Volume 623 Week 79 - Wednesday 9 February 2005 
Volume 623 Week 79 - Wednesday 9 February 2005 
[Volume:623;Page:18447] 
Wednesday 9 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that three members of the German Bundestag who are part of a delegation to New Zealand led by the German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Results 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he still believe that he has moved into the compulsory education sector at a time when all the big issues are “off the table” and does he stand by his statement yesterday regarding NCEA scholarship that “Nothing went wrong”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I would have to say that the member opposite would not score very highly for the use of language in context. He may be forgiven for not realising that the reference to the big issues being “off the table” in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of December—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has not said anything that is against the Standing Orders. He will start again. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have to say that the member opposite would not score very highly for the use of language in context. He may be— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During question time yesterday you pulled up members of the Opposition on the basis that they were using extraneous matter with regard to the questions being asked and you told us we were not allowed to do that. I then raised a point of order and said to you that in fairness if that is the rule for the Opposition the same should apply to the Government and that Ministers should answer the question without reference to other things. We now have a Minister directly attacking Mr English without even starting to try to respond to the question. The Minister should be asked to answer the question directly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a valid point. In answering questions the Minister should not comment on the knowledge of a member. I ask the Minister to come to the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The reference to big issues being so-called “off the table” in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 21 December was to the big industrial settlements of the previous year. However there was a clear clue in the next line that stated that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and special education were among the issues that we would have to give attention to this year. With regard to scholarship clearly the Government believes that the variability in some scholarship results was beyond what is acceptable. As a result we have immediately moved to correct any disadvantage to students. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should students who are entering the 2005 scholarship our premier academic award in secondary schools and their teachers believe that scholarship results will be any more reliable next year when he has said that “Nothing went wrong” this year when he has blamed everyone except the people who ran the exam and when there has been no accountability for the fact that the results in our premier secondary school qualification were such a political embarrassment that Cabinet has stepped in to decide who passes and who does not pass? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not believe that the prime purpose of anyone should be in this case to seek blame as the member seems to be focused on doing. If nothing had gone wrong the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is ridiculous. I am allowing the odd interjection. I am not having that sort of yelling or there will be no interjections during question time. I do not want to do that. The Minister is entitled to answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: If nothing had gone wrong the Government would not have had to act as decisively as it has. I am sorry that my comment was taken out of context. I was referring to levels 1 2 and 3 of NCEA. My reference was also to the conduct of the scholarship exams themselves which have delivered outcomes that while unpalatable and to some extent unacceptable are none the less being delivered by due process. We have not intervened to manipulate those results; they will stand. The Government has provided recognition at level 3 where the subject had an unacceptably low number of scholarship passes and consequently enabled additional students in those subjects to become eligible for monetary awards. 
Helen Duncan 
: What comments has the Minister seen regarding the Government’s response to the scholarship results? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have particularly noted the comments on  
Breakfast  
television this morning where Dr John Langley Dean of Education at Auckland University said of the scholarship issue: “It had been dealt with fairly.” and “Young people who realistically expected to receive a scholarship have come away with something.” I also note that when asked whether it was a shambles as National has claimed he said: “No I think that is quite hysterical.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does he stand by his claim yesterday that the reason for the bad publicity for NCEA scholarship exams is simply that Bill English has made some damning statements; if so what is this telling us about the Government’s perception of Mr English’s public influence? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I believe as I am sure the questioner and the majority of the members of the House do that NCEA is widely supported by the community by parents by students and by educators. I find it impossible not to observe the constant litany of criticism and destructive comment that has been made by among others Mr English. I find that very destructive to the confidence in the system and to the future of young people. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did those big issues that are now off the table include Government plans to support the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development within the school system so that our children are educated as responsible ecologically conscious citizens; if not what does the Minister plan to do exactly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has very little to do with the original question—[ 
Interruption 
] I will not have interjections while I am making my ruling and while the question is being asked. That is the only warning today. I said that that question has very little to do with the original question. The Minister may make a brief comment. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Only inasmuch as the level of priority of such discussions is clearly much less significant in those huge industrial issues in terms of the operation of our education system. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: What assurance can he give to families in New Zealand that they can have full confidence in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and NCEA and that he will personally ensure that the NCEA bungles will stop? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I gave that assurance to the House during question time yesterday. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Minister of Education were advised last year that there would be problems with scholarship as contained in minutes of the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum which met on 25 August 2004 that stated: “… teachers have been reluctant to enter students for scholarship when they do not know how it is going to be examined. This may reflect a lack of confidence in scholarship examination by teachers.” and since the Government was warned when will there be accountability for the fact that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority went ahead with the scholarship examination when teachers had said it would not work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I cannot confirm that statement. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Minister’s view that there should be no accountability whatsoever for the fact that he and his agency made a shambles out of the premier secondary school qualification and that thousands of students have been cheated out of a credible result? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I certainly do not support that member’s premise. Nor do I believe—and neither have I ever said—that there should be no accountability in that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum which outlines to the head of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority concerns about the scholarship examination in August last year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Labour Market—Asian Competition 
2.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: When he said “I don’t want to see New Zealand workers competing against Asian workers through their wages” did he mean he intends to protect them against unfair competition; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I meant that the Government’s policy is to grow a high-wage economy where New Zealanders successfully compete by adding more value not by accepting lower wages. There is protection under anti-dumping and other trade protection rules from unfair practices. 
Rod Donald 
: Does he think that a Government that requires New Zealand businesses such as Interlock and Fisher and Paykel to pay decent wages provide safe working conditions and meet reasonable environmental standards also has a responsibility to protect those businesses from foreign manufacturers who pay their workers less than the cost of living and make them work in sweatshop conditions? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: New Zealand has never been more open to international competition. We have never had so many jobs in our economy and we have never enjoyed higher standards of living. I can assure members that the best is still to come. 
Tim Barnett 
: What action is the Government taking to ensure a positive future for New Zealand workers? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government is committed to ensuring that we have a high-value high-wage economy. Rather than making cheap underwear clothing manufacturers are producing high-value fashion wear. The Government takes an active role in our economy to ensure our citizens are working on high-value products for high wages. We also take the needs of important sectors such as manufacturing into consideration when negotiating trade agreements. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that whole industries have disappeared because of the reduced cost of Asian workers—the shipping industry for one—and if he does recognise that would he recommend that the Government give consideration to instigating favourable tax regimes for any industry that makes a commitment to employing New Zealanders and is compelled to compete against industries that employ low-paid overseas workers and if he will not do that what will he do? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government is committed to achieving full employment at high wages and it is well down the path to achieving that. The member apparently advocates that the Government should choose favourites among New Zealand industry by offering them particular tax preferences. I tell the member that we do better by allowing our companies to compete; the most productive and innovative rise to the top in that way. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How will the Prime Minister’s objective of getting more women into the paid workforce be met when thousands of skilled women in the clothing industry will lose their jobs as a direct result of the Labour Government’s free-trade agenda? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The truth is that the clothing textile and footwear industries are booming. I quote the chairman of the Kapiti Horowhenua Apparel and Textile Industry Cluster Group who said recently that Horowhenua’s textile industry is booming. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister expect a New Zealand business that pays accident compensation levies all sorts of other governmental charges and in some measure for free health and education systems in a high-tax regime to compete with a Chinese company that does no such thing and that pays 18 people with what it costs a New Zealand business to pay one worker in this country as was the case with businesses in Tauranga that recently closed and relocated to China; and what are those lions of democracy—the Progressive Party and the Green Party—telling him about that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. The Minister can comment on the second part but of course he is not responsible for those parties’ policies. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I allowed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I get it but I think you have misunderstood what I said. I asked what those lions of democracy—the Progressive Party and the Green Party—are telling the Minister about that and he is responsible for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer that part. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am aware that the right honourable member sat in a coalition Government that did nothing to support New Zealand industry and workers and I assure him— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for a former Government and he is particularly wrong about that—the first thing we did was to lower the minimum wage—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member had better quit while he is behind. But he is right—I now want the Minister to come to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am glad that that will be my one mistake for 2005 so I tell members to watch out. My real point is that the Minister is not responsible and he is totally erroneous—we raised the minimum wage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled in favour of the member. I ask the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member is making another mistake in suggesting that he can improve New Zealand welfare by slashing accident compensation protection for New Zealand workers as the coalition Government of which he was a member attempted to do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made no such comment about slashing accident compensation. I was making a comparison between New Zealand companies having to pay for accident compensation and their Chinese equivalents not having to do such a thing. The Minister is right off the mark and he is outside the Standing Orders because he is off the mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I agree with the member. I would now like the Minister just to address the particular issue that was asked by the member in his question. I will not restate the question; if the member wants to restate it I will allow him to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My question is simply this: how does the Minister expect a New Zealand company which pays for a largely free health and education system and for accident compensation in a high-tax regime to compete with a Chinese company that pays 18 workers with the equivalent of the wage in New Zealand for one employee; what is his answer to that? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I expect New Zealand companies to compete by having highly trained skilled employees and by making sure that they are innovative well equipped and able to compete on the basis of high levels of productivity. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Does the Minister have any progressive examples of active management to aid sectors facing overseas competition? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Yes I have somewhere to hand something about that. Just yesterday my colleague Jim Anderton announced further funding of $1.125 million over the next 2 years to the textile carpet footwear and apparel sector to fund research projects to help it to adapt to competition. That is in addition to the $2.3 million it received in last year’s Budget—money that seems to have been well spent. The textile carpet footwear and apparel sector has gone from being a low-value sunset sector fearing for its future to being one that is growing positive and reporting to the media that its difficulties have been largely overcome. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the prospects for the clothing industry and for manufacturing in general be as rosy as the Minister has just painted when the president of the Council of Trade Unions Ross Wilson is adamant that a free-trade agreement with China will put at risk thousands of manufacturing jobs and the future of the whole manufacturing sector; can the Minister explain that difference he has with the president? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I simply do not agree with that prediction by Ross Wilson but it is not unusual for Governments to be subjected to exaggerated position-taking by interested parties when they are negotiating trade agreements. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: [ 
Interruption 
] This is not a rescue one—ah no it is not. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me tell the House that the next member who makes an interjection while a question is being asked will leave the Chamber—and that is a promise. Everyone is entitled to ask his or her question in silence. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it correct that it is pretty hard to pick winners but that it sure beats deliberately picking losers as implied by the Greens’ and New Zealand First’s questions? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Yes I can confirm that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How has the Minister got the gall as a member of the labour organisation of this country to stand up in this Parliament knowing that he and his leader are wantonly going out there and selling out the interests of hard-working New Zealand unionists? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I can only repeat what I advised the member earlier. New Zealand has never had so many jobs and never enjoyed such high standards of living for its workforce. 
Rod Donald 
: What analysis if any has the Minister done on how New Zealand’s trade will be affected when global oil prices continue to rise and supplies start to run down; and does he not think that New Zealand’s position at the very end of the supply chain means that he needs to temper his free-trade zealotry with some strategic thinking? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I can assure the member that trade liberalisation minimises the costs to consumers and producers all over the world and that New Zealand can compete on the basis of its comparative and competitive advantages despite being a long way from many of our markets. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Minister personally help the 200 workers who are about to lose their jobs at the Interlock factory to find new jobs in the growing economy given that he recently said in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that a free-trade agreement with China will lead to “more better paying jobs and a better quality of life for New Zealanders”? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: My task in this business is to facilitate opportunities for New Zealand companies to grow in order to generate higher-paying jobs in more productive workplaces. 
Rod Donald 
: How can Kiwis participate in Labour’s ownership society if they have just lost their job in an elaborately transformed manufacturing business such as Interlock or Fisher and Paykel because the Government has failed to protect the business where they work from unfair competition? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: In fact the Government through the law does protect companies from unfair competition. But it is the nature of economic progress that there is change and lower-paid less productive jobs give way to higher-skilled better paying jobs. 
Road Safety—Women's Concerns 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his confirmation in the House yesterday that women are more concerned about speeding than they are about being attacked in their homes even after the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges says that his view is “ludicrous”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The document tabled by the member yesterday—table 9.6 of the New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims—clearly states that 61.7 percent of the 3001 women who participated in the survey were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about being involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver. That was the highest category among the 12 surveyed. I stand by my earlier statement to the House. I also remind the member that since 1999 more than 436 lives have been saved on our roads and that impacts massively on women children and their families. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister standing by his ludicrous position when even the Commissioner of Police backed away from this view on radio this morning leaving the Minister hanging out to dry? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I am relying on the survey results that I quoted a few minutes ago. I do not rewrite surveys. 
Moana Mackey 
: What information can he give the House regarding the success of the police in reducing crime and reducing the road toll? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The statistics issued by the Commissioner of Police for the 2003-04 year show that we had the lowest crime rate for 21 years. Land Transport New Zealand states that since 1990 road deaths have dropped 40 percent despite a 33 percent increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and a 19 percent increase in the population. The outcome of this Government’s policy is that the lives of 436 men women and children have been saved. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister think the family of 83-year-old Mona Morriss who was sexually violated and murdered in her pensioner’s flat last month and the 14-year-old girl who was raped in her bedroom in south Auckland then thrown over a 3-metre fence in the same month would agree with his comment that women are more concerned about speeding than they are about being attacked in their own homes; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have to say those are very tragic events. Everyone sees them as tragic events just as I do. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider it appropriate to formulate policing strategies based on an outdated study which purports to reflect public support of road policing over policing of violent crime and if he thinks that that is a valid approach why has his Government not acted on the bigger public opinion survey called the Norm Withers petition? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Our policy covers a range of issues but I want to tell the member that last year we had 403 fewer crimes each and every week of the year. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister interpret the crime victims survey to defend the police priorities in issuing speeding tickets over 11 categories of offence surveyed when the questionnaire did not even ask about speeding and on traffic offences asked only about drink-driving and the numbers of women who responded were almost identical in saying they were very worried about that and about sexual offences committed against them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am just quoting the facts from the survey. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is rape a general duty call-out; if not what response does the Minister have for a young woman who was raped in Hamilton 2 weeks ago who phoned the 111 phone line and was advised that as the address she gave was not far from the police station she could walk around there and make a statement rather than have the police come to the house where the perpetrator was still present? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I must say that I along with everyone else in this House would find that totally unacceptable and I will make inquiries of the commissioner. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why in his opinion as stated in the House yesterday would women be more concerned about speeding cars than being brutally attacked in a home invasion? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It was that member who tabled the statistics yesterday. He obviously has not read them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The  
Hansard 
 is quite clear. The Minister gave a commitment to the House yesterday of what his view was and I am asking him why he said that. The Minister has not answered the question. I want to know why he thinks women would be more concerned about speeding cars than being brutally attacked in a home invasion. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously the member does not remember tabling the statistics where it clearly states that 61.7 percent of the 3001 women who participated in the survey were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about being involved in an accident caused by a drunken driver—the highest category amongst the 12 surveyed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You were good enough to ask the Minister to give an answer to Mr Ryall yet he has risen and given the same answer that you clearly found unsatisfactory in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If he had done that I would have found it unsatisfactory in the second place. He did not give that answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Might I say that he was asked for his opinion and his explanation of why that survey appears to be as he claims. To simply say: well it is because it is and the member tabled it is certainly not in my opinion addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might not be in the member’s opinion but it is in mine. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how he reconciles his statements made in this question: “I do not rewrite surveys.” and “I am just quoting the facts from the survey.” with the fact that yesterday in reply to questions he compared speeding with the rape of women and said that women were more concerned about speeding when in fact the survey he is referring to the New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims has no reference to speeding whatsoever. How does the Minister reconcile that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to repeat to the House that the survey actually says that 61.7 percent of the 301 women who participated were “very worried” or “fairly worried”. The member asked about crime happening in women’s homes. That was not included in the survey. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister really consider it reasonable to compare cold-blooded murders with road accidents as he did yesterday in purely numerical terms as a justification for under-resourcing priority one 111 calls; if not then when does he intend to do something about it and what does he intend to do? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They are both very tragic events but of course this Government is doing something about them. Last year we had 43 murders—one of the lowest figures on record for many many years—and the road toll is the second-lowest it has been for very many years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister is more concerned about speeding cars than about being attacked? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not know what the Prime Minister thinks and I do not think she is the sort of person who would want to rewrite a survey. 
Stephen Franks 
: Following Mr Alexander’s question why should people not want the police to focus more on deliberate predators—those who set out to burgle rob rape and hurt people—than on those who do things we all do from time to time by mistake or otherwise intending no harm; and if the Minister cannot tell the difference why does he not ask some murder or rape victims? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a member on the Government benches—I did not see who—who is very lucky still to be in the Chamber. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that shows a particular attitude to the roads and to road safety. We have been fighting over very many years to get drunks off the road to make sure people fasten their seat belts and to make sure they do not speed. If we do that successfully the toll comes down. It is working. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister telling Women’s Refuge the group that deals with some of the most vulnerable women in New Zealand at the time when they are most vulnerable that he thinks they are wrong to say they are more concerned about being brutally attacked in their homes than about speeding cars? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I am not saying that. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister considered—or indeed sought—the opinions of families such as the Bouma family or the Bentley family as to whether his view that a speeding car is more dangerous than a violent criminal is in fact correct? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member must realise that I was just quoting a survey but I want to say that being hit by a car doing 130 kilometres an hour has equally tragic results. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What remedy do Opposition members have when it has already been pointed out that the Minister has misinterpreted and misquoted a survey and he gets up and says in his defence that he is just quoting the survey that the whole House knows he is misinterpreting and misquoting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a couple of documents. The first is a copy of the questionnaire of the victims survey of 2001—the part that shows there is no mention of the word “speeding”. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The second document is the transcript of an interview with the Commissioner of Police on  
Morning Report  
today when he would not endorse the Minister’s view. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister of Police remember answering “Yes” yesterday in this House to the Hon Tony Ryall’s question about the women of New Zealand being more worried about a speeding car than they are about being attacked in their homes and will he apologise for the clear implication following from that that somehow a home invasion and a rape are on a par with speeding? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In referring to the survey obviously Mr Ryall did not get it quite right because there was no mention of crime happening in women’s homes. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How could that answer possibly address my question? I quoted the member’s  
Hansard 
. He was the one who said that yes that was exactly what he was saying. I asked whether he remembered saying it. It is clear from his answer that he does not. Then I asked whether he would apologise for the clear implication that somehow a home invasion and being raped are equivalent to a speeding car. Again he did not address that. Time and time again— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Rodney Hide 
: I have not finished Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has. He has been going on for far too long. The Minister did address the question. It might not have satisfied the member or other members of Parliament but he did address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I contest your ruling. We have asked a dozen questions and we have had the same pathetic answer from the Minister of Police. If you want to finish your last week as Speaker by giving some credence to question time in this House you will demand that the Minister of Police front up and answer the questions that members are asking and that the public of New Zealand want answered. All we are doing is holding the Minister of Police to account for the answer he gave in this House yesterday. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker all the member is doing is making a political point which is perfectly legitimate in this House but it does not mean that he can demand that you do anything. That is totally inappropriate. Nor can he demand that the Minister give a particular answer. Nor can he ask a question where he says there is an implication which does not necessarily follow from what the Minister said. The Minister does not have to accept the member’s word in that respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. The Minister did give an explanation. He said he was referring to the survey. That is his answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As is the case with a number of Ministers—but this one would be the worst—if one follows  
Hansard 
 day in and day out for a long time now this Minister has failed to perform in the answering of questions in a parliamentary sense in any way that complies with the Standing Orders. The last question was as clear as daylight. All he had to do was confirm whether the answer was yes or no. He entirely lost the plot even about his own  
Hansard 
. If the Prime Minister will not take action against such a Minister then it is a requirement of the Speaker of the House and the House itself to bring him under some sort of control. That is what is failing to happen in New Zealand politics in particular as far as the Prime Minister goes. Now it is up to the Speaker to ensure the Minister does his duty and answers the question. I cannot conceive of any Western democracy where the Minister could behave as incompetently as that and get by question time and still survive. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If members went across the Tasman they would never get away with 12 supplementary questions within the Australian House of Representatives. They are allowed one at the most. That is the nature of their Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting on a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been warned. That is his only time today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker your duty is to ensure that the Standing Orders are observed and that the Minister addresses the question. You indicated that you were satisfied that that was the case. It is not up to members to then demand in some kind of bullying fashion that you change your ruling. The question that was asked by Mr Hide stated that there was some implication in what the Minister said and that he should have to apologise for it. If the Minister does not accept there was that implication there is no reason for him to address that part of the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am ruling on the point of order which of course I am entitled to do after having heard one person. I heard two. The Speaker does not rule on how Ministers perform. That has never been part of a Speaker’s jurisdiction and I hope never will be. The particular matter raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters is what the general debate is for when members can have their 5 minutes say they are not satisfied and go from there. But it has never been part of the Speaker’s role to rule on how Ministers perform. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you then confirming for the House that the way in which Mr Hawkins has answered his questions today is completely consistent with Speaker’s ruling 145/3? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to what I think was an off-the-cuff ruling that my colleague had raised a matter that was not a point of order. I believe that what he was asking about was what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the attempt concerned a question that related to an answer given yesterday that purported to refer to a survey. The Minister has been asked twice today to recognise to clarify or to clear up that that statement yesterday did not relate to anything in the survey. He refused to give the answer and as a parting shot said that yesterday he had given the answer by quoting from the survey. It was a deliberate and direct misrepresentation both of his statement yesterday and of the survey. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot allege a deliberate attempt to mislead. He knows full well that there is a way to do that which is to write to me about it. If he wants to do so I will read his letter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is true. There are remedies available to members. We can write to you and we can go through a particular process if you see fit. So it would seem that we would probably be better to get some clearer clarification from you about what Speaker’s ruling 145/3 means. Mr Franks and others have alleged quite openly that the Minister is attempting to mislead the House. What then would you consider to be an answer to a question that meets the test of trifling with the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just precisely what that ruling said and I do not believe that it did. 
Prisoners—Serial Offenders 
4.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does the  
Annual Update of Forecasts of the Prison Population 
 confirm that new sentencing laws and better policing have been effective against serial offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Notwithstanding a fall in current crime rates to the lowest levels in 21 years the latest prison forecasts indicate that because of improved crime resolution rates by police and tougher sentences by courts the prison population will increase by 1000 or 15 percent over the next 5 years. The forecasts show that recidivist offenders are now more likely to be convicted taken off the streets and kept off the streets. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What are the main drivers of the increasing prison population? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are five set out in the forecasts. Firstly better-resourced police are resolving a much higher percentage of crimes resulting in more convictions and therefore more sentences; secondly the Sentencing Act has increased prison sentences for the worst and highest-risk offenders; thirdly more offenders are getting preventive detention; fourthly automatic release at two-thirds of the sentence allowed under the last Government has been abolished and the Parole Board is now more likely to decline applications; and lastly the Bail Act is tougher and more high-risk defendants are now being remanded in custody after this Government’s new Bail Act was introduced. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you— 
Government Members 
: Oh no! 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Over on this side of the House you gave the House one final warning for interrupting in question time. We heard three Ministers call out after you had called Mr Ron Mark and we are waiting for you to action your “no more warnings” ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I had not heard Mr Mark say a word. Had he done so members would have been leaving the Chamber. 
111 System—Staff Availability 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he satisfied with police response times and does he stand by his statement that all staff who are on patrol are available to attend general duties call-outs? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am able to advise the member that I am satisfied with the assurances I have received from the Commissioner of Police on these matters. If the member has any information to the contrary I am happy to give an undertaking to refer the information to the commissioner. 
