Volume 632 Week 19 - Thursday 29 June 2006 
Volume 632 Week 19 - Thursday 29 June 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:4057] 
Thursday 29 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 July priority will be given to the start of the Appropriation (2006/07) Estimates Bill which is in total an 8-hour debate. The remainder of that debate will be held on Tuesday 25 July. For the remainder of the first week the Government intends to make progress on the first readings of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Business Law Reform Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that the Minister of Corrections is not present in the House today although I see that the Associate Minister of Corrections is. I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister of Corrections returns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Acting Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The answer is yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Why do the new Northland Auckland women’s Spring Hill and Otago prisons all have underfloor heating included in each cell when according to a recent Building Research Association survey 96 percent of New Zealand homes do not? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It is important to note that the current building code requires an adequate interior temperature of no less than 16 degrees Celsius in habitable spaces and bathrooms in many public buildings. That is not new. In fact the Auckland City Hospital mental health unit a large number of retirement homes and childcare centres and the Auckland and Canterbury universities also have underfloor heating. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why is underfloor heating often used to heat public buildings? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: As I said there is the matter of the building code requirements. In fact that form of heating is the most cost-efficient. 
Simon Power 
: What would the Minister say to the victims of crime who are traumatised by the actions of prisoners who will now be warmer in their cells than many of the victims are themselves in their own homes? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I say to victims of crime that the Government is sympathetic to their situation and is in support of them all the time. But I think there is a contradiction here. I heard a speech made by that member in the House last night where he supported legislation to allow mothers in prison to keep their babies with them. What does he suggest in terms of heating those prison cells—or does he want to put those mothers and their babies on ice? 
Simon Power 
: Why does Ngawha prison in Northland require underfloor heating when figures from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research indicate a mean daily temperature there of 16 degrees over the last 12 months? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: There are times when it is quite chilly in the north but at most times the temperatures are warm. That member is well aware of the building code requirements and also that Ngawha prison is very cost-efficient in terms of heating. 
Simon Power 
: Does he stand by the statement he made last week when he opened Auckland women’s prison with the Prime Minister: “These prisons are not and will not be gold-plated.”; if so how does he reconcile those comments with the fact that the prison was originally estimated to cost $58 million and ended up costing $158 million? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The operational costs for the Auckland prison were factored into the original cost. As that member is aware the overspend for Auckland women’s prison went from $58 million to $158 million because we doubled the number of beds. 
Simon Power 
: How can he have confidence in his department when since the election New Zealanders have heard that prisoners are getting underfloor heating access to cellphones and alleged prostitutes steak and ice-cream and R-rated movies; is he familiar with the radical notion that prison is intended to act as a deterrent to criminals? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: That member referred to a breach of security or supposed breach of security where a prostitute entered a facility. That is not the case at all. In fact the person entered a property next door—a training centre of the Department of Corrections. However the department takes the matter seriously and is investigating. 
Simon Power 
: Is he concerned that reports today from a Rotorua prisoners aid field officer and Salvation Army manager state that prisoners released from jail reoffend in order to get back into a warm prison cell and has he finally formed the view that his department is inept and he has lost control of it? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Absolutely not. The statement referred to was made by a local prisoners aid community person. I have difficulty with the figures mentioned because she stated something like three prisoners a week were trying to get back into prison to get warm. That would make it something like 160 prisoners in Rotorua a year. I find that hard to accept. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he begin to understand the anger and frustration of taxpayers and victims of crime who are paying for those prisons and see them as holiday camps that they themselves could not afford with their underfloor heating their gyms and their three meals a day; does he understand the anger of people who have suffered from crime and who are now having to pay for what is like a holiday camp that they themselves could not afford? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I can understand the feelings of the victims of crime in situations like that just as I can understand those of the people of Epsom who elected a member of Parliament to take dancing lessons. 
Tertiary Education—Advertising and Marketing 
2.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Is he concerned that on the same day that he announced a funding boost of $26 million for universities over the coming year the New Zealand University Students Association revealed that in 2005 public tertiary education institutions spent an estimated collective total of $28 million on advertising and marketing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does he find it frustrating that he is having to bail out universities to the tune of $26 million because those universities say they cannot pay their staff a fair wage and some indeed are making cuts to staffing and to courses yet those same institutions are spending more than $26 million on TV ads and stupid gimmicks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; it underlines the stupidity of a funding system based on “bums on seats” and therefore advertising to attract those bums. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister seen in relation to the $26 million funding boost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports from a variety of stakeholders that welcomed the announcement including the New Zealand University Students Association which has lobbied me on behalf of the staff. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister explain why a staff member teaching a degree programme at Auckland University of Technology should be paid 3 percent more than a teacher of a similar degree at Unitec simply because Max Bradford for political purposes—and in his swansong—approved Auckland University of Technology’s application for university status? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last part of the statement is certainly correct but this funding decision arose out of tripartite discussions between the Government the vice-chancellors and the Association of University Staff. Of course therefore it was a matter for the universities; Unitec is not a university. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ka riro ano e nga wananga e toru ara Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi Te Wananga o Raukawa me Te Wananga o Aotearoa he putea e orite ana ki te putea ka tukuna ki nga whare wananga e waru; mena kaore he aha ai?  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Will the three wananga Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi Te Wananga o Raukawa and Te Wananga o Aotearoa be receiving funding comparable to that of the eight universities; if not why not? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Only one of the wananga has postgraduate qualifications of a standard that might be considered comparable with those of the universities. In any case I repeat that this decision is a result of tripartite discussions between the universities the Association of University Staff and the Government. The problem here of course is attracting staff comparable with those overseas; that is not such a big issue in relation to the wananga it has to be said. 
Metiria Turei 
: When the Minister’s Government announced its intention to invest $300 million a year in the interest-free student loan scheme did he consider that because of the flawed competitive funding model this public investment would be squandered on gimmicks to lure students like the one that gives students a bottle of water from Victoria University and comes with the message: “Your brain is 85 percent water. Give it a top-up.”—or perhaps that is just a cheap way of doing a Biology 101 lesson? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but of course when Victoria University is trying to compete with Otago University it has to use any gimmicks possible. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing about the funding model that forces institutions to spend so much on advertising and marketing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Cabinet is currently considering a review of the funding system which will ensure that in the future institutions will focus on improving the quality and relevance of tertiary education rather than on chasing student numbers. Specifically the new funding formula will also be related to in part the outcomes rather than the inputs. The numbers going in is the present basis for funding. 
Metiria Turei 
: If the Minister really is committed to moving away from a “bums on seats” model for the tertiary sector when will his Government lead by example get its own members’ bums off their seats and make the changes that need to be made to have a more collaborative and cooperative model for funding for tertiary institutions and when can we see the results? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course in this place the number of bums on seats is very crucial; otherwise one sits in different seats. 
Aviation Regulations—Finance Minister 
3.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I absent myself from any discussions on aviation regulation. I leave the Cabinet room or the Cabinet committee room if any of those matters arise.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Absolutely yes where any such matter relates to my interest as the shareholding Minister in Air New Zealand. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister consider it would be natural to assume as Treasury did that if he and the Minister of Transport were meeting the chairman and chief executive of Air New Zealand there was a possibility that the subject of code-sharing would be raised; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Treasury advises me on a whole range of issues and the member himself yesterday specifically accepted Mr Palmer’s assurance that the matter of code-sharing was not discussed at the dinner. 
Shane Jones 
: How is the Minister dealing with possible conflicts of interest arising from aviation regulation and the Crown’s shareholding in Air New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To ensure that no conflict arises in that respect my functions as Minister of Finance in relation to regulations are delegated to the Associate Minister of Finance Phil Goff. Regulatory matters are dealt with by the Minister of Transport. Of course in the mirror image if matters were to arise at Cabinet relating to the ownership interest in Air New Zealand then the Minister of Transport would take herself out of the room. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister aware that the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 is clear that an apparent conflict of interest may be as significant as an actual conflict of interest; if so how does he try to identify and mitigate apparent conflicts of interest in his ministerial roles? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If there is any doubt around those matters advice is taken from Cabinet Office staff. That has always been the practice and continues to be. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that when the dinner at the Boulcott Street Bistro was being arranged he had in front of him the potential for a conflict of interest or the perception of a conflict of interest in the public’s eyes given the roles of the people who were invited to attend that dinner; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because I was aware that what was being particularly discussed were matters in relation to tourism promotion—Air New Zealand’s concerns around that—and some related matters to that. I think that if the member ever gets his head around asking me the right question he might find out what the Government itself is discussing in that context. 
John Key 
: Did the Minister take any practical steps to mitigate the potential conflict of interest relating to that meeting and in particular did he write to Air New Zealand and make it clear that code-sharing or any subject relating to that was under no circumstances to be raised; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because both Mr Palmer and I understand our roles in that respect. If the member refers to Mr Palmer’s statement yesterday about which he accepted Mr Palmer’s word he will see that Mr Palmer is quite clear on that matter. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think in retrospect that it was appropriate to have had that meeting with Air New Zealand in the presence of the Minister of Transport and two other Ministers with no officials present and no notes taken at a time when the code-sharing proposal was soon to be presented to the Minister of Transport for approval and when the success or otherwise of that proposal could have had a significant effect on the Crown’s investment in Air New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have meetings with Air New Zealand’s chief executive and chairman of the board from time to time and will continue to do so. I have no intention of being put off by that member who of course had a famous dinner with his leader in the Boulcott Street Bistro. It is the biggest gossip place in town so there is no such thing as a secret meeting at that bistro. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the integrity of John Palmer and if so will he continue to meet with him; and have the over - one dozen questions in the House from John Key had any effect on that whatsoever? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do. I will continue to do that. No it has not. I also have confidence in Mr Rob Fyfe even though he addressed a National Party electorate meeting for Mr Key. 
Land Transport Programme—Key Features 
4.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What are the key features of the Government’s land transport programme announced yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: The published National Land Transport Programme for 2006-07 includes a record $24 billion in spending for land transport infrastructure and services over the next 10 years—$2.3 billion for 2006-07 alone. This represents a 14 percent increase on last year and includes Crown and regionally distributed funds. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of changes to priorities in the Wellington region particularly in relation to Transmission Gully motorway? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I am pleased to report that Transmission Gully now has a high priority for funding and action. I wish to congratulate the MPs for Otaki Mana and Ohariu-Belmont on their efforts in securing this. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister confirm that the confidence and supply agreement with United Future enabled the Government to set aside the funding in the Budget which has in turn enabled Transit to elevate Transmission Gully to the top of its Wellington priorities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and of course had the alternative Government been in power that money would now no longer be available because it would have been given away in tax cuts on 1 April. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister therefore consider the comment by a senior Wellington regional councillor earlier this week that a decision on Transmission Gully is at least 5 years away to be consistent with both the spirit of that confidence and supply agreement and with yesterday’s announcement by Transit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not. I would hope that we could complete the investigation work as quickly as possible to make a final go / no-go decision in relation to Transmission Gully. 
Dave Hereora 
: What elements of the Government’s land transport package announced yesterday will contribute to economic transformation in the Auckland region? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is one major element in yesterday’s announcement and an associated element. Obviously yesterday’s announcements mean we are picking up the Auckland network provision construction and that is crucial. An associated matter of course because it is no longer part of this particular vote is that massive expenditure is going into the Auckland rail system over the next 2 or 3 years in view of the double tracking of the western line in particular. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the Minister explain to passengers crammed into insufficient dilapidated full trains and buses that in these days of accelerated climate change and rising petrol prices she is spending only 14 percent of the total money on passenger transport and how long will the Government hide behind the mantra that it is spending more now than the pathetic amounts that National used to spend? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the increase is something like eightfold and in 2006-07 we are spending $300 million on passenger transport. What is more to a very substantial extent that is demand-driven so that if the private owners of those trains and buses—certainly the buses are privately owned—care to buy more buses and put on more routes then the Government will find itself almost certainly funding a greater degree of support for those services. But it is not our job to buy the buses for them as well. 
