Volume 645 Week 68 - Thursday 6 March 2008 
Volume 645 Week 68 - Thursday 6 March 2008 
[Volume:645;Page:14683] 
Thursday 6 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Limited Partnerships Bill the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Building Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. The debate on the Budget Policy Statement will be held on Wednesday in place of the usual general debate. That debate is a 2-hour debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. Can he tell us what the intentions of the Government are with regard to items Nos 18 20 and 21 on the Order Paper those being the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Item No. 21 will remain on the Order Paper giving trout a feeling of great protection despite the bill’s lack of passage. As I am sure the member is aware the numbers are not in the House for the passage of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. As for the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill time will tell. 
Motions 
Columbia Revolutionary Armed Forces—Hostages 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note with great concern that Ingrid Betancourt former Green Presidential candidate has now been held for over six years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) since her abduction on 23 February 2002 and that her health is now reported to be in a critical state and call on FARC to show compassion and immediately release Ingrid Betancourt and declare our solidarity with the other hostages detained in Colombia and support for a humanitarian solution that will allow them to be released as soon as possible. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Statements Crown—Main Features 
1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the main features of the Crown Financial Statements to the end of January 2008 released today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today’s Crown accounts for the first 7 months of the financial year show the operating balance in deficit by $394 million which is some $4.2 billion below forecast. This primarily reflects the lowering of forecast returns for the Crown financial institutions as a result of the equities market disturbances in January and a substantial revaluation of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s claims liability a largely technical adjustment. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What will be the impact of the headline operating deficit on the Government’s ability to meet its obligations to New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the Government has resisted calls as recently as yesterday to squander the so-called surplus we will be able to meet our obligations to New Zealanders. When times are hard we will not have to cut superannuation as Bill English did on 1 April 1999. Every day in Government is about making choices and we have made choices for the future and kept our eye on the long term. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the Minister’s response to the statement in the Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank that any tax cuts over and above the $1.5 billion he mentioned just a couple of months ago would have an inflationary effect; and does he intend to back down on his promise made just a couple of months ago that there would be tax cuts in excess of $1.5 billion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will be considering carefully what the Reserve Bank says and will continue to take into account its views. Of course it is making certain assumptions about a certain date and a specific fiscal year. But I do note of course that $11.5 billion in tax cuts was promised as recently as 16 months ago by Mr Key. But perhaps clarification will be issued and an apology to the APN chief executive. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister’s answer to the previous question and his comments about Governments meeting their ongoing obligations mean that the tax cut programme that he foreshadowed as being announced in this year’s Budget will continue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes there will be a programme. The exact nature of the works to be performed and the length of the programme are yet to be decided. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the Minister still believes then that tax cuts are affordable despite the provision made for them being less than the deficit we have just heard of will he be funding them by borrowing by cutting services or instead by taxing pollution and waste as the Greens advocate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is important to note that although the operating surplus is actually in deficit for the first time for 15 years the operating balance exclusive of gains and losses is still in very substantial surplus. As I have explained for some years it is those measures that are more important. Operating surpluses reflect the movement in revaluations and the movement in gains and losses on Crown financial institutions. As the Superannuation Fund becomes larger the volatility of the operating surplus will grow as those unrealised gains and losses tend to become larger because of market fluctuations. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the link between the operating surplus and tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received many. When the operating balance hit $11.5 billion just 16 months ago Mr Key told New Zealanders that they were being overtaxed by $2875 per year and that all of the operating surplus could be delivered back to them in tax cuts without cutting Government spending. I am awaiting Mr Key’s press statement announcing that the National Party policy is now one of tax increases. Given the events of this week that is quite possible. 
District Health Boards—Tendering Processes 
2.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Would it be appropriate for a district health board chief executive to send a copy of draft tender documents to one potential bidder for comment and amendment without treating other potential bidders in the same way; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 That would depend entirely upon the circumstances and the nature of the documents under discussion. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that as a result of winning the community services contract in Hawke’s Bay by breaching Audit Office guidelines Mr Hausmann and district health board chief executive Mr Clarke began negotiating a junket around the world together called a study tour; and is that OK by this Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have no knowledge of the “facts” to which the member refers but I would be happy to reflect upon them. 
Lesley Soper 
: Would it be appropriate for a Crown entity to consult with private parties at an early stage of development of a potential public-private partnership concept? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In theory quite possibly yes. That would depend upon the probity and governance processes in place around any such consultation. It is frequently the case that in the early stages of designing projects consultation is carried out with different parties to ensure the feasibility and quality of any future tender process. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Did the Minister authorise the release of confidential emails one of which was tabled yesterday; if so why have they not been made available to all parties? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. The emails were not mine to authorise nor was I aware of their source or in fact of whether they had been obtained in breach of any confidentiality obligations or non-disclosure agreements. But if the member does find out how Mr Ryall obtained supposedly secret emails perhaps she could let Dr Brash know. 
Lesley Soper 
: What was the actual situation in relation to early contact between Mr Atkinson and Mr Hausmann? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We simply do not know the answer to that and we await the findings of the independent—[ 
Interruption 
] But wait there is more. There is a lot more; there is a lot lot more—patience patience. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Not only can we not hear what is going on at this end of the House but behind me on my right it looks like a Hitler Youth meeting with people waving their hands as though in salute to some former leader. Frankly that behaviour ill-behoves parliamentarians and I would ask you to make them stop it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. If that behaviour starts again with the loud barracking that is going on members will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It may for example ultimately prove to be the case that Mr Atkinson was himself involved in the request for proposal process with Mr Hausmann at a very early stage. I repeat to the House that I have not seen any drafts of this report nor have I been briefed on its contents but any speculation by members opposite in advance of the release of the report in my view would be uninformed unwise and unfair. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Has the Minister seen or heard of any reports from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board that the Opposition MPs are claiming that Deborah Houston was dismissed for being a whistleblower? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I have seen a copy of the settlement document negotiated between the chief executive and Ms Houston which says inter alia: “The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board confirms and Ms Houston accepts that the restructuring that led to Ms Houston’s position being disestablished was genuine and was unrelated to the protected disclosure.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister regard it as ethical that the chief executive was negotiating a contract that included the benefit of a trip around the world for himself? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I cannot form a view on the ethics of a particular matter when the contents of such a matter are not in my possession. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the chief executive officers of at least two other district health boards were intended to go on the same junket and will he investigate what offers were made? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is my proposed course of action in the first instance to receive the director-general’s independent governance review report. If there are matters that either I or the Auditor-General need to follow up pursuant to that I shall be happy to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that this information came to light only because of the whistleblower who lost her job because of her integrity? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I am advised some 50 jobs were lost in the restructuring at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and as Ms Houston has herself signed this settlement document which states that she was not restructured because of the protected disclosure it would appear that the member opposite is calling into question Ms Houston’s integrity. 
Heather Roy 
: How many times did the Minister go to Hawke’s Bay and meet with the board to see for himself how dire the situation was or call the chair to Wellington for discussions; if the answer is none is that because he is taking all his information from his cronies and it is much easier to persecute the sacked board from afar rather than to go to Hawke’s Bay look the board members in the eye and hear the truth? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first instance I took careful advice as to how I should properly handle a conflict situation in a district health board and I followed that advice. In the second place if the member wishes to discuss cronyism then she may wish to raise it with Mr Tremain and Mr Foss who met regularly with Mr Atkinson. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask for your advice. I fail to see how the Minister addressed in any shape or form my question about how many times he met with the board or called the chair to Wellington over this situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought that he did actually address the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister inquire as to when the study tour was first discussed; was it before or after tender documents were offered to Annette King’s appointee Mr Hausmann? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: My answer to the member’s previous question stands. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the Minister please clarify his answer. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That answer was that I shall await the report of the director-general’s independent governance review panel and both I and the Auditor-General will then consider what further action is appropriate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that Ms Houston’s settlement could be set aside if she was improperly coerced into signing it and has she brought such an action; if not what does he make of her failure to do that in the light of the claims made by Mr Ryall? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I thank the member for his question. I am aware of no attempt by Ms Houston to seek any form of redress in respect of that settlement and I can only conclude that Mr Ryall is either misrepresenting or calling into question the integrity of Ms Houston. 
Overseas Investment—New Zealand Dairies Ltd 
3.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is the Government considering an application by Nutritek Overseas PTE Ltd for consent to acquire shares and the effective ownership and control of New Zealand Dairies Ltd? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister approved the application by Nutritek Overseas PTE Ltd to acquire shares and the effective majority ownership and control of New Zealand Dairies Ltd? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Two Ministers make that decision: me and Mr Parker. I am not aware yet whether Mr Parker has considered the papers. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why is the Government favourably considering an application that gives a grouping of Russian businessmen who are probably ex-KGB operatives a share of New Zealand’s critical dairy industry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand Dairies is a relatively small player. It is also one that has been in significant financial trouble in recent times and the consideration of the approval will be given in part against that kind of background. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Government favour Russian businessmen over our hard-working farmers who are having this asset virtually stripped from them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From the farmers’ perspective—although I know there are concerns from farmers—the key issue is what price they get for the milk. There is a very real possibility that they will get a higher price for the milk in terms of a change in ownership than they would otherwise get. 
Electoral Finance Act—Election Advertising 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that the electoral law should allow public money from Vote Parliamentary Service to be used to produce and publish election advertisements; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The expenditure of public money from Vote Parliamentary Service is the responsibility of the Minister in charge of that vote. The Electoral Finance Act sets out the rules relating to election advertising. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a widely distributed email from the general manager of the Parliamentary Service which says that under the Electoral Finance Act passed by the Government parties can legitimately use money from Vote Parliamentary Service to pay for election advertisements in an election year; and why did Labour change the law to allow this to happen? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen the email from Geoff Thorn and I have also spoken to him about his email. It is a very sensible email to all members giving advice of the overlap between publicity and election advertising. He informs me he has no examples to give me of how this would work but he is trying to warn people to be very careful when they are using parliamentary funding to make sure that they do not run up against the Electoral Finance Act. He goes on to tell members where they can get advice from. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was the intention of changing the law so that Labour could put out a publication like this glossy booklet in my hand—fully paid for by the taxpayer with the parliamentary crest on it—which is undoubtedly an election advertisement because under section 5 of the Electoral Finance Act it can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for Labour and which is paid for by Parliamentary Service? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest to the member that the Electoral Commission will make that decision. But I can also say to the member that this booklet was put out in 2007 before the Electoral Finance Act was passed just as this pamphlet in my hand from Nick Smith which could be said to be electioneering was put out before the Electoral Finance Act was passed. I suggest to the National Party and the Labour Party that they get advice from the Electoral Commission. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that this booklet actually—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure that the odd interjection during a question is acceptable to the House but continuous barracking does make it difficult to be heard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I had already dealt with it Mr English but it was not continuous barracking. It was a sole intervention and it will not be heard again while you are asking your question. 
Hon Bill English 
: During the previous question there were half a dozen interventions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact members want no interventions during questions or answers I would be delighted. Otherwise I will manage that process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that this booklet distributed this year even if it was produced last year and therefore is covered by the law is just like Labour’s pledge card that was put out before the 2005 election—it is an election advertisement produced during an election period and paid for out of taxpayer funding—and the only difference is that this is now legal because Labour passed the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This booklet put out by Labour was distributed last year. It was approved in October last year paid for in November last year and distributed last year just as this pamphlet by Nick Smith was put out last year and has a date of 1 December last year on it. I say to the member that both distributors of these booklets should perhaps get advice as to whether this year they would contravene the Electoral Finance Act and that is in the hands of the Electoral Commissioner. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that because this booklet was distributed this year and is probably an election advertisement it therefore requires the authorisation of Mike Smith the general secretary of and financial agent for the Labour Party; and will she ensure that her own party follows the authorisation rules the way it expects everyone else in the country to? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I assure the member that I expect the Labour Party the National Party and any other party to follow the law of this country. This would also have to have an authorisation on it if it was to follow the law. What we get from National Party members are double standards. They bring one booklet into the House that was released last year and raise it; they do not bring in another booklet that was released last year and highlight that. My advice is that they go to the Electoral Commission to get advice on whether those publications are counted because everyone ought to be very very careful. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s enthusiasm that everyone should keep the law can she explain why under the Electoral Finance Act the financial agent of a candidate or a party must include his or her full home address on any authorisation and does she agree with Labour Party president Mike Williams who said a few weeks ago that people expressing concerns about this provision of the law were “a bit paranoid”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the issue of putting proper addresses on authorisation came out of the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets where addresses at which no one lived were put on. Fake addresses were put on and the National Party supported that. The Exclusive Brethren were the National Party’s mates it was their money supporting the National Party and the National Party thinks there is something wrong with being upfront and honest about saying who a person is and where he or she lives. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it that the Minister has confirmed that the law passed by her requires that any authorisation must include the residential address of the financial agent; and has she seen this CD of Labour’s campaign song distributed last night and authorised by Mike Smith general secretary of the Labour Party which does not state his home address but the Labour Party headquarters’ address? 
Hon Member 
: Is that where he lives? 
Hon Bill English 
: Is that where he lives and why should that party not comply with the Draconian law it expects everyone else to comply with? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen that. I ask the member whether the DVD that John Key put out which is still in circulation has a name on it. Does it have an address on it? It could certainly count against the Electoral Finance Act. I want to know what is written on it. I ask the member to produce one in this House so we can see it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Seeing as the Minister is clearly dealing with historic costs could she tell us in respect of the foreshore and seabed issue who paid for the numerous hoardings outlining that it would be “Kiwi not Iwi”—but apparently in 2008 it is anybody anywhere any time—and could she also confirm that the National Party’s recent update of its current song is an old replay of Dean Martin’s “Born to Lose”? Who is paying for that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister must answer the question where ministerial responsibility lies. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am searching for that. I have to say it was an excellent question and we all know that the Parliamentary Service paid for those billboards. National Party members used taxpayers’ money then as we know mounted a campaign against other parties last year and the year before trying to pretend that their hands were clean. They never were. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Labour Party start to take responsibility for its own compliance with its own law and take this document which was distributed last week at the Waikato University open day and is almost certainly an election advertisement and also this CD which clearly does not comply with the law that the Government passed to the commission; when will Labour take responsibility recall these materials and get a legal opinion on whether it can keep distributing them? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no doubt that the Labour Party will be taking its responsibilities very seriously. But what we have not heard—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: David Bennett will leave the Chamber as will Chris Auchinvole. I am tired of the constant barracking. I saw and heard you two at this time. Members simply must keep it down. 
David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber. 
