Volume 626 Week 91 - Wednesday 8 June 2005 
Volume 626 Week 91 - Wednesday 8 June 2005 
[Volume:626;Page:21123] 
Wednesday 8 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for two additional members’ bills to be drawn in the ballot for members’ bills to be held tomorrow. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Services—Public Confidence 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she believe the New Zealand public has confidence in the ability of the health-care sector to continue to provide quality services in light of the survey published by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 recently showing 73.8 percent of people believe Government-funded health-care has remained the same or worsened since 1999; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I believe the public can be confident. The poll refers only to part of the public health system. It does not take account of the fact that more than 50 percent of New Zealanders now receive cheaper primary health care and prescriptions and we can be proud of our doctors and nurses in hospitals for what they are achieving. We are performing 44000 more medical and surgical case discharges this year than we were in 1999. We are doing 27500 more day procedures. I have to say that all of that would be at risk if tax cuts come at the expense of health spending. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister believe that the same 73.8 percent of people would feel similarly about Pharmac particularly given today’s announcement that it has backtracked on its decision regarding sole supply of Salamol and has instead extended the provision of Ventolin as well for a further period and given also the fact that that comes on top of back-downs over the sole supply of flu vaccine and cholesterol medication; when will she stop those cowboys acting in the way they are in playing fast and lose with people’s health? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think most New Zealanders will be very pleased at the work that Pharmac does. We have in terms of access to pharmaceuticals 80 percent of our medicines subsidised and we have one of the highest ratios of publicly subsidised access to pharmaceuticals of any country in the world. I am pleased however that Pharmac listened to the advice it got from the public which is what it has to do—it does have a consumer advisory committee as well. I think we should applaud Pharmac for listening. I would hate to see what would happen to Pharmac if we have the tax cuts that some people here in the House are proposing. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister read any other polls recently concerning public satisfaction with the health system? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes. The poll that is mentioned today surveys people on their perceptions of hospitals rather than on their experiences. I think the polls that people ought to look at are those that survey patient satisfaction with New Zealand hospitals. They show a consistently high rating by people treated as inpatients and outpatients. The latest poll shows 88 percent of patient satisfaction. That is extremely high but I would say that patient satisfaction will go out the window as soon as we get tax cuts. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does she continue to deny the opinion of the New Zealand public as per the  
New Zealand Herald  
when medical experts such as Dr Jonathan Simon have concluded: “When we look at the significant investment in the health sector over the past four years it is devastating to see how little effect it has had.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say that I am rather disappointed in Dr Jonathan Simon’s comments. However I do note that he was often a critic of the 1990s as well. I would say in respect of the money we have put into primary health care—and it has been put in over only the last 3 years—it will take a little time till we get the full result but we are already starting to see results. I do not have time to go through them but I know they are at risk if we have the tax cuts that National is proposing. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the recent Budget raised health-care expenditure only to the level as a percentage of GDP that it was at when the Government came into power and is she aware also that private health care has gone down—is shrinking—as a percentage of GDP and what will she do about that; will she compensate one for the other or will she just let things go? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Private medical insurance has been decreasing in New Zealand since 1990 when 50 percent of people actually had medical insurance. It is below about 30 percent now. Those are choices that people make; it has nothing to do with the Government. Probably people have more confidence in what this Government is providing because they know that we have invested more in health. We have had to invest more in health to rebuild the health infrastructure of this country—that is hospitals the health workforce and wages and salaries to ensure that we can provide health care. I tell that member that everyone would be at risk if money was taken out in tax cuts. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister’s answer to my earlier supplementary question mean that Pharmac will now be deciding its policy on the basis of the feedback it gets from the public; if it does mean that will the Minister therefore give the House an absolute assurance that we will not see any repetition of the types of events we have seen this year with regard to the flu vaccine and now with regard to asthma inhalers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac will make its decisions based on evidence and consultation as it always has done. It does not intend to change that approach. It has worked well for us in the past; I expect that it will work well for us in the future. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on this question in light of the fact that this is an election year. We have been asking questions of the Minister of Health and in every single one of those answers except where she had a slip of the tongue and referred to health cuts when I think she meant tax cuts she has answered about tax cuts in addition to the main answer. She is not the Minister of Finance; she is the Minister of Health. If she wanted some advice on tax cuts I would be happy to give it to her at any time. But it seems to me to be a risk that from now on till the election it does not matter what questions we ask the Government on any subject because we will get back the same litany. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that as Minister if Health in any answer I give I must consider the impact of taking money out of health and the impact that would have on our ability to provide health services. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any more help with this. I do listen carefully to the answers for the very reason the member has raised. Often the questions are multi-pronged in their approach but the Minister addresses the questions. There are and I will be careful about them irrelevant comments that do come in that do not relate to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister now admit the serious mistake of her so-called reforms which have seen an increase in health expenditure yet a lessening in the number of operations delivered to the people of this country and whilst I am at it where is my answer on Risperdal Consta she promised me weeks ago? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is incorrect. There are not fewer operations than there were. There were 44000 additional medical and surgical case mix discharges now than there were in 1999 27500 more day-cases of surgery done than before and over 100000 more outpatients in accident and emergency alone. That does not add up to a cut in my book. In terms of the drug I will make sure that the member gets an answer soon. I do not have it with me. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she still stand by her comments in the House yesterday that after 6 years of her stewardship there is actually leadership of health workforce development when her own Health Workforce Advisory Committee report states: “What seems to be missing is leadership and supporting infrastructure and tinkering ad hoc approaches will not suffice. It is time for concerted action.” and does she take that as a personal failing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because as the member will be aware the Health Workforce Advisory Committee was set up by this Government. Before that there was no health workforce planning at all. In fact Bill English rejected the health workforce planning that had been done in the past. The committee has come out with a report that gives direction in terms of medical training. We accept that direction which is something that did not happen before. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister consider that the health-care sector will continue to provide quality services despite the fact that New Zealand does not have a nationally coordinated recruitment and retention strategy for medical staff in order to prevent future shortages? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We do extremely well at providing services even though we do have shortages in the medical and nursing workforces. This Government has put in a lot of effort into recruitment and training and I think that we do very well. However we can do better and we will do better and I think that people have seen a commitment from this Government that they have not seen from any other Government in the past. 
Judy Turner 
: Why has she handed the responsibility for health workforce development and planning to the district health boards when they have no control over national policies that directly impact staff numbers such as tertiary education and student loans and why has she refused to own the situation by heeding the recommendations of the report when the only appropriate body to lead workforce development is her own ministry? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is incorrect. Health workforce planning is in the hands of three organisations that work together: the Health Workforce Advisory Committee which gives the broad overview district health boards which must do the recruitment—after all they employ the people and know whether they need another dozen nurses three doctors or whatever; it cannot be done by the Ministry of Health—and they also work with the Ministry of Health which over time has done considerable health workforce planning in mental health and in nursing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 4 May which quotes Dr Jonathan Simon as saying: “When we look at the significant investment in the health sector over the past four years it is devastating to see how little effect it has had.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
State-owned Enterprises—Structured Finance Deals 
2.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Have any State-owned enterprises engaged in structured finance deals that could have reduced the New Zealand tax liability of the investing counter-party in the previous 5 years; if so what are the details of those arrangements? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 To the best of my knowledge checks having been made with all the larger State-owned enterprises the answer is no. The smaller ones are probably too small to enter into such transactions. 
John Key 
: If New Zealand financial institutions have not engaged in structured finance deals to reduce their tax base in New Zealand can the Minister explain the logic of why two financial institutions yesterday refused to rule out any involvement in those transactions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I assume it is for the same reason that Ministers sometimes decline to comment. For example when questions are asked of the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service as to operational details— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Come on come clean. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member who has asked me to come clean is the member who went to court and was found to be very dirty indeed I might say. The Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service always refuses to comment on operational details because once one starts commenting then clearly one is backed into a blind corner. I am sure that the banks took the same attitude. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister to outline now what the two deals in 1996 that were mentioned by the Prime Minister yesterday were; deals that she accused me of being associated with and about which one Jane Clifton in today’s paper describes me as being “in a similar deal when he was in government”? What exactly were those two deals that the Prime Minister was talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not responsible for Jane Clifton. All I can say is that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Nobody is! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not my understanding. All I can say is that Transpower certainly entered into a lease-out and lease-back arrangement in 1996. 
John Key 
: If the Minister is so confident that everything is above board with these Transpower deals why could neither his office nor Transpower answer in detail direct questions that were put to them last week about these deals and why could he not answer the simple question I put to him in the House yesterday despite the fact that he had 4 hours’ notice? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it’s dodgy. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not dodgy at all. The deal is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which it occurred. Indeed for reasons that are well beyond me that particular jurisdiction actually designs tax loopholes to be exploited by a variety of companies. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I can ask that the Minister answer the question. It was quite a straightforward question: why could not either Transpower or the Minister answer those questions we put to them last week? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister did address the question. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary question he may do so. 
John Key 
: If it is proven that a New Zealand State-owned enterprise has engaged in structured deals that have allowed other entities to reduce their New Zealand tax base will the Minister demand the resignation of the State-owned enterprise’s chief executive officer and board and what responsibility will he personally assume? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: State-owned enterprises are allowed to enter into structured financial deals subject to certain considerations. Final decisions are for the individual State-owned enterprise boards subject to the usual consultation requirements. All transactions should be legal in all jurisdictions in which they have effect and they should have sign-off from legal advisers and appropriate tax authorities. Ownership risks arising from the tax transactions should be remote. The normal expectations regarding the “no surprises” rule etc. should apply. In the particular case to which the member refers I am completely satisfied that there was no tax loss to New Zealand as a result of the structured finance deal. Indeed there was a tax gain to New Zealand as a result of the structured finance deal. I have more information on that I am sure than Dr Richard Worth does. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to clarify that the Minister’s answer is that if a State-owned enterprise undertakes a structured finance deal here in New Zealand and it reduces the tax base of New Zealand entities he is happy with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is a supplementary question. The member is entitled to a supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 record of the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 1 yesterday which alongside the statement of the Minister of Finance today demonstrates that when she made that allegation she did not have a shred of evidence to back it up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Capital Spending—Government Borrowing 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: To what extent is the Government prepared to borrow for capital spending over the next 4 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 To the extent consistent with our capital investment requirements and with the objective of maintaining gross debt at around 20 percent of GDP. This translates into anticipated net borrowings averaging $1.9 billion a year between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2009. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals to borrow more for capital spending; if so why is the Government not adopting these proposals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes particularly from the National Party. The Government will not go down this path because the effect would be to put pressure on inflation and interest rates—on inflation by exacerbating capacity constraints in the economy by feeding more demand in and on interest rates as the Reserve Bank responds to those inflationary pressures the Reserve Bank being concerned at the moment about the level of inflationary pressures within the economy. Furthermore a good many parts of any Government’s capital expenditure including those parts most called for by some Opposition parties do not necessarily contribute to long-term GDP growth. 
John Key 
: Would it be useful for me to remind the Minister that in Opposition Helen Clark made dozens of comments about the virtues of using debt including the statement: “The Government is putting an undue emphasis on debt repayment at the expense of our failing services and infrastructure in New Zealand.” and am I correct to assume that what she meant when she made such comments was that there is quite some virtue in using debt to fund badly needed infrastructure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is true that the largest single reduction in debt in the last 15 years occurred during 1 year under the National Government. What the member seems to ignore is that there is a difference between borrowing on average over the cycle—which the Government is proposing to do and proposing when the economy has been running very strongly and is in capacity constraints—and borrowing in such a way that one feeds inflation and demand. I invite the member to read the various statements from the Governor of the Reserve Bank and instead of simply acting like another foreign exchange speculator as he used to be he might concentrate on sound fiscal management. His colleague used to have some knowledge in this matter before he became an old man in a hurry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 370 makes it very plain that answers are to be concise and to answer the questions and it states quite specifically that answers are not allowed to make any references to other members of Parliament. Why did you not intervene on this question or on any other answers from Annette King or do we somehow not follow the Standing Orders these days in the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no requirement under Standing Order 370 to make no references to any other member of Parliament. It states: “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament”. If one could make no reference to any other member of Parliament in a question or an answer this would become an extraordinarily silent process at the start of Parliament each day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any help. Thank you very much. I certainly would like the questions and the answers to be concise and to the point. I live in hope and if I pulled up every question and every answer then we would not get very far. But I think it is timely that the member has raised this for the House’s attention. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that ruling could I ask for some further clarification? When a Minister is giving an answer and there is a barrage of interjections asking further questions is the Minister actually allowed to continue to answer the questions further being raised by the members opposite as they go along in a kind of stream of angry consciousness? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that observation. Certainly those who interject should not expect no response. It is a matter of judgment. If you interject you are likely to get a response. Let us just keep this within the bounds of question time and the Standing Orders. 
Peter Brown 
: If the Minister knew with some certainty that there would be huge economic gains from investing in a particular segment of our infrastructure would he allow a State-owned enterprise to borrow against future income in order to advance those gains? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed which is why the Government has already authorised the issuing of debt for the financing of the Albany to Puhoi realignment project. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How indebted is the household sector in New Zealand and what implications does this carry for the Government’s fiscal management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand’s household debt is amongst the highest in the OECD at 80 percent of GDP. Total debt including Government debt is already at over 100 percent of GDP. Clearly if it continues to rise the interest-rate premium New Zealand pays would also rise pushing up interest rates for households and businesses over the long term. 
Health Vote—Treasury Concerns 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action is she taking to address Treasury’s serious concerns about the sustainability of the current rate of growth in Vote Health in particular the concern that if the current rate of increase is maintained Vote Health could be at least 13.6 percent of GDP by the year 2020? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 High health spending especially growth in health spending is an issue that New Zealand does not face on its own. In fact both the level and growth in New Zealand’s health spending are in line with OECD norms and trends. However sustainability of health expenditure is a question this Government takes seriously. The Minister of Finance and I have commissioned a review of Vote Health expenditure and I have asked the Minister of Finance about the impact that tax cuts would have on health funding and about the cuts on health services that would be required to fund the Opposition’s tax cuts. 
Heather Roy 
: Why do those damning Treasury papers released under the Official Information Act repeatedly declare that there is an “unsustainable growth path of health spending over the longer term.” when there is little change to the number of 180000 patients on all waiting lists—leaving aside the Minister’s usual bluff and bluster answers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Considerable investment has been made into the health sector by this Government; we make no apologies for that. We have had to invest in new hospitals. We have had to invest in the wages and salaries of our health workforce in order to recruit and retain them. But we have also invested in more services. I do not wish you to stop me from answering Madam Speaker but if I were to repeat all the improvements then I am sure you would say that I was talking for too long. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Will the Minister ever accept that the massive bureaucracy she has created—in the form of 21 district health boards with all their committees and over 76 primary health organisations with their mass of committees as well as through a 25 percent increase in staff numbers at the Ministry of Health—has contributed to the poor productivity and waste in the health sector as identified by Treasury; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That question is laughable. When it comes to health bureaucracy let me talk about 23 Crown health enterprises. Let me talk about four regional health authorities the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit and Health Benefits Ltd. Let us look at the number of bureaucrats there were in the mid-1990s—it is about the same number as now. I can tell the member that there has been a 0.4 percent increase in the total number of bureaucrats in the last 5 years that Labour has been in Government. I ask National members whether they matched that in the 1990s. 
Mark Peck 
: How do New Zealand’s health expenditure and health outcomes compare with those of other countries? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We compare very well with OECD countries. In the latest data available New Zealand’s total health expenditure was 8.5 percent of GDP. We ranked 16th out of 27 OECD countries. However on life expectancy New Zealand now ranks even better against OECD countries—but then we did see years of disparity when tax cuts in the 1990s were made at the expense of the length and quality of the lives of New Zealanders. We will see that again if Don Brash gets his way. 
Heather Roy 
: How has this Minister thrown a record extra $3.5 billion at health a record 57 percent increase in just 6 years yet her ministerial answers to me show that the number of operations from 2001 to 2004 has budged only 1.3 percent while the population has grown at the same time by 4.3 percent—which is an actual cut in operations per head of population—how can that be? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because she’s hopeless! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can get the member an operation if he needs one. He should just tell me where he needs it. I do not know what part he needs it on. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an important question. I am quite pleased that Annette King is able to give out operations at a whim because no one else in New Zealand can get them. But her job as Minister is to try at least to answer what is a very serious question of concern to New Zealanders. I know that Annette King struggles in the job and that she does not like to give straight answers but it is your job Madam Speaker to ensure that she addresses the question. Her cheap shot across the House in no way did that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As has been noted those who make interjections are likely to have responses. As long as those responses are within the rules then they will be permitted. The Minister was about to answer the question and she is known for answering questions very fully. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am and I was just going to give a full answer. In fact Treasury last year reported a 7 percent increase in funding and a 1.5 percent increase in outputs. Those outputs I have to tell the member explain only 44 percent of hospital costs. They are a poor indicator of the level of district health board output overall. The member has been told that over and over again. She likes to interpret figures for her own political purposes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why when the ministry’s own research shows that diet and poor nutrition are by far the leading cause of death—accounting for about 30 percent of deaths—is there no specific Ministry of Health funding allocated for implementing the flagship Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy other than a small fruit in schools programme; and why is the ministry not taking concrete measures to improve diet such as getting high fat and sugar foods known to be unhealthy out of our schools? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The implementation of the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy as the member was told at the Health Committee this morning is implemented through district health boards. If the member reads the district health boards’ annual plans she will see that they have plans proposals and policies in place to implement the strategy alongside the Ministry of Health’s public health funding that is going into the fruit in schools programme for example through health-promoting schools—something that has been very successful. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can the Minister explain that when in 1999 a tragic 96000 New Zealanders were queued up in pain waiting for their first specialist assessment— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Not in pain! 
Rodney Hide 
: Well members may want to call out from the back— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry I did not hear that. Who intervened? Would the member please leave the Chamber. 
Steve Chadwick withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please continue. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would like to start again. How come when 96000 New Zealanders were queued up in pain for their first specialist assessment the Minister could say it was “criminal” but under her watch and after spending an extra $3.5 billion a year by her own figures 120000 people are now queued up waiting for their first specialist assessment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The important thing is how long people wait for their first specialist assessment and the time they are waiting is considerably less than it was in 1999 and the number of people waiting is considerably fewer. So we have seen some real improvement in the number of people getting first specialist assessment. Over 400000 New Zealanders are getting first specialist assessment each year. 
