageous personal attack by the former Minister. I would ask—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I would ask that he withdraw and apologise to the Minister. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister who is referred to is in the House. If she has taken exception I ask her whether she wishes to take a point of order. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I found that personal attack to be offensive. I ask the member to apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to apologise and withdraw the comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I apologise Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member must also withdraw the comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw the comment. Obesity is a very serious issue in our schools. Around 40 percent of young New Zealanders suffer from obesity with enormous implications for our health system and for the well-being of New Zealanders. To cut fruit out of schools and to reintroduce junk food into our school canteens sends a terrible message about the Government’s priorities in education. 
We heard today about some initiatives to deal with youth offending. The only way we can deal with youth offending is through a systemic approach. We must deal with early childhood and in previous Budgets in this Chamber under a Labour Government enormous sums of money went into first of all giving 20 free hours for early childhood education. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: It did nothing! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The present Minister of Education Anne Tolley says it was nothing that 20 free hours for every 4-year-old in New Zealand is nothing. I tell members that it was a large amount of money and it was an effective intervention to open up education opportunities for young Kiwis. All research shows that all children who have an effective quality early childhood education do better in their lifelong journey through education. Something like $100 million went into enhancing early childhood education physical facilities. Through a funding process in Labour Budgets we established a new curriculum which we modernised and which became a world quality document that overseas educationalists came to this country to look at. We developed a systemic approach to underachievement which was about building education opportunities facilities and resources right from the start. 
Where are the resources in this Budget for that sort of approach to deal with underachievement and lifting up skills? There was enough money to put $35 million into private education but there was not enough money to do any meaningful expansion of early childhood education. I got the Minister of Education to look at South Auckland schools to see which schools wanted early childhood education facilities on their properties. Of course land is the greatest expense in building early childhood education facilities. South Auckland—Manukau City—has the smallest number of early childhood education facilities anywhere in the country. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: That’s right. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can hear Ms Tolley saying that is right. As soon as National was elected it immediately cut out that opportunity. We went down from something like 16 schools ready to go to a handful. That is absolutely cutting. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: They didn’t want it. You decided they were going to have it. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I hear the member opposite bleating that the schools did not want them. Every school initiated the facilities with the Ministry of Education. They wanted the facility on their school site so that local children could get into those facilities and begin a successful lifelong education journey. But that is not good enough for the new Government. 
This Budget is a “Sheriff of Nottingham” Budget. It rips off the poorest New Zealanders and complements the resources of the wealthiest. We see it in the $35 million for private schools. We see it in the cut to adult and community education which I know my colleague Maryan Street will talk about shortly. We see it in the tax regime which was announced before the Budget but was part of that process and that was all about taking resources from the poor and giving it to the rich. You know 3 percent of New Zealanders got 33 percent of that tax money. Something like 71 percent of New Zealanders got no money whatsoever from those tax cuts. Is that not incredibly shameful? Elsewhere in the world Governments are stimulating their economies so that people have purchasing power. Now who will go out and buy things? Families who are not so well off will use any extra resources they get like Working for Families which was an incredible initiative that came through under a Labour Government or income-related rents in State houses. That was all about giving more purchasing power to people who are not so well off. It was not only good for them because it increased their quality of life and gave more opportunity to their families but also it stimulated consumption at a time of recession. 
In Australia enormous sums of money have gone into stimulating the economy. In China where I recently visited 4 trillion renminbi is going into stimulating the economy to get consumption moving. We are one of the very few developed countries in the world if not the only one that is actually retracting spending instead of expanding it to try to stimulate consumption and economic growth. Two thousand New Zealanders are losing their jobs every week. We now have a higher unemployment rate than Australia. This comes from a Government that spent 9 years in this Chamber saying it wanted to be ambitious for New Zealand and to catch up with Australia; we now have more unemployed per head of population than Australia. How shameful. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have some advice for the member who just resumed his seat the Hon Chris Carter the former Minister of Education. I suggest that he spends more time in New Zealand and finds out what is really happening. His contribution was a typical contribution from a man in denial. He seems to think that Labour ran the country in good shape over the previous 9 years. He seems to think that the election did not happen and that the people of New Zealand did not wake up to the fact that Labour left a mess. 
The Budget was difficult to prepare. It was difficult because of the mess that had been left by Dr Michael Cullen. I will forever remember the day when Dr Michael Cullen the then Minister of Finance appeared on the TV news and revealed the Pre-election Fiscal Update. He sheer gloated saying to New Zealanders: “Whoops! After 9 years of economic buoyancy I have left the place in such a mess that I am leaving a decade of deficit for whoever wins the election in a couple of months.” 
History shows that New Zealanders knew the economy had been run down and was in a mess. They gave National the vote to form a Government and we are grateful for that. But no one should ever forget the mess that Dr Michael Cullen made after 9 years of buoyancy. 
Chris Carter points out that Australians are in a position where they are battling the current economic recession now by spending more money. We do not have that option. That option was taken away from us by the profligate spending by the previous Labour Government on all sorts of programmes. One was called What’s Up. Badges were given out to New Zealanders by Chris Carter as the Minister of Education in an attempt to improve literacy. It was absolutely useless. If Chris Carter spent more time in New Zealand and more time with the people he is meant to be representing he would know that he left a serious problem with literacy in this country. 
As a former Minister of Education he will go down as a complete and utter failure. He not only spent money with reckless abandon but also made sure we dropped the literacy standards in this country over that period of time. Chris Carter’s record is shameful. He suggested that our current Minister of Education the Hon Anne Tolley is an invisible member. Well she may well be invisible in China London the United States or wherever it is that Chris Carter has been travelling to but in this country she is very visible. She is tackling the real issues and the mess that was left behind. 
The real problem that this country faces is that we have the most incredible economic conditions since the 1930s. Although the whole of the developed world grapples with this recession—it is an international recession—New Zealand under the previous Labour Government can claim one credit. It entered into recession before the international recession hit. That is the condition the Labour Government left New Zealand in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And the member’s Government said it was a drought. That’s what that member said. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Mallard has woken up. He is another member who is in complete denial of the mess his Government left. He was an Associate Minister of Finance. He can take the next call and explain the mess that was left. 
Chris Carter said in his contribution that our Budget had cut spending. Again if he spent a little more time in New Zealand he would know that the Budget did not cut spending; it very carefully controlled the amount we could spend. It increased the amount of spending in all of the important portfolios where we had to increase spending but it did so with caution. The Budget was very focused on the debt structure we had been left— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: And very focused on tax cuts for the wealthy—very focused on inappropriate tax cuts. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —and on the fact that we had to remain credibly recognisable by international rating agencies otherwise every New Zealander would have incurred an increase in interest rates. That may not worry Maryan Street. She might be one of those lucky New Zealanders without a mortgage. She might be one of those people who do not know anything about businesses that borrow money to create capital and create jobs in order to give New Zealanders jobs. Those New Zealanders are the people we have to think about when we are putting together a Budget. They are the sorts of people who are affected by the rash decisions made by the previous Labour Government. They are the people we had in mind when we carefully put together a Budget that was respectable and recognised the huge issues we have to face. 
In health alone I remember 9 years of Labour Budgets. The previous Labour Government used to spend more money every year—ridiculously large amounts of money. I expected that we would get something out of that expenditure but we actually got fewer elective surgeries under Labour even though it increased the Health vote by over 50 percent in those 9 years. 
The Hon Tony Ryall is doing a superb job tidying up the mess left by the previous Government. He is focused on making sure that the taxpayer money that goes into Vote Health is there for those people who need it. It is not there for the bureaucrats to build huge bureaucracy around the system; it is about delivering the best health dollars to those people who need it those people needing primary health care and those people in our hospitals tonight who should be the focus. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Primary health care! Oh yes let’s start on primary health care. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Maryan Street should be ashamed of herself for not seeing it. 