Ron Mark 
: Why on 4 July 2004 when an emergency call was lodged regarding an abduction of a child were three general duties police units that were already engaged and attending priority two tasks pulled from those jobs then redirected to attend that call when there were three traffic units on duty in the vicinity? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have been advised that two of the vehicles were on the other side of the city and that one was at Papanui. So the police made the best call they could at that time. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister had a thorough investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Police into the allegations raised by Ron Mark yesterday? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yesterday I was asked whether highway patrol units were sitting on the side of the road logged out of service and not listening to their radios at the same time as the abduction was taking place. I can tell the member and the House that after a thorough investigation the Commissioner of Police released a media statement yesterday clearly setting out the events as they really happened. I have been advised that the member’s information was wrong when he claimed that highway patrols were sitting at the side of the road as the police investigation shows that highway patrol units were not even rostered on duty at the time the incident took place. They were not scheduled to start work until 1 p.m.—nearly an hour after the emergency calls were received. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Who is right: the Commissioner of Police who told the Law and Order Committee that the issue of response capacity to 111 calls will not be covered by the 111 review; or the Minister of Police who issued a press release stating that it will be? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member must realise that since the review was started many things have been added to it. I think the member will find that I am right. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister said in his answer that something had been added to the review. That appeared to me to directly address the question. 
Ron Mark 
: How many police were deployed on traffic duties in the northern communications area on 10 October at 9 p.m. when Iraena Asher made her first 111 call and why was one of those units not dispatched to her aid the first time the police were called that night—that being one of three telephone conversations the police had in relation to her that night? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have already said they made a terrible mistake and the review is going ahead looking at that issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There you have a very good example of this Minister in action in Parliament when it comes to question time. He was asked this question yesterday as to the number of police and he said: “The member needs to put down a specific question on that and I will give him a specific answer.” Well he was asked the same question again 24 hours later and he still did not answer the question as to the number of police. He mentioned a review. This is pathetic and no Western democracy should have to put up with it particularly when we have already had a series of points of orders today about his performance. Here he is having had 24 hours’ notice and having been asked the same question and there is no answer. When will you make him do his job? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if that were the original question that would have been the case. No question on notice has been put down on that issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you saying now that that is his defence despite his not seeking it as his defence—although it was his defence yesterday? When asked the question yesterday he said the member would have to put a specific question down on notice. He did not seek that defence today; he just got up and said a review is under way. In short we do not know how many police were involved in the northern region incident which is what my colleague asked yesterday and today. That is the point made by the Opposition in this House—that we are not getting in any way a responsible reaction from this Minister on a matter that is part of his portfolio and his responsibilities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Asking a supplementary question yesterday then a supplementary question today is not putting down a question on notice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You can seek to put that up as some sort of defence for this Minister’s incompetence but it will not do because he was asked this question and I want you to address it in respect of my point of order. He was asked how many policemen were involved at that point in time on that night—at 9 p.m. I think it was. That was the question he was asked by Ron Mark today and he still has not answered it. He has said there has been a review or there is a review going on but why cannot he just give us the answer or better still say: “As an incompetent Minister I’d never know and I won’t know.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because the Minister decided to answer the question in the way that he did. He did address the question. That was not the original question asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ron Mark asked in respect of his last supplementary question as to how many policemen were involved in the northern region incident yes or no. That is what he asked—how many were involved. He does not have to put it down in writing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry: yes or no as to how many were involved? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did he ask that question or not—that is what I am asking the House and you Mr Speaker. Did he put that question to the Minister yes or no? And he did. So why have we not got an answer or some sort of indication as to when we might get an answer. But for him to respond by saying that there is a review under way without any attempt to answer the question is what this Minister is getting away with day in day out. I say that if he was not getting this kind of assistance from the Chair he would have been gone a long time ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I do not give anyone assistance from the Chair. I think I am pretty fair in that regard. And I give a lot of protection to the member. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it had better not be contesting that point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect this Minister has today been the subject of a series of points of order. He survived that—I do not know how. Then he comes to the critical point that relates to a person whom we have never heard of since that person made three phone calls one night. The least this Minister could do is apprise himself of the facts particularly when he has had 24 hours’ notice. Even if he fails to do that he should at least tell the House that he will find the information or do something to answer the member’s question. But he has done no such thing. The  
Hansard  
will show that he refers to a review. We know that that review has been going on for months. How is that answer helpful to Parliament in question time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can do is to repeat what I said before. I make this point again. I have taken advice on this matter and the question that is down on notice is not that particular question. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that the Government’s policy of ring fencing police traffic patrols is the reason that the first available police car was not sent to either the abduction case which happened in Christchurch in July 2004 or the Iraena Asher case which happened 3 months later in October 2004—a young lady whom this nation has never heard of since? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just in regard to the answers that Mr Hawkins has given to successive questions today can you confirm that Speaker’s ruling 145/1 would apply and probably with disastrous consequences for the Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because for the last question for example the Minister gave an absolute answer by saying “No” then sat down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Speaker’s ruling does not actually require you to do anything. It states that you do not arbitrate but rather the public does. I am just interested to know whether you personally thought that the public opinion on Mr Hawkins’ performance would be disastrous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is hypothetical. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking this question to get your considered opinion because it may prevent the situation that members on the Opposition benches have where we tend to lose very valuable supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member making a point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is this. I want to be sure that I understand your ruling correctly. If a member asks a Minister a question in this House about a very high-profile public case that has resulted in a national inquiry for which he has brought in overseas experts the question is recorded in  
Hansard 
 if the Minister’s answer is to ask him tomorrow in writing and he would answer it and if the member then asks the question the next day and still does not get an answer from that Minister are you ruling that that practice is acceptable in 2005 in a democratic country? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member is beginning to trifle with the Chair. You have ruled on this matter now I think some seven times by my count. If the member cannot by this stage of his parliamentary career learn the difference between a question given on notice and a question asked as a supplementary question it is time he gave up asking both. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker does not judge a Minister’s performance; other members do. Neither the Speaker nor a member can tell a Minister how to answer a question. It is up to the Minister as long as he or she is relevant. 
Light Armoured Vehicles—Cabinet Oversight 
6.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does he stand by his statement that the “current Cabinet is much more involved in the process” with reference to Cabinet oversight of major defence acquisitions; if so why does the Auditor-General’s report state that he saw no evidence that Cabinet was advised of a change in the operational use of the light armoured vehicles? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes that is what the  
Defence Long-term Development Plan 
 process provides for. As for the member’s second question Cabinet originally required that the Army “should have the ability to deploy and sustain a motorised light infantry battalion group” expecting the capacity to sustain a between 600 and 900-person commitment for a year and/or a 900 to 1200-sized battalion for 6 months. That has not changed. I would note that the Auditor-General also states: “We have no reason to doubt that the Army’s distribution plan is appropriate.” 
John Carter 
: Will the Minister acknowledge that the original operation plan for the light armoured vehicles as outlined in August 2000 is different from the current intended operational use and can he explain why he thought that that major operational change with all the implications outlined in the report did not need to go to Cabinet? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have just indicated to the member the key issue here is whether the policy and the Government’s requirement changed and the answer is no they did not. The operational implementation of that policy is properly a matter for professional defence personnel. That is what is happening. 
Jill Pettis 
: Could the Minister outline to the House any other recommendations the Auditor-General may have made? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Auditor-General made some nine recommendations in total relating to a range of areas including personnel life cycle costing the capability management framework independent review and logistics support. It is pleasing to note that the report’s recommendations have either been implemented through the process under the capability management framework or specific actions are under way regarding the introduction into service of the light armoured vehicles. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is not the real problem here contained in the statement in the original question that the “current Cabinet is much more involved in the process” when in fact a better way to proceed would be for the New Zealand Defence Force to be able to make its capital purchases based on its assessment of its needs within approved budget parameters by the Government rather than Cabinet making those decisions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the balance we have now struck is the best of both those worlds. It is through the  
Defence Long-term Development Plan 
 which involves the proper involvement of the three defence services in a collaborative way but with appropriate Cabinet oversight at each of the milestones of each project. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it is not a fact that this Government received advice from New Zealand First in August 2000 and subsequent advice in about August 2003 that the Government should not make that purchase that the Government also received advice from the then Chief of Defence Force Carey Adamson and the current Secretary of Defence not to purchase 105 but 50 vehicles and that if the Government—it is in the Cabinet paper—sought to buy the full 105 light armoured vehicles it should buy them in two tranches of 50; is not the real problem the fact that the Minister chose to ignore all that quality advice and to listen to Major General Dodson in his office—to make a quite separate decision altogether? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is a very multifaceted question. But in summary I had a range of advice. The advice that is frequently referred to from the Secretary of Defence is incorrect. But in the end on the range of options that were put up the Treasury advice was that if 105 light armoured vehicles were to be purchased—[ 
Interruption 
] yes as one of the options—then they were better to be purchased in one tranche. That was by far the most fiscally responsible way of proceeding. 
John Carter 
: Is one of the points of difference between the Minister and the Auditor-General as acknowledged this morning on National Radio the fact that the Auditor-General believes that it “is important that Cabinet is informed of changes in regard to major capital purchase that are made subsequent to Cabinet giving approval in principle for that purchase.”; if so does that mean he did not think he needed to tell Cabinet about the changes in operational use of the 105 light armoured vehicles that cost $677 million? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is certainly not understanding the situation clearly. There is no difference between the Auditor-General and me in terms of the belief that should there be a major change to a capital acquisition of course that goes to Cabinet as it does through the long-term development plan. However if as I indicated to the member in the principal answer the operational requirement is to be met and Cabinet’s policy requirement is to be met it is properly the business of the defence professionals to manage those resources to appropriately meet the Government’s policy requirements. 
John Carter 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that he cannot blame that report on anyone else but himself and that as a consequence we have a shambles that he should accept responsibility for—that he should just resign? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I did not author the report so I cannot take responsibility for the content of it. I say to the member that as I said in my official response to it I think that all in all most of the report is helpful. A number of very useful recommendations were made. In one respect the Auditor-General’s staff and I simply disagree. I note that the country’s most senior military and defence advisers also disagree with that part of the Auditor-General’s staff’s report. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister remember the former Chief of Defence Force Carey Adamson advising him in 2000 that only 50 LAVIII’s should be bought not 105; and can he confirm that if he had followed the Chief of Defence Force’s advice the unspent money would have been sufficient to buy and bring into service two brand new C130J Hercules aircraft thereby avoiding the embarrassment of the breakdowns and more particularly being able to get lifesaving humanitarian aid to the tsunami victims much more quickly? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot confirm all of that no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One shows that under this Minister there was a blowout of over half a billion dollars on that purchase and the second one demonstrates that for every trained LAVIII crew member there are two LAVIIIs. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that for each of the LAVIIIs there are almost three trained crew members. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table evidence that although three trained crew members are required for each LAVIII there are only 45 who are trained and that there are over 100 vehicles so that makes more than two vehicles for each trained member. 
Document not tabled. 
Families—Health Policies 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she satisfied that current Government policies are adequate for ensuring the health and well-being of New Zealand’s children and their families; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes the Government’s health policies are all focused on improving the health and well-being of New Zealand children and their families. Some of those are the current meningococcal vaccine strategy; the primary health care strategy aimed at improving access for families to primary health care services; and the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme aimed at improving nutrition and physical activity. That is to name but a few. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports indicating that our school dental service is in a state of crisis with severe shortages of dental therapists and outdated facilities that do not meet health and safety standards and can she confirm whether reports that 1149 Bay of Plenty children missed their school dental check-ups last year due to a lack of available resources are accurate; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot comment on the accuracy of the figures but I believe the member. The Minister of Health is not satisfied with the current provision of school dental services. She is working with Ministry of Health officials to enhance those services for children. The Government is also committed to improving water supplies for communities around this country and has a subsidy to help them fluoridate their water. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is this Government doing to protect New Zealand children against the outbreak of meningitis that is infecting them? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the member not know? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: For Mr Smith’s benefit I tell him that the Government is spending a total of $200 million to immunise a million New Zealand infants toddlers schoolchildren and youth under the age of 20 against the meningococcal B disease. The programme is now under way in all district health boards north of Taupo and so far almost half a million doses of vaccine have been administered to more than 185000 children in those areas. The programme will have started throughout the entire country by the beginning of July. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that in the last 20 months 763 children have been admitted to Waikato Hospital with bronchiolitis—a viral disease often associated with poverty and overcrowding; and does she consider that those Third World child health statistics are acceptable in a developed country? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No we do not consider they are acceptable in this country. That is why this Government has taken a holistic approach ensuring that we have proper housing policies in place—something the previous Government thought unnecessary—and that is why we have increased funding to district health boards to help treat these problems. We are taking a holistic approach to children’s health care in this country and we are trying to mop up after a disastrous National Government. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that much of the food targeted at children is so high in fat sugar and salt that it contributes to childhood obesity and ill health as well as to poor dental health and will she therefore support moves to prohibit the advertising of unhealthy food to children; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We do appreciate the growing problems around obesity. That is why we have put in place the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme. That is why an accord has been reached with food producers to over time reduce the levels of sugar and fat in the foods consumed on a regular basis by children in this country. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Minister would support moves to prohibit the advertising of unhealthy food to children. I wonder whether the Associate Minister could address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question of advertising was mentioned. The Minister might care to comment briefly. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: At this point in time we see no need to ban such advertising but we will work with those food producers to ensure that children do eat the healthiest food possible. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that 40 percent of children who participated in a 2-year trial at Wanganui’s Castlecliff School needed glasses despite the fact that they had passed the Government-funded vision screening test and that a further 23 percent needed rechecking in a year and if she is will she take personal responsibility for the undetected eyesight problems of thousands of schoolchildren around the country given her refusal to act to ensure that the programme is properly evaluated and reviewed; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I know that the Minister is very skilful but I am not sure of her skills in ophthalmology so I doubt whether she could personally take responsibility. However funding of primary health organisations and primary health care initiatives will enable us to test such children early on and to put in place the remedies necessary to help them. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports as to what effects if any the recent policy suggestion to adopt out children of domestic purposes benefit recipients could have on the health and well-being of the affected children and their families? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have seen reports like that. But unlike the leader of the National Party Dr Brash this Government has no policy to force the adopting out of children of domestic purposes benefit recipients and I believe we are strongly supported in that view by Katherine Rich. 
Education—Public Confidence 
8.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he believe that the New Zealand education system has the confidence of the public; if not will he be making changes to either personnel or policy to ensure public confidence is restored? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How can the public have any confidence in a scholarship examination system in which scholarship results cannot be prepared due to a lack of commonality of standards across subjects; and why has the Government not moved to introduce scaling to those examinations to allow meaningful comparisons to be made? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are a number of questions in there and a number of important points. I too was surprised when I learned that there was not cross-subject comparability—as there had been for levels 1 2 and 3. I think the member is aware that on a standard-based approach there cannot be scaling. But I think the other particularly interesting point that flows from this is that these standards have been set and accepted by teachers as being at the same level as university stage I papers and what we obviously have is a wide range. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What steps are being taken to improve the quality of information about our education system that is available to the public? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is an enormous amount including the development of asTTle and its promotion to parents and the much more public availability of Education Review Office reports. Both are for schools and for a number of topics including choosing schools and early childhood centres. There will be a campaign but not until after the election led by the new education ambassador. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will that Minister take responsibility for the reckless decision to proceed with the scholarship examination when he was told time and time again that it would not work; and when will he stop hiding behind his bumbling associate who has been left to clean up the mess? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That comment about another Minister will be withdrawn. The first part of the question was perfectly in order but a reflection like that on a member would be immediately the subject of a point of order from people on this side of the House. That word will be withdrawn. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that the decision to go ahead with that scholarship examination was taken in 1998. 
Economy—Capital Markets 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports about the strength of New Zealand capital markets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. According to the World Federation of Exchanges the New Zealand Stock Exchange recorded the second-highest percentage increase in new listings last year. That of course is in addition to the substantial growth in the New Zealand Stock Exchange index during that year. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What does the high level of new listings indicate about the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It reflects the very welcome strengthening and deepening of capital markets in New Zealand over the last few years. Major contributors to that include the strength of the economy the build-up of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the strong leadership of the New Zealand Stock Exchange itself. 
John Key 
: Did the Minister read the report  
Economic Indicators  
2005 before he put out his press statement praising it last week; if he did why is he supporting a report that on page 51 said: “The development of the New Zealand stock market appears to have lagged somewhat.”—a statement that seems at odds with what he has just told the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the report—if I can also wave it back at the member—is somewhat out of date in that particular— 
John Key 
: You put it out last week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He has the same elastic problem as Mr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot refer to me like that. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
John Key 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do think members of the Opposition should stop using Soviet-era underwear. It appears to be affecting them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not in order either. I ask the Minister to withdraw that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw that underwear and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. The weakness in New Zealand’s capital markets has been a feature since— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise no accompanying comment is to be made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why I asked him to do it again and he did. 
Simon Power 
: I did not hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did and the member will be seated. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The weakness in New Zealand’s capital markets since the crash of 1987 has been a great feature of this economy. The recent growth has been very recent and is due as I said in large part to the emergence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to the strength of the economy but also—and it is not a matter of Government responsibility—to the strength of the leadership of the New Zealand Stock Exchange itself over recent times. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to question No. 8 and a comment you made. You pulled up Mr Bill English because he had made an inappropriate reference to a Minister and I accept that but what I cannot accept is what you said in the context of it. You said that such a statement would be immediately followed by a point of order from “this side of the House.” It seems to me that there are two things about that. One is that you cannot judge whether a member will raise a point of order at all and the second is you certainly cannot refer to yourself as “this side of the House”. You do not sit on any side of the House; you sit firmly in the middle. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. I apologise. 
Traffic Infringement Notices—Fines 
10.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many traffic offence and infringement notices were issued in 2004 compared with 2000 and what was the total value of the fines imposed? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that in 2000 the police issued 559935 traffic offence notices incurring fines of $31.9 million. In 2004 the number issued was 1072539 incurring $59.9 million worth of fines. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked the value of the notices issued. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I heard the monetary sums mentioned in each instance. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I thought he gave the numbers but not the value. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I heard— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I had trouble hearing. Could I ask that he repeat it please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had trouble hearing? I heard it. However since it is members’ day I will ask the Minister to repeat the answer. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am advised that in 2000 the police issued 559935 traffic offence notices incurring fines of $31.9 million. In 2004 there were 1072539 notices issued incurring $59.9 million in fines. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why has the Minister steadfastly refused to reveal the value of revenue represented by these traffic infringement notices in response to successive questions in this House yet today magically he has the numbers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Today I have provided the answers on exactly what it is. The member might be so helpful as to advise which previous questions he is referring to. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What information has he received in relation to results achieved as a result of the police enforcement action and other road safety measures? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am advised that the road toll in 2002 was the lowest in 40 years and that last year’s was the second-lowest. Drivers’ speeds have reduced by 4 kilometres per hour on the open road; and every kilometre reduced saves lives. Hospitalisations have reduced by 18 percent since 1999 and all this has been achieved in the face of an increased population and of increased vehicles on our roads. This is good news. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given the level of revenue the Government is gouging from New Zealand motorists does the Minister consider that the level of activity applied to traffic enforcement is appropriate relevant to serious crime particularly bashings rapes and murders? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I believe there is sufficient money to save lives on our roads. I just point out to the member that on 3 January this year the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated that most people support the use of police cameras—concealed or otherwise—to nab speeding drivers. A  
Herald- 
DigiPoll surveyed 1000 people aged 18 or over and found that 72.7 percent thought it was fair to use cameras to crack down on speed. In other words most people want our roads safer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister believe that New Zealand women want the police and this Government to put more and more resources into traffic enforcement or more and more resources into dealing with serious violent crime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They want both. 
Australia—Migration to New Zealand 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What recent reports has he received about migration from Australia to New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have received a report stating that in the 12 months to September 9000 New Zealanders returned home from Australia and 5400 Australians made the move to New Zealand. The message to Kiwis living overseas is that now is a good time to come home. 
Dianne Yates 
: What are some of the likely reasons for this trend? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: New Zealand is booming. We have one of the highest growth rates in the OECD unemployment is at its lowest in two decades and there are lots of job opportunities as a result. As the Prime Minister indicated in her speech to the nation many New Zealanders currently offshore have skills this country needs. The Government is doing further work on encouraging even more Kiwis to return home and I will be saying more about this in a month or so. 
New Zealand Post—Market Research by Postal Workers 
12.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he support New Zealand Post’s decision to use posties to gather information on residents and then sell it to businesses; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 No. I am advised by New Zealand Post that the project the member is referring to was a 5-day trial and given the public feedback it does not intend to continue with the project. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did he have any discussions with the board of New Zealand Post or receive any information from it on its trial scheme to spy on residents using its posties to gather information to offer for sale to other businesses; if so did he agree that the trial should go ahead? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that this has not been within the Government’s requirement of State-owned enterprises to have “no surprises” in their operations and does he think this sort of activity from a State-owned enterprise will enhance the reputation of the Labour Government of already being far too intrusive into the lives of ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member knows New Zealand Post board management makes operational decisions like this on a daily basis. The reality is that it had a trial it got public feedback and it has canned the project. I hope the member supports that. 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Authenticity 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which is in your name. I wonder whether in your final weeks you would be prepared to consider an element of it. 
The Speaker’s ruling states: “The rules are not the same for questions and replies. Statements of fact in questions must be authenticated. There is no such rule for answers.” One can well understand why that ruling is there because the Speaker cannot possibly be responsible for the accuracy of answers. The dilemma though is that with the Speaker’s ruling standing the way it does it implies that the accuracy of questions may be more important than the accuracy of answers. I know that you would say there is a process under the Standing Orders for a privilege case to be taken should a member wilfully mislead this House. But that is a very serious process to embark upon. 
I believe that today an interesting example arose. In response to question No. 3 today the Minister involved kept referring to a survey claiming it vindicated as correct an answer he had given to this House. The questions in the survey had been tabled and were in the possession of the House. Members tried to point out to the House that what the Minister was saying was factually incorrect according to the survey he was quoting from. My concern is simply that this brings Parliament into disrepute when clearly the House has in its possession a document from which the Minister was quoting and the information the Minister continues to repeat—and I think it was repeated on two or three occasions—is absolutely inconsistent with the document in the possession of the House. I am sure you would look at it if a privilege case was taken and say that this is probably not of sufficient moment to warrant a privilege case. However in my view it does damage the integrity of this Parliament where Parliament has in its possession certain information that has been tabled and that information is clearly being totally misquoted by a Minister. Balancing that requirement for accuracy in questions with the greater responsibility for accuracy in answers would I believe be something worthy of your experienced consideration before you leave this Parliament. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that if the member looks carefully at the ruling he will see that the question has to be authenticated. That of course does not make it accurate. Often the authentication may be a newspaper story and I am sure from his vast experience in Government in the past the member will understand that on occasion what is said in newspapers about a Government is not necessarily correct but it is sufficient to authenticate the question. It does not prove it is true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising what is a good point of order and a serious one. I just say to him that the Speaker also relaxes the rules on authentication for supplementary questions if he looks at Speaker’s ruling 142/8. The Speaker’s ruling the member referred to is a consequence of the way the Standing Orders are drafted as he admits. This is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider if the member wishes to raise it there. I would encourage him to do so as I think he has raised an interesting point. 
Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a different point of order with you for your consideration. Yesterday I asked a series of questions of the Associate Minister of Education relating to the results of scholarship exams in secondary schools. The Minister gave a series of fairly vague answers. It became apparent after question time that the Minister had planned a press conference at 4 o’clock after question time and that he almost certainly had in his possession at question time the information that he used at the press conference. I am raising the question of what obligation the Minister has to use the information that he possesses to answer questions asked in this House. The Minister may prefer to be accountable to the media and not to the House but the information he had was directly relevant to the questions I asked the information was available to him and he did not provide any of that in answers given to the House. 
I have checked the  
Hansard 
 and the Minister was careful not to mislead the House. I mean that only in the technical sense in which this Parliament uses the term “mislead”. So he did not mislead the House but he had information that he could have used to answer questions that were asked and that is demonstrated by the amount of information he gave at the press conference about three-quarters of an hour after question time ended. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 115/4 which I made. I repeat: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.” 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Light Armoured Vehicles—Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received an application under Standing Order 373 from John Carter seeking to debate the report tabled yesterday on the acquisition and introduction into service of light armoured vehicles. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but this matter has been the subject of a number of reports and consideration over a period of time and consequently I do not consider the tabling of the report yesterday requires the immediate attention of the House. The application is accordingly declined. 