Chris Auchinvole withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am sure the Labour Party will take its responsibilities very seriously. But I have to question whether the person asking the question today also takes the National Party’s responsibilities seriously. If he does he will send this booklet to the Electoral Commission and get a ruling on it. The member said it was distributed last year but it is still available today. I want to know whether the National Party will also send the DVD from John Key to the Electoral Commission. It came out last year some people still have it and it can still be played this year. It was given out—and listen to this—in central Auckland in January. Will the National Party send that DVD to the Electoral Commission? Then maybe we will take these questions a bit more seriously. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When you said that I could ask my question Mr English interjected four more times with no regard for anybody else. He has not been here very long and has not performed in the time he has been here but I think he should actually have some respect for other political parties and give them the right to ask questions in the same way as he was demanding that right just a few minutes ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. All members including those on the front bench should please get themselves under control and give respect to others so they can be heard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice has three times accused me of breaking the law. I give this House an absolute assurance that the entire distribution of that newsletter as I have done every year I have been a member of Parliament was to every household in Nelson last November and not one has been distributed elsewhere. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is not a point of order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is not a point of order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I said that I did not accuse— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated or the Minister will be leaving this Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister advise the House as to whether she has received any reports on the requirement for a street address for those people who are authorising advertisements and how it will affect for example the Exclusive Brethren Church which takes its directions directly from the United States and does not have a domicile in New Zealand which I understand would comply with the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not received any advice on that but it is a very interesting idea and obviously I think the Exclusive Brethren— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Just make the Labour Party comply; that would be a good effort and good leadership from the Minister. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well done I say to Gerry. That is the best speech he has made all week and he did not even have to leave the safety of his seat to do it. In response to the question I say that no I have not received any advice on that but I would say to the Exclusive Brethren that if they are planning the sort of campaign they had last year they too ought to get advice from the Electoral Commission. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister assure the House that it will not be considered an election advertisement for a newspaper to carry a story that purports to be a clarification that was not given with the consent or indeed I believe the knowledge of the journalist who ran the original story the editor at the time or the local management of that newspaper but was at the behest of the chief executive of the organisation on demand for the National Party; and can she further clarify that the organisation that owned the newspaper APN will not be required to register as a third party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is hard to see where the ministerial responsibility lies for that. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry. Can we move on now— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to argue with you but this is a very important point. The Minister has been repeatedly asked for her interpretation of the Act by the National Party. You have allowed all of those questions. Dr Cullen has again asked for her interpretation of the Act as to whether something is in or out. He has asked for an assurance in that area and it is my view that that question is within the rules just as all the others that you have allowed have been. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think you have ruled appropriately because quite obviously Dr Cullen and others would know that the Minister’s answer is simply to go and ask the Electoral Commission or go to the courts because she has given the House absolutely no elucidation as to her own views on these matters at all. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would be grateful for your ruling in this respect because in these questions when I am asked for my personal opinion it does not count when it comes to election advertising. It is the Electoral Commissioners’ view that counts so I suggest that maybe you might like to rule out all questions asking for my opinion about what is in and what is out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand. [ 
Interruption 
] No this is a good point of order and it does raise the issue of when opinions are sought that in effect are asking for a legal interpretation. Now all members know that is not permitted under our Standing Orders. I give notice therefore that I suggest you think carefully about the way in which questions are phrased because the matter has been raised. If legal opinions are called for they will not be permitted. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you are going to say that members cannot ask questions that may require a legal opinion how do we then question the intention of a Minister who brings a bill to the House that subsequently seems to be quite troublesome when we are told frequently by the Clerk’s Office that the commentary on a bill is the place where courts may go to find out the very intention of Parliament? Surely the intention and understanding of the Minister would be also of relevance to the courts in interpreting this stuff. Are you saying that rather than saying we want the Minister to interpret we should simply ask what the intention was? It seems to us that it was pretty clear that the intention was in the case Mr English raised for someone to put a residential address on a piece of election collateral and that the Labour Party has now said that person does not have to effectively—and we can only assume that this is what the Minister meant when she said that common sense would prevail throughout this. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Standing Orders are actually quite clear. Standing Order 371(2) states: “Questions must not seek a legal opinion.” That does not mean to say that people cannot ask Ministers what the intent of legislation was. But actually to ask as I indeed asked Mr English on a number of occasions is a particular thing and illegal. That of course is improper and you quite rightly ruled out my question but I am still grateful to get it in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought you might be. It is not the point however and members ask out-of-order questions on all sides of the House slightly too often. May I refer members for those who are interested to Standing Order 371(2) which makes it quite clear. As I also made clear in my ruling it may not be beyond the wit of some of you to be able to frame your questions and give your answers in terms of the Standing Orders. It is not for the Speaker to advise you on how to do either however much she would like to on occasions. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is just one other matter we should clarify. You said in your original statement that asking an opinion of the Electoral Commission may affect your ruling. I think it is important for the whole House to understand that the Electoral Commission can only give an opinion; it cannot give a ruling and in fact if the law says people have to have a residential address even if the Electoral Commission says that is not right the courts are the final arbiters of this law and no one is protected by an Electoral Commission opinion any more than he or she is protected by the Minister’s opinion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It might be helpful in this particular area to let the House know that I have been advised that section 4(1)(b) of the Act indicates that a body corporate address can be appropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not exactly relevant to the point of order but I thank the member for his information. Certainly it is legal opinions that the Standing Orders say cannot in fact be given by members. What the law may well say and who should interpret it is a matter for the law and as has been pointed out by Mr Brownlee I presume reference to the commentary is what in fact could be given in those instances. But it is not according to our Standing Orders for people to give legal opinions in this House. That is a role for the courts. 
Youth—Reoffending 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What action if any is the Government taking to reduce reoffending of young people dealt with by the Youth Court? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This week I introduced the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6). The improvements in this bill will ensure that we have the most up-to-date and effective legal framework for responding to offending by children and young people. This includes introducing two new longer sentence options for the Youth Court which will ensure that young people can get enough support and treatment to make long-term change. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has she seen regarding support for the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6)? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In January I heard John Key announce with great fanfare that he was committed to these changes. He called the bill “long-overdue legislation”. He said that National considered it “a matter of priority to pass it”. I think the New Zealand public would be very surprised to hear about what has been subsequently described as a “freakish about-face” by Mr Key. When the bill was before Parliament yesterday what did he and National do? They voted against the legislation. It is yet another case of the leader of the National Party telling the public what he thinks they want to hear and doing exactly the opposite when he thinks no one is paying attention. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the Standing Orders state that Ministers’ replies are meant to be concise and to the point. We have been subjected to a number of speeches this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I ask members to take note of that very legitimate intervention. Has the Minister finished her answer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. 
Simon Power 
: How does the Minister reconcile Labour’s 2002 pledge card promise to provide “More support for proven programmes to cut youth offending.” with the fact that of the 1550 health and education assessments funded for first-time youth offenders in the year 2006-07 only 41 percent were actually completed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I absolutely agree with the member that that needs to continue to be a priority and I expect him within his own caucus to promote support for alternatives that improve our youth justice sentencing. I am sorry that he got rolled on this issue. 
Ron Mark 
: What is the Minister’s solution to the case of the 15-year-old who in November 2006 kicked and stomped a man almost to the point of death who the judge could have referred to the District Court for sentencing but did not because it in his words had been the offender’s 15th birthday on the day he had carried out this vicious assault and who consequently received from that Youth Court judge a sentence of only 6 months supervision? Does she not accept that one of the reasons that young people who are dealt with by the Youth Court are reoffending is the Youth Court’s continued failure to send serious repeat young offenders to the District Court where they can be more appropriately dealt with? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The age at which a person should be referred to the adult justice system is an area of disagreement between the member who has asked the question and myself. I look forward to his continued principled contribution through the select committee process. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Did the chief executive of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board comply with both the district health board’s procurement policies and public sector good practice when he awarded a $1.1 million contract to a subsidiary of Peter Hausmann’s Healthcare New Zealand without an open tender; if not does he agree with Audit New Zealand’s conclusions about this arrangement? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the Wellcare contract in question was a joint contract between the Ministry of Social Development Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and Wellcare and that no district health board employee was known to be involved in the selection of Wellcare as the service provider. However I have no reason to doubt the Auditor-General’s conclusion that procurement policies at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board did not comply with good public sector practice. I also note that the Auditor-General will consider the results of the director-general’s review and any further work being carried out on the Auditor-General’s behalf before deciding whether further inquiry is warranted—an approach I commend to Mr Ryall. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that Audit New Zealand’s opinion is highly critical of the way that the chief executive handled this latest contract with Annette King’s appointee Mr Hausmann and that there was no evidence of formal conflict of interest procedures having been undertaken the district health board’s procurement policies were not followed and there was no documented explanation of why there was no open tendering process? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that the Auditor-General’s report is highly critical of a wide range of governance processes around the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board a matter which in the end the Minister has to hold the board accountable for. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board prudently managed its resources and is the district health board adequately funded? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board funding has increased by over 100 percent since this Government came into office from $180 million to over $380 million. However despite this increase the board was still unable to reach a break-even position and its deficit has recently seriously deteriorated. In this regard I note that the board was recently able to spend some $342000 on legal expenses—a figure I am assured that would have bought for the people of Hawke’s Bay some 21 hip replacements or 45 angioplasties. 
Chris Tremain 
: Can the Minister explain why Minister King’s appointee Mr Hausmann told the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in April 2006 that this $1.1 million contract had been implemented through a tender process that had been notified in the local press when this was clearly not the case? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Without going back to the documents I can no more explain that than I can explain why certain board members omitted to disclose on the board’s register of pecuniary interests why they had shares in Royston Hospital or its parent. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister explain why Mr Hausmann started communicating with Hawke’s Bay District Health Board staff on behalf of his company Wellcare in early August 2005 but only declared his interest in this company to the district health board in late February 2006—7 months after his first dealings with staff? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not prepared to look through the director-general’s governance review process. I imagine that that along with a wide range of other evidence is the subject of that review. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it acceptable for a district health board’s chief executive officer to approve a $1.1 million contract with a board member’s company without an open process and without reference to his board as reported by Audit New Zealand and the Auditor-General; and is the Minister confident that this is not another case of something rotten with Labour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place it has nothing to do with Labour and in the second place it would appear to be no more serious than the chairman of a district health board being involved in letting a contract to personal contacts and having that overruled by the Commerce Commission or overwriting the minutes of an audit committee meeting after failing to tender a contract to Royston Hospital. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table the district health board’s minutes where the chief executive officer said that the Wellcare contract was put out to tender. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a settlement document from Deborah Houston confirming that she was not disestablished for any reason around the— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Free-trade Agreement—New Zealand - China 
7.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Will an outline of the proposed free-trade agreement between New Zealand and China be made public before the signing ceremony takes place in Beijing in early April; if so when will that outline be made available? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Details of the agreement will be made publicly available at the time of signature. The text of the agreement and the accompanying national interest analysis will be tabled in the House following signature and will be available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. It would not be appropriate to make any substantive detail of the free-trade agreement publicly available until the approval process in both countries is completed and until then the agreement cannot be considered final. 
Keith Locke 
: I wish the Minister would forget about the free-trade agreement altogether; however is the Minister telling the House that the New Zealand public will have virtually no idea what is in this agreement until it is signed even though we will be giving preferential treatment to a country that has a most oppressive Government has virtually no labour law and has a very low-wage economy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all the negotiations for this agreement have been taking place over 3 years. Stakeholders in terms of this agreement have had consultation all along the way. The public of New Zealand will see what is in this agreement because it requires the approval of this Parliament before it becomes final. So the ability for the public to see what has been negotiated will be very obvious indeed. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Would this be the normal process for such international treaties? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. This is the normal process for treaties that this country signs. They come before this Parliament for its final agreement on them. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister not admit that she is actually wrong in that the House will not be approving this treaty because treaties are approved by Governments according to our system and in that although there will be some implementing legislation we will see as was the case with past free-trade agreements like the Thailand - New Zealand free-trade agreement for example—where the legislation was minimal and it just stated there would be a preferential tariff and the details would be worked out by Cabinet later—that any select committee involvement is purely advisory? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree with the member. This House will decide on whether there is a free-trade agreement with China at the end of the day. I believe that most members in this House will vote for it. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister regard China as a low-wage economy and as having major human rights problems? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: China is a country that has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. There have been huge increases in standards of living in that country over the years. It does have problems with human rights but those are issues that we raise with the Chinese whether or not we have a free-trade agreement. This Government and the parties in this Government over many years have been free and frank about our views on human rights. That will not stop whether or not we have a free-trade agreement. 
Keith Locke 
: Following on from that will there actually be any clauses on labour and environmental standards in China associated with the planned free-trade agreement as there were in the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement—although China might not be as keen as Thailand was on that—if so will there be any legislative implementation of those labour and environmental standards because there was not in the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said in an earlier answer I will not go into details at this stage because we are still negotiating with China. But let me assure the member that the New Zealand Government would not contemplate any agreement that would provide a threat to the wages and conditions of New Zealand workers. Our minimum labour health and safety laws are not for negotiation. 