I will finish my contribution by talking about my particular portfolio areas of agriculture forestry and biosecurity. Although this country is in recession most people realise—certainly every member on this side of the House does but maybe Labour members do not—that the New Zealand economy will come out of recession when the New Zealand rural scene performs. The rural sector is the backbone of the economy. It was given scant regard by the previous Labour Government but if we look after that sector watch the cost structures that have been recklessly imposed on it and give it a chance to compete effectively and fairly against other producers around the world then it will be the industry that drives this country out of recession delivering better living standards for everybody. 
That is why we were so focused on the primary growth strategy. The Primary Growth Partnership has to deliver the next level of innovation to the sector. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: And it is a tenth of the Fast Forward Fund. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh here we go—the rubbish about the Fast Forward Fund. Maryan Street would borrow $700 million today and somehow magically that would become $2 billion. No one else not even Jim Anderton believed that story but Maryan Street still believes it. I guarantee to that member—I have told her before; I know she will not listen but I will say it again in the hope that she will listen—that over the next 15 years the Primary Growth Partnership will deliver considerably more money than we ever got out of the Fast Forward Fund. We are not going out there to borrow money to create a fund; we are doing it with industry. We have people in the industry saying that our scheme will work. 
The industry had no faith at all in the previous scheme. Mr Anderton announced the previous scheme and then said: “Now we had better build a bureaucracy around it.” The industry was panicking about that scheme. That is why people in the industry did not vote Labour at the last election. Like most New Zealanders they saw the opportunity to get a better Government one that is really focused on the economy. That is why the Labour Party lost—and lost decisively—the last election. 
When the next Labour member stands to make a contribution in the debate I think that member should acknowledge that Labour got it wrong. Labour members should acknowledge that the people of New Zealand finally woke up to the way Labour was trying to spend its way round the country to buy votes in an attempt to stay in office. New Zealanders woke up because they know that this economy can perform substantially better. They know that the economy should be delivering for them a substantially better lifestyle and standard of living than it is. With John Key as Prime Minister the National Government will perform for a long long time delivering substantially to New Zealanders. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to talk about the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill and to focus on what we are voting on tonight. I want to draw to the attention of the public that amongst the things we are voting on are a $13 million cut per annum to adult and community education; cuts to university funding; scuttling the tertiary scholarships; shutting down Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarships; shutting down the Skill Enhancement programme which directly affects Maori providers including the Kokiri Training Centre in Dunedin; and shutting down the funds for the Pathfinders programme which is funding for young people particularly Maori people. It is called the Nga Kaiarataki scheme; the Pathfinders scheme. In this document—for the benefit of the Minister of Education Anne Tolley—is a whole series of testimonials from schools in her electorate that are protesting against the cuts to education and the Pathfinders provision in the first instance. There are cuts to polytechnic funding. It is the end of professional development programmes for teachers. These are the things we are voting on tonight. Those cuts need to be known to the public and the public need to be aware that this is the kind of bill that is in front of us tonight. 
I shall take one of those issues and talk about adult and community education. The cuts to that area are particularly fierce. The adult and community education sector delivered as we so often know it through high schools and night classes and the community organisations they support are at extreme risk. In fact when there has been an 80 percent cut in funding to high schools it is entirely apparent to everybody except this Minister that adult and community education classes will have to stop. The people who attend those adult and community education classes are generally those who are not in a position to self-fund as the Minister thinks is possible. It may be possible on her salary but she is not like many of the people in for example the area where I live in Nelson where 76 percent of income earners earn less than $40000. So they have not benefited from a tax cut and they are not able to provide funding for adult and community education classes. 
I draw to the Minister’s attention because she seems to be unaware of it just what the purpose of adult and community education is. There have been five strategic priorities three of which will go down the gurgler when this vote is passed tonight. The purposes are targeting learners whose initial learning was unsuccessful raising the foundation learning of literacy and numeracy skills encouraging lifelong learning strengthening communities and strengthening social cohesion. 
When we look at the bang for the buck that communities get and that the Government gets as a return on investment for every dollar invested in adult and community education classes we see that the Minister is flying in the face of the evidence that demonstrates that that dollar is well spent. Every single dollar of Government money that is put into adult and community education classes at the very least returns $16 to $22—we are talking estimates tonight. Any Government dollar that is put into adult and community education returns at a minimum from $16 to $22. If the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ additional factors are put in—that is accounting for volunteer hours and private contribution—that return escalates hugely to somewhere between $54 and $72. But the most critical point about the cuts is that thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders are going to be denied the opportunity to have locally delivered accessible affordable post-compulsory education opportunities. And that is a crime. That is a crime against the communities that are out there. Hundreds upon hundreds of people are attending meetings around this country that National MPs are too afraid to attend. National MPs are too afraid to attend them. 
In Dunedin there was no National MP; in Canterbury there were two National MPs. Two National MPs turned up in Christchurch to their credit. They were booed and jeered and hissed and it was probably their first experience of that. I hope they learn from it. But clearly it is not making any difference. There was no National MP at a meeting in Porirua no National MP at a meeting in Newlands no National MP out here on the steps of Parliament no National MP in Auckland and no National MP—except for one—in Hamilton. They are running for cover on that. 
First of all the Minister said that she was digging her toes in and that the cuts would not be reconsidered. A report in the  
Otago Daily Times  
on 10 August stated “Cuts will not be reconsidered” but by Wednesday 19 August out of Canterbury she began to change her story and said that it was out of her hands and that the education cuts were not her decision. She said that again to Community Learning Association through Schools representatives—that is representatives of the group that covers the adult and community education coordinators. Well if the education Minister has washed her hands of them she has now compelled all of the people in adult and community education to write to the Prime Minister. I am sure he is appreciating the heavy mailbag he is getting these days. So now the Community Learning Association through Schools over Maryke Fordyce’s name is writing to the Prime Minister and asking him to change his mind to alter this cut to adult and community education. What is the recent evidence of that group’s likelihood of success? We have from this Government developing as a theme “We will not listen. We will not listen.” 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We know best. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: “We know best. I am sorry if those cuts offend the community but we know best.” We have people who will testify to the value and the worth of adult and community education delivered through organisations and high schools. In the Auckland region the adult and community education money goes to 160 community organisations around the Auckland area. It puts some $700000 into those communities at a grassroots level that allows people to build up their confidence to engage in formal education again that allows people to upskill when they have been out of the workforce for a long time and that allows people to develop their literacy and numeracy skills— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: And scarf tie-dying—it is a whole heap of rubbish. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Even through Moroccan cooking I say to Mrs Tolley—even through Moroccan cooking—because if one cannot read and one cannot count one cannot cook! This kind of affront to adult and community education is going to come back and haunt this Government and that is a promise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The time for this debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all words after “and” be omitted and the following substituted: “that this House condemns the decision of the Government to pre-empt the democratic process through the select committee on Auckland governance regarding Maori representation and in doing so ignored the views of submitters and members of the public on this issue.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/2010 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/2010) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill read a second time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/2010) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Polytechnics) 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 13 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 the bill to ensure its enactment before Christmas. This will give existing polytechnic councils at least 4 months to transition towards the new governance arrangements which will come into effect on 1 May 2010. 
This Government is committed to building a stronger and more responsive tertiary education system. A key priority is to strengthen the quality of provision and to enhance provider accountability. As a critical part of the tertiary education system it is important that the polytechnic sector in New Zealand is a financially viable sector that is capable of providing high-quality vocational education and training opportunities for New Zealanders. This Government is committed to polytechnics and institutes of technology. We understand the role they play in communities as economic and education hubs. We want to give them governance arrangements that are workable and allow polytechnic councils to get on with the business of serving their students and communities. At the same time this Government does not have the desire or the money to continue to provide the $416 million of special assistance funding that the sector has received since 2005-06. 