Urgent Debates 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a further application for an urgent debate from the Hon Bill English concerning the Government’s decision retrospectively to introduce distinction certificates so as not to disadvantage students in scholarship subjects. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and in view of the widespread public interest in this matter I am prepared to allow a debate. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Just before Mr English rises to speak following the conclusion of the debate you have just granted I seek leave for a debate on the Auditor-General’s report in the same fashion as we would for a normal snap debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. I ask who cheated in New Zealand Scholarship 2004? The Government cheated. The Government got a result that was politically embarrassing so retrospectively after the scholarships exams were over the Government stepped in and changed the results. I looked up the situation regarding school exams in Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe they are having trouble with their school exams. But even in Zimbabwe the Government has not stepped in to change the results after the exam has been sat. But our Government has. What a shambles! What a disgrace! What a deep disrespect for the young people of New Zealand! Now excellence is recognised if one can embarrass the Government into recognising it. That is the standard from a Government that interferes in every aspect of New Zealand life. It has decided to become the examiners-in-chief. 
 What should our young people expect? These young people are our more academic students. They should be able to expect fair and consistent standards. They should be able to expect a duty of care from the adults who make the political decisions and run the bureaucratic process. And they should be able to expect a credible respected qualification that acknowledges the excellence for which they have striven and which they have achieved. In 2004 what did our best and brightest secondary school students get? They got cynicism and incompetence. From the Government and public agencies they got contempt for excellence and for the enormous efforts they and their teachers had made to achieve that excellence and they got the absurdity of politicians marking the exams. It never happens anywhere else but I have to say that it fits a pattern of arrogance and incompetence by the Labour Government when it comes to education. 
Some Ministers have paid the price. Trevor Mallard the man who made the political decision to proceed with the New Zealand Scholarship against advice lost his job because he thought he could persuade parents to put up with the closure of hundreds of schools. 
Pansy Wong 
: What happened? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He had to turn tail and then the Prime Minister had to take him out of that job. Steve Maharey got sacked because a multibillion-dollar tertiary strategy went completely off the rails. Now we have an Associate Minister Mr David Benson-Pope—or as one student referred to him: “Dr Rabid Benson-Dope”. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Ha ha! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the students’ views actually matter. The warning signals about this started 2 weeks ago. I want to explain it to the House so that members understand the deep cynicism behind the manner in which the Government has tried to manipulate this issue. Two weeks ago on 26 January Trevor Mallard announced something quite nice: an extension of the scholarship awards. He introduced some new categories of people who could get awards of $1000 $2000 or $3000. It was a good-news announcement. I thought that it looked good but that because it came from Trevor Mallard there must be something wrong with it. 
Today I can confirm how cynical that move was. The Minister of Education had thought that around 150 students would become New Zealand Scholars—that is students who achieved three outstanding passes in scholarship. That is very difficult to do but perhaps 1 percent of students could do it. What happened? He got a piece of paper from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority telling him that only four students had achieved it. Being Trevor Mallard he did not sit on his hands; he decided to cook up a whole new scheme of awards to fill the gap. What is really cynical is that the total to be spent on the new scholarship awards is less than the amount the Government projected to spend on the old awards. So the great announcement about all this new recognition of excellence ended up saving the Government $200000 and it was made to cover up shonky scholarship results. That is what Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education says our best young people deserve from him the guardian of New Zealand’s standards of excellence in schools. It was a cut. 
Then we have Mr Benson-Pope. After all the furore we still do not have the crucial piece of information: how many students sat New Zealand Scholarship and how many passed it. We do not know. The information has not been published. It has not been released. Yesterday we saw a table that compared the number of scholarships with the number of level 3 entries. They have nothing to do with each other except that the number of level 3 entries is very large so it makes the variations look very small. I am asking the Minister to give us the results—to tell us how many students entered scholarship and how many passed. He should forget his “teenage boy” spin politics and give young New Zealanders the information they deserve to have. 
We ended up with Cabinet marking this year’s New Zealand Scholarship—Cabinet: a bunch of failed mediocre university lecturers ex-teachers and people who want revenge on those who did better at school than they did. I want to ask the Minister what criteria Cabinet applied. Let us pick out one group: art history students. Six of them won scholarships. The New Zealand Labour Cabinet decided to give out another 21. On what basis? Why does the Minister not tell us? Biology students received nine scholarships from 1000 entries. The New Zealand Labour Cabinet decided to give out another 60—six times as many as the teachers said should be awarded. 
On what criteria did the large Einstein minds in Cabinet decide the futures of our finest young academic students? There was only one criterion: embarrassment. The Minister told the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The Minister told it to cook up a number big enough not to look embarrassing. I invite the Minister to explain today why no extra distinction certificates were awarded in classical studies or in drama and why 18 were awarded in French and 21 in art history. Look at this one! In media studies there was one scholarship and Cabinet decided to give out another 21. On what basis? The Minister will get up and say that it was on the basis of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 results. 
I looked at his question and answer sheet which says that level 3 has nothing to do with scholarship. Scholarship is not even NCEA; it is a completely separate exam. But the answer to another question states that the new distinction certificates were based on the level 3 results. Which answer to which question is right? The fact is that the Minister does not know. What is worse he does not care. The Minister of Education Mr Mallard is responsible for this because he made the decision that the Government had to proceed with New Zealand Scholarship to prove that Labour stood for excellence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No the member made the decision in 1998. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have looked at the 1998 decision. It said nothing about when scholarship would be instituted. The Minister had to demonstrate that Labour values excellence. He was told time and time again that the system was a shambles. Last year—it is in the minutes of the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum—teachers were not entering students because they had no confidence in the exam. But the Minister went ahead anyway. 
At the receiving end are young people who have worked their hearts out to achieve what they believed was a sincere effort on the part of this country to recognise excellence—and the Minister laughs! That has been his attitude all along. This has been all about how to recover from the Government’s embarrassment and not at all about 2000 of our finest academic minds who give up their sport work on Saturday night instead of going out go to school early sweat strive and ache for it. 
 The Government let them down. It is an absolute disgrace because this has wrecked the lives of young people who had so many aspirations—aspirations to get out of a life of a low income aspirations to get into a selective university course that they will not now get into aspirations that they could walk around with their heads held high because of the recognition this nation gave to them as our best. Now we have an Associate Minister Benson-Pope who cannot tell the difference between his old responsibilities and his new ones—fish and people—and treats both with the same cynicism. I hope he is on TV every night to explain this. 
The people who find him most distasteful are the students. That is the feedback that I am getting. The Government failed them. The whole pitch for excellence from Labour has been a cynical political marketing exercise. But the parents the teachers and most of all the students will never forget the casual contempt that this Government has shown for their aspirations. Maybe there is one last chance—when Trevor Mallard can get up and say: “I was wrong. I am sorry.” He can address this issue again but the seventh-former who has just left school cannot. He or she gets one shot. The bumbling bureaucrats—the idiots—are still here to do it all again. The stupid Ministers who do not care are still here. But the students are left with broken aspirations lost credibility and a piece of paper the credibility of which was lost every day that the Government sat on its hands and did nothing. 
I tell the Government to rescue the situation. Mr Mallard should get up and say: “I am wrong. I am sorry.” Mr Benson-Pope will not do it. He has blamed everyone except the people who run the system. He is now saying that it is the job of the whole community to fix it that the teachers are not up to it and that too many students entered the exams. Everyone is to blame except those mindless bigots in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority who will not accept that there is something wrong. He is another Minister who encapsulates the spirit of his public agency. It is mindless bigotry when anyone who thinks that excellence matters and that young people’s aspirations are important to this country is thought of as some kind of reactionary idiot. 
Mr Benson-Pope will find out because the growing anger about the scholarship results will engulf level 2 and level 3 of NCEA. If he is willing to sit around the Cabinet table and adjust the results for scholarship what about level 3? What about level 2? What about all those middle students who want the literacy and numeracy credits because that will get them into university? Why can they not get their results adjusted? It is a shambles a disgrace and a dishonour to the fine young people of New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I welcome this snap debate. The 2004 national scholarship results and the issues they have raised are worthy of debate. I only regret that the contribution we have just heard was so sadly hysterical and self-indulgent. 
Assessment in both our education system generally and more narrowly in our schools is in transition. It is in transition from a system that fitted a simpler New Zealand as it once was to a system that is fit for a New Zealand that is economically and socially much more complex and fast moving. It is a system that is in transition and we have clearly encountered a difficulty. The Government has moved to ensure that no student is disadvantaged as a result of that and that is good. But in those subjects where students have done exceptionally well at National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 and when the subject is under-represented at scholarship level we are introducing the distinction certificate in recognition of the student’s achievements. 
At the same time there will be a new distinction award. Students who have a combination of scholarship passes and distinction certificates in any three scholarship subjects will be eligible for an award of $1500 per year for 3 years. These awards combined with the package of new awards announced previously mean that around 215 more students will therefore be eligible for financial rewards of this kind. This largely mitigates the financial impact of the variances in the 2004 results. 
It is worth noting that the Government is making serious commitments here. When the scholarship was pegged to the old bursary system about 60 students were awarded substantial monetary awards whereas now over 500 students will be eligible for significant awards that will make a real difference to their finances for their university studies. Instead of giving large numbers of students token payments of $100 to $200 we are giving more students real financial support. 
So that is what we have done but what is important for the House and the education sector is to calmly and dispassionately assess the underlying issues. There is nothing to be gained by denigrating a system that is endorsed by pretty much everyone—the Post Primary Teachers Association the Parent Teachers Association employers and students. The only group missing is the National Party. The essential point is that we no longer use scaling. The scholarship results that I released yesterday are real numbers. This is very different from what happened in the past. Now we see in the numbers what the students actually achieved as assessed against the curriculum their teachers taught. 
The practical task now for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for the ministry for the curriculum setters for the assessors for principals and teachers for our universities and for other tertiary providers for whom understanding these results is so important is to look at explaining and reducing this variability. Finding a suitable and appropriate way forward will come from— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that the rules on written speeches have been relaxed and I appreciate that nowadays members are allowed to come down to the House and read a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They most certainly are. That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My point is that the process for getting a snap debate is that an Opposition party makes a case and gives that in a letter to the Speaker who considers the matter. We assumed somewhat— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If I cannot make a point here where can I make it? This is about all of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You can make it in the debate but you are not referring to any process that is not within the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It surprises the National Party. We did not know there would be a snap debate awarded until the end of question time but somehow the Minister who was in the House right through question time is able to stand up after a snap debate is announced and read a pre-prepared speech. I just wonder how on earth he got the information that the Speaker would allow such a debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I am sure you were able to say what you wanted to say. It was not a point of order. The Minister is quite within his rights to speak in the way he is and to use whatever guidance he needs. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for a point of clarification. Are members advised of the applications for urgent debate? My understanding is that we know if we have put in an application but we have no idea whether the National Party has put one in. It is very clear here that someone has tipped off the Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know that we are in a slightly unusual position because for a number of members it has been some time since they have had the experience of being in Government. The two members who raised points of order have not had any experience at all. This Government always prepares for possible urgent debates and certainly Governments generally did so in the 1980s. We were ready for this debate yesterday. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: A very serious issue has been raised. It goes right to the heart of the integrity of the Speakership of this Parliament. I was a Minister for 9 years and what the Hon Trevor Mallard has said is absolute arrant nonsense. 
 The issue is this: the decision as to whether a snap debate is allowed is the absolute right of the Speaker. What is concerning the Opposition today is it would appear that there may have been advice to a Minister about the outcome of the Speaker’s decision prior to this Parliament being advised of that decision. I believe that we deserve an absolute assurance that that has not happened because that goes right to the heart of the impartial Chairmanship of this House. The Speaker is Parliament’s person; the Speaker is responsible to Parliament for making the decisions on snap debates. We honour and respect those decisions and we must have an assurance that there has not been prior advice to any Minister of the outcome of such a decision. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will reply very quickly and it may help members. I am prepared to table the top of the Labour speaking list—something that is most unusual—a list that is circulated before the closing time for debates which indicates that today Labour had a speaking list and was prepared for debates on scholarships and light armoured vehicles. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to make a comment myself on this matter because it is an important one. I agree with the member. Yesterday at the Business Committee I said and I know there are members present who were there then who heard me say: “I could write a very good letter if I were an Opposition member about this subject.” I made that comment. I then walked out. I have had no other comment made by me and I certainly do not tell the Government what it will be having debates on. It could have had a debate on the LAVIIIs; it could have had a debate on this subject. I judged that one was acceptable and I gave that decision. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just another question: is it possible for members before you make your ruling to discover what letters are in your hands? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. On this occasion I actually went to Mr Brownlee and said that he put in two letters yesterday which he did very promptly and very efficiently. I asked whether he wanted me to read out the one that was going to be declined or just accept the one that was going to be accepted. I did that about 20 minutes before the end of question time. 
Rodney Hide 
:I am sorry we misunderstood. For example we did not know that the National Party had put in two letters. Is it possible for members of other parties to discover before you make your decision which letters are before you for consideration? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only if those parties tell those members. I do not tell anybody anything. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make it very clear that this little issue probably has arisen not in a way to try to impugn you at all or more important the office of the Speaker. I just want to suggest that it is rather disappointing in a debate like this where there is such public interest that a Minister does resort to a very tight script in the offering that he makes to the House. It does I think lead to members becoming a little bit concerned that the nature of the comment being made is less than genuine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that as far as I am concerned if I had been Minister of Education and with the events that have occurred I most certainly would have been preparing for a debate and I would have been preparing very tightly and closely. 
Now as far as the speech is concerned the member knows there is no rule against the reading of speeches. I do not particularly happen to agree with that ruling but that is the rule of the House. I was listening on the radio to what the Minister was saying. He was in no way going against the Standing Orders and I want just to repeat that as far as I am concerned I most certainly did not discuss this issue with the Minister. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In our schools we need to ensure that students are being correctly prepared for these examinations that rightly target our academic elite. In particular we need to form judgments about where the scholarship requires skills and aptitudes that are different from level 3 NCEA and if so deliver these to our students. The 2004 New Zealand Scholarship science exams placed a very high premium on abstract discursive writing in the language of science but did they place too high a premium on it? That is a question for all of us to ask and in due course answer. How does that relate to the skills required for a top-end career in the sciences? 
Before I discuss the wider context of this issue it is important to briefly put to bed the question of accountability. I am not particularly interested in witch-hunts or blame. I want better options from here on. I have made clear to the Qualifications Authority and the ministry that the Government should have learnt about this issue sooner. That is something that they need to look at in terms of their management systems. That said they do have their sleeves rolled up and are getting on with what needs to happen next. I will be taking an extremely close interest as members will understand in the results of that work. 
Likewise I have no desire to criticise the nation’s teachers—far from it. They are as hard-working and as passionate in their professional commitment as they ever could be. The fact that we have made the extraordinary progress we have with the introduction of this system over 3 years is testimony to that. The fact of the matter is that NCEA and the qualifications framework reforms of the last few years have been vast. The pace of change has been very fast possibly too fast. So it is no surprise that there have been rough edges. What I am looking for now is consolidation refinement and a maturing evolution of systems. And I am looking for the education sector to forget its squabbles and to stay on task. 
New Zealand is not the New Zealand for which the old system of School Certificate was created. In the 1950s 1960s and 1970s our economy was very simple: a system that failed half the kids had behind it a picture of an economy in which the bright kids went on to go into the professions and the rest went into a trade learnt from on-the-job apprenticeships or they spent their working lives essentially as unskilled labourers farm workers or shop workers and the like. So half pass - half fail was a cull for picking winners and losers and managing privilege; something pretty keen to the philosophy and minds of the Opposition. 
We are not in that world now and our education system cannot be either. Our economy is now high-tech and skills-based. The demand for unskilled labour is now very limited even when the economy is booming. Most people now do some kind of tertiary training after they leave school. Most people retrain many times in their working lives. Very few people indeed work for the one firm for 40 years. In this world schools need to tailor their tuition programmes to fit local interest the local economy and above all the individual abilities of the youngsters they are teaching. Education must liberate not standardise and that is what NCEA enables. So instead of pupils just doing say fifth form biology and so on they do a series of papers or standards customised by the individual school to meet their particular needs. Then the results are reported standard by standard in detail in the records that young people bring to prospective employers and the like. This is better than just say 70 percent in English 60 percent in physics 50 percent in chemistry—all scaled of course to mean very little indeed. In fact scaling was often a technique for making people look better than they really were and for masking bad teaching and dreary curricula. 
Some say NCEA is dumbing down education. In fact the opposite is true—NCEA is tough; it demands much more of the students than the old system. NCEA also in no way impedes bright kids from racing ahead—indeed it encourages them. If a bright child wants he or she can take some particular papers or standards at a more advanced level than his or her chronological age would suggest. Individual programmes can be tailored to a youngster’s strengths and weaknesses and this again fits an economy and a society that wants to encourage diversity unlike the National Party. An assessment system that said half of the population were failures will not do. Everyone has value everyone has abilities and in the fast-paced digital economy of today no one can be wasted. Our education system must help all young people not just those going into the professions. It must help them to find and nurture their abilities. 
NCEA is clearly still controversial. It is very new—just 3 years in practice and within the education sector people are still learning how to utilise its full potential. But we should be excited by these changes not denigrating them. I am confident that as a direct result of NCEA the New Zealand secondary education system will look very different 20 years from now compared to today and for the better. Twenty years from now the tuition programmes in our schools will vary more school by school. Within schools programmes of learning for individual pupils will be more and more tailored to what each pupil needs and that is very much something to look forward to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This urgent debate has been set down around the scholarship exam quite specifically. I listened very carefully to every word of the Minister’s contribution but I did not note him at any time during his speech making reference to the scholarship exam that is the subject of this debate. This is the Minister who is responsible for the very issue that the Speaker has deemed of sufficient import to set aside the time of this Parliament. Would it not be proper for the Minister to be asked to address the issue of the debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Whether or not it is proper the Minister has made his contribution in the way he sees fit. There is no need for further comment on that. We have had a number of comments so far. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 So that people who are listening to the debate understand the issues involved I want to think through a scenario where people are lining up for a 100-metre race and the person in lane 1 has to leap over 1-metre-high hurdles; the person in lane 2 has to leap over 2-metre-high hurdles; lane 3 is covered in old tyres so the person in that lane has to zigzag through them; lane 4 is undulating up hill and down dale; lane 5 is all covered in gravel but the person has to run in bare feet; and lane 6 is clear. I ask the House and people who are listening to this debate whether they believe it is fair that the runner in lane 6 should get the gold medal because that is exactly what we are confronting with this issue of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholarships. We are not comparing on an equal level playing field people in different lanes. In fact there is no moderation across the subjects and therein lies the problem. 
The Minister was asked about this in the House today and he made the statement that he was surprised to find there were no comparability mechanisms between students who were doing different subject areas. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Between the standards. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: But that means the same—between the different subject areas that they are doing. In other words the examinations. 
I suggest to the policy makers that it is impossible to get two examinations across two different curriculum areas in any one year or in fact across the same curriculum in various different years that will be exactly comparable and on which one can make a fair assessment and a fair judgment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But you can try. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: If the Minister is going along with pursuing the argument that he is then what he is suggesting with the results that came out is that the standards in English in stage 1 at our universities are far far lower and far easier to meet than those in the sciences and biology and so on because of the numbers that were there. 
I want to explain to people that when the NCEA was designed it was always intended that there would be a scholarship examination and that it would be an examination to compare the top students. It would be competitive. It was not to be about standards it was to be about who the top students were in our particular schools. It does not impact upon NCEA levels 1 2 and 3; they are a different question altogether and are aimed at different populations. I want to say something about a comment made by David Benson-Pope that shows that he completely misunderstands the issues. He said that we do not want to go into a system where 50 percent are failures. School Certificate was scaled. It was the first obstacle that people had to come to. In this particular case the students who were doing NCEA level 4 have already done NCEA levels 1 2 and 3 in the same year as they are doing scholarship. This is not about failure; this is about the top echelon—the cream—and it is to decide which of those students coming out of level 3 are the cream. Under those circumstances it is totally valid to scale those and to have statistical moderation across it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’re looking at a scale when you don’t have a number. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Let us face it we set a number. We set a mean and a standard deviation as we always did then we compare those students who are doing mathematics as being an equivalent population to those students who are doing English. Unfortunately the way that things are set up that is not the case. I find it interesting that given that we have— 
Helen Duncan 
: It wouldn’t work. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Of course it would work! Obviously the member does not understand the basis of scaling and what it is all about. It would also allow comparability from one year to the next. Members should remember that this is not students doing their first assessment in the fifth form as School Certificate was. This is students at the upper echelon of our schooling system who have already got three qualifications that they have entered for in advance of this. This is purely and simply the top of them. 
The problem that we have is the very problem that has been witnessed. People are dead set on the fact that everything must be standards based. Everything does not have to be standards based. In fact we have to have some sort of absolute comparability and there is no comparability in this particular circumstance. It really concerned me to hear that the secondary school principals had said that this would not work unless we had these moderation processes in place. They offered their advice to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and they were ignored. It came out in the media yesterday from Paul Ferris that the Secondary Principals Association offered its support in this particular case. That was the advice that was given and that was the advice that was ignored. 
If we go back to the scenario that I raised after the race is run and the person in lane 6 with the clear lane has been given the gold medal and everyone moans like heck and says that that is not fair the Government has come along and said: “We don’t believe that’s fair either so we will get some pewter medals and paint them gold and give them out to a few other people.” That is exactly what this Government has done. It has come up with some arbitrary arrangement and said that it will hand out a few extra things that are of a lesser standard than scholarship but that at least it might buy the Government some peace. 
I say to the Government that it has the capacity to take the results from this year and to statistically analyse them in such a way that we could have comparability across the different subject areas for the students who sat in 2004. If such a process is not put in place we will have a repeat in 2005 regardless and meanwhile the 2004 students have been treated unjustly unfairly and quite wrongly but at least something has to be done to fix it up for 2005. That is what concerns me a little bit about what Bill English is saying and doing. National is certainly fingering some of the real genuine flaws that have occurred in scholarship. But I do not hear National telling us what it will do about it. What will National do about NCEA levels 1 2 and 3? Will it keep it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That is good to know. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has now told the House that National will keep the NCEA levels 1 2 and 3. What will National do with scholarship? We do not know because at this point in time no one has actually told us. At least New Zealand First has said that we will make the modifications to levels 1 2 and 3 that have to be made to fix it up but we will stick with it. We believe the philosophy is right and that largely it is on the right track. 
However we do not believe that the thinking process was applied to the NCEA level for the scholarships. We believe that there has to be a moderation process. There has to be a process whereby we can compare the students who sit one subject with those who sit another and also aggregate their results so that we can make decisions about the top students. Forty-five thousand dollars was given out to a top student and we have no confidence at all that that person is the top student or is just purely and simply a student who picked the subjects for which the examinations that he or she went into were easy. That is not fair and we will not instil confidence in an assessment system if we have a continuation of that process where so much is dependent upon the subjects that one picks and not on the actual abilities and capabilities that are demonstrated through the testing and examination process. 
The scholarship exam is about finding out who are the cream amongst our scholars. It is not about the first draft. It is about rewarding those particular people and giving them encouragement to take further steps in their studies so that they will pursue university and tertiary studies for the betterment of our nation. The way that we have devised our scholarship exam and the poor thought that has gone into it has weakened the system at this most critical point. We ask that the Government goes back and re-looks at the philosophy behind the level 4 assessment and we encourage it to put some sort of statistical moderation process in place. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have generally supported the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) system. We think it is a good thing to have moved to an internally assessed system particularly for Maori students. There has been a notable difference in achievement for them under NCEA compared with their achievement in previous years. 
In our view the elimination of scaling is a very good move. There is a need to focus on the actual achievements of children and young people against their tests rather than to pay blind adherence to a bell curve which is what happened in the past. In our view scaling seriously disenfranchises students and creates failures for no other reason than the reporting of statistical niceties. 
Our kids are not just statistics; they are precious and we must not allow our system to abuse them in that way. However we are now faced with another fresh debacle over NCEA scholarships that is exactly that—a form of abuse against those students who have been working so very hard to achieve the best they can. It is frankly not good enough. 