Hospitals—Confidence 
8.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why would the public have any confidence that hospitals in the Auckland region will cope with demand for services this winter considering they are currently running at capacity? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 They can have confidence because capacity is increasing. This includes an additional 68 new beds opening between North Shore Hospital and Waitakere Hospital and the Auckland District Health Board has also recently opened 69 new beds. In the last quarter the three Auckland district health boards saw 100 percent of triage 1 patients—that is the most serious cases—immediately. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why then would anyone believe that the situation in greater Auckland emergency departments will be anything other than a meltdown this winter when we are not even out of summer and already according to today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 there are patients lying in the corridors of emergency departments across the city; and does the Minister realise that Waikato Hospital is now full to bursting as well? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member I recall was a medical professional himself. He should not— 
Hon Member 
: Not for long really. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —not for long really—run down the efforts of clinicians. I am advised that January and February were record attendance months for some years for the Auckland District Health Board and that quite often there is variation in the inflows to such hospitals. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any plans that would send patients in their droves through the doors of emergency departments? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am aware that should the National Party ever become Government it would allow general practitioner fees to skyrocket thereby sending primary medical care out of the reach of many New Zealanders— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Much as most people would understand that in these straitened times that Labour Minister may wish he were in the National Party Mr Cunliffe is not and never likely to be. So for him to stand up and purport to be reading National Party policy when in fact what he is reading is a gross misinterpretation of that policy is plainly wrong and well outside the responsibilities he has as a Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister just confine his answer to his ministerial responsibility—or maybe he has finished his answer? Thank you. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister agree with Helen Clark’s quote from 1996 that “our hospitals must be ready to cope with the problems. It just isn’t good enough to have basic services break down …”; if so rather than just patronise the House can he explain why after $5 billion of extra spending we still have the same old issues of failing emergency departments bed shortages staff shortages and compromised patient safety—is it not time he admitted that after 9 years of Labour it has no hope of fixing this problem? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that the answer to the service delivery challenge is unlikely to be found in the following quote: “You are not subsidised to go to your accountant or your mechanic— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Members know that when another member rises on a point of order they are seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You asked the Minister to constrain himself to the areas for which he is responsible. For him to stand up and start an answer by saying that “he considers” and then to start reading from a document that is a report of someone else’s policy or is purported to be is not within his responsibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but the Standing Orders require that Ministers respond to areas within their ministerial responsibilities. If the member has received reports that come within his or her ministerial responsibility the Minister is entitled to comment. However what Ministers are not responsible for and are not permitted to comment on is direct activities inside another political party. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It may be helpful if I rephrase. In addressing the member’s question I say that I have seen a report as to the reasoning behind a likely further pressure on the influx of primary care patients to emergency departments. The report states: “You are not subsidised to go to your accountant or your mechanic.” That quote was from John Key explaining why he wants to raise general practitioner fees. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The questions that have been posed to the Minister relate to serious overcrowding in at least three hospitals in the northern part of the country—very serious overcrowding. There are people in corridors and even a report that they may have to start leaving people in ambulances for treatment because there are no hospital beds for them and he wants to quote some little thing that has come out of the Labour research unit relating to general practitioners. Why cannot he answer the questions for the area he is responsible for? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister was not quoting some little thing that came out of the Labour research unit; he was quoting a National Party policy release. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully and it certainly was within the context of the primary question relating to overcrowding and the circumstances that contribute to that. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou. What action will the Minister take with Auckland hospitals to address the suboptimal care identified by Auckland Professor Peter Davis to which Maori and Pasifika populations are being subjected? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm to the member that Maori and Pasifika health care is a priority for this Government and that we are working very hard through additional investment to turn around the disparities that grew shockingly through the 1990s that great progress has been made and that there is more work to be done. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister realise that rather than constantly dodging direct questions and failing to give direct answers he needs to focus on the fact that things have become so bad at North Shore Hospital’s emergency department that corridor spaces for trolleys—that is corridor spaces—are now being numbered like they would be in some sort of makeshift refugee camp— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened to that question for some time and nothing in it remotely resembles the proper way of asking a question in Parliament. The member should not be allowed to get away with it just because he is inexperienced and does not know what is going on around here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The problem with a lot of the questions particularly the supplementary questions is that they are statements. I am afraid that that is a problem with all parties not just one party in this House. Would the member please ask a succinct question that does relate to the primary question. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister realise that things have become so bad in the North Shore Hospital emergency department that corridor spaces for trolleys are now being numbered like they would be in some sort of makeshift refugee camp; and is this the first-class health system that Helen Clark promised New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What I can confirm to the member is that the request for additional beds in the Waitemata District Health Board area that was put forward by a number of doctors last week has already been more than exceeded. They asked for 62 beds and they are already getting an additional 68 beds this year. I say to Dr Coleman that I know that is right. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What would the Minister say to Carol Wilson the manager of the North Shore Hospital emergency department who says she is very concerned about the way hospitals will manage in winter and who asks today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “My God what’s winter going to be like?”; and when will the Minister hold your appointee Kay McKelvie the chair of the Waitemata District Health Board to her promises to solve the crisis in the hospital? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Have you made a recent appointment to the New Zealand public health system? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member should have known better. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That member is an experienced member and he is asking questions improperly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. Members who have been here for some time should know that they do not drag the Chair into the debate in either questions or answers. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I hold all boards and chairs to account for the integrity of service delivery. In the case of Waitemata District Health Board I notice that it has balanced its budget usually met its elective output targets and is building 68 new beds before this winter. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why does the Minister continue to mislead the House by saying that there will be 78 new beds at the Waitemata District Health Board by the end of August when he knows full well that the funding application for this new Lakeview ward is not being submitted until August and the ward will not be built for 2 years at the earliest; and is he really telling us that under Labour a numbered place on a trolley in a corridor or a stretcher in the back of an ambulance actually counts as a bed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member should try grommets. I said 68 beds not 78. 
High Court—Digital Recording and Transcription 
9.  
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What are the benefits of installing digital recording and transcription in High Court courtrooms? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The key benefits of this technology are that participants can speak at a normal speed meaning that trials can be heard more quickly. This technology is estimated to reduce court hearing times by between 20 and 30 percent. The new system was used in a recent murder trial in Wellington where it was a key contributing factor in reducing the trial time from an expected 8 weeks to 4 weeks. The trial time was cut in half. This technology has enormous potential benefits in reducing court waiting times. Another benefit will be the ability to transfer the transcription of a local trial to another part of New Zealand if local transcription staff are unavailable. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora. In addition to this technology what other initiatives are being undertaken in the High Court to assist case throughput? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Our range of initiatives includes new pre-trial processes whereby conferences are held 1 to 2 weeks before the trial date to ensure that everything is ready; regular review of pending cases in the District Court destined for the High Court to identify an early trial date rather than waiting until the case reaches the High Court; regularly held inter-agency meetings at a national level to resolve any issues holding up a trial—for example technical issues around methamphetamine science—implementation of a national roster; flexibility for judges in cases; and better use of settlement conferences and mediation in civil matters which results in more cases being settled without needing a full hearing. 
Schools—Children not Enrolled 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House that “One student not enrolled in school is one too many.”; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes; because I believe all young New Zealanders should be educated. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does a newsletter from NETServe the business contracted by the Minister of Education to trace the lost tribe of 6000 non-enrolled kids show that the Government has changed its policy and that the contractor paid to get students back in school will now not be targeting those aged 14 years and 9 months and over? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would be very happy to meet with the member later to go through the contract that NETServe has. We have been over this issue once in the House already. The object of NETServe’s contract is to locate missing students and that is what it is required to do. 
Sue Moroney 
: What specific measures is the Labour-led Government taking to re-engage truant children in education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Labour-led Government has been very active in addressing truancy issues. The measures taken have included a complete review of truancy services which led to enhanced funding; school-to-work programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships and there is much more to come with Schools Plus; the new $6.4 million ENROL system which will for the first time ever give us accurate and constantly updated enrolment information once all schools have been operating it for a year; and the school engagement initiative which is now in place in more than 90 schools nationwide. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why will the Minister not answer the question: why has the Government changed its policy so that the contractor paid to find students and get them back into school will now ignore cases where the students are aged 14 years and 9 months and over? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not aware of that detail of the contract. I would be happy to discuss it—[ 
Interruption 
] I would be very happy to discuss it with the member afterwards and I would welcome her giving me some information about it. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can this Government tell us that it will keep kids at school until they are 18 when at the same time it is changing its policy and signing contracts that will mean non-enrolled students aged 14 years and 9 months and over will be put into the too-hard basket and that the lost tribe of 6000 will only increase? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: About 3 weeks ago the member made allegations about the Non-enrolment Truancy Service that proved to be incorrect. I would welcome her giving me the information about that contract. I hope that she has her facts right this time. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister think that the public will agree with the writer of the newsletter who stated: “The change is something that some of you may find difficult.”; and is it not actually more difficult to believe this Government’s rhetoric about keeping students in school— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A question that begins “Does the Minister believe that the public will agree with the writer …” is just about lost right then and there on the basis of being inappropriate for this Parliament. It is purely an opinion and it is a secondary opinion about what the Minister thinks the public opinion is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member but the Standing Orders do allow opinions to be given. So if an opinion is sought an opinion undoubtedly will be given and the answer will be judged on the value of both opinions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hate to disagree with you but the member is asking the Minister whether he agrees with the public opinion. Which part of that is the Minister’s responsibility? The public opinion is no one’s responsibility in that context and that is the point I am making. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: One can ask for an opinion about anyone on anyone else’s opinion. I would value a little more specificity. I know that it might take some of the fun out of it for some members but opinions can be sought and will be given. If members could also please make their questions and answers succinct that would be of assistance to everyone. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister think that the public will agree with the writer of the NETServe newsletter who stated: “The change is something that some of you may find difficult.”; and is it not actually difficult to believe this Government’s rhetoric about keeping students in school until they are aged 18 when it is changing its policy to ignore those aged 14 years and 9 months and over those who are involved with Child Youth and Family those who are involved with the police and those who have been excluded from school? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would not agree with the writer if in fact the member is quoting the newsletter correctly. I would remind the House that the member misquoted the Non-enrolment Truancy Service last time she quoted it. She has just misquoted it again now when she said that we are not interested in children who are under the care of the police or Child Youth and Family. That is totally incorrect and it is the same false allegation as she made last time. If the member is correct—and that is a very big “if”—I assure her in the House that this Government is determined to see that every New Zealand child who should be in school is there. If the provision she refers to is written in the contract then it will be changed. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. What action will the Minister be taking to address the obvious disconnection and alienation that one in five students are experiencing at school—or does he believe the fault lies with New Zealand children and New Zealand families? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government is absolutely committed to seeing that every young New Zealander gets the chance to be educated to his or her full potential. That is why we have launched this year Schools Plus which is a programme about catching the very students that the member has described who are currently not succeeding in our system. By revolutionising secondary education we hope to lift the skills of all young New Zealanders so that they become an asset not just to our country but to themselves as well. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the actual situation after more than 8 years of a Labour Government is that there is a lost tribe of 6000 non-enrolled students; the Ministry of Education has already complained that it is under-resourced to deal with the most complex cases involving the police Child Youth and Family and excluded students; and now the Government has signed a contract that means the ministry will also have to deal with all students over the age of 14 years and 9 months? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Once again the member is not giving the facts to the House. In respect of the so-called lost tribe of 6334 students which she and her leader John Key quoted subsequent examination—as I have already explained to this House last month—proved that 50 percent of them were already enrolled in another school and another 25 percent were the children of people who had migrated out of New Zealand. So the number actually decreased to about 750 students and we are actively searching for them. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the NETServe newsletter that outlines the changes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the contract with NETServe that I tabled last sitting week which the Minister clearly has not read. 
Document not tabled. 
Newborns—Numbers 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: Has he received any reports about the number of newborn babies in New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Yes indeed. I have received a report from Statistics New Zealand that shows that last year 64040 babies were born in New Zealand—the highest number for 44 years. One hundred percent of these babies are born into a country where there are 14 weeks’ paid parental leave 20 free hours of early childhood education free before-school health checks and low doctor and pharmacy fees and where three out of four families can get Working for Families tax credits. We have a plan for the future for these new Kiwis. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the birth rate in New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Yes I have. This 44-year high in our birth rate means a replacement rate of—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No one can hear anything that is happening. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister does not often get an opportunity to speak and I would like to hear what he has to say. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we will now hear him in silence. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is not as much fun in silence Madam Speaker. This 44-year high in the birth rate which is 2.2 is above the required replacement rate. This is particularly good news I can tell the member as similar countries to ours have a birth rate below the replacement rate. I refer to countries such as the United Kingdom France Italy Japan and—the Opposition will be delighted to know—even Australia. 
Building—Consent Process 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 6 November 2007 that the building consent process is “going swimmingly well”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: The statement the member refers to related to the Quality Regulation Review project and the 11 projects that my department has under way and the Minister stands by that statement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister think the building consent process is going swimmingly well for homeowners and builders who are now confronted with 110 pages of forms and documents—like this application pack in my hand from the Rodney District Council—for even the most minor building consent or was his “swimming” comment a reference to the tsunami of paperwork the Government has now imposed on that sector? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have clarified what the comment “going swimmingly well” referred to. In respect of the paperwork that the member has told us about the Government is responding to industry requests to reduce compliance costs including looking at ways to reduce delay and increase flexibility in the building consents process. We are actively working with local government building associations and a range of other stakeholders in developing pragmatic solutions to that. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. What is the Minister doing to ensure that consistent advice is provided by local authority officials about building consent processes certification and the Building Act in order to prevent increased costs further delays and inconvenience to families? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Department of Building and Housing is working with local authorities in order to ensure that their accreditation means that exactly the kinds of concerns the member has raised can be addressed swiftly. Government money is in fact being applied to local government to make that happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that when this new 110-page building consent application pack over half the documents of which are from the Government’s Department of Building and Housing is multiplied by the 70000 building consents a year it would amount to 40 tonnes of paper or a 1-kilometre high pile; and does he see any irony in the fact that these documents all have stamped on them “New Zealand Government—everyone can have sustainability”. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The kinds of requirements that are now being put in place including the accreditation of local authorities have been established in order to address concerns about building quality and the issues that gave rise to leaky homes. The fact that there is some paperwork to go with that we do not apologise for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does this Minister match her rhetoric in her speech in Nelson that the Government is determined to improve home affordability with the fact that since she gave that speech the Nelson City Council has increased its building consent fees by 50 percent the Tasman District Council has increased its building consent fees by 35 percent and the Dunedin City Council has increased its building consent fees by 59 percent; are these dramatic fee increases which arise from Government policy not also contributing to the problem of inflation which sees homeowners facing record high interest rates? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I am advised that most builders do not mind paying in the case of the Nelson City Council another $100 for a consent if it results in a quality and prompt decision on their building consent. I ask that member whether he is criticising the Nelson City Council and other local bodies for making investments to improve their building services and consent processing times. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask this Minister her having raised the issue of leaky homes why on earth she and her department have not taken advantage of Bob Clarkson’s advice given on TVNZ that he could fix up all the leaky homes problems for $20000 despite the fact that that would leave most of the leaky home problems $100000 short? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I take the point that the member is making and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the leaky homes problem has resulted in costs to homeowners of something in excess of $1 billion. The whole improvement in the Building Act was done to address that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Government accept responsibility for the Building Act 2004 which has seen this huge growth in paperwork in the building industry? The Wellington City Council has stated: “A typical house plan 4 years ago was 3 A3-sized plans and 30 supporting pages. Under the Government’s new Building Act developers are now required to file 12 A3 pages and up to 300 pages of documentation.” If the fault is not that of the Building Act 2004 who the heck’s is it? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I think what that member needs to take into account is not simply any costs arising from the Building Act and the requirements we now have to ensure that we have proper homes that do not leak but the costs of not complying with the Building Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are on the last question. We will have it in silence. If there are any interventions members will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain how a 50 percent increase in building consent fees at the Nelson City Council a 35 percent increase at the Tasman District Council and a 59 percent increase at the Dunedin City Council—all after the Government had promised to improve housing affordability—will help home affordability for average Kiwi families? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have already addressed one part of the question by saying that it would appear on good authority—from builders—that they do not mind paying the extra $100 if their consent is processed swiftly which is exactly what the accreditation process was set up to deal with. The other thing in relation to the question is that if the member thinks building consent processes contribute to housing affordability his outlook is even more narrow and limited than I imagined. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Registered Master Builders Federation submission to the Commerce Committee on the home affordability crisis. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have in my hand the Rodney District Council’s 110-page building consent application pack. I seek— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have in my hand the Nelson City Council’s announcement of a 50 percent increase in its building consent fees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have in my hand the Tasman District Council’s announcement of a 35 percent increase in its building consent fees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have in my hand the announcement by the Dunedin City Council of a 59 percent increase in its building consent fees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is any objection. 