Rodney Hide 
: Then given the Minister’s answer does she now accept that the number waiting for their first specialist assessment has indeed grown from 96000 to 120000 and that what she really meant to say when she was in Opposition was that it was not the number of the 96000 who were waiting that was criminal but how long they had to wait; and does she think that that is some cold comfort for the 120000 still waiting? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is certainly the length of time that people wait that concerns them. I was more concerned about the 89000 people who had waited on a list for operations in the 1990s. The National Party’s new policy as announced on Monday night is: “We’ll just put them on a list and miraculously they’ll feel better about it!”. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister persist with her bluff and bluster answers when it was announced in the Budget that deficits are blowing out to $100 million a year that 120000 people are waiting for first specialist assessments that Treasury has reported that productivity is collapsing and that the number of operations per head of population is reducing and there is now the most damning Treasury report on health ever produced—all of that despite her throwing a record $3.5 billion at health from when she was elected? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It would be really good if the member were to read all the Treasury report. She loves to pick out the bits that suit her. What about some of the positive things Treasury had to say? What about some of the positive comments it makes? The member likes to run down the health system in New Zealand—a health system that is producing more operations more outpatient services more services for New Zealand and lower-cost primary health care. She blackens the name of doctors and nurses. She does not believe that they should get an increase in their pay and then she tries to tell us that we should be cutting taxes and cutting expenditure. One cannot have it both ways. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister ignored the question totally redefined it then gave us an extended blather about what she wanted to answer. The question from my colleague Heather Roy was very clear and very specific. The Minister changed the whole premise created a hypothetical question then went on with great gusto and at incredible length and did not answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The question was quite long. It enabled the Minister to address it in the way she did which was in a general way. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister might think this issue is funny but we actually think it is serious. My colleague Heather Roy asked a very specific question. It does not matter about the length; it is the specificity of the question that matters. The question was clearly in order because you allowed it. Not once in the blather that the Minister delivered—and it was total blather—did she come anywhere close to answering a very specific question. There are people at home listening to this who are stuck on the waiting list. They would like to hear a Minister who fronts up and actually answers some questions rather than blathers on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. The answer may not have been to the member’s satisfaction but it did address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the statement where Annette King said it was criminal that 96000 people were waiting for a first specialist assessment. That appeared in the  
Evening Post 
 on 19 August 1998. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is the  
Treasury Report: Budget Bilateral 2005 Health. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: The second document is a parliamentary written question I asked of the Minister of Health showing that the number of operations from 2001 to 2004 has increased only very slightly and showing that the total number of operations per head of population is actually down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Health document  
Looking Upstream 
 confirming that 30 percent of deaths are caused by diet and poor nutrition. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Civil Aviation Director—Confidence 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: Does he have confidence in the Director of Civil Aviation? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that the office of the Auditor-General issued a scathing report about the Civil Aviation Authority’s performance on safety issues and that there are serious complaints about conflicts of interest within the organisation relating to that man; and is it not vital that the public’s confidence in air safety be restored by a proper investigation rather than by some woolly internal independent inquiry from a “holistic perspective”? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Bring in an outside Iraqi. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You would have heard when I was asking that question comments made by the Minister of Finance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was after the member had finished the question actually. I did listen. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Peters but it was. I listened very carefully. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he started when I got to “woolly” and I was still going on to “holistic perspective”. I am sorry but you are wrong. Out he goes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear that. I heard the comment after the member had finished asking the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well that is amazing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I give the House an assurance that the comment “Bring in an outside Iraqi” to look at the issue was made after the member had finished his question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is what I heard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So that is OK is it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well does the member take— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh very good. Now we know the rules. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No does the member take offence at that comment? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Given that the question was extremely wide I have not come prepared with the detail of the particular answer the member requires. I can say that complaints have been made by some sectors of the aviation industry for obvious reasons. Sometimes they have not liked the decision of the director. However I can assure the member in response to earlier questions—of which there were many—that we have investigated the issues previously exposed in the House in regard to conflicts of interest and that new procedures have been put in place in the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur in the future particularly in regard to the appointment and employment of outside contractors and particularly in regard to staff members of the Civil Aviation Authority doing contracted work for other organisations. Those issues and a policy on conflicts of interest have been put in place and very seriously implemented. I think the select committee has looked at the issue and I am not sure where the member is going with this question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that the director of this Government agency has broken the Act under which he is supposed to enforce issues by refusing licences to companies to operate such as the South Taranaki company using Wessex helicopters and GarLyn Skydiving not on the grounds of safety but for no other obvious reason than that those companies are in competition with other companies that are close to the director and if that is not a conflict of interest what is? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am aware that a preliminary decision has been made to decline Heli Logging Ltd using ex-military Wessex helicopters for commercial logging. The director has made that decision on technical grounds. I am sorry but I did not catch the name of the skydiving company— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: GarLyn. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: GarLyn—OK. I am aware that there is ongoing discussion over whether that company will be allowed to operate in the way that the member outlines. However I say to the House that the director has an independent statutory position. I cannot interfere in his decision nor can any other member of this House because he is statutorily empowered to make it. [ 
Interruption 
] However that does not stop me as the member quite rightly points out from questioning decisions and I have done so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister expect the industry and a great number of people including pilots and experienced aviators to settle for a woolly internal independent inquiry from a “holistic perspective” when in fact the matter now screams out for a fully independent inquiry into this person’s actions? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The matter is really in the member’s own hands. He could attend the select committee or have his colleague who is sitting alongside him attend the select committee to raise questions on those issues. I am confident that the Auditor-General has investigated the issues properly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I cannot run the Immigration Service and do that job as well. That is a totally unsatisfactory answer. Now it is my fault. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have noted the member’s comments about capacity. The Minister did address the question. The answer may not have been satisfactory to the member but he did address it. 
Working for Families Package—Benefits by Region 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on how many New Zealand families have benefited from the 1 April changes in the Working for Families package by region? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen reports with figures such as a 25 percent increase in the number of Inland Revenue Department clients receiving family assistance in Gisborne. In Manukau there are now nearly 16000 Inland Revenue Department recipients of family assistance a 17 percent increase over last year. In Taranaki there has been a 130 percent increase in working families getting accommodation supplements a 119 percent increase in Southland and nearly 14000 working families in Auckland are receiving it. There are now 4300 recipients of childcare assistance in Canterbury a 40 percent increase over last year and a 50 percent increase in recipients in the Waikato. That is proof that this package is getting money through to heartland New Zealand. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has he seen on the implementation of the next stages of the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Reports from the Ministry of Social Development indicate this is proceeding smoothly. However I have also seen a report that states: “For middle-income New Zealanders quite a lot of them who may be eligible under Working for Families probably will get less under us through that package if anything.” That quote came from National Party finance spokesman John Key on  
Insight 
 of 8 May. Of course he needs this money for his tax cuts. 
John Key 
: If the take-up rate for Working for Families has been acceptable from working families and the Government is not desperate to pump up the numbers on the programme why is it that Work and Income staff have been trolling through old applications made and rejected in the middle and latter part of last year and telling those people to reapply? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because we are committed to people getting their entitlement unlike the member’s party which during the 1990s oversaw an accommodation supplement take-up of only 19 percent and did nothing about it at all. 
Judy Turner 
: Has he considered enabling working families to receive their entitlements by alternative means such as a child tax allowance rather than a tax credit as an adjustment to the take-home pay of parents paid through their employer as a direct payment to the main carer of the child or by enabling them to divert into the workplace savings scheme or a tertiary savings scheme or to capitalise to increase equity in a home; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As always I am prepared to consider outstanding ideas if the member gives us some details. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What assurances can the Minister give that hard-working New Zealand families have gained their entitlements under this package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We have a communications strategy running through the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department that ensures that all New Zealanders understand the Working for Families changes; that everyone who is entitled to assistance is able to gain that assistance accurately; that all people who are eligible whose circumstances change—and I say this for all members in the House that all people’s circumstances will change—we have to advise them about it and that the wider public understand what is happening with their money. Unlike in the 1990s when the accommodation supplement take-up was only 19 percent under the National Government we want everyone to get their entitlements accurately. 
Immigration Service—Refugee Status Appeals Authority 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: For what reasons would the New Zealand Immigration Service choose to appear or not appear at a Refugee Status Appeals Authority hearing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Officials do not choose to attend Refugee Status Appeals Authority hearings. They need to seek leave and do so only where it will add some value to the hearing through the provision of information to the authority. The authority’s role is an inquisitorial one to determine the appellant’s claim for refugee status. Accordingly officials are not required to and cannot defend the original decision of the refugee status branch. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the New Zealand Immigration Service not seek to appear in case 75081 when serious criminal charges were then pending against the applicant and when the Minister’s department must have known the man’s full background—or did it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will not talk about a specific case and the member knows that. But it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases departmental officials do not attend those hearings because they are the ones who made the original decision potentially in the first place. That is why they do not attend and they are specifically told that they cannot attend unless they seek leave. That was actually an instruction from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in 1999 when that member was a member of Cabinet. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does he not at least tell the public the reasons why blanket suppression orders have been issued by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority or does he not know? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member knows that that has got subject suppression orders. It specifically comes from an independent statutory authority—the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. That authority was established by the previous National Government of which he was a Minister. He should know the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the work of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority why was the Minister so scathing about the concept of a flying squad to investigate properly the number of illegal aliens in this country yet he had to admit at the select committee hearing this morning that he has set up—since last week—just such a 35-person squad; and when will he say: “Sorry Winston. You were right in the first place.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member knows unless he was out for a fag that I made no such comment at the select committee this morning. I ask that he withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker you know full well that he cannot mention someone not being present at a select committee or in the House. That is his first offence. The second one is repeating the awful porky he told the media in the first place—that he did not believe in the need for a flying squad. And now he has got one— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the member— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and his chief executive said so at the select committee this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member must accept the Minister’s word that he did not say that. Those are the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: His head person said it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not what the member said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect when a Minister comes along with officials one presumes that the officials are there to talk on behalf of the Minister or on behalf of the ministry. It is the same thing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member did actually indicate to the House that it was the Minister who had said it. The Minister has denied it. Now can we move on please. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What was said at the select committee is that there has been a border investigation branch since about 1998. There was a fraud unit established and additional resources have been put into it. What we absolutely reject are the kinds of dawn raids that were part of National Party policy and that are the kind of thing that that member wants to set up—horseback riders going up and down the country acting as if they are something out of  
The Lord of the Rings 
. We are not having that and we will not have that under a Labour-led Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will you please arrange for him to get a Valium before he answers questions? He cannot rant and rave like that. If he wants to rant and rave like that he should admit that the only time there were dawn raids was under a Labour Government between 1972 and 1975. No wonder he feels guilty about it! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a point of order when I say that the Minister has gone right outside his responsibilities as Minister. He began a rant and rave about dawn raids and what have you none of which is in our policy whatsoever and he again refused to answer the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately the member opened himself up by referring to his own so-called flying squads policy. Of course what the Minister was pointing out was that what has been in place since 1998 is not the flying squads referred to by the member; and if they are in place then it is hard to understand what the member was trying to add with his flying squads policy—if it is all there at the present time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much for that. The Minister did address the question. The Standing Orders do not forbid “ranting and raving” as long as it addresses the question. So could we please move on. 
Stephen Franks 
: What consideration has he given to challenging the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority so that the neighbours—who are currently innocent of any knowledge of this matter—of a Jordanian who threatened to kill an immigration officer and at least one other New Zealander and who is staying here as a so-called refugee might at least be warned of the risks they face? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Once again I am not talking about that specific case and the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why not come clean? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Those members passed the legislation. It is kind of hard to know where to start. However my understanding is that the decisions of an independent body called the Refugee Status Appeals Authority are very rarely if ever appealed by the department given that it is a statutory authority and makes its own decisions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that that man’s dubious claims to refugee status are suppressed and all details of his court case involving threats to kill two New Zealanders are suppressed how are ordinary New Zealanders and indeed this House to know whether this man is worthy of living in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The decision made by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to suppress information is the decision of that body which was established by the previous National Government of which that member was a Cabinet Minister. It is quite clear what the legislation states. 
Schools—Quality of Education 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How is the Government improving the quality of education provided in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Our Government is committed to ensuring that every child can fill his or her potential. We have invested in over 3000 extra teachers over and above those required for roll growth. We do not take a part-time approach to our duties. We have increased school operations grants by over 15 percent per student in real terms. Every teacher in the country can now get a laptop. We have invested in information and communications technology professional development and key areas such as literacy and numeracy. There is a lot yet to come. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals for changing the provision of schooling in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have. I have seen a very radical proposal that most schools would be privately owned and operated. The person advocating that also said: “For my part I don’t care who owns the schools.” The person who said that is Don Brash. [ 
Interruption 
] Nick Smith said: “Very sensible.” to get it on the record. I do not know whether that is helpful for the member but the approach that appears to be taken is the approach that was used in Taranaki and other areas to privatise the electricity assets shift them to a trust and then hock them off to their mates. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals to remove a child’s right to attend his or her local school? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. Under current legislation every child is entitled to attend his or her local school. I have seen a proposal to do away with that requirement and to introduce a scheme whereby school principals could hand-pick the kids that they want and the ones that they do not want. But the Opposition says: “No that is not the approach.” Therefore the only possible alternative is to build extra places at those schools that are currently zoned and full. If say 100000 pupils—a relatively small percentage—decided to change schools and to go for that the cost for the building alone would be $2000 million—$2000 million for the school building alone. Opposition members have an AC/DC approach to life but they cannot have it both ways on this. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you are to allow that sort of answer from a Minister then you will have to allow members to preface their questions with a similar sort of political comment and I ask you to tell members now whether that will be the new rule or whether you will constrain Ministers to reasonably tight answers on the questions they have been asked. The Minister was asked whether he had seen reports. He could have said: “Yes I have seen a report.” and he may briefly explain what is in it but then to go into the lengths of supposition and lies that he just did is quite inappropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member that the answer was too long as several answers have been today and I have asked members to please keep both questions and answers to reasonable lengths. The member however called the Minister a liar if I heard him correctly. Is that what you were saying? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Look I did not mean to call the Minister a liar. I withdraw and apologise. But I do replace it with the suggestion that he was being extremely reckless with the truth. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that: “I believe that schools have an important role in promoting healthy food choices to their pupils and … promoting high-fat high-sugar foods is in my view irresponsible …” and will he therefore follow his excellent initiative to amend the educational guidelines to require schools to give priority to physical education by introducing a further amendment requiring that only healthy food can be sold in schools; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly stand by the statement which I am pleased the member has reminded the House of and I think that the answer to the second part of the question is “Wait and see.” 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Would the Minister agree that character education improves the quality of education provided in schools; if not is he aware of an Auckland University of Technology study showing notable improvements in the school environment through improved behaviour fewer disciplinary actions increased staff stability and increased student attendance since the introduction of character education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No and no. 
Working for Families Package—Enrolment Rates 
9.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Of the 196230 families who had registered for the Government’s Working for Families package as of 1 April 2005 how many families were not automatically enrolled because they were not previously on a benefit and of that group how many have in fact taken the step of voluntarily enrolling? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Of those families with an estimated 385000 children receiving family income assistance on 1 April about 81000 received assistance through the Inland Revenue Department rather than the Ministry of Social Development. About 14000 of these were new to the system and had not received assistance previously. On top of this—[ 
Interruption 
]—if the member would be quiet for a moment—there were 3500 new accommodation supplement recipients. About 8000 more people were getting childcare assistance. I think about 60000 more families most of them self-employed will take their assistance at the end of the year in a lump sum. What the member needs to know of course is that all of the 260000 families will have their circumstances changed as a result of this package. As a result of that it is very important for them to understand that they use the website or call the phone number so that they can understand better how their income will change. 
John Key 
: If over 180000 of the 196000 people currently enrolled on Working for Families were automatically enrolled because they were on a benefit while at the same time the bulk of those who are working are not eligible until 2006 or 2007 why would the Government embark on a $15 million advertising campaign a year ahead of time in election year 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It would be helpful if the member had actually listened during this question and question No. 6 as well because I said that 81000 received their money through the Inland Revenue Department not through the Ministry of Social Development 14000 were getting family assistance about 8500 are getting the accommodation supplement and childcare assistance about 60000 self-employed people will need to have their circumstances worked out before the end of the year and all 260000 families will have their circumstances changed and will therefore need to be in contact with the phone number or the website to understand how that works. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many more families are expected to apply for assistance from 1 April 2006? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: An estimated 136000 hard-working families—nearly 30 percent of all families with children—will receive an in-work payment from 1 April next year. About 25 percent of them will be new recipients who do not receive its predecessor the child tax credit. We also expect 28000 people to become eligible for family support through abatement changes. All of this assumes that John Key does not get the chance to axe this part of the Working for Families package; thank goodness his tax cut package is a remote possibility. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that 87 percent of qualifying families are automatically enrolled why has the Labour Government budgeted $18 million for mass promotion of the Working for Families package and are the display hoardings we are seeing around the country carrying the Labour Party logo and stating “You’re better off with Labour” funded out of the Working for Families package; if they are can the Minister assure the House that this complies with the Auditor-General’s guidelines for expenditure on electioneering with taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Working back through the question I can say that the Auditor-General has of course approved all the expenditure in relation to the Working for Families package as the member well knows. “You’re better off with Labour” is not of course funded through that package. The amount is not $18 million; it is $15 million. I could go through the other factual errors but it would take too long. 
John Key 
: How does the Minister reconcile spending that equates to $1000 per family on advertising to households when the Inland Revenue Department already knows who they are the fact that they are eligible and their phone numbers and addresses; and is this just a case of taxpayers having to fund more of Labour’s election campaign? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Over the next 3 years $2.6 billion will be distributed to low and modest income households in this country. Unlike that member whose party specialised in not telling people about their eligibility so that only 19 percent of eligible households got the accommodation supplement we will ensure that every single dollar goes to those households and we will ensure that National never has a chance to institute its tax cuts which would mean those households getting nothing. 
John Key 
: Is the reason that working families have to wait until 2008 to get an extra 67c a week the fact that this Government thinks it is a higher priority to spend millions advertising to beneficiaries their entitlement to a scheme they are already enrolled in? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2008 indexing after a 3-year period will come in. But right now—as we sit here today—New Zealand households are getting sums like $43 for childcare. They are getting sums for accommodation supplement they are getting family support they will get in-work payments from 1 April next year and they will get further adjustments next year. Mr Key can eat his heart out—those tax cuts do not wash with the public at all. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Education Programme 
10.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Coordinating Minister Race Relations 
: What has been the total cost across all Government agencies in the last financial year of providing internal or contracted Treaty of Waitangi - related courses and education material on the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Coordinating Minister Race Relations) 
: 
 I thank the member for his question and for the drafting of it today. There are nearly 3000 Crown entities. The training for each is a matter for the chief executive and I do not hold the details for all of them. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was about the total cost not the number of entities. Has the Minister not done his homework in the last 2 days to let me have the cost? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Just to make it clear I have not chosen to instruct my staff to ring 3000 Crown entities to ask them what they spent on these things no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The 3000 entities the Minister refers to include about 2600 schools and nobody is suggesting that they be included. When a Minister cannot provide the answer to such a question the normal practice is to say that it has not been possible to do so within the time and that it will be provided to the library and to the member at the earliest possible opportunity. Question time becomes a farce when a Minister simply says that he cannot be blowed to get the information. I ask you whether you would require the Minister to answer the question within a reasonable time frame through the normal practices Parliament has adopted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no normal practice. Sometimes Ministers say that; sometimes they do not. It is up to the Minister how the Minister responds and that response will be judged accordingly. 
Dail Jones 
: What efforts will the Minister make to provide the information at least by way of a written question in the usual time available for written questions; or is he of the view that spending about $50 million worth of taxpayers’ money on this farcical effort to introduce people to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is just a waste of time and that the money should be better spent on something like reducing say exorbitant school fees or hospital waiting lists? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The total budgeted cost of the Treaty of Waitangi information programme in the agency for which I am responsible was $2.74 million. This year that was money very well spent. I advise the Minister to have a good read of the information because if he did so some of his attitudes might change. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The position of Coordinating Minister Race Relations was created by the Prime Minister specifically to look at these very issues in Government departments. The Minister has held this position for almost 18 months. Is it not reasonable to expect a better answer to Mr Jones’ question than “I don’t know.”? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments and the information but the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of answers. The Minister did address the question; others will judge the quality of his answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 370(1) states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” The public have a very real interest in knowing how their money is spent. Your ruling is extraordinary. Effectively if a member asks any Minister about how money is spent the Minister can with the precedent you have set this afternoon say: “I don’t have that; I’m not providing it.” That is not the standard we have had from previous Speakers. I ask you to reflect on your ruling in respect of basic disclosure of financial information from the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed the member read the Standing Order correctly but misunderstood what it meant. It meant that the answer must seek to address the question if it can be given consistently with the public interest. He has raised this point of order in a number of different ways over recent months and every time he gets it wrong. There are circumstances in which a member consistent with the public interest should not even seek to address the question because of the nature of the information that might be involved. In this particular instance the Minister certainly did address the question. One of the problems we have in this matter is that members opposite have a common tendency to phrase questions poorly and then complain when they do not get the answer they expected. The question asked: “What has been the total cost across all Government agencies …”. If the member really expects the Minister to go through every school every district health board every Crown entity and agency and every department to elicit that information I say bluntly that the time and cost involved is not reasonable and the Minister should not be expected to provide that. If of course what the member wanted was that within the core public sector and that within the administrative arm of Government then he should have phrased the question properly rather than using language that these days has a much broader meaning than perhaps the member has been accustomed to in the past. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I will just rule on this first because it is consistent as Dr Cullen said with the understanding of what is meant by “public interest”. His interpretation is consistent with the rulings that have previously been given. Speakers’ rulings in the past have also emphasised that it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answers. It is not for the Speaker to do that; members do and the public does. The member has to address the question however and he had addressed it. Is there another point of order? Stephen Franks I think had a slight precedent over Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Not in my assessment he doesn’t. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well in my assessment on this he does. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is related but different. I think the Minister’s answer in which he said he had asked his unit—I am not sure whether he used the word “unit” but that is what his staff in this role have been described as in the past—and they had said it was approximately two point something million actually allowed him to narrow the scope of his responsibility way lower than when it was announced. He was expressly described as the Coordinating Minister Race Relations. His job was described as to rove through departments and to establish whether programmes were addressing need instead of race. The Minister should not be permitted to duck by saying that he had asked his unit when his responsibility was expressly stated as being Government-wide. At the very least he should be obliged to say whether he has ever bothered to try to find out what the expenditure is across the Government on this kind of race propaganda. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry that is not a point of order. The Minister as I heard in answer to one of the questions explicitly said he had not sought that information so he addressed that point. But you are arguing again if I may say about the quality of the answer. That is for others to judge. The answer addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is much along the lines of the point that Mr Franks has made. But I want to point out that Dr Cullen has said that there is a problem with the way questions are being asked and the way understandings are being considered by members asking those questions. The reality is that the Prime Minister is the person who went out and said what Mr Mallard would be doing. It is the Prime Minister who gave the nation an expectation that Mr Mallard was the man to put his finger on the problem. It is not unreasonable that Opposition parties ask Mr Mallard whether he has managed to nail it down. I have to say immediately to you Madam Chair that you have ruled and we accept that he has done nothing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It follows on very nicely from Mr Brownlee’s point of order. In actual fact New Zealand First tried to ask this question of the Prime Minister yesterday because that is where all this started from. The office ruled that we could not ask this question of the Prime Minister. The Government decided that it would pass it over to Mr Mallard. We would have presumed that the Prime Minister passed it over to Mr Mallard because she thought Mr Mallard knew what he was doing and would be capable of answering the question. So far it seems that we are out of luck on both counts: Mr Mallard does not know what he is doing and is incapable of answering the question. So I guess that is where the matter has to rest in the meantime. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course the Government is perfectly free to transfer a question to the more appropriate Minister but it is not for the Government to correct the inadequacy of questions asked by members opposite. If the member cannot frame his question correctly it is not up to the Prime Minister to do it for him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is right that in fact who addresses the question is a matter for the Government. 