The first objective of the bill is to improve the governance capability and effectiveness of polytechnic councils. The bill establishes new governance arrangements for polytechnics with the aim of building the capability of councils. There are four main features of the new governance arrangements. Firstly the bill emphasises the importance of good governance. Appointments to councils will be made on the basis of relevant skills and experience especially governance experience. New individual duties are placed on council members that highlight the primary obligation of members to act in the interests of the polytechnic as a whole. The Government’s expectation that these duties will be complied with is demonstrated through the new power conferred on the Minister for Tertiary Education to remove council members for just cause. Just cause includes breaches of any of the collective or individual duties of members. 
Secondly the size of polytechnic councils is reduced from a membership that can currently range from 12 to 20 members to eight only. Provision has been made for four ministerial appointees: the chief executive and one member each from the student body the academic board and the community served by the polytechnic. This size strikes a balance between a council that represents the key parties involved in a polytechnic and one that is workable. 
Thirdly the Minister for Tertiary Education will appoint the chair and deputy chair of each polytechnic council. They will be chosen from among the four ministerial appointees and the successful community nominee. Having the Minister make these appointments is consistent with the Crown Entities Act 2004. It does not mean however that the chair and deputy chair will be subject to ministerial direction. As council members they must comply with their duty to act in the interest of the polytechnic. 
Fourthly the bill provides for collaborative governance arrangements such as enabling individuals to sit on more than one polytechnic council and allowing two or more councils to combine. These arrangements are intended to assist with the recruitment of suitable candidates for council membership especially in rural areas. They also create a more flexible legal framework that councils can take advantage of when looking to develop innovative responses to governance issues as they arise in future. 
The second objective of the bill is to allow the Crown to more effectively respond to the risks posed by polytechnics with educational or financial performance issues. The bill amends the Education Act 1989 to create a more flexible intervention framework for the polytechnic sector—one that allows for a gradually escalating series of responses to situations of risk. Three new interventions are created. Subject to appropriate legal constraints the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission will be able to require a polytechnic council to obtain specialist help or prepare a performance improvement plan. The Minister for Tertiary Education will be able to appoint a Crown manager to undertake specified council functions. It is intended that the Crown manager will perform a similar role to the limited statutory manager in the compulsory schooling sector. The bill also empowers the Secretary for Education to issue specific criteria for assessing the level of risk to the operation and long-term viability of polytechnics. 
The bill contains a number of miscellaneous amendments. Firstly this Government is concerned about the number of young people who are leaving school without adequate qualifications. The bill amends the Education Act 1989 to allow the Manukau Institute of Technology to establish a tertiary education high school which will operate from the beginning of 2010. Intended as a trial project the tertiary education high school will offer a course of study to students in years 11 to 13 who have been identified by their school as unlikely to succeed in a conventional school setting but who are motivated to succeed in tertiary education and whose parents are supportive. Secondly under the Education Act 1989 each individual polytechnic is required to have an academic board. The bill enables two or more separate polytechnic councils to establish a combined academic board. This provides councils keen on developing closer working relationships another option to consider and improves administrative efficiency. Finally the bill includes minor technical amendments to the tertiary education parts of the Education Act 1989. These amendments will update the Act by removing redundant provisions. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. There seems to be a theme developing this week from the National Government: do not listen to the public. It does not matter whether thousands of people march in Auckland to express a view on the need for Maori seats in the Auckland super-city; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether thousands of people sign a petition against cuts to adult and community education; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether locals do not want the northern boundary of Auckland City to change; the Government will not listen. It does not matter whether the select committee on the Auckland super-city finishes its work in respect of Maori seats; it does not matter because the Government will not listen. This theme brings us straight to this bill. 
The essence of this bill is the cutting back of community representation on polytechnic councils. It takes the possibility of community input and representation on polytechnic councils out of the equation. It moves polytechnic council membership from anywhere between 14 and 20 members to eight of whom four are appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education one is a student representative one is an academic representative appointed by the council and one is a poor community representative who is to be elected by a process that is not entirely clear. There is also the chief executive officer of the polytechnic. That is the sum total. So what has been taken out? 
The Maori Party may be interested to know that this bill contains particular provisions around Maori representation. First of all there is none. Maori representation has been taken out as has Pasifika representation. Business representation and union representation have also been taken out. For the Maori Party’s benefit I will quote from the explanatory note of the bill in respect of Maori representation which states: “it is desirable in principle that a polytechnic council should include Maori; and that so far as is possible a polytechnic council should reflect the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the community it serves.” For a party that was not prepared to have a Maori as its president what are the chances of this Minister appointing people who represent Maori interests? What are the chances? National cannot even do it in-house so how could it possibly do that in an area that really matters? 
Here we have another iteration of this week’s theme of “Let’s not listen to the people and let’s chuck out any provision in legislation that requires community input.” It is probably a little more honest than some of the activities earlier this week whereby people were led to believe that the select committee process may reflect their views only to have the Prime Minister cut across that process. It may be more honest for the Government simply to say upfront that it has no interest in the community being represented. 
I will highlight a couple of disadvantages. Polytechnics are charged to deliver educational opportunities and training for the benefit of the region they serve. How will a polytechnic council know what the interests of the region are if there are no community representatives including business representatives on its council? Let me give some examples and I will choose one at random. The chairman of Eastern Institute of Technology David Pearson said that regional voices ensured that the institute could best service Hawke’s Bay but that he was worried that this legislation will weaken the voice of regional interests. He said that there is no strong voice guaranteed for business and communities in these proposals and that a real potential also exists for political swings backwards and forwards as Governments change. Let me also refer to the chairperson of Wintec in Hamilton Gordon Chesterman. He is quoted in the  
Waikato Times 
—and this is even scarier—as saying: “This section of the bill suggests that the polytechnic sector is in disarray sending a bad signal to the international market place. We rely on the growth of our international students so to suggest we are in a poor state is sending a message that New Zealand is not the best place to gain qualifications.” We can also look at another article which quotes the Universal College of Learning’s chief executive Paul McElroy. It states: “the local polytechnic council is doing a ‘stunning’ job and there is no need to give board members their marching orders.” 
That leads to the next question: what is the purpose of this restructuring of the polytechnic councils? Why does the Minister want to reach so far into the polytechnic councils to run them and to control four out of the eight councillors? Two of the other members of the council—namely the chief executive and the academic board representative—are dependent on those four for appointment and the other two are the poor student rep who will have to carry the can for the whole student community and the somehow elected community representative. 
The control being exercised by the Government in the polytech sector is not a healthy sign. It is not a healthy sign for academic achievement. It is not a healthy sign if a polytech is meant to be required to reflect the needs of and to provide training appropriate to its region—and it will be unable to do that. It is not a healthy sign because we do not know what the Minister’s agenda is; we are not told what it is. The polytechnic sector does not need the kind of wholesale swingeing attack that this bill represents. There are possibilities for improvements in polytechs and they know that better than anybody. They know it better than the Minister and they themselves are looking to improve their performance every day and every year. There have been difficulties in the past but to lump all polytechs into this kind of bucket is a slight on all of them. 
This bill is not an essential move. It conveys the impression that the Minister is keen to control the polytechs and through the graded process of being able to intervene she will be able to again alter and reach into those polytechs in order to control what they are doing. Governments should not be in control of curricula. Governments should not be in control of the kinds of courses put up by a polytech as long as it is meeting the requirements of its region which is what polytechs are charged to do under existing legislation. This bill takes away community voice. It takes away people’s representation on polytechnic councils and even worse it introduces a very serious precedent for the control of tertiary institutions. Academic freedom is one principle that is very important to every tertiary institution. To have the Minister who has no understanding of the importance and the merit of academic freedom as the person who will determine who runs the polytechs is enough to give everybody—I was going to use an inappropriate word—a fright when they think about the purpose of a polytechnic. 