Limited Partnerships Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I notice that the next order of business for the House is the Committee stage on the Limited Partnerships Bill. I seek leave of the House for there to be one debate in the Committee stage with one question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
In Committee 
Parts 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to make very brief comments and those really are in support of the bill. I think the workings of the bill were well covered in the second reading debate that was heard by the House last night. I think that the Committee stage should be to examine whether the bill itself needs to be further altered in order to achieve the outcomes proposed within it. It is our consideration that the Commerce Committee has done such a splendid job that no such alterations are necessary. We note that the Minister has no amendments to put forward in this case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes I have. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My apologies; he has. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Splitting the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh splitting the bill. Well that is OK. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And Supplementary Order Paper 176. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague Mr Power will make some comments on that. 
We have already decided that the House does not need to go into a long clause by clause or part by part debate. Can I simply express the view that when one makes changes of this nature it is seldom that one gets the endorsement of all parties who are likely to be affected. That has been achieved in this case making it a somewhat rare occurrence in my view and with that I commend the process for the rest of the afternoon to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will just give my colleague Simon Power a little time to acquaint himself with Supplementary Order Paper 176 and explain to the Committee that it now has a split commencement clause—Parts 1 to 4 on a date to be specified by Order in Council and the rest of the Act to come into force on 1 April 2008. Also there are a number of changes around the timing of the tax clauses. There are a few cross references; although the Commerce Committee did a wonderful job with such a substantive bill one occasionally gets slight slips and those have been fixed up. There are a few other technical matters and just to make clear for the avoidance of all doubt a limited partnership is a company for GST purposes. These are relatively minor matters in the scale of things and I repeat my thanks to the select committee for the very good work that it did. Also I thank Mr Power for his work in developing and supporting the Supplementary Order Papers which we are about to speak to. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will be very brief too but I think it is fair to say— 
Simon Power 
: Tell us about the tax implications. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well if the member would just listen I may get to that in time. What I can do is to make just two quick comments. 
The first one is in relation to what the chair of the Commerce Committee said about extremely good work having been done on this technical bill. Basically he implied that there were not going to be any changes to the bill. I must say that I am a little surprised as are some other members to see Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I just say to the Minister that I think it would be very helpful as a general rule to ensure that when bills such as this are being considered at the select committee stage that the select committee gets a chance to have a look at some of the additional Supplementary Order Papers before the bill comes back to the House. I know the Minister will be busy and I know the officials will be busy. But I think given that the Commerce Committee spent considerable time and effort on this bill that as a general rule these kinds of changes are better if they come from the select committee when it has had a chance to look at them in detail than they are if they come to the Committee as they have done now. So that is just a little note for the future—a little flag to remember. 
Now that I have said that I do want to say that the select committee did look at this bill extremely thoroughly under the wise stewardship and leadership of the chair. We had to address a number of critical issues particularly about how transparent the registers should be etc. We came to the view that what was being recommended was positive. If we remember that the ultimate objective of this measure is to encourage foreign venture capital into New Zealand in order to help with some of our fledging new enterprises we realise this is a good move. It brings us into line internationally with other countries and I certainly support the progress of this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I note the generous comments offered by the member opposite Hon Paul Swain in respect of Mr Brownlee’s chairmanship of the Commerce Committee’s examination of the Limited Partnerships Bill. No doubt Mr Brownlee has noted those comments and after a change of Government Mr Swain’s CV will be considered accordingly. 
I refer the Minister to one particular point with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 176 because in fairness to the Hon Paul Swain some quite substantial amendments are proposed in this Supplementary Order Paper. Although at first many of those appear to be consequential amendments it would be worth the Minister taking just a moment to take a call to explain the insertion of the definition of “overseas limited partnership”. That is new and it would be worth his allowing members on the National side of the Chamber to be satisfied with that particular provision. 
I note Supplementary Order Paper 175 to split the bill into two bills the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. No doubt the Hon Paul Swain will have more to say about the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill because we trust that he got his head round those income streams and the taxation effects that may or may not occur as a result of the passing of this bill. 
What is interesting about the Limited Partnerships Bill is that substantial amendments were made in the Committee stage as I indicated in the second reading in the House last night. Supplementary Order Paper 176 adds to those amendments in a reasonably substantial way—certainly at the front end of that Supplementary Order Paper. This means that an opportunity should be taken to reinforce the comments of Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Paul Swain that the select committee certainly added value to this process; without its contribution some of these questions may have gone unanswered. I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of that fact. 
I think though in all seriousness that the Minister could take just a short call to explain this definition of “overseas limited partnership”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could do it by response. 
SIMON POWER 
: No I ask the Minister just to wait and take a call because as I understand it we are not allowed to speak from the chair next to the Chairperson. It would be helpful because we want to make sure that that definition does not place any restrictions or difficulties on the original concept of the bill relating firstly to the attraction of venture capital and secondly to the changes in the taxation regimes relating to those investments. I think in fairness it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could clarify those two points. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The member Simon Power asked what is happening here. The definition he refers to is in fact not a new provision. Although Supplementary Order Paper 176 places it in clause 4 of the bill it was previously in clause 86. So it is a matter of clarity of drafting rather than any change of substance. The definition has just been brought forward in the bill. It is the same provision. 
Simon Power 
: So it wasn’t taken out and reintroduced? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was moved forward. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National supports the Limited Partnerships Bill. I think it is unfortunate that Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel has come so late in the day more particularly because in the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper where mention is made of the amendments that are to be made to the bill it states that the amendments are minor technical and grammatical corrections. I express the hope that in the future greater care is taken before sign-off in the relevant select committee as a result of the inputs that come from parliamentary counsel. 
That said I too would like to join those who have congratulated Gerry Brownlee on his chairmanship of the Commerce Committee. It seems to me that in what is a very complex area of law his deft hand was often in evidence to guide us through some of the more tricky parts of the legislation. I would also say this bill is a very good example of legislation that has been hugely improved in the select committee process as a result of a decision that the select committee made to engage outside assistance. The outside assistance that we secured came in the form of a lawyer from one of the major law firms who had been deeply involved in this type of legislative regime in at least two countries. So there was presented for the select committee if you like a foil whereby the views of the officials could be contrasted with the views of someone who had practical hands-on experience of such legislation. 
I do not want to understate the impact of the bill because I think it has the potential to have a huge impact and one that in all respects will be well worthwhile. We should start I believe in this Committee stage by accepting an assumption that venture capital plays a critical role in driving individual company growth and innovation and that this will bring substantial benefits to the overall national economic performance. We have at the moment in New Zealand a capital market that is small and undeveloped by international comparisons. I understand for example that the reported total investment value for New Zealand private equity and venture capital investment in 2004 was only $150 million. That represents 0.11 percent of GDP. 
If members look at the OECD tables they will see that we lag hugely behind the key players at the top of the tables: the United Kingdom Israel the United States of America Sweden Singapore and countries of those types. Overseas the reality is that investors in private equity and venture capital funds are typically long-term investors such as pension funds and other institutional investors. The standard investment vehicle used by those investors to invest in those funds is the limited partnership. We had the old provisions in Part II of the Partnership Act 1908 that provided on a very restricted basis for special partnerships but this bill goes way way further than that. I hope that in the course of the Committee debate there will be an opportunity to look at some of the complexities of the tax provisions because they are very compelling I believe in the style that has been set up to make the regime more attractive. 
We have the situation of course in this legislation where those who seek to invest are commonly referred to as limited partners. Perhaps at first blush that is an odd expression but it is used because they have limited liability. They have not only limited liability but also limited control over the management of the funds. Therefore the word “limited” is really used in two senses. They invest significant amounts in private equity and venture capital funds for a long-term horizon typically of 10 years or more. The investment activities of the private equity and venture capital funds are undertaken by fund managers and those fund managers are referred to as the general partners or the general partner. 
A very significant barrier to the growth of the New Zealand venture capital industry has occurred because of the lack of investment from international and domestic institutional investors. The industry needs to attract those investors in order to develop in both scale and maturity. The lack of an investment vehicle that is easily recognised by institutional investors has been identified as one of the constraints to investment in New Zealand. It is interesting to speculate on the impact that this set of Government interventions may have—in the Auckland airport context—in connection with our need for public-private partnerships to move into the area of infrastructure development. I suggest it is probably hugely unhelpful. 
I said that the Commerce Committee has made a large number of changes to the bill. One of the most interesting changes is that in the Partnership Act 1908 there was a restraint on banking or insurance activities being undertaken by special partnerships. The officials actually sought to maintain that separation. The committee has not accepted that position and I think that in the result the officials yielded on that point because we were satisfied that the generic regulation that applies to the banking and insurance sectors today provides sufficient safeguards against the governance risks that may arise when a limited partnership operates as such a business. 
The officials also had another view from that of the select committee concerning issues that related to tax. But the reality is that there are no tax implications to justify the prohibition on a limited partnership from undertaking banking or insurance activities and it may very well be that the Inland Revenue Department will continue to monitor developments in that particular area. 
Another issue I would like to deal with is the question of “safe harbours” for two reasons: firstly it is a very important topic in itself and secondly it was the view of the officials that the “safe harbour” regime which I will talk about in a moment should really be the subject of regulation—of delegated legislation. That view I suggest is fundamentally flawed. If we are to talk about an issue like “safe harbours” we should talk about controls being put in legislation. “Safe harbours” is perhaps rather a strange phrase. What we are talking about are activities that do not constitute taking part in the management of a limited partnership. What happened was that the officials yielded to the proposition that it was appropriate for the “safe harbour” regime to be transferred from the regulations into the Act. So we find reference to that in clause 27 and in a detailed schedule that identifies activities that do not constitute taking part in the management of a limited partnership. I can give two examples of that. One is taking part in a decision about the variation or replacement of the partnership agreement. Another example is taking part in a decision about whether a person should become or cease to be a general or limited partner. 
I will refer to one further issue which relates to derivative actions. It is a complex legal concept. One of the things the select committee has recommended is the insertion of a number of clauses to provide a process for a partner to take proceedings against a limited partnership. That has been done in I think a very careful and appropriate way. For example there is a clause that sets out a threshold that must be satisfied in order for a proceeding to take place. It also specifies the circumstances in which a limited partner can institute proceedings. There is a provision relating to the costs of the proceedings with the general rule being that those costs would be met by the limited partnership unless the court should judge that to be unjust or inequitable. Then there are also provisions that deal with approving settlements compromise or discontinuation. 
I think it was certainly in the forefront of the select committee’s mind that we had to work on a regime that would be attractive objectively to overseas investors. The select committee sought to identify in many of its changes what those particular aspects of attraction or seduction might be. There is an issue which is now dealt with in the bill as amended relating to the confidentiality of limited partner information. There was a view that the names and addresses of the general partners and the limited partners should be in the public domain. The reality is that the policy intent of the bill is to encourage investment into the capital venture market. Potential investors might very well be discouraged from investing in a limited partnership if their personal details were to be made public. So a compromise has been reached that gives certain powers to the Ombudsmen but nevertheless preserves those names and addresses from the public domain albeit that such information is available to the registrar. 
Those were the main issues that I sought to deal with. I have noted the importance and significance of the tax changes. Some members of the committee spent a considerable period of time in looking at those particular issues and I believe the accord that has now been struck is highly workable. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 to 6 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill  
divided into Limited Partnerships Bill| Taxation (Limited Partnerships)Bill| 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper179. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 We come to the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and we are now talking about Part 1. We had the second reading in the House last night and it is pretty clear that all parties will support this bill. 
As we discussed the bill essentially brings the funding arrangements up to date in line with the technology. When the Broadcasting Act 1989 was passed only television and radio were on the horizon in New Zealand; we are now in a totally different environment. We have had the digital revolution and we are now in an environment where broadcasting already involves a lot of different platforms whether they be the Internet mobile phones things like video on demand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not broadcasting; that’s narrow-casting. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister will get his chance to take a call. The general point is that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill actually engulfs or encompasses a variety of platforms. The current funding arrangements are really outdated for the technology we have now. This bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho which is the Maori broadcasting funding agency to direct funding to a variety of platforms. Previously as I said they were allocating them just to television and radio. But in this new environment we have to accept that people will source content across a variety of platforms and the arrangements have to reflect that. 
National has been supportive of this bill right from the start but what this bill really brings into focus are the areas where we do not agree with the Government. I think there will be some significant points of debate in the field of broadcasting in the future. We heard last year about Television New Zealand (TVNZ) failing abysmally in financial terms under the yoke of this Government’s policy which has saddled it with this dual remit whereby it has to give the Government a dividend and on top of that it also has to perform to the expectations of the charter. As my colleague Richard Worth aptly summed up last night the charter as we have it now is just a set of aspirational statements with nothing concrete that we can measure any outputs against. This leads to a heck of a lot of confusion and we have had some ridiculous examples of what constitutes a charter programme. 
It is quite clear that the Government does not actually agree with the people at TVNZ. There was no clearer example of that than when the chief executive of TVNZ when asked by the Maori Affairs Committee last year what Maori programming was currently on State television named programmes such as  
Location Location Location 
 and  
Police Ten 7 
. Quite clearly those programmes do not represent Maori broadcasting. We have such a loose charter that TVNZ can try to fit any old programme within what is prescribed by the charter. It is a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs. Steve Maharey when he was the Minister of Broadcasting was very keen on the idea of the charter; it has really been his baby. One really has to ask oneself what has changed between before the charter and after it. Has it really made a difference to what is on our screens? Well if one actually looks at it one sees that the reality is that the charter was supposed to deliver more local content for New Zealanders but in actual fact we now have less. If one of the functions of the charter is to ensure that New Zealanders can see content that reflects how we live here in this country one would have to argue that it is not actually performing as one would hope it might. 
But this Government has more problems in broadcasting than just TVNZ because it also has the issue of FreeView and digital broadcasting. The Government has invested a lot of taxpayer money into these new digital channels—$104 million in total. TVNZ was given $79 million to set up the channels then an extra $25 million. The reality is that the numbers of viewers have not grown as quickly as they might have. Have they plateaued? That is the real question. Unless the Government actually sets a date for switching off the analog TV signal or puts something on those channels that is really compelling to watch I do not think we will see the numbers grow. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I do not see much need to prolong the agony of this tiny little bill which brings us 10 years up to date. Essentially as has already been said the funding agencies are currently allowed to fund content that can be watched only on television. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill broadens the role so that the agencies Te Mangai Paho and the Broadcasting Commission can fund content to be used in other forms such as the Internet and cellphones as well as television. 
Although I think it is very interesting to hear a wider debate and discussion about whether the charter has met its objectives funding issues etc. the reality is that this bill is a tiny little thing. It simply takes us into this century and I— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Probably hardly that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member is probably right. All I recommend is that we progress this matter as soon as possible. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In that respect the member who has just resumed his seat is absolutely correct—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is probably long overdue. I guess those who inhabit the world of Generation Y—or is it Generation X—would say: “Goodness me where do these people come from? They are taking so long to enable the funding of new formats.” Obviously it is a phenomenon that will be understood a lot better by them than by some of us here. 