Conservation Department—Confidence 
5.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he have confidence in his department in light of the recent Auditor-General’s report  
Department of Conservation: Planning for and managing publicly owned land 
; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. The report found that the department manages publicly owned land well. As in everything there is room for improvement—and improve we will. Actually this is a rather special question; since the election 10 months ago this is the first oral question National’s official conservation spokesperson has asked me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that last comment was necessary. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What is his response to the Auditor-General’s finding that the Department of Conservation—the largest landowner in the country—has no central record of the land it owns nor any central oversight of the land transactions occurring within individual conservancies and that rules for the acquisition and disposal of land are routinely breached and can he tell the House what steps he is taking to act on the Auditor-General’s recommendation that those oversights be remedied? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: All records are held at the local conservancy level where they are most useful. This morning when I appeared for the estimates before the Local Government and Environment Committee this issue was raised. Strangely that member the official spokesperson on conservation for the National Party failed to turn up at the select committee hearing. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What were the main findings of the Auditor-General’s report? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You made it clear yesterday that members interjecting while members are asking questions was unacceptable and would result in expulsion. Gerry Brownlee just did that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. I will warn members again and I am taking this particular issue about interjections on questions and answers to the next Business Committee in this session. I also note however that I had warned the Minister that irrelevant comments in answers were likely to produce similarly irrelevant comments. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Overall the department met most of the Auditor-General’s expectations. The Auditor-General however called for better connection between land planning management and information systems and I am receiving advice from the department on how best to do that—as we discussed at the select committee hearing this morning. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action if any does he intend to take to reduce the use of set-nets following research findings that New Zealand’s common dolphin population may be under threat because of set-nets? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A management plan for the preservation and enhancement of Hector’s dolphins and Maui’s dolphins will be released by the department shortly which will address that question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the Auditor-General’s criticism of the two land transaction case studies contained in the report which found that the documentation was not complete or clear in terms of the decisions that were made for either transaction and that the documentation highlighted significant non-compliance with the department’s standard operating procedures and does he accept that that is not good enough in the department that is the largest property owner in the country? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will remind the member of course that the Department of Conservation does not own a single hectare in New Zealand; the public of New Zealand owns the land that is managed by the department. With regard to the two case studies the member refers to I would like to make mention of one of them: Waikawau Bay in the Coromandel which I am proud to say was bought on behalf of the public of New Zealand. I instructed the department to ensure that this iconic piece of land was purchased and it is enjoyed by thousands of Kiwis every summer. I fully back the process the department used to acquire that land in the Coromandel. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Following the disposal of land in 2004 from Victoria Conservation Park outside of the statutory time frames allowed in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act what measures have been put in place to ensure such areas do not occur nationally and how have tangata whenua been involved? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: On that particular case we were deserving of criticism. We are working harder and will do better next time. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister confirm that in respect of the first of the case studies criticised by the Auditor-General—the acquisition of Waikawau Bay the transaction just mentioned by the Minister himself—the principal player in the breaches of the processes of the Department of Conservation and of the Land Acquisition Committee and the person behind the sloppy documentation of the transaction is identified by the Auditor-General as being the Minister himself and what explanation does he have for that? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The explanation I have is that that iconic piece of beach is now owned by the people of New Zealand; the only beach in the Coromandel where not one single house can be seen. We are proud to have bought that for the people of New Zealand. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister confirm the Auditor-General’s finding that in relation to the statutory reviews of seven of the 14 national park management plans the department is in breach of both the Conservation Act 1987 and the National Parks Act 1980; and what steps is he taking to remedy these breaches of the law? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that the people of New Zealand now own the entire stretch of Waikawau Bay and that for endless generations people will be able to camp there. It is the only beach in the Coromandel where a single house cannot be seen. It is now ours forever. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think there was so much noise in the House that the Minister would not have heard my question. It related to the statutory reviews of seven of the 14 national park management plans and referred to two pieces of legislation that require those reviews to be completed within a certain time frame and I asked about breaches of the law on the part of his department in that respect. He has just given an answer that is absolutely irrelevant to any of the matters raised in that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to add to his answer to the question asked? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes and I apologise to you Madam Speaker and to the House for being so absolutely proud and excited about Waikawau Bay—which I am of course. The issues that the member has raised in his first question ever to me in the House as conservation spokesperson are important. I have already conceded that we could do better. Overall the Auditor-General said the department’s management was fine but there were processes we could improve and we will. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister confirm that the department has failed to complete the West Coast conservation management strategy which should have been completed by 1995—11 years ago—but which is still in breach of completion and what time frame has the Minister set for doing anything about it? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that under both the National Minister Nick Smith and myself this plan has not been finished. It is about time it was and I have told the department to get on with it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will have noted that a couple of times the Minister who has been the subject of the most recent question has mentioned my failure to be in the select committee this morning to offer any questions to him. The reason for that of course is that I was in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee of which I am a member at the time the Minister appeared in another committee. I wonder whether you might like to make a ruling that requires the sitting time of the Foreign Affairs Committee to be changed in future to accommodate the Minister’s obvious request for me to be there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I decline to make that ruling but I will remind members of another. It is a longstanding convention that members do not refer to the absence of others. I ask members to observe that. 
Court System—Confidence in Access to Justice 
6.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he have confidence that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Courts 
: The Minister has confidence that as a result of a massive injection of $156 million into Votes Courts and Justice as well as a broad programme of review and service improvement that we are continuing to roll out the court system has been steadily improving over the last 6 years of a Labour-led Government. This is in stark contrast to the gross under-investment in the justice sector through the 1990s under a neglectful National Government which led to the urgent need for that review of baseline funding. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister assure the House that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice when the High Court in Auckland is full to overflowing there are no spare courtrooms no spare judges’ chambers and no plans to increase capacity any time soon and all this has happened on his watch? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Minister is aware that as a result of the roll-out of the resources referred to in the first answer there are changes taking place. But in conjunction with the judiciary a national roster of judges has been introduced so that judges can be moved to different regions as requested to meet the various workload pressures. New judges have been appointed the number of judicial support and criminal registry staff at the Auckland High Court has been increased and work is being done with other agencies to ensure that cases are ready for hearing. This Government is getting on and addressing the challenges. They are real. Years of neglect by National made them so but we are getting on and doing something about them. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister assure the House that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice when defended summary judgment applications in the High Court in Auckland can take up to 4-6 months to get a fixture and when all this has happened on his watch? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I presume the member missed some of my previous answer. Numerous new programmes are under way there have been numerous injections of resources and additional judicial and administrative staff have been recruited to help address those very issues. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister assure the House that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice when cases in the High Court in Wellington are being allocated trial dates as far away as August 2007? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member might not have heard the answer to the previous two questions. The additional judicial appointments the additional administrative resources the improvements to the administrative systems and the technology that is being introduced are all beginning to address the issues the member raises. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister assure the House that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice when cases in the High Court in Christchurch cannot be heard until March 2007? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I refer the member to my previous three answers. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister assure the House that the current court system is delivering speedy and inexpensive access to justice when District Courts in South Auckland and Whangarei are under such pressure that court staff are refusing to allocate fixtures even when cases are overdue for hearing? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although the member brings to the House further evidence of the success of the prosecution system—the numbers of cases that are coming before the courts—I refer the member to the four previous answers to supplementary questions. 
Primary Health—Investment 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the importance of investing in primary health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Last week’s  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 suggested that about 10 percent of the health budget is spent on hospitalisations that could be avoided through earlier treatment and a focus on prevention. The study is a ringing endorsement of the Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy which takes its next step forward in 2 days’ time. We know that if we make it easier and more affordable to access primary care we can reduce pressure on our public hospitals and improve the health of our families. 
Maryan Street 
: What progress has been made in making primary health care more affordable for families? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From Saturday the cost of seeing the doctor will fall by as much as $27 for New Zealanders in the 45-64 years age group. The cost of most prescription medicines will drop from $15 to $3. Both moves are ardently opposed by the National Party. We are now just 1 year away from universal access to affordable primary health care. This will be one of the Labour-led Government’s most significant achievements and is a reminder of what can be achieved when we invest in families instead of pouring money into tax cuts for the wealthy. 
Health Services—Government Priorities 
8. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty)  
to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the Government’s priorities in health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The same as yesterday. The Government’s top priority in health is to make world-class health affordable and accessible for all New Zealand families. I have also set specific priorities for the coming financial year which I would be happy to provide for Mr Ryall if he is looking for ideas for his long-awaited National Party health policy. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What sort of priority is it when the Minister told the House yesterday that sometimes risks have to be taken with taxpayers’ money in health; and does he believe that the tens of thousands of patients dumped from waiting lists will think he is taking a greater risk with their lives? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yesterday’s question was about a research project funded by the Health Research Council and delivered by a university. [ 
Interruption 
] Any research is uncertain because research seeks to create new knowledge. If something is known it does not need to be researched and therefore a risk must be taken. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Members are not allowed to move to another seat for the purpose of interjecting. That member has now been continuously interjecting on the Minister from the most favourable possible seat in the House to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true so I just remind the member of that House convention. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the success of programmes to encourage young New Zealanders to quit smoking? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen reports that phone-messaging programmes could double the number of young New Zealanders who give up smoking. Rather than support research to save lives National is fretting that people will develop nicotine additions go to a health service ask for help get checked get referred to a clinical trial and participate in 3 years’ research all for a new phone. I invite National to fret about something else which is that yesterday while they were engaged in attacking an innovative research project 12 New Zealanders died from smoking-related causes. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What are the circumstances under which the Minister would consider that it was his duty as Minister of Health to intervene to resolve the dispute between the junior doctors and the district health boards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be aware—in fact she has just said—that the dispute is between district health boards and the Resident Doctors Association. My duty is to ensure that the dispute does not put the lives of New Zealanders at risk and I wish to take the opportunity not only to wish both parties well in tomorrow’s talks but to reiterate my thanks to senior doctors some junior doctors nurses managers and everyone else who ensured that during the 5-day strike no New Zealanders’ lives were put at risk. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When the Minister told the House that it was OK to take a risk with taxpayers’ money did he not stop to think that getting operations for the thousands of patients culled from waiting lists should be a greater priority than offering video phones to those who choose to smoke? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Hope springs eternal that one day National members will alter their supplementary questions to take into account information received in the course of the questioning. This is a research project funded by the Health Research Council and all research is uncertain because if one were certain about something one would not need to research it. 
Jo Goodhew 
: When the Minister said it was OK to take a risk with taxpayers’ money was he referring to the risk he is taking by recruiting medical students from rural areas by not giving them the training they need and by making it highly unlikely they will ever return to work in rural areas? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that when they ask a question they do not start it with a statement. I thought we had agreement on that—we ask a question. I ask the Minister now to address it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I believe that the greater risk is that if National cannot alter its line of attack in the light of new information it will spend not 9 long years in Opposition but 12 years or more. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Can the Minister confirm that when he said it was OK to take a risk with taxpayers’ money he was referring to the Government’s decision to ditch the well-respected PlunketLine in favour of McKesson’s—a company that does not have enough Well Child nurses to monitor calls—and what message is he sending to concerned parents? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: May I say to the House one more time that this is a research project. It is a research project that is funded by the Health Research Council. The Health Research Council as it happens operates independently of the Government. Politicians are not allowed to pick research projects. All research projects are uncertain because if they were not they would not be researched. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister accept that following his billion-dollar bungle on Kyoto and with his self-confessed appetite for risk it is actually very risky for the country to have him in charge of anything larger than a Dunedin fruit stall? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think the answer will probably reflect the flippancy of the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid that I am now at the point where the question does not deserve an answer. 