Children and young people are continuing to pay the price for the mistakes made by adults and Government departments in failing to take sufficient care over their assessments. NCEA has been continually dogged by those kinds of problems. Previous examples include the manipulation—the active manipulation—of the NCEA system at Cambridge High School. Those are not necessarily problems with NCEA itself but with the way in which it has been implemented. Implementation has been hurried and careless and for that our young people have paid the price. 
The Greens acknowledge that the Minister and the Government have accepted that they bit off more than they could chew that they made a mistake and that they have tried to find ways to remedy that. But I do not think that the Government takes particular cognisance of the fact that it is the young people who are suffering here. I support Bill English’s very deep concern that those young people do not have a second opportunity to make the grade to achieve what they needed to achieve this time around. Every time we make a mistake with our education system it is those young people who suffer; they bear the full price for those mistakes. They have absolutely no control over the way the education system is structured or the exams and the processes that are put in place. 
The education system makes no effort to find out from those young people what they need and prefer for their education for the future. Yet young people continue to pay the price for the stupid mistakes that are continually made. This Government continues to pay lip service to the importance of our young people in our future yet continually undermines their ability to be active and responsible citizens and leaders of our nation in the future. 
Student loans are another classic example of that failure to recognise the importance of young people and their success. Nothing has been done by this Government of course to remedy the serious social educational and economic consequences of that system. 
In order to remedy the problem that has been created by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and to undo the injustice to our young people by the failure of the NCEA scholarship system the Government needs to ensure that not one single student entitled to a scholarship is in any way penalised for that mistake. All those who were entitled or would have been entitled to a full scholarship must receive one of the full amount. If that means that more scholarships will be awarded than might otherwise have been then that is no problem for this Government. It must be no problem. It is no price to pay to ensure that those students are given the recognition they deserve. 
The distinction certification that has been suggested by the Minister as a result of the report is not good enough. It is a second-class option for those students arising from mistakes made not by them but by the education system itself. Scholarships are a critical means of awarding excellence in our students. The Government and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority owe them the recognition they deserve and not a second-class option. 
Our kids do not deserve to be discounted. They must not be robbed either of their financial entitlement or of the benefits of their hard work and commitment over the years. This Government must ensure that no child pays the price for its mistake. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I wish to thank the Hon Bill English for first raising this issue. I think that on both sides of the House everyone shares the concern about this debacle. We should point out that it is not just those who sat scholarship who have been affected but all students because this is creating the sense that there is a problem with the exam system and a problem with the standards the Government is putting in front of students. I know that from talking to younger students who are well away from sitting scholarship exams. 
I think that ACT stands up as the only party that was opposed to the introduction of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). We were opposed to it when the National Party first had the bright idea we were certainly opposed to it as it was implemented and we are now looking at it and trying to make the best of a bad deal. 
It follows of course that the Labour Party has put out a whole lot of spin about how this is not a particular problem but I ask members to reflect on what the Labour Party would know about standards. What would the Labour Party know about competition? What would the Labour Party know about excellence? What would the Labour Party know about fairness? 
The latter is something our young people feel most keenly. They actually know about fairness and they can immediately see the unfairness of the NCEA scholarship exam. They know about the unfairness of that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I know that Trevor Mallard wants to call out divert attention and play politics with young people’s standards but I point this out: if one goes away from an external exam objectively marked and goes into an internal system where people are graded internally I guess it fits that if there is a problem it will go up to Cabinet and Cabinet members will say: “Oh we’re not happy with those results.” As Mr Donnelly pointed out they will then take a bit of bronze paint it up gold and call it “a distinction certificate”. 
Who decided to do that? Was it the markers? Was it the examiners? Was it the teachers? No it was Cabinet. Cabinet awarded 373 distinction certificates to try to paper over its cock-up. 
Anyone can see that when there is an exam and 641 biology students sit the exam and nine get it and across the way there is an English exam— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of whether the term the member just used is a prescribed term. I do not really want to repeat it but it is a male bird of a particular type that I think has been ruled out before. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: To make me aware of the term sadly the member would have to repeat it—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will be aware of the word he might have used; if so he will withdraw it please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw. It was a total bungle that the Government oversaw and I am really just relaying to the House the way that students see it. 
The point is this—and I know Mr Mallard wants to break it up—we had 641 biology students and only nine got scholarships. Over in the English exam one in three students succeeded. Any fool can see that there is a huge discrepancy in that. We know that any fool can see that because even this Government understood there was a problem. 
What did it do? It ran back to Cabinet to ask what it could do to make up for that and it came up with a whole new award—in Cabinet. So who would get scholarships—no actually they do not get scholarships; they get something else—was decided whilst Ministers were sitting around the Cabinet table. Members should ask themselves what sort of integrity a system like that has. 
Then Government Ministers sat around the Cabinet table and decided how much money each of those students would get. They decided that an extra 64 students would get some money. Where was that decided? It was decided around the Cabinet table too. Then the Government had the audacity to give itself a pat on the back for being so generous. It reminds one of the cricket match where Helen Clark suggested she was quite generous—because every time someone hit a six the Government gave away another $6000—but that was not true either. 
The effect of that decision is not just on the students who sat those exams. It brings into question all exams in New Zealand and not in relation to just this problem. If we cannot manage a system for the brightest and best to have confidence in how can we manage a system for everyone? We should give schools and parents a choice about what system they want. Right now if that were done there would not be too many going for NCEA. 
I ask Government members especially Mr Mallard and Mr Benson-Pope to think of those students who have missed out those students who have a certificate of distinction and those students who have sat scholarship exams. They have worked hard set their sights high aimed for excellence—and this Government has let them down. So cynical is this Government that it has not apologised or even fingered anyone responsible. It has said that the issue is due to transition and teething problems. It is typical of this Government that it is no one’s fault. 
The Government’s response was to put out some positive spin come up with a new generous reward called a certificate of distinction throw a bit of money around and try to paper over the problem. How can students have any confidence in this system and how can New Zealanders have any confidence in this Government? 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk a little on this particular matter. The Government has tried to explain this matter away by saying initially at least that it has a new system. But if we have a new system that is not fully built on consultation piloting and testing is it any wonder that today we are talking about issues that are full of mistakes? I ask the question and I am sure many people around the country are asking the same question: who is winning in regard to level 4 and who has lost? The students themselves have not gained. It puts a bad slant over everybody who has sat any of the exams from level 1 through to level 4. Those students who sat level 1 last year must now be wondering what will happen when they get to level 4. I know from press releases that came out yesterday as well as earlier that there is disquiet across the land about this whole subject of secondary education and what it means to children and students who are studying—particularly those who are going on to tertiary education this year be it at a particular university institution polytech private training establishment or whatever else. 
So we do have a question mark. I understand the system is new but does that warrant the fact that we have dug ourselves into such a deep hole? The system should have been piloted it should have been administered a little at a time and had all the bugs taken out of it and therefore something could have been presented to the nation that every student and certainly every classroom teacher headmaster and principal would feel confident about promoting. 
If I had been one of those students who last year sat the Cambridge exams for instance or the International Baccalaureate exams I would be feeling pretty good at this moment. That is not the story that either this Government or anybody in this House wishes to communicate in a negative way. But in reality the students who sat those exams must be thinking: “Wow I’m glad no mess-ups have occurred there. There is a standard. We know what we got. We don’t get much money for it but at least we know what we got in the scholarship sense in the sense of excellent academic performance.” and that I think is probably what this whole thing boils down to. 
I believe that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has failed the top students in our country and certainly the teachers who have put everything into grooming their students for the task of entering into tertiary education in particular. Paul Ferris President of the Secondary Principals Association said that the country trusted the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to develop an exam that would represent the very best of achievement-based assessment and it has not done that. It has let us down. That was yesterday’s comment and here we are in the House reiterating the same thing. 
The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) does not want to be held responsible because this exam is not its thing; it is not the PPTA’s exam. Then I notice that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has distanced itself or has not been heard from since this matter has arisen. So when the president of the Secondary Principals Association states those sorts of things I am alarmed. Yvonne Browning from Southland Girls High School said that this whole thing was such a debacle in her mind and asked whether one subject was worth more than another. In reality some of us have been trying to say and I am sure the Government wants this to be said that every subject is on a par for every student and it has attainment built within it. 
I heard the Hon Brian Donnelly speaking out very clearly for a system that will give us some hope and some way through all this. The reason why Yvonne Browning asked that question is that she has read she knows and we all know for instance that nine out of 1000 biology scholarship candidates passed and 300 out of 900 English students got scholarships. That is way out of kilter. If I am looking at it from the point of view of a parent an employer or someone separate from the student that tells me that English or arts subjects are a far better shot in which to achieve a scholarship than for instance biology. I do not believe that is the rational outcome this exam should produce. I do not believe that any previous speakers have come to any other conclusion than what I am saying. This is not a good advertisement of what we call quality education for this nation. 
Ministers need to accept responsibility. The blame game we are into needs to get out of this whole issue. We need to look straight at the fact that we need a policy that gives children parents employers universities of the future and all the other institutions that take on these students some level of comfort that there is to be an education system that we can be proud of and multiply throughout the world. 
 From day one United Future’s policy has been to reward educational excellence and to broaden the eligibility of students to receive monetary rewards for excellent academic performance in their final school year. That should not be a new thing to anybody. It is something that we want to make sure this Government looks at in order to ensure that National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 4 is attended to seriously and that everybody is asked to make input into it and not to be at all shy about it. The more input there is at this stage the more that will correct students for 2005 and I believe that will then put back a sense of pride in the fact that we have an education system that goes all the way. The fact is that NCEA level 4 provides for prizes worth up to $45000 apiece. That demands action by this Government. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I will make a very brief contribution in this area. In doing so I congratulate my Associate Minister David Benson-Pope and say that it is not often when one moves on from day-to-day responsibility for a portfolio that one can look back so soon with relief that one is not the person having to front what is a very serious issue. It is a serious issue and there are some enormous dilemmas in front of the Government and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority board around it. 
As members are aware a lot of work was done with National Certificate of Educational Achievement levels 1 2 and 3 to cross-reference and cross-moderate the standards as they were put in place. It is really important to emphasise that the standards were the subject of the moderation not the examination results afterwards. 
That was overall very well done and there were a lot of international compliments. Just to make it absolutely clear I say that people should not be worried about entry standards. Universities as far away as Yale and Princeton have complimented the level 3 system and said that the richness of the information that comes from it is extremely valuable to them when they make their judgments about entry to university. Entry is done off level 3 and it is done in our own universities off level 3 so people should not get too concerned about that. 
By a process that I will accept responsibility for moderation was not done in the same way. The issue was not raised in a way that prompted me to focus on the difference between the standards set for the scholarship examinations. The standards were set on the basis of stage 1 examinations at university level. Tertiary people were involved in setting the standards in every case and although I think it is fair to say that there was some comment to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority from secondary principals I think the full substance of their concerns was not focused on. 
It has become clear especially in the science areas that people who have a lot of ability to reproduce fact and formulae do not necessarily have the ability to put those ideas across and to discuss issues especially in high-quality written English in the way that people who are focused on arts and language subjects have. So a much larger group of people—for example people who are native speakers of particular languages—fly right through the scholarship exams in those subjects and one would expect them to. People who have been involved in immersion education in the Maori language for example have very high pass rates because the standard they have reached is so far in advance of the stage 1 standard at university that it is inevitable we get that result. 
What we now know—and possibly what I should have realised—is that in the past there was enormous scaling to get physics students over the line. They did not meet the standards set so for goodness knows how many years in physics—and especially also in biology—there was a scaling up of examination results in order to get the required number of students through. In a similar way more people met the standard in my own area of accounting and they were scaled down in order to fit a particular curve. 
We now have some honesty around who meets university standards. It is very different but as I indicated to Mr Donnelly earlier in reply to a parliamentary question we have to think a bit more about what a degree means now when our university standards are clearly so different from subject to subject. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 One of the most basic responsibilities of the Minister of Education and his or her agencies is to provide a fair and consistent examination system. With this monumental botch-up that we are debating today thousands of New Zealand secondary students have been robbed of their one chance to achieve scholarship at secondary education level because of the arrogance and incompetence of this Government. 
Let us just look at how bad the situation is. The Government budgeted on 150 students achieving the New Zealand Scholarship—National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 4. How many students achieved that level? Four of them achieved it. One could be 10 percent out or even get away with being 20 percent out but in this instance the Government has it 97 percent wrong. 
Let us look at the individual subjects. A subject like biology is crucial to New Zealand. I notice that David Carter National’s agriculture spokesperson knows how important it is that we have young people coming along and achieving scholarship level in biology. One thousand students sat the exam and just nine—less than 1 percent—passed. Yet in English 250 students out of 900 passed. In media studies just one student in the whole country was able to achieve the standard. In a subject like accountancy over 60 percent passed. 
Has any Government member been able to provide an explanation as to how we have ended up with such a monumental mess? Let me tell members what the school principals in my area have said about it. The principal of Waimea College—a good very standard school—said: “It is Mickey Mouse to the point of being ridiculous”. He said further: “To use the teenage language it sucks.” Another very capable principal Charles Newton is absolutely furious and said that the situation is a debacle. Even more important what about the students? I have not heard one word today from Government members about the most important people in this—the students. Quite simply the qualification was approved in a botched-up hash afterwards and as one student at Nayland College said about the issue that has left students with a dodgy qualification. 
 So students are saying the qualification is a dodgy and responsible principals are saying it is Mickey Mouse. But what did the Associate Minister David Benson-Pope say? He said that nothing went wrong and that he thinks there has been a lot of scaremongering. He said that “most people are really pleased with the system we have got.” Is it not extraordinary that we have an Associate Minister of Education who has his head in the sand while the future of New Zealand’s best and brightest students is being undermined? Then we listened to his contribution to the debate in the House on the pivotal issue of the well-being of our brightest students. He was given 15 minutes in response and how long did he speak for? Six minutes! That is all he thought the brightest students of New Zealand were worth—just 6 minutes. Even worse he did not mention the word “scholarship” once even though this debate is about New Zealand Scholarship. As well he did not once mention the students of New Zealand—such was his disgraceful contribution. 
Hon Bill English 
: You’re joking! He never mentioned the students once? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He did not mention the students once. He did say that NCEA was liberating. I wonder how liberating it was for one of the students in my electorate Kinley Salmon who is a year 13 student. Everybody expected him to be able to achieve at scholarship level but he was told he had missed out. He missed his one chance because of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Government’s mess in that area. 
The Minister said we should be excited about the results from NCEA. Excited? Should we be excited about a disgrace about the most incompetent management of our examination system in the whole of the last 50-plus years? There is nothing exciting about it; it is simply a disgrace. He gave us a lecture about the flaws of School Certificate. He said that School Certificate was awful because it failed 50 percent of students. What about his replacement system? In the NCEA biology scholarship exam 99.3 percent of students failed. That sounds like a big improvement to me! But what worries me even more is the way forward that has been indicated. 
A moment ago the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard made a contribution. He had 10 minutes to explain himself but he spoke for just 3 minutes. Is that what Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education the Minister responsible for the development of the scholarship exam— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The architect. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
:—the architect of the scholarship exam—thinks the brightest 2000 students are worth? The Minister of Education says that this problem is one that has to be solved by the whole community. What sort of wallies do we have on the Government benches when we have a Minister of Education saying about a fundamental problem with the administration of our scholarship exam that it is not his problem and that the community can sort it out for goodness’ sake? Simply that is not good enough and if that is the best he can do he should throw in the towel and resign this very day. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does he say went wrong? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said that nothing went wrong. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is bad enough that the Government got it wrong but even worse that it went ahead with it after having been advised it was wrong. Bill English tabled in the House the minutes of a meeting of the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum from 25 August last year. There was time at that point to do something about it to fix it to make a difference. But those minutes show that despite the presence of the chief executive of the Ministry of Education and the head of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and despite sensible principals from around New Zealand saying that the scholarship exam was in deep trouble the Minister was still pronouncing publicly that it was all OK and that they were just scaremongering. 
I say to the Minister that if he can go out and accuse people who have raised concerns about the NCEA scholarship of scaremongering then it has now become an awful mess. Thousands of students have been robbed of being properly recognised as the best and brightest New Zealand students. He should do no less than resign. In my 15 years in this House I have not known of any education debacle of this size to impact so negatively on so many students. The Minister must take responsibility. He must front up to those hundreds of students who last year put their heart and soul into their studies and their faith in the Government to be able to administer an exam. But the Government has botched it up and taken away their one opportunity of a lifetime to achieve a New Zealand Scholarship. The Government has failed our young people something dreadful! 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debate 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today I want to talk about the fraud that this Government is imposing on the elderly. This Government cares more about aberration than superannuation. This Government is more concerned about extending human rights to transsexuals transvestites and cross-dressers than it is about the plight of the elderly. 
John Tamihere 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: That member over there can laugh but this Government will see a State television newsreader get paid $15000 a week while the elderly pensioner receives less than $250 a week. That is what this Government stands for. This Government cares more about gay couples than about normal couples who are told to get by on $383 a week. This is a Government of deception. 
The Government’s own figures—I have them right in front of me and I will table them at the end of my speech—show that the elderly are getting less than 65 percent of the average wage. That is the rate the Government promised them but they are receiving less than they were promised. On occasions it looks to me as if it is significantly less. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The elderly not only are being ripped off by superannuation payments but are facing serious anomalies over the rates for couples if one of the couple is over 65. They are inflicted with long hospital waiting lists—far longer than ever before—and face soaring power telephone and petrol prices. And the Government is going to increase those petrol prices even further. Frankly this Government does not look after elderly folk. It regards them as some kind of problem. 
Who are the people we are talking about? Some of the people we are talking about fought for this country in the war. They were prepared to take up arms for the good of this country. They looked after their youngsters with far less assistance than is available nowadays. Those are the people we are talking about. I say to the Minister—and I see he is not in the House—that the elderly are not fools. They will not be taken for granted. They are more interested in trying to survive on the pittance being granted them by this Government than they are in helping cross-dressers and transvestites. I challenge any Government member to tell me how many elderly folk have come to him or her and said that they are concerned about cross-dressers. I bet they have come in their hundreds to Ministers and Government members and asked: “What are you going to do about my power bill?”; “What can be done about petrol prices?”; “What can be done about ever-increasing power prices?”. Do Government members know how many of the 1200 people who died last year on the hospital waiting list were elderly? 
Darren Hughes 
: People don’t die because they’re on a waiting list. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is being quite flippant about people on the waiting list. He should go out and talk to some to these elderly folk and hear their concerns about how they are treated in terms of the hospital waiting list. It is just a circus quite frankly. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Wake up before you speak. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member can talk! I challenge him to come with me and talk to some of these elderly folk. It is quite moving and emotional to see the situation they live in. The member opposite makes flippant remarks and is dismissive but I say that the way in which this Government is applying assistance to the elderly is just a circus. It is an absolute disgrace. In some areas of the country elderly people are struggling to survive. If one goes down south in the middle of the winter one is told that many of them do not get out of bed in the morning because of the cold and power prices. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: When have the members on that side done that? They pushed prices up to the max. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not asking what people on this side have done. I have been to Dunedin and spoken to some of the elderly folk and I asked them directly about their problems. This Government should look at their situation and help them. 
I seek leave to table information as a result of a question to the Minister. It clearly shows that the elderly folk in this country are being undervalued. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Over the last week or 10 days there has been considerable comment about the value that our society places on parenting and in particular on the contribution of parents who choose to base themselves at home for the express purpose of attending first-hand to the task of caring for their children. In a few short generations we have shifted dramatically in our assumptions from the “breadwinner” model of family life to a place where that option is fast becoming what members of Cabinet have referred to as a luxury for those who can afford it. The catchphrase or slogan that voters are meant to draw comfort from is that “It’s all about choice.” The Government wants to set before New Zealand parents a veritable menu full of the great choices they can make about the arrangements they can have for the care of their children. It is a great choice unless of course they stubbornly choose to do the job themselves because that is not on the menu. 
A Government does not create a climate of choice by loading the incentives in a particular direction. Providing childcare subsidies for those choosing to return to paid employment with no reciprocal subsidy for those choosing to parent at home creates an imbalance. Parents do not feel empowered by that system; they feel driven. When the odds are stacked favourably in one direction choices with limited benefits—due to limited incentives—quickly become viewed as the responsible choices particularly when children are involved. 
This push by both the Government and the Opposition to improve workforce participation by both single-parent and two-parent families fails to understand what most parents actually aspire to. They want to be able to approach the parenting season in their life without feeling squeezed and constrained by inadequate income and by exhausting daily timetabling due to juggling work and family obligations that seem to work against each other and without the guilt and anxiety associated with long hours of separation from their children. They want actually to enjoy this time not merely survive it. 
Sociologists are telling us that the new generation approaching parenthood is more conservative than the generation before and included in this unique brand of conservatism are definite hopes and dreams about what they want parenthood to look like. They want to be more hands-on and they are anxious about how they are going to be able to afford the brand of parenting that they aspire to. They are not comforted by the Government’s emphasis on increasing workforce participation and they are terrified at the prospect of a National Party policy that would slam-dunk them if they fell on hard times as parents. 
In an election year it would make sense that parties that want to woo these voters should be developing policies that made the choices about childcare arrangements a more level playing field. Telling these parents that they do not have to be anxious because the Government is able to supply them with several international studies that say there is no advantage to their children in having the parents stay home is cold comfort. Their parenting instincts tell them otherwise and they want to follow their hearts on this issue. 
United Future is certainly attentive to their concerns and will be continuing to work so that the choices parents have are real and fair. The policies that we will be touting during this election will have little to do with dawn-to-dusk care in schools; we will be looking more at the kinds of aspirations and dreams that particularly our up-and-coming generation of parents are looking for. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 One thing that has become clear since the House met last week for the first time this year and in subsequent question times since then is that the Prime Minister is very very unhappy. She is very unhappy about the level of competency in her Cabinet. 
National members had a major dilemma at our procedures meeting this morning. We were absolutely spoilt for choice. Our party was struggling with all the material this Government has provided to us in question time since this House met for the first time this year—and what a smorgasbord it is! 
George Hawkins has become a joke. New Zealand now has two screenings of  
The Simpsons 
 every day: one at 7 o’clock on TV3 and one at 2 o’clock at question time when George Hawkins gets to his feet. He is only in Cabinet because a Labour Party caucus faction is keeping him there. That is the only reason. I have noticed how busy Ministers are around George Hawkins when he has to answer a question. Suddenly very important papers need to be looked at when George Hawkins is on his feet. Even his bench mate Paul Swain has given up chirpily sticking his head above his desk and saying: “That’s right Minister. That’s right.” Now even Paul Swain is looking for papers to mark and signatures to apply to avoid being associated with George Hawkins. The Prime Minister finds her invisible lemon to suck on every time George Hawkins gets to his feet. 
As I said yesterday Ministers know they are in trouble when Michael Cullen asks them two supplementary questions in the House. That means they are in serious trouble and George Hawkins is on the ropes and in serious trouble. This morning on radio George Hawkins’ own police commissioner distanced himself from that hapless Minister. The Prime Minister will hang George Hawkins out to dry. That is my prediction and I will tell the House why. It is because the Prime Minister does not want George Hawkins in Cabinet. If it were up to the Prime Minister George Hawkins would be out of that Cabinet but a small group of the Labour Party caucus is keeping him there. My prediction is that the Prime Minister will hang him out to dry to show that faction in the Labour Party that she gets what she wants in the end. 
It is not so for David Benson-Pope. 
Hon David Carter 
: The next Prime Minister! 
SIMON POWER 
: He was the Prime Minister’s choice to be brought into Cabinet and to be made Minister for schools. In fact rumours reliably come to the whips’ ears that she sees Mr Benson-Pope as her successor in the leader’s role of the Labour Party. I say to members opposite: “Good luck with that.” because if it ever occurs by gee we really will have the most unpopular Labour leader this country has ever seen. That has to rankle with Harry Duynhoven and Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove have to be sitting in that block of seats asking: “Why is it that David Benson-Pope got promoted?”. But this time there is no “hanging him out to dry” because the Prime Minister’s fingerprints are all over his promotion. John Tamihere knows it. Janet Mackey knows it. 