National supports this bill obviously. It enables the two funding agencies NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund the production transmission and archiving of new forms of digital content. That is particularly important in the digital broadcasting environment. Also important is the fact it amends Te Mangai Paho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes to those matters that it already funds. That is very important given that Maori culture and language are key to New Zealand’s unique identity. Again one would think that measure was overdue as well. It is a proper amendment to be made and as I said at the beginning it is probably long overdue in respect of both these funding agencies. 
My colleague Dr Coleman was right to put an emphasis on the woes of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and the Government’s performance in that arena in the last 9 years. It is interesting that Marian Hobbs is the presiding officer in the Chair because the charter might more rightly be called her baby. But let us attribute the baby to both Marian Hobbs and Steve Maharey who are so in love with it. It has proved in a way to be their Achilles heel in National’s view. The dual remit has seen TVNZ as I say have a very woeful time of it for the whole 9 years this Government has been in power and frankly there is nothing to say that in 2008 it has got its head around it yet. That is not a fair return to the taxpayer—it just is not. Millions of dollars have gone into a black hole. There has been no accountability whatsoever. Every time others try to get some accountability especially at the select committee when I was more involved in broadcasting in previous years they would say: “This is commercially sensitive.” So there was never any way that one could actually pin TVNZ down. 
One matter I want to mention is that National would be very very concerned if for instance TVNZ applied funding for content that could be accessed only through pay-per-view cellphones. This is taxpayer funding we are talking about and it seems to me that sometimes TVNZ tends to forget that. That is an area we would be very concerned about. I have just seen in the  
Independent 
 I think an article about TVNZ setting up a pay-per-view channel. Well goodness me; TVNZ gets taxpayers’ money to deliver FreeView into hopefully every home. The cost of course is prohibitive and there will be a lot of New Zealanders who are not able to afford the cost of taking on FreeView. Many of them also have Sky anyway and have had it for some years. They have been willing to pay. TVNZ needs to think about that but still it goes to the Government as it just did in the last weeks of last year. 
There are some reports of TVNZ going to Te Mangai Paho wondering why Te Mangai Paho was starting to be a bit tough on its plans for Maori programming. I will never forget the day—and my colleague referred to this—when representatives of TVNZ came into the Maori Affairs Committee and had a list of programmes that they thought fitted the Maori remit. One TVNZ person referred to programmes about Maori being in jail and about a Maori family buying a house on  
Location Location Location 
. It was absolutely ridiculous. No doubt  
Dancing with the Stars 
 qualifies because there are some Maori dancing on there. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I would say that we should be able to feel immensely proud of our public broadcasting system but we have not actually got to that stage yet. We have not got there I think because we have created a situation that is almost impossible for public broadcasters and in particular for Television New Zealand. We require that it acts in a commercial manner but we also require that it fulfil the provisions of a charter—and I will briefly touch on that. 
I would also say that it is unfortunate that we are not presented with a greater opportunity in this bill to make the sorts of changes that I believe should be made. There was the opportunity in this bill for example to provide security of funding flows to Television New Zealand to New Zealand On Air to Maori radio and to Maori television. We have not done that. There was also an opportunity to put in some hard measurable goals so that those organisations responsible for funding could have confidence that the money would be wisely spent. We have not done that. National is supporting this bill but we say it is a pity because it could have gone so much further and been so much better. It could have been a seamless web but in fact it is now rather a tangled web I would say. It could have been clear of ambiguity in those areas of broadcasting where there is ambiguity but that has not been done. I would say that the objectives for public broadcasting should be spelt out with a clarity that incentivises those who are involved in public broadcasting and for those who are in that body of listeners or viewers who can gain pleasure and enjoyment in knowing that professional product is being delivered to their ears and to their eyes. 
I have made comment about the Television New Zealand charter because of course these organisations that we have identified—in particular NZ On Air—have that funding responsibility. The charter as I said last night is in the process of review. Indeed it is a plan for the Commerce Committee to look at its content in the next short period by way of inquiry. But the charter itself is so broad-based it is so aspirational it is so meaningless and it is so lacking in measurable goals that it is in need of substantial rewriting. One needs only to look at the way it is structured to see that that is quite clearly so. I gave as an instance the section in the charter that is headed “An Informed Society” and if one follows through the particular parts in just that section one sees how inadequate and broad-brushed those provisions are. 
So in supporting the legislation I express the hope that the next time broadcasting legislation is presented to us in bill form it will achieve some of the objectives that are so clearly lacking here. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to continue our support for this legislation which the Minister is responsible for bringing to this Committee. I will comment in relation to the extended functions provided to Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi under Part 1 of this bill. The Government ought to be lauded for providing this extension given the advancements made in technology and the uptake that the people of New Zealand are making in terms of this new technology. But I tell this Committee—and I am glad that the officials are present—that with these new extended responsibilities I hope that when the budgetary round comes around and bids are made the funding for Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi also known as Te Mangai Paho will be increased to match the increased responsibilities that have been extended to that organisation. 
Allied to that of course is the fact that—as I understand it and as alluded to by the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth—the charter is currently being reviewed. I hope that as a consequence of this bill people like those in Television New Zealand will not exercise their licence to include such programmes as those that have been referred to like  
Location Location Location 
 to address their commitment to the charter of meeting that particular requirement. I wanted to mention that in this debate and to reiterate the point that New Zealand First certainly supports the intent of this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I also want to speak to this bill. The Maori Party will also be supporting it but I will take the opportunity to raise a couple of issues. 
One is an issue that I raised in my speech yesterday which was that in 20 years there has been only one operational increase in funding for Maori radio stations. That increase was a one-off and it came last year. That is a record to be ashamed of considering that the funding came as a result of a High Court decision that obligated the Crown to take steps to protect Maori language and culture. 
I am thankful that we do have Maori radio and Maori television and I think that they provide our country with an opportunity particularly to hear Maori music. Maori music was simply not getting played anywhere until Maori radio came along. In fact when we started our Maori radio station in Kaitaia back in 1989 on 17 December at 6 a.m. we had only a half a dozen CDs apart from music by Howard Morrison and a couple of others. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: They were good. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: They were not good; actually they were fabulous and we played them time and time again. Howard is the guy they called in for Labour but he is actually a signed-up member of the Maori Party. 
Be that as it may; the important thing is that there have been positive steps but I would like to see not just a commitment to ongoing funding but a commitment to an ongoing increase in funding if for no other purpose than to match the rate of inflation. There has not been any operational increase per station since that time. So it is an issue that we would like to see considered. 
We would also like to see whether it is possible to consider the make-up of Te Mangai Paho itself which is done by ministerial appointment. I use as an example the appointment of the board for Maori television which is a joint exercise between the Crown and a Maori electoral college known as Te Putahi Paoho. That model has been used in fisheries and in a number of other activities as a result of Te Putahi Paoho first being used to establish a Crown relationship in the appointment of bodies like the Maori Television Service board. 
I was the first chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho and I think that the model is a particularly worthwhile one to be considered for the appointment of members to Te Mangai Paho and possibly even Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. That is a different entity again from broadcasters but Te Taura Whiri has a role in the establishment and monitoring of standards for Maori broadcasters so it makes sense to consider whether those governance functions should be established in the same manner. Koina no taku korero. 
[ 
That is my address. 
] 
Thank you very much Madam Chair. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I think previous speakers have brought up a number of points that bear revisiting. When we look at what this change will mean to funding arrangements we see that it really reflects the broadcasting environment that we are moving into. We talked previously about the fragmentation of audiences across platforms. The fact that Te Mangai Paho and New Zealand On Air will be able after this bill passes to fund content for those different platforms really sends a message to the traditional broadcasters and that is that the days of audiences going to just one broadcaster to get all their content are rapidly disappearing. The generation of people who are under 25—and let us face it none of them is in this Chamber—currently source their broadcasting content very much on an iPod model. They use software like LimeWire to download episodes of popular programmes like  
Desperate Housewives 
 from websites in America. They watch what they want when they want. I can tell members that the broadcasting environment is changing very very quickly. 
That is a major threat for traditional broadcasters like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and TV3 because viewers will not be glued to just one channel. They will not just sit through whatever stuff is served up or sit through commercials. It is not a matter of their just channel surfing; they are going to assemble their own content very much along the iPod model for music. They will put all the stuff they want to access in one place they will watch it when they want to and they will not have to watch the advertisements. That is going to be a major challenge. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: People are doing it already. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No that is what I said. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You said that they will but they are now. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well increasingly more people will but people are doing it already. But I bet the Minister of Broadcasting is not doing it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well actually I’ve got some very good people who help me with it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister is getting help—OK. He admits he needs help in this domain. But I think the Minister will acknowledge that this is very much something that the younger generation of New Zealanders are doing. For people above the age of say 30 it may be a novel concept but that is the way it is going to go. 
What does it mean for TVNZ and TV3? It means it will be very hard for them to continue making the money that they have made out of advertising. Their audiences are dropping off. They are decreasing year by year. With that audience drop-off there is far less advertising revenue and of course the bottom line for those stations will not be good. It will be adversely affected. Last year we saw from TVNZ’s financial results that it had its first-ever loss. It was a loss of $4.5 million on revenue of $375 million. One has to ask what TVNZ is going to do to respond to that. That is the real challenge that faces the executives of TV channels today. They are trying a variety of different strategies but they do not know whether any of them will work. Last year TVNZ launched TVNZ ondemand which is a web-based model whereby people pay to download content but TVNZ does not know whether it will work. It does not really know whether it will produce enough revenue to turn things round. All broadcasters are facing these challenges and it will be interesting to see what the revenue models for broadcasting in the future are actually about. 
My colleague Georgina te Heuheu also mentioned that this bill will allow for the funding of Maori content and I think that is highly appropriate. Maori content was not being produced 20 years ago when the Broadcasting Act was originally passed. This bill brings the legislation into line with the cultural needs of New Zealanders and I think everyone would support that happening. 
I mentioned earlier the review of digital broadcasting. I think it will be pretty interesting. There is a lot of pretty wordy documents there. I do not think many members of the public will read through them. They will mainly be of interest to broadcasting academics politicians of course and a few journalists. They lay out a series of options for regulation. It is my belief that the Government does not want this regulation issue to rear its head before the election. It knows that the public response could be pretty mixed. 
But the Government has a problem: it has put $104 million into FreeView and basically it has to make it financially viable. There are two options. At some point the Government will have to turn off the analog TV signal and everyone will have to be able to access digital television. But the Government will be faced politically with a difficult situation. There will always be a group of people who are late adapters or who do not have the financial wherewithal to take up digital television. I think that that is one of the challenges for the Minister. I hope he will take a call to tell us what the plan is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s hardly part of this. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister has said that in 2012— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a very good discussion at the second reading. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister can take a call. He has plenty to say now. We would love the Minister to take a call. 
Hon Member 
: It’s not in this bill. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well broadcasting encompasses this issue which is what people want to hear about. The relevance to this bill is that we are moving into the digital environment and this bill is all about— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Yes. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mark Burton says that is true so there we go. It must be true if Mark Burton the previous Minister of Justice says it is true.This bill is all about broadening out the financing arrangements to reflect technological changes. The digital review of broadcasting is all about the Government’s drift-net for ideas because it is out of ideas. Frankly it is completely exhausted after a shocking 9 years. It needs new ideas for broadcasting. It has thrown this bill out for public consultation and it is hoping the public will throw up a few ideas so that it can justify the sort of regulation it needs to bring in if FreeView is to be a success. When this Government goes in the election later this year I think it will be a great relief to a lot of these people because they will not have to deliver on a lot of this Government’s lofty ideals and plans for broadcasting. FreeView will become an albatross to sling around someone else’s neck because this Government will really struggle to deliver on it and make it viable. 
With FreeView the Government has set up digital television channels that are part of TVNZ. The people who watch those channels which $104 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on have to come from somewhere. Where will they come from? They will come across from Television One and TV2. There is no advertising on those digital channels so the problem is that if those channels are a success they will take audiences away from the channels on which TVNZ can show advertising and its revenues will go down. If that does not happen then the digital channels by definition will fail. So the Minister is really stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is faced in this bill—which we all support—with some real challenges because this bill will speed up the fragmentation of audiences. It will take them away from Government-favoured projects like FreeView and that will produce a real headache for the Minister. He will have to come up with some answers as to how FreeView can be viable and how TVNZ can continue to be viable. 
The last point I would make is that National members are very keen that any funding given to new platforms goes to programmes that are available free to air to New Zealanders. We think that if a programme has Government funding people should be able to access it on a free-to-air platform. Within that we would include FreeView because analog television will disappear. But we do not want Government funding to disappear to a Vodafone pay-per-view download on to a mobile phone or any pay-per-view sort of platform. It is really important that there is accountability around Government funding and that the public have access to it. We saw in the  
Independent 
 yesterday that TVNZ is thinking about getting into pay TV. Well we would say that pay TV— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it’s rubbish. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Here we go; it is the Minister again. He ought to take a call. He will get a chance in a minute but I bet that he will not take it. I bet the Minister that he will not take a call. He will just interject on other speakers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How much? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well I ask the Minister how much we should make it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 When I first looked at Part 2 I thought there would probably be little in it. After all it is headed “Miscellaneous” and it comprises only three clauses which are numbered as clauses 14 15 and 16. But then my attention was drawn to the heading to clause 14 which is “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. The clause referred us to the schedule to see exactly what those stylistic amendments were. I do not believe that they are stylistic amendments at all. They are not issues of style; they are issues of grammar and issues of punctuation shortfall. 
The amendment to section 4(1) which is the first item identified in the schedule states: “Omit ‘which’ and substitute ‘that’.” Is that a style change? I think not. Those of us who have suffered under the hands of stern grammar masters and mistresses know that they would not have us yield to an argument that that was a style change. Then I looked at the amendment to section 6(1)(ba) and saw: “Omit ‘seconds’ and substitute ‘seconds’ ’ ”. I wondered what the change was there. Well it is quite subtle. It is an apostrophe after the second “s”. Is that a style change? I would say that it is probably a grammar change. I do not believe that it is a punctuation change. In the amendment to section 16(2) we are treated to another example: “Omit ‘unless—’ and substitute ‘unless—’.” I wondered what the significance of that might be if a court came to interpret the provisions of section 16(2) which in some particular setting might assume critical importance. 