Security Guards and Firms—Licensing and Monitoring 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the effectiveness of the current system by which security guards and security firms are licensed and monitored? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: The Government recognises that there is a need to update the current system and that work is on the Ministry of Justice’s work plan. I thank the member for bringing these issues to the fore. I can advise the member that the Government proposes to ensure that all security guards undertake relevant training; to extend coverage of the licensing regime to include crowd controllers bodyguards and other security staff; and to significantly increase the financial penalties on both firms and individuals. I know that the member has a genuine interest in this area and I would welcome his further involvement in looking at the issues as we work through the reforms. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware that although industry sources estimate the number of security guards operating to be between 7000 and 8000 the Ministry of Justice lists only 4714 security guards operating and that 44 percent of those identified in the ministry’s figures are operating without licences due to an administrative backlog and outstanding police checks; does he consider that is acceptable? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Associate Minister of Justice has some familiarity with those numbers and I think the simple answer is no it is not acceptable and we have to do better. The member will be equally interested to know that I think the industry itself has started to recognise perhaps because of some of the attention that has been drawn to it that it has to do better. The industry is reported to have recognised that by instituting an audit regime of its own to do random checks on maverick operators. I welcome that but there is more that we can do as well—and we will do so. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister know how many of the 44 percent of security guards identified by the ministry as unlicensed have obtained temporary permission from the police to operate while their application is being considered; if he does not and if the ministry does not would he agree with the statement made by former Associate Minister of Justice Lianne Dalziel in 2003 that: “The number of unlicensed operators in the industry is a serious matter.” and when will we see corrective legislation come before the House? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not have advice on that particular matter in front of me but I think it is the case that there is no record of those members of the industry who have temporary permits. I do agree with the comment made by the former Associate Minister. As I have indicated to the member the matter is now on the current year’s work programme and I will welcome that member’s input into the work to fix the problem. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document dated 21 January 2003. It is a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel in which she agrees that the number of unlicensed operators in the industry is a serious matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a release dated 20 June 2002 from former Minister of Justice Mr Paul Swain who stated that legislation was under way as a matter of urgency. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Inquiry Costs 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How much has the Ingram inquiry cost to date? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: As the Prime Minister has told the member in the past information on costs will be released when the inquiry is complete and all costs are known. She does not consider progress reports on costs to be appropriate as they could be deemed to be placing pressure on the inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the cost for the first 4 months of the inquiry was approximately $30000 per month; if so has the inquiry originally set for 9 working days yet still uncompleted after 9 months now cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a million dollars? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The information on costs connected with the inquiry is not ready but it is perhaps useful to remind members opposite that inquiries are always expensive and that they call for at least four or five a day. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was the head of the Prime Minister’s department unable to answer questions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week on the cost of the inquiry so far when the Prime Minister had to seek from Cabinet approval for an additional appropriation of $119681 to cover the cost of the inquiry for just the first 4 months and is clearly monitoring the costs closely? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those costs come in from time to time as I am sure a number of the member’s colleagues will tell him. We will not know the final cost until the inquiry is complete. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who is causing the delay in the completion of the report: Taito Phillip Field and his legal counsel Noel Ingram QC or the Prime Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly not the Prime Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If it is not the Prime Minister how much longer is she prepared to allow the inquiry to drag on at a cost to the taxpayer of roughly $1000 a day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that if the Prime Minister was to attempt to speed up the inquiry the Opposition would accuse her of interfering with its independence. 
Skill Shortages—Labour Force 
11.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the progress towards addressing skill shortages in the labour force? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Investment by this Government in skills is clearly paying dividends. The latest  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report recorded the largest fall in skill shortage indicators in 15 years. Further reports released by the Department of Labour today on 14 specific occupational trades show that the number of people achieving these trade qualifications each year has almost doubled from 1600 in 2001 to 3000 in 2005 and that the number of trainees enrolled in these trade qualifications has also doubled from 8000 in 2001 to 16000 in 2005. That is clear evidence of our success in rebuilding a training culture in this country after National destroyed the apprenticeship system. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has been the cause of recent skill shortages? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Department of Labour advises me that the current cycle of shortages most likely began in the late 1990s due to the low level of trade training that occurred during the decade of the 1990s. Employers interviewed as part of these surveys indicated that changes to the apprenticeship system in the 1990s impacted negatively on the number of people entering training for trades. Labour has reversed that foolishness and is investing in the people and skills that the economy needs. 
Flat Bush—Education Restructuring 
12.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the arrangement in Flat Bush has not come from a ministry-driven restructuring of education. I think really people there had decided it would be interesting to do this kind of innovative approach.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: Yes the Minister knows that his predecessor was interested in that model especially after the repeated request to expand the zone of the new Albany Junior High School by the member for East Coast Bays following representations from many parents in that area. My predecessor decided that people in Manukau should be able to consider what was working well on the North Shore as part of the consultation. The Ministry of Education therefore put that model of schooling to the community and the result of the consultation convinced the Minister that that was the way to go. 
Allan Peachey 
: At what stage in the consultation process did the residents of Flat Bush decide that in the Minister’s own words “it would be interesting to do this kind of innovative approach” ? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am informed that consultation over the area strategy began in October 2003. The ministry involved 28 identified groups—including schools from around the boundary of the area iwi Auckland Catholics unions the early childhood sector representing the parents of the children who were heading in that direction community groups and the Manukau City Council. Fourteen organisations or groups and 25 individuals made written submissions. That is hardly ministry-driven restructuring but genuine and some might say extended community consultation. Whatever the options that has got to be a better model than stabbing one’s local school in the back. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Does the Government have a policy on middle schools or does it have a policy on quality teaching in the classroom? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say the Government is indifferent to the question of a middle school - junior high school model. But what was quite clear was that that model was welcomed. Probably the person who was the loudest supporter of it for that particular area was Sir Barrie Curtis who as local mayor looked at the issue very very carefully; looked at what was happening in Albany saw how Murray McCully was promoting the approach on behalf of the constituents who loved it; and for reasons that became obvious put it to those people. The key of course is quality teaching. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that far from junior high schools being a new idea the first one was Kowhai Junior High School which commenced in 1922 and that in the second half of the 1990s the National Government approved a number of such schools starting with St Andrews Middle School in Hamilton in 1995? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I of course accept the member’s word as to the timing. I know that advice has been received about the benefit for middle schooling in New Zealand back as far as the 1930s when I understand Don Brash was attending. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member used an unparliamentary term by accusing another member of lying. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Allan Peachey 
: How many of the options for the structure of Flat Bush schooling that were presented for the Minister to choose from were then taken to the community for consultation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have that advice with me. My understanding was that a preferred model was taken to the community. 
Allan Peachey 
: I take that to mean “one”. Does the Minister acknowledge that his predecessor Mr Mallard pre-empted a community decision on the shape of schooling in Flat Bush in light of Mr Mallard’s indication in October 2005 that he—Mr Mallard—preferred a network that included junior high schools in Flat Bush? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was very clear which model was taken to the schools. My predecessor of course looked at this very very carefully and he was well supported in education. He was someone who welcomed the bumper sticker that was used in Auckland during the last campaign which stated: “Save Rangitoto. Vote Peachey.” 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It never ceases to amaze me that you tolerate such mean-spirited vindictive comments as we get from the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. My patience and tolerance are tried at times. If all members would desist from such an attitude then I think the House would be better for it. 
Allan Peachey 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents that might put a slightly different light on the Minister’s answer. The first is questions for written answer 6966 and 6968. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Allan Peachey 
: Will the Minister now give regard to the views of Flat Bush residents who last Monday 26 June voted unanimously against his plans for the future schooling structure in Flat Bush and undertake further consultation to ensure that the views of Flat Bush residents and parents are reflected in any future schooling structures for their community? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have that information with me. I suggest that the member set the question down as a primary question if he wants a response to it. 
Allan Peachey 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a newspaper report dated 28 June 2006 “Meeting rejects school’s plan”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Telecommunications Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I move  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 November 2006 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday of a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill is a central part of the Government’s package of measures to assist the New Zealand telecommunications sector to catch up with leading OECD countries. It implements the findings of two separate but related review processes: the implementation review in 2004 of the Telecommunications Act and the recent Telecommunications Stocktake Review. This bill introduces changes that are needed to make the catch-up process possible. It is the keystone of a package of measures designed to improve the performance of the New Zealand communications sector. 
The four components of that package include first this legislation which will deliver an effective wholesaling regime; second measures to encourage infrastructure-based competition including developing a package for rural communities and ensuring we have a competitive cellular market; third the future-proofing of the regulatory environment to technology change including by reviewing telecommunications service obligations and preparing for next-generation networks; and fourth the continued development and implementation of the Government’s digital strategy to encourage the smart use of information and communications technology. The package is a commitment to make New Zealand a world leader in information and communications technology. 
This legislation is focused on the first component of that package: developing an effective wholesale regime. That is done in three main ways: first by extending the range of services subject to regulation second by enhancing the ability of the Telecommunications Commissioner to implement those services and third by empowering the commissioner to effectively monitor and enforce compliance. 
Before going into further detail on these reforms it is important to understand why they are needed. Effective regulation of the communications sector is necessary in order to ensure that the Government’s objectives in telecommunications are met. The Telecommunications Act 2001 dealt with a number of key issues in the sector. However the development of competition in the New Zealand communications sector has not met expectations. Analysis has clearly shown that the Government’s objectives in telecommunications would not be met under the status quo. The performance of the New Zealand sector is in the bottom third of OECD markets. In particular that is a result of the limited degree of competition. 
This bill accordingly focuses on measures to comprehensively address those competition concerns. The Government regards progress in that area as a matter of national importance. Information and communications technologies have been shown to be crucial enablers of business productivity and economic growth. Our comparatively poor performance in telecommunications is likely to be negatively impacting on the international competitiveness of our economy. Combined with other measures which include further policy reviews and a digital strategy the regulatory improvements proposed by this bill will accelerate progress towards the Government’s objectives by promoting competition in telecommunications markets for the long-term benefit of end users by increasing broadband service uptake and the timely availability of cost-effective broadband services and by facilitating the supply of telecommunication services to New Zealanders who may not otherwise receive those services on a commercial basis or at an affordable price. 
The bill itself can be summarised into three main parts: extending the range of services enhancing the ability of the commissioner to implement regulated services and empowering the commissioner to monitor compliance in the sector. On the first of those regulated services are at the heart of the regulatory regime. The bill brings New Zealand into line with international best practice by first unbundling the local loop and second removing restrictions on the existing unbundled bitstream service and clarifying that naked DSL—the separation of voice from data streams—can be purchased. 
Second it is important to ensure that the commissioner can effectively monitor the regulation of those services and implement that. This bill introduces new and enhances existing processes under the Act to ensure that service providers can get effective and timely access to regulated services. The bill allows the commissioner to set terms of supply for regulated services by providing a multilateral process for setting those terms. That will allow the commissioner to resolve supply terms for regulated services once rather than for each and every access seeker separately. Section 22 of the Act is amended and thereby the bill enhances the ability of access seekers to seek regulatory redress by removing provisions that previously restricted access seekers from seeking determinations where they had commercial agreements for supply of the service. Access providers are also restricted from taking prejudicial action against an access seeker who applies in such circumstances. The commissioner is empowered by the bill to initiate a determination on the terms and conditions of regulated multi-network services rather than relying on access seekers to apply. 
Third the bill introduces a number of key changes that empower the commissioner to monitor and enhance compliance with regulatory obligations. They include the accounting separation regime which is hereby introduced. The commissioner will be empowered to require Telecom New Zealand to prepare and disclose information about its retail and wholesale business activities as if they were independent entities. The accounting separation regime will allow the commissioner to define how Telecom’s business activities and services are allocated between wholesale and retail. The regime will increase the transparency of the sector and that is crucial to ensuring efficient commercial and regulatory outcomes. 
Telecom has recently announced its intention to voluntarily separate its wholesale and retail businesses and to put in place externally auditable non-discrimination measures. That is a potentially positive development that the Government wants to consider in detail. Consideration will also be given to potential implications for the proposed accounting separation regime. Telecom New Zealand among many others will also make submissions on that important issue to the select committee that considers the bill and officials will work in parallel with it to assess the submissions that are made. 
On the issue of information disclosure I say the bill also includes an information disclosure regime that empowers the commissioner to require access providers to prepare and publicly disclose relevant information. That will increase the overall transparency of the sector by giving the commissioner and access seekers certainty that providers are meeting their regulatory obligations. A sector monitoring role for the commissioner is introduced. The commissioner will be required to monitor competition in and the performance of telecommunications markets. That includes making reports and summaries of relevant information publicly available. 
The enforcement regime is strengthened in this bill. It is also standardised in order to ensure compliance with the regulatory obligations under the Act. The commissioner will be able to take direct enforcement action and will have a wider range of tools at his or her disposal. 
The Telecommunications Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation that in conjunction with other initiatives announced by the Government will accelerate progress towards achieving the Government’s objectives in telecommunications. The bill implements a bold vision—it has to do so. If we are serious about our economic transformation and if we are serious about building a knowledge-based economy then we must have a bold vision and we must take definite steps to achieve it. 
In that vein I expect that in 2015 when we will measure the success of our National Digital Strategy we will no longer be talking about broadband at all. The size of the pipe will not matter as it will be taken for granted. Connectivity will be ubiquitous. New Zealanders can expect to see a greater variety of end-user devices and the convergence of broadcasting telecommunications and information technology adding mobility where we demand it increasing choice reducing prices and putting users firmly in control. The possibilities are endless and this Labour-led Government is providing a responsive legislative framework that will better allow those possibilities to become a reality in New Zealand. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Did I hear the Minister of Communications say he looks forward to our being a world leader? Well actually we all look forward to that but introducing this bill does not necessarily make it happen. Even if this bill works in the way the Government intends we will still be a long way off being a world leader. The reason is that so many other infrastructural issues need attending to. 
But National supports this Telecommunications Amendment Bill going to the select committee. It provides for local loop unbundling which has been the catchphrase for so many years now ever since this Government came into power in 1999. It has had a long gestation. Today the library provided me with all the investigations the Cabinet papers—it just goes on and on. “Sooner rather than later” is a phrase I think I also heard the Minister say. Well the record to date does not bear that out. 