This bill is dangerous. It is limited and although we might wish to say some good things later about the tertiary high school it is apposite that this particular bill is being brought in this week when we have had the repeated theme of not listening to the public. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I think the Minister has articulated very clearly what needs to be done and it is a pleasure to speak in support of the bill. The tone is set at the top of any organisation and it was obvious as the previous speaker sat down that members opposite are in total denial of just how poorly polytechnics have performed under the Labour Government of the past 9 years. Close to half a billion dollars have gone down the gurgler and there is now a big disparity between polytechs achieving well and poorly achieving polytechs. 
It is essential that we give some certainty to those people who are prepared to invest in education. Opposition to this bill is nothing more than socialistic adhockery— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: There go the international students. You are damaging our reputation here. 
COLIN KING 
: That member should reflect on what she is saying. Obviously she has been in the House for only 5 minutes. She is a very lightweight member who has been here a very short time. 
I draw the Opposition’s attention to the wonderful part in the bill that enables young students to attend a tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. What a wonderful opportunity! I believe that this bill will start us onward and upward and that we will see a truly robust high-quality First World - economy education system. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. This bill represents an attempt by the Government to take over the governance of New Zealand’s polytechnics. The Minister for Tertiary Education will be allowed to appoint half of a radically reduced board of eight members. All the power is in the hands of the Minister. The Government’s argument is that this will allow it to intervene more easily when polytechnics have financial or educational issues. The reality is that the Government will be intervening in all polytechnics not just those in trouble. This intervention will come at the expense of community representation. Currently polytechnic councils operate with representatives from a wide variety of groups including academic staff general staff students and employee and employer representatives. 
Colin King 
: Speak from the heart don’t read it! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Perhaps Colin King the member who spoke before me should have written his speech and then he would have spoken for more than 30 seconds. The current arrangement allows a wide range of valuable perspectives to contribute to the running of each polytechnic. The Government’s proposals will strip councils of this representation leaving only the Minister’s representatives the chief executive officer a member of the academic staff a student representative and one community representative. The Government argues that this will improve the efficiency of the boards. But what about the legitimacy of such a board when important stakeholders in the polytechnics are being denied adequate representation? 
Polytechnics are vitally important for much of regional New Zealand. Members on this side of the House recognise that but members on the other side unfortunately under the leadership of that Minister do not recognise it at all. Polytechnics provide the skills and training that regional economies need. They also ensure that young people in regional New Zealand who want training qualifications are not all forced to go to the main centres. Polytechnics have become an essential part of communities all over New Zealand. These same communities now find that the Government is refusing them input into the governance of these institutions. It is the kind of Minister-knows-best attitude that these communities do not need. 
Many of New Zealand’s polytechnics serve several communities—like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and the Waikato Institute of Technology—but these institutions’ community representation under National’s proposal is woefully inadequate. Are these communities expected to fight over a single place on a council so that they can have a say in its governance? That is unacceptable. It shows the disconnection between the National Government and New Zealand’s regional communities. These communities want leadership not micro-management from the Minister—also known as nanny State. 
In the explanatory note of this bill the Government notes that it is desirable in principle that the polytechnic councils should have Maori representation. It also notes that the councils should reflect the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities that the polytechnics serve. These are worthy points that Labour agrees with. However the bill makes no provision for any of this. This is essentially a case of the Government saying that it would be nice if we had Maori representation while deliberately not making any effort to ensure that this happens. This kind of attitude to Maori representation is obviously not new to the National Government as we have seen with its refusal to allow Maori representation on the super-city council. It continues with that pattern in this bill. Is the National Government fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? Is it responding to the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I do not think so. By denying Maori representation on the super-city council and now on the councils of polytechnics nationwide it is clearly not. 
These changes to representation on polytechnic councils are disturbing. What will be in the Minister’s sights next? Will the boards of universities and wananga soon be stripped of stakeholder representation and stacked with the Minister’s appointees? With this bill the Minister is wresting control of the governance of polytechnics from New Zealand communities. Why? It is true that some polytechnics have had financial or educational issues in the past but there are many reasons for this. The fact that the National Government instead of investigating the reasons why some polytechs have run into difficulty is choosing to gain greater control over their boards suggests a hidden motive. The bill represents the corporatisation of our nation’s polytechnics. 
This bill also includes a proposal to establish the Manukau Institute of Technology as a tertiary education high school. This is a proposal that Labour supports as it will support year 11 to year 13 students who would otherwise leave school without gaining qualifications. Despite this the bill as proposed would do more harm than good to tertiary education in New Zealand. We will not take the good with the bad if it means that communities are sacrificing their say in the running of these institutions if it means that Maori and other ethnic groups are denied representation and if it means the corporatisation of these valuable community assets. 
This bill would deny communities representation on the boards of institutions that should be serving their needs. It would add insult to injury to Maori who are already denied representation on the super-city council. It would mean that the Minister’s appointees would make up half of every polytechnic board giving the Government enormous power over the governance and direction of these institutions. New Zealand polytechnics should work to support their communities providing the skills and training that are required. A diverse range of representatives from communities unions and employers is necessary so that this aim is achieved. This bill would ensure that these groups do not receive adequate representation and that this aim is not achieved. Labour cannot and will not support this bill. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Tertiary education is part of the wide-ranging educational opportunities that help all New Zealanders fulfil their potential and deepen their understanding of the world we inhabit. The Green Party wants an education sector that builds a foundation of wisdom in this country and helps us to develop as a sustainable nation. 
The Green Party wants a tertiary education sector that is well resourced vibrant innovative and responsive to the needs of students and our society. We want a tertiary education sector that is preparing and prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. To this end we must have a sector that is well resourced to meet the diverse needs of a diverse community. We need to have community sector commitment to these institutions where the institution and its community work together to fulfil both local and national needs. 
In this respect polytechs have a great advantage because polytechs incorporate a broader range of educational levels. They can readily move people along the educational pathway especially those who were missed out in the schooling system. Those people can be moved along to great educational success. Because of the stepped programme option polytechs are so much more accessible to many in our community and because polytechs deal with both research and the practical application of that research they are flexible and able to meet the quickly changing circumstances of the community of our ecology and of our economy. 
The Green Party is always very pleased to see legislation that will assist polytechs to achieve even more. What a shame that instead we have been dealt this garbage from the Minister for Tertiary Education! This legislation is a gross waste of our time here in Parliament tonight. It shows a complete misunderstanding of—and really a contempt for—those institutions which have proved to be so valuable and worthwhile to our communities across the sector. We have a piece of garbage to debate tonight presented to the House by Anne Tolley. 
The asserted aims of this bill are to improve the governance capability of polytech councils and allow the Crown to intervene more effectively in their performance. Well it certainly does that. It certainly provides for the highest possible level of intervention by the State in these institutions which provide such a great service to our community. 
The bill achieves this intervention by slashing the number of community representatives on the councils. I have heard the comments of my colleagues in the Labour Party and I agree wholeheartedly with their concerns. The bill is slashing the number of community representatives allowed on the councils. It gives the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission the power to intervene. It gives the Minister extraordinary powers to intervene in the management and governance of polytechs. It allows the Minister to have a say over who is on the council and even to say who the chair and deputy chair of the council should be. That is an unprecedented level of intervention in polytechnics. 
The bill also allows for an amalgamated council to manage multiple institutions which is something we are seeing in the compulsory schooling sector as well. The bill will sever the incredibly important governance links between polytech institutions and the communities they belong to and serve. The Government claims that poor governance poses a risk to the Crown but there is no evidence whatsoever that that is a serious risk. Even if there were a case to answer the bill is very clearly heavy-handed State interference to fix what is likely to be a non-existent problem. 