Dail Jones 
: Are we to take it in this House that when it comes to trying to get information about the many tens of millions of dollars that are being spent on this education programme relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and its so-called principles the attitude of the Labour Government is that we should not ask such questions because the Labour Minister in charge considers them to be a waste of time as he indicated in his answer to the House yesterday; is that a reference to the treaty programme itself or to the way in which the money is being spent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What I did indicate earlier is that the Treaty of Waitangi information programme is costing $2.74 million this year. That is certainly not a waste of time. There are however some programmes and some approaches run by Government departments that I would describe in that manner. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why has the Minister not used his powers as Coordinating Minister Race Relations to coordinate a stop to the hundreds of Government advertisements which are a waste of time that variously oblige bewildered mechanics carpenters or caretakers to show their “commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi” or “knowledge of the place of the treaty in New Zealand’s constitution”; even for the jobs that might need such mysterious knowledge can the Minister tell us what that place is? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I indicated to the member yesterday it is not my job to do the job applications for him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I indicated yesterday it is my view that a number of job descriptions for the public service totally and unnecessarily refer to treaty knowledge or similar matters. I have talked to the Minister of State Services and he has talked to the State Services Commissioner and he has talked to chief executives. Unfortunately somewhere down the line the message has not gone through absolutely brilliantly and I am sure that the State Services Commissioner will have another discussion with chief executives at some time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am greatly concerned at the attitude this Minister has taken to what is a very very serious question and a very serious political issue. He knows full well what we are after. We want to know the amounts being applied in respect of the portfolio that he has been given charge of. It is simply a contempt of this Parliament to be told now 28 hours after the question was first lodged when the framing of the question was argued about that he will not give any answer at all. That is what it comes back to. It is not that the Minister might be embarrassed—that is what a Government sometimes has to wear—but he is actually saying that he does not care what members ask and that he will not be bothered to tell them. That is not a satisfactory way of conducting his responsibilities. Above all it is an absolute contempt for Parliament. The Minister’s job is to come down to the Chamber and in front of the whole country answer the questions he has been properly asked. If you Madam Speaker judge the question to have been properly asked then the Minister should properly answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member has made his point known as have several other members. I have ruled on that point. It is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You have not ruled on my point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that it is your duty to make sure that the Minister answers the question or makes some effort to answer it. He cannot say that he does not give a damn and therefore will not bother to keep himself appraised of the information and come down to the Chamber to tell Parliament what is going on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is members’ day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not of course what the Minister said. The Minister said that the question asked across all Government agencies and that it would be an enormous job to provide the information. For example almost every school in New Zealand that I am aware of spends some time on providing internal education material on the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a pity perhaps that they did not do so in the days when that member and I went to primary school and secondary school. How on earth are we to disentangle those costs which are part of courses run in schools throughout the country to answer this particular question? The Minister did give information on the money that he is directly responsible for in terms of Treaty of Waitangi information material which I think is some $2.74 million. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are now into debatable material— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am ruling. We are now into debatable material. We are trying to get to a general debate; members may like to pursue the matter there. I would just like to note for members that Speakers cannot oblige Ministers to say anything. All that Speakers are responsible for is ensuring that the question is addressed and addressed relevantly. Can we please now move on or do we now have a point of order? It is on a different matter I hope. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is certainly on a different matter. I heard you say to the House that after all it is members’ day. You were implying that there is a lower standard of tolerance that you are prepared to be more indulgent and that if we are wasting members’ day it is not of the same consequence. I think that if that was the case then many members of the House would take exception to that. Members’ day has equal status and the Speaker should not be more expeditious in encouraging greater constraint on time in support of Government business of the day over members’ business of the day. I am really seeking an assurance from you Madam Speaker that that was not the implication you seemed to make. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Of course it was not. If the member took that inference then of course I apologise. It is members’ day and members are entitled to spend the time as they wish. 
Health Services—Performance 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied with the performance of the health system under the current Government given that a recent poll found that 73.8 percent of people believed hospitals are offering the same or worse services as when Labour came into office? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Question No. 11 is almost identical to question No. 1 so for the sake of brevity my answer is the same. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why should a patient who presents at a New Zealand emergency department with a heart attack massive bleeding or concussion not be seen within the target time frames in 14 out of 21 district health boards given the extra billions of dollars of money that is being poured into health; and how many patients have to die before the Minister takes some responsibility and fixes the problem? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any patients who present with those conditions should be seen within that time and I believe they are. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What recent statistics has the Minister seen in relation to how New Zealanders rate hospital services? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We heard that a little while ago. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member might have heard it but he did not listen. In recent patient satisfaction surveys which I think are probably more accurate than a snapshot poll 88 percent of New Zealanders said they were very satisfied with the services they receive within New Zealand hospitals. That is an improvement I have to say over the last year. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister recall her statement made in May 2004 regarding accident and emergency services: “The reason we know they need to improve is now we do look at the data; we collect the data and we tell the public about it.”; if so what other than look at this data is she going to do as Minister considering that district health boards have been failing to meet benchmark time frames for triage for over 3 years and that 14 out of 21 district health boards have failed in this quarter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The benchmark report does report on triage times. The triage times are being looked at by the specialists themselves because the times are reliant on the nurse or doctor recording on a computer the time that a person presents at that time to ensure that the right time has been recorded. That is seen by the specialists as a rather poor measure. However at least we do measure and district health boards intend and try to improve each quarter as they look at the operations they carry out. I think they are committed to improving as this Government is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can she be satisfied with a health system that has failed for 3 years in a row to treat patients in accident and emergency departments within acceptable time frames and that culls thousands of patients from waiting lists; and how can she be satisfied with a primary health system that shows no measurable improvement in health outcomes despite billions of dollars having been poured in over the last 5 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has certainly been an improvement in health outcomes and I direct the member to the length of time that people are living which has improved under this Government. I would point the member to the number of operations now being carried out and to the number of outpatients now being seen. Most people are seen within the triage times but if a person is seen 1 minute over the time that is recorded then that treatment is recorded as not meeting that triage time. It is not a very accurate measure but at least it is a measure—something we did not have in the past. I have to say this: to date the only health policy we have had from Dr Hutchison is: “We will recreate a list we will put people on a list and then they will feel better.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish you to refer back to your earlier rulings and also to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which makes it plain. Every time this Minister gets into a tricky spot and cannot answer the question she starts making things up about National’s policy and that is specifically excluded both in the Standing Orders and in that Speaker’s ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister certainly fully addressed the other parts of the question but that last part was not relevant to the question. The member is correct. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I should have brought this up at the end of question No. 10 which was directed to the Coordinating Minister Race Relations. It relates to some comments the Minister made during his answers. I seek now to table a job advertisement—just one of many—from today’s newspaper that requires a health-welfare services manager to have a specific understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi in order to be employed by the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: I seek leave to table the district health board hospital benchmark information of October-December 2004 which shows that 14 out of 21 district health boards failed to achieve triage time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I seek leave to table a press release by Victoria University dated 30 May 2005 which states: “Concerns were also raised by some informants about the targeting of increased funding with claims that it had been imprecise and that money had been wasted.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the transcript of the Television One news on Monday night when Dr Hutchison said that National’s new policy would be to have a list of people requiring surgery. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Student Loans—Total Outstanding 
12.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How much has total student loans outstanding increased in the last 6 years and what level is this total forecast to reach by 2010? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 By the sum of $3472 million and $10017 million respectively. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that around 13 percent of the population aged over 15 now owe money to the student loan scheme—that is over 400000 people—and does he agree that student debt is affecting the ability of many of them to buy homes and raise families? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not aware of the exact figures but I do know that the work that has gone on between the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education has shown that there is a slight deferral on people’s home purchase but not a deferral on having children. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what has been the impact of the Government’s steps to reduce student loan growth? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Average loan repayment times are down from 14.8 years—that is 14.8 years in 1999—to just 9.3 years now. Under our Government the average student loan balance grew by just 15.4 percent from 2000-04 compared with a 76 percent rise in the last 4 years of the previous National Government. I must say though that the approach of the National Party to abolish the student loan scheme and to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows that that is not relevant to answering the question. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Will the Minister consider as a way of reducing student loan debt progressively lowering the age at which the eligibility for allowances is based—on students’ own income and not that of their parents from the age of 25—now that the Greens have joined in supporting that proposal from United Future? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will just tell the member that the Greens had that policy before United Future was born. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why does the Government think it is cheaper for a student to rent a room than it is for other people as reflected in the policy of a maximum student accommodation allowance of $60 as opposed to a maximum of $145 for someone on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is a reflection of a recognition on the part of the Government that student accommodation generally tends to be cheaper than that of the population generally. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that if current policies continue by 2010 the Government will be earning almost as much from interest on existing debt—around $800 million—as it plans to lend in new loans to students each year which is around $1100 million? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am aware that there is a point of balance at some point and I do not regard that as much of a problem. The fact that we are in balance—money coming in money going out—is probably quite a good thing for Treasury. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Well can the Minister confirm that according to current projections by 2010 the Government will be relying heavily on student loans to meet its net debt targets and that net Government debt would be nearly 40 percent higher if it were not for student loans? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member has got that the wrong way round. Net debt if it were not for student loans would be a lot lower. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that student debt has increased by well over $78000 simply over the course of today’s question time? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Given the length of this damn question time I am surprised it is only as much as that. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Come election day New Zealanders will have a very clear choice. On one hand they can vote to continue the stable and competent governance that this Labour-led Government has given to the country for the last 6 years: 260000 additional jobs; an unemployment rate amongst the lowest in the Western World; growth rates amongst the highest in the Western World; a net New Zealand debt that is headed for the first time to zero; and a Government that has shown concern to invest in the critical areas of looking after our elderly providing quality education and providing quality health. 
On the other hand they can opt for a New Zealand First - National coalition. The performance and track record of such a coalition in the late 1990s was an absolute disaster. It was a Government that underperformed and a Government in which the leaders of National and New Zealand First could not get on together; their egos were too large. It was a Government that had record-high unemployment figures that slashed social expenditure that ran down social infrastructure that gave us the INCIS debacle and that fell apart in disarray. The same components are still there on the other side of the House. 
On election day New Zealanders have another clear choice. They have the choice between the competence and good judgment shown by Helen Clark and the bumbling incompetence and the flip-flops of Don Brash. Don Brash is the man who said at the time of the foot-and-mouth scare that we should have covered up that threat—a step that would have totally destroyed our credibility as a trading country a step that would have irreparably damaged our interests. Don Brash made that comment and the National Party’s spokesperson on agriculture is putting his head under the desk because he knows that what I have said is true. 
Don Brash is the man who went to Australia and described his own country—this country—as just another small broke Pacific island. Don Brash is the man who said against 80 percent of New Zealand public opinion that we should have gone to war in Iraq and that we should have committed our troops there. Don Brash is the man who left New Zealand the day after the Boxing Day tsunami to lie on a beach in Hawaii for 2 weeks. He said nothing. He then came back to New Zealand to criticise the hard-working New Zealanders who had been trying to alleviate the destruction and human misery caused by the tsunami. Don Brash is the man who could not remember that he had told American congressmen that the nuclear policy would be gone by lunchtime. 
That man has no credibility. He has even less credibility when we see him as the man who came into this Parliament as a man above politics a man of principle—who then flip-flopped on every principle he had ever believed in. He was against the “Cullen fund”; suddenly he was for it. He was for selling off State assets; suddenly he reversed his position. He was the man who said a National Government would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday pay; suddenly he reversed his position. 
Don Brash was the man who told us that before Christmas we would have a Budget with tax cuts—and John Key said the same thing—but within a week he had retracted that completely. The reason was that the OECD came out with a statement that made it clear such tax cuts would be grossly inflationary which is something of course that Don Brash had said all the way through his term as Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
There is a very clear choice on election day: New Zealanders can go for the sort of social support and targeted assistance given to ordinary hard-working families through the Working for Families package or they can go for tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the elite that Don Brash and John Key represent in this House. 
I am proud of the fact that we have a Working for Families policy that will dramatically lift out of poverty the number of children currently living below the poverty line. I am proud of the fact that in my electorate the Working for Families package on 1 April this year gave ordinary working families with three kids an extra $55 a week. The Aussie Budget came out—a $22 billion package—and gave ordinary working families just $6 a week. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Before I deal with that last vicious attack from a tired old party’s nominal leader I want to address the issue of the Civil Aviation Authority. In the last 12 months an increasing number of people have been expressing grave concern about alleged conflicts of interest in the Civil Aviation Authority and the operations of its director. The close relationship between John Funnell President of the Aviation Industry Association of New Zealand and John Jones Director of the Civil Aviation Authority and former Aviation Industry Association president has been causing concern both within the Civil Aviation Authority and outside the authority. Questions are being asked about whether the director has broken the very Act he is supposed to enforce. The New Zealand Airline Pilots Association has formally raised this matter with the Minister responsible for civil aviation but the Minister has done nothing except announce an internal inquiry led by Jones himself. 
But one can always tell when the two tired old parties have their aspirations for re-election somewhat upset by the polls. We have just heard a frenetic nervous embarrassed speech made by the member for Mt Roskill. He knows full well that Labour is in deep trouble and deep decline as is National. Last year they were 45 percent as was Labour at the start of this year. All of a sudden they are both in the 30s heading to the middle and low 30s. Do members know what that means? It means it is a three-horse race. It is a three-horse race and the third horse—the horse with all the money coming on its back—is New Zealand First. 
The previous speaker had the effrontery to mention the INCIS debacle. He knew full well that INCIS was inherited by the coalition Government in 1997 that it was already in place under the previous National Government but he got up and said it anyway. He planted it in there to try to leave the impression we were responsible in the same way that he did in the last campaign. In the last campaign he tried to say that there were more murders when New Zealand First was in office than in the previous year— 
Jill Pettis 
: What about Tau? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not market day today. The fish wife can make all the noise she likes but market day is on Friday. I can tell that those members are nervous. The reason is that they have tired old leaders who are out of touch. They never hold a public meeting. When was the last time Helen Clark held a public meeting? When was the last time Don Brash held a public meeting? [ 
Interruption 
] No they never do that. It is always some captured tied audience—one they can control. But in New Zealand First we go out and confront Mary and Joe Bloggs on the streets in the hamlets on the country roads and in the country towns and it is paying off. We are getting audiences of between 750 and 800 people at our country meetings. We got almost 800 in Wanganui. What a shock that was to the fish wife from Wanganui. The paint stripper! 
Jill Pettis 
: Stand somebody against me. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The louder they shout the more indicative it is of their nervousness. It is like a barometer measure of failure. Both National and Labour are trying to call it a two-horse race. If they even dream that it is a two-horse race then they had better wake up and apologise because we will have a three-way fight in this election. We will have a three-way contest. Already it is a three-way race for the party and a two-way race for the leadership—Helen Clark and me. One has got to know this game to be experienced and to know where the parliamentary toilets are before hoping to lead. That is why it is a two-horse race. I know that Helen Clark has never campaigned well. She hates the public. She goes for the photo opportunity. She has the media taking photographs and they call that an event. But she never goes out and campaigns so it will be a free run. 
Darren Hughes 
: What about Don Brash? What does the old bloke do? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He does not campaign either. Don Brash cannot campaign because he has a problem with delivering speeches. Basically he cannot remember what happened yesterday. He does not know what happened last year. As a consequence when he is asked questions about what his party’s policies are he does not know the detail. He is a great plagiarist but when he is asked for detail he does not know.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will not hear the point of order until there is silence. I remind members that points of orders are to be heard in silence. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to make two points. Firstly I say in response to that speech by Winston Peters that Standing Order 116 seriously constrains me and I will stay so. But in respect of the comments made by Phil Goff relating to Dr Don Brash and the tsunami I seek the leave of the House to table a statement made by Dr Don Brash with regard to the tsunami. On 27 December— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not finished yet. How can members object? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member gave his explanation of the tabling and there was an objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I did not. I did not finish. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is required to give the explanation tersely. I have ruled on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member I remind him that I have ruled on the previous point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I now seek leave to table a document that clearly shows that Dr Brash spoke about the tsunami 2 days before Helen Clark even knew about it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 New Zealanders have a choice. They have a choice between a Prime Minister they know Helen Clark who tells it how it is and who makes difficult decisions and a National Party leader Dr Brash who hides his agenda. Dr Brash makes vague promises. By contrast the Prime Minister’s commitments are stated and differently they are budgeted for. 
In May 2005 Dr Brash began backtracking on his famous tax cuts before Christmas and he said: “We have got to work through these numbers carefully to make sure they will add up. We hopefully will have to deliver on them”—the policies—“and we will announce our policy shortly within the next few weeks.” That was a few weeks ago; there is still no detail. There are only billboards saying: “Tax. Cut.” Right so the choice promoted by Dr Brash is for people to get a tax cut but to face automatic cuts in the services provided by taxation. 
The problem is that Dr Brash hides the details: what tax cuts and for whom? Will they be $6 a week as the Australians got $23 a week for those on $30000 or $33 a week for those on $100000? The problem is that New Zealanders do not know the details. Dr Brash loves working in the dark. He wants to keep the agenda hidden. We do not know with what we are comparing our targeted package Working for Families. 
The exemplar family Sale and Barbara earn $52000 a year. We should note that Barbara is not being forced out to work to get the support she needs. Sale in working 40 hours a week is paying a mortgage of $385 a week. He has three children aged 5 9 and 12. That family’s increases through accommodation supplement and family assistance will equal $169 a week by April 2007—or if we want it closer $139 by April next year. Right now the family has benefited by $55 a week. Under Dr Brash it would be $30 a week which would make little difference to the lives of Barbara and Sale but $169 a week will make an enormous difference. I would rather opt for the detailed budgeted and already partly delivered commitments of the Prime Minister than those vague hidden promises of Dr Brash. 
Dr Brash is even more evasive. We have no detail on those tax cuts promised before Christmas. We have no detail on what will be cut to pay for those tax cuts. Tax cuts of $30 a week would cost $1.9 billion a year. I ask Dr Brash where the details of those tax cuts are. 
There are hints of what might come. Dr Brash said in May 2002: “For my part I don’t care who owns the schools.” For me a person who has worked in education all her life education is a service; it is not a product. It is not baked beans. It is not out there to be owned or to be profited from. It is a service delivered to our country. But Dr Brash would want to abandon our equitable education for all. He would go down the Australian route where 40 percent of schools are private as against our 4 percent. 
The conflict in the National Party is always apparent. Dr Brash does not care who owns the schools but will he undertake to guarantee the provision for the Special Education Service that I know Mr Key is always asking even more for? Will he guarantee the extra staffing delivered by the Minister sitting in front of me the Hon Trevor Mallard to schools over the last 3 years for the already increased workload that has been alluded to by Mr English? We need transparency; we need details. 
Would the cuts to fund that $1.9 billion each year come from health? Dr Brash wants a health system only for those who can afford private health insurance. He said: “I have had private health insurance for a long time. I want the choice of having faster health-care than is available in the public health system.” So Barbara and Sale would face losing $169 a week under the Working for Families package and maybe gaining a miserable $30 a week—we do not really know—through some tax cut but they would have to use that $30 to pay for private schooling and for private health insurance. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Today I want to ask two very important questions of public interest. The first question is: why was the Labour Party president Mike Williams present at a meeting in Dr Michael Cullen’s office last Tuesday? The second question is: why did the then Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen arrive unannounced at the Auckland chamber of commerce on Friday morning to apologise? I will ask question No. 1 again: why was the Labour Party president Mike Williams present at a meeting in Michael Cullen’s office? The reason I ask is that it was actually a meeting between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport and a number of interested parties who are concerned about the lack of progress on Auckland roading. They included Michael Barnett from the Auckland chamber of commerce Tony Friedlander from the Road Transport Forum and a number of other people. 
But there was one obvious exception to the group of people at that meeting who should not have been there: the Labour Party president Mike Williams. Now was it a meeting with the board of Transit? No the board of Transit was not asked to be there but Mike Williams the Labour Party president is on the board of Transit. In case members think the Government will tell us that it was not a politicised position I am happy to give them an explanation soon with some details that I will be tabling later to show exactly how politicised it was. At that meeting Mike Williams made a complete clown of himself. I want to report what the letter written by Michael Barnett from the Auckland chamber of commerce to Michael Cullen 2 days later stated. Michael Barnett stated—and I will table the letter—“We left the meeting disappointed believing that we had been totally misled.” That is what he stated. 