Local loop unbundling we are told will allow competitors such as TelstraClear CallPlus and IHUG to access Telecom’s copper wires running into people’s houses and to offer services on a more equal footing. That is obviously to be welcomed. The bill contains the ability for the Commerce Commission to set the terms and conditions for competitors to access Telecom’s wires and to constantly monitor performance of the market. Currently it can respond only to issues formally raised by companies. The Minister can also recommend regulations to the commission but we hope the Minister would do that only in a constructive intelligent and sensible way. 
The bill also allows for the accounting separation of Telecom between its wholesale and retail arms. However Telecom announced this week that it would go further and voluntarily separate its operations. All I can say to that is “We’ll see.” The whole unbundling announcement was hurriedly announced by the Minister on 3 May. It was meant to be the flower of the Budget but is known now as the billion-dollar Beehive leak. I hope the shambles of that gigantic muck-up is not a pointer to the way that this Government manages what is definitely a very important process for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. 
National members support the bill going to the select committee but we have a number of observations that we would like to put on record. We would also like to express some reservations on behalf of the many doubters out in the community that this measure indeed will deliver what the Government says it will. For instance we want the Labour Government to come up with some evidence as to why it thinks unbundling is the panacea for broadband development in New Zealand. We want to see the results of a rigorous cost-benefit analysis that proves this measure is worth doing. We also look forward to the Telecommunications Commissioner Douglas Webb fronting up to the select committee to say why he recommended against it in 2003. We see that as somewhat of an anomaly but we do recognise that having the bill go to the select committee gives us an opportunity to explore those very important issues. We will be looking to ask the Telecommunications Commissioner what has changed since his recommendation in 2003. 
We also observe that a plethora of new technologies are streaming down the pipe that mean high-speed Internet will be delivered by a whole host of different means. We note also that Australia unbundled in 1999 and by 2005 it had made almost no difference. Korea is No. 1 in the world but it got there long before it unbundled. I also understand there is a strong correlation between GDP per capita and broadband penetration. So it is not as clear as the Minister purported to make it when he introduced the bill. There is also no real correlation between those who have unbundled and broadband penetration. 
Lastly in terms of expressing reservations and raising issues there are serious property rights issues here. We are wondering whether the Minister will make any statement on that matter. Will the Government be offering any compensation to Telecom shareholders? With the muck-up of the announcement we saw millions and millions of dollars of value wiped from those shares. That is not something to be taken lightly but we have heard nothing from the Government or from this Minister on that matter. So there are a number of issues that we want to explore and that we expect the Minister and the Government to address as we go through the select committee process. 
New Zealand is currently ranked 22nd out of 30 in the OECD ladder of broadband uptake. That is not acceptable. We call ourselves a developed nation amongst the group of Western nations but really honestly that is scandalous quite frankly. Minister Cunliffe had previously promised we would reach the top half of the OECD by 2007 which of course is just next year and the top quarter by 2010. However when the unbundling decision was announced he quietly moved those targets out to 2010 and 2015 respectively. We do not hold our breath too much because it is likely in terms of the way this Government manages most infrastructure issues and regulatory issues that there will be a change to those dates as well. We hope not but as I say we are not holding our breath to see the results promised by this Government. 
The Minister has also been backing off on the date when customers will see the benefits of unbundling. He initially said consumers would see the benefits by 2007 but more recently he has stated that the benefits would “take time” and that the “Full market effects of the reform may not be felt until 2007/08.” so I think that in that regard too we will see the date move out. 
Also we are told that the main thrust of the new investment will focus on densely populated and profitable urban areas. That is important. But we do ask then what about the benefits of competition moving from the cities out to rural areas? After all that is where a lot of our country’s wealth is generated and we do not have any certainty of the Government’s intention in that regard. Telecom has promised to continue investment in rural areas but we have seen it fight this process for so long now. Again we are not holding our breath but we hope for something better. 
National supports the first reading of the bill. We support access to quality high-speed broadband for all New Zealanders.They are as entitled as their global counterparts and citizens everywhere to be connected in today’s environment and to have access to the best in communications technology in especially their business lives and also their personal lives. We support infrastructure that boosts economic growth productivity and prosperity for the benefit of New Zealanders and that assists the country’s entrepreneurs exporters and business people who invest their resources to create jobs and wealth for all. Hopefully this move will see New Zealand move back into the top half of the OECD sooner rather than later. We also recognise that this unbundling has long been called for by many groups including competing telecommunications companies industry groups and the general public. For those reasons we support the bill but as I said we have our reservations. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Firstly as I rise to welcome this bill’s arrival at our Finance and Expenditure Committee I must say this. A me mihi ahau i te tuatahi ki taku hoa ki a Rawiri Cunliffe mona i maia ai ki te hari mau i tenei kaupapa ki te Whare. I first want to acknowledge my colleague David Cunliffe the Minister of Communications for having the courage to act in such a bold fashion in the construction of this proposal before the House. It is something that earlier Governments never had the courage to do. The fact that Maurice Williamson is absent today speaks volumes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. He cannot refer to members being absent. 
SHANE JONES 
: He did not take the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry. Perhaps the member did not understand. 
SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. I note the presence of our whanaunga from Ngati Tuwharetoa the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. Anyway I will move on to more important matters. 
This is a strike for economic development. It is an example of how this Government is prepared to use the remedial powers of the State rather than to allow personalities to intone policy odes and elegies to a time that has gone by. We are no longer captured by a false belief that our economy can grow through an exclusive reliance on market mechanisms and we do not want to go back to a time when Governments feared to use the remedial and positive impacts of the State’s regulatory power-making facility. We are confident that with this proposition we will expedite and hopefully achieve the statistics that  
The Economist 
 magazine makes reference to—that there is within the next 7 to 8 years $13 billion of potential wealth that our economy can capture by enhancing broadening and deepening the role of information and communications technology through better broadband provision to our economy. 
Did members know that it is about 20 years since the first telephone company was privatised it is about 10 years since the World Wide Web emerged and it is about 5 years since the Telecom bubble burst? This area changes constantly. The important role that we must never avoid taking up is insisting upon and implementing the right regulatory framework. Indeed no less than the World Bank has identified that there is a key and overdue role for the State to play in ensuring that broadband and information and communications technology grow and drive efficiency within the economy. What does the World Bank say is needed in less-developed and OECD economies in order for them to grow? It says that open entry is needed. This legislation insists that there be far more open far fairer entry for other providers in the sector. Not only does this bill achieve this it is a statement and a move towards transparency through cost-based pricing. Costing models will provide a return on capital but the legislation will no longer provide refuge for unscrupulous costing models or provide a basis for barriers to be put in the way of competitors. In addition the bill talks about cost-based interconnection—something else that we are addressing. 
With regard to access to infrastructure recently I had the pleasure of going through Kaikohe and Dargaville where I met a number of women of a similar age to myself. They applauded the initiative that the Minister has brought to the House today. Why? The reason is they could see that it would enable them to pursue education that had been denied them because of the tyranny of distance. They are looking forward to the opportunity of second-chance education to advancing their qualifications and to growing their role in the local economy through a more efficient provision of information and communications technology. That sort of outcome is a key contributor to our economic transformation. 
Obviously the fifth thing that we are addressing and which is referred to in this World Bank report is access to radio spectrum—but let me continue. What has been the approach from the Opposition? I look forward to John Key leading the National Opposition members on our select committee in a constructive way. I hope to see them developing a regulatory framework that will send an undiluted message to all players in this sector that this Parliament governs for the public interest—not just for the shareholders. Yes the interests of shareholders have to be borne in mind but consumers need a voice as well. The question of what is in the public’s interest is the essential pith of what causes this Government to deliver wealth and outcomes that will benefit everyone. And that in my view is the key distinguishing feature in terms of what members of the Opposition say about this bill—admittedly in a confusing way—and what we have heard today from the Minister. 
What has been the approach taken by Telecom? Well it was very pleasing to hear the Minister speak quite admiringly of Telecom’s willingness to take it on the chin and to provide for the opportunities that we have for so long waited. Naturally the devil is in the detail and the officials no doubt will burn the midnight oil studying whether their proposal will deliver the goods. But we look forward to a positive approach from Telecom. Some of the antics of the last 5 to 10 years reminded me of the actions of businesses in the time of Muldoon. In that era a tremendous amount of effort and expense was incurred to enable firms to lobby the Government of the day to ensure that their legacy remained intact. This was a legacy of monopoly pricing and monopoly power. Fortunately we will see less of that from entities such as Telecom. I look forward to seeing what the new board is likely to do in terms of direction and what the executive will present to us. 
Perhaps the most important thing about this proposal at a very basic level is that it actually provides for competition. It makes the process simpler for people to ply their services sell their wares and enable consumers to exploit the full benefit of e-health e-business and e-commerce. Unless our economy—so distant from markets—is able to capture and enjoy a worldwide world-beating communications service we will not achieve what we deserve and want to hand on to future generations. This is why when our Prime Minister stated that economic transformation was going to be a defining theme she focused very quickly on this overdue area of reform. This reform is good for business. This reform is good for consumers. This reform is good for Aotearoa. I welcome the bill and look forward to seeing it at the select committee that I chair. Kia ora tatou. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 That was a very telling speech. That was Shane Jones Labour member and chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee telling the public that the Labour Government does not care about shareholders. That is quite interesting. The Government basically says to hell with shareholders today because it would not hesitate to come in to write off wealth belonging to shareholders. But not that long ago the Minister of Commerce stood up and said she wanted the capital market of New Zealand to work. She wanted mums and dads to take shares. That is why the Labour Government is confusing. It actually does not know what it wants and how it wants to deliver it. 
That is consistent because the Minister of Communications the Hon David Cunliffe has no regrets over the total inadequacy and incompetency of the handling of the announcement of the unbundling relating to Telecom which led to a billion dollar write-off from shareholders’ wealth in that company. He went on to comment on the appropriate future dividend policy of Telecom which is still a subject of inquiry by the Securities Commission. I am a bit sceptical because at the moment the Labour Government is delaying the debate of the Committee stage of the Securities Legislation Bill. That bill introduces a tighter definition of what amounts to insider information. I am sure that if that bill is passed the Minister of Communication’s comments with regard to Telecom’s appropriate future dividend policy—which he reckoned was too high in the past—would get him into real trouble. 
Let us look at this bill from three perspectives. Firstly would it work? I wonder whether the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has forgotten that in the last 6 years the telecommunications industry has not been left entirely to so-called market mechanisms. He was not aware that the Labour Government introduced in 2001 the Telecommunications Act which put the telecommunications industry in a sector-specific regulatory framework. So we cannot actually say that in the last 6 years the telecommunications industry was in his words almost subject to the Wild West of the market economy. I counted up—alongside my diligent and hard-working colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu—statistics from the library for the years 2001 to 2006 and there have been 69 reports and inquiries into and amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001. So I am relieved that my competent diligent colleague John Key will be on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to make sure that the chairman Shane Jones will get the best advice because Mr Jones seems to have forgotten that the telecommunications industry actually is subject to a legislative framework. The question has to be asked—after 6 years 69 reports inquiries and amendments and a promise by the Labour Government that New Zealanders would get there by next year—of whether this legislation will work. The 2001 Act did not work and whether this one will work is yet to be seen. 
The second perspective relates to what the legislation will cost in terms of compliance costs and costs to the wider economy. I looked at the regulatory impact statement. It states that it was not possible or necessary to provide the cost. That is another contradictory statement because the Minister of Commerce went on and on about her dynamic regulatory review and insisted to the Commerce Committee that from now on any legislation that did not come with a compliance cost statement would not be entertained by Cabinet. She said Cabinet would not consider any legislation without an accompanying compliance cost statement so I wonder how this legislation got past Cabinet and landed here in the House without even an attempt to establish what the compliance costs are. 
It seems to me that the fact that this legislation will also allow the commissioner in the future to start inquiring into practices—whether or not they are perceived as a problem—will cause even more uncertainty in the telecommunications sector. None of us wants to see those providers spending a lot of time arguing and debating in front of the Commerce Commission but the fact is that these types of intrusive tools will without clear guidelines of when the Commerce Commission might interfere cause even more anxiety in the sector. I am not too sure that this Big Brother bully-boy tactic is the best way to develop and encourage the various providers in this sector. I hope the Labour Government will be more consistent and certainly try to live up to its word about providing good analysis of regulatory and compliance cost statements to accompany this legislation. 