I then noted another issue which was the amendment to the heading to section 70C. There was a bold plan there: “Omit ‘Contents’ ”—which is in bold script—“and substitute ‘Particulars’.” which is similarly in bold script. I invite the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard who clearly is familiar with this legislation to explain why that—it seems to me—particularly subtle change was necessary. What is wrong in the context of section 70C with using the word “Contents”? Why must later generations who look at this legislation be forced to speculate on the reason for the change from “Contents” to “Particulars”? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I can see that my colleague has very cleverly motivated the Minister to take a call and we look forward to that shortly. I thought that my colleague raised some very very important issues. If he does not mind I just want to mention one that I do not think he mentioned. Again reading from the schedule to the bill it is in relation to a change under section 71(4) where it states: “Omit ‘77A’ ”—with a comma—“and substitute ‘77A’.”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: With no comma. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —with a full stop. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The comma’s been lost. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The comma has been lost. It is absolutely intriguing. I can see that the Minister has hurriedly pulled some book out of the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The dictionary. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is the dictionary. We await his response with keen anticipation at 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon with some MPs contemplating flying out of Wellington this evening. Who knows the Minister’s contribution in a few minutes might be just the tonic we all need to send us on our way at the end of what has been an interesting week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m ready to go. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK—all right. Just one thing though that I want to pick up from my earlier contribution is that National would be concerned if Television New Zealand thought it could use the funding for content that comes through pay telephone. I am not sure how we monitor that. Some of these new platforms are so clever. I hope the Government knows just exactly how it will keep an eye on those matters. This is taxpayers’ money we are talking about that has come through both New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho. As such the content that it funds no matter which platform it comes through must always be freely available to all New Zealanders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to explain this matter. It is somewhat embarrassing as a former accountant and a person with a variety of interests to have the role of correcting the English used in legislation of the former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs whose specialty was English. But some things have slipped through Committee stages in the past. I am sure the legislation would have been fine when it went to the select committee; surely—and unfortunately—the work of my colleague the former Minister of Broadcasting was undone in a grammatical sense within the select committee. 
A number of these kinds of debates occur. I have heard debates in the Cabinet committee room around “which” and “that” and it is fair to say that opinions are divided as to when each should be used. There is a traditional form and there is a higher form and the higher form sometimes applies. In respect of things like having commas in the correct place and having apostrophes where they are appropriate I think that taking the opportunity to do a bit of tidying up as we are doing now is particularly important. 
I turn to the replacing of “Contents” with “Particulars”. I think it is important because— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: A tricky point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well “content” when talking in Parliament about broadcasting can actually have two senses. I am sure “His Excellency” will know that “content” is a very particular phrase from the House of Lords. It is what—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member has not spent time there? People in the House of Lords do not say “Aye” or “No”; they express the fact that they are “Content”. That is the genteel— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Oh I see. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am surprised that I am teaching “Lord Worth of Monaco” the approaches of the House of Lords. Trevor Mallard teaching Richard Worth about gentility is I think an interesting lesson! But “content” obviously has a particular meaning—I should not use the word “particular”; it has a specific meaning—within broadcasting that goes a bit further than “list of contents” or “particular matters to which are being referred”. That is why the change has been made and I think it is logical. 
I think it is fair to say that this Thursday afternoon debate is reminding me somewhat of what a Friday morning used to be like. When I was first a member here—and I do not think there is anyone as young as I was; Metiria Turei might be of that generation—members used to do regular work and to work on Fridays. The debates then did not always get to the core of the major issues. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where is this speech going? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was asked some questions by “Lord What’s-his-name of Monaco” and I have given him some responses. There are questions of language and there are questions of tidiness. I think every opportunity should be taken to get clarification in language because unfortunately some of the member’s former colleagues who are currently on the judiciary get quite perturbed about the position of a comma. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a brief part that contains the miscellaneous provisions. 
I do not want to dwell on clause 14 “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. These amendments were ably covered by my colleague from Auckland Dr Richard Worth and they were covered again by the Minister in the chair. It is not clause 14 that I want to cover in any detail; nor is it clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003”. No it is in fact clause 15 that I would like to focus on in some detail. 
Clause 15 is entitled “Spent sections of Broadcasting Act 1989 repealed”. That clause gets to the heart of some key National Party policies. It is about driving out bureaucracy and driving out regulation—taking bureaucracy and compliance costs out of the marketplace and out of legislation. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill does that in clause 15. It is at the heart of what the National Party stands for—getting rid of compliance costs for small businesses and allowing them to get ahead without the burden of undue compliance costs. We see this in clause 15—in some detail. 
Clause 15(a) repeals section 92 which was a transitional provision in relation to the broadcasting station levies. Clause 15(b) removes section 93 which was a transitional provision in relation to the Broadcasting Tribunal. Getting rid of bureaucracy and getting rid of compliance costs are at the heart of the National Party’s vision for this country. We want to make it simpler for businesses out there to get ahead to grow their businesses to improve their profitability and ultimately to improve the wages they pay to their employees. That is a core part of National Party policy. 
Clause 15(c) which repeals section 94 drives out more compliance and more regulation. Clause 15(d) takes out section 95 which was a transitional provision in relation to radio apparatus licences. It is a provision that we no longer need and it needs to be driven out of the bureaucracy and out of the legislation to ensure that we reduce compliance costs. 
Lastly clause 15(e) repeals a small section section 96. It takes out of legislation the requirement for a final report of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Who needs a final report? We do not so let us get rid of it. Again getting rid of compliance costs and driving them out is at the heart of National Party policy. That is why the National Party will be voting for Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Jonathan Coleman I say that you are the last person I will call. I think we are almost frittering with the Committee’s time. The last speeches we have had have been actually reading the bill. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I want to comment on the Minister’s contribution. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has an awful lot to say when other people are speaking but when it came to his opportunity he just dwelt on those minor stylistic points. We were really hoping he would address some of these serious issues that we were discussing relating to the implications of this bill and the impact it will have on the broadcasting landscape. For the Minister to get up and talk about minor points of grammar style and apostrophes was a wasted opportunity. 
What is interesting here is that clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003” brings us back to the charter debate. That was the Act that established the charter and the charter is at the heart of a lot of the difficulties we are currently seeing Television New Zealand in. As my colleague Dr Worth said to the House last night the charter is nothing more than a set of aspirational statements with no measurable goals. That really is the problem. The charter can mean all things to all people. We can put “Dancing on the Stars” on television and that can be construed as a charter programme. 
Jill Pettis 
: With! With! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have heard that Mrs Pettis is going to be on that programme in 2009 when she has left the House and that will be pretty interesting. 
We see the problem that the charter is placing Television New Zealand in. It is being told on the one hand that it has to return this dividend to the Government—it was let off the hook on that last year—but on the other hand it is supposed to be providing public broadcasting content for all New Zealanders. When we look at the reality of what we see on a Television New Zealand promo and we line that up against the charter it is hard to see what the connection is. If we look at any promotion for what is on Television New Zealand and what is coming up we see it features all the entertaining American British and European shows. We have  
The Sopranos 
  
The Tudors 
 and  
Desperate Housewives 
. If we look at the charter and all this notional aspirational stuff we could say that all it really is is something that is holding Television New Zealand back. Why are there no measurable concrete goals? 
We have just had this charter review and we are going to be reviewing the redrafted option soon at the Commerce Committee. I have read through it pretty closely. All it does is rearrange headings reclassify material and rearrange the chairs on the deck of the charter  
Titanic 
. I think it is pretty disappointing stuff and I reckon the Minister should get up take a call and say what his plans are for getting TVNZ back into the black. It is this Television New Zealand Act 2003 that has got Television New Zealand into much of this trouble. The Minister really has to address these problems. He cannot just fritter away and wind down his time to the election by stalling by getting up when he has an opportunity to talk on broadcasting and just giving vague vacuous speeches on apostrophes as he did when he was referring to the schedule. We had Dr Richard Worth cover that material in admirable form. 
Let us go back to clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003”. That particular clause does not do much. Subclause (1) amends the Act. Subclause (2) states: “The item relating to the Broadcasting Act 1989 in Schedule 1 is amended by omitting ‘Preamble’ and substituting ‘Long Title’.” I think we could apply those comments to much of what the Minister said when he had the opportunity to speak on this. 
Part 2 just mops up a few miscellaneous aspects of this short and succinct bill which it looks like the whole of the Parliament will be supporting. Just to sum up again I say that it changes the funding arrangements whereby NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho the Maori broadcasting funding authority can fund content across a range of platforms. People are sourcing their content on the Internet and they are looking well beyond traditional television and radio. This brings us into the 21st century and means that the funding arrangements will be fit for the future. That will be pretty important. The main caveat we have to have is that if this content is to be funded with public money it has to be available to all New Zealanders free to air. We do not want it to be pay-per-view. I would like to hear the Minister talk about this. I know Mrs Pettis is getting bored; this well exceeds her attention span. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I hope that my short contribution will not be regarded as frittering away the Committee’s time. I just want to go back to clause 14. I ought to say that the English teacher at the Motatau Maori District High School would probably have used the word “grammar” as opposed to “stylistic”. But I want to commend the Minister for actually using the word “stylistic” because in the mid-1970s to early 1980s there was a group called the Stylistics a Motown group from America. I think it is just appropriate that it is used here in a bill called the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Before my time! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Yes that is true. But I would have thought that if previous speakers who have spent a bit of time talking about whether that was the right use of language felt so strongly about it they would have submitted a Supplementary Order Paper and I perhaps might have supported it. But in the absence of a Supplementary Order Paper I just want to reiterate and congratulate the Minister on his choice of words in this part. Kia ora. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules agreed to.  
Clauses 1 2 and 3  
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I really had not intended to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill until a few moments ago when I looked at these three short clauses and suddenly realised what their significance might be. One is the title clause the second is the commencement clause and the third is an amendment to the principal Act. As I looked at the title clause I read: “This Act is the Broadcasting Amendment Act 2007.” Then it occurred to me that we are in 2008 so clearly a change is required there. 
Then I looked at the commencement provision: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now there are a number of different ways of drafting commencement provisions; I guess there are three that are commonly in use. This is an example of one. Another way that commencement clauses are worded is to provide for a specific date and a third is to provide for a date so many days after a  
Gazette 
 publication. 
Before the Chairperson assumed the Chair this afternoon we were briefly contemplating the Limited Partnerships Bill. There was comment in that bill as to what the Commerce Committee saw as the preferred way that commencement clauses should be drafted. As we saw in the context of the Limited Partnerships Bill this is not the preferred way. The preferred way I would contend—and I would be supported by the Commerce Committee in this regard—is to actually nominate a specific date and we do not see that here. Although the class of case that involves legislation coming into force after a  
Gazette 
 notice is probably the most to be deplored because of course it adds a substantial degree of uncertainty there is nevertheless a degree of uncertainty with this type of commencement clause. So I urge the Minister to take back to his colleagues the proposition that it is a better plan a much better plan in this particular case to have a firm date. What would be the downside of specifying that in the context of this legislation? Absolutely nothing. 
So I come to clause 3 “Principal Act amended” which states: “This Act amends the Broadcasting Act 1989.” In the course of this debate we have examined exactly what the impact of this bill will be on that legislation and noted the tragedy that the opportunity was not taken to make substantial and more far-reaching change to the bill than has occurred in this particular instance. We are looking at quite serious issues certainly when we look at the position of Television New Zealand because we see that since 2003 the value of Television New Zealand has gone down from $381 million to $194 million and operating revenue has dropped by $117 million or around 24 percent. The aspirations in the charter which has been so derided in the course of this debate have also failed to deliver local content. In 2002 Television One was delivering 60 percent total local content; in 2006 the figure was 53 percent. Over the same period local content on TV2 dropped by 5 percent and it is now just 20 per cent. So I repeat the view of National that it is a pity a greater effort was not made in this legislation to produce for us a public broadcasting system of which we could be much more truly proud. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the points that the member Richard Worth made. 
I will not refer much to his comments with regard to clause 3. It is clear that this bill is a minor bill and it is clear also that major work is going on and that major legislation will follow on from the digital review. 
On the question of the commencement date I generally agree with the member’s comments. Whenever there is a substantive amendment I think it is important to be clear. The approach in clause 2 is one that does leave a lot of power in the hands of the executive. I was trying to bring to the front of my mind a particular piece of legislation that was passed when National was in Government I think in coalition with New Zealand First that was never brought into effect because the Order in Council was— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was a very good illustration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We will just leave that. I think the point needs to be made that this approach leaves a lot of power in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of Parliament. I agree with the member that with especially something of substance—I am not pretending that this is substantive legislation; it is minor legislation—it is important to be clear. 
On the first point that the member made I was surprised by it. He is an experienced member and he is a lawyer. He should know by now that the Clerk’s Office does amend and it is within the discretion of the Clerk’s Office to amend legislation for things like the date. 
John Carter 
: He knows what he is talking about unlike the Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know what I am talking about. Members do not have to have been here for as long as I have to know that the date of an Act is something that is amended on the way through after this process by the Clerk’s Office. Doing it that way saves another printing of the bill. It saves us a bit of money and I think it is a logical thing to do. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I suppose we can be appreciative of the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard talking a call. But again I thought he might just treat us with it being 1 hour now until the end of Thursday—the end of a parliamentary week in Parliament—to the plan for the future. That seems to be a favourite slogan that the Prime Minister is rolling out after her visit to the Australian Prime Minister. The Minister did say there will be major legislation following the review. That is of the charter I take it? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no no the digital review. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is the digital review. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: The secret agenda! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am not sure. I am not sure when he thinks that major legislation will come in because he is actually running out of time. So it might have been a great thing for him—as Labour is running out of time and as he might not get his so-called major legislation on to the floor of the House—to treat us to his views. I am not sure how long the Minister has been in this particular job. He will have some views obviously; he has been here a long time. 
My colleague Jonathan Coleman has been asking pretty continuously about the continued roll-out of digital and about the switch-off of analog. He has asked many times over the last year. This Minister might not necessarily know because he has only just taken over the job recently but given that he is a longstanding experienced member of the House one would think he would be reasonably up to date and that he would be aware that we have been wanting detail on the continued roll-out of digital. We do not have it yet and it looks like we are never going to get it anyway because this Minister will run out of time. That is a great shame in a way because he has been in the job now for the odd few months and we still really do not know what his view of the future is. 
I come back now to the bill before us and clauses 1 2 and 3—particularly the title clause. When Jonathan Coleman was on his feet the Minister kept saying that this is not about broadcasting. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister was saying something along those lines. It is about content and it is about funding content so in that sense it is narrow. But this is the broadcasting environment and it is obviously an area that New Zealanders who fund the whole industry in terms of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and whose money has been poured into that organisation by the millions over the last 9 years have a very direct interest in what the Minister plans in terms of digital television. Frankly millions have already gone in have they not? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: $104 million. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: $104 million has gone in. When we look at the title of the bill—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill—those issues cannot help but come to the forefront of the mind of the Opposition whose job it is to speak for the public about expenditure and to watch the Government in the way it spends public moneys. 