This man David Benson-Pope who has already messed up scholarship exams and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement is the Prime Minister’s choice and she will have to wear some of the responsibility. In fact she alone is responsible for his elevation. The sad thing about all of this of course is that backbench Labour MPs are just loving it. They love watching David Benson-Pope being put on the rack every day in question time. My prediction is that David Benson-Pope’s failure will be the Prime Minister’s failure. 
Poor old Mark Burton. Just when he thought things were coming right it has all gone to custard with the Auditor-General’s report. All he ever wanted was the Speaker’s Chair. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Richard Long went into Don Brash’s office and said: “Don I’ve got a cunning plan.” and off Dr Brash went to put that cunning plan into action. Judith Collins believes that that cunning plan was successful because sacking Katherine Rich got Helen Clark off the front page. That is what Judith Collins has been saying around the place. It worked. It got Helen Clark off the front page. 
If that was the strategy I say: “Well done!” to the Long-McCully strategy team. It was a very very cunning plan. They will be hoping for a very very early election because if their strategy is to sack National’s competent spokespersons in order to raise the party’s media profile Dr Brash is in trouble because he does not have very many left. If we include his entire caucus rather than just the competent one or two and if he sacked one member a week he would still be in trouble by the middle of August. Frankly he would run out of colleagues to sack. 
According to an increasing number of the National Party caucus perhaps the sackings should start at the top. It is time for Dr Brash to face up to the fact that he has been a total failure as a leader. He is desperate he is indecisive and he is divisive. He does not know what to do and he certainly does not know how to do it. 
Brian Connell—who apparently is a National member of Parliament—almost got it right when he said that the decision to dump Katherine Rich was stupid. But frankly it was more than stupid. It was just plain nasty. Simon Power got dumped and he stayed on the front bench. Bill English got dumped and he stayed on the front bench. Nick Smith got dumped and he is on the front bench. Georgina te Heuheu got sacked and she is on the back bench. Lynda Scott got dumped and she is on the back bench. And then out completely. Katherine Rich got sacked and she is off the front bench. What is the difference? 
What is the problem with women in the National Party? When Dr Brash was asked directly on  
Nine to Noon 
 whether he had a problem with women he said: “Ah ah I don’t believe that’s the case.” Then he was asked whether he was out of touch with women voters and he said in his usual decisive way: “Ah I don’t believe so.” Then he enlightened us all by adding: “Well Georgina certainly is a woman and Katherine is as well.” Frankly I say to Dr Brash that we had already noticed and we have noticed his treatment of them. 
The National Party historian Barry Gustafson said in the paper recently: “You had four prominent women I thought you could take to the next election but it’s a bit like bottles on the wall and you’re down to your last bottle.” I do not think anyone in the House could have put it better than a  
Southland Times 
 article that stated: “Replacing Mrs Rich with Ms Collins is hardly a case of taking an opportunity to trade up.” It was a big mistake—yet another on Dr Brash’s long list. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is no more fundamental duty of a Government than the security of the nation. There is no more fundamental duty of a Government than the security of citizens in their own homes in their places of work and on the streets and byways of our country. The Helen Clark Government has completely failed in its management administration and vision of the protection of the people in New Zealand. 
If Helen Clark were serious about defence and if she were serious about law and order she would not have her two most useless Ministers in charge of those portfolios. On the one hand we have Mark Burton who oversaw the purchase of 105 LAVIIIs which as the Auditor-General quite rightly found we do not know what they will be used for. We do not know how we are going to man them. Contrary to the Minister’s arguments we have not properly budgeted for their maintenance and operation. 
The Minister was advised by his Chief of Defence Force to buy only 50 LAVIIIs. Who has ever heard of a Minister saying to his staff: “I will double what you want.”? The Chief of Defence Force pointed out these problems just as the New Zealand First Party did just as the National Party did and just as the ACT party did before the purchase. But Mark Burton knew better. So the taxpayer has been saddled with a $653 million capital purchase as well as the ongoing costs and the army is saddled with it. What was the trade-off? We have no combat air wing and our air force has broken down. That is the state of our national security. 
Let us consider our homeland security. I look around this House and I see people of varying abilities and qualities but I think that any member of this House picked at random— 
Simon Power 
: Paul Adams. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Any member picked at random—Paul Adams or even David Parker—and put in the seat of the Minister of Police would do a better job. Why? Because they could not be as stupid as George Hawkins has proved to be. They could not prove to be more of a disgrace than George Hawkins has proved to be. They could not be more out of touch than George Hawkins has proved to be. 
Jill Pettis 
: 1.6 percent and falling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We hear from Jill Pettis. She is a good example. I want her to support the Minister of Police in what he told this House yesterday in answer to a question. The Minister told the House and the people of New Zealand that the women of New Zealand are more worried about a speeding car than they are about being attacked in their homes. Does Jill Pettis agree with that? Oh suddenly Jill Pettis is busy. She is very quiet. What about Lynne Pillay? Does she agree with that statement by the Minister of Police? 
Lynne Pillay 
: 1.6 percent and falling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: She does not agree with the Minister of Police. George Hawkins is so incompetent that he said: “That is what the poll shows.” Let us look at what the poll shows. This was a poll in— 
Jill Pettis 
: That is what the poll shows—1.6 percent. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Jill Pettis has a lot to say during everyone else’s speeches so I will give her an opportunity. I ask Ms Pettis whether she agrees with the Minister of Police George Hawkins that women in New Zealand are more worried about a speeding car than being attacked in their homes. 
Jill Pettis 
: 1.6 percent and falling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: All she can say is that the great ACT party is on 1.6 percent. That is all she can come up with. Let us talk about a poll—the poll George Hawkins cited. The question had nothing to do with speeding. The question was about whether women were more worried about being sexually assaulted or raped than about being in a traffic accident—an accident caused not by speeding but by a drunk driver—and still the women said they were more worried about being sexually assaulted. George Hawkins is a disgrace and a liar. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Dr Brash was appointed to his position by a desperate National Party a little over a year ago by a caucus that was reeling under the leadership of Bill English. At that time we and the rest of New Zealand—and indeed most of the press gallery—wondered: “If Dr Brash is the answer what was the question?”. I have reflected on that. I have asked myself whether the question was: “Is it a man’s world? Are women adequately represented in National?”. I look at National and see that it has no women on the front bench and only six in total. Let us look at them: Georgina te Heuheu was dumped Lynda Scott was dumped and Katherine Rich was dumped. 
Dr Brash has advanced only one woman: Ms Collins who like Dr Brash is a right-wing ideologue. Before Ms Collins came here to Parliament what did she do? She was chairperson of the Casino Control Authority and chairperson of Housing New Zealand appointed by National to continue its sell-down of State housing. Last year we saw her elevated to the shadow health portfolio. What else did we see? We saw her trying to wind back the right of young women to access abortions. What is Dr Brash’s response to criticism about the lack of women in his team? He says that he will not give in to political correctness. I say that allowing women to take their rightful place in Parliament and to take leading roles is not about political correctness. Next Dr Brash will be saying that it is PC to give women the vote. The conduct of Dr Brash in relation to women’s rights really is outrageous. 
If Dr Brash is the answer what was the question? Could it have been that he was appointed to unite the various factions within National? Clearly he was not. I am from the South Island. Let us look at National’s members from the South Island. David Carter was dumped as soon as Dr Brash arrived. Bill English was dumped by Dr Brash. Nick Smith was dumped by Dr Brash. Lynda Scott was dumped by Dr Brash. Katherine Rich was dumped by Dr Brash. Who is left? Only one person from the South Island is left: Gerry Brownlee. Dr Brash certainly does not have his caucus under control. 
If Dr Brash is the answer what was the question? Well does New Zealand need to have a right-wing ideologue running the country? Let us look at that. Since 1999 we have had 100000 fewer people on welfare 200000 extra people in jobs the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD one of the highest rates of growth in the OECD—higher than Australia’s; we are doing better than Australia at present—and five increases in the minimum wage. In contrast what does Dr Brash stand for? He stands for austerity for higher interest rates and for higher unemployment which he favours so as to suppress wages and inflation—inflation being his great fixation. If Dr Brash is the answer what was the question? It certainly was not about New Zealand wanting right-wing ideology. We see that in the polls. As Colin James says since March 2004 National has dropped in a straight trajectory from 45 percent to 33 percent in the polls. 
If Dr Brash is the answer what was the question? I will tell the House what the question was. It was whether Don Brash could do a worse job than Bill English. That was the question the National Party caucus asked. The answer to the surprise of them all was “Yes”. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 What does David Parker have in common with Jill Pettis? They will both lose their seats at the hands of the electors at the next election. What do Dover Samuels Lianne Dalziel Ruth Dyson Marian Hobbs Phillida Bunkle John Tamihere George Hawkins Mark Burton and David Benson-Pope have in common? They are all casualties or are about to be casualties of Helen Clark as she continues to reshuffle the deckchairs on her  
Titanic 
. The cracks are getting harder and harder to plaster over and Helen Clark’s casualty list is getting bigger and bigger. We are only in the second week of Parliament this year and we see Ministers floundering through question time day after day. 
We see the incompetence of George Hawkins. Have we ever before seen a Minister on his feet embarrass not only his Labour Party colleagues but also every other member in the House? George Hawkins is only in the police portfolio because the self-proclaimed popular and competent Prime Minister could not bring herself in her reshuffle last year to do what she knew had to be done. So we get George Hawkins standing there day after day trying to explain the failings of the 111 system. Someone phones the 111 system and the police dispatch a taxi. Someone phones the 111 system and the police are unable to get there because they have highway patrols out collecting revenue with their speed cameras. And George Hawkins cannot explain it. He gets up in the House and suggests stupidly that women are more concerned about speeding motorists than they are about being raped in their own homes. Today he tried to explain why the number of infringement notices has doubled in the last 4 years—why the amount of revenue the Government is grabbing from offending motorists has doubled over the last 4 years. We in this House all know that the level of serious crime continues to increase yet the incompetent George Hawkins still as of today holds his ministerial warrant. 
Then we have Mark Burton the Minister of Defence who unilaterally decided to buy an additional 55 LAVIIIs when the Auditor-General now says we do not have enough people to drive them or enough money to spend on spare parts. Where is the Minister’s accountability for that? We have an Auditor-General’s report that is damning of that Minister—the Minister who hoped to be relieved of his portfolios so that he could sit in the Speaker’s Chair. Even Helen Clark had the nous to know that he would be incompetent to do that job. The decision to buy 105 LAVIIIs will prove to be the greatest embarrassment for that Minister with the huge expenditure of $677 million being wasted. 
Yes I will now come to the Prime Minister’s school favourite David Benson-Pope and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I watched earlier when we had a snap debate in the House. In my time here I have never before seen a Minister—having been called in for a snap debate—the instant that the Speaker makes his decision arrive lo and behold with a set typewritten speech to read to the House. That has never before occurred in my time here. The Minister was so ill-prepared to handle his portfolio that his officials had to type out a speech for him to read. He had 15 minutes in which to try to explain the incompetent mess he has made of the NCEA and he managed to read his speech for 6 minutes. He certainly did not satisfy the members of this House that he has that situation under control. David Benson Pope failed to recognise the way he has let down the many New Zealand students who worked hard for 12 months to sit the NCEA exams last year—slaved their guts out all year—and who now have a worthless qualification because of his incompetence. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 It is really interesting to hear another litany of misery from the National Party because that is what we generally hear from it. We do not hear anything about the positive things that are happening in New Zealand. But we in the Government are proud New Zealanders. We believe the country has every reason to be very confident about the future and proud of what we have achieved as a country and as a Government. In the last 5 years economic growth has been continuous. In the past year to September we had 4.6 percent economic growth. When did we ever hear of that under National? We heard lots of stuff in 1990 about what the wonderful new National Government would do. What a disaster that was for 9 years. We lost jobs in the economy in that 9 years. 
What has happened under Labour? More than 250000 jobs have been added to the economy since the Labour-led Government came to power. The crime rate is at its lowest level for 21 years. That goes against all the horror stories we hear from the National Party. Those are not figures that are just plucked out of the air; they are official police figures used to compile statistics. That is not done by the Government; it is done by independent agencies. It is the lowest crime rate for 21 years. What about the Working for Families package? 
Benefit numbers are down and apprenticeships are up. The Modern Apprenticeships programme has already exceeded the target set for completion in this parliamentary term. We have over 7000 new Modern Apprentices already and we are well ahead of target. I am delighted with that. As one of the very few tradespeople who has ever been in the House—I was originally an electrician by trade—I am absolutely chuffed that we have made a huge turn-round in that sector of the economy. Without those 7000 Modern Apprentices and 126000 people in other industry training initiatives this country would be heading for an economic disaster. Instead we have turned that round. Let us remember it was the National administration in the 1990s that got rid of the Apprenticeship Act. It took away the signal that apprentices and tradespeople were important to the economy. But they are the people who produce and make things for the economy. 
Let us contrast the two approaches of Labour and National. We have had significant boosts in health and education spending. Labour is delivering and New Zealand is succeeding while National is sitting on the sidelines and whingeing. In Taranaki where I come from the fine city of New Plymouth is moving ahead like never before. In the time that I have been a member of Parliament it has been only in the last 5 years that my problem has been to find the extra people we need rather than the problem we had under the previous National-led Government of keeping the people we had in New Plymouth and keeping the jobs to keep them busy. The problem that we now have is to find the extra people we need in order to keep up with the growth in the economy and the demands for new skills and new skilled people for our economy. I think that is a terrific turn-round and I am really proud to be part of a Government that has achieved that. 
I contrast that with what is happening in the National Party. Last month we had the Orewa speech and the fall-out that occurred afterwards from Dr Brash’s speech—[ 
Interruption 
] What fall-out? Where is Katherine Rich? That is the fall-out. She was National’s most popular member—its best front-bench member I guess—and certainly one of the best women that the National Party has had for a long time. Let us not look just at the current members of Parliament. Members should think about Belinda Vernon. She was another good woman whom National got rid of. There has been a whole chain of folk who have been discarded as a result of the myopia of the National Party. I say to National it should get positive about New Zealand start applauding the positive things we have done and start telling us what its policies are instead of whining and whingeing. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I draw the House’s attention to a communication: “On 4 July 2004 at about 12.03 hours we had a P1 domestic job and another P1 assault apparently involving an off-duty cop. All units were at jobs so I directed the dispatcher to call”—get this—“CHWS4 and any W units. There were three logged on and out of service since they logged on this morning.” 
In this email the dispatcher shows that he got no reply to repeated calls. He said: “I see no reason for them to be logged out of service and not listening to their radios. My reason for wanting them was to stop an offender who had taken a 2-year-old child away from her mother. We had to pull three units from P2 jobs.” In response to that and in the discussions we have had in this House what did this  
Fawlty Towers 
 Minister of Police have to say? He said today that there were no highway patrol units available. That sums it up because the email does not mention highway patrol units; it talks about “W units”. That means any police patrol of any description that is assigned to traffic duties. 
The Minister can come into this House obfuscate and say that a vehicle was finally dispatched after 4 minutes. I say to him that to a mother whose child has been abducted 4 minutes might as well be 4 days. The point is that the dispatcher knowing the gravity of the situation wanted to dispatch a car immediately. He knew he had three cars sitting there that were not engaged. But the Minister now says that the Government is happy to have officers who have been sent to another emergency pulled out of that emergency. They can tell the victims: “Sorry I’ve just been listening to you complain about a burglary. I know you’re traumatised I know you’re in trouble I know you’re upset but I’m shooting through. I have got to go and do another job.” The police officer can then jump into his or her car and drive away. 
The Minister says that it is perfectly acceptable for three officers who were actively engaged on three different jobs to tell the victims at those crime scenes that they had to get going to do another job whilst W units were available. What are W units? W units deal with excess blood alcohol and also include the commercial vehicle investigation unit the highway patrol the strategic traffic unit Christchurch City traffic patrol and Christchurch rural traffic patrol. I wonder whether members are aware precisely how many different types of traffic patrol units this Government has ring-fenced out there. I would make a guess that at any time of the day in this country 50 percent of the front-line units are doing nothing but traffic duties. How do I know? I know because of a couple of things. 
Today we read reports that the Government has set its priorities in such a way that it allocates 2.7 million hours of police time to traffic duties. That means that every one of the 7000 uniformed officers—including the commissioner the deputy commissioner the assistant deputy commissioner and the deputy assistant commissioners—has to dedicate 386 hours to traffic every year; every one of the 7000 of them. When Robbie Robinson the commissioner does not do his 386 hours it means that some other bobby has to pick up that work. If someone is sick or if Steve Hines 
or Stephen Long—those high-ranking officials who sit in national headquarters—do not do their 386 hours it means that some other bobby has to pick up those hours. So that means when Iraena Asher—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that Mr Cunliffe does not care about the case which is why he is being so flippant in the House now. When Iraena Asher called for help there was no car available for her. The Government has a responsibility because its ring-fencing of traffic patrol units was the reason why no car went to Iraena Asher when she called for help. The warning was sounded in July last year. If it had been listened to it would have saved Iraena Asher’s life. I have only one question for Mr Cunliffe who seems to think that Iraena Asher’s disappearance is a joke and it is: where is she? Where is she? Who is responsible for failing to send a police car to her and for sending a taxi instead? Who is responsible for taking the three officers away from the duties they were performing and rededicating them when a mother wanted assistance? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleagues on their articulate and informed criticism of the National Party—the poor old National Party! However enough of this criticism; I will focus on more positive things. I am not going to stand here and criticise the National Party; I am going to talk about our Government’s outstanding achievements. I will talk about such things as the really high economic growth and the lowest crime rate in 21 years. Let us also consider our young people. There are 7000 young people in apprenticeships. We have the biggest health and education spending ever. Paid parental leave? We know we have that. And we know we have introduced 4 weeks’ holiday. No—I have changed my mind. Dr Brash knows all about changing his mind. I think I have to say something about just how bad the National Party is. 
Dr Brash’s record is absolutely appalling. There has been gaffe after gaffe—whether it be overseas whether it be at home or whether it be within his own party. What is his rule for women in the National Party? It is: “Agree with me or you will be gone by lunchtime.” I commend Pansy Wong. I think she has been so stoic. She has put up with so much. She has seen women demeaned in this country but she has managed to keep quiet. I think that takes a lot of courage. She was not gone by lunchtime. 
Let us look at the record. Georgina te Heuheu was gone and then exactly 1 year later to the day Katherine Rich was gone and Linda Scott resigned in between. Why? Because they could not agree with dumping on Maori or with dumping on women or with passing judgment on single parents or with depriving children. Who was the woman who was talented enough to replace Katherine Rich? Judith Collins was that woman. How dumb is that? Why was she chosen? She was chosen because she shares Don Brash’s vision. She vehemently opposes anything to do with women or with family values including the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I think that it is a sad day for the National Party. It was pretty sad before but it is even more sad now. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Labour members who are so proud of the Labour Government’s achievements could not even speak for 5 minutes on them. Today is a very important day. Kung Hei Fat Choy Gong Xi Fa Cai. I wish everyone a prosperous Chinese Year of the Rooster. Today marks the arrival of the Chinese lunar year 4702. I welcome the statement issued by the National leader Dr Don Brash that the Chinese New Year is a time for New Zealanders from all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds to celebrate cultural diversity. Indeed the many celebrations that have been held in the past 2 weeks—and no doubt there will be many more still to come—show that many New Zealanders are taking part in these celebrations. It appears they have decided to have fun and a good time—it is not limited to any race or cultural community. 
The essence of Chinese New Year is a celebration of relationships: ancestors are remembered elders are respected families get together friendship is renewed and goodwill is shown to all. In the good old days the Chinese New Year celebrations lasted 15 days on which the seventh day is designated to be the people’s day. Relationships cannot be taken for granted and need to be nurtured. We need to embrace respect and value each other. Only then will world peace have an opportunity to emerge. 
However strong relationships can be sustained only through treating each other with honesty and integrity. Patronising attitudes especially shown to minority groups will only serve to stereotype and minimise the contributions and integration of those groups. The growing size of Chinese and Asian communities has ensured that they are no longer just visible but they are vocal as well. In a democracy like ours this is good news because it is essential that every citizen should feel comfortable and compelled to participate and integrate effectively. Some might feel uncomfortable but so be it. 
However Chinese New Zealanders are very nervous on this very important day because they are well known for valuing educational achievements. The debacle over scholarship exam results alongside the concerns over lack of funding and the incompetent implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement system has certainly put a damper on this very important day. Chinese New Zealanders are not very pleased especially when the Associate Minister of Education David Benson-Pope who has in his portfolio the compulsory sector and special education simply refused to take responsibility for this debacle. A request for another inquiry and more spin would not solve this very important issue. 
Chinese parents alongside other New Zealand parents share the same aspirations for their children. Their children are entitled to have a first-class education to ensure that they have a good head start in society. But it does not look like this will happen under the Labour Government. It has been 5 long years and we have seen problems in our education standards and the funding issue in our education sector continue to spiral. None of the Labour members who have taken part in this debate have given a satisfactory answer to the public about the future of our children’s education. Do they not deserve a Government that will treat them with respect and will ensure that the funding and standard of our education sector is well maintained? I am looking forward to the next Labour member who takes the call not wasting the public’s time but to giving specific answers about the future of our education system. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my condolences to the Opposition whip. What a job that person was given! How would one like to have that job? National’s caucus members will not even sit together in the Koru lounge. The leader is in one corner and the other members are over there and will they speak to each other? No. How would one like to try to manage that lot in Parliament when they will not even speak to each other in the Koru Club? The poor member who was demoted to National’s front bench to be the whip has a horrific job. All the National members will be asking why Don Brash still had his job because if someone disagrees with the leader of the National Party and that person is a woman then she is out the door quick smart but if one is Don Brash and one disagrees with oneself then one is still the leader. Once Don Brash said that National would do away with 4 weeks’ annual leave and then he disagreed with himself and said that it would keep it. National was going to give tax cuts to the rich and then Don said no they would be given to low and medium income earners. So he disagreed with himself but he still kept his job. I do not understand that nor does Georgina te Heuheu nor does Lynda Scott and nor does Katherine Rich. 
The powers of observation of Dr Brash are legend. This is what he said when he was asked about his dealings with the women within his caucus: “Oh yes there are a number of reasons why Lynda Scott is leaving. Georgina is certainly a woman and Katherine is as well.” What powers of observation that man has; they are astounding. Don Brash said that he thought he could work with women and the National Party then went to work. For 2 weeks its members hunted high and low around New Zealand to find a woman who could testify to that but they could not so they went to Switzerland. Now we have a woman in Switzerland who will testify to the fact that Don Brash can work with women. 
 We on the Government side of the House can just sit and laugh and ask what sort of advice that man is getting and what sort of political leader National has. We really feel for poor old Simon Power. He has a terrible job. National is split into factions within the factions. There is the Gerry faction the Don faction the Bill faction and the other fella O’Connell is a faction all on his own. Members fight each other within those factions; that is the state of the National Party. 
We want to reward some of the National members. We think that Murray McCully should be given a life membership of the Labour Party. He should be kept on by the National Party even after he is dead because who else would let his or her leader sit with this line-up: Brian Tamaki on one side and Tame Iti on the other? What a nightmare! We say to Murray McCully that he should keep up the good work. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Retirements 
Ombudsman—Judge Anand Satyanand 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is my privilege and pleasure to move  
That this House noting that Judge Anand Satyanand is retiring as Ombudsman this month place on record its appreciation of his service as an Officer of Parliament since 1995 and as a District Court Judge from 1982 and wish Judge and Mrs Susan Satyanand all the best for the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We agreed in the Business Committee that I would put the motion but that before doing so as the Speaker of Parliament I would be able to say just a couple of words. I want to say this has been a very great privilege—and Mr Satyanand is sitting in the gallery today—and I am very much appreciative of it. I know what a great servant of New Zealand he has been. I know how well he has carried out his duties as an officer of Parliament and I can say that as Speaker I have had only respect and admiration for the work that he has done. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That private and local order of the day No. 1 for the second reading of the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be postponed until after private and local order of the day No. 2 for the second reading of Te Runanga O Ngati Awa Bill. 