The other perspective that I hope the Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider is the bigger picture of the impact of a move like this on New Zealand’s competition law. There is a lot of anxiety out there in the wider commercial world as to when the Labour Government will blame businesses companies and operators when a goal it has set is not achieved. We have all learnt and seen that the Labour Government is always putting the blame on companies and on the market when it does not actually know what it wants. In 2003 the Telecommunications Commissioner was threatening to unbundle then he retracted from that. Then 2 years later unbundling was suddenly dropped on the scene again and Telecom was set up to be the fall company. 
But there is a bigger and quite frightening message. It was given today by Shane Jones when he said that the Labour Government does not care about shareholders. The bigger message is what the Labour Government is trying to tell all companies public and private. When is it their turn for this intrusiveness that infringes on their property rights? In our mind for 6 years the Labour Government has failed to look at the Commerce Act and at whether the Commerce Commission understands the telecommunications sector and what some of the barriers are. 
National is willing and happy to send this legislation to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am sure that members on this side of the House will give this legislation the rigorous assessment it deserves. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First and particularly the Rt Hon Winston Peters has long called for mechanisms to lower the costs of telecommunications in this country including broadband communications and a wide range of things. We believe that this legislation is a step in that direction and will have that effect although we do not believe that it is the total package; there are other things that need to be done. 
To understand the reason for this legislation we really need to go back to the 1980s and to the attempted redesign of our whole society around market mechanisms—a process known as Rogernomics. This legislation is a demonstration of some of the flaws in the design of that system. One of the chief architects was Roderick Deane who not only has his fingerprints all over Rogernomics but also is closely associated with this legislation in other ways. As a result of the economic transformation that took place during that time our public telecommunications monopoly company was converted into a private telecommunications monopoly company. The market can operate favourably only when there is genuine competition and ready access by new players. Unfortunately with the monopolistic system that was created what we had in New Zealand certainly did not allow genuine competition and therefore the market mechanism did not operate as it should. Telecom of course had ownership of the physical infrastructure which had been initially funded by public money. 
The public has observed since that time the highly predictable behaviour of this monopoly. If one thinks about it why would a cartage company with a fleet of trucks for example allow a new competitor without any trucks to use its trucks to cart product and undercut its cartage costs? It is not logical behaviour for any commercial entity. Telecom’s behaviour was highly predictable given its monopolistic situation. Of course its main purpose since its inception has been to retain that monopoly. Rather than focusing on improving customer service and reducing prices Telecom’s energies have been diverted to fiercely fought fracas to maintain its privileged position. We have seen the battles over telephone services over many years. 
What was never conceived at the time of the conversion of Telecom to private ownership was that the copper wires that connect homes to the national landline network would become of value for computer usage. No one had conceived of ADSL technology which cuts up information into discrete bits that can then be sent at speed along the copper wires. As a result of this new technology the physical infrastructure owned by Telecom suddenly became extremely valuable both to Telecom and to competitors wanting to get into the market. There was no way that a market mechanism would ever have caused Telecom to relinquish its monopoly—it just would not have taken place in an unregulated situation. As one commentator has stated Telecom had become a law company with a telecommunications unit attached. 
The result was that New Zealanders faced the most expensive and slowest computer services in the developed world. When there is a monopoly the market cannot be depended upon to deliver good services or low cost. Regulation in those circumstances is necessary. I think the Hon Georgina te Heuheu made a very telling point when she said that questions have to be asked of the regulator as to why he made the decision in 2003 not to regulate given the situation that existed. Anyone who did not see that unbundling the local loop would have to be imposed by regulation on Telecom had to have his or her head in the clouds; it was staring that person right in the face. Therefore the loss of Telecom value on the sharemarket actually reflects its overvaluation based upon its monopoly rather than any leakage of documents that may have occurred pre-Budget. Readjustment was going to happen; it took place a little bit more prematurely than it would have otherwise done but it certainly was going to happen when the inevitable unbundling was announced. 
However while such unbundling was inevitable and we support this particular move there could be a downside—and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu made mention of it—unless the whole issue is dealt with very very carefully and that is that investment in rural infrastructure could dry up. Newer entrants into the broadband market will inevitably cherry-pick more densely populated regions. Telecom itself will have its profit margins cut and will be less capable of the infrastructural investment into rural areas that it possibly had planned. New Zealand First has already signalled its concerns around this issue and we will be holding the Government to account for creating a workable rural package. That is not just to ensure that the important economy of the rural sector is maintained at an optimum but also to ensure that our rural education services are able to be delivered in an equitable fashion—and we go back to that famous statement by Peter Fraser about equality of opportunity. We believe that this is an important element and we will be keeping a close eye on the development of the rural packages over the next 12 months to ensure that that becomes a reality. 
We note the introduction of the accounting separation requirements for Telecom in order to increase the transparency of its wholesale and retail operations and we note it particularly with regard to the announcement this week that Telecom will be voluntarily splitting its operations into two autonomous businesses—even though they will come under the umbrella of one entity. Once again I think Georgina te Heuheu quite rightly expressed a degree of cynicism because one might ask why that provision is needed in this legislation when an announcement has already been made that it will happen. Georgina te Heuheu said “We’ll see.” I think it is appropriate that it is in this legislation but it is good to see that Telecom is already moving in that direction in anticipation that the legislation will go through. We think Telecom is starting to demonstrate some positive behaviour—possibly behaviour that will enable it to operate successfully in what essentially will be a new regime. We think that will be good for all New Zealanders and for the nation as a whole. 
The bill introduces a range of other measures to strengthen regulatory potency which is necessary—enhanced enforcement mechanisms and an information disclosure regime for example. So it is not just the unbundling that is brought to bear by this legislation; we believe that it regulates and tightens up things in a range of different fields and we believe that the result will be—somewhat belatedly we have to say—some meaningful gains in terms of increased services and reduced costs for users of telecommunications and broadband. Therefore New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to a select committee. We will certainly be examining very carefully the submissions to make sure that the details are right because in such legislation the devil is in the detail but we do believe that it is on the right track and therefore is worthy of our support. 
Of course there is a difference between 2003 and 2006 in that New Zealand First was not a confidence and supply partner of the Government at that particular time. It could be considered that New Zealand First provided the little bit of steel in the backbone of the Minister of Communications that was needed for him to make the necessary changes that are proposed in this legislation. With that I think I had better wind this up! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa a tena tatou wananga nei i tenei take. 
[ 
Greetings to us all especially those of us debating this matter 
.] 
The art of whaikorero is a skill that is frequently commented upon in Te Ao Maori. In reflecting on our finest orators we will often speak of those people who have that expertise in their ability to connect people along lines of whakapapa. We speak with awe of the way in which these master orators are able to define relationships and link individuals to histories and to collectives. The key to our ongoing survival as people is in such connections. 
It is within this context therefore that we turn our attention to the proposal to unbundle the local loop to unbundle bitstream and to introduce naked digital subscriber line broadband services. I have to say from the start that this is new vocabulary. The terminology of telecommunications does not come easily to me. But I understand the value of communication. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 to ensure the efficient and effective regulation of the telecommunications sector. This means that in effect the bill is sending a strong public policy signal to Telecom and to Vodafone that they will be subject to a greater degree of Government regulation. I understand that the bill enhances the ability of the Commerce Commission to intervene strategically to promote the development of competition in the telecommunications markets. Phone and Internet providers can now present a deal just for the individual. 
In case people are not aware that there is actually already a choice of providers just listen to the list of those that are currently tendering for our business: Hautaki Trust Saturn Communications Econet Holdings ACN Kwiknet Netsurf Splurge Internet Surfnet Slingshot Supra Actrix Networks Raider TelstraClear Wave and IHUG. I could go on; that is probably just the start. Our rangatahi know these names like they know clothing labels. Indeed their cellphones are the fashion accessory that every rangatahi wants when he or she hits school or kura. Those who do hook up to a provider will jump from provider to provider depending on which has the best offer on line for that month. That is precisely how it should be. 
Under a virtual duopoly consumers have not been well looked after and some basic questions remain. Why does Aotearoa have the highest mobile phone rates in the OECD? Why does it cost exactly the same in real terms to make a voice call from my office here in Parliament to my Wellington home as it does to make a call to my home in Ngongotaha—that is Rotorua for those who do not know? I am charged extra relative to the physical distance yet there is no electronic distance involved. 
The ability to be well-connected now means far more than the quality of our social networks as perhaps it did in previous generations. Being well-connected is now driven by something as basic as telephone and Internet access. Indeed  
Social Report 2005 
 describes how Internet and phone access is one of five significant variables that help us to understand social well-being. What do we find? People living in Pasifika families have the lowest levels of telephone and Internet access in the home—88 and 16 percent respectively—followed closely by the levels of access of people living in Maori families which are 92 and 28 percent. The other groups featured in the low-level rankings are families with unemployed adults and sole parent families. Sole parent families are half as likely as two-parent families to have Internet access—25 percent compared with 50 percent. 
The Maori Party is keenly motivated by the need to ensure we do everything in our power to enhance social well-being. Therefore we come to this bill with the hope of ensuring that there are other opportunities for other providers to compete for clients and force our fixed-line communications costs and indeed our mobile prices down to a realistic global price. I have found that fixed-line communication costs in New Zealand including ADSL broadband are much higher than in most other OECD countries and it is artificially kept that way. My question is why is that so. 
We are concerned that this bill is primarily focused on regulation of the fixed line and it completely ignores mobile issues. Our concern is that the bill will pass without mobile issues being discussed and that it will take another amendment bill whenever that might be to address the mobile market concerns. It is the cost of our mobile technology that Ernie Newman boss of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand has labelled as scandalous alleging that New Zealanders are being ripped off by the current duopoly of the two big providers. New Zealand has the highest overall mobile calling rates out of 30 OECD countries which is entirely due to the lack of competition in the mobile industry. This is particularly urgent for tangata whenua as our Maori spectrum interests are associated with mobile. Until the mobile issues are sorted tangata whenua access to the telecommunications industry and the $3 billion mobile market is restricted. 
The other key interest we have in the Telecommunications Amendment Bill is the distinction being made between specified and designated services. Specified services are services where the Telecommunications Commissioner can regulate everything except price. Designated services are services where the Telecommunications Commissioner can regulate everything including price. Regulation of everything except price is not regulation at all; it is a complete nonsense. There is a current mechanism in the Telecommunications Act to move specified services into the designated services category. However this mechanism is slow and cumbersome. 
Generation Y want a regulated roaming solution now and the way of achieving that is through deleting specified services and moving the specified services into the designated services category. Generation Y Maori are online as well and to be frank they astound me with their versatility and command of the technology. Our kids are able to hold an old-fashioned conversation with me while at the same time texting their cousins. They can download electronic screensavers and MP3 files faster than I can work out how to answer the cellphone. I consider myself a pretty techno-smart sort of guy but I am still pretty hooked into the idea that a cellphone is basically a small phone. However my children and my nieces and nephews see their cellphones as the doorway to a world far beyond the white pages. They take infrared photos of each other while I am still searching for the on-off button. At least I am one ahead of one of my co-leaders who calls his new-age cellphone his raspberry. 
The Maori Party will vote in support of this bill to support the right of all of our rangatahi to expand their knowledge and their capacity to communicate even further. We are also of the view that we want the debate to go ahead to allow healthy competition in order to achieve world-class broadband or high-speed Internet services for New Zealand. Ultimately it is our belief in he whakapapa ta te korero—the value of maintaining and expanding our communication with each other—that leads us to support the opportunity for further debate. Kia ora tatou. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party. I begin by congratulating the Minister David Cunliffe on making a courageous move and moving swiftly to implement the Government’s policy decisions by bringing the bill before the House. I commend the Minister because it is an issue that has been raising its head over a number of years. It has gone backwards and forwards; it has been before the House and in the public domain. The Minister has now grasped the nettle and done something about it and I commend him for that. 
 Mr Donnelly was a little bit unkind to imply that one would have had to have one’s head in the sand not to see this coming. I guess his implication was with regard to the position Telecom had taken. But I think it was a bit unkind because Telecom managed successfully to stave off these kinds of moves for a very long time and it clearly thought that it could continue to do so. As I said it is a credit to the Minister that some action is now being taken. 
The reality is that just about everyone has been calling for these kinds of moves except perhaps for the Business Roundtable and Federated Farmers. I have never quite understood the position of Federated Farmers who seem to have taken the position that Telecom’s maintaining of a monopoly over the copper wire would improve services in the rural community. Farmers have absolutely no reason to be satisfied with the service they have been provided with so far and there is a very good chance that this legislation in conjunction with some of the investment announcements the Government has already made may well mean a significantly better service in the rural community. So this is a thing that is being broadly supported it seems in the community. Up until now Telecom has seemed to be immune from regulation and this bill means those days are no longer with us. 