In terms of TVNZ over the 9 years sometimes as I said earlier that has appeared to be a black hole into which money has been thrown and the Labour Government does not appear to have been terribly worried about what the New Zealand public has got back for it. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not Labour’s money but Labour is in Government with a mandate to spend money responsibly. That is it is not in Government to take money in the way it does in terms of taxes but if it is going to take those taxes then it has to make sure it is accountable for the expenditure of that money. I would say that a television broadcaster that thinks that  
Police Ten 7 
 and  
Location Location Location 
 satisfy the requirement of the Maori component in the charter has totally lost the plot. Indeed the Prime Minister Helen Clark actually said the broadcaster had lost the plot. I wonder whether this Minister the new Minister of Broadcasting has done any work with TVNZ to make sure it is getting the plot right. That is what National would have liked to hear and unfortunately we are never going to hear it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I think my colleague Georgina te Heuheu just hit the nail on the head there because during the Minister’s speech he made a fatal slip. He said that major legislation is going to be following on from this digital review. Now that is quite incredible really because we have these discussion documents out there at the moment. The Minister and his officials are saying that it is all a blank canvas and they do not know what is going to happen. But it is quite clear that there really is a secret agenda in broadcasting and it is going to be heavy-handed regulation and the Minister I am afraid has let that one out of the bag. We are talking about the title of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill; it sounds like this Minister has a lot he is going to be amending about the broadcasting environment in the months to come. I agree with my colleague Mrs te Heuheu that we should ask why the Minister will not tell us what is really on his mind. Why waste the time of the public the broadcasters and the officials with all this sham consultation process which we see in a lot of areas this Government puts its sticky beak into when really it knows what it wants to do all along? 
Trevor Mallard knows what he wants to do because he has a big problem with FreeView. He has a massive problem with it. This has been the Government’s baby. The Government has put $104 million of taxpayers money into FreeView but it does not know how it will succeed. It is a real issue. The FreeView consortium has a set of television channels but the figures will plateau because the basic problem is that there is not a lot that people will want to watch on it. So the Minister can either get something on those channels that people want to watch or he can turn off the normal analog television signal. That will be politically difficult for Mr Mallard because he does not have a plan for telling people how he will switch off that last group of people who refuse to get into digital television or how he will convert those people to digital TV. 
If we look at the digital TV uptake across New Zealand at the moment about 800000 households still need to be switched over. By the Minister’s timetable he has until 2012 to set the date for analog switch-off. That poses a problem because if 800000 people do not have digital TV by 2012 there will be 800000 pretty upset people. Of course this could all be fiction as far as the Labour Government is concerned because the chances are that it will not have the responsibility of shepherding all that stuff through. 
Trevor Mallard has made an interesting statement and it would be great if he would take a call on this and explain what he means when he says major legislation will follow on from the digital review. The Minister has had lots of opportunities this afternoon to get up and say something substantial on broadcasting. People are waiting for him to do so. It is no good that he goes around the sector as he has done saying: “Well I’m very busy I know nothing about broadcasting. I am holding the baby here because Steve Maharey has retired.” That will not work. People want some substance and Minister Mallard has to lay out his plans. This digital review is already 4 months behind schedule and why is that? It is because the Minister wants to keep secret this agenda of regulation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wanted to read and understand the material before it went out—that’s why. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Does the Minister understand it now? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think I do. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: OK. Well the Minister understands it and I think what the Minister understands is that he will launch— 
Jill Pettis 
: Why isn’t this man out saving lives? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Why is Mrs Pettis not giving up the waste of space she fills in Parliament and letting in someone to actually rejuvenate this absolutely exhausted Labour caucus? Why is Mrs Pettis not out doing something useful? There is no answer from Mrs Pettis because there is nothing useful she can do apart from making those ridiculous comments. 
There is a problem that Trevor Mallard has to face up to because we have a failed broadcasting policy that has been delivered by this Government that has brought Television New Zealand to its knees. There is no plan for how it will recover. The executives there are doing the best they possibly can. Labour has failed on broadcasting. 
Labour has a real problem. How will it make FreeView successful? Labour members do not know. They will not tell us. We know they want to legislate. Trevor Mallard is dying to legislate. Frankly if he had his way he would socialise absolutely everything. He has let the cat out of the bag today. He is smiling and playing the nice guy. He has a big problem now. He has told us there will be major legislation after this digital review. Why then is he wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on this review? Why will he waste the time of the hundreds of New Zealanders who will respond to this review when he already knows the answer? Why does he not just take a call now and say what he wants to do in the whole area of digital regulation? 
The answer is that it is because he knows that his secret agenda will be pretty unpalatable. It will make it even harder to bring this failed Government within any hope of re-election. As it is Labour members have pretty much lost all hope and are giving up on the whole exercise so they are wondering why they should bother being transparent with this regulatory agenda on broadcasting. 
Basically if the Minister does not bring in his regulatory agenda he has no other way of propping up FreeView. If he cannot get something worth watching on it or if he does not switch off the analog TV signal which will be pretty unpalatable for those 800000 households concerned his FreeView project will be in big trouble. Basically it will need some innovative thinking which I think is beyond this Minister. He has admitted he knows nothing about broadcasting and he is not really very interested. He is pretty busy on a lot of other projects and in fact he is doing his emails on his BlackBerry now. He is not even really interested in the issues at hand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hang on! If you can’t ride two horses get out of the circus. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh he is not doing his emails— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I am doing my emails and listening. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well he knows he is not meant to be doing his emails. He should have his mind on the job and the job is what will happen in broadcasting. Why does he not tell us about the secret agenda he referred to before when he said there would be regulation after the digital review? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister did say that but he is now denying it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t. I said there would be legislation not regulation. It’s quite different. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Legislation regulation—what is the difference? [ 
Interruption 
] There will be legislation. With this Labour Government legislation means regulation. Labour members want to laugh it off but the public is on to them. The public is tired of this far-reaching nanny State regulation we get every time a diehard Labour supporter opens his or her mouth and people at home had better believe that this is what Labour will be doing in broadcasting. Trevor Mallard wants to bring in a heavy-handed regulatory regime because it is the only chance he has of turning FreeView round. 
Look at what Steve Maharey has done to TVNZ. He actually halved its value over the time he held the portfolio and I reckon that if he had had the portfolio for much longer he would have chomped through the other half of it. It will be very interesting to see what the financial results of Television New Zealand are—very interesting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Very good at the moment—very good. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister says the results will be very good. That is another slip that we have on the  
Hansard 
. We have a lot of material now. Every time the Minister opens his mouth he is digging a grave for himself in broadcasting. I think if the Government had time for a reshuffle before the next election Mr Mallard would be saying: “Can’t I swap this portfolio for the Rugby World Cup one?”. The answer is no—bad news he will not be able to. He has lost that portfolio. He will have to do his time in broadcasting. It has got pretty tough but he will have to see it through. 
To come back to the title the Broadcasting Amendment Bill will bring the funding arrangements into line with what is happening out there in terms of the technology. There have been wide-ranging technological changes to broadcasting. Broadcasting now occurs over a variety of media. It is not limited to just radio and television and the funding arrangements have to reflect that because New Zealanders are sourcing their content on the Internet they are watching things downloaded through their mobile phones. New Zealand on Air and Te Mangai Paho want to be able to reflect that in the way they fund broadcasting. This whole Parliament is supporting this bill but there are wider issues. The wider issues in broadcasting are regulation the future of Television New Zealand and the charter. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Building Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 5 March. 
Part 2 Validation and transitional provisions  
(continued) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This issue of New Zealand’s building regulations is impacting incredibly negatively on ordinary families builders and everybody who is associated with the building industry. From the day that the Building Act 2004 was passed the National Party has said it is a bureaucratic monster. 
Today in the House I tabled the 110 pages that the Rodney District Council requires for even the most minor and simple building consent that one could think of. I drew to the attention of the House that the Nelson City Council had put its building consent fees up by 50 percent last week the Tasman District Council had put its fees up by 35 percent and the Dunedin City Council had put its fees up by 67 percent. The reason that matters is that it is impacting directly on the price ordinary New Zealanders are trying to pay to get into a home. So when I looked through the Building Amendment Bill I was hoping and praying that I would see that the Government had seen sense had realised the problem it had created and was trying to redress it; what I saw was the Government making it worse. What we have in this bill are more costs being imposed on local authorities and citizens. 
Let us look at the first clause in this part clause 92. I will read it to the Committee. It states that for the purpose of determining the calculation of the levy on building work the principal Act must be read as if at all times the definition is what it is now. So the Government is saying that for the last 4 years it has been overcharging and it now wants to justify that and make it lawful. I say to the Government that that is not good enough. 
You see the Prime Minister got up in the House at the beginning of the year and said in her statement to Parliament that even she acknowledges that we have created a mad building bureaucracy that is costing too much. I was hoping a month later that if we were debating a Building Amendment Bill it might contain something about that bureaucracy. In fact this bill does nothing of the sort. So I say to members opposite that if they really believe their rhetoric about home affordability let us do something about it and let us pull back the mad bureaucracy that was created with the Building Act 2004. 
Where are the provisions in this bill to put some constraint on building consent levies? There are none at all. In fact since the Prime Minister spoke we have seen building consent fees go through the roof. The Reserve Bank this morning had to confirm the second-highest interest rates in the Western World—the second-highest interest rates. What did the Governor of the Reserve Bank identify as one of the biggest inflationary pressures? He identified the Government’s regulatory costs. And right here in the Building Act there are huge increases in the Government’s regulatory costs—in building consent fees. How can the Government tell the building industry—the building suppliers—not to put their fees up too much when in this part of this bill it is driving up building consent fees? The Government is saying that it is going to put up its fees by 50 percent but it will get tough on anybody else who puts costs up. Well the Government is setting an awful precedent by driving up its fees on homes. 
I draw the attention of the Committee to what the Commerce Committee found out about building consent fees adding $30000 of unnecessary bureaucratic costs to the price of a house. That was according to the Registered Master Builders Federation. What does the Government say about that? Jill Pettis is silent now; she does not seem to give a hoot about housing affordability when it comes to daft legislation like this which will drive up the costs for ordinary New Zealanders to own their own home. The rhetoric of members opposite is hollow. If they were serious about trying to address the issue of home affordability—an issue that is huge for New Zealanders—they would not be passing on these unnecessary additional costs for which the councils have only two choices: slap them on the rates bill or put them on to the cost of a building consent. I ask the Minister in the chair Darren Hughes what his view is on that. Does he want rates to go up or does he want to slap more costs on to what first-home buyers have to pay for a house? The Minister in the chair does not give a hoot about the cost for the people of Horowhenua. I know that their building consent fees have gone up by 38 percent I say to Mr Hughes. How can he stand up and say he defends home affordability when his own Government’s legislation is driving up the cost of getting a building consent by 38 percent? That is the increase in costs in Mr Hughes’ area and here he is backing legislation that will only drive those costs higher. 
The select committee heard council after council pleading with the Government to see what it is doing to the costs of building regulation and to look at the accreditation costs it is imposing on them. This bill will allow the bloated bureaucracy of the Department of Building and Housing to dump that cost on the councils and the councils will have no choice but to dump that cost on either rates or building consent fees. I simply say to the Government that the huge increase in rates and the huge increase in building consent fees are actually part of the problem of home affordability. Until Ministers like Mr Darren Hughes who has responsibility for this mess or other members of the Government start to recognise the problem they have created they are making an awful mess in the building industry. 
Let me tell members what is happening. Only yesterday I had people from a building company in my office saying that their builders were so frustrated with the Building Act that they are shooting through to Australia. It is not just because of the lack of income or because of this Government’s high tax policy; it is the bureaucratic laws like the stupid Building Act that are sending good tradespeople to Australia. That is a tragedy for New Zealand. 
National says that the Building Amendment Bill will not do. It does absolutely nothing to address the issues that are facing thousands and thousands of people who work in that industry. It is doing absolutely nothing to address the issue of home affordability. Since the Building Act 2004 came into being the result has been a huge increase in the cost of homes. Let me just share the figures from my own electorate. Between the 2001 census and the 2005 census we saw the biggest drop in homeownership levels in this country since the first census in 1893 asked the question about homeownership. I will say that again. We saw in that census data that over those 5 years there was the biggest drop in homeownership since the 1890s. This bill is part of the problem. What the Government has done with its bureaucratic Department of Building and Housing and its Building Act 2004 is add to the costs add to the bureaucracy and add to the delays in building a home in New Zealand. 
I just want members of the Government to take some responsibility for the mess they have created. They have accepted that it is a problem. The Prime Minister in her own statement to Parliament has said that the costs for building a house are unreasonable. That is what the Prime Minister has said. Well whose fault is it? It is the Government’s fault because it passed the 2004 Building Act. Darren Hughes the Minister in the chair was one of those who voted for the Building Act 2004. My question for him is this: is there anything any clause in Part 2 that the Minister can say will address the issue the Prime Minister identified in her statement to Parliament? The truth is there is not one iota. In fact it will make it worse. This bill is about driving up building costs making homes unaffordable and sending good members of the building industry across to Australia because they have had a gutsful of the bureaucracy. It will be a very different building amendment bill that National brings to this House to try to inject some common sense into this important industry. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring some clarity to the issue of where the costs fall when we are talking about the building levies which have skyrocketed in recent years. They have skyrocketed to support the bureaucracy that has to underpin bills like this Building Amendment Bill that are passed in this Parliament. I would like to read to the House comments from the transcript of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting that dealt with the annual financial review of the Department of Building and Housing. This is from the chief executive: “The Building Act activities are funded from the building levies. They are not Crown-funded.” Heatley: “That’s right. So the levy payer essentially pays; it’s not the taxpayer?”. Chief executive: “That’s correct.” Heatley: “How are the levies collected again roughly?”. Chief executive: “They are collected by the territorial authorities and they are part of the consenting costs.” 
So the levies are part of the consenting process. And who pays for the consent? The consent is ultimately paid by the first-home buyer or in this case the first-home person who is contracting the building work the building of his or her first home. This is just another bill for those people. So when we talk in Part 2 about the validation in respect of levies on the estimated value of building work we are talking about the first-home builder if you like paying and it is just another cost on top of all the other costs to do with consenting particularly the Resource Management Act consent costs that ultimately the first-home buyer has to foot the bill for. 
At that select committee meeting we were astonished to discover the wastage of the building levies that are to be validated here in Part 2. I will give the committee an example of that. It appears that the Department of Building and Housing employed Unisys to develop a computer system that was to record the registration or licensing of builders across this country. Unisys was supposed to develop for $1.2 million a system that would record the name date of birth and contact details of licensed builders as well as the registration number the name of the company the status and history of the person’s licence and whether the licence had ever been suspended. Unisys ended up having to set aside all that work—and I will tell members soon how much that work was worth—but the levy payer had paid for all of it. That work is now in the dustbin; Unisys was paid to go away. How much was it paid? It was paid $653000—$653000 of building levy costs were thrown at Unisys and Unisys in turn put its work in the dustbin. 