Motion agreed to. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to sponsor this bill on behalf of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa and the members of Ngati Awa. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. This bill is not just about managing a treaty settlement. It is certainly much more than that. It is also about building and maintaining capability within Ngati Awa. For Ngati Awa this bill provides the opportunity to succeed as Ngati Awa. It means that Ngati Awa are sharing the outcomes that are important to them whatever they may be. 
Leadership roles make it difficult to please everyone and to address everyone’s needs at every level. Leadership is about balance and about ensuring that enduring decisions are made in a strategic and well-managed way. This bill provides Ngati Awa with a mechanism to lead. We know from international studies that governance structures that are culturally attuned are more likely to achieve success. We want Maori collectives to have access to governance structures that enable Maori to succeed as Maori. This bill does just that. 
The current Maori asset base historical treaty settlements and the fisheries allocation mean that improvements in Maori governance will have a corresponding positive impact on the country’s broader economic social and cultural outcomes. So too will be the case with Ngati Awa—a people who have a long history of enduring long periods of time to get to the point that they have organised—a better place and we are there today. 
This Government’s confidence to face the future is buoyed by the optimism we share with Maori—that as remarkable as these achievements have been the best of Maori innovation enterprise and success is still to come and that is what Ngati Awa are hoping to achieve in the sense of reconstituting themselves as an organisation. But we must remember that there are many examples of our trusts and corporations that have met these same challenges before. There are numerous success stories and we must learn from them. We must learn from the expertise that is around us and draw on the experiences that we have collectively built over the generations. I am certain Ngati Awa will do just that. 
Ngati Awa have been strong confident and decisive in the sense of getting to where they are today. It is historic for them as a people and it is historic in this House that a lot of the heavy raupatu that happened in their area will now be put to rest. We need to be thinking about the philosophies and values that guide us—for example kaitiakitanga and the intergenerational nature of our unique assets are important to us as Maori. We need to keep reminding ourselves of the importance of succession planning and creating opportunities to ensure that the next generation does not start from scratch but is given the benefit of our experiences as we have had the benefit of learning from those who came before us—not that we always listened. Ngati Awa have really put in a lot of effort in consulting and discussing with their people in the sense of this reconstitution. It will enable Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of Ngati Awa. It will also enable the representation and governance of the full range of Ngati Awa interests in the future. 
The Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill was reported back from the Maori Affairs Committee on 18 December 2004. The bill will give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngati Awa on 27 March 2004. To settle their historical claims arising out of the Crown’s various breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi it is a condition of the settlement that Ngati Awa establish a governance entity to receive and administrate the settlement redress. This bill provides for the reconstituted Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to be that body. Under this bill Te Runanga o Ngati Awa will become a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under the provisions of this bill and the charter referred to in the bill. 
Members of Ngati Awa have by postal ballot agreed to the reconstitution of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa as proposed by this bill and have approved the charter of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. The bill was introduced on 11 August 2004 after a huge number of Ngati Awa people supported this reconstitution and it received its first reading on 25 August 2004. The bill was then referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration. The select committee reported the bill back to the House on 1 December 2004. The select committee received and considered submissions on the bill: one from Te Runanga o Ngati Awa one from another Maori trust board and three from members of Ngati Awa. That shows us the solid support that the bill has back home. 
The committee also received supplementary submissions from Te Runanga o Ngati Awa in response to issues raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill. The committee also met with submitters in Whakatane on 14 October 2004 where all the submitters presented oral submissions to the committee. The majority of submissions received supported the purpose of the bill and were positive about the Ngati Awa settlement. 
After thorough examination of the bill the select committee has unanimously proposed three drafting-related amendments. Those amendments align the definition of customary rights contained in the bill as introduced with the definition of the same term in the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill; amend the definition of Ngati Awa to try to accommodate the wish of the iwi to include the words “nga uri o nga hapu o Ngati Awa”; and correct a misspelling in clause 8(3)(c). I would like to thank all members of the select committee for their thorough examination of this bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Again I thank the Maori Affairs Committee for the effort and commitment it showed in getting this bill back to the House in a very timely fashion. I wish to thank the following people of Ngati Awa for the significant contributions that they have made to the development of this new governance arrangement: Hohepa Mason Kataraina Waiari Te Hau Tutua Dr Hirini and June Mead Wira and Jeremy Gardiner John Simpson Aroha Mead Taiawatea Moko Mead Maria Battiste Hiha Tangitu Niki Partsh Denis Simpson Tawhiao Keepa Wairata Aratema Te Kani Kiingi and Robyn Bargh and all of those who helped especially those who are at home and not here today. Yet again I wish to acknowledge and thank the members of the Maori Affairs Committee for their considered examination. If it were not for them we would not be here today. 
Issues that arise in the context of the treaty settlement discussions are never easy and I acknowledge the part that each member of the committee has played in ensuring that Ngati Awa are able to accept settlement redress once it becomes available. In particular I acknowledge the effort that the committee has made to accommodate the wishes of Ngati Awa. I wish to commend the committee for reporting the bill back to the House with the commentary on the bill in Maori. The promotion of te reo at this level is to be applauded. This is a significant step forward for these people. In conclusion I want to mihi Ngati Awa again and the runanga. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I say at the outset that I want to congratulate the Ngati Awa people on the choices they have made in setting up this governance arrangement and to wish them well in the receipt of their claim settlement. I hope the settlement will successfully deal with the grievance that has been felt over a period of years and that this body will be very very successful in providing opportunities for the people of Ngati Awa that they were denied as a result of past grievance. 
I think that is where I want to leave my comments about this particular bill. It seems to me inappropriate for Parliament to parade itself as being in some way generous in passing a bill that simply says to a group of New Zealanders: “You can exercise the choice that you have already made.” It does to my mind call into question the whole business of the relationship between Maori and the Crown. There are a number of people out there with leadership roles among Maori whether that role is formal self-proclaimed or recognised by just the media who do insist on saying that somehow Maori are separate from the Crown and that in the year 2005 Maori remain an entirely separate entity from the Crown. Well I would argue that if that were true there would be no need for this bill to be on the floor of the House today. There would be no need to have a treaty settlement process because obviously a Parliament such as this cannot decide who an iwi is and cannot decide what someone’s tribal connections are—even though I note that the Minister had a bit of a crack at it in the fisheries legislation last year. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: You liked it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I did not and I did not vote for it because I do not believe that Parliament should be stamping that sort of authority over people who make free choices. That is the fundamental difference between Parekura Horomia and myself. 
So getting back to my point here I think the settlement process does in fact confirm in many many ways that we in this country are all subject to the Crown and by definition part of it whether we are Maori whether we want to say we are Pakeha or whether we want to say we are Scottish Irish or any other such nationality. And I do ask the question of those who proclaim to someone like me that I am a Pakeha and somehow different in this country whether I am supposed to run around saying that I am an Irishman in exile a Scotsman in exile or any other nationality for that matter. I am a New Zealander I think. 
What I am simply saying is that in accepting that Parliament has a role in establishing a governance organisation for an iwi and that Parliament has a role in confirming what a settlement to an historic grievance might be the people receiving the payments or whatever the arrangements are—and we will be talking about those before too long—the people who are going to be part of that governance structure are accepting that they cannot move without Parliament and by definition they are also accepting that they are part of the Crown and that there is one country New Zealand and one form of governance in this country to be found seated in this institution. 
So I do celebrate the fact that we are passing this bill and I do celebrate the fact that we are settling a historic grievance. That is not inconsistent with anything that the National Party has had to say about matters to do with Maori up to this point and in recent times. So rather than stand here filling up the time I just want to again congratulate Ngati Awa. I also congratulate my friends on the Maori Affairs Committee. I am very pleased they took my recommendation that the Maori text go in the front of the bill. It was a hard battle and finally they agreed with me. But it was a reasonable thing to do. If it were not for the support of Pita Paraone I might not have got my recommendation through. With that I simply conclude my comments and say that the passing of bills such as this does indicate that this country has a very very bright future and I hope that bright future is as evident for everyone as it is for Ngati Awa. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
:  
A te mea tuatahi maku ki te mihi atu ki te runanga me nga whanaunga o Ngati Awa mo tenei ra whakatau i ta koutou pire te pire o te runanga. Kei te mihi atu noki ki nga kaiwhakawa o te pire i runga o te Komiti Maori o te Whare Paremata. 
[ 
First and foremost I acknowledge the runanga and relations of Ngati Awa today in respect of their bill the runanga bill. Acknowledgments also to those of the Maori Affairs Committee who deliberated on the bill 
.] 
I am just acknowledging Ngati Awa— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do you want it interpreted? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I can translate my own Maori just in case somebody does not understand what I am talking about. It is better for me to translate it using my Ngapuhi dialect. I was acknowledging the role of Ngati Awa and also the support of the members of the Maori Affairs Committee. 
It was indeed interesting for me to listen to what the Maori affairs spokesperson of the National Party said. He was encouraged by the fact that the lead-in to the bill is printed in Maori. I remember some of his comments when we were debating the takutai foreshore fisheries bill about anything being printed in Maori. He saw it as something that was separate he saw it as discrimination and I am glad he has seen the light. I have to hand it to Ngati Awa: finally we see Gerry Brownlee seeing the light in terms of Maori issues. I hope that in the future that same light will shine upon him and I hope it is 240 volts not just 12 volts so that everybody can see him! But I am encouraged by his contribution in support of this bill. 
I want to be brief also. I do not think we have to go blah blah to go round and round in circles and play political games about this bill. So I am suggesting that if the National Party supports it let us get on with the business and actually empower this bill tonight. Kia ora tatou. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Chair a tena hoki tatou o te Whare. Nga mihi hoki ki nga mangai o Ngati Awa ahakoa horekau ratau i waenganui i a tatau a-tinana a tena koutou e kara ma. Tenei ta koutou teina mai i te waka o Mataatua e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Chair and to all of us in the House as well. Greetings also to representatives of Ngati Awa even though they are not here in our midst. Greetings indeed to you all. It is apt that I a younger descendant of yours of the Mataatua canoe should be the one extending greetings to you today 
.]  
On behalf of New Zealand First—may I say the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the second reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. The previous speaker said that if the National Party supports the bill then let us get on with it. I say that we cannot get on with it unless New Zealand First supports it—and New Zealand First does support this bill. 
Essentially the bill gives a new status to the corporate body known as Te Runanga o Ngati Awa firstly by giving effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of te runanga; secondly by removing its status as a Maori trust board under the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act and the Maori Trust Boards Act; thirdly by ensuring it continues to assume governance responsibility for assets belonging to Ngati Awa; and fourthly by ensuring it receives holds and administers the Ngati Awa settlement redress for and on behalf of Ngati Awa. 
This bill is part of a long journey that Ngati Awa has had to undertake in order to reach closure of its claims—a journey that started some 15 years ago when Ngati Awa started negotiations on this matter. Like similar claims these people have had to come a long way in order to reach this point today. Clearly that is a commentary on the process of negotiation adopted by the Crown in similar circumstances in other settlements. I give credit to the Minister of Maori Affairs who sponsored this bill for adopting a timely approach to this bill. However one can only be thankful that a general election is due later this year as I have no doubt that if that were not the case this bill would probably languish on the back-burner. Further I have no doubt that the present member for Waiariki is certainly thankful for this timely approach. 
Be that as it may it is important that this bill is passed into law. Why? Because there is another bill affecting Ngati Awa and in that regard I refer particularly to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which is currently undergoing the parliamentary process. In order for that bill to progress this particular bill requires enactment to give effect to the terms of the claims settlement bill. 
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ngati Awa—its principals involved in the negotiations—on submitting a structure that has been considered by the whole of the tribe and that allows for proper governance of responsibilities on behalf of Ngati Awa in the management of their assets. That should not come as any surprise given the experience that the negotiators have had in the area of public service and in regard to the cultural requirements of their tribe. I take this opportunity to congratulate them in spite of the fact that one or two of their own have expressed concerns about the process. That is not untoward particularly in Maori circles. It allows people to exercise their democratic right. 
I suggest to members of this House that the governance structures that Ngati Awa have established may appear to some to be quite restrictive. However it needs to be acknowledged that that is what they want and in fact we should be supporting them. In that regard I have great pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First in supporting them. 
In closure I want to say that if this measure is an example of what Maoridom is able to do then in terms of the many criticisms that Maori receive from all quarters of our society within and without this process that they have undertaken will certainly minimise the criticism in the future. On behalf of New Zealand First I say we support the passing of this bill concerning Ngati Awa. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party recognises that the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill is an important bill. It is actually the legal structure that will provide the framework for the corporate body in essence that will receive the proceeds that have been negotiated in good faith with the Crown. The ACT party certainly recognises the critical importance of property rights. We stand as part of our brand on protecting property rights. 
Various iwi and runanga have had longstanding legitimate grievances with the Crown on property rights based on breaches of article 2 of the treaty. We are aware that the executive of the Government will be bringing to this Parliament the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill in a short time. In essence this bill provides the legal framework and the structure that will allow an entity to be set up to manage the proceeds of that settlement in a modern world. Therefore it is very important. However while the ACT party wishes the runanga every success we cannot support this bill and I shall explain to the House why that is so. 
I remind the House that we supported the bill going to a select committee but we flagged in our speech at the outset what we expected to be in the bill in terms of the minimal requirement of good governance structures. For whatever reason those issues have not been addressed. I expect that the House will pass this legislation by a clear majority and it is with quite a heavy heart we say that we will not support it because we would like to. But we cannot leave off the record the fact that what we are creating here is sloppy legislation. It is badly drafted and it would not be accepted by any commercial lawyer as an acceptable governance structure for anybody managing an asset on behalf of any group and I shall expand on that. It is for those reasons and those reasons alone that the ACT party will put on the record its opposition to this legislation. The definition in clause 3(1) is just a circular argument. The drafting of the bill is utterly insulting. I am amazed that the Minister with responsibility for the bill and more particularly his officials have not drawn those inadequacies to his attention. 
The bill says absolutely nothing about how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with and nothing about how nepotism is to be dealt with. It says nothing about the kinds of accounts and what scrutiny they will get or what kind of independent audit there will be. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says it is their business. Well why is it not the same for every charitable group in the country? Is there one law for all in this country or not? That is very much the point. 
The bill seems to deliberately reject the Companies Act as a model. It seems to reject the Charitable Trusts Act the Co-operative Companies Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act models. They are well-established commercial models for good reasons. It is all very well for members to say that it is their business. Well why do we not say that to every charitable trust in the country? [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Who dished out all the money to the Pipi Foundation? If we do not have governance structures and rules and police those governance structures it is not fair on the taxpayer as a whole. It is particularly not fair on the beneficiaries the very people whom this settlement is for—the runanga. [ 
Interruption 
] “It’s disgraceful.” says the Minister. What is disgraceful is that he has let a flawed commercial model go through because that is asking for trouble down the line. I am appalled that the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I would say the same to any group—any charitable trust incorporated society or whatever. They need to have proper governance structures of accountability of audit and of how people are elected and what their terms are. It is for very good sound reasons. 
If the Minister and the Labour Government are saying that we will have two sets of laws—one for everyone else in society and separate laws of lesser accountability for Maori settlements—then I say good grief are we heading for trouble! That is why the ACT party is flagging this issue. We want a robust governance structure for this settlement but this bill does not provide it. Therefore we will oppose the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make a short contribution on the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. The Greens recognise that this is a very important bill and offer to Ngati Awa our congratulations on its efforts in getting it through as far as this. The Greens support the bill and we are very pleased that it has come back to the House and is able to proceed. It appears that the issues raised through the select committee process in the Maori Affairs Committee were adequately dealt with and we certainly hope that Ngati Awa is able to achieve its ends through the structure set out in this bill. 
We recognise that this bill and the structure in it is not what Ngati Awa originally wanted. It sought for a very long time a structure that would meet its tikanga while being acceptable to the Office of Treaty Settlements. Clearly this is an example whereby that office used its power as the dominant party to force its decisions about the most appropriate structure on Ngati Awa. That goes directly to the heart of the problems with the treaty settlement process: those to whom the reparations are to be made still have the least amount of control over the nature of that reparation. In no other system where the purpose is to dispense justice would such an arrangement be considered to be fair. 
The Greens are also highly critical of the Government for putting this bill forward as a member’s bill. After forcing Ngati Awa into accepting that type of statutory governance arrangement one would think that the Government would at least have the good manners to make the bill a Government bill and to use Government time to pass it through the House so that it had that prestige. That good grace was not accorded to this bill by the Government. 
However the Green Party congratulates Ngati Awa on achieving a settlement with the Government in these circumstances. We certainly and sincerely hope that this structure will provide the people of Ngati Awa with the means to achieve their aspirations for their iwi hapu and whanau. The Green Party offers to Ngati Awa our very best wishes for the future. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I speak to the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill on behalf of United Future. I greet and welcome those from the iwi who are here in the gallery to oversee this process and I thank them for coming. United Future understands the importance of advancing this bill as an essential prerequisite to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates the Minister on personally championing the issue. 
It shows a huge amount of foresight that Ngati Awa has not focused purely on the settlement it can expect but has also given sensible consideration to the governance and management of the resources it will receive. I also congratulate Ngati Awa on determining for itself the governance structure that it felt was the best fit for it—for choosing not to reinvent the wheel but to take the current working arrangement and change the less appropriate status of a trust board for the structure that is in the bill that United Future supports today. This bill gives effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa will cease to be a Maori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act and will instead become a stand-alone body corporate. Unlike the Maori trust boards which have been accountable to the Crown the new body will be directly accountable to the Ngati Awa people. The transition planned will be smooth with the current office holders of the trust continuing in that role until the election of representatives of te runanga is completed under the charter. 
United Future supports this reading and will work cooperatively to ensure the timely passage of this bill and of the claims settlement bill through the House. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am privileged to take a brief call on Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I offer my congratulations to the people of Ngati Awa for their efforts to date and I wish them every success for the future in the process they will undertake. I conclude with a quote from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson: “Settlements help to heal real grievances. They put cultural and financial investment into often poor rural communities. This will not only strengthen tribes but also their communities and New Zealand as a whole.” 
In that vein I wish Ngati Awa every success with this bill. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the report back of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I too acknowledge my whanaunga who are sitting in the gallery tonight. I say again that every time they appear here they are a model of patience and forbearance. They started negotiating their settlement back at the time when National was in Government and it is now 2005. It is good to see them here. 
In terms of this bill I want to make some comments about the choices made by iwi regarding governance. It is interesting that yesterday the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill was introduced into the House. Nga Rauru Kitahi has decided upon its governance structure which I am told by the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Mark Burton will not require legislation. That is that iwi’s choice. 
The importance of this bill is that it reflects the choice of the Ngati Awa iwi. It was hard fought for on its part because I understand that it took some 2 years for the Labour Government to accede to its request to have specially constituted legislation that would set up its governance body. I think that is a great shame. We are acknowledging that an iwi is best placed to decide what sort of governance entity it should have to best manage its assets but the Labour Government somehow seem to keep stalling the iwi’s wish to have its governance entity enshrined in legislation. In that regard Ngati Awa is similar to Ngai Tahu and others. This measure is Ngati Awa choice. I congratulate the iwi. This is another step in the long journey to the resolution of the injustice dealt to Ngati Awa in the 19th century and since then. 
I was a bit surprised at the contribution from the Hon Ken Shirley from ACT. He certainly made big of his concerns tonight but I do not recall him making as big a fuss as that at the Maori Affairs Committee. Maybe I was not there at the time. If ACT feels so deeply about the bill then I do not know why Mr Shirley did not write a minority opinion on it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Read the introductory speech. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: To read the introductory speech is one thing but this is the report back from the select committee. The select committee process is the opportunity for members to iron out issues although they may not be able to iron them out if nobody is of a mind to agree. I was truly surprised that the Hon Ken Shirley made such a big thing of his concerns in the House tonight. I am surprised he did not at least ask the select committee whether he could put a minority paragraph somewhere in its report. He did not do so and that is OK but if his comments have merit—and I doubt it—he should have done that. 
There is a charter attached to this bill. It is not part of the bill per se but I believe that it sets out most of the things Ken Shirley raised this evening. In acknowledgment of the big emphasis Ken Shirley put on those things tonight I say that if there is merit in what he says I am sure the Ngati Awa elders and those who will be responsible for administering the settlement assets will take those comments on board. If the comments have merit and the charter does not properly meet the issues of conflict of interest and so on and so forth I am sure that they have it in their wit and their intelligence to do something about that. That is the key to these settlement bills—it is the key to these governance bills. This one has not come easily. It has now taken 3 or 4 years for the bill to get to this stage. It is not as though a lot of people particularly those in Ngati Awa have not given a lot of thought to it. 
There were some objections to the bill. Given the way the select committee handled those objections at the hearing I trust that the objectors feel at least partly satisfied. In the end in relation to the settlement and the governance bodies put into place to administer the settlement assets I say that to get 100 percent agreement would be unique in this country—absolutely. We never get 100 percent agreement here in this House on anything other than issues like the tsunami relief response and all those things which of course we should agree on. But generally speaking it is very hard to get 100 percent agreement. I hope that the Ngati Awa objectors who were few in number but with respect not unimportant feel reasonably satisfied that we gave them a good hearing. I know we all worked hard to do that and I know we will continue to do that with regard to all the settlement bills. 
I support my colleague Gerry Brownlee and I congratulate him on what he said tonight. I thought he had some very good comments to make. National is very happy to support this stage of the bill and looks forward to its final passing. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 A tena koutou kai Te Manuku Tutahi nau mai hara mai. 
[ 
And so to you of Te Manuka Tutahi welcome welcome 
. 
] 
I stand to take a very brief call on this Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I had intended to speak at some length in response to the contribution of the ACT member the Hon Ken Shirley. I am sure that if he had studied the bill more thoroughly he would have realised that there are accompanying constitutions to assist Ngati Awa in managing their post-settlement assets. But I think my whanaunga the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has given him a sufficient verbal clipping. In Maoridom that is what we call a real beat-up. 
I want to welcome Ngati Awa to the House today for the second reading of this very very important legislation that will accompany the settlement legislation. As we all appreciate Ngati Awa have gone through a long arduous process to establish the right type of structures they need not only to manage their settlement assets but to ensure the fair distribution and dissemination of the benefits from those assets. Much of those benefits are very visible in Whakatane and in wider areas at this time. 
Tena koutou. I do not have any more to contribute to the discussion except to say that this is a huge milestone in the development of Ngati Awa. Kia ora tatou. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill 
Second Reading 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Marian Hobbs (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: I move  
That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with five amendments which I am advised are accepted by the Wellington Regional Council. My thanks go to the members of the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill and unanimous recommendations. 
This bill is a local bill. It directly affects only the Wellington Regional Council and applies only to land under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act 1972. Under that Act the regional council is responsible for the supply of bulk water to the metropolitan territorial authorities within the Wellington region. It is also empowered to carry out forestry operations. For those purposes certain lands are owned by the council as water collection or forestry areas. The bill will allow the council to use the land in question for a third purpose—that is the production of renewable energy. The council is investigating a small number of sites to determine their feasibility for wind generation. The purpose of the council’s study is to determine whether those sites are feasible from an economic environmental and social perspective. 
Some submitters were concerned about the management planning and tenure arrangements for the various parcels of land covered by the bill. In particular submitters were concerned that some parts of this land which is held for water supply and forestry purposes have high botanical biodiversity and recreational values that are not protected by the original 1972 Act. The committee considered that those concerns fell outside the scope of this particular bill but it has urged the council to review the land administered under the Act and to assess the appropriate legal status and the need for legal protection of ecological and recreational values. The council already has an active biodiversity programme on its own lands including land covered by the bill and recognises in its policies and practices the value of indigenous vegetation. Nevertheless the council has confirmed that it is committed to ensuring that its lands are held for the appropriate purposes and that those purposes are reflected in the lands’ tenure status and management. 