We have spent many years listening to National members blather on about nanny State interference. The bill is an absolute classic example of excessive State interference in educational institutions that by and large are doing an excellent job serving the communities they are designed to serve. The polytechnic councils are committed to community engagement but the Government has decided that that is not good enough. The Government does not want community engagement; it wants absolute control over these institutions. The legislation is an attempt to create that situation. 
The result of this bill will be that polytechs will be under the strict control of ministerially appointed business people and Anne Tolley who presented this garbage to the House will be the person who appoints those business people. Community and academic interests on the councils will be sidelined by the design of the bill and communities will no longer have the high-quality relationships with council boards that they currently have. That will mean that polytechs will not be able to be as responsive to the needs of their communities as they have been. It means that polytechs will not have the freedom to innovate as they currently do. 
In short the bill imposes Government and corporate control over the polytechs just as National is doing as I said earlier to schools with education legislation that is currently before the Education and Science Committee. There is provision in that legislation for corporate management of school boards and the ability for one corporate-managed school board to be able to manage a variety of different schools. We talked about that issue some time at the end of last year and about whether it is one of the steps towards the privatisation of the public school system. The bill is just another obvious example of the corporatisation by the National Government of polytechnics. 
The Green Party values the concept of an institution that elevates trades and vocational education and bridges the gap between the practical needs of a trade and the opportunity for research and advanced skills. Technological changes and the developing needs of our society are driving that change so we must have a tertiary sector that is able to readily meet those opportunities. That is especially important when we consider the nature of the global environment and the changes in it particularly the increasing recognition of peak oil and the need for energy alternatives the impact of climate change on all aspects of our society and the need to be prepared for the changes that are inevitably coming our way. The Government is driving for a tertiary polytechnic sector built on the principles of State control and a 19th century level of investment. The Green Party opposes this garbage. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. When we talk about representation I am reminded of a comment from a couple in New Plymouth yesterday. They were really upset with the decision to deny the Maori seats in Auckland and said: “In this case democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” They were a couple who came here 18 years ago and thought Aotearoa was a wonderful place because of the relationship between Maori and European as Treaty partners. They wanted to help correct the injustice of denying the Maori seats in Auckland because in their view we will all be poorer if this issue is not resolved. 
Some MPs will recall an event at Te Papa about a month ago called Rangatahi Represent which featured artists like Dam Native Upper Hutt Posse and King Kapisi who are all relations of Tau Henare. The event was a celebration of youth culture which this Parliament could take a lesson from and a statement of their ability to represent their own opinions speak for themselves and stand up for themselves. All MPs will know how well the Maori Party has grown into its role of representing Maori opinion and standing up for the rights of Maori as the first peoples of this land and as the partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi the constitutional foundation of Aotearoa. Sometimes the Government gets the representation thing right like with the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act which requires the Minister of Health to ensure that Maori membership of the board is proportional to the number of Maori in the region and also to ensure that at least two Maori are on the board. But the latest debacle around the Maori seats in Auckland shows very clearly how even when a royal commission recommends Maori seats when all Maori submissions support Maori seats when 80 percent of non-Maori submissions support Maori seats when the majority of Auckland’s councils support Maori seats and when most of the five major parties in Parliament support Maori seats the Government can still conspire to make a fool of itself by pandering to the whims of a party that is polling below the margin of error for God’s sake. Now it appears that another crisis is looming in the way polytechnic councils are appointed. 
The Maori Party has always supported strong Maori representation because of the value we place on the Treaty partnership and on honouring that partnership by both Maori and the Crown. Indeed in the National Party and Maori Party agreement there is a statement of faith in the opening paragraph that is supposed to say it all: “Both the National Party and the Maori Party will act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. We take that statement of faith seriously because it acknowledges the Treaty partnership as the very basis of the Crown’s relationship with Maori and we expect the Government to do its best to uphold the Treaty. So when the chair of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Naida Glavish says of the Government’s plans to dump the Maori seats 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.” it is clear for everyone to see how much the Treaty is not a priority for either the Government or local government. 
Although that debate is not over yet by any means the House is already witnessing another massive hit on the Treaty with the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill which will cut the number of community members to one. The Government reckons it is to ensure that polytechnics have strong governance but that is bullshit of course and suggests that communities do not have the smarts to pick the right kinds of people. Down in Gisborne for example the Tairawhiti Polytechnic Council currently has four community places which are held by Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Te Runanga o Turanganui-a-Kiwa the Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Maori Women’s Welfare League. Given the breadth of participation from those various tribal areas cutting the community seats to one will enhance neither the representation nor the quality of skills that can be brought to the table. 
Most polytechnic councils already have Maori representation and some have dedicated mana whenua seats such as Tairawhiti Polytechnic Whitireia Community Polytechnic and Waiariki Institute of Technology but not Northland Polytechnic. Those initiatives should be lauded not discarded because they show the value of the relationships between polytechs—and politics—and the communities they serve and the institutional success that flows from those relationships. Just a couple of days ago Dennis Sharman spokesman for the national body for councils of institutes of technology and polytechs said: “The performance and value of polytechnics depend strongly on the professional and vocational education they provide for communities throughout New Zealand. Community interests must therefore feature strongly in the governance processes for polytechnics”. That is from the people most affected by this proposal yet here we are planning to give that community input the chop. 
If that community viewpoint including mana whenua is removed governance will become simply an extension of central government rather than an exercise in decentralisation and community ownership. Central government will be trying to do for the regions what the regions have been doing well for themselves for decades; the nanny State that National so reviled over the last 3 years will be getting steroids when National says it should be getting laxatives. 
When the Prime Minister says that he wants to move forward to bring the nation into the future together he needs to understand that respectful mana whenua must be part of the move that cutting back on Maori representation is a backward step that eroding the significance and the support of communities for polytechnics is a sign of danger to positive community development and that the Maori Party will never agree to any moves that threaten the Treaty as the basis of Maori representation to organisations and authorities in Aotearoa. On that basis the Maori Party will be opposing this bill. Kia ora tatou. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand this evening to support the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in its first reading and the strong Minister Anne Tolley who demands excellence. One of the reasons New Zealanders voted for National in November last year was our stand for excellence in education. We will not hold back. We are unwilling to tolerate mediocrity. One of the things we want to ensure is that New Zealand has a great future because of education. We will not sit back and tolerate anything else so I applaud the Minister for her leadership in taking hold of the polytechnic sector and being willing to shake it up. 
In terms of the polytechs we will not listen to the Opposition’s scaremongering or its use of its socialist adhocracy to try to scare New Zealanders into believing that we are up to something different. All we want to do is make sure that the leadership and governance of the polytechs are strong that the polytechs are future-focused and that they are leading New Zealand in the direction we want it to go in. We need strong institutions that are financially sound and responsive to the needs of their communities and economies. That includes meeting the changing needs of employers the voluntary sector communities iwi and others who need high-quality vocational education. 
The bill proposes that polytech councils are reduced in members from 20 to eight. Let us have a conversation about quality. It is not about the number of council members; it is about the quality of those who are on the council and who are leading their institutions forward to ensure that the young people in their communities get the education they deserve. That is what this Government is about. 
The bill will also allow the Crown to respond more effectively when institutions are possibly at risk of not delivering the educational outcomes they need or are financially in trouble. It allows for more flexible interventions so that those institutions can be better supported. 
Education is vital to our success as a country and we will not sit back and ignore that fact. The bill is about improving growing extending and more important delivering. That is what this Government is doing. We stand for excellence and we will not tolerate mediocrity. I am delighted to support the first reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise tonight in opposition to the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I think I will be able to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate and perhaps a unique contribution because I may be the only member of the House who has actually been a member of a polytechnic council. I will speak from that experience. 
First I want to note the contribution from Colin King the member for Kaikoura who managed to fill only 2 minutes of his speaking slot. He should be standing in opposition to this bill because he represents a community that will lose its representation on the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council under the arrangements introduced by the Minister for Tertiary Education tonight. His community will hold him to account for that decision. 