During the debate on the previous telecommunications legislation Sue Kedgley moved some amendments on behalf of the Greens to introduce local loop unbundling but they were not supported by the House. Those moves were in a sense ahead of their time. We saw other opportunities under the previous Minister of Communications Paul Swain to take some action and again unfortunately it did not happen. I am just saying these things—giving that historical context—to indicate really clearly that the Greens are totally supportive of this bill and of the policy behind it. We look forward to seeing it enacted by this House as soon as is practically possible with regard to good legislative decision-making. 
Mr Donnelly said this bill was not the total answer and he is right. It is part of a package announced by the Government that has a number of other components but it is to enact certain parts of those decisions that were announced at the time of the Budget. Really a key part of the Greens’ support for this bill is that we think it is a crucial part of making us a more sustainable economy and a more sustainable nation. If we are going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and make things like telecommuting and the like an actual reality in the day-to-day lives of ordinary New Zealanders then unlocking the potential of broadband in our telecommunications infrastructure is exactly what we need in order to do that. Those concerns were recognised by the Telecommunications Users Association when Ernie Newman commented on the logical support the Greens would give to local loop unbundling and those other measures because of the concerns about sustainability and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. 
Because of New Zealand’s geography and remoteness it is crucial that we get serious about the telecommunications infrastructure. We have a creative and an innovative population that is very quick to take up new technologies. That has been demonstrated for a very long time. In fact when Pakeha came to these shores Maori were very quick to take up new technologies that were available. The Pakeha population—the people who have come here—is equally quick to take up new opportunities. We are an entrepreneurial nation. Unlocking the potential of the information technology infrastructure is crucial to unleashing the potential of New Zealanders. 
Like Mr Donnelly I was pleased to see the announcement that Telecom has made around voluntary moves to create a separate independent wholesale operator. That is really encouraging and we congratulate Telecom on those announcements. They were made subsequent to the assurances that Telecom and in particular Theresa Gattung have made that Telecom sees the writing on the wall and is not going to play an obstructive role but will embrace the new environment and move forward positively and cooperatively. So we are cautiously optimistic that this announcement is about putting those assurances into practice. Cautious is the operative word—there is no reason to be naive and we have to look at what is actually put in place in practice. As has been said by previous speakers the devil is in the detail. Nevertheless we are cautious but optimistic because here is an opportunity to see some really positive moves and not to have to wait for legislation to pass through the House. 
Telecom has the opportunity to take some independent positive steps forward. Of course the provision that allows the Commerce Commission to recognise formal undertakings and accept and enforce voluntary supply commitments and the like in lieu of regulation is in line with that position. So we support that. It has been a reality of moves to regulate telecommunications incumbents overseas that often the strategy of incumbents has been to stall obstruct and obfuscate. I and I think everyone in this House will be very pleased if that proves not to be the case in relation to Telecom in this country. 
In looking at some of the provisions the bill introduces we see that it is quite a complex and comprehensive bill. It addresses a number of different issues. It provides for the introduction of a standard terms determinations process that will allow the Commerce Commission to set access terms and conditions for regulated services for both multiple access seekers and access providers. The ability of the commission to set access terms and conditions is crucial. We have seen this in the international context in relation to local loop unbundling. It is an issue around the whole mobile phone industry in this country. As I mentioned the process allows the commission to enforce voluntary commitments in lieu of regulation and we support that. It allows those voluntary commitments to be made and negotiated in good faith. 
It empowers the commission in a number of ways. We think that that is good because one issue has been the ability of the commission to intervene and regulate and to actually have some teeth. The bill will start to put some of those measures in place. It is important there be a body that can intervene and look out for the strategic interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders and the introduction of local loop unbundling is at the heart of that issue. 
The bill also provides for backhaul and co-location of equipment. I will touch on that subject briefly because it is crucial and has been a big issue in respect of mobile phones. There is anecdotal evidence that Telecom’s network roll-out is installing roadside cabinets that are physically incapable of supporting co-location. I do not know whether that is true—it is just something I have been told although I have not checked it out for myself. If it is true it is a big issue and Telecom would need to be taken to task. Transparency is really needed in that area. 
The bill amends the unbundled bitstream service and provides for naked DSL. That is good particularly since the recent Commerce Commission decision in relation to Vodafone offering competition to the landline service through its mobile network. Again the provision of naked DSL is important. 
The bill is to be very much encouraged and the Minister is to be commended. The Green Party totally supports it. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a call on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. I want to begin by just talking about the principles that underlie competition and therefore competition law. It is absolutely vital to establish the framework in such a way that we remove barriers to new entrants to come into the telecommunications market. That is because competition is actually a public good. It incentivises economic efficiency it lowers prices to consumers and it incentivises the introduction of new technologies. For example we need to incentivise faster Internet speed because that in turn flows through to increased productivity which is a key requirement if we are to set the New Zealand economy on the road to growth. Growth in today’s world is inextricably related to the Internet in terms of both speed and access. This bill assists those goals. 
I need to inform the House that unbundling of the local loop for Telecom actually adopts United Future’s policy in relation to that matter. We went into the 2005 elections—and if people look up our Internet site and our policies they will see this—in favour of unbundling Telecom’s local loop in relation to both the copper wire and the exchanges which are pivotal to the creation of competition. We adopted that policy if you like more in sorrow than in anger because Telecom could we believe have avoided regulatory intervention if it had resigned itself to the desirability of competition and opened up the loop and exchanges to genuine multi-company access. That could have been done on normal commercial terms. 
I will give the House an example to do with exchanges which was brought to me by competing Internet providers. I often think of unbundling being about using the copper wire but I have been told that some of Telecom’s competitors would go to them and say that they would like to put such and such a piece of technology into Telecom’s exchanges and Telecom would say no they could not. Telecom said it had selected the technology that would go into its exchanges and would do a deal with the competitor to use “that” piece of technology but not the one the group wanted to use. Clearly that is restraining competition; it is a big negative when one thinks about it if our desire is to go for economic transformation. New Zealand needs to be able to use the best most cost-effective technology at any point in time. So that is an example of why the exchanges are a very important part of the transaction. 
That might have been expecting a little bit too much but it is true that Telecom as the owner of the copper wire and the exchange with ample spare capacity could have developed a commercially rewarding business and centred that business on renting access to its competitors. However whatever the merits or otherwise of that alternative the die is now cast and New Zealanders overwhelmingly welcome the decision of the Government to unbundle the loop. We will support the Government in bringing about that forced change. In the end this was really the only way to serve the common good. I think that in effect the Government was left with no alternative and I join with others in saying that if anything the only criticism we would have is that we have acted rather too slowly and perhaps should have got there faster than has been the case. United Future supports the bill and will continue to support other initiatives that create a competition platform for new innovative entrants in all the telecommunications and information technologies. 
The member Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned in his speech the question of mobile phone services. I believe also that that is another area the Government has to look at and look at quickly and seriously. I for one was staggered to learn that cellphone prices in New Zealand are up to 10 times—that is right 10 times—higher than in Nigeria and Ghana which are Third World economies. We need to understand why that has happened and the reasons for the disparity. Then we need to take the necessary actions to change it. That may be very difficult for the Government because it has set the current regime in place in respect of mobile services and it is possible that in doing so we have made a massive mistake. 
As the member Shane Jones pointed out where the State itself is responsible—because the State also makes mistakes—for something that is actually counter-productive in terms of our goals of increased competition the transformation of our economy and getting better productivity out of our businesses then we have to be able as a Parliament to face up to that squarely and to change the position even if it requires the payment of compensation for the removal of property rights. The issue is just too big for us to leave on the side—otherwise we will stagnate as an economy and begin to go backwards. We need to focus clearly on whether there are barriers to new entrants. If there are barriers then even if our costs are five times 10 times three times or even twice those of other countries then our failure to address the issue will have a detrimental impact on the chances of our having a successful economy. 
In today’s world it is all about being internationally competitive. Given our present balance of payments and low GDP growth we cannot afford to place our economy at a competitive or comparative disadvantage relative to the rest of the world. When I thought about those principles I was thinking primarily in terms of maintaining our place in the OECD which is actually the Government’s goal. But we know we need to go further than that when we find out that most of the population of nations like Ghana and Nigeria—I have not been to those countries but I have been told—are walking around with cellphones way beyond what we see in New Zealand. Even though those people have very very limited economic and earning power they still have access to mobile phones and mobile phone services. Why? It is because there are no barriers to those people setting up businesses there. We have considerable barriers in this country so we still have some distance to go. We need to be ahead of the game not behind it. 
United Future’s vision for New Zealand is that we should be at the cutting edge of new technologies we should be at the cutting edge of understanding what grows an economy and we should make the changes that we need to make legitimately in terms of the State’s essential function of getting the framework right which is where Parliament comes into the picture. We should not then be frightened to address those other issues as well so that we can continue to bring about a genuine transformation of our economy. That can become a buzzword—we want the “transformation” of our economy. No one in this House will say we do not need to transform our economy but my point is that we need to understand what it is we need to do to bring that about. We need to go beyond window dressing and reach genuine solutions that will also allow the private sector to flourish. United Future is a pro - private sector party and a pro-competition party but markets need to be fair balanced and open to new entrants for that to happen. 
With those remarks I have pleasure in signalling our support for the bill. I too would like to offer my congratulations to Minister Cunliffe on having the courage to take this major step forward. There were risks around it. In my spokesperson’s role on communications since the 2005 election I have come to understand some of the pressures he might have been under but I think this is the right course of action and we will work with the Government to see this thing through to completion. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party which is the only party to oppose the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. I will explain why ACT opposes it. In hearing the speeches today I noticed there were some indications of concern about this bill and I think those concerns will be more serious than we appreciate. 
If we are to transform our economy to develop technology and to have the services utilities and infrastructure that we so desperately and earnestly desire then that will take significant investment. When investors make their investments they do so on the basis of risk and return. They like to have a nice set of stable rules and property rights. This bill pinches a serious number of property rights off a private company—so much so that the Government announcement of this measure knocked $3000 million off the value of one private company. That is not a loss to the company; it is a loss to the shareholders and to the people who invested in the very infrastructure that this country so desperately needs. The fact that the Government could so casually make that decision to regulate telecommunications is not lost on other investors. We have already heard other people in this Parliament say we should do the same thing to the mobile phone companies or to this or that business. 
But why would anyone invest in roading in New Zealand in airports in utilities or in a water development facility or a dam when the Government could come along and say it does not actually like what is happening there—it does not like the price or it does not understand what is going on—so it will just regulate the return— 
Shane Jones 
: What about the public interest? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The public interest is in getting a good telecommunications industry. What I am trying to explain to the member if he would pipe down and listen is that that requires investment. It requires people to look at New Zealand and ask whether it is a good country to invest in. 
I make this point about New Zealand. Countries like the United States the UK and even countries like Australia and the countries of Europe can afford to have dopey policies because no company can miss investing in them. But in respect of a country like New Zealand it is very easy for Vodafone to say things have just become too tough so it will not put in any more money. I ask Pita Paraone how much he thinks Vodafone has invested in New Zealand. It is serious serious money. If we go around and regulate robbing those companies and their investors of their return they will not invest in New Zealand. 
We should even look at the way this has been done in respect of Telecom. Not only did we pinch Telecom’s property rights and knock $3 billion of shareholder value south but the Minister David Cunliffe—who is supposedly a big courageous guy but who has done nothing brave in his life—turned around and said what Telecom should be doing with its profits and what its dividend policy should be. The Minister should not do that; it is the job of business to run business. I am pleased to see the Minister nod his head in agreement with that. But then we saw Helen Clark the Prime Minister launch a personal attack on the chief executive officer of Telecom. Apparently the chief executive officer of Telecom should have seen this decision coming although the chief executive officer of Telecom—somewhat misguidedly I guess—did not think the Government would be so stupid as to come along and pinch the property rights of the largest company in New Zealand. She was wrong; the Government was as stupid as that. We have to ask ourselves what sort of banana republic we are becoming when our Government can say that because it does not like the result it will pinch a company’s property rights without paying any compensation then decide what the dividend policy should be or regulate it and then have the Prime Minister launch an attack on the company’s chief executive officer for not seeing that coming. 