The select committee has recommended that clause 4 be amended so that it is clear that the bill provides for the construction of electrical installations or works for renewable energy. Clause 5 is to be changed so that the functions conferred on the council by the bill may be performed by another person provided that the council agrees and subject to any conditions that the council might impose. That will allow the council to enter into partnership arrangements if it wishes to pursue the development of wind generation on its lands. A new clause 5A is recommended to ensure there is a clear link between the 1972 Act and the bill currently under consideration. The committee has also recommended that a new clause 6 be included in the bill. The purpose of that clause is to clarify that the bill is to be read subject to other enactments and ensures that the protections that exist in legislation such as the very good Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act continue to apply in respect of the council’s lands. 
These are constructive changes and they are welcomed by the Wellington Regional Council. I would like once again to thank the committee for its consideration of this bill which I warmly commend to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 Darren Hughes read that speech in a light-hearted manner and treated the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill as a joke. Members of the House need to know that Mr Hughes has about 20000 constituents who pay rates to the Wellington Regional Council and will pick up the costs if there are any—and National believes there will be—as a result of this bill. But Darren Hughes treats the bill in a humorous and sort of clownish manner which is the way he treats all the issues in the local area. 
I want to say a couple of things to the House. Firstly National has agreed to this bill coming back to the House but we are not making any promises on where we go from here with this legislation. We will have a very close look at it because we are concerned about the cost that it will impose on ratepayers. Mr Hughes might not care about ratepayers in Waikanae or Paraparaumu— 
Darren Hughes 
: This bill is not about me. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says this bill is not about that. What the bill does is allow the Wellington Regional Council which has ratepayers in his district to embark on a risky project using ratepayers’ money. Does Mr Hughes support that? Oh no. He is saying that he just read the speech that he used a bit of humour in doing so but has no responsibility for the bill. His usual attitude is: “I’m a funny bloke. I don’t take the job seriously so please don’t take me seriously.” That is the reputation Mr Hughes has and that is the way he has treated this bill. 
What will he be saying to the elderly Waikanae ratepayer whose rates will go up if the council’s wind project goes belly up? Does he have an answer? No he does not. I ask him who wears the risk of a council embarking on a wind project. He smiles but gives no answer. Does he agree with the changes that allow the Wellington Regional Council to own wind farms? Yes or no? He will not say; he does not move a muscle; he sits there with his eyes shut. What will he say on the platform when he is asked that question? No he will not say a bloody thing on the platform when he is asked that question. He will just say that he was reading the speech on behalf of the Minister. I say to him that elderly ratepayers in Waikanae and Paraparaumu wear a risk in this bill if the council embarks on a project and it goes belly up. I have no problem— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Doom and gloom. Shoot the thing before it’s even had a chance to start. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member for Wairarapa who knows very little about energy is one of the least-energetic members in the House. If she would just listen she would learn something and could take it back to her area. I am not sure whether the member for Wairarapa is retiring or staying because she changes her mind every week. I say to her: “If the Wellington Regional Council embarks on a wind farm and owns it are the Labour members happy about that?”. 
Georgina Beyer 
: I’m happy for them to scope it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Ah! The member for Wairarapa is happy for it to scope it— 
Georgina Beyer 
: A visionary article— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: She says it is visionary to scope it. That is fine but the bill actually says it can own it. Does she agree with that? 
Georgina Beyer 
: They should be able to decide. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Ah! She is happy for the Wellington Regional Council to own the wind farm. So she is happy to go to the ratepayers in Carterton and Featherston and say: “You wear the risk.” That is fine; we know her position. Georgina Beyer has a position that the ratepayers should wear the risk. Thank God she has a position on that because she never has a position on whether she is coming back here—whether she is standing again or leaving! She crosses the line all the time. I ask Mr Hughes whether he is happy that the ratepayers of Paraparaumu and Waikanae wear the risk. Oh no! He will not answer. He will be asked that question on the platform. 
I have to say as National’s energy spokesperson that we have supported wind farms around the country. I look forward to the Government supporting them on the conservation estate for example. That is the next test for the Government. 
Opposition Members 
: Ah! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: They can sigh. The Government’s own State-owned enterprises are lining up to put wind farms on the conservation estate. Government members are happy to support them now going on regional council land they happily support regional ratepayers carrying the risk but I want to know whether they will support wind farms going on the conservation estate. There is no answer. They are not allowed to say. Helen Clark will not allow them to answer that question. 
Georgina Beyer does not understand and Darren Hughes obviously does not understand that many ratepayers in these electorates own their own home freehold but struggle on their income to pay their rates bill particularly when they have only New Zealand superannuation. [ 
Interruption 
] Georgina Beyer says she does understand; if she understands that people are struggling to pay their regional rates why is she happy for them to carry this extra risk? There is no answer. I say to the Labour members that they can yell and shout all they like but at the end of the day National will look very closely at this legislation to make sure there is no risk and we will put amendments forward if we believe there is any risk at all to ratepayers. 
I believe there is. Darren Hughes clearly believes there is but wants to stay silent on the matter. Georgina Beyer says there is and she is happy for the ratepayers to wear the risk. I am not. I think that ratepayers should be told upfront about things like wind farms or any other energy scheme or any other regional— 
Darren Hughes 
: You should run for regional council. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Hughes says that if one wants to change it one should stand for the regional council. Well that is a really good idea for 82-year-olds in Waikanae who are struggling to pay their rates. What does he say to the people in Arawhata Road in Paraparaumu who struggle to pay their rates? 
Darren Hughes 
: I say: “Roger Sowry cut your pension. I am glad he’s going.” 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says to the young family in Arawhata Road: “Don’t vote for Roger Sowry.” Well they are not going to because I am not standing. The issue is what does he say about their liability. Does he think the solo mother in Arawhata Road should wear this risk? 
Darren Hughes 
: I think most things you have ever predicted never happen. You are wrong tonight. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member says he is reasonably confident that I am wrong. I am sure the solo mother will be happy with that. I say that when Mr Hughes returns to the electorate he will have to answer the questions. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will support this bill going on to the Committee stage but we do so with some issues yet to be resolved. The first point I wish to raise is that it is unfortunate that this bill came to the House from the Wellington Regional Council without there being a broader understanding of the past use of the land under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972 and secondly and probably more important without an attached management plan. A management plan was not a requirement of this bill but ought to have been an issue that the Local Government and Environment Committee did not need to consider. In other words there should have been a broad understanding before us as to what the Wellington Regional Council was really on about. 
The reason I say that is that it is disappointing to find that land that was set aside for long-term water supply—and in terms of that water supply to meet the need to establish forests and carry out forestry operations—did not have those express purposes carried through in the past. No evidence was brought to the committee to establish that the prime requirement of the water board Act had been carried out. There was no indication today that the land which was held for water supply and forestry purposes—and we were assured by some submitters there were very high botanical biodiversity and other recreational values implicit in this block of land—had been provided for in any short-term medium-term or long-term management plan. Although we urged in the preamble that the regional council do those things there is nothing binding upon it to do so. 
The other unfortunate issue that I wish to bring before the House is that the Local Government Act of 2002 gave to regional councils and to other councils a very expansive role. In that role there are three so-called well-being matters provided for in the Act. It is very disappointing to see many councils picking up that expansive role and going ahead and developing plans and spending budgets that are far beyond the capacity of their councils now. In some cases they are incurring debt simply because under the 2002 Act the long-term community plan empowered them to go about such actions. In the development of such plans by many councils there has been a very cursory examination of them by ratepayers. Many councils have not done thorough long-term and on-going consultation. The result is that ratepayers 2 years later—in 2005 and 2006—are to be subjected to the comment by councils that they proposed doing something in the community plan and are now going to do it. I fear that in this case the Wellington Regional Council may do the same as that. It is the pattern I am observing at present and observed last year. 
The permissiveness that the Act gave was not mandatory. It was a permissive Act that provided that councils could carry out various activities under the legislation and many councils are not using that permissiveness wisely. They are certainly not using it wisely in terms of the financial capacities and other capacities of their ratepayers bearing in mind the burden of extravagant council planning. We in New Zealand First give a message to the Wellington Regional Council to have a care for its ratepayers—the situation is exactly the same as the Hon Roger Sowry has just said—before it embarks upon any developments under this legislation. 
The select committee in the course of its work made some changes to the bill. In particular we have made a change to clause 4 in Part 2 which states that the Wellington Regional Council may “construct operate and maintain electrical installations or works for renewable energy on the land”. That was because we had the concept of wind power in mind. It is strange that right now wind power seems to be the perceived wisdom of those who have the idea that it will suddenly and at last solve our energy problems. That is very fine but the rural people whom I talk to are very very fearful of wind power operation—first of all because of the ungainly sight of it and second because of the whirring noises which never seem to cease. Anyone who has talked to those who live by a wind farm in the United Kingdom will say just that. Of course that fact does not concern most of us who live in towns or in the middle of Wellington because the wind farms are in somebody else’s backyard. But I say wind power is not the answer that it may seem to be if the wind farm is sited on one’s back door. Therefore to some degree if the Wellington Regional Council is allowed to establish and maintain those electrical installations provided it bears in mind the amenity values the sites and so on that will be affected by those strange whirring creatures that may be fine. 
But we are still somewhat uncertain as to the intention of the Wellington Regional Council. I too concur with the Hon Roger Sowry because although the regional council gave us an assurance that it would follow the legal requirements I was still left with the uncomfortable feeling that the notified basis for consents was not being preserved in this bill. If we relate that to what I have just said about long-term community plans and the annual planning of councils going on virtually unheralded but certainly not unrated it is very very disappointing to see the ability of any council to carry out non-notified works of this type. The only assurance we had was to the extent allowed by the law. I would have thought personally that the regional council should have been very fulsome and said absolutely that there would be a notified basis to any application. The people who came to the select committee from the council said almost that but did not quite give a real assurance. 
We support the bill going on to the Committee stage. We hope to have answers to the questions raised by the last speaker and raised by us in regard to the still uncertain nature of whether there will be a notified consent process and on exactly what the regional council has in mind with regard to a third party building operating and maintaining an electrical installation on the land. But most important of all we would want to see greater assurance from the Minister in the Committee stage that the long-term management plans which we do not have the ability to seek under this bill will be at the forefront of the council’s mind before it embarks upon any extensive industrial development such as wind farms. 
So New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Committee stage. We do not give an assurance that we will support it further than that but we await the developments and discussions during the Committee stage. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party shares many of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate thus far. We will support the bill going on to the Committee of the whole House. Essentially what we are saying here is that there is a block of land surrounding the hinterland of Wellington that is now vested in the Wellington Regional Council but that is still covered under the old Wellington Regional Water Board Act. I am very familiar with that land. My first couple of years as a graduate back in the early 1970s were spent working for the Wellington Regional Water Board and I am very familiar with the catchments of the Orongorongos the Tararuas and the Akatarawas etc. There is a lot of land up there—a lot of essentially publicly owned land—and a lot of recreational use on that land. Although some of the catchments are protected from public access because of the nature of the water supply there are sites up there where we could have wind generation. Because there are remote isolated sites the wind farms would not necessarily be too obtrusive or the farms could be sited so they would not be intrusive and so any low-grade humming noise would not interfere with residents or adjacent landowners. There is a logic to that. 
 In saying that I have to acknowledge the concern that the council may start to engage in power generation as a core business. That would worry me. I think we went down the wrong track when we passed the Local Government Act of 2002 which essentially gave the power of general competence to local bodies. Clearly local bodies are an extension of governance. Their powers are granted by central government and those powers should be very clearly defined. But that Act essentially stated that central government was washing its hands of that responsibility and allowing a free-for-all situation whereby councils could do whatever they wanted to engage in. It stated that councils could have free range to put their hands into the ratepayers’ pockets and get into all sorts of businesses competing with the private sector and engaging in things that are non-core activities for local bodies. We are starting to see that to a very worrying extent. Councils do not have the same disciplines that private companies have. They can just go more deeply into the ratepayers’ pockets and engage in businesses that they should not be engaging in. 
I note that a heading in the report back on the bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee states: “Council may authorise third-party use of the land for renewable energy generation”. There is logic in that if Meridian Energy Genesis Power or any private energy company wants to come along to the council. But it is implied there that the council may enter into public-private partnerships with those companies—that the council will not be able to resist taking a shareholding in the business rather than just charging the company a rental for the site. 
The other curious thing is the incredible emphasis on renewable energy. It was actually inserted in the bill by the select committee that the provision is confined and restricted to renewable energy. I guess that is explained by the fact that the chair of the select committee is Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Green Party and of course the big thing trumpeted by the Green Party is renewable energy only. The point has already been made that it is implied that the salvation of New Zealand’s energy needs—and we do have pressing energy needs—is renewable energy. What absolute nonsense that is! If we doubled the amount of wind power generated in this country we would still only meet less than 3 percent of our power demand. That puts it into perspective. The point has already been made that the big wind farms are not without problems. They will have to run the gauntlet of the Resource Management Act too. They are obtrusive very unsightly—for anyone with a farming property who wakes up every day and looks at a wind farm it is a real problem—and noisy. They are very noisy and it is a very irritating noise: a steady unforgiving hum. 
Finally I make the point that although environmentalists love wind power people in California are finding that wind farms are chopping up native birds by the score. Wind farms are destroying the native flora and fauna far more than coal ever did—they are chopping them up. In California whole flocks of bald eagles are flying into the propellers of wind farms and all that is coming out is a lot of feathers and dust—they are getting chopped to pieces in the wind farms. I wonder what the Greens will say when the environmentalists of the future find that it is not coal that is the big energy bogey but wind farms because they are chopping up native birds. I do not think the Greens have actually realised the lack of robustness of their case. 
Be that as it may I think there are sites on this land that are appropriate for wind farms. I am not against wind farms; I believe that wind power should be part of our energy mix. To the extent that there are sites on the land that may be able to be used for that purpose then that is a good thing in itself. But I flag the concern that we do not want the regional council to spend ratepayers’ money on engaging in activities that are not its core business. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Many of the concerns identified by Ken Shirley and Roger Sowry are issues that we will certainly be considering during the Committee stage. One of our concerns is that the power of general competence given to councils under the Local Government Act 2002 will give them the opportunity to foist on ratepayers a commitment that they would not otherwise have entered into. That is why we opposed that particular provision when we debated that legislation a couple of years ago. 
Once it is passed this bill will allow the council to commit the ratepayers of a particular area to carrying the risk of involvement in the energy sector and the huge compliance costs associated with that. Who will pay at the end of the day if something goes wrong? It will be those who are on fixed incomes. It will be the superannuitants who do not have the means to generate any other income and it will be the people who are on benefits. They are the ones who will carry the can for a piece of legislation brought in because the Wellington Regional Council wants to move into energy—which along with roading is one of the main infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand. 
The concept of this bill is fine. We understand that we have an issue and a challenge with energy. In our view though we must realise that the costs that will be imposed by the regional council are too risky. This is part of risk management and during the Committee stage we will certainly be looking closely to see whether the risks are justified by the merits. If we look at what wind farms actually do we see that they are not as successful as one might expect. The big towers sitting in the wind zones are a blight on the landscape. They can operate only when the wind blows between 5 and 25 kilometres an hour. Over that they do not work; they have to be shut down. 
The cost of maintaining these machines—or whatever we should call them—is absolutely horrendous. I was in Australia in November looking at coal production in Newcastle and throughout the Hunter Valley where there is a wind operation. The costs of generating power from wind farms there make it so inefficient that it is hardly worth the effort. 
The other point I want to make is that wind farms operate on only 40 percent efficiency. A tower produces 1 megawatt of power. That is not very much considering that the Huntly power station puts out about 1000 megawatts. We would need a lot of those structures on the landscape to produce the sort of power that one would expect. In fact in the United States they are actually closing wind farms down because they have found that wind farms are not as efficient as they should be. One could say— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Greens were wrong. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Greens were wrong yes. We have plenty of wind but we need to look at the restrictions that are placed on wind farms and we need to look at how to get the efficiencies out of them that one would expect. In Denmark one sees wind farms in the sea. That is where they are positioned—off the land in the sea. They have been there for some time but even today their maintenance costs are absolutely horrendous. 
We know that energy is an important challenge facing New Zealand and certainly steps are being taken by some of the generators to address that challenge. In my area the Genesis power station at Huntly is looking to expand its operation moving away from gas and further into coal. In Taupo a private company is moving further into geothermal power. It was in the news over the Christmas break that there has been private investment in geothermal power. But when it comes to what we are looking at here—a council being involved in a commercial operation—I ask whether that is its core function. I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that a council should be involved in a commercial operation but the powers of general competency under the Local Government Act 2002 actually allow that to happen. 
So one of our concerns is the risk that will be foisted on the ratepayers of the Wellington region. We will be looking very closely during the Committee stage at whether this risk is worthwhile whether there is a net benefit and the cost-benefit ratio for a council involved in the energy sector. At this stage we certainly have our doubts. 
 Looking at the commentary I note that at the bottom of page 3 it is stated that the Local Government and Environment Committee urges the council “to review the land administered under the Act to assess its appropriate legal status; the need for legal protection” of certain values. But one of the things that it does not mention is the impact on land values. In my earlier days as a valuer one of the areas we looked at were the issues that affected land values. Throughout the Waikato we will see with Transpower’s proposal to put 70-metre pylons right through the Waikato region to Auckland that the impact on land values will be absolutely horrendous. Already there is much concern expressed by landowners—be they farmers or lifestyle people—that the effect on values in that area will be considerable. 
One of the factors that is not mentioned in this bill specifically although it includes landscape and recreational values is the impact of these towers from wind farms on land values. These are issues that during the Committee stage National will be exploring as we look to see where there is a net benefit in this proposal. But we will be supporting the bill through to the Committee stage. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a short call on this bill which of course is of great interest to those who live in the Wellington area and particularly to those in the Ohariu-Belmont electorate where this proposed wind farm could occur and where Belmont Regional Park is located. When Peter Dunne spoke in the first reading of this bill he made some points very clear. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s in the Rimutaka electorate. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I may have the electorate wrong and I thank Mr Shirley. Mr Dunne has great concerns about all New Zealanders so he would have represented the people in that constituency as well. 
One of the concerns Peter Dunne raised in the first reading was the issue of Belmont Regional Park. It is pleasing to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has taken note of those issues and also the issues presented by submitters. The words in clause 6 of the bill have been extended from saying that nothing in this legislation will affect the Resource Management Act to stating that this legislation will not affect “any other enactment” so that the Local Government Act and in particular its consultation processes would come into effect. 
One of the concerns that has been discussed already in the debate is public concern about wind farms being established in areas where people do not think they are as great an answer to our power energy needs as some may promote. In fact it is rather ironic that the Green Party thinks we can solve all our problems by having wind farms all over the country and now people are talking about carbon dioxide being pollution in the atmosphere. Yet carbon dioxide as the great environmentalist David Bellamy once said is simply a fertiliser that plants rather like. 
The answer to all our problems with energy is not just to put wind farms up all over the country. They can play a useful role in providing some energy but the public are very concerned about open spaces skylines and what they see on the horizon. That is why there has been quite a bit of concern expressed in the submissions on this legislation. 
We are comfortable that some amendments have been made by the select committee and we look forward to further debate at the Committee stage on that particular issue. I think at that point we will allow the debate to continue at the Committee stage to make sure that when this bill finally comes out of the House it is the very best legislation that it can be. 
Bill read a second time. 
Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 November 2004. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the request of the member Dianne Yates that we vote down the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First congratulates Dianne Yates on putting this bill forward and on ensuring that there will be action taken in this area. She has done an incredible amount of work and research in the area of drug rape and this must be acknowledged. This is one issue that could have easily been put into the too-hard basket and forgotten about and fortunately it was not. 
Drug rape is a despicable crime that is happening right throughout New Zealand in many different environments. It is despicable because the victims cannot physically resist or consent in any way as they are already immobilised and silenced. The perpetrator of this type of crime needs to be dealt with in the most severe way possible. It is a totally premeditated crime and the criminals have to very carefully plan their moves. It is no less criminal— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt. If members are going to talk will they please do it quietly. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: The criminals have to very carefully plan their moves in this type of crime. It is no less criminal than any other type of crime and it is far worse than many. 
It is disappointing I must say that the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill did not have any opportunity to become law earlier as we all recognise that drug rape is a modern crime and of course it affects both men and women in many different environments—not just in bars. We recognise that this legislation has been overtaken by the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which we hope will have its second reading in this House very promptly. That is one bill we cannot afford to let languish on the Order Paper for a very very long time like some bills do. That bill needs to become law sooner rather than later. Drug rape is a crime for which the offenders deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at them. They need to be prosecuted by the justice system so we need legislation that will enable prosecutors to perform their jobs to the best of their ability and to work against the crime of drug rape. We will be looking for progress on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is time that we were very proactive about this type of legislation. 
To date I must say the police have done a very good job on the drug rape issue. This is a crime that really needs some prompt action if there is to be any successful prosecution. It is a very unfortunate fact that many of these cases go unreported because the victim does not seek help or even report the incident. So really we can say that nobody knows just how common drug-facilitated rape is because there is no way of measuring the incidents that occur. This is a difficult crime that desperately needs the type of legislation that this bill outlines and that has been included in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is to be hoped that that bill addresses the concerns that Dianne Yates has raised. She is nodding to say that it does. 
Dianne Yates 
: It’s actually better. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: She says it is better. It has been really pleasing too to see that awareness of this issue has been considerably raised. The recent publicity campaign raised awareness of the necessity for people to keep an eye on their drinks in all situations when they are out and about. It was great to see that advertising on the TV channels that young people usually watch. Hopefully it has saved some young people from being the victims of this particular crime. 
I was pleased to read recently too that a small kit to test drinks for date-rape drugs is to be sold in New Zealand very soon. It tests for the three most commonly used drugs and will be useful when one is out and about—both men and women. It is really a sad fact of life that such a test kit is needed but it definitely is. 
So New Zealand First would like to indicate to the House that we support Dianne Yates and her request that we vote against her very good member’s bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call to summarise National’s position on this legislation. Earlier when we last debated it Tony Ryall spoke and I will reiterate the points made during that time. We support the recommendation by Dianne Yates that this bill be discharged. It will not be passed because it has been superseded and overtaken by the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which I note is set down for second reading as Government order of the day No. 15 on the Order Paper. 
Barbara Stewart 
: It is and it’s far too low. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First said that because of the importance that she or New Zealand First places on this bill it should be expedited and it should be much higher on the list than that. National would concur with that. We believe that anything to do with drug-assisted rapes which is covered by the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill is important for society. It is important that we have legislation that will cover these points. National’s position is that we are happy to support the recommendation that the bill be discharged or that it not be passed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. Having sat on the Law and Order Committee with Dianne Yates and the rest of the team I just take the opportunity to endorse the comments of my colleague Barbara Stewart the future Minister of Health in the next Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. I wrongly called you Mr Mark. 
RON MARK 
: But you have. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The call is invalid and I am sorry. 
RON MARK 
: I was just going to compliment the honourable Dianne Yates. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said that Mr Mark’s call was invalid. National would have had three calls and we actually— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No sorry; it is because his party is entitled to speak only once in this debate and a member had already spoken. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want just to confirm that National is entitled to three speeches and we have had two. We are offering our third spot to New Zealand First so that it can have an extra call. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I seek leave for the member’s party to have a second call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
RON MARK 
: May I once again congratulate the House. Is it not amazing that in moments like this when such generosity is shown across the House there are so very few reporters around to report on the generosity of the Minister of Defence and the generosity of the deputy leader of the National Party as well and the other members in the House—from ACT United Future and the Greens? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I almost said no. 
RON MARK 
: But he did not. I guess that is the unfortunate thing—that every now and then when we have members’ day it is possible sometimes to lose track of where we are. 
I just want to say to Dianne Yates that she must be the luckiest member in this House—I think I have said this before. In terms of the number of bills that this lady has had introduced in the House all of us are envious of her. But the quality of the work that goes in behind those bills has to be recognised and the fact is her work on this bill has been recognised by the Government and it has been incorporated into the other bill. Although this bill will be discharged from the House the subsequent law changes that will come eventually we hope when this Government brings that bill to the floor of the House will be for the betterment of all. I wish to conclude by saying to Ms Dianne Yates: “Congratulations and well done.” 