I joined the Nelson Polytechnic council—which later became the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology council—more than 10 years ago before the previous Labour Government came to office. So for Mr King to suggest that this issue is a legacy of Labour maladministration ignores the cyclical problems that are very much there in the polytech sector. At the first council meeting I attended in February 1999 we inherited a $1.7 million deficit. Who was in Government at that time? National. What was the reason for that deficit? It was largely because the Asian financial crisis had happened and like most polytechnics—they are always strapped for cash—that polytechnic had embarked upon recruitment of Asian students to try to fill its numbers and bolster its budget. With the downturn in student numbers the polytechnic went into the red. I was one of the council members who tried to ensure that it got back some form of viability. 
The council had about 12 members. It included two iwi representatives later becoming three who were important helpful worthwhile members of that council. They contributed fully. That community has a big Maori population. A large percentage of the students—about 2000 equivalent full-time students—were Maori and the council was proud to have Maori membership on it. That situation will go under this legislation and that is utterly reprehensible. I hope Tau Henare will take a call to speak in the way that he has spoken so boldly on the same issue affecting the Auckland super-city. 
A representative of the trade unions was on the council and that was very useful because the chief executive was able to talk to the unions and negotiate pay rises. A Nelson-Marlborough representative of the Employers Federation was also on the council. So it was a balanced council and it was supported by the community. The reason we were able to turn round that deficit of $1.7 million and get that polytechnic back on its feet was that the council was representative of the community it served. 
Colin King 
: Is that member sure that is true? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Absolutely. But polytechnics like many other businesses—if one wants to describe a polytech as a business—are cyclical. They are very finely tuned; they are never much in the black. They often teeter towards the red because many of them are regional institutions like the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology of which I have spoken. If there is a drop in student numbers in a major course—like nursing—for cyclical or other reasons polytechs can be pushed into the red and into financial loss. There are ways to combat that and council membership is really important in building an institution and improving its viability. 
For instance in the case of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology we looked at the ground training wing a huge air force - owned facility on the perimeter of Blenheim in Marlborough. It was built during the time of the former National Government. It had spare capacity and that facility is now used by the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology to train dozens of civilian aviation engineers and to bolster the finances of that institution. That case was put up and supported by council members including me. Mr King represents Marlborough. He has to go back to his community and tell them that he is in favour of gutting their council’s membership and leaving it with one community representative who almost certainly will be from Nelson. He has to go back and tell his voters that that is the support he has given to this bill. 
Another initiative was using the polytechnic site in Blenheim which had spare capacity to establish the Marlborough Wine Research Centre—a national wine centre of excellence—on the campus in Budge Street. That centre has received $10 million of research funding. It is adding value to the wine industry. Marlborough is the centre of the nation’s wine industry. That centre is another example of a strongly supported initiative driven in part by the community council membership that the Minister now wants to gut with the bill before us tonight. 
A final endeavour that was undertaken with strong council and community-driven support was the fostering of aquaculture training in Nelson-Marlborough. The mussel industry is based in Nelson-Marlborough and the polytechnic established training that was driven and supported by the council membership which included—at times—representatives of Marlborough who had a background in the mussel industry. 
I ask Mr King who will stand up for Marlborough in the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology when it is brought back to one community representative and when all iwi representation is taken away. He will have some fun in terms of iwi representation; he has eight iwi across Nelson-Marlborough. 
I conclude by commenting on some of the introductory remarks from the Minister about how this bill supposedly will introduce financial viability in the polytechnic sector and show how the Government is committed to polytechnics. What rubbish! We have a representative model in place which helps and strengthens those institutions and she will take the axe to that membership so that she can command those institutions to do what she wishes. It is not as if there is not strong State sector influence in the polytechnics. The Tertiary Education Commission is in daily contact with the polytechnics. It monitors their finances. It is able to intervene when the polytechnics get into trouble to appoint Crown monitors and to put people on to the councils to steer them out of what are quite regular occurrences because the polytechnics have long been underfunded. They are the poor cousin of the tertiary sector— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Oh more money will make it right! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I say to the Minister that she is talking about supposedly being a Government that has a commitment to industry and training and here she is saying that she will take an axe to the representative model that is in place. What a disgrace! Here we have community-driven organisations represented by maybe 10 or a dozen people drawn from all sectors and they cost virtually nothing. The turnover for the polytechnic in my electorate of Christchurch Central the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology is about $80 million. The cost of the governance by its council is about $100000. The Government will gut the membership of those councils so that it can put in place its agenda. That is wholly inappropriate and wholly contrary to what the Government should be doing. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill will empower the “chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission to require a polytechnic council to prepare and give to him or her a draft performance improvement plan …”. The chief executive will be using this provision only if “he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a polytechnic or the educational performance of the students at a polytechnic may be at risk.” I suggest to members opposite that that is a pretty important provision and that it is sound management practice. It is worrying to say the least that Opposition members do not recognise the need for improvements in existing governance arrangements for a significant number of polytechnics. 
I listened carefully earlier as the Hon Maryan Street drew attention to the outstanding Waikato Institute of Technology which has two campuses in my electorate. I am very proud to be the parliamentary representative for Wintec’s electorate. 
Ms Street quoted very selectively from some reported comments of Gordon Chesterman the Wintec chairman and a Hamilton City councillor. He has some concerns but he has also expressed many constructive thoughts on the issue of polytechnic governance. Let me fill in some gaps in respect of the press report the member referred to. Mr Chesterman noted that “Here at Wintec we recognised the need for change about four years ago. … It’s worked incredibly well for us and we now have a highly skilled and successful council.” As a result Wintec which previously had 20 councillors is now down to 13 in a “lean mean organisation.” Mr Chesterman’s main concern is with the funding structure. He says it is clearly wrong. The Wintec council inherited the situation from the previous Labour Government. 
Although I have no doubt that the Wintec council will be making submissions on the bill—and I encourage it to do so in order to contribute to the Act achieving its purpose and to secure the support and confidence of quality providers throughout the country—nevertheless there is much in the bill that we can be positive about and that will be good for the polytechnics of this country. 
We should all want quality; we all need quality management. I encourage members to look constructively at the bill and work towards that end. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It has been a bad week for democracy. It has been a bad week for the National Government because it has decided this week that it will not listen to the people of New Zealand. It will not listen to the thousands of people who marched down the streets of Auckland calling for Maori representation on the Auckland Council. It does not want to listen to the communities that surround the polytechs in New Zealand. That is what the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill is about. To make it worse we will legislate in this House to not listen to the very communities that are served by our polytechnics. 
Beyond that this bill represents one of the most audacious power grabs in tertiary education that we have ever seen. The Minister for Tertiary Education Anne Tolley will have the right to appoint half of each polytechnic’s council of eight. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Half of the council of eight—four people. The Minister for Tertiary Education will have the right to appoint the chair and the deputy chair. This is a power grab of the most unbelievable sort from this Minister. 
Let us have a look at the effect of reducing the size of polytechnic councils. Who will be taken out of the councils under this proposal? We will see Maori taken off the councils. For the second time this week we are seeing Maori being told that their voice is not required at the table that their voice is not required to be there to show us how these institutions should be run. I too have served on a tertiary council as Mr Burns has and as my colleague Mr Hipkins has as well and tertiary councils benefit from the diversity of the people on them. Those councils also benefit from representation from unions and employers. I particularly note that this bill means that employer representatives will be taken off the polytech councils. National is taking away the very people who are concerned about the graduates who come out of polytech. 
The previous Labour Government put in place its tertiary reforms to ensure that the polytechs were able to support regional economics. Who are the people in the region who understand those economies? They are the representatives of employers and the representatives of workers. They are the people who are being taken out of this proposal. National is saying it does not want to listen to those people or know about their views. National is not concerned about what they might think about what is important in their regional economy. That is gone because that party on the other side of the House does not care about the views of other people. Its members do not want to listen. They know best they know what is right for the regions and they will put it in place. 