Michael Barnett went on to state that at an early point in the meeting it became very clear that the Transit board member Mike Williams who actually was not there as a Transit board member—he was there as the Labour Party president to shore up support—did not accept the evidence of huge slippage in Transit New Zealand’s time lines. What that group showed the Ministers quite clearly was that a number of projects that had been earmarked by Transit as being good to go back in December 2003—and Labour members should listen to this—have still not been started. Mike Williams told the meeting that yes they have and then he left early. 
Mike Williams then did something else that is despicable. He leaked the meeting—it was a private meeting—straightaway to Brian Rudman of the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 He said that Michael Barnett had turned into a pussycat and that the outcomes were bizarre. It states in the article that Michael Barnett had emerged from the meeting mewling like a pussycat. That is absolutely not true. The egg was on the face of Mike Williams because he had got it wrong. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh ha ha! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Jill Pettis is laughing. If she is laughing because I am wrong then what about question No. 2? Why the next morning did the then Acting Prime Minister show up unannounced at Michael Barnett’s office at the Auckland chamber of commerce at 100 Mayoral Drive? He was surprised at that and asked why the Acting Prime Minister had come. Michael Cullen said that he was there to apologise. He told Michael Barnett that he was there to apologise not only for Mike Williams’ behaviour and his lies at the meeting but also for the fact that he then went ahead and leaked it to the  
New Zealand Herald  
journalist as well. 
Those are two questions that this House cannot let pass. If we are to see our roading so politicised by the Labour Party president taking such a level of control in the decision making then it is time Mike Williams went. He has already been enough of an embarrassment. He is on the Auckland Regional Transport Authority board and the Railcorp board as well as the Transit board. Here is an absolute Labour Party plant controlling the lot and he has to have the then Acting Prime Minister show up and apologise for his behaviour. That is what Michael Barnett says; that is what it states in the letter. 
The Auckland chamber of commerce has tabled a list of all the roading projects. I will not go into them in 5 minutes—time does not allow me to. But the list shows that they were good to go in December 2003—projects like the Manukau extension to State Highway 20. Has it started yet? No. And the Mount Roskill extension? So Mike Williams told the meeting lies. Michael Cullen knows that he did. Here is the man who is on the board of Transit and he has single-handedly stopped State Highway 20 from going through Helen Clark’s electorate. Why? Because the issue has been politicised. Helen Clarke says that over her dead body that road will get built. 
I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a letter from Michael Barnett chief executive of the Auckland chamber of commerce to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen dated 2 June. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The second document is a press release from the Auckland chamber of commerce 2 days later stating that Auckland’s transport crisis needs actions not bully-boy slogging. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The third document is a table that was presented to the Ministers at the meeting showing the various projects and the fact that they have not yet started despite the fact that Mike Williams claimed they have. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 That was the most unbelievable speech I have heard in this House from Maurice Williamson the man who would be leader of the National Party. He is a bitter and twisted back-bencher—a man who sat in this House as Minister of Transport and did nothing to solve the chaos that is Auckland roading. One thing I do know is that this Government is absolutely committed—and not all of us are comfortable with it all the time—to sorting out the mess in Auckland which is effectively a traffic disaster. I applaud my colleagues for doing that. 
I am here to raise just two points today. Don Brash is going to trot around this country over the next couple of months saying that he should be Prime Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Exactly! Who is Don Brash? Is he a 61-year-old conservative bureaucrat struggling to establish an identity for himself? Is he a monetary manager fixated on interest rates and monetary policy? Is he a lame duck leader of a party trying to drag itself from the 20th century into the 21st century? Well I do not know whether he is any of those three. I think he is a man who lacks judgment; a man who does not live in the real world. I say that because many people who know him reasonably well—and we can only make an assessment from this side of the House having watched him operate as Reserve Bank governor for many years—Brian Rudman being one of them say that it is as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed Don Brash by unseen. He has learnt nothing from the mistakes of the 1990s. 
He lives in a world where he thinks private health insurance and private schools will deliver to this country. Well wake up Don Brash! This country has rejected the privatisation of health. We have rejected the privatisation of the education system. That is why we kicked the National Party out of power in 1999. That party had its chance. It tried all those experiments through the 1990s and they failed. Did Don Brash learn anything? No he did not. He still says: “I don’t care who owns the schools.” He still says: “Most schools are privately owned and operated and I would be happy to have that.” He says: “I have had private health insurance for a long time. I want the choice of having faster health-care than is available.” Well someone who is 65 years old on a fixed income and facing a huge increase in his or her private health insurance premium learns the realities of the private health system. We need someone who lives in the real world and Don Brash does not. 
My first question about him was whether he lives in the real world. The second question is whether he has any judgment. Here is the question I put to Gerry Brownlee: how many New Zealanders would be dead if Don Brash had been Prime Minister of this country when the Americans went to war in Iraq? How many New Zealanders would he have killed by committing New Zealand to a war that we deem unnecessary one that could have been prevented? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Same number as Australia. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Wayne Mapp is quite happy to have New Zealanders killed in Iraq. That is a man who probably would want to be a Minister under Don Brash. He is another person who lacks judgment. 
The next serious issue is biosecurity. In fact it is a more serious issue because biosecurity is more important for this country than our military security. Do members know why? It is because one outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease could effectively undermine this economy. Some nutter and I hope we catch him and string him up perpetrated a hoax on this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right—in the Prime Minister’s office. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Gerry Brownlee is clearly someone who is out of touch with the real world. Down there in Fendalton there are a few like that and Gerry Brownlee is one of them. Gerry Brownlee thinks we created a hoax. I tell Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash to wake up. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was it a hoax? What a convenient hoax it was. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Well yes. Don Brash has poor judgment. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The issue that I wish to talk about today on behalf of New Zealand First relates to the future of New Zealand and just where New Zealand is going and I would like to do so without indulging in the old two-party engagement across the floor of the House whereby those members spend all their time attacking each other without giving us any policies. If New Zealand is to move ahead into the future bearing in mind that we are the only First World country with an agricultural base we have an obvious need to decide what the size of our population should be. I believe that none of the other political parties has even bothered to consider the road that New Zealand should take for the future or the size of our population and our population growth. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Set it out for us—you know. 
DAIL JONES 
: Obviously I will set it out for Mr Brownlee because he would be incapable of even thinking of a problem let alone coming to an answer to it. I know that Mr Brownlee would like to have more cafes and more coffee bars in Fendalton than we can possibly sustain but we in New Zealand First are concerned about just where we are heading. 
Our election policy makes it clear that we intend to stop the knee-jerk annual immigration planning and start working on 10-year and 25-year plans for New Zealand. We want to establish long-term labour market demands and import the skills needed if sufficient New Zealanders cannot be trained. We want to target people with the skills needed and ensure that migrants have jobs to go to. We want to consult New Zealanders about the make-up of those people coming here and we want to introduce a targeted programme aimed at retaining skilled New Zealanders and encouraging others offshore to return. What should the population of New Zealand be? Under New Zealand First the people of New Zealand will be given the chance to say. That decision will be made not by the Prime Minister not by a group of Ministers not by the news media not by a newspaper editor having a bad day and not by a political commentator. In a rather original way we will consult the people of New Zealand. 
Currently we have in this Parliament a number of select committees some of which are an absolute waste of time. We have a “hate speech” select committee at the moment. We have to be careful what we say in this Parliament—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Ms Pettis to be careful what she says. It might be hate speech and then she will get a rap over the knuckles and be fined. What a ridiculous select committee! Another select committee is looking at our constitution. New Zealand First wants to make sure that the people of New Zealand are consulted about where we go and a select committee to look at where we are going would be a very good way in my view of letting members of Parliament know what the people of New Zealand think. 
I suspect that many of the members of Parliament who make speeches about our population do not actually get out there and meet some of the people of New Zealand who are concerned about what is happening to this country. It is very easy to say and we all say in the Christian way that we should love our neighbour. But in New Zealand today we are never quite sure who our neighbour is or who our neighbour is going to be even with the best intentions in the world. We as a Parliament have a responsibility to make sure that some steps are taken in that way. 
Another problem we have with population growth and the number of people coming here is with regard to our environment. Many many years ago when I was beginning to take an interest in politics I had a look at the Values Party in 1973. One of the policies of that party concerned population control and population growth because that is the essence of our country’s environment. What is the greatest danger to the environment? It is humankind; it is the number of people we have in the country. The sad thing about the Green Party today is that it takes no notice of the number of people coming to New Zealand and that is totally contrary to that basic requirement of a proper environment policy—namely how many people we have here. The Greens are not greenies; they are virtually green-less in that respect. As the population expands one of the issues that arises—it arose in the early 1970s and I as member of Parliament dealt with it in the 1975-78 years—is the question of nuclear power. The more people we have coming into New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] and the Greens can disagree—the more the cry is: “Let’s have nuclear power.” I am opposed to nuclear power in New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: Really? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. But maybe some of the other members of the Labour Party support it and maybe the Greens support it. There will be greater and greater demand for nuclear power with the more and more people we have living in New Zealand. However New Zealand First says that we should have a look at this issue. One of our policies is to have the greater use of public referenda and consultation by way of referendum on that type of issue. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Is it not amazing that in New Zealand First a British immigrant and an immigrant from Pakistan are always going on about immigration yet New Zealand First tangata whenua members sit there with their gobs shut. It is a bit ironic but never mind those tangata whenua know their place and clearly it is at the back of the room. 
I say to National members opposite in particular Don Brash: “Put on the flak jackets fellows and all of the protection jackets you can find.” because if by some absolute miracle a number of new National MPs should come into this Parliament—although I think the chances are pretty slim as New Zealanders become exposed to the absolute lack of policy from Don Brash or any of his other hangers-on—those few new MPs will be shocked when they realise what the radical true agenda of the National Party is. It will be 1990-91 all over again when some hapless National MPs came into this place and suddenly realised what the real agenda was. In 1990-91 it was division factions and leaking to the media all over the show. I predict that is exactly what would happen again because I know from listening to the radio this morning that a candidate is out there representing the National Party who does not have a clue about what National is doing about tax policy. 
By accident this morning I had the occasion to listen to the third-time running candidate in Whanganui when the announcer from the Hawera radio station asked him: “So when is the tax policy going to come out?”. He answered: “Well we were told a couple of weeks ago that it was coming out in a couple of weeks and a couple of weeks is up next week so I guess it will be next week.” It just goes to show how uninformed those poor hapless sods are out there in the rest of New Zealand and how much they know about what Don Brash has got planned about tax. Don Brash will sit on this tax policy for as long as he can because he will not want New Zealand to get a hold of it too quickly. Once New Zealand realises the extremity and the radical nature of what that man is proposing with tax and other financial matters they will be mortified. 
The general public of New Zealand contains some who might be soft Tories. Some of those Tory candidates out there think: “I’ve got her vote”; “I’ve got his vote” and they are votes from whom one would call soft Tories. When they realise that Don Brash has put the family silver back on the market again they will be horrified. They will be banging on the doors of National Party candidates and those hapless naive innocent candidates will not know what has struck them. They do not understand the hard cold reality of politics. They do not know that Don Brash will say anything to get elected and then have no accountability once he is elected. 
There will be huge dissent out there in the community particularly from Grey Power. That is not a group that is easily hoodwinked but I have to say I am warning Mr Brash that if he sells Kiwibank which he has said he will do then Grey Power will be on to him like a rat up a drainpipe. Grey Power will leave no stone unturned because it knows the value of Kiwibank. Grey Power and other organisations that care and advocate for people out in the community will be horrified when they come to learn the full extent of what Don Brash wants to sell. 
I quote from a lecture he gave in 1996 which is not so long ago and it shows his philosophy has been fairly constant: “There is clearly scope for further reform … The Government still owns major trading activities which could in principle be privatised.” Some of those trading activities are things that New Zealanders call their own. They are things that they have taken to heart like New Zealand Post and the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I always marvel at the avian-like warble that emanates from the member for Whanganui. Thank goodness it cannot be replicated ever again any time or anywhere in New Zealand. 
Today I want to talk about the mess that this Labour Government has made of health. Dr Jonathan Simon one of New Zealand’s most eminent general practitioners said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
the other day: “When we look at the significant investment in the health sector over the past four years it is devastating to see how little effect it has had.” That is hugely serious given the $3.5 billion that this Labour Government has put into health much of which has been wasted. As Dr Simon said: “Pouring more money into the system without significant functional change is like pouring water into a coarse sieve.” That is exactly what this Labour Government has done over the last 5 years with health. 
There is no doubt that the system it has created has been absolutely characterised by massive bureaucracy by waste by poor productivity and by unfulfilled expectations. Labour went around in the 1990s raising everybody’s hopes saying that for a little bit more tax it would do all sorts of wonderful things and fix health and education. It certainly raised the tax—by $10 billion. But in terms of health what has it done? 
Let us have a look at the bureaucracy alone. The Government created 21 district health boards with three sets of extra committees then it created the 77 primary health organisations with these other committees 12 in each one of them so 77 times 12 is the number that this Labour Government has created. This is not to mention the Ministry of Health which the Minister said would be decreased by 25 percent when there was devolution of care to the 21 district health boards. What happened? The ministry increased by 25 percent. That is the very bureaucracy that this Labour Government has created and it is causing the huge problems of lack of productivity in the sector. 
The real agenda is to nationalise the New Zealand health scheme just like the British National Health Service which has 1.3 million employees. 
It is the third-largest employer in the world second only to the Chinese Red Army. The first-largest employer is the Indian Railways. 
That is the direction this Labour Government has set for health services in New Zealand—massive complicated bureaucracy that is wasting a huge amount of money. The tragedy is that it has added another $3.5 billion and there is no measurable improvement in health outcomes. I asked the Minister of Health today whether she could name one measurable improvement in health outcomes and she could not. She absolutely failed to do that. 
Let us look at the primary health organisation experiment. We have 77 primary health organisations with a budget of $1.7 billion and there has been no measurable improvement in health outcomes. Let us see what the research from Victoria University has shown and I quote: “Concerns were raised by some informants about the targeting of increased funding with claims that it had been imprecise and that money had been wasted on those who could afford to pay while affordable care was not as available for some groups who did not meet increased funding criteria.” That is what the Labour Government has created. It has created a situation whereby the Helen Clark’s or the Don Brash’s of this world get increased subsidies which they do not need to go to the doctor but the mother of three who has cancer does not receive the appropriate choice of drugs to help her breast cancer and that is particularly serious. 
Let us look at the 77 primary health organisations again. We know that two-thirds of them have fewer than 70000 people involved and the Labour Government is propping them up. It costs three times as much to perpetuate this monster per primary health organisation. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 What an appalling speech made by National’s spokesperson on health! Again he did not give us one policy. The country is getting agitated with only 16 weeks to go. I ask Dr Hutchison when we will see any policy. I think he needs to talk to Dr Brash—the voice of ignorance narrow political advantage and selfishness. And that is what we will see if heaven forbid National gets traction on the election campaign which is already under way. He believes and he says two different things. He will use any populist tactic in his grasp to try to divert attention from his real plans. 
What underlies all of this? We hated the 1990s. Dr Brash will not declare himself but he has no other option but to go back to the divisive tactics of the 1990s. When will we hear about the promised yet to be delivered tax cuts? When will National be honest with us? Will families see those cuts on their tables by Christmas or will they see a little wee Budget by then? Dr Brash and John Key cannot even agree so there is fat chance we will see either. Families will simply get a lashing of baloney on their Christmas table from a mean old rooster. National’s leader just fails to reach agreement and fails to show leadership. His approach is becoming manifestly clear. We are seeing mean-spirited divisive and yes racist approaches—and all so long overdue. 
We have a poster in our electorate already called the “Orewa billboard” that talks about beaches in our beautiful lakes district. It states “Iwi Kiwi”. Apart from boring the public stupid it is raising heckles in our fair-minded community—a community whose members are inclusive sensible and fair-minded New Zealanders. The Opposition again by putting up that billboard in Rotorua shows that it does not understand tatou tatou—we together. We do at home. The billboard is going down like a lead balloon. 
Let us go to the tax cut bribes. The Opposition will stoop to anything to show a point of difference just for power. It is hungry and greed for power. Dr Brash has been known to say: “We can win if we play our cards right.” Politics is not about a card game; it is about real policies. National is getting desperate and it is getting low. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Rotorua John Key played off the tertiary sector and the chief executive officer of our polytech institute came out and said: “Stop being dirty and playing politics with the tertiary sector. It is damaging to the good work we’re doing in our community getting second-chance learners rolling back into education.” 
I want to talk about the $1.9 billion that we know those proposed tax cuts will cost. What will that mean for Rotorua? It will mean that we will not have our sewage subsidisation scheme or safe drinking water schemes that we will not have the Sustainable Farming Fund and that there will not be any long-term funding commitment to restore the health of our lakes—and I will tell our community that because it really cares about the well-being of the lakes in our district. 
I go now from the health of our lakes to the health of our people. If those proposed tax cuts are to strip out $1.6 billion what will go? Maori primary health organisations will go. Dr Brash has been recorded as asking why we even need Maori doctors. He does not even understand about reducing inequalities in health. Well we do and we are proud of our targeted spending in health. Primary health roll-out will stop—simply stop. Dr Brash does not even understand what a primary health organisation is. Why does Dr Hutchison not take him aside and give him a decent speaking to? What about aged-care funding? Oh yes the Opposition is promising lashings of money to aged care. How will it afford it with those tax cuts and that loss in revenue? “Be afraid.” I say to those people over 50 in our community “Be very very afraid.” Not only will superannuation be affected but so will health services. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 One knows one has the Government on the run when it gets out the C team to take calls on the Government’s behalf—tired old speakers like Damien O’Connor and the very sophisticated Jill Pettis soon to be the former member for Whanganui. Her tongue should surely be bottled and sold as paint stripper. That is the sophisticated member from Wanganui. 
Let us look at the line-up of reasons why this Government is in free fall. This is a Government that has lost 10 percent of its core support in the last 2 months and we are not even into election mode yet. Let us look at the Budget. That was a real winner was it not. The  
Dominion Post 
 headline summed it up beautifully. It screamed “Is that it?”. Poor old Michael Cullen’s blood pressure must have gone through the roof when he woke up on the Friday morning after that Budget. He must have scratched his head and wondered why he had created an expectation that the Government would do something about tax when all it did was promise our poorest citizens a half a packet of chewing gum in 3 years’ time. This is a Government that is sitting on a surplus of $7 billion and he wonders why people do not embrace it. 
Then there is the Benson-Pope debacle. He is the only member in this House I can think of who has a mouth big enough to get a tennis ball in. Obviously he found a soulmate at Bayfield High School. Then there was the Prime Minister’s speeding motorcade. This is a Prime Minister who went through Timaru township scattering pedestrians like South American peasants and she wonders why people do not like her any more. And to rub salt into the wounds she is now hanging six good men out to dry just for political expediency. Jim Sutton was in that car and he was seen going through Timaru township. That is his home town and he wonders why Jo Goodhew is overtaking him in the polls. She will be an outstanding member of Parliament; she is just waiting in the wings and she will be here soon. 
Then we have Lianne Dalziel who told lies and was fired. Then we have poor old Dover Samuels who just got caught short. Then to top it all off we have John Tamihere. He went public with remarks about tossers queers smarmies and front-bums and he accused Michael Cullen of being duplicitous—and the whole country agreed with him. Do people remember the cartoon? Lianne Dalziel was fired for telling lies and poor old John Tamihere was fired for telling the truth. We must spare a thought for poor old Clayton Cosgrove. He was dumped on by John Tamihere for starting a hate campaign against the Prime Minister; he should have been in the Honours List on Monday for doing that. Having stood by John Tamihere for year after year Clayton Cosgrove was dumped on by him. Poor old Clayton Cosgrove does not need enemies when he has friends like that. 
Just last week we saw the Government pass legislation whereby vicious thugs in this country can get compensation and the Government has told victims that they have to sue for any money—and the Government wonders why it is lagging in the polls. I can tell the Labour members why they are lagging in the polls. It is because the public of New Zealand are sick of that type of duplicitous PC behaviour. They are sending a very clear signal to this Government that its number is up and that Government members should start brushing off their CVs and looking for a new job. They should start looking for other jobs. 
Darren Hughes 
: Speaking of CVs what about your CV? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I hear—what is his name—Mr Hughes calling out again. Why does he not go outside put on a pair of long pants and come back in again? 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 That speech had no vision and no nothing and that simply tells us where the National Party is at the moment—nowhere absolutely nowhere. 