Another new development is that the Minister and the Government have come along and said that if they do not like what this company does they will cut it in half—split it up—even though they know nothing about telecommunications or how the company operates and the Government has not put a dollar in. Pita Paraone sits there. He has not put in a dollar towards providing telecommunications in New Zealand. But other people have. Why pinch it off them? That is my point. Why would the Government do that? I think there is a bit of a problem with the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Mr Shane Jones. He has not yet heard a submission on this bill but he has already made up his mind about it. What sort of signal does that send to the people who want to make submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
I have two final points to make. One is that in a big regulatory move such as this we would expect to see some analysis. I look across to the Government members and ask them where even the rudimentary cost-benefit analysis of this proposal is. What we see is their assumption that pinching the property rights of Telecom will open up the market and add to GDP growth. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: www.med.govt.nz. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister calls out but this is a very very serious piece of regulation. I say to him that if this move is as worthwhile as Pita Parone says it is and is in the public interest then that means it would have to create more than $3 billion worth of value for society would it not? It would have to mean that. In that case if it meets the public interest test in a cost-benefit sense why is the Government in the interests of society as a whole not compensating the losers? 
Let us understand this: those people own that copper wire and they own that exchange. I saw people get very upset—and rightly so—about the Government’s moves to regulate away the ability of iwi to go to court and have their claim for the foreshore and seabed heard because their property rights were being pinched. But what about the mum and dad investors in Telecom? And what about the big investors in Telecom who have had their property rights pinched—not just their opportunity to go to court but their property rights pinched? And if this move does meet the public interest test then the Government on behalf of each and every one of us would be able to afford to pay compensation for those rights because the gains would be large enough. 
Shane Jones 
: Parliament’s sovereign. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Of course it is. No one is arguing that it is not. I know that the member gets himself into much trouble because he does not understand the rules of this place. I suggest to him that we are not arguing about whether Parliament is sovereign. I am not arguing that Parliament has no ability to do this; I am just arguing about whether it is a good idea. That is why I oppose this bill. 
If Mr Jones thinks it is wrong to pinch people’s property rights—and I know he does think it is wrong—and if he thinks it is wrong to deny people the ability to go to court but then says it is OK if it is in the public interest to do so then those people should be compensated. Of course if the plus is as big as the Government says it will be then the compensation can be afforded. 
Shane Jones 
: When did you give up on the consumers?  
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I give up on Mr Jones because he is one of those interesting people who knows everything. He actually knows everything. 
I now turn to my friends in the National Party and I say I am a bit disappointed in them because the National Party should actually stand up for private property rights. It should be very cautious about the Government’s moves to come along and somehow regulate for competition—the belief that somehow pushing companies around and taking their property rights will lead to a more competitive environment. [ 
Interruption 
] He is witty Mr Jones is he not? It must be Thursday afternoon for him. I hope that the National Party will come to its senses and will when this bill comes back from the select committee see fit to oppose this intrusion of the State into business. That will be a cost to New Zealand. Thank you very much. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 National will support the Telecommunications Amendment Bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I start by saying that this would have to be the biggest bungle ever made by any Government ever—that is the announcement and the handling of the announcement of this bill. That having been said—and the fact that the way it was handled in my view contributed substantially to the amount lost by mum and dad investors “Joe Hard-worker” investors in Telecom as a result of that announcement—let us address a few of the points on which we do agree. 
One is that the whole structure of telecommunications in this country has not lived up to and met the demands of a growing commercial sector. So let us agree on that. That is a fact and we need to do more in that regard. We need to enhance our broadband access and the speed of it and investment therein. Let us also agree that in a modern economy business is highly dependent on these forms of modern telecommunications and if we want to see New Zealand get back into the top half of the OECD as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions then we need to do something about the state of that infrastructure. 
 But the area where we totally disagree and where I have a huge amount of anxiety—I am speaking in the House this afternoon in favour of the introduction of this bill and its referral to the select committee but with anxiety—is the area of property rights which the previous speaker touched on. We cannot send a signal to the international investment community that if an autonomous company—a company that runs its own business—is not run in the way the State likes then the socialists will step in and say how it must be done. We cannot do that; that is the worst thing any Government can do in terms of encouraging investment. 
Let us do away with some of the myths that have been built around this debate. One of the myths is that Telecom is some multinational corporation acting in an uncompetitive way in the telecommunications field and it needs to be dealt with. This may surprise those on the other side of the House who of course have much smaller minds when it comes to business affairs but Telecom is a minnow. Telecom is a very small telecommunications company on world scale. If the large telecommunications companies in the world with all of the modern technology that has been available to them for a long time could not come into New Zealand and make that alternative technology viable on a commercial footing without tapping into yesteryear technology—the old copper wire infrastructure—then how do we imagine this legislation will now encourage them to do that? I ask that question. 
I also raise a major question—and I welcome the Minister for Rural Affairs to the House—with regard to telecommunications for isolated rural areas out there where telecommunication is more important than it is anywhere else. I need to remind the House once again—we keep saying it over and over—that that is the heartland of this country the heartland of the economy. That is the area where the greatest economic gains could come from. I will make a prediction now and I invite members to look up  
Hansard 
 in a few years’ time pull it out again and tell me whether I am right or wrong. I think this move will slow down the investment in that area short term. I also think it will create extra costs in that area in the short to medium term. Long term will it overcome the problem of what has now become a historic agreement which is the old Kiwi share? 
I think we probably should remind ourselves in this debate of how this structure came about. It came about through the sale of this country’s post office and telecommunications structure by the former Minister for State-owned Enterprises the Hon Richard Prebble who was a Labour Minister of course at the time. When that happened the Government put in place a regulation that was known as the Kiwi share. It required Telecom to maintain its copper wire infrastructure at 1989 levels. The incoming Helen Clark Labour Government in about 2000 looked at what had happened with regard to the Kiwi share structure and decided to revamp it. It went through a major consultation process at that time and I believe that in the ensuing 6 years something like 69 different reports were produced. That was typical of this Labour Government—get another report put it on the shelf and do not take any notice of what it says. Then finally by accident the new Minister fumbled around and stumbled out with this announcement. 
I say to the House that I have some major concerns. I hope the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee will listen with an open mind. I say to them—and to the chair of the select committee—that they should listen with an open mind to all of those who submit and have a look at international experience. I tell them not just to make up their minds that “we know best” and the State will always get it right. They should have a look at what has happened internationally in countries that have similar geographical problems to ours like Australia which is our nearest neighbour and other nations around the world like the US and see what they have done. They should have a look at what has worked and what has not and come back to this House with legislation that may—and I emphasise the word “may”—help to enhance our telecommunications in this country. 
We are I understand 22nd out of 30 countries in the OECD in terms of our access to broadband. Is that not an indictment on this Government which claims to have been a business-friendly proactive Government with regard to getting things done? We are 22nd out of 30 countries in the OECD. I ask another question. Why in 2003 did the Telecommunications Commissioner Douglas Webb come back to the Government with one of the 69 reports and say that introducing regulation to allow access to Telecom’s infrastructure would not work? Why did he do that? On what basis did he make that decision? Can we say with any certainty here today that what is happening or is about to happen will bring about the panacea as it were that this Government claims it might? 
Telecom has announced in the last few days that it is looking at splitting its telecommunications infrastructure—that is the copper wires infrastructure—from the rest of the business. I think that is to be encouraged. I do not know whether that will enhance what is being proposed by the Government but I think it is a good step. 
Shane Jones 
: Not on their own free will. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I look forward to hearing from the member who is interjecting when he gets to the select committee and some facts are presented to him. I look forward to his taking on some of these major telecommunications providers and telling them straight pan-faced that they are wrong and he knows best. Those people have invested millions of dollars in this area and I think they would have done some pretty robust analysis of what works and what does not work. 
The major concern however having said all of that is that at the end of this process the major digital divide as I and others have taken to calling it between rural and urban New Zealand is able to be closed. It is absolutely essential for this economy that that happens. It is essential not only from an economic point of view but also from an educational point of view. 
Major parts of the economy out there still do not have basic access to broadband and Internet connections. The fact that we are still trying to find ways to push more of that information down a 1989—or even older in some cases—kind of technological structure is absurd. Of course when that technology was put in place we did not yet have Internet access facsimile access or that kind of thing; we were talking about analogue rather than digital information exchange. The fact that there is new technology now to enhance that situation is a great thing but we just need investment in that technology. I say to the Government that it will have to look seriously at what happens with regard to that rural infrastructure and there may well be an argument that can be put forward for some kind of cross-subsidy for doing that in a socially responsible way. 
I look forward to the findings of the select committee. We support this bill going to the select committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Communications 
: I move  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
referred to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 November 2006 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the Social Services Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were two written submissions on the bill and I would like to thank the submitters. 
The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows 2003 and 2004 Budget initiatives for new and extended information matches between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has completed the implementation of a number of higher priority information matches with other agencies. Those matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and have maintained the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information match. The information match will help to minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments and help with the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments the information match may benefit tenants their partners and dependants by identifying that they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support. 
Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act 1993 require that the individuals who are affected by the programme will be notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout the operation of the programme to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing corporation tenants will be made aware that information supplied to it by tenants may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development. 
The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act provides for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993 to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purpose of information sharing and to list the new information-matching provisions. 
In closing I say the bill extends information matching between agencies so as to improve the integrity of the income support system. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 As the Minister has just said this bill amends and changes the name of the Housing Restructuring Act 1992. It inserts into that Act information-matching provisions that allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about its tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development and it amends the Privacy Act in order to allow for that. 
In the Social Services Committee we were told that this bill was necessary to help the Ministry of Social Development minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments to help the ministry recover beneficiary and student debt to provide early intervention to prevent debt accumulation to prevent fraud and to help locate people who owe money to the ministry. The National Party has supported the bill’s progress through this House because it was our idea. In fact in 1999 the National-led Government tried to introduce similar legislation into the House but the Labour Opposition would not support it. We are very pleased that Labour has seen the light and recognises that we understand the realities about some of these things and that we do have some very good solutions. 
We are pleased to see this bill finally come through and we support it for a number of reasons. First of all we believe it increases transparency and openness. The Privacy Commissioner in her report to the select committee concluded: “Very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. We readily accept that the department’s objectives which seek to protect that money relate to matters of significant public importance.” That is absolutely the National Party’s position at this point. 
This is a large budget; millions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are made available to assist people into more affordable housing. When unscrupulous tenants try to double-dip and get more than they are entitled to from what they call “the system” but which is in actual fact public money earned by hard-working New Zealanders paying their taxes—and exorbitant taxes they are becoming too—we believe there is a responsibility on the State to track them down and put a stop to it. Of course there are always those who get themselves into trouble without realising it—unintentionally—and this information matching will help to pick up some of those anomalies before they grow into an overwhelming debt that some people find themselves simply unable to face or to work their way out of. 
Second we also support this bill because it addresses the issue of State house tenants who lease out their rooms and do not declare the income. The Minister’s figures at the end of last year show that almost 7000 State tenants had paying boarders—the worst had seven. They are not people who need a helping hand with housing from overtaxed New Zealand workers. I would say in that case they are a very entrepreneurial group of people. 
At the Committee stage I raised the issue of bed and breakfast owners. People with more than three paying guests have a huge raft of increased fire health and safety requirements. They have to have escape plans smoke detectors well-labelled fire exits and fire extinguishers right through their properties. There is an inspection regime and some will require alarms that are connected automatically to the fire station and the police station. So the issue is not just about State tenants ripping off the taxpayers by double-dipping into public and private purses. There are enormous risks in overcrowded homes. 
I am well aware that Housing New Zealand Corporation tries very hard to match its houses with the needs of families. So if it has done that and placed someone in a house that has only two or three bedrooms and then that person gets in three or four paying boarders there is overcrowding that puts some of those people at risk. Also many tenants could be occupying a house that is too large for their needs and they should make way for families and move down to a smaller home. Perhaps that is an issue for another time. 
I cannot let this bill’s final debate go without talking about New Zealand’s largest group of landlords the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. It made a submission to the select committee and as one would expect from an organisation like that it was an excellent submission and very professional. Whilst the federation supported the intent of the bill it asked that the bill be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with details that would enable them to collect court-awarded payments from delinquent tenants. The federation’s submission made some very powerful points which unfortunately have been set to one side by the officials as being outside the scope of the bill. The bill before us is designed to provide the Government with information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt to the Government. The federation’s argument was that it too wanted information to enable it to catch fraudsters and those who get into debt with it and I felt it had a very powerful argument. 
The federation referred to the 2003 agreement that under a tenancy tribunal judgment creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by being provided with access to some Government-held address information. It made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears as against the Government’s $1.6 million of rent arrears and that private landowners are owed at least $43 million in damages. The federation is continually frustrated at its inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of the tenants are known to the State and still receive benefits from the State whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation. 
I feel it was a great pity that the matter was deemed to be outside the scope of this bill because the 2003 agreement is obviously not working. In fact the officers when reporting to the select committee referred to that agreement and suggested it may well be formalised in statute as a result of the current review of the Residential Tenancies Act which I understand has now been withdrawn. 