I want to refer to the words of the Universal College of Learning Chief Executive Paul McElroy. He was quoted in the  
Manawatu Standard  
as saying this: “Polytechnics are about the students and the communities they serve. I think they need to be a strong voice on the council. If the majority of the council is controlled by a ministry in Wellington you are not allowing that local voice to come to the forefront.” That is what Mrs Tolley is doing tonight. She is trying to take control of these polytech councils push out the regions push out the community and bring back the power to her. Mr McElroy went on to say “UCOL’s board has 14 members including representatives from campuses at Palmerston North Whanganui and Masterton publicly elected members iwi union and employer representatives.” Under this model Mrs Tolley is saying that one person will be able to represent the communities of Palmerston North Wanganui and Masterton—one person will be able to represent them. Mrs Tolley will appoint the other four and goodness knows who those people will be. Polytechs are expected to be able to represent a region in this case a region of three cities: Palmerston North Wanganui and Masterton. One person will not be able to do that. Mr McElroy went on to say that “New Zealand is a democracy. It’s about people who are consuming government services actually having a say over them particularly in education. We don’t want a situation where the Government writes the textbooks that is not acceptable in tertiary education.” 
Chris Hipkins 
: You don’t want Anne Tolley writing a textbook! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Indeed no. 
Interestingly the  
Manawatu Standard 
 went on to say this “Mrs Tolley’s office said she did not have time to answer the Manawatu Standard’s questions yesterday.” So not only is Mrs Tolley not listening to the regions not listening to the communities that polytechnics serve but she does not even want to respond to the media when they want to know about the issue. 
We have to question what the Minister is trying to do with this bill and what the reason is behind the power grab. It is a true power grab because not only is it about the appointment of people to polytech councils but also it is about the removal of people from polytech councils. The Minister now has enormous power not only to appoint those people appoint the chair and appoint the deputy chair but also to remove them for reasons of “just cause” which includes a number of things. The Minister might decide to dismiss people from the council for any reason. This is a giant power grab. 
Is this the best that National can come up with when it comes to polytechnics at the moment? It is the best that it can come up with—gutting community representation. Polytechnics are bursting at the seams at the moment because people are desperate to increase their skills. The National Government’s response to that was to bring forward to this House a bill to gut the polytechnic councils. There is nothing in it about how the Government will enable more participation. There is nothing about how it will respond to the recession by getting people into polytechnics getting people to upskill and retrain—there is nothing about that whatsoever. A total of 328 people have been turned away from the Western Institute of Technology in New Plymouth. 
A total of 328 people have been turned away because this Government is not prepared to look at what is really happening in the regions to support the polytechnics and to support them to bring people to their regions. The only response from this Government is to bring forward an anti-democratic bill a bill that shows that the Government is not listening. It does not want to hear the views from the regions. 
But what is Mrs Tolley’s agenda with this bill? Why would we do this? Why would we take $60 million out of the polytech sector? There have been protests all around the country from polytechnic students and staff and the response from Mrs Tolley has been to take away community representation. The agenda here is clear: it is an agenda of control over polytechnics and it is an agenda where investment in polytechnics will be limited. The opportunities to respond to regional needs will be limited as the voice of the representatives of those regional needs will be taken out of the process. 
Now is the time to invest in polytechs I say to Mrs Tolley. Now is the time to put money in and to support people to retrain. Now is the time to listen to the community. Now is not the time to sit there and say: “We do not want to hear from the regions. We do not want to hear from the community.” 
But there is something very interesting and useful in this bill. It is the creation of the tertiary education high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. It is a 4-year course for students starting from year 11. Students who are unlikely to succeed in a conventional education setting will be given an opportunity to try something different. For that I do commend the Government. It is an excellent idea. It is something that was discussed by Labour. It is a trial. It might not work. But it is worth a go to ensure that people can stay in training and can achieve their potential. 
If only the rest of the bill were focused in such a way. If only the rest of the bill actually focused on trying things out on getting people into polytechnics. But the lack of vision from this Government is astounding. We have been here before. In the 1990s the National Government tried to change the way that people were represented on tertiary councils. In fact my colleague Mr Hipkins was arrested on the forecourt of Parliament on that very issue. I think he will have his retribution soon. We have been here before in the 1990s. 
We know that polytechnics and tertiary institutions operate best when they reflect the communities around them when regional needs are represented at the council table. But once again this week we see that the National Government has no interest in listening to people and no interest in hearing alternative views. This bill is an outrageous shame. It is something that the National Government should be ashamed of coming hard on the heels of the Government saying it will not listen to Maori on the issue of the Auckland Council. The National representatives should hang their heads in shame. Polytechnics deserve good strong community-driven councils. What we see today is the Minister for Tertiary Education controlling who is on those councils and how to take people off those councils. That is anti-democratic and it is bad for education. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was not intending to speak on this bill the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill but I feel I must respond to the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Robertson. This should be a relatively non-controversial bill. Under the provisions of this bill the size of polytechnic councils will be reduced to eight members. Currently the number of members range from 12 to 20. The bill also provides for the Minister for Tertiary Education to appoint 50 percent of the members. I do not intend to go on in a great deal of detail in respect of the provisions of this bill. 
Grant Robertson 
: I think I know what he’s going to talk about. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Mr Robertson started his speech by saying this has been a very bad week for democracy. I am very pleased Mr Robertson said that because he has it within his power to do something about it. He and his colleagues have it within their power to do something about it. He talked about the Government not listening in respect of the Maori seats. But most people in this Chamber this week have not reflected on the fact that 1.5 million people voted No in the referendum; 1.5 million people said they do not want it to be a criminal offence to lightly smack a child. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought we were discussing the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The debate is generally a broad one and I think the member is traversing material that has already been brought up by members of his own party. I ask the member to continue but I just remind him that this is a bill about polytechnics. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I do not intend to talk for much longer but I was very interested to listen to Mr Burns’ comments and to hear him talk about his experience as a member of a polytechnic council. He said he is probably the only person in this Chamber who has been a member of a polytechnic council. I can say to Mr Burns that I have lectured at a polytech. I lectured in accounting some 25 years ago. If Mr Burns wants me to talk in some detail about my experience as a lecturer at a polytech in the same way as he spoke about his experience as a councillor I will be happy to do so. 
Let me just sum up my comments in this way. The Prime Minister has given a response this afternoon to my member’s bill the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. He said that the National Government is not prepared to support it at its first reading. I put the focus back on the Labour members. I say to them to Mr Robertson and his colleagues that they can support this bill at its first reading. They can represent the 87 percent who voted No in the referendum. I ask them to reflect on the embarrassment that that would cause to the National Government if Labour members were to support this bill. Mr Robertson said that it has been a very bad week for democracy but he and his colleagues will have a chance to do something about that. If he wants to have the issues associated with this referendum aired before a select committee by way of public discussion the onus is on that member and his colleagues to support it. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to a close the first reading debate on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I have only one comment to make and it is that once again the Labour Party does not get it. Once again the Labour Party does not get it. Its speakers have demonstrated tonight in this debate that they do not begin to understand the genuine nature of governance and the role that governance will play in ensuring that our polytechs meet the needs of the communities in which they are located the needs of the local economies and the needs of the national economy. That is what the Labour Party does not understand. 
Currently the emphasis for representation on the councils is literally that—representation. This bill shifts the emphasis away from straight representation to effective governance and governance skills. It will do that by significantly cutting and streamlining the size of the councils. It is well known that it has been found difficult to identify suitably qualified candidates who are willing to sit on councils. Why? Because the perception is out there and it is a correct one that in too many cases the councils are considered unyielding inefficient and underskilled. 