I want to talk about Dr Brash and how hopeless that crowd on the other side of the House is. Once again the members opposite have turned their back on Maori. They have done it before and they will do it again but they are quite happy to use Maori as a political doormat. We estimate that the huge cost to achieve Dr Brash’s call for tax cuts will be about $1.9 billion. So where will those members get that money from? How will they fund that revenue? Do National Party members know? Do they know what the policy is? I ask the back-benchers who are here at the moment whether they know what the policy is. No they do not. I have it on good advice from a National Party back-bencher that they learn about the policy in the paper the next day. What does that tell us? It tells us that there is no unity in the National Party caucus. National members do not know the policy and they cannot respond to the issues that we raise so they are just a hopeless crowd. 
Anyway I want to say that the National Party will raise the revenue for tax cuts by cutting services. It will do that through cutting social security including New Zealand superannuation health education defence and law and order which absorb 77 percent of Government spending. There is no room in the Government’s core spending for major tax cuts—no room whatsoever. 
So where will National members get it from? Where will they get the revenue to pay the tax cuts from? Will there be a tax cut in Maori health in Maori education or in Maori television? Dr Brash is already on record stating that there are plenty of ways to achieve television broadcasting without having a Maori channel—so we know where that will go. Tax cuts would scrap not only Maori television but also the Ministry of Maori Development and Maori programmes or does Dr Brash just strip away the number of workers that we have brought in? Will National members take it out of the numbers of nurses that we have put in? Will they take it away from the numbers of teachers? Will they take it by reducing police numbers? Tax cuts are too expensive and are designed to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. 
But what gets me is this: why did Tariana Turia vote against the Budget and therefore vote with the National Party? Is she also turning her back on Maori? I am quite sure that Maori listening to this debate will want to know why because a vote against the Budget is a vote to support the National Party’s tax cut at the expense of services. If that is the case that is indeed significant. The sheer impact of cutting services would harm the very essence of supporting mechanisms within the Maori community. The Maori Party vote against the Budget is a clear signal that it is voting against the Working for Families package—all targeted at those in need and at working families who earn between $25000 and $55000 a year. 
Those families will be better off by nearly $100 a week. We are talking about an extra $100 a week that could go on extra food or for the whanau and their school education. We are talking about extra money for whanau independence. The Maori Party vote against the Budget is also voting no to the $3.4 million funding to assist with programmes in Maori broadcasting. So I am in a quandary. I want to know and I am sure that Maori members listening also want to know why the Maori Party voted against the Budget because we feel that a vote against the Budget is a vote against Maori and the services that Labour is providing—particularly the extra 7500 cataract operations targeted at our kaumatua and kuia. 
At the end of the day under Labour New Zealand is moving ahead. It is maintaining a strong and credible fiscal stance it is being fair and inclusive it is helping Kiwis build a stake in their country and building the conditions for growth. How are we doing that? We are investing in health and education. Obviously the Budget has committed over $1.9 billion in health over the 2008-09 years. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I should have taken a point of order before but I will say it now. I could have assisted the Hon Maurice Williamson by telling him that I actually tabled those documents yesterday. 
New Zealand’s education standards have never been so low. Our qualifications system is a disaster. We spend more than $8 billion on education. It is not Government money; it is taxpayers’ money. It is taken from hard-working New Zealanders to pay for education. The Education Review Office is charged with checking that New Zealand children get a good education. But this morning in the Education and Science Committee during the estimates of the Education Review Office in Vote Education Review Office’s statement of intent was a comment made by the Auditor-General’s office: “The ERO is still to clearly define what constitutes educational improvement in its statement of intent.” If the Education Review Office does not know what educational improvement is how on earth can it monitor it? 
Why does the Minister not do something about this situation? This Minister has overseen such a disaster in education yet he will not listen to the very people who do know what is going on in education—that is the parents. Parents certainly know what improvement in education is. They know whether their children are learning to read write and add up. They know whether their children are getting better or worse at it. The reason the Minister will not listen to parents or give them choice or a say is that he does not want to hear what they have to say. 
A thousand and one randomly selected parents were given the chance to say what they thought in a Colmar Brunton survey taken in August 2004. The survey found amongst other things that 79 percent of parents—nearly 80 percent of parents—believed that schools should be free to offer an alternative exam to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Only 31 percent of parents said they had confidence in the NCEA. It is not just the NCEA’s scholarship that is a disaster; it is the whole NCEA system. We had a gold-plated international standard qualification in New Zealand bursary and we have thrown it away. We had a good scholarship system run by the private scholarship trusts and we have thrown that away. It would be very easy for the Minister to bring those things back. Let us start to put some rigour back into our qualifications system. 
We have seen the chairman of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority depart and the chief executive depart but the buck stops with the Minister of Education. Our New Zealand secondary education qualifications are just a disaster for the students for employers and for universities trying to sort out their intake of students. 
We have seen damning reports all around. The State Services Commission report highlighted significant risks bad advice and sloppy policy. From there down we have had the Macleans College report which said that the NCEA is in crisis. The Macleans College report showed that a student’s success or failure depended on which year he or she sat the NCEA and which school he or she went to. How unfair is that? This whole generation of students is going through this guinea pig system and it is so unfair. 
Warwick Elley who for years has campaigned against the NCEA has come out with another report which states: “After 3 years of NCEA in operation the upshot is a divided community. Many schools have boycotted the scheme and many teachers who supported the idea have lost confidence in it. Meanwhile the university bursary examination has been abolished and replaced by something which will now be looked at with suspicion by employers and by universities here and overseas.” 
The Minister said airily yesterday in the House that schools do not have to offer the NCEA. That is only true of schools where affluent parents can afford to have their children take Cambridge exams or International Baccalaureate. We should be offering choice to all parents not just to affluent ones. Professor Alan MacDiarmid a Nobel laureate has said that the NCEA scholarship is a disaster for science in New Zealand. What puzzles me is that all these people who got where they are now because we had a rigorous standard in secondary school qualifications and exams—they got there because of those exams—now want to foist this politically correct one-size-fits-all system on us. It is time to dump the NCEA. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a private bill promoted by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd. which I am happy to promote on its behalf as the MP for Auckland Central. This bill amends the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 which currently allows Guardian Trust to transact business with its former parent company Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc or any subsidiary or company associated with that parent company. The purposes of this bill are to expressly authorise Guardian Trust to transact business with its present parent company Promina Group Ltd and the parent company’s subsidiaries and associated companies whether or not they are overseas companies. The purposes are also to validate any business transacted with Guardian Trust’s various parent companies or with subsidiaries or associated companies of those parent companies whether or not they are overseas companies on or between the commencement of the principal Act and the commencement of this legislation and to ensure that the principal Act accurately reflects the current ownership structure of Guardian Trust. 
This bill was introduced on 7 October 2004 had its first reading on 20 October that year and was then referred to the Commerce Committee. The committee received and considered five submissions from interested groups and individuals and received advice on the bill from the Ministry of Justice. The Commerce Committee which I thank for its work has recommended that the bill be passed by majority with only minor technical amendments. The committee has reported also that the statements in the preamble have been proven to its satisfaction. The committee spent some time considering a proposal suggested by Guardian Trust that the bill be amended to enable the company to seek an Order in Council made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice after consultation with the Minister of Commerce to approve any future change in ownership. 
This is not the first time Guardian Trust and other trust companies have sought such an amendment. Under Guardian Trust’s proposal if the company were to provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the Minister of Justice that the systems and procedures placed beneficiaries’ best interests before its own commercial advantage then the Minister could decide—after consultation as I said with the Minister of Commerce—that it would be appropriate to authorise Guardian Trust to trade with a new parent company. The name of that parent company if and when it changed could then be amended in the schedule of the Act by Order in Council made by the Governor-General. The Order in Council would be subject to review by the Regulations Review Committee and decisions made in relation to it could of course be judicially reviewed. The acceptance of that proposal would have meant that Parliament no longer needed to take the time to consider any future changes in this private Act. 
Ultimately the majority of the committee whilst feeling that the proposal had merit believed that the ability of a trust company to transact business with its parent company should be controlled by Parliament. The majority were unwilling also to support the proposal until the Government has completed a thorough review of the regime for statutory companies in respect of the naming of current parent companies in trustee legislation. The committee noted that such a review had been recommended by several committees before it that in 2001 the Minister of Justice had informed a previous Commerce Committee that such a review would be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and completed by mid-2003 and that the review is therefore now long overdue. I will continue to urge that the work be carried out though I recognise that it is not necessarily the highest priority for the Ministry of Justice. 
I again thank the Commerce Committee for the work it has done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House for its second reading. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As the previous speaker has already pointed out the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill is by its nature fairly technical and straightforward. I do not intend to take up a lot of the House’s time in discussing the bill in much more detail than the member in charge of it has. I would like to point out however that the National Party considers that it is something of a lost opportunity. 
The proposal that was put to the Commerce Committee by the Guardian Trust was that it seems that every time there is a change of ownership of a trustee company the company has to take the time of Parliament unreasonably in the view of the company—and I tend to agree with it—to pass legislation to essentially rubber-stamp the proposal. Some members of the select committee felt there was a clear conflict of interest. I on behalf of the National Party argued that a simple change by Order in Council was all that was necessary because the time it takes to change legislation is significant notwithstanding what some members might argue. We have gone through the process of a first reading we have gone through the select committee process we are now going through a second reading and we will go through a third reading yet the bill simply allows a company to continue with its business in the way it did prior to a change of ownership. Surely we have better things to do with our time than to change an Act of Parliament every time there is a change of ownership. 
Once upon a time I will concede it was a fairly rare occurrence. The member in charge of the bill made the same recommendation in her speech on the first reading as I am making now. We should deal with this matter once and for all and just leave it to the Minister at the time to make sure that there is no conflict of interest and that the funds of the trust’s beneficiaries are being managed in a sensible and safe way. We should let the Minister at the time make those decisions. 
I conclude by saying that I think it is a lost opportunity. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should in any way put at risk beneficiaries’ money but I think the time has come when we can trust the judgment of the Minister with all the checks and balances that are in place and allow him or her to make some commercial decisions. We as members of Parliament should invest in him or her the confidence to do just that. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill is very much a technical bill. It simply formalises the change from one ownership to another. As the Minister and the previous speaker said this is something that happens from time to time. There are four such trust companies that have been through this process. I understand that another trust company bill is about to come up for the same reason as this one. The trust company needs to go through the formal process of changing the ownership and the name of the owner in the Act. 
To New Zealand First this is a waste of Parliament’s time and the select committee agrees with that. It went through the process and basically came up with the simple solution that this could be done by Order in Council with the recommendations of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Commerce and approved by the Governor-General. It is not necessary to go through the House every time such a change needs to take effect because it is just a simple waste of time. As the previous speaker said we are going through the motions of simply formalising a change. New Zealand First feels strongly that one simple Act should cover all the trust companies so that the process can be formalised and simply done through an Order in Council. New Zealand First would support that. We recognise that it was not possible to do it in this particular case because it needs an overall umbrella Act. 
I take issue with the Minister for saying that this is not a high priority. I ask her what is high priority? Is it wasting Parliament’s time or is it getting the job done properly—and doing it properly once—so that we have an umbrella piece of legislation that covers all those companies and so that it can be done by a simple Order in Council? I say to the Minister that she should get the whole process under way now and do it properly once. 
KENNETH WANG (ACT) 
: 
 I came to Parliament at the end of November which was after this bill was introduced in September 2004. The bill as previous speakers have said is highly technical and I agree with their comments that it is purely a waste of members’ time. However although the bill was considered by the Commerce Committee relatively quickly we did conduct quite a substantial consideration of the submissions. There were some very significant things showing through the submissions. I particularly want to quote a submission from Mr Geoffrey John Fuller. In his submission he stated: “My concern is with the ability of the Guardian Trust to lend funds under its administration to its parent company … thus linking the security of those funds to the financial viability of those companies.” 
In other words if we allowed funds to be freely transferred between the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to its parent company without substantial or adequate monitoring that would leave the door open at the other end because we do not know how those funds would be managed or whether those funds if they are under any security risk would be secured for those customers. In other words with their funds those mums and dads put their trust into the hands of the New Zealand Guardian Trust and give it their total faith. It seems to me that the funds would not be adequately secured. Although I do not object to the bill overall I wish to raise this concern while all members are in the House and I can draw their attention to it. 
The ACT party would like to vote for the bill but would like to draw attention to its very significant shortcomings. We agree with the National Party’s proposal that would enable the bill to be considered under a proposal to seek an Order in Council and to seek options in the future for new ownership. That proposal was refused during the select committee stage which I think was a mistake. However the bill is before Parliament now and I would like to invite other parties’ comments. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of United Future on the second reading of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. Let me say at the outset that there was no United Future member on the Commerce Committee which considered this bill but had any United Future members been there I am sure we would have sided with National New Zealand First—as it now appears—and also ACT in preferring to make this change in the future by following the Order in Council route although on this occasion it will be done by an Act of Parliament. It seems to us to be an absolute nonsense that every time the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. changes its parent company which happens with increasing frequency in these days of mergers acquisitions and so on it has to come back to Parliament to undertake what as everybody has said so far is purely a technical matter. 
I find the logic that the committee has followed in deciding not to adopt that course of action quite troubling. Let me quote the committee’s decision on the Order in Council proposal: “While we feel this proposal has merit most of us believe that the ability of a trust company to transact business with its parent company is such a significant departure from the general rule against trustees taking profit from their administration of a trust that approval to allow this should remain in Parliament’s hands.” Members should note that last part very carefully. If I take those words literally the committee is saying that by this legislation Parliament is allowing Promina Group Ltd to take profit from its administration of the trust managed by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. I sincerely hope that is not the case because if it is the case then Parliament should not pass this bill. 
Subclause (5) of the preamble simply states: “The company wishes—(a) to be able to transact business with its current parent company and with its current parent company’s subsidiaries and associate companies … and (b) to validate business transacted with its various parent companies or subsidiary or associate companies …”. The bill actually says nothing about Promina Group the new parent company being able to take profit from its administration of its trusts. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Committee stage of this bill will follow later this evening and I for one will ask the committee members to clarify exactly what they are saying there. I do not see anything in the bill that authorises Promina Group to take a profit from the administration of trusts that are under the supervision of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. If that is in the bill then I want somebody on the committee to point it out to me because it would certainly affect how United Future will vote on the remaining stages of this bill. 
With that caveat I signal however that United Future will vote for this second reading. 
Amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 11 May. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I welcome this bill and I look forward to the issues that surround it being discussed at the select committee. Matt Robson’s bill has been drawn from the ballot at an opportune time. The drinking age is an issue that does need to be discussed by the New Zealand public and therefore I think that the discussion at the select committee will be welcome. However I also realise that no legislation will stop our drinking problem—or our binge drinking problem either. We as parents also need to look at the responsibility we have to bring up our children correctly and to teach them the responsibilities associated with drinking. Many people enjoy a glass of wine with their meal and that type of thing but the problem is whether we as parents have taught our children what alcohol can do. I just touch again on the fact that people liken the legislation relating to the drinking age to that relating to the age at which one can go into the Army and to other similar legislation. The major difference with regard to alcohol is that alcohol affects the brain affects thinking and can change behaviour types. Therefore I think it is an issue that seriously needs to be discussed. I hope that many people who are concerned about this issue will bring their concerns to the select committee. It will be very interesting to see the facts and figures brought forward. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have been more than a little frustrated about the nature of this debate—not the debate that has occurred within this House but the debate that has occurred outside the House. What worries me is that many people think that MPs sending this bill to a select committee will mean that we can all pat ourselves on our collective backs and say what a jolly good thing it is that we fixed that problem. My concern is that the liquor interests in this country will be delighted with this bill because it takes the real issues off the agenda. The real issues are those that I will talk about and my colleague who has just resumed his seat mentioned the most obvious one—the drinking culture in New Zealand. 
New Zealand has a degree of tolerance for drinking to excess that I think is greater than that of any other country in the world. Blaming 18 and 19-year-olds for that problem is hardly the way to address it. We did not lower the drinking age in 1999—in fact we do not have a drinking age and I wish that people would stop saying that. We standardised the age at which people could drink at on-licensed premises and purchase alcohol to age 18 but we also lowered the age for purchasing alcohol from off-licences. That is the most significant change we made in 1999. This bill does not restore the law to the position of 1999. In fact it allows for no exceptions for under-20-year-olds to purchase. Under the previous law which had existed since 1989 18 and 19-year-olds were allowed to drink wine or beer with a meal in a restaurant and were entitled to purchase it themselves. That situation is not being restored with this bill. 
To suggest that this bill is an effective prohibition on drinking is a nonsense. There are plenty of examples in the world of places where sensible drinking practices are encouraged in an environment that does not tolerate drunkenness. In New Zealand we not only tolerate drunkenness but glorify it. Our laws used to allow drunkenness as an excuse or mitigating factor for criminal behaviour. Some of us will have attended 21st birthday parties where yard glasses came out—the standard ritual for any male’s 21st birthday party. 
John Tamihere 
: And a few women. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know that that member does not describe us as women but the point is that it was a male ritual and I think the member would agree. What is the advertisement that is on everyone’s lips? Those ads are not designed to increase tolerance for drinking to excess—Yeah right! 
A problem with sale of liquor licensing that no one ever mentions is the free-market approach to the sale of liquor that came in during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The controls that had existed until then with strict hours of trading went out the window. That enabled youth culture to adjust its drinking times to suit. We used to go home at 11 o’clock or midnight; that is when people are going into town these days. That is the real problem. It is not even mentioned in this bill which is why I would have liked to see a far more wide-reaching review. I could make a number of points about the statistics on alcohol-related harm and youth offending but there are other reasons for changes in statistics. The results have been inconclusive and I hope that the select committee will take a good look at them. 
Finally there is nothing about enforcement in this bill. The 18-year-old age restrictions that applied in the past were never enforced; the 20-year-old age restriction that applied in the past was never enforced. This bill contains nothing about more enforcement measures and nothing that will change the practice that existed before. This bill was designed not as a youth alcohol harm-reduction measure but as an under-age harm-reduction measure. I applaud the bill for that reason. I am pleased that people are starting to address that. 
The problem with the bill is that the blame is being laid squarely on the shoulders of the 18 and 19-year-olds of this country. While we have a situation in which 18 and 19-year-olds can go to war to defend our country but cannot go and have a beer after a day in the trenches I think we have the message wrong. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In the brief 5 minutes I have to debate this legislation I want to represent the great majority of the 118330 New Zealanders currently in the 18 and 19-year-old age group. Those people are resident in New Zealand and Parliament earlier gave them the right to go into our pubs clubs and bars. The great majority of those people have accepted that law responsibly. But here we have a bill advanced by Matt Robson who says that those 118000 New Zealanders have acted irresponsibly. Now he wants to take away a legal right that those young New Zealanders have. The issue is on the agenda now only because there is an election coming up and one political party which currently has two members of Parliament is looking for a life purpose. 
We have all heard the reasons being advanced as to why 18 and 19-year-olds should have the right to go into a pub and drink. They have the ability to marry. They have the legal ability to be in our armed forces and be sent overseas on peacekeeping missions or on missions to defend New Zealand. But here we have Matt Robson and no doubt a lot of other do-gooder parliamentarians later on this evening voting to say that these young New Zealanders are not mature enough to go into our pubs. 
What Parliament needs to realise is that this country does have a major issue with the culture of alcohol the large drinking population and people who cannot understand how to use that particular substance properly. That culture has developed over a large number of years. I would suggest that the most significant damaging aspect of the New Zealand culture of the use of alcohol was achieved in the time when we had the stupid 6 o’clock closing laws which thank God finished in 1967. But that difficulty in the culture and attitude associated with alcohol is not something that is specific to 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds; it is a problem that all New Zealanders need to own up to and face. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Alcohol Advisory Council which is now embarking on a very sensible education process that all New Zealanders have to sign up to; only then will we address the problems associated with alcohol and its overuse. 
I especially want to say that the parents of young New Zealanders need to take note. Some of those people display the very worst attitudes to alcohol in front of their own children at home. That is where this problem has to start to be corrected and that requires New Zealanders to sign up to it. But members should not come into the House tonight and pass silly legislation that takes a right off 18 and 19-year-olds because a few are irresponsible. That is irresponsible on Mr Robson’s behalf. 
If this bill were to go to a select committee and if this bill were to pass it would not change the drinking attitude of New Zealanders. It certainly would not stop 18 and 19-year-olds from drinking alcohol. At the very best what it would achieve is to drive those 18-year-olds away from our hotels to locations that are unpoliced and unsupervised. The important thing is that those 18 and 19-year-olds will drive their vehicles—their cars—to those particular locations where they will still drink and because they are unsupervised they will drink to excess and then they will drive their cars home again. I tell Mr Robson that nothing will be achieved by this. 