But that is not all. Let us wait; there is more! We discovered at that select committee that not only was that work put in the dustbin and $653000 thrown at Unisys to make it go away but apparently there were more consultants’ costs advisers’ costs and project management costs that went along with that discarded project. Believe it or not we heard from the XACTA Group which supplied contract staff to assist with documentation and was paid $193000. Its work is now in the dustbin. AMR Consulting supplied project management and contract staff to assist with the creation of that computer system and it was paid $127000 of levy payers’ money. Kensington Swan supplied legal services on options to end the contract with Unisys. So Kensington Swan came in to help to end the contract with Unisys and was paid $54000 of levy payers’ money. All that added up believe it or not to another $646000. 
So on one side Unisys chucked its work on a computer system for the registration of builders in the bin and was paid $653000 to make it go away and on the other side all the consultants who supplied support work and legal services and the suppliers of contract staff and project management were collectively paid $646000 for the work that eventually ended up in the dustbin. 
John Carter 
: And where did that money come from? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Wait a minute—but wait; wait a minute. If we add up both totals we get a grand sum of over $1.2 million of levy payers’ funds that was chucked in the rubbish tin— 
John Carter 
: Gone in this bin. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It has gone in there. There were $1.2 million of levy payers’ funds put in the bin. 
We have described where those levy payers’ funds come from. Essentially they come through the consenting process and the first-home buyer pays them. First-home buyers in this country have paid $1.2 million for a computer system to register builders—to license builders—but none of it will be used. The Department of Building and Housing which started with a clean sheet will go through the process all over again. Yet the Labour Government and the Minister in the chair the Hon Darren Hughes are asking this House of Representatives 121 MPs to support them in this type of wastage—to support them in billing first-home buyers for $1.2 million that is going nowhere that is being thrown away—and to support them in more regulation and legislation that actually snows those builders and first-home buyers with more documentation more regulatory hoops more plans they have to submit to councils more forms they have to fill in and more consultants they have to engage. And on it goes. 
Why should this House of Representatives support a Labour Government that has introduced a Building Act that has been amended now—how many times? How many times did my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith say? How many times has this legislation been amended now? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s No. 4. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. 4! The Government has introduced legislation to this House that has needed to be amended four times. Why should this House of Representatives support that particularly when members see the wastage and when we see builders rocking up to our offices right across the country to complain about the amount of regulation and red tape they have to deal with? And councils themselves are complaining now. In fact we had the mayor of the Far North District Council go to see the building Minister. We had the mayor of Whangarei District Council go to the building Minister and the mayors said themselves that councils have just had enough. 
Interestingly councils cannot even employ enough planners or building inspectors to work through the piles of paper that they need to. They cannot do that and they are saying that their bureaucracies are growing and they have had enough. Yet this Labour Government has the nerve to come to us cap in hand for the fourth time to fix up its Building Act when we have lining up behind us builders first-home buyers councils and even mayors who tell us not to do this. They say they have had enough—that they want there to be no more paper from Wellington. The councils say they want to streamline themselves and cut the red tape because they no longer want to pass on the costs to first-home buyers. They see the problem and ask us to please not support this legislation. Is it any wonder that mayors and councils up and down the country are looking to the National Party for solutions and are hearing the right answers? 
I am concerned that the Minister in the chair has not stood to address any of the problems that we have put to him today or last night for that matter in the debating chamber. Do Government members not care about prospective first home buyers being locked out of buying their first home? Do they not care that homeownership rates are the lowest they have been in this country for 50 years? Do they not care that mortgage interest rates are now going through the roof? Of course rents are rising as well. We will not support this legislation. Why should we? It is the fourth time. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the terms of reference for the feasibility study of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Building Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Validation and transitional provisions ( 
continued) 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are on to our 16th speaker and a motion was put almost 3½ months ago for the question to be put. I am just explaining where we are at. I will go to Bob Clarkson. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 That is a very good choice. I want the members of this Labour Government to understand that they have reached new heights of bureaucratic failure with this bill and its amendments. Tradesmen carpenters in most cases did not cause leaky homes. The main cause of the problem was the Department of Building and Housing telling builders what to do which turned out to be wrong. How can we blame tradesmen carpenters for using kiln-dried timber overlaid with Harditex cladding that had a moisture leakage of 7 percent when the department said it was OK to do it that way? The Government is now overreacting to the leaky home problem by licensing builders. Tradesmen carpenters will be stuck with paying $2000 for a licence not the $300 that the Minister says. [ 
Interruption 
] We are getting to that. The building of leaky homes was not their fault. 
We have had many Ministers for Building and Construction over the last 8½ years. Clayton Cosgrove the previous reject was the public relations man and a spin doctor. As I have said before he woke up one morning with a warm fuzzy feeling and thought that another amendment to the bill was needed. Every bill or amendment to the bill does not have a sound base for solving the problems in the building industry. I was looking forward to going head to head with Mr Cosgrove. However he has been pushed sideways by our friend Helen. Helen got something right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Full names. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise if I offended anyone then. I suggest that the Minister—sorry the previous Minister; it is hard to keep up there have been so many—keep out of the building area and go back to being a public relations man. He was good at spinning a story but not at solving building problems. 
Let us move on. Shane Jones has been given this job. This is Minister No. 9. I say sorry to Shane but he has been given a hot potato. It can be easily fixed and it will be fixed by Nick Smith and myself after the next election. We will not have warm fuzzy dreams. We will deal with the cold hard facts and bring in a bill that will fix all the problems. I say to Shane to do his best. There is not long to go until the next election. 
The amendment does nothing for the problems. The cost of a house will go up. If a carpenter has to pay for a licence this cost will go on to a house. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has had over half of his speech time already and we have not heard any reference to the four clauses that this entire part contains. It is just a generic speech on his views which we have heard dozens of times in his short time in Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. Yes we should be discussing those four clauses. There will be plenty of opportunity in the next three questions to roam all over the place and to summarise everything we have been doing for the last 4 months on this issue. If the member could confine himself please to those clauses in Part 2. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I thought in actual fact that I was referring to them in the sense of the cost of levies and all that sort of stuff and so forth. 
This bill and the amendments have nothing to do with and will not help cut costs of council fees building levies and all that sort of stuff. The councils are running scared. Builders are acting like stunned mullets. Builders will go broke because they cannot get permits because it is a long-winded process. Where are we headed? I say to New Zealanders to be patient there is an election coming; Nick Smith and “Bob the Builder” will solve their problems. They will be able to sit in the front of a bus and see where they are going not in the back to see where they have been. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 2 and 3 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 with three questions. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In beginning the debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 I want to draw attention to the statement made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank Dr Alan Bollard this morning. In saying that New Zealanders would not see any decline in their interest rates he said that cost increases in the non-tradable sector are providing inflationary pressures which means that there can be no room for relaxing the cash rate. One may ask what that has to do with this bill. It has everything to do with this bill because we have seen that the Government’s Building Act is adding to those exact same inflationary pressures in the non-tradable sector—basically Government charges—that are resulting in high inflation which is impacting on ordinary New Zealanders. 
How will it impact? There are 230000 New Zealanders whose mortgages come up for renewal this year. The Reserve Bank governor’s message today means that those families will face increases in their interest rates as the banks roll those mortgages over. Those 230000 families will be facing the second-highest interest rates in the developed world because this incompetent Government keeps driving up the regulatory costs on areas like building. I say to the Government members opposite that it is time they did something for those mortgage-belt families. It is time that the Government recognised that its Building Act 2004 is a major problem. It has resulted in huge increases in cost. It has resulted in huge increases in bureaucracy. 
Let me just go through some of the areas where the Building Act is driving up costs. Firstly let us look at consent costs. Today in the House I have outlined all of the councils that have had to increase their building consent fees because of the provisions in this bill. The Nelson City Council has increased its fees by 50 percent the Tasman District Council has increased them by 35 percent and the Dunedin City Council has increased them by 67 percent. Those increases have been made in 1 year. How can a Government that is driving a strategy around housing affordability then pass a Building Act that is driving up costs to that sort of order? 
That is just one area. The development levies which were driven through on to the councils have trebled under this Government. They have gone from an average level of $8000 per section to $25000 per section. When the Government introduced them it said that it would sock the big rich fat developers with a development levy. Well only the fools on the other side of the Chamber would believe that it is actually the developer who pays the development levies. The levies are just passed on to the price of the section or the house and that is one of the reasons why section prices have more than doubled over the last 5 years. Can members believe that it costs more to buy a section today than it did to buy a house when Labour came into Government? A section today costs more than a house cost when Labour came into Government. 
National’s frustration with this Building Amendment Bill is that there is absolutely nothing in it at all to address the crisis in house affordability—nothing at all. When we see the crocodile tears from the Minister of Housing Maryan Street and when we hear the words from the Prime Minister— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The next member for Nelson. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Darren Hughes is saying that somehow Maryan Street will be the next member for Nelson. Well I will tell the Minister why she will not be. A week after she came to Nelson and talked about home affordability the council had to lift building fees by 50 percent. In the Tasman District we have had a 35 percent increase in building fees. Then we have Maryan Street’s Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. Do members know what the Nelson City Council says about it in today’s newspaper? It says it is the worst bill—the worst bill—to address housing affordability. My council the Nelson City Council is apolitical. It is apolitical. And here is my own council saying that Maryan Street’s bill is a dog—a dog! [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Darren Hughes that the words of the Nelson City Council are mild compared with what the Tasman District Council is saying about that bill. That council is referring to it as a joke—a sick cynical trick on the people of New Zealand. I am pleased Darren Hughes is waving goodbye because we in this Chamber all know that Nathan Guy will clean him up in that electorate because of the sorts of dopey policies we see in this Building Amendment Bill. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the title of the Building Amendment Bill. There are two or three things I want to say. The first is: fancy putting as the Minister in the chair on something to do with housing someone who does not own a house. Fancy putting in someone who does not even know what homeownership is like. The fact is I do not think he has even owned a doll’s house let alone his own house. This person in the chair does not understand what it is like for the people in “Struggle Street’ who are trying to get their own house. 
The second point I make is that my colleagues today—Nick Smith Phil Heatley and others who have spoken—have talked about the costs of building levies and other costs associated with the local authorities. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What would you do about it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I would do a lot more than that member who is going out as well. People worry about the fact that the councils are putting their fees up. Nick Smith has explained the fees that have gone up in the various councils. Let me just clarify. Why are those councils putting the fees up? Let me tell the Committee why that happens. The councils have to match the bureaucracy that the Government has established by making rules and regulations. The Government then imposes those costs and the rules and regulations on to the councils which have to respond to them. The building industry the builder the architect and the actual suppliers have to respond to these costs. So there are extra costs loaded in right across. It is now estimated that compliance costs in total—if we take in not just the building fees and levy contributions but all the costs associated with the bureaucracy—are probably as much as $50000 a section for the red-tape side of it. 
That is an absolute disgrace. That figure is an estimate at this stage but up to $50000 could be loaded into the building costs per house development because of this Government’s rules. The sad fact is that the councils are merely responding to the responsibilities that this Government has put on to them. It is known that bureaucracy in the local authorities has grown more than 25 percent since Labour came to Government because the local authorities have had more and more costs imposed on them. The local authorities have to respond; they do not have a choice. They have to respond to what the Government imposes on them and the consequence is more costs more red tape and more bureaucracy. 
Even worse is that the Government members could stand here and say they have had to do all this to get over the problem with leaky homes and if this were going to fix the problem maybe they would have that excuse—not that it would be acceptable to the Opposition but nevertheless. But the sad fact is that right now not only is the issue of the leaky homes that we know about not being addressed but actually we are building more leaky homes in this country. If people in this Chamber and people in this Committee think that we have solved the leaky home problems they should think again. 
David Bennett 
: Labour’s leaky homes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: My colleagues have to believe it. The sad fact is that is there are more and more leaky homes being built. Right now there are leaky homes being built in this country. Poor unsuspecting homeowners are buying spec homes that look good and feel good. Sadly for them in the next 5 or 10 years and longer they will find that that new home they bought today built under the Government regulations is leaky. The Department of Building and Housing has grown from a staff equivalent to 31.5 people to one of over 385. There are 385 bureaucrats in there most of them with little experience in the building industry itself. Some of them are good people but a lot of them have no idea about building. They know how to write rules and regulations. The sad fact is that this bill and this Minister and that department are doing nothing to address the issue this bill is supposedly all about. 
That is why the Opposition will fight and rally against this led by my good friend and colleague Nick Smith by Phil Heatley and by others in this Chamber. We will fight this every inch of the way because it is doing a disservice to a whole lot of New Zealanders. 
There are many people in this country who would love to have the opportunity to own their own home. There are many people in this country who would love to have confidence that the home they buy whether it be their first their second or their retirement home is secure and that the money they put into it is an asset to them. They would love to be assured that the Government has got it right. They would love to know that the council has got it right. They would love to know that the people they have relied on to ensure the house is secure can guarantee that the house is going to last. Sadly that does not happen. There are far too many people in this country who are going to be let down because this Government has no idea what it is doing. 
It was yesterday or today that my colleague Nick Smith brought in the building consent application that one has to fill in for the Rodney District Council. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 110 pages. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He brought in 110 pages of forms that one has to fill in just to apply for a building consent. This is just the application folks. That is not the largest local authority in New Zealand either so we can imagine the sizes of some of the other applications. Once that has been filled out the plans the architect designs and the specifications about the materials to be used have to be attached. It just goes on and on. When I was listening to my colleague Nick Smith speak I was thinking that the sad fact is that all the building applications that are made in this country—the pile of papers and all the papers that are associated with them—would in my guess over a year be the equivalent of about 10 houses if we had left them as wood rather than paper. We could have given 10 houses away made the houses secure and given people something they owned and respected. Instead all this Government is giving them is a whole lot of paper and form-filling. We could have given a house to Darren Hughes. Everybody would have been better off. 
But sadly we have a Government that insists on bureaucracy control hands-on form filling and a whole lot of rhetoric that does nothing at all. The Minister Shane Jones is going around listening and learning. He hears the various things that Nick Smith has talked about. He hears the very thing Phil Heatley talks about; that is builders who are good competent people who have got to the stage where they are saying “We are out of here. We have had enough of this form-filling. We cannot guarantee with all the paper and all the specifications and all the materials we have to supply that we can do a proper job for people who expect us to.” 
These are good long-serving competent homebuilders. These people know their job. They know what it is like to build a house. They know what it is like to have an asset. They know what it is like to carry the responsibility but sadly this Government will not listen to those people who actually understand. This Government will not listen to people who could actually tell them how to solve the problem. The one good piece of news is that Nick Smith Phil Heatley Bob Clarkson myself and others working in the team have an answer. We know how to fix this problem. Hang on folks help is on its way. It is all going to be fixed in due course. The policies we are developing are going to take a lot of this right out so that people will be able to get to the stage where they can invest with security and they can own their own home. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Limited Partnerships Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills reported the Broadcasting Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Building Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.