This is a very good bill. It will bring very much needed change to the sharp edge of polytech governance. I commend it to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education and Science Committee 
 consider the bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House (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 despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise at last as the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill comes to the Committee stage. It is normal and courteous but right also as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee through which this bill passed that I acknowledge and thank all those who have assisted in getting the bill to this point. I thank mainly my colleagues on the committee. Across the committee there was a very good process and there were many different points of view. New understandings of the issues in this somewhat massive bill were garnered by members on our committee. 
I need to acknowledge our independent advisers with whom we started a new angle in that we brought in an independent drafting adviser. A mere look at this bill will probably give members reason why we needed to do that. I also thank our official advisers and I acknowledge and thank the submitters who submitted in writing who presented before us and who engaged with officials and ministries throughout this Parliament and also in the last Parliament as well. We remember that this bill first arrived in the House in I think July 2008. I also acknowledge that large parts of the original bill were carved out and formed part of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill we put through in January and February this year. Again I acknowledge members on all sides of the Chamber for assisting us with that. 
I will give a challenge to Hansard if I can and I would like to have an audible sigh—aah—at the thought of getting the bill to this point. That is a challenge; I would like to see that one. The bill comprises 431 clauses in Part 1— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Read them out! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Do my colleagues want me to read it? I tell them that I have actually been reading it for the last 6 months. Believe me if any members have trouble sleeping I can pull out some clauses and parts that may be of interest to some of them. But I say seriously that very very serious matters are addressed in this bill. The bill is quite fundamental and there is a lot of strength in it which I think we will see in its passage through the Committee stage. I think the bill has six or seven parts and as I noted before the bill was introduced in the last Parliament under the previous Government. Like quite a few bills that we have picked up it has been added to and improved on and perhaps had some value added but it has had input from all parties to get it to the point where we are now. 
I will talk to some of the specific clauses later in the Committee stage. In this tome of a bill there are 668 pages before we get to Part 2. There are many quite fundamental changes just in Part 1 including the underlined changes to the Income Tax Act and to the Climate Change Response Act in changes to the GST treatment of emissions trading units or alternative units. There are Government funding changes to film and television to research and development to portfolio investment entity rules and to International Financial Reporting Standards rules. There are interpretations remedial changes and some fundamental changes to the way in which life insurance is taxed and perhaps more of a modernisation of that matter. I think that members might spend a bit of time on that particular issue; it occupied our committee for quite some time and some of the explanations and diagrams we got from officials on the way through were very beneficial. 
Part 1 also deals with payroll donation changes. That issue was one that occupied quite a bit of the select committee’s time and members will note that in the commentary the committee talks about some of the process we went through to get buy-in and acceptance of the changes and amendments brought in at that stage to enhance the intent under the trust side of payroll provisions and to deal with the obligations and commitments that Inland Revenue Department officials gave to us as we agreed that this part would be rolled out. There was some give and take on that matter and some assurances around the department’s systems and its education for the public given our knowledge of the systems and availability of various avenues for information. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is a delight to take a call in the Committee stage of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. I have probably taken up half of my speaking time just going through the title. As the previous speaker Craig Foss mentioned the bill before us is broken into six parts but interestingly enough the breakdown is grouped by amendments to the various Acts rather than by subject areas. Part 1 contains the bulk of the detail of the bill. Many of the substantial amendments are in this part. 
Mr Foss the chairman of the all-powerful Finance and Expenditure Committee has already alluded to the committee spending a considerable number of hours working its way through the bill trying to make what was already comprehensive legislation as good and as comprehensive as we possibly could. I think the changes the committee has made to this part are worthwhile. We can be very proud of the work we have done. 
I want to take a moment to talk about the international tax rules component of the bill because they are the centrepiece of it. I want to reflect on the need for reform in this area. Until now New Zealand operated under a “grey list” system whereby we identified countries whose tax system we felt was relatively comparable to ours. It effectively allowed controlled foreign companies operating in those jurisdictions to be treated as tax-neutral. 
However there were three problems with that system. New Zealand was one of the few countries that worked in that way. Most countries operated a system akin to the one we are now moving to whereby instead of having a “grey list” of approved countries and everything else they looked at the type of income that the controlled foreign company was earning. If the controlled foreign company was earning active income in overseas jurisdictions then that income was exempt but passive income—the likes of royalties rents dividends interest and so forth—was taxed in the parent jurisdiction. So straight away New Zealand was at odds with many of our major trading partners. The problem with that was that it created an incentive for New Zealand businesses with offshore operations to move their headquarters to countries with more favourable tax rules. It is not an objective of our tax system to drive our parent companies offshore. If that is the effect then it is something we need to address. This bill starts to do that. 
Another issue we had with retaining that “grey list” structure was that increasingly we were finding that our trading companies and our growth companies were not looking as much to our traditional trading parties: the motherland the States Australia and the like. The growth opportunities were more and more in the non - “grey list” countries. New Zealand businesses that expanded into areas like China South America and the Middle East found that their compliance costs and their tax costs were substantially higher than their competitors’. That put New Zealand businesses on an un-level playing field. We are not seeking through our tax system to put New Zealand businesses into the international market place with one hand effectively tied behind the back. So that was one of the things that we wanted to address. 
The other issue—in order to complete my list of the three issues we had with retaining the “grey list” structure—was that the “grey list” exemptions were effectively allowing businesses to build structures that could save them domestic tax. That is not the purpose of these sorts of rules. 
So we can see very clearly why the policy driver was to move away from the “grey list” structure that we had and move to what we will now have through this “light” bill which is as I said a system where income is regarded as active or passive and is classed accordingly. I think it is worth mentioning that within that system we will still have an exemption for up to 5 percent of passive income. We will not require companies to overly complicate their accounting and return processes for what is effectively a de minimis proportion of their income if it is passive income. So if 95 percent of their income is active all the income can be taxed in the jurisdiction where it was earned. If more than 5 percent of a controlled foreign company’s income is passive it will have to be taxed in New Zealand. By doing this we are looking at reducing the tax barriers to businesses that want to expand offshore while minimising their compliance costs. At the same time we are ensuring we maintain a level of protection for our domestic tax base. 
I think most people would concur that those are sensible policy foundations for these changes. They certainly were not easy to make and the Finance and Expenditure Committee had a number of concerns when we worked through them one of which related to ease and accountability. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call at this point to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in particular in dealing with what I think is the second-largest tax bill to come to this Parliament the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. This is an 842-page job. It does not beat my previous effort of 3500 pages with the rewrite of the Income Tax Act— 
Hon Members 
: Don’t try it! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —but I am not attempting to do so. I acknowledge the fact that the select committee had a monstrous job in working through some very important complex legislation in order to get it to this stage. I note that Supplementary Order Paper 34 which I have tabled is 50-odd pages so it is nearly a bill in itself. All those things really go to point out how complicated our tax law is even when we seek to simplify it. 
I will pick up on the comments of the member who has just resumed her seat Amy Adams when she spoke about the international tax changes. The genesis of this legislation goes back some time. We began during the life of the previous Parliament with the release of the  
Business Tax Review 
 which initially recommended changes to the corporate tax rate but which then initiated the wider review of our international tax regime. I am sure members will forgive me a moment of levity if I quote what the previous Minister of Finance used to say to describe our international tax regime. He said New Zealand went where no one dared to follow. I think that that is a very accurate description. We made changes in the 1980s to move to the “grey list” as the member made reference to but in fact we were out of step with most of our trading partners. 
We have been running a very unitary system for a long period of time and the changes that see their completion if you like in terms of stage 1 in this bill arise from the fact that we needed to recognise that active/passive exemption. We needed to create the opportunity for a number of New Zealand - based businesses to try to stay located in this country even if their manufacturing was going to take place offshore; and we needed as part of introducing a competitive international tax regime to streamline our processes and bring them into line with international practice. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.