I finally want to talk on the other aspect of this bill which has received very little debate and that is the part where Mr Robson is again placing more restrictions—on liquor advertising and the broadcasting of liquor advertising. I tell Mr Robson to stop digging at this industry stop blaming this industry and accept that alcohol abuse is a New Zealand problem that must be signed up to by all New Zealanders. I tell Mr Robson that it is a matter of education. It is not about bashing the industry which on the whole recognises its responsibilities. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues who have contributed on the issues before us at the first reading of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. They have in the main kept out personal issues and looked at the facts. Many of the varied opinions honestly expressed from sometimes very different points of view are of course also being articulated at dinner tables in sports clubs and at social gatherings up and down New Zealand. I believe that the bill is facilitating an honest and a robust public discussion on recent trends in alcohol consumption and alcohol harm and on what steps we can reasonably take through our representative Parliament to help turn the tide against some of the heartbreak that too often accompanies youth binge drinking. 
In 1999 Parliament voted by a small margin to lower the minimum purchasing age of alcohol to 18 from 20. At the time our party for philosophical reasons reckoned that 18-year-olds should have the right to purchase alcohol at licensed liquor outlets. Although in 1999 we voted against the final reading of the bill that was for other reasons—principally that the liberalisation of supermarket alcohol sales was too permissive. 
But regardless of how we as individuals or parties voted in 1999 we have now had 6 years to assess the evidence of the impact of the law change. I believe that a majority here today will vote for this bill to proceed to the select committee where we politicians can have a breather from speech-making and can focus on listening instead. At the select committee we can listen to the evidence that will be put before us and to the experience of those at the front line in public health. We can listen to parents. We can listen to principals teachers and sports coaches. Maybe we can listen to some of the liquor licensing control front-line workers to the people at Alcohol Healthwatch the Public Health Association and the New Zealand Drug Foundation and to family doctors who say that our 1999 decision was “a disaster”. We can at the select committee listen to family planning health professionals and to those working to combat the transmission of sexual disease among the young. 
As we listen and take notes we need to keep in mind some of these basic questions. Did the decision to lower the alcohol purchasing age by 2 years in 1999 in turn lower by 2 years the effective age at which minors in our country can easily access alcohol? In other words if 17-year-olds easily accessed alcohol via older friends before 1999 did the law change make it easier for 15-year-olds to access alcohol from their 18-year-old mates? Did the law change exacerbate under-18-year-old youth binge drinking and associated problems such as road accidents unplanned pregnancies and so forth? Did the law change exacerbate hospital admissions for heavily intoxicated 13 to 17-year-olds? What is the evidence from North America where society tried to lower the alcohol purchasing age but then reverted to a higher age? Would it likely make any material difference to youth binge drinking habits if broadcast advertising rules were altered? Would it likely make any material difference to youth binge drinking habits if we were to use more of a stick in terms of high penalties for those caught supplying liquor to those under the minimum alcohol purchasing age? 
A number of members have asked me to move an instruction to the select committee to allow it to consider matters beyond the scope of the bill. It may well be that the public submissions identify changes that the select committee believes to be desirable. In fact I think that is highly likely. If and when that happens I will seek to deal with the issues beyond the scope at that time—as I am sure that select committee members will—and I will be happy for amendments to be made in order to address the problem which is the harm done to youth by alcohol. 
I finish by thanking the Prime Minister for her support for this bill to proceed to the select committee. Of course there are no silver bullets to improving the alcohol-drinking culture. The bill proposes just three measures: on broadcast advertising on the supply to minors regulations and on the minimum purchasing age. Those have necessarily been drafted to try to secure as broad a support as is possible in an eight-party Parliament. I know that there are many other improvements that members will be able to put forward. 
I commend the House to allow the public of New Zealand the parents the caregivers and the voluntary workers in public health to be able to have their say on how this legislation can be improved. I commend members therefore to support this bill to proceed to the select committee. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 78 
Adams  
Eckhoff(P) 
Mark   
Smith N (P) 
Anderton(P) 
English(P) 
McCully(P) 
Stewart  
Ardern(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
McNair   
Swain(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
O'Connor   
Tamihere  
Barker(P) 
Franks(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Gallagher   
Okeroa(P) 
Tisch  
Beyer(P) 
Goff(P) 
Paraone   
Turia(P) 
Brown(P) 
Gosche   
Parker(P) 
Turner  
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie   
Peck(P) 
Ward(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gudgeon   
Perry   
Williamson(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley   
Peters J 
Wong  
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Peters W 
Woolerton  
Catchpole  
Hughes   
Pillay   
Worth(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Jones   
Power(P) 
Yates 
Clark(P) 
Key(P) 
Ririnui   
Collins(P) 
King(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Copeland  
Laban(P) 
Robson   
Cosgrove  
Mackey M 
Ryall   
Cunliffe(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Samuels   
Donnelly  
Mahuta   
Scott(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Mapp   
Smith M (P) 
Pettis  
Noes 41 
Alexander  
Dyson(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard  
Barnett  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Newman(P) 
Turei(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Hawkins  
Prebble(P) 
Wang  
Brash(P) 
Hereora  
Rich(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hide(P) 
Roy  
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Shirley   
Connell(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Simich(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Dalziel  
Hutchison(P) 
Soper   
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Duncan  
Locke  
Sutton(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Mackey J 
Tanczos   
Carter D 
Abstentions 1 
Fairbrother (P) 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.referred to Law and Order Committee 
Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill 
First Reading 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will seek leave for this bill to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
This Parliament should do New Zealanders an invaluable service today. When considering these so-called principles we must start from the premise that Parliament created this historical anomaly so it is Parliament that must correct it. We must also ensure that it is clear that this is not an attack on the treaty itself but on the insertion of the term “the principles of the Treaty” into legislation. 
I say at the outset that if members are intending to vote against this bill then they should please use their speech to tell the House and all New Zealanders what the definition of the so-called principles of the treaty is. If they cannot do this then logic dictates that they must support this bill. They have no other choice. 
This bill seeks to do three fundamental things. First as the bill’s title implies it seeks to remove all references to the undefined and divisive term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation. Second it seeks to reverse the insidious culture of division that has grown up around the existence of these principles. It has seen Maori pitted against Maori and non-Maori seen family members pitted against each other and gone right to the heart of our social fabric. Finally the bill aims to put an end to the expensive and never-ending litigious programme that has sprung up around these principles. This programme has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars into dead-end paths and away from the enlightened programmes that are the true pathway to success. 
How did these principles appear in legislation? It was Geoffrey Palmer who inserted them into the State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986. It was one of the many failed experiments of the fourth Labour Government. Maori did not ask for them—nobody did—but inserted they were. One might point out the irony of Geoffrey Palmer inserting them into legislation only to have his son Professor Matthew Palmer the dean of Victoria University’s law school question the very validity of their existence and their value in law. 
What made the inclusion of these terms in legislation worse was that they were never ever defined by Parliament. I have asked countless questions over the past 18 years as have my colleagues inside this House and outside seeking an adequate definition of these principles yet none has ever been forthcoming. I have gone to academics and other legal experts and still I get the same reply. There is no clear definition only widely diverse interpretations of what the principles might mean in certain circumstances. The simple answer is that they have not been defined because they cannot be. 
The lack of definition has created legal chaos as activist judges bureaucratic meddlers and treaty lawyers have taken advantage of this void. It is no coincidence that almost immediately after these terms were placed in legislation a protracted and expensive process of litigation was begun. It has never let up; it has grown exponentially to the ludicrous situation we have today of outrageous claims to everything from air space through to oil and gas. It has created false hope and expectations that have left far too many Maori craving a fool’s paradise that can never really be a reality. 
Not only have these principles created a legal nonsense their divisive nature has now permeated the entire bureaucracy. We now have treaty specialists in every Government department and requirements for every health board school or Government agency to adhere to these undefined principles. The result has been an endless stream of ad hoc programmes and policies at a cost of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars with no productive merit. 
One should ask any Maori or non-Maori what is more valuable—a course on treaty principles or a good job solid education and decent housing and health-care. The latter will win out every time yet this Government insists on imposing these principles upon New Zealanders. We are meant to feel guilty if we do not sign up to the Government’s politically correct programme. Well New Zealanders of all ilk are sick and tired of that and it is time this Government woke up to that. This Government even tried to insert the principles into free-trade agreements to make them binding on foreign countries. That is madness. 
These principles have also muddied the waters over legitimate claims of land alienation that do not need these so-called principles to be valid. The removal of these terms will have absolutely no impact on genuine claims. In fact it will lead to their being better resolved more quickly—even faster as the growing body of bogus claims is removed from the system unlocking time and resources for legitimate claims.  
The Treaty of Waitangi was a noble historical document aimed at forging a relationship between two diverse peoples and as the rate of intermarriage between Maori and non-Maori seems to indicate it was actually pretty successful. This nation is not perfect but it does need a united cohesive future. Although we have seen protests we have never witnessed the race riots that other nations have. I believe that that is because the relationships forged between all of those who have come to these shores have historically almost always been based on a commitment to fairness and equality before the law. It was not always universally applied but I believe that it has always been a part of our underlying values and culture. 
That was undermined by inserting these principles into legislation. The unwarranted insertion of treaty principles into legislation has created division where none need exist. They have created resentment where it is not necessary. The words of the treaty as with every other treaty worldwide speak for themselves. The way forward for Maori just as it is for non-Maori must be based on strong education standards First World health housing and social standards real employment prospects and First World incomes. Those cannot be found in fabled principles. It is time for the failed experiment to end and for this Parliament to act in the interests of all New Zealanders. 
I ask my colleagues in this House why they would deny this bill a select committee hearing where amendments can be made after the public has been heard. I say again that if members intend to vote against this bill then they should please now tell this House and the public what the principles are. If they cannot do this then they should help to remove this festering sore from our statute book and support this bill. If they cannot define these principles then they should support this bill. If they cannot enunciate them or find words that have genuine meaning to describe them then they should support this bill. If their minds and hearts cannot tell them what these principles are or if all their friends all academia the whole judiciary all the experts their Cabinet colleagues and their former leaders cannot tell them what these principles are then they should support this bill. 
In Australia today there are tens and tens of thousands of Maori. The average income of those Maori is greater than that of the average European in this country yet Australia does not have a treaty so how can it be? Maybe it is because the fundamental things that all families communities and societies need such as decent health decent education decent housing and decent First World wages and prospects are what we all need. In abandoning that purpose and cause this country has lost a lot. I say again that if members cannot tell me their colleagues and the public what they are pursuing in respect of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi then they should please support this bill. It will change nothing; it will advantage much. We cannot progress when the way forward is hazy. Let us today lift the fog that has shackled this nation for far too long and support this bill. 
The last thing I want to say is that as I have grown up to adulthood I have seen so many of my Maori colleagues spend their whole lifetime on this issue. They are growing old and tired and now in many ways they are of no use professionally to anybody. They have wasted 30 or 40 years on this issue. What a pity they could not have spent their life and energy uplifting their people in the way the great Maori leadership of the 1920s did and transformed and changed this nation. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 It has been widely accepted over the last decade in this country that the Treaty of Waitangi is a founding document of Aotearoa. It is an exchange of guarantees between two sovereign peoples giving rise to obligations on both parties. Maori ceded to the Crown the power to govern New Zealand and in exchange the Crown guaranteed to protect their identity including their rights to their lands and other possessions. The Crown also guaranteed to Maori the same rights and privileges as British citizens. 
The treaty is an important part of the foundation upon which government was established in Aotearoa. Like all treaties it gives rise to duties on the Crown—duties that as a matter of conscience the Crown should comply with. This is often referred to as the honour of the Crown. Governments have therefore chosen on a case by case basis to give force to the treaty by an Act of Parliament doing what is appropriate in each case according to the circumstances. That has sometimes meant incorporating a reference to take into account the principles of the treaty and the application of the Act. This considered approach is most ably demonstrated in the Local Government Act 2002. Section 4 of that Act specifically notes that it is the Crown’s responsibility rather than that of local government to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Hon Members 
: What are they? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Patience gentlemen; I will come to them. Treaty principles are the way in which the Government sets out what the treaty means for the Crown. It is not appropriate to put such references in all legislation; nor is it appropriate to remove them from all legislation. To do so would signal the Crown’s walking away from its duties and obligations. So what are these principles? The member for Tauranga has been should I say promoting the removal of these principles for many many years. However I find it highly unlikely that he is not aware of what the principles of the treaty actually are given that he was the Deputy Prime Minister in 1996 and had ample opportunity to play his cards. As the member well knows in the 1987 lands case the Court of Appeal elaborated the principles of the treaty as required by section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act. In that judgment the President of the Court of Appeal Sir Robin Cooke wrote the principles of partnership active protection and redress. 
In 1989 the fourth Labour Government drawing on the principles that had been developed to date including past judgments from the courts published a set of five principles to assist the Government when making decisions about matters related to the treaty. In April 2002 the then Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson advised Parliament that these are the principles that the Government considers to be relevant. The first principle is the principle of Government meaning that the Government has the right to govern and make laws. The principle of self-management means that iwi have the right to organise as iwi under the law and to control the resources they own. The principle of equality means that all New Zealanders are equal under the law. The principle of reasonable cooperation means that both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern. Finally the principle of redress means that the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur. The treaty principle of redress is obviously relevant to my portfolio as Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the work of the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
In July 2000 the Government published the principles that it felt should guide the treaty settlement work. They are good faith restoration of relationship just redress fairness between claims and transparency in Government-negotiated settlements. For those members who wish to be informed on this area of New Zealand’s constitution I recommend to the House and to those members that they refer to the publication by Te Puni Kokiri called  
He Tirohanga o Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi 
. It is an excellent summary of the history of the treaty and its legal place in New Zealand’s society. Members need look no further to gain this understanding. On the question of legislative reference to the principles of the treaty the publication states: “The differences in the Maori and English texts of the Treaty of Waitangi have led to different understandings of the meaning of the Treaty. These differences coupled with the need to apply the Treaty in contemporary circumstances led Parliament to refer to the principles of the Treaty in legislation rather than to the Treaty text.”—as the member expects the Government to do. It is the principles therefore that the courts have considered when interpreting in legislation references to the treaty. As Justice McKay noted in the broadcasting case in 1992 it is the principles of the treaty that are to be applied not the liberal words. The English and Maori texts in the first schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations one of the other. The differences between the texts and the shades of meaning are less important than the spirit. 
The Government is committed to working through the challenges of the treaty settlement process in an honourable manner and to reaching fair settlement with due regard to the treaty and the principles of the treaty which I have once again explained. I find the ideas expressed in the bill that the Crown should simply walk away from its duties under the Treaty of Waitangi by deleting references in legislation to the principles of the treaty both deliberately ignorant and morally repugnant. I think it has become quite clear during my speech that the Government will be opposing the first reading of this bill. I am astounded that this bill has come to the House. I think of the treaty settlements over the last decade and I think back more than a decade perhaps one and a half decades to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act of 1992. Although it may have taken a very long time before a number of iwi received the benefits from those settlements iwi—which many members on the other side of the House belong to—have had their fair share of settlement. That settlement was based on the Crown’s acknowledgment that it had breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it highlighted those principles. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course it is difficult for those members on the other side of the House to accept that that is exactly the case. Once again I say that the Government will not be supporting the first reading of this bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Government does not have a very sound Order Paper in front of us tonight. This is the only bill that we are going to consider between now and 10 o’clock yet somehow the Government embarrassed by this bill wants to constrain us— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Give me a moment please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be terse and to the point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government wants to constrain our speaking. So I seek leave for the National Party to have a 10-minute speaking slot or to take us up to 6 o’clock on this particular slot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Let me make it clear: this will be the last speaking slot before 6 o’clock. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the member I advise members that all other speeches are 5-minute speeches and as a courtesy to members I will give a bell at 4 minutes so they know they have a minute left. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you explain how it is that we get only a 5-minute slot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are dealing with members’ bills and those members who move the motion and have the first right of reply always have 10 minutes and all other members have 5. That is the order of the list I have in front of me. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why did the last speaker get 10 minutes? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: He had the right of reply as it is a member’s bill. That is my understanding. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two submissions. First the shadow Leader of the House rose and asked for leave of the House to make a 10-minute speech. That leave was declined by the House. He then stood and raised a further point of order and threatened you as Speaker by stating quite clearly that he would make sure that his speech would go through to 6 o’clock. He has just raised three frivolous and vexatious points of order to ensure that that threat is carried out. I am asking you as the Speaker to ensure that you give him the 5 minutes and put us out of our misery before dinner. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I thank the honourable member and can I just say that I did not feel intimidated or threatened at all. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reality is that we have just had a member from the Labour Party get up and talk about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but he failed to define them. One of them he said was I think reciprocity. Was that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What is the point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Tamihere will have to listen very carefully because this will be somewhat complicated for him. The reality is that the member talked about fairness as well. Surely the fair thing to do is to allow those who say that they have never heard the principles explained put their case in the same time that was given to someone who said he could explain it but spent the whole 10 minutes not explaining it. Surely that would be fair that would be balanced and that is what we should apply in this debate. I seek leave for Mr Brownlee to be given 10 minutes to state his case. After all National members went to Orewa and stole my policy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am going to rule and I remind members that this is a sessional order that was passed on 17 September 2002: the first two speeches will be of 10 minutes and the remaining eight will be of 5 minutes with the member in reply getting 5 minutes. I now call the honourable member Gerry Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We know that the Government is in severe trouble on a bill like this when it puts up a speaker like Mita Ririnui who has no idea what the bill is all about and then when he comes under a bit of attack who does the Government wheel in but John Tamihere to try to bail him out. Well let me make it very clear: the National Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. We accept that the vagaries of the members’ ballot system mean that the bill is in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters but none the less we will give it support because it is core National Party policy. 
I want to ask the Labour Party where the Minister for race relations is. Where is Trevor Mallard? Why is he not taking a call in this debate? Last year when the Government found itself hopelessly on the ropes over this very issue the Hon Trevor Mallard was appointed Coordinating Minister Race Relations and he went out and said that references to the Treaty of Waitangi will be removed from laws if they were not needed and not appropriate. He told the  
Dominion Post  
that inconsistent and incoherent references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation would be tidied up. He was super-tough and those comments appeared under the headline: “ ‘There will be drama and tears’ says Mallard”. Well the only drama we have seen here today is the Government on its bike backpedalling so hard it is embarrassing. 
I think it would have been very easy for Mita Ririnui to say what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are but he could not. He gave us a smorgasbord of ideas about what those principles were. I think he mentioned eight points that might have been related to the principles. I tell Mr Mita Ririnui that he should not confuse the settlement process with the issue of treaty principles being pushed irresponsibly into law. Every single treaty settlement is done because those who settle understand that the Treaty of Waitangi granted as many rights to Maori New Zealanders as it granted to anybody else—as many rights to non-Maori New Zealanders as it granted to Maori. That is why we have a settlement process—because there is grievance there was bad dealing and there are matters to be settled. But that does not mean that we have to include in all legislation a reference to the treaty and to the principles of the treaty. It is littered throughout our legislation. It can be found in over 37 pieces of legislation. But it does not stop there. Government departments—well-meaning people that they are—require all of those they employ to have various understandings of the Treaty of Waitangi. For example a customs officer— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Mr Brownlee but some of my colleagues have asked me to do this. They have said they are so impressed with hearing our words read back to us that they would like an extension of time on the part of Mr Brownlee representing the National Party. We do appreciate the way he has been articulating our views so well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave for an extension of time from now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. He is a longstanding member and well knows that. It was a frivolous interjection. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member from Labour Rita Ririnui fine fellow that he is has been interjecting and referring to my colleague Gerry Brownlee who is the shadow Leader of the House by his first name “Gerry”. We all know that he is Gerry but under the Standing Orders the member should be referred to by his proper name. I say to Mr Ririnui that I know the members are friends but there is a convention in the House and a Standing Order that says members must refer to other members by their full names and I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to enforce that Standing Order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and just tell him that under Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8 it is correct that members should be referred to by their full names titles or portfolios. However the member was not actually speaking and there was an interjection across the House which I did not hear. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I take no offence at the interjection made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I see it simply as a coalition overture. Littered throughout today’s newspapers there are job advertisements for positions in the public service. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I take the opportunity to repeat again that the National Party supports this bill because it is part of our core policy to wherever possible remove the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation where that statement has little effect. That should not be confused with the issue of settlement because treaty settlements are made on the basis that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed as many rights to any one New Zealander as it did to any other. 
I ask Labour members tonight why they are not voting for this bill. In the early part of last year the Prime Minister appointed the Hon Trevor Mallard as Coordinating Minister Race Relations and said that he would be looking at legislation and removing where necessary such references from law where they were not needed and not appropriate. The Minister has been on the job for 18 months. He has done nothing. Here is an opportunity to have legislation that does the job. It may not be perfect but a select committee can make a difference to it. If those Labour members really think that the Prime Minister was sincere in that pledge to New Zealanders how on earth can they fail to vote for this bill tonight? 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 Most people listening to the debate tonight know that election time is here and that opportunity knocks on Parliament’s doors tonight. This bill is nothing more than an election platform for two likely coalition buddies that just cannot bring themselves to an agreement before the election—that might not look so good and people might remember what happened the last time they shacked up. Or is it really about New Zealand First taking up territory once held by National and becoming the real Opposition? 