Motion not agreed to. 
Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I would indicate at this point that it be sent to the Education and Science Committee. 
This is a very very short bill but none the less a serious one. It has been in the ballot for quite some years now and arises out of a situation that was made apparent to the Education and Science Committee at the time concerning the election of a person to a board of trustees who had not long since been released from prison having served a sentence for crimes that related to inappropriate activity between that person and children. These are generally known as crimes related to the conduct of paedophilia. 
While it is not in my nature to go around wanting to ban people from doing things and it is not my natural inclination to encumber organisations with too many rules I think it is important that the law does whatever it can to protect children. There are some criminal activities that should prohibit people from being involved in certain activities from that point. I think this is one of those examples. 
So all this bill sets out to do is to amend the Education Act by inserting in section 103 and subsequent other sections about 11 changes to the Act which make it very clear that where each of those changes is made a crime is specified and if someone is convicted of those crimes regardless of whether that person has served his or her sentence appropriately that person cannot serve on a board of trustees in a school. That may sound a little bit tough but I think that these days school boards and the activities that go on around schools are increasingly being seen as the hub of communities even in the most urban of areas. 
People often say that people do not join organisations these days. The idea of volunteering is not as strong as it used to be and community service does not seem to have the same ranking in people’s minds as it used to. I always think we need to look at the many schools throughout this country about 27 in my own electorate each with its own school board and each with its own family parents and friends association. All are working towards the betterment of the community by providing extra services to the school. 
Some people might ask why a person who had served time for a crime should be prevented from being part of that. The fact is that that person has not been prevented if the school wants that person to be involved at some level—although I would advise that the person should not be involved—but they are prevented from taking up a statutory role such as that on a board of governors. 
I hope that the Education and Science Committee has this bill referred to it tonight and I hope the committee considers it carefully and brings a report back to the House that recommends that it be passed. There is no need to say too much more. The bill is very very short. It is quite explicit about what it sets out to achieve and I commend it for members’ consideration. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Government I would like to stand and support this bill but to a point because like the member it has a number of flaws. The comparison stops there but the bill is flawed because it misses out other important sex offences which include sex violation and related offences from the Summary Offences Act and Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. I think it is probably indicative of the member that the work on the bill is far from thorough. Its purpose is to ensure that those convicted of sex offences against young people cannot become school trustees. In recognising this we have to recognise that the instances of this occurring are rare. According to the National Science Teachers Association there have been over 70000 trustees—hard-working committed trustees in our schools—of whom only three are known to have been convicted for sex offences. This is because the nature of school elections makes it highly likely that sex offenders or other people who are not perhaps suitable to be part of a board of trustees are identified by the community and the issue is then resolved through community pressure and that is a good thing. 
Given the number of cases that occur I would have to say that this bill is a little bit like a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut. There is an irony that a member who is so opposed to any form of regulation or protection in most other areas is so committed to this. In most cases boards of trustees do not have direct contact with schoolchildren. They usually meet as we all know outside of school hours. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that boards of trustees put in outside of school hours. They go far beyond the call of duty. We in the Government really recognise the hard work and the commitment that our hard-working boards of trustees do. 
There are also many protections. If they were having contact such as being teacher-aides the Education Act has been amended under this Government to require police vetting of all staff. So it is with some misgivings that we give support to this bill but we support it to go to the select committee. In doing so we know that it will go to the Education and Science Committee. Whilst I am speaking I would like to acknowledge all the hard work that that select committee does. I would like to acknowledge Mr Donnelly who is in this House who is an excellent chairperson of that committee. I would like to pay tribute to his fairness his sincerity and his overall commitment to making sure that that committee works effectively. 
To a lesser extent but of no lesser importance I would certainly like to acknowledge the hard work of the deputy chair of that committee. Her commitment and diligence in ensuring that that committee works hard is second to none. So I have misgivings about the bill but utter confidence in the hard-working people on that select committee in particular the Labour members. And I have to acknowledge Bernie Ogilvy. He has much to contribute—much common sense. When this bill goes to the select committee I think we will be able to cobble through much of the nonsense and be able to get some common sense out of it. 
It is not only the Education and Science Committee; many select committees in this Parliament work really hard. What a great system we have! We can hold our heads high on the world stage because of the work our select committees do. There are many times when we have misgivings on this side of the House about the calibre of a bill but we have confidence that in sending it to a good hard-working well-chaired—and deputy-chaired—select committee some common sense will come out of it. So the Government supports with some misgivings this bill going to select committee. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 After those accolades it is very difficult to make any negative comments about the Labour Government at the moment. There has been a whole lot of comment about how New Zealand First has not been very friendly towards National recently. But I have to tell a little story. Late last year when this bill was drawn from the ballot I received a phone call from the deputy leader of National. He said: “Hey Brian my bill has come out. Can you tell me what it’s about?”. We were able to explain it to him. It takes us back to the genesis of this particular bill that obviously the previous speaker was not fully aware of. It came about as a result of teachers at a school that I have close connections with coming to me during the 2001 elections. They said to me that in preparing for the board of trustees elections for that year it was brought to their attention that one of the candidates was a convicted paedophile. At the time the board of trustees felt it totally inappropriate to proceed with that person on the ballot paper. They then looked at the law as it stood and found that there were in fact no laws that could prevent somebody who was a convicted paedophile from standing for a board of trustees. 
At the time I raised the issue in the House and the Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard was very much inclined to doing something about it and looked at the possibility of making an amendment to the amendment bill that we were putting through at that time so that we could address this particular situation. At the same time Mr Brownlee put his member’s bill in but we were trying to address this in another way. We had a briefing from the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education was not as keen to pursue any amendment to the law as the Minister had shown himself to be in the House. 
At this time the only people other than those who are not New Zealand citizens who cannot stand for membership of a board of trustees are non-discharged bankrupts but once one is a discharged bankrupt one can. But there are no provisions that prevent anybody else from standing as a member of a board of trustees. Some of the arguments put up by the Ministry of Education were issues around principles such as the principle of natural justice. At that time we were talking about anyone who might have been convicted of a sexual offence and the ministry pointed out that earlier on it had been illegal to be homosexual and people could have been prevented by such a law from becoming a member of a board of trustees. 
However on the whole the ministry tended to favour the notion—and I think it was the notion that was reflected when Lynne Pillay talked about the School Trustees Association—that communities would sort them out. I can only say that from the experience at the school that I was talking about it was not as simple as that. It was not public knowledge that this person had been convicted of this particular offence; therefore the board was not in a position to be able to broadcast that so that the voting public would have been able to say they did not want such a person on their board of trustees. 
The comments about members of boards of trustees not having much to do with children are possibly true for larger urban schools but even then not completely true. It has to be remembered that members of boards of trustees are often involved in things like school camps. But for the schoolteacher the complexity is that they are also the employers of the schoolteacher. If one is a schoolteacher on a camp and has his or her employer turning up to give support it puts one in an invidious position and so it puts the children at greater risk. We know that paedophiles are predatory. That is the very nature of the criminality. 
Therefore New Zealand First certainly will vote for this bill to go to select committee. We believe there is great merit in this legislation and unless something comes forward at the select committee to change our minds we will certainly vote for it all the way through. If for example there are additional criminal activities that have to be included then we would be open to including those. However we believe that our children deserve the highest level of protection under the law and at present it seems there is a minor loophole that needs to be closed. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak to this bill which I do think has a great deal of merit. It is important that we provide a really safe environment for the children in our schools. This Government has put in place police checks on staff in schools and that goes a long way towards covering most of the instances that could put children at risk. People employed around the school—contractors and those sorts of people—can also be subject to those checks if they work regularly at the school. However there is still the possibility of risk with regard to school trustees and I agree with Brian Donnelly that although it may be a reasonably remote possibility any possibility at all needs to be closed off because we cannot let that happen. In the environment of the elections for school trustees I think it is entirely possible that someone who is quite new to a community—his or her past history may not be known to the members of that community—could stand in the board of trustees elections and may possibly be elected simply because nobody knew about his or her past. In large urban areas people get elected on to boards of trustees and the people who elect them have very little knowledge about them except for what goes out in the curriculum vitae that accompanies their election nomination. 
I realise that there are some deficiencies in the bill as it has been presented. That is often the case with members’ bills because we do not have the same specialised knowledge that goes into Government bills. People draw them up and there needs to be a lot of work put into them. But I think the Education and Science Committee is a very good select committee. It is one of the hard-working committees and in all the time I have been on that committee—under the chairmanship of Tony Steel originally then of Liz Gordon and now of Brian Donnelly—I have thoroughly enjoyed being on the committee because its members always seem to have a real commitment to the principles of education. We work really well on legislation wherever it comes from. We do our best to work together. I know that sometimes Opposition members will say they actually disagree with a bill and are going to vote against it. But they will still have a constructive discussion about the legislation as it is going through the select committee so that we all arrive at the best possible outcome. I want to say that I do appreciate the work that all members of that committee put in— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I was there as well! 
HELEN DUNCAN 
: —and I would like to add my accolades to Lynne Pillay. I think that Brian Donnelly does a wonderful job of chairing the committee. Whatever flaws there are in this bill and I acknowledge that there are some I am sure that we will be able to correct them in the course of the select committee consideration of it. 
I did not have Brian Donnelly’s knowledge that Gerry Brownlee had forgotten what this bill was about but I say it is a very useful bill. I think it will add something to our education legislation. Whatever problems the bill has at the moment I am sure that the select committee will correct. If those corrections are made the bill will come back to the House in a form that will I hope enable it to be supported by everybody. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I must say I was rather pleased to hear Helen Duncan’s speech because I had been sitting and listening to Ms Lynne Pillay’s speech and I thought what a mean-spirited speech it was. Could she not give a bit of credit to an Opposition member who has come up with something perfectly sensible? I find it totally distasteful especially on members’ day for a member not to give a bit of credit where it is due to somebody who has come up with a bill that I think the whole of New Zealand will be in favour of—with the exception of course of paedophiles and those kinds of elements within our society which regrettably we do have. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a correction. Whilst I did have some misgivings about the bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Let me make it very clear that both myself and the ACT party are far more interested in the rights of children to be safe at school at a playground in their homes or wherever they might be than we are interested in protecting the real or imagined human rights of these individuals whom we know as paedophiles—which is what it seems some on the Government side are interested in. 
It would be far more appropriate for my colleague Deborah Coddington to be standing here. Unfortunately she is out on the road doing God’s work on another issue. Deborah Coddington is a hugely courageous lady whom I think this House should recognise. I am a little saddened that none of the members on the Government side have even mentioned the fact that Deborah Coddington published a register on paedophiles and received quite a substantial amount of abuse and I understand even death threats from those individuals for having the courage to tell the public of this country that they exist within our society. She has made it much easier for people in the community—for those involved with schools for example. They can look up that register and see whether an applicant or somebody standing has been convicted of these appalling crimes. I think it is appropriate in the first reading of this bill to pay some substantial homage to Deborah Coddington’s courageous work on this issue. 
Most members’ bills as far as I am concerned should go to a select committee for consideration and especially of course a bill of this nature. But I would ask this question my having got a bit of barracking from Government members: “Why is this bill not sponsored by the Government?”. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable question. Why does not one of the Government members or the Government say to Mr Brownlee: “Look we would like to sponsor this bill. We would like to take it over and assist its passage through the House because we think it is an important bill.”? There is dead silence from the Government. Its members do not like to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. They do not like to give an Opposition member a little credit. They are a mean-spirited bunch these Labour Government members; even on an important bill such as this they tend to denigrate the efforts of the Opposition rather than say: “Well done Mr Brownlee. Thank you for bringing this bill before the House because it is of some very real significance to our society.” 
Most of the previous speakers have touched on all the important points but one thing I would like to say is that I would not personally restrict this bill to the trustees of schools. I would like to extend it to every public body throughout this country. I do not care whether these people have served their time or whatever. Personally I would bung a few of them into stocks in the town square and make sure that the public of this country really do know who these people are but we apparently—regrettably in some cases—have moved on from those times. I think this kind of offence is a crime against humanity of course but a crime against humanity is even worse when it is against our youngest and most vulnerable. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting this bill going to a select committee; we believe that it definitely deserves consideration at the select committee. But let us just be clear about some of the broader issues around this bill as well. Legislation for individual circumstances that arise is not always a good thing to pursue. That does not mean it is not good in this case but we need to be aware that this bill arises out of one specific incident. We need to be very careful as legislators that we do not just indulge our power to make laws for specific circumstances as they arise. But that said this bill and the issues behind it are very very serious. 
First I shall consider the issue of double jeopardy. If we as a society truly consider rehabilitation to be an important of the process of justice and if we are truly of the mind that once a person has been convicted of a crime and served his or her punishment that person should not then be continually punished throughout his or her life then we do need to give careful consideration to the way that the laws deal with people who have ongoing criminal convictions. Hence the support in this House for the clean slate legislation that was passed just recently. Those are very important issues of principles of justice that we must not forget in our consideration. 
None the less there are always public-good exceptions to those principles—particularly when we are talking about the protection of our children—and here in this bill lies one of those. Already in the education sector there is police vetting of and restrictions on the employment of criminals. For members of boards of trustees it is also very important. I myself have been on the board of trustees of a primary school in an urban area. It is certainly true that board members do have considerable contact with the children in their schools if they are involved in the activities of the school itself. They are around during school time having meetings during school time and at the end of school when children are still around. There are issues of safety. Members of boards of trustees who have these kinds of paedophile convictions really do need to be kept away from our children. 
Many members tonight have said that in their view the first and most paramount concern of any society and of this House is the protection and welfare of our children. While I understand that the many who have said that feel that it is an honest reflection of their beliefs we have to remember that children are not properly protected in our legislation in our society or necessarily by the legislation passed by this House. Other areas of serious concern for children exist where they are under threat and at risk of death and serious injury. For example I bring this House’s attention to the failure to address the issues of section 59 of the Crimes Act where it remains lawful for an adult to beat a child with a piece of hose or a piece of wood if it is considered to be justifiable in the circumstances. That is not a situation where this House is protecting children. Those sorts of issues also need to be addressed by this House. They are just as serious as those raised in this bill. We must not forget that we have an obligation to protect our children from all of the circumstances that place them under threat. 
I might also raise for this House another particularly serious concern in terms of the safety of our children and that is that this country has one of the highest rates of child road deaths in the Western World caused by cars running over our kids. Yet we continually refuse to deal with the issues of traffic reduction and road safety to protect our children from being killed on the roads. 
The Green Party will certainly support this bill going to the select committee and I look forward to dealing with those issues constructively in the select committee. But let us not forget that our children are under threat from serious injury and death from a wide variety of measures that this House still continues to refuse to deal with. We must make sure that we are consistent if we truly consider that the health and well-being of our children is paramount in our lives and society. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the referral of the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill to the Education and Science Committee. We have some very good reasons why we want to do that. United Future believes that every mum dad or parent in the country would probably want to see this bill looked at and I would hope that every teacher would also want to see it go to the select committee to be examined. So we are not alone in that proposal. We do think that this is a good bill in the sense that it is technical very specific and one that I would call a good amendment bill. Some amendment bills are so convoluted that one wonders what their point is. This bill is very very good very specific and to the point. 
I note that we are dealing with trustees and most of us are well aware that the role of a trustee is a very solemn duty. Therefore if that is true then we should at least make the criteria for selection as high a bar as we can set. The bar will always be inadequate because of whatever human nature produces in different people but if we can help in that process—and I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction—then we are helping trustees to be selected as well as to be the best trustees for their community which after all is what they are there for. 
We support this bill as well because of the wording in it that people have to be convicted of specified sex offences. If the offences were not specific or if the offenders were not convicted we would not be happy to see this measure go through as a bill. But the offences are also as everyone notes against the most vulnerable in our society—that is children or young persons. I just remind the last Green Party speaker that the clean slate legislation does not apply to that kind of activity. I think that she may well have been aware of that but she raised it and my mind was sort of taken off the subject by that. 
Also there are other reasons why this legislation should go to the good Education and Science Committee. There are some things that we could even add or insert in the bill because of the things that are coming into the House or that are in the House right now. For instance under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill we are dealing with child sexual abuse images. That may well be something we could dovetail in and I think that the chair who is nodding his head can see some point in that. The work being done on those issues by international organisations as well as New Zealand ones—like End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes New Zealand and others—has highlighted something in a current bill and we need to tie that into this legislation. So there are some areas where the select committee will have room to move. 
United Future will vote to send this bill for further examination to the select committee. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this very specific and very tight little bill. I think it is for that very reason that the bill is a little flawed but I support my colleagues in saying the bill should be referred to the Education and Science Committee. It is worrying that even the sponsor of the bill—the member whose name this bill is in—did not sound very enthusiastic himself about it when I listened to him in order to be inspired as to the rationale behind the bill. I agree with the Green member Metiria Turei that we are all concerned as parents about the protection of our children from sexual predators. But this is a very narrow bill. Even Mr Bernard Ogilvy expressed the view that that it misses out on any reference to some other legislation that will capture sex offences and sexual violation such as the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill that we debated last night and the Summary Offences Act. That is worrying. This bill is far too narrow which I think is a real fault. 
It is also deeply concerning that even though we are really concerned about who stands and who is eligible to be a trustee we do not trust the community any more to know who is a good upstanding person with the skill sets required for boards of trustees. The perception that a person may be a sexual predator is something that we do not want to become embedded. I am pleased to see in the bill that at least a person has to have been charged with and convicted of a crime. But we on the Government side of the House do believe in restorative justice. For some crimes such as possession of pornography and others there are instances when those sexual criminals can be rehabilitated into society. I am sure that those are not the crimes that Gerry Brownlee meant to be captured in this bill. We are starting to define the broad spectrum of what sexual violation is and what sexual offences against children are. Hopefully the select committee can spend a bit of time on coming up with a much tighter definition than just “sex offences against children”. I think we need to look at other laws such as the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act because trading in pornography may be something that takes years and years to become public knowledge. A community would never know about it at the time that a person put himself or herself up for election to a board of trustees. 
I think that we need to look at the hard facts. Over the years that many of us have stood for boards of trustees over 70000 people have stood to be trustees and only three have ever been known to have convictions for sex offences. So this bill is rather a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach. In some areas that we represent it is very very hard to get people to stand for boards of trustees. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: They don’t always have an election though so you don’t know. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right; people may not know. I think Mr Brownlee had lofty intentions—he is lofty and this is a lofty ideal—when he brought this bill in but I do not like any legislation that is a knee-jerk reaction. I feel it may have been something—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right. That certainly was not. The smoking legislation was about public good for hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders. 
Simon Power 
: And this isn’t? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: This certainly is. It will save more lives. We have to look at the hard facts about actual convictions. 
Labour will support this bill. I think it needs a lot of tidying-up in the select committee but it is going to a very good select committee. Labour will support the referral of this bill to the appropriate select committee. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank Mr Speaker for the call; it was a wise choice in the circumstances. I thank Steve Chadwick for her contribution. She is a member who should have gone to Cabinet instead of David Benson-Pope. She would have handled this week much better than he has. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s members’ day; let it go. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes I say to the Minister that it is members’ day so that is fair. The Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill is useful legislation. When I first returned to my home town after completing my law studies I ran for election to the board of my old secondary school. I am not sure whether the situation is the same now but back in those days one did not need to have children at the school which is just as well because I was about 23. One probably does not have to even now. Does one have to have children at a school in order to run as a board member? [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not believe one does. I ran and managed to get myself elected to that board. I can tell members that it was fascinating 6 years after leaving school to be on a board of trustees and particularly to be on the appointments panel for people who had taught me. I just say that I thoroughly enjoyed that and I will leave it there. 
It is also worth noting that in my final 18 months to 2 years as a practising lawyer I did quite a lot of work in education law. One of those areas involved training new trustees on Privacy Act issues and other matters. What I thought was quite interesting about conducting those seminars for new trustees was that their hearts were huge. They were in there doing their bit for the community. They had stood for election. They wanted to help at the school their children were present at in order to make a difference. But generally speaking—and I do not think this is too harsh a statement to make—once the realities of governance were put before them it was clear to me that perhaps it was a step more than they had initially thought it would involve. I guess that some people had probably formed the view that it would be a little like being on the Parent Teachers Associations. Of course it is not. The legal obligations of being on a board are huge and the potential liability is huge. 
I was also fortunate to be in a position on several occasions to give boards of trustees advice around the greater Manawatu-Wanganui region on how to remove non-performing senior staff members. The comments that Brian Donnelly made about the criss-crossing of the employer as well as governance roles is absolutely lost on most trustees when they first find themselves in such a position of governance and influence. They are people who just want to put their hearts and souls into helping their school communities and I do not want to take that away from them for one moment. 
But the point made by Helen Duncan was dead right—during the elections we do not know a lot about the people who run for election. Steve Chadwick spoke about smaller rural schools. I have about 69 schools in my electorate and in many of those schools there was no election. People simply put their names up and were appointed by the returning officer to the boards without any election or any background work being done by those wishing to make informed decisions. For that reason legislation like this is very important. I was on a board of trustees at the time when a very unfortunate incident arose in relation to a particular teacher. Legislation of this sort will be very important indeed. 
I finish by saying that members’ day is about giving ideas such as this a crack. The support that Government members are giving this bill at its first reading is welcomed by the National Party and by the Opposition. I think it is an idea worth pursuing in the Education and Science Committee and I endorse the comments made by other members of that committee who are present. Yes we have our moments but generally speaking good educational outcomes are paramount in the minds of all the committee’s members. I would like to think that this bill will continue its passage through the House and protect those most important people whom it is designed to protect. No member of this House would disagree with this closing statement: if this bill makes it safer for kids to be at school we should pass it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 There has been a very good debate this evening on this bill. I agree with Simon Power’s final statement and with much of what he said during his contribution. I think everybody in this House wants to ensure that our children are safe at school and have the best educational opportunities possible. 
But having a responsibility within the education sector whether one is a teacher board member member of the parent teacher association friend of the school or member of whatever organisation is onerous. Although a number of concerns have been expressed this evening by members who have contributed to the debate I suspect that whether the school is large or small most board of trustee members are generally pretty aware of what are unacceptable behaviours that may be exhibited by other board members and are usually awake to any odd behaviour of other board members. So in some respects although it is certainly worthwhile having this bill go through to a select committee I would be prepared to wager that most board members would exercise a sort of self-governing self-disciplining role through observing the behaviours of other board members. 
I think many members in this House have served several years on school committees and boards of trustees. I have served probably 16 years I think on a school committee or a board of trustees. In fact our children were at university and I was still on a board of trustees! It is a worthwhile experience. With the advent of Tomorrow’s Schools we have board of trustees whose role is much more responsible and onerous than that of the former school committee situation. It brings issues of responsibility like the employment of staff with it. 
One of the comments that has been made by other members is that although this bill has merit—and I am sure that the debate in the select committee will be very interesting—it is a bit like that phrase about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think the intention behind Mr Brownlee’s bill is well founded but I suspect he has had a lot of correspondence from people in the wider New Zealand community who are interested in education who have read the first draft of his bill and who have given him information that he may not have had when he first drafted it. I say that because the other aspect that was also mentioned earlier on tonight is that it is not always easy to get people to stand. If it is a requirement that criminal offending be declared before people can go on boards of trustees I think we will have a heck of a job getting people to stand. Even if the offence certainly would not fall into the sex offence category not everyone wants to declare that when he or she was 15 he or she pinched a chocolate bar from a dairy or did something even less serious than that. I know we have legislation whereby people who have led a blameless life for a number of years will be able to have their convictions expunged—the Clean Slate Bill—but there are still some people who are very very conscious of the fact that in their “misspent youth” they did something wrong and they do not want to go anywhere near a process whereby they have to declare they pinched a Moro bar from a dairy when they were 16 and thought they were 10 feet high and bulletproof. 
 That is where the aspect of this bill being a case of our using a sledgehammer to crack a nut needs to be considered. There is provision already within the Education Act of 1989 whereby police vetting of all staff including teacher-aides and those who may work closely with pupils is already taking place. 
I support this bill and wish the member well. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.referred to Education and Science Committee 
The House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.