Labour does not support this bill. Labour knows that this is an electioneering stunt aimed to scratch the edges of our communities. It will not bring people together but will polarise New Zealanders. It is wedge politics and we will have none of it. 
When the fourth Labour Government set out the principles in 1989 they were not intended in and of themselves to be incorporated into legislation. That is as true today as it was then. Instead the principles act as a guide to the Government in order to give practical expression to what was meant when the treaty was signed and more important to what it could mean in very practical ways today. 
Each generation has debated and argued the virtues and pitfalls of the treaty. Ironically some of the strongest opponents many of whom are Maori are now the people who are most seeking a place in this very House. I wonder why. But let me say this. Labour does not intend to signal to Maori that we are walking away from commitments to better engage and uphold the principles of the treaty. We know that when the going gets tough the tough get going. A strong programme of action has been jettisoned by this Government and has at times required legislative references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Let us take section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 for example which gives effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It gives real opportunities for Maori and the Department of Conservation to work together. “Co-management” is not a dirty word; that thinking has been steered by the very principle of self-management. New Zealand First knows that. National wants to get rid of it supported by New Zealand First. Who will tell Ngati Wai? 
Let us take section 181(b) of the Education Act 1989 which states that the council of an institution must acknowledge the principles of the treaty. For Waikato University for example that led to the establishment of Te Roopu Manukura and a direct relationship with all iwi within the catchment of that university in order to advise and cooperate on matters of common interest such as Maori enrolments. I think that that upholds the principle of equality and decision making. 
Members should consider the principle of equality for one moment and the various ways in which the Government has tackled areas of inequality in employment health and housing. Policy initiatives from this Labour-led Government target areas where there is real need in order to make sure that everybody gets a hand up not a handout. Targeted employment initiatives population-based health funding and income-related rents better restore equality into our society for all New Zealanders—Maori and Pakeha alike—according to their needs. And New Zealand First and National want to do away with the principles of the treaty. 
Let us take for example the treaty settlements listed in this bill that include references to the treaty that help to uphold the principle of Government self-management reasonable cooperation and redress. How do New Zealand First and National intend to tell the people of Ngai Tahu Turangitukua Ngati Tama Pouakani and Te Uri o Hau? Will they say: “Sorry we’re just going to remove the references to the principles of the treaty and too bad we’re not sure what it means for your treaty settlements.”? New Zealand First want to get rid of the principles and so does National. Labour will not have a bar of it. 
Finally let us take the Maori Television Service. In upholding the principle of self-management a Labour Government has recognised that language culture and communication are important. Under a Labour Government Parliament legislated to protect the Maori language and we stand by that commitment. We are making sure that the language is broadcast on television. New Zealand First members should tell their families when they go home that they think the principles of the treaty should be removed and what that will mean for Maori television. Who knows what that will mean and who cares. That is what New Zealand First thinks not Labour. 
Labour opposes this bill. Many Maori out there know that incremental achievements made in this country have been pegged down by legislative references to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Long should that continue under a Labour-led Government. Labour objects to this electioneering stunt and we oppose the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am very glad to rise for the ACT party and announce that we will be voting for this bill which will be no surprise. This bill of course is the signal of the end of an era. This bill is the end of the treaty era. This bill together with Peter Dunne’s bill to change the name of the Treaty of Waitangi says an awful lot more than just getting rid of the spurious principles. The reason why we make the same arguments about the principles and about why the name Treaty of Waitangi no longer has any magic is that the treaty era is finished. It might take a few years before the last sorry dregs disappear but the era is over when this Parliament is now being reported as actively debating what New Zealanders have been speaking about for 20 years in the pub in their living rooms and over dinner while the politicians in a cosy consensus between National and Labour pretended that it was not happening. 
That cosy consensus of course included New Zealand First. When Derek Quigley introduced his bill in 1998 to put a time limit on claims every party in this House howled “racist” at him. Now it is official policy. One of the amusing things about Mr Peters’ bill and it needs an awful lot of work in a select committee but we will look forward to that task would be to read through the list of enactments from which he needs to repeal sections that refer to the so-called treaty principles. Nearly all of those more recent bills are bills that New Zealand First has voted for. Only one party in the House has not voted for them and we have been consistent in our principles—that is that there is no such thing as a treaty principle. We have voted against almost every one of the recent bills that Mr Peters has now listed for revocation including some enacted as recently as this Parliament. 
Just a month ago New Zealand First voted for a bill that contained references to the treaty principles. New Zealand First had its own arguments for doing that and they were not bad arguments. But if New Zealand First were really standing for principle its message would have been very straightforward: “We don’t believe in these principles.” New Zealand First should have said: “We don’t believe in them any more than we believe in this fanciful partnership.” Sadly the bill introduced by Mr Peters does not do anything about this mythical partnership created by the courts. I pity the judges who were forced to create something out of the deliberately fuzzy and meaningless words that Parliament inserted as a compromise between David Lange and Tainui at the time of the Coalcorp case. The judges had to do something so they created this nonsense partnership. They talked about the living document; the spirit of the treaty. They invented fanciful principles of good faith between partners as if we were in a partnership between the leaders of a white race and the leaders of a brown race. 
New Zealand left that scenario in 1840. Now he iwi tahi tatou—now we are one people. At the Kohimarama conference only 20 years later that sentiment was repeated by the chiefs—one people. For 30 years in this House politicians from the two major parties have been deliberately creating political capital out of fostering the idea that there was a future for us in pretending that we could discern race difference. 
This is a very significant bill. It is hopelessly badly drafted. It repeals whole chunks of sections. It does not even say what a provision is. A provision that contains a reference to treaty principles is being repealed instead of trying to be replaced with something more meaningful so we would see whole regulations just disappear. This bill is a political statement. ACT will be looking forward to turning it into good law in select committee. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote against this bill not because we support the redefinition of treaty rights by reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We do not support that and we have taken a principled position to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Maori language version. If this bill had sought to address that problem and if it had simply removed the term “principles” we might have voted for it. But the Rt Hon Winston Peters is being tricky. He says that this bill is not an attack on the treaty itself and then he proceeds to attack anything that would implement the treaty. He speaks of going back to the treaty itself but to the best of my knowledge he has shown neither comprehension of what it states nor support for its recognition. When I have mentioned te tiriti in this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters has asked: “What’s that?” so I recommend that the member undertake some of the treaty education that he is so quick to denounce. 
The Green Party agrees that we should go back to the treaty itself. That is why we did not support raupatu last year as New Zealand First did over the foreshore and seabed issue. Let me say for Mr Peters’ sake and for Mr Perry’s sake that being Pakeha does not exclude me from participating in this debate. Tangata whenua do not depend on the treaty either to be in this country or to assert their rights as indigenous people. The treaty affirms the rights of tangata whenua; it does not create them. It is Pakeha who have the most to gain from upholding the treaty because the treaty gives us an honourable place in this land. Let me also say that people are sadly mistaken if like Gerry Brownlee they think they can dispose of the treaty by simply making some small restitution for stolen Maori land. The settlement of past injustices is certainly necessary in order to move forward but when we get to the future the treaty will still be there because it is about the ongoing relationship between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti. 
Mr Peters makes great play about how different people interpret the principles of the treaty differently. Well of course they do. People have vastly different interpretations of what the treaty itself means. It is a constitutional document and constitutional documents and principles are always the subject of debate. By way of illustration I invite members to tell me what we mean by free speech. But perhaps that is an unfair question judging by the conformity of the New Zealand First caucus. The principles of the treaty have been clearly elaborated by the Waitangi Tribunal by the Court of Appeal and by the Government itself—such as in 2000 when it outlined the treaty settlement process. It is not very hard for most people if they put their minds to it just a little bit to get the essence of what is meant by the principles of the treaty and pointing out that there are varying interpretations of those principles is in my view a very weak argument for deleting reference to them. 
I will not expound on the various components of what the principles may mean. Mita Ririnui already did that before the dinner break and temporarily silenced the baying jackals to my right but I note that the silence was only temporary. The Green Party is not in the business of defending a redefinition and in our view a weakening of what the treaty actually means but neither are the Greens about to support a bill that removes almost every legislative mention of the treaty. Mr Peters is being disingenuous. In the guise of going back to the words of the treaty he would take us back to the time of Chief Justice Prendergast and the description of the treaty as a nullity. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. United Future will tentatively cautiously and in some sectors reluctantly support this first reading because of the opportunity that it affords us as a country to have the discussion that is needed. 
At present in New Zealand the treaty is most frequently known in a grievance context and the mentioning of principles appears to me to be an attempt at suggesting some current application which is the discussion that United Future believes needs to happen. We think that this bill is a shabby vehicle but it is the only one leaving the station and we are very keen to hear from New Zealanders about this very important issue. However do we think it is an election year gimmick? Yes we do. It is appalling to think that the author of this bill has legal training because this bill creates a legal vacuum—although it is unsurprising that we are dealing with a vacuum when we consider that that is the kind of possibility a Government would face if it were forced to work with New Zealand First. 
In the explanatory note Winston Peters’ criticism of Maori having unrealistic expectations of them being anchored in the past and his claim that references to the principles of the treaty are divisive show that he is really uninformed about things Maori and of the concerns of many iwi. It is interesting to note that the attempt to define the principles of the treaty has actually happened. The Waitangi Tribunal came out with five rather interesting concepts to describe those principles: partnership good faith active protection compromise and the duty to consult. An interesting exercise—certainly this legislation in its current form provides no opportunity for it and United Future would like to see it happen at a select committee—would be a discussion on whether it is possible to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi seeing that that is the call on people’s hearts and minds that we constantly hear asked in this House. An interesting and more productive exercise would be to try to quantify those principles. Certainly the Waitangi Tribunal the courts and others have suggested some interpretation of the principles. Some good discussion fodder is already in existence that could make quantifying those principles a very real discussion issue. 
The interesting thing about this shabby legislation is that it does not actually appear to fix the problems that the sponsor intends it to fix. For instance just removing this terminology does not mean that the requirement to consult Maori would be removed. Therefore it is unusual that that is stated as being one of the intentions yet the bill would not actually accomplish that goal. 
The second thing this bill does not do is remove the requirement to develop Maori capacity for participation yet I think that that is Mr Peters’ intention. The commentary lays out a whole set of goals yet when we look very carefully at what is on offer we see that the bill does not actually accomplish quite a number of its significant goals. United Future will provide the opportunity for discussion on this bill. However without hugely substantial changes our support will go no further. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that includes the statement: “I think that New Zealand will be a better place if we can accommodate the concepts of partnership expressed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” The document is the maiden speech of Mr Gerry Brownlee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask that the member circulate that speech because there are a lot of other good things in it. My real point of order though is that I have seen who the next speaker is and I am of the opinion that the whole Parliament should now go into absolute silence. This will be one of those rare occasions when we hear a speech delivered by a bloke. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 Initially I want to address the selective amnesia of members opposite. The member for Tauranga has often walked into this House and practised selective amnesia. He has practised selective amnesia to the extent that he was never here in the 1980s in the 1990s or in the year 2000. The member for Tauranga has often walked into this House and made much ado about nothing over many things and today we have before us the most pithy pious piece of paper this Parliament has ever been obliged to discuss. 
The reality is as follows. Matiu Rata a person whom that member would never know or come close to in terms of values virtues and actual principles brought in the bill that in 1975 became the Treaty of Waitangi Act. In 1978 we had our first tribunal. In 1985 we started to look at Maori relationships our constitution and the treaty. In 1986 the State-Owned Enterprises Act included in legislation for the first time the term “principles of the treaty”. That was championed in the Labour caucus by Maori members but particularly—and I acknowledge her tonight—by Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan. Our constitution behoves us to observe those principles. 
The members opposite have selective dementia—they now have not just selective amnesia but also selective dementia—and no longer want to acknowledge that we have three estates in our great constitution. One happens to be the executive one happens to be the legislature and the third happens to be the judiciary. We do have what is called a fourth estate which at times now and then can kick in depending on whether it has a great relationship with Rodney Hide. Putting that to one side we have the fourth estate. The three main estates have ruled and they make up our constitution. The Court of Appeal in 1987 determined three principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The member for Tauranga knows that. He abuses this House by laying a dirty little piece of politics before it in terms of “getting rid of the principles”—the three principles laid down by our Court of Appeal for this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What are they? 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Gerry Brownlee the great spokesperson for the Maori people—Gerry Brownlee all the way from Fendalton all the way from that great Maori population in Christchurch—interjects in this House: “What are they?”. If he is thick enough to ask that question he does not deserve the answer. That member knows that the Court of Appeal determined in 1987 that there would be the principle of partnership the principle of active participation and protection and the principle of compensation and that they would be applicable on the merits of the particular case. That is what our Court of Appeal opined. 
The member for Tauranga did nothing—not in 1987 not in 1988 not in 1989 not in 1990 and not in the 12 to 15 years after that. When he was Deputy Prime Minister that member did nothing. He argued that we should not sell Kiwi assets and he signed off on the sale of 40000 hectares of land as soon as he had his hand on the pen as Deputy Prime Minister. Every day in every way the member from Tauranga wants to pretend to pursue the claim that the principles of the treaty do not exist or that we no longer know what they are. We know what they are and we have named them in the House. Mita Ririnui named the principles of the treaty. We in the Government have been remiss about one thing: not expressing those principles more openly and overtly and stating them for what they are because one of the great estates in our great constitution of which this Parliament is part has actually described them. They came through the judiciary and through the quasi-judicial processes of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
So I say to members opposite: do not be fudged by Gerry Brownlee that great spokesperson for the National Party. He knows nothing. He would not even know what the State-owned enterprises case was about but he is the Maori spokesperson. The member for Tauranga does not know what the principles are but he makes out that he is a practised and knowing lawyer. He does not know anything about it. Then we have Stephen Franks. God forbid! I do not know what is going on in our law schools these days but how those two members got their law degrees no one knows. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The main reason for bringing this bill before the House is that we as parliamentarians have to make sure that when we pass legislation the judiciary knows how to give effect to it. The considerable problems that have faced the judiciary over the insertion of the words “principles of” into certain pieces of legislation have shown the difficulties with such legislation the varying interpretations of it and the uncertainty surrounding it. New Zealand First intends to remove that uncertainty. Of course New Zealand First has made sure that it has not supported “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” being inserted into legislation. In the House the other night on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Bill I moved an amendment to have the words “the principles of” removed from the bill and New Zealand First voted to have those words removed. ACT voted against that amendment; it voted to have the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the bill. So I think Mr Franks has got himself slightly confused. 
Listening to the Labour Party tonight one would think they were speaking from the basic principle that they will always support the inclusion of the words “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in important legislation. Let us look at what has been passed by this House in recent times. Could there have been a more important piece of legislation affecting the Maori people than the foreshore and seabed legislation? However the Labour Party is prepared to waive the inclusion of a reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation when it suits the Labour Party and that happened with the foreshore and seabed legislation. When the Labour Party tried to introduce a reference to “the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles or both” New Zealand First objected and the reference to “or its principles or both” was removed. 
Obviously the Labour Party is flexible in its support of the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This is extremely relevant to section 10(2)(b) of the Foreshore and Seabed Act relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court. Labour proposed to insert additional words in the corresponding clause of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. This was rejected by New Zealand First and Labour accepted New Zealand First’s view of the matter. The foreshore and seabed legislation stands as one of the most important pieces of legislation of this term yet the Labour Party was prepared to delete that reference in it because New Zealand First insisted on it. I have here for any member who wants to read it House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper PC0562A(5)(a) which shows the effort made by the Labour Party to have those words put in the bill. But when it was confronted by New Zealand First it buckled and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not mean two hoots—it meant nothing—to the Labour Party when it came to the crunch. 
Over the last 25 years lawyers who have been otherwise unable to obtain employment have found a gold-plated means of advancement in the Treaty of Waitangi industry. They have done nothing for New Zealand. The only people who have been enriched or acquired places of power are those lawyers—people like John Tamihere—and litigants who would otherwise have made no worthwhile contribution to New Zealand. None of this gravy train has done anything to improve the lot of the Maori “westie”. I ask John Tamihere what he has done for any young Maori “westie” in West Auckland in so far as the treaty is concerned. He has not done a thing—not a fish nothing—and where is he now? 
Pita Paraone 
: He took the golden handshake. 
DAIL JONES 
: He took the money from the young people on the Waipareira Trust. He deprived them of $190000 plus tax on top of that—about $250000. John Tamihere took the money. None of this gravy train has done anything to improve the lot of “westies” with a Maori heritage who are yet to see a brass cent from any gravy train settlement. They all know how well some people like John Tamihere and others many of whom are not even Maori have done out of the gravy train. 
This bill is not an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. One should recall Professor Matthew Palmer’s article in the  
New Zealand Law Journal 
 of June 2001 in which he indicated that the Treaty of Waitangi is not sensibly susceptible to ordinary techniques of statutory interpretation as they have evolved in a common law system. He makes it clear that the treaty does not yield black and white answers that it does not express a contract but that it does express an ongoing relationship or set of relationships and common law principles of statutory interpretations themselves set the treaty apart by requiring it and reference to it to be interpreted generally. 
All that we are aiming to do here is to remove the reference to the words “principles of”. That is the main thing. Removing those words does not affect the Treaty of Waitangi and its application in those pieces of legislation in any way. It is just a lot of confusion and as members of Parliament we owe it to the legal profession and to the people of New Zealand to ensure that when our legislation is passed it is clear. That was why New Zealand First took that principled view on the foreshore and seabed legislation which meant that the Labour Government had to as well. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 As I move around the electorate of Napier I see in the schools in the family settings in the social clubs and in the workplace tearooms the expressions of the two quite distinct cultures of this country—the Pakeha culture and the Maori culture. I will never be Maori as much as many Maori will never be Pakeha. It is a fact of life that we have two distinct cultures. That is one of the strengths of our country and we celebrate it in many many ways. 
When I picked up this bill I thought “Gosh this man might be heading in the right direction” because Winston Peters identifies a problem that has to be dealt with at some stage. But of course as the honourable Winston Peters stumbled towards the problem he took a 180-degree turn in the wrong direction. It is not a question of removing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is a matter of growing up and expressing the principles with perhaps greater clarity. It has been 20 years since an Act first embodied a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. In that 20 years our development of thought and knowledge the growth of the Maori culture and the accommodation of it by Europeans in this country has been exponential. It is now a force that cannot be stopped. 
We have in legislation a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a vague reference but it is all that we have at this stage because nobody is yet prepared to do the hard work to identify what each Act of Parliament should do which is to define the powers the obligations the functions and the prohibitive behaviour that should occur. Until someone is prepared to do that we need the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi for the courts to fill the void that is left by legislation that does not face up to the reality of what the treaty sets out to achieve. 
The Treaty of Waitangi is a constitutional document. One can never define the principles in any definitive way because they must be extracted on a situation by situation basis. Thus until we can move our legislation to identify the remedy to be reached by statute—the mischief to be solved by legislation in reference to the Treaty of Waitangi—then reference to “the principles” leaves it to the growing jurisprudence of the courts to determine what that should be. As we develop and grow up over the next few years we will move from the uncertain reference of “the principles” to the specific reference of the mischief that seeks to be solved by an Act of Parliament. 
This is of course part of the growth process that we are all going through as we address the difference in cultures in what really is a diverse country where many people can live in harmony and where diversity is a strength. It is not a question of race as to whether one is Maori. Of course if one is Maori one can be part of the Maori culture. The question that the treaty seeks to deal with is the coercive power of the Government as it deals between the two cultures. When we address the coercive power of the Government in legislation we need some reference to the treaty because that is the basis on which we all came to be here. It is the basis on which the Maori race can continue with their cultural values. I have to say that if after 1840 we had 3½ million Maori and only 500000 Pakeha then Pakeha would be claiming the Treaty of Waitangi as their document and their right to live in this country. It is not a document that is for Maori or for Pakeha. It is the foundation document for our society in this country. Until we can move as a mature Parliament to analyse in each piece of legislation the mischief that is to be solved by reference to the Treaty of Waitangi then we must continue with this shorthand of “the principles”. One day we will move as a House to sit down and identify the mischief that each piece of legislation must set out to achieve and as part of that identification we will be explicit as to how the treaty is involved. Once we are explicit in the legislation we can move away from that general reference to the principles of the treaty. But until we mature as a society as a Parliament and as select committees and we can look at the principles rather than trying to break it down in some divisive way—until we can look at what we are trying to achieve—then we are left with that shorthand of “the principles” and we leave it to the judges to apply them in specific situations. 
I look forward to the day when we move on and when Winston Peters comes back with another bill that outlines that each piece of legislation should identify how the treaty is applied to the mischief that the legislation sets out to solve. I will be voting against the bill because it ends up by being destructive although it started on a course that offered some hope when I first picked it up. The bill is a step in the right direction but it takes a 180-degree turn in the wrong direction. Instead of promoting harmony in this country it seeks to achieve the opposite. I will be voting against the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a matter that is not a complaint of contempt but a request for elucidation—not necessarily now but perhaps when there is time for consideration—of whether Standing Order 395(f) would apply in a debate of this kind. I raise it because Standing Order 395 refers to contempt. It states quite clearly that a member who fails to declare before participating in the consideration of any item of business any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. The member will please be seated. I am going to rule. This matter should be raised as a point of privilege. The member knows that. That is the ruling. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I have not raised a matter of privilege. I have very carefully not raised a matter of privilege and I do not intend to. I do not accuse anyone of breach of privilege. The rules that relate to breaches of privilege carefully distinguish between matters of privilege and matters of contempt. Indeed in each place where contempt is used it is used as an alternative; it is not used as a synonym for privilege. 
I raise this issue because I believe that it can be debated without accusing anyone of anything malign. I do not believe that anyone has consciously or unconsciously breached privilege but I do believe that there is an issue here. Three members of Labour all Maori made speeches about principles when only spurious principles have resulted in so many of the fanciful claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. I do not mean the claims for historic land breaches. I mean things like the claims for flora and fauna radio waves— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I am stopping the member. I have ruled correctly and I have taken advice from the Clerk. The member cannot continue to speak about that. It is a matter of privilege and that is the end of the matter. That is the ruling. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there was an order given by someone in the House to sit down and I do not believe that person was you. If you are going to allow that interruption then I beg that you give due consideration to what was said. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Several comments were made at the time. I take the member’s point. [ 
Interruption 
] No there was not. A couple of points were raised and I take the member’s point. I was on my feet and was telling the member to sit down. But I thank the member anyway. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Those who have heard this debate tonight will be gravely confused as to what the position of the Labour Party and the Green Party is. Frankly those parties were given a chance to tell New Zealand what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are. I challenged them at the start to outline them if they were supporting this bill and Mr Russell Fairbrother who is the most qualified of the legal team within Labour—the man with the most legal experience—let the cat out of the bag. 
Russell Fairbrother said that Labour could not describe what the principles are. He admitted that the references are vague references—those were his words. He said that they could not be defined—those were his words. He said that we should continue with this shorthand in the meantime—whatever that means. Then he said a fascinating thing for a member who has been elected to this Parliament in one of the greatest and longest-serving democracies in the Western World. He said that we should leave it for the courts to decide. There we have it. Who voted for the courts? When did they campaign? When were they asked to consult with the public? When these principles were first introduced back in 1986 by Geoffrey Palmer which Maori asked for them? I ask Mr Fairbrother to name one who did so back then. But he cannot. 
I say to Mr Fairbrother that I am very very disappointed. He came here with such a high reputation and such a lofty understanding of the law principles and constitutional niceties yet he has let himself and his colleagues down grievously. 
Dail Jones 
: He used it as a defence for someone. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I remember that he used it as a defence for a guy—a most heinous man—and said that the man was the victim of colonisation. Mr Fairbrother said that man murdered someone because he was the victim of colonisation. 
With the greatest of respect we can see what has happened here tonight. Down from the ninth floor has come the edict telling the boys and girls that Labour is in trouble with the Maori vote so that no matter what sense and logic is told in this debate the Labour members must just ignore it and go out put up any old defence and vote against this bill. Let me tell Labour this: it might win tonight but it will be a short-run victory—very short. 
We in New Zealand First are a group of members of Parliament that includes six Maori. Frankly we are appalled at the condition that Maori have got into whilst Labour has allowed Maori to be sidetracked on this issue. In every respect—housing health education jobs careers and futures—Maori have fallen back massively under Labour. All that Labour has to offer is this experiment of the principles that it cannot explain. Worst of all we are facing the arrogance of members such as the member for Whanganui who say to Maori in the most invertedly racist way that they know more than them. Labour members are telling Maori to keep quiet because they are the voice of Maori. It is the new version of the white man’s burden. They are telling Maori to listen to them because they know more than them. 
Well we in New Zealand First say that Labour members do not know better and that shortly they and their colleagues will be gone. One reason is that Maori want real things. That is why they have gone in droves to Australia and why they make such a fortune over there as families. They do not have the treaty parachute on their back. 
Jill Pettis 
: When are you joining them? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Actually I am having big meetings in Queensland Sydney Melbourne and Perth. The whanau will be out in their thousands. 
Hon Member 
: Take your time. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will take my time because we have plenty of time on our hands. My colleagues will come too. On election night when the polls are coming in the people are giving their verdict and Labour is going down Labour members will say that they wished they had listened to New Zealand First. They will wish that they had not been so arrogant and had listened to the one party that understands Maori ordinary people and workers and understands their dreams hopes and aspirations. They will wish that they had backed New Zealand First’s view. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 5. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I feel that it would be very very ill-mannered of me if I did not thank all those members who voted for this bill and put their country first before their narrow selfish political selves. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question to facilitate the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave that the bill be taken as one question to facilitate the debate. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Preamble and clauses 1 to 4 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The National Party supports this legislation but I want to raise a couple of issues through the course of this Committee stage. At the bill’s first reading it was suggested by one speaker that the legislation would put New Zealand’s assets at risk because the Promina Group which bought the Royal and SunAlliance group of businesses is incorporated in Australia and Australian legislation gives a statutory priority in a winding up situation to Australian creditors in relation to assets of Australian banks financial institutions and insurance companies. 
I have to say that the suggestion made by that speaker is misleading. It is true that the Australian legislation the speaker referred to does apply to some of the companies of the Promina Group but it does not apply to trust funds under the control of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Hence Australian creditors would not have a priority over those trust funds. That really goes to the heart of the issue. 
When I was taking a call during the second reading I suggested that this type of legislation should not be brought to the House every time there is a change of ownership. Although I respect the fact that beneficiaries should not have their funds put at risk I suggest that there is no conflict whatsoever. The Guardian Trust Co. is just one of many companies that will have their parent companies change ownership all the time. I think it is a waste of parliamentary time that every time that happens Parliament will have to go through this protracted process. 
Some of the members I was dealing with on the Commerce Committee were concerned about the financial stability of a company like Promina. I think that that concern is misplaced. On 25 August 2004 that company announced a A$204 million half-year net profit after tax. That is a 51 percent increase over the prior year’s comparative period a return on equity of 17.5 percent and an earnings per share of 19.3c or if you like a 52 percent increase. I want to bring the size of that balance sheet to the attention of members in the Committee only to try to allay any fears they might have that if we pass this bill that company will in some way put beneficiaries’ funds at risk. That is just not the case. I argued before and I will mount the argument again that Parliament’s time should not be wasted in members being asked to pass this sort of legislation every time there is a change of company ownership. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I completely agree. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If I recall correctly the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard was building the same argument when she made her first reading speech. I think that all we are doing essentially by making this decision now is just putting the decision off for another Parliament. I think it is time we just bit the bullet and said: “Let’s invest in the Minister of the time the ability to make decisions based on the information presented.” I think that that is an entirely reasonable position. I know a couple of members in Parliament have a contrary view but the vast majority of submitters who came to the select committee actually supported the argument that the Minister in the chair and I are now mounting. [ 
Interruption 
] The member who is calling out will get his chance in a moment I am sure. 
But the point is that the vast majority of submitters in a very cogent way said that there was no need to be concerned so we are simply putting off making that decision to the time of another Parliament. I think we have lost a huge opportunity—in fact I have called it a lost opportunity—to make that decision now and stop wasting the time of this Parliament. This will not be the last occasion in which the ownership of the Guardian Trust Co. will change and we will then go through this debate again. Then it will happen again and we will do it again—and again. All the members on the select committee who looked at the legislation agreed that it was essentially a technical issue. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: No they didn’t. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well that member will get his chance in a moment. The vast majority then if I can put it that way of members on the select committee agreed that it was a technical issue only and essentially a waste of time for Parliament. The right thing to do as the National Party argued at the time would be for the Act to be changed by Order in Council and I know that the Minister in the chair agrees with me. A rugby match is on with a very close score but here we are at 25 past 8 spending our time debating an issue that is simply unnecessary! 
In conclusion I say that the National Party’s position is to support the Act. It was never in doubt that we would not do that. But we suggest that it is time parties in this House had the courage to change the legislation so that relevant decisions can be made by the Minister at the time by Orders in Council with the absolute surety that beneficiaries’ funds will not be put at risk. We say that those decisions are for the Minister at the time to make. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to express New Zealand First’s support of Brian Connell’s comments. It is time that this particular legislation was made far easier and more manageable. The Commerce Committee discussed this during its deliberations and made some recommendations to that effect. However it was decided that we could not go ahead with it at this point in time because four trusts are involved with similar legislation and each one of those pieces of legislation would have to be changed individually. Whereas if we go down the track of making one separate piece of legislation that is an umbrella legislation for those four trusts that would leave the mechanism for all four trusts to go through the process of an Order in Council. 
Under those circumstances New Zealand First agreed that it would proceed with this bill as it is but with the understanding from the Minister and the officials that the review was under way and the legislation would be not very far down the track. However I was very disturbed by the Minister’s comments when she was winding up her second reading speech that the review and the legislation is not a high priority for this Government. That tells me one thing—that this Government’s high priority is to waste the time of this Parliament simply because we will have to go through this process time and time again as the trusts change ownership. It is unfortunate that change of ownership takes place so regularly but that is one of the situations of the commercial world. Unfortunately this Government is of the opinion that to stop wasting Parliament’s time is not a high priority. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation as it is but would like to see it come under an umbrella that takes this whole process out of the way and the name of the owner can be changed instead of having to go through separate legislation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party position on this bill was made clear during the first reading. When my colleague Kenneth Wang came to Parliament and was appointed to the Commerce Committee the committee’s dealing with this bill was very advanced. As is appropriate for a new member he has been biting his tongue—or breathing through his nose as I think Mr Holyoake advised—and watching. 
It is a matter of regret to me that the committee saw its function on this matter as finding expeditious ways to get rid of a problem whereas it should have been looking at it in the same way that Dr Bollard has been looking at the issues of Australian banks now controlling the New Zealand banking system and asking what that would mean in the event of financial stringency in Australia or in the event of something in Australia that made New Zealand seem disposable. 
That is the problem with this bill. Trustee companies because of trust law that has evolved for hundreds of years normally would not be allowed to run transactions with themselves involving trust assets. This bill provides a privilege. The privilege that the New Zealand Guardian Trust seeks is a waiver of trustee law. It comes before us and asks for that privilege on the basis that Parliament will look at whom the waiver is to be granted to—that is the parent company—and say that yes it is OK it has probity and it is not going to abuse the privilege. I am sorry to see the committee the National Party and indeed the Government treating this matter as a nuisance. This bill should have written into it the kinds of rules that would prevent or impede the exploitation of the trust by a controlling shareholder by an owner of a 100-percent subsidiary where it procures self-dealing transactions. 
There is no indication in the report that the committee chose to ask the Reserve Bank to comment. It has been facing exactly those issues and trying to think about how to deal with the fact that the Aussies have an Aussie preference. Quite nakedly Australian banking law states that if there is a banking collapse Aussies will come first—the Kiwis come second. That is a natural human instinct. That I fear is what will happen to people dealing with trustee companies if the trust assets are allowed to be deployed through a head office treasury or through an accounting system that is in Australia—suddenly the shutters will go up. 
The bill could have dealt with that by setting out a series of protections—for example requirements for routine reporting requirements or a stipulation for a review every few years to see whether the body that is approved is still regarded as being in good hands. I am not making any allegations against the parent company the New Zealand Guardian Trust at all but the bill treats the matter as though a once-and-for-all approval is OK. For a commerce select committee that is pathetic. There has been no insight whatsoever into the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny and approval and no insight into the risks and pressures that could face parent companies in the event of stringency at home. Because they will look after themselves. Directors sitting in Australia facing liabilities to Australians will make sure that those liabilities are satisfied before liabilities to someone outside the jurisdiction. It is just human nature. If the trust is run as a wholly owned subsidiary and the local board has become a bit of a cipher a mere formality the local board will not be given the slightest protection. 
I think this matter is evidence of the poverty this Government has brought the Ministry of Commerce to—the absence of analytical inability and insight of resource. It reminds me of the report I saw today of the Parliamentary Counsel Office which was quite blunt about the low ebb that legal resources available to Government departments had come to. This bill is not very complex. It did not need the select committee to explore at great length what appears to have been National’s proposal to set up a regime for ministerial Order in Council approval. That is simply a mechanical or procedural step. What was needed was for this bill to pioneer—it could have been done at the expense of the New Zealand Guardian Trust; we could have required that the thinking work be done by the trust in order for it to get itself this privilege—a set of restrictions a set of reporting requirements a set of constraints on the self-dealing privilege that made it of much less risk to the widows and orphans that the New Zealand Guardian Trust looks after. 
This concern is not far-fetched. In my practising lifetime three trust companies have got into serious difficulties and in each case they have been rescued—in one case by a moratorium and in another by excellent management and a dedicated majority shareholder a patient shareholder willing to invest in the hope that it would come right. But it is very much easier for a foreign head office for a foreign board to say: “Let’s write it off to experience. Our reputation will be trash in New Zealand but New Zealand is a very small market. We would rather do that than feed back what would be needed to rescue a trust company in failure there.” 
This measure is a primitive response. It gets the Government through the immediate request. The attitude to it was typified by Brian Connell’s suggestion that he would rather listen to the rugby. I am sorry that on something like this the Government was so bereft of resources that it was not able to come up with something better than we see in the reported-back version of this bill from the Commerce Committee. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I thank honourable members for their contribution in the Committee stage of this bill. I share the concern that this issue frequently comes back to Parliament. I also share the concern that Mr Catchpole and Mr Franks expressed. We all recognise I think that it is often the more vulnerable investors and beneficiaries who use the trustee companies. Four trustee companies have been established by a private Act: New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd; Trustees Executors Ltd formerly TOWER; Perpetual Trust Ltd and PGG Trust Ltd trading together; and New Zealand Permanent Trustees Co. Ltd. They have indeed asked for a privilege and it is a privilege that Parliament has given them through the method of private bills. 
I want to read into the record the Commerce Committee’s decision which I think is very thoughtful. It states that although the committee members felt that the proposal to deal with the matter by Order in Council has merit most of them believed that “the ability of a trust company to transact business with its parent company is such a significant departure from the general rule against trustees taking profit from their administration of a trust that approval to allow this should remain in Parliament’s hands. Most of us consider that the preparation and introduction of a private bill to Parliament does not constitute an onerous liability on a company. Further this obligation sends a clear message to trust companies and their parent companies about the paramount importance of their obligations to their beneficiaries and the trust that these beneficiaries place in them.” I am happy to accept the view of the committee. I do not think we can change the laws and provisions relating to four companies in the one private bill before us. 
I noted Mr Catchpole’s comment. It is not that I do not think this issue is a priority but unfortunately the Minister of Justice has meagre resources—because this Government is so frugal with taxpayers’ money—which means that we limit the number of public servants we employ. We note that the Minister of Justice informed the previous Commerce Committee that a review would be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and completed by mid-2003. At the second reading I expressed my regret that that review had not taken place but I absolutely accept that taxpayers’ money should not necessarily be used to give highest priority to matters that are basically commercial issues for the benefit of commercial companies and not necessarily of the people who are the beneficiaries of the trusts they undertake. 
So I thank the Committee. I particularly thank Mr Franks for the useful comments he has made. I assure the Committee that I am not the owner of this bill. I am merely as the local member of Parliament proposing it on behalf of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. I readily accept the collective view of the select committee. After all that is its job and I think that this has been a very good process. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In rising to speak I hope Stephen Franks is not about to go because I was thinking I might ask him a question to which he may—or may not—be able to provide me with an answer. All the clauses in this fairly short bill provide for the bringing in of Promina as the new parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Most of the wording is around that—related companies the fact that Promina is incorporated outside of New Zealand which was some new wording brought in by the select committee and so on. 
But what really puzzles me—and I mentioned this in my second reading speech—is that the select committee in its report back to the House says that there is a general rule against trustees taking profit from their administration of a trust and that approval to allow this should remain in Parliament’s hands. So the implication is that by this bill Parliament is making a decision to allow Promina Group Ltd to take a profit from the administration of the trust through New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. I would like to ask somebody who was on the select committee or maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard to take a call to reassure Parliament that the intention of this Act is not to allow Promina to take a profit but to allow transactions to occur between New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. If they are the same thing then I would appreciate an explanation of that point because to me a transaction although it may include a profit would not necessarily mean that Promina would profit from the activities of these trusts. 
I guess that related to that if it is taking out a profit how did the select committee assure itself that the profits would be fair and reasonable and would not be to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the various trusts? 
Preamble and clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I introduced this private bill as the local member of Parliament for the area that covers the head office of this organisation—Auckland Central. I do so on behalf of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd which has its head office in my electorate. 
Briefly this bill amends the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to expressly authorise Guardian Trust to transact business with Promina Group Ltd and Promina’s subsidiaries and associated companies to validate any business transacted with such companies on or after the commencement of the principal Act until the commencement of the bill as an Act and to ensure that the principal Act accurately reflects Promina’s ownership of Guardian Trust. 
As previously noted the Commerce Committee has recommended by majority with only minor technical amendments that the bill be passed. It has also reported that the statements in the preamble have been proved to its satisfaction. Once again I take the opportunity to thank the Commerce Committee and the House for their work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National members have supported this bill. We have made some points about a lost opportunity to get it right. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh don’t be churlish. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member should look on page 3 of the commentary which states: “We note that in 2001 the Minister of Justice informed the previous Commerce Committee that such a review would be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and completed by mid-2003. This review is now long overdue.” So the point I make is that while we support this legislation an opportunity to correct it right through has been lost. When we look at the reason for the proposals we see quite clearly that each time there is a change in the parent company a trustee company must secure changes to its private Act to authorise it to transact business with its new parent company. 
The situation has gone on and on and this will happen again next year and the year after. Four trustee companies are mentioned in the bill. They will come back and will want to make the changes. National’s minority view indicates that while we support the proposal to approve the new parent company by Order in Council we are disappointed with the decision of the committee not to support this initiative. 
That is our position. We do support the bill and if members over there did not object so much I might have had the chance to finish what I was going to say. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Brent Catchpole. 
Jill Pettis 
: Nobody’s listening. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the senior Government whip’s comment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take that on board. I ask the senior whip to desist from comments like that when a member is starting a speech. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: This bill as explained in the Committee stage and in the second reading is a technical measure that basically changes the ownership of the trust company from its previous owner to Promina and gives the seal of approval for the company to operate its business as it has been operating till now. 
The bill goes back to 1982 when the original New Zealand Guardian Trust Act was enacted. It was amended in 1989 and again subsequently. There are four private Acts that cover four different companies; the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. is one of them. New Zealand First feels that requiring these companies to appear constantly before the select committee and go through the process to change the name of ownership is a waste of time and money. I note that the Minister’s third reading speech picked up on an issue I raised about priorities but she may have missed the point or miscalculated the cost of bringing these bills to the House and putting them through the select committee process. If these four trust companies change time and time again the cost in parliamentary terms adds up to a considerable amount. 
Although there would be an initial cost of the work of officials on an umbrella Act it would save the time and expense of the House and select committee debating these different Acts. So New Zealand First supports umbrella legislation to cover these four private Acts because that would give the ability to seek an Order in Council and for the measure to be signed off with the approval of the Ministers involved. It would make the process much easier. 
I note that Stephen Franks has concerns about the Australian interest in these companies. New Zealand First is also concerned about the offshore ownership of all of the trusts but by having them under umbrella legislation all the issues raised by Stephen Franks could be covered. It would streamline the process for it to go through Order in Council and we would not have to bring the particular organisations before a select committee and go right through the process. 
New Zealand First will support such legislation and we look forward to its being brought to the House in the very near future. We hate to see this matter drag on and on with the Government not getting priorities right. It is costing the Parliament a considerable amount of money to just keep on repeating the process through the select committees. New Zealand First does support this legislation in its present state noting that it was unable to make the changes in this legislation because it would have to go through the process for each individual one again. It needs to be brought under umbrella legislation and we will support that as well. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 At the second reading and also in the Committee stage I expressed my apprehension that the Commerce Committee in its examination of the bill may not have taken steps to completely satisfy itself that the beneficiaries of trusts administered by New Zealand Guardian Trust will be protected following the passage of this bill by Parliament tonight. I must say that on both occasions I invited either members of the select committee or the member in charge of the bill Judith Tizard to try to allay my apprehension in that regard. No one endeavoured to do that and that only increases my apprehension. 
So I think that at this late stage of the bill all I can do is add my voice to that of the National Party and of Lindsay Tisch in particular and say that it is time for the Minister of Justice to undertake a review of the statutory regime for companies in respect of the naming of current parent companies in trustee legislation in general. From my point of view that review now takes on a measure of urgency. It has been promised—it was promised by mid-2003. The promise has not been fulfilled; we are now 2 years past that date. I believe that unless and until that review is done this Parliament remains exposed to the possibility that we have failed to protect the beneficiaries of those trusts. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 8.54 p.m.