 In conclusion National does support this bill. It is long overdue. The Government has certainly dragged its feet on it but has finally accepted that National did know what it was talking about in 1999. We look forward to the enactment of this legislation and hope it is implemented promptly throughout New Zealand. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in the third reading of this legislation. It is heartening to hear a speaker from the Opposition Anne Tolley repeat that National will be supporting its enactment. A pattern is emerging as National members have also agreed to support the reference of that fine legislation debated earlier the Telecommunications Amendment Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Firstly the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
is premised on a very important principle—the principle of ensuring that quality information is shared across agencies to ensure that expenditure is carried out in an efficient manner and that value is achieved as we spend taxpayers’ money. Secondly the bill adds substance to the proposal—and to the dream dare I say of all parties that are concerned about value for money I am sure—of achieving an approach to policy and implementation that causes Government departments to work together for the benefit of the target group and to ensure that at all times we are doing the best we can with funds that come from the taxpaying base. 
I stand and note that New Zealand First and United Future have already indicated they will support the bill because it further adds to the integrity of the benefit system but also strengthens an underlying principle. When we draw resources to help those who are very vulnerable in society let us ensure we draw what they require and that we draw them and use them in the most efficient way possible to uphold the integrity of the system and not damage the views of the taxpayer about how well funds are being spent to assist the most vulnerable segments in our society. I support the third reading of the bill. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill and I am pleased to do so. It is interesting to have been somewhat of a passenger to this bill as it has progressed through the House and to have been sitting and listening to some of the comments that came through in its second reading. I see that this bill makes an enormous amount of common sense and it will encourage us to accept our responsibilities. In fact it crosses to the very heart of the Kiwi psyche of fair play and honesty. So on that basis alone it is a common-sense bill. As a member of Parliament one becomes very quickly acquainted with the needs of those who are not as fortunate as we are. One realises the complexity of situations and challenges that confront them. 
In the debate during the bill’s second reading some members said that it did not get a very fair hearing—that it sort of slipped through. But from my summing up of the second reading of this bill it had received a fair old dusting. It was very interesting to hear the housing spokesperson for National Phil Heatley bring out the point that in actual fact this bill was before the House in 1999 because of the same issue. On that occasion it was the Labour Party that kicked it into touch. It voted against it. However common sense has come to prevail and we see we are at the stage we were 7 years ago. So from that point of view standing and speaking to this bill during its third reading it is nice to see some National policy in this bill move on its way in the direction of being passed into law. 
Positively it addresses the issues of those people who are ripping off the system—those ratbags; those very few people who need reminding of their responsibilities. They are only a very small minority I know. However they need to be accountable. It is very interesting to see that 63000 homes are owned by the Housing New Zealand Corporation which provides support to people in need. It is a big number of houses and a big responsibility. In Blenheim alone we have 450 such houses and I was quite surprised to find out that number. Associated with some of the problems is the issue around the number of people living in a house and paying board. That in itself needs to be an issue that is referred to so that that board can be considered as income. 
I would like to make a point at this stage after hearing the arguments during the second reading process that some families are enormously large in size—up to 10 or 12 people. If they are old enough to pay board then I certainly hope they are not living on their parents free of board because that in itself would not be giving the appropriate direction for people to pay their way. 
Such points were covered thoroughly during that second reading. It was interesting to hear that there were some very clearly defined reasons why this legislation had to come forward. It is there to minimise the issue around benefit debt. When one stops and thinks about that one can see that it is so very very easy to fall into the trap whereby one ends up in a situation well over one’s head and does not know where to turn. It is better to address the issue sooner rather than later. Quality information being transferred between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development would be a first step in solving the problem. 
Early intervention and detection are appropriate and able to be conducted. The issue I have with this is that we should not incur a bureaucracy in doing so and so effectively use a sledgehammer to kill an ant. It was pointed out that the technologies and setting up would cost in the vicinity of $600000. That sounded all very good. I believe that in about 2005 the sum to be collected from people who were abusing the system was estimated to be about $1.4 million. So it will be very important to keep in view that there need to be appropriate efficiencies so that we do not end up with another layer of bureaucracy which is so common in regard to the Government we have today. We know that fraud detection is one of the other reasons and a great deal of original thinking can emanate from the desperation of people trying to make ends meet. 
Again I thought it was very appropriate that the officials pointed out that there was a positive around the bill in as much as it would help identify those people who were not receiving their full entitlements. That is a very important aspect. When somebody who is really struggling makes an appointment to see a member of Parliament it is surprising what help one can be in empowering him or her to go away and get those appropriate entitlements. That is a really rewarding and enjoyable part of being a member of Parliament. 
The three reasons why National supports the bill are as I said that it came before the House in 1999—it was a National bill and from that point of view it is commendable that Labour has come to the party and we are where we are today—it is important from the National Party point of view that we have increased transparency and honesty; and of course there is the issue around those people who are receiving undeclared income by way of extra boarders. That money should be declared as income from the point of view of Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Ministry of Social Development. 
It was quite obvious during the debate that there are always two sides to the story and as has been referred to already in this third reading only two submissions were received. That was a surprise. I am less than happy with that although we see that they came from two different angles. One came from the angle of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation. It made some interesting statements; it has to incur somewhere in the region of a $5 million or $6 million debt owing on rent and it also has to wear a $45 million a year damage bill. That in itself was an issue. It is very unfortunate that this bill does not have the scope to be able to encompass that major issue. 
In regard to consequences around the Privacy Act 1993 it is good to see that on balance the members of this Parliament are comfortable that the privacy of the individual is looked after and that there are no major issues around that. 
What I would consider to be the gem statement during the debates that I read about came from the member from New Zealand First who made the comment that no doubt we were all thinking that this bill in the way that it intends for information to be shared between Government departments is in fact a forerunner of similar communications between Government departments in the future. 
I have had great pleasure in supporting this bill during its various stages and on that basis I think it is long overdue. It is interesting that it was a National initiative in 1999. That it is back here in 2006 is appropriate. It will address a number of anomalies and all in all it will enable Housing New Zealand Corporation to conduct its affairs in an even-handed way and share that information with the Ministry of Social Development. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand in this the third reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the passing into law of this bill not because we claim that the purpose of this bill is our policy but rather because we are of the view that it is our responsibility to protect taxpayers’ funds and taxpayer assets. This bill does exactly that. As I say New Zealand First supports this bill. However in so doing I want to acknowledge the support that the National Party is giving to this bill as well albeit possibly for different reasons—that is that it was National’s idea in 1999. This must be the only policy that National members can claim to be theirs over recent years as they have tended to take the policies of other parties—of one party in particular—and claim them to be theirs. Be that as it may I acknowledge National’s support. 
In order to legislate the intent of the bill amendments were required to the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992 and the Privacy Act. New Zealand First supports the bill particularly in view of the fact that it protects the integrity of this country’s benefit system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in this bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill is specific about the information that may be disclosed and who lives at the address in question. It is important that the information matching is confined to Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development and is provided for the purpose that this bill limits it to. I think if it were to go beyond those two departments then it really would be an abuse of the legislative power vested in those two ministries. There is in our view a fine line between having enough information to protect the State’s finances and prying into the private lives of our citizens. That line should be made very clear and should never be crossed. The one-way specific information-sharing enabled by this bill is we believe acceptable. 
We raised concerns during the first reading of the bill about the privacy issues it raises and the ease with which this age of electronic information affords the opportunity for intrusion into people’s private lives. The age of Big Brother is well and truly upon us now and we need to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance when applying through legislation what technology now allows. Just because the means are there does not mean we need to use them. I think the debate during last week’s sitting of the House in relation to dog microchipping is an example of that. However we are satisfied that any information sharing carried out under this legislation will be subject to strict controls and sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. 
This House has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from fraud. New Zealand First will support any bill that protects and ensures the credibility of taxpayer expenditure and we believe that this bill does that. We are satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Corporation as the two Government departments affected by this legislation will use it sparingly that they will use it to maximise people’s benefit entitlements as well as to detect fraud and that they will apply its provisions in accordance with the intention with which they were written. 
Comment was made about an earlier statement New Zealand First made in regard to the intent of this bill being extended to other Government departments. I believe that one or two submissions made during the select committee consideration of the bill requested that its provisions should be extended to the courts. Although that is not the intent of the bill I would have thought given the great support that certain parties gave the submitters that perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper might be introduced to extend the Government departments involved in the bill by including the courts. The argument put forward by the submitters was a good one and it needs to be considered. At the end of the day that particular part of our community provides a service that essentially picks up a lot of what Housing New Zealand Corporation is not able to do because it does not have the resources available to it. 
In conclusion I reiterate New Zealand First’s position that we support this legislation. It will certainly protect taxpayers’ funding and assets. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker tena tatou katoa. I do not know whether you will remember Mr Deputy Speaker but I remember that when I was a young fellow I was hooked into a cult series in which an evil organisation KAOS attempted to take over the world. The forces of good were represented in an organisation called CONTROL which would constantly battle with KAOS to maintain order in the world. At the helm of CONTROL was the Chief with Secret Agent 86 Maxwell Smart who was anything but smart. The Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is the 2006 version of  
Get Smart.  
The apparent crisis of overpayment of benefits is responded to with an over-the-top reaction of transferring vital details to any employees or agents of a host of agencies including the Accident Compensation Corporation the Chief Registrar of Electors the Department of Corrections the Inland Revenue Department Land Transport New Zealand the New Zealand Customs Service and so on. 
Following the submissions from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation it appeared that the Ministry of Justice was also considered suitable for the information-matching programme. Members might remember that Maxwell Smart in his fight against KAOS is assisted by his sidekick Agent 99. She is the beautiful one the one with class who attempts to talk sense into any project and any situation. As we come here today the Maori Party—playing Agent 99 to this Labour Government’s  
Get Smart 
 surveillance scheme—is obviously going to speak against this bill. We have picked up on the submissions from the Dunedin Community Law Centre which was concerned at the multi-type surveillance able to be brought to bear on one individual by a number of different agencies. 
As I understand it originally the bill’s provisions were to enable Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development which administers benefits and student allowances. But not content with the Ministry of Social Development alone the bill extends the target of its surveillance over a wide berth to help in the detection of fraud. The Maori Party will not condone the abuse of power and privilege that is associated with any fraudulent activity or behaviour but we have asked right throughout the debate on this bill what justification this control-freak control-driven Government has for targeting beneficiaries for increased surveillance and monitoring to a level that compromises their rights. If this Government was really committed to getting smart about housing provision in New Zealand there are plenty of other responsible actions or interventions that Housing New Zealand Corporation could make to support better services for tenants. Instead we have a reversal of the one-size-fits-all approach that politicians conveniently bring out for debate when all else fails. 
This bill unashamedly targets a particular population—the population of beneficiaries—for a mean-spirited attack on their rights. It is an attack that implies that if a tenant is a beneficiary that tenant has reduced eligibility for civil and human rights. We in the Maori Party have seen such discrimination in New Zealand State housing before. As Maxwell Smart would say “would you believe” that up until the late 1940s Maori were excluded from mainstream State housing on the grounds that their presence would allegedly lower the tone of State housing communities. There was also an assumption that few could afford the rent. These were the so-called golden days of the land of milk and honey; a time when one law for all meant one law for all except Maori. When Maori were finally admitted into mainstream State housing in 1948 through a scheme administered by the State Advances Corporation and the Department of Maori Affairs they were pepper-potted into Pakeha neighbourhoods seemingly to encourage their assimilation into Pakeha society. But the question of the “right” community standards returned and it was not long before the native neighbourhoods were shunted out to ghetto-like concentrations in Porirua and South Auckland. 
Discrimination in targeted housing policy did not reside just in the issue of location. The quality of housing provided was also ripe for analysis. At the inaugural conference of the Maori Women’s Welfare League in Wellington in September 1951 Dame Whina Cooper the foundation president instigated a survey of Maori housing in Auckland. The survey revealed that large numbers of Maori were overcrowded in unsanitary dwellings. The status and profile of tangata whenua were reflected in the provision of bare housing features in each house—a lack of insulation floor coverings floor space quality paint wall coverings concreting fencing sewerage and community facilities. The devastating data forced the Auckland City Council and the Department of Maori Affairs to demolish slums and provide a higher quota of State and council housing for Maori tenants. Nowadays more than 15000 Maori households are in State housing. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the founding of the Maori Women’s Welfare League. Perhaps it is timely to look again at the inspiration left behind by ”Te Whaea o te Motu”—the “Mother of the Nation”—and replicate the 1951 housing survey. 
The Maori Party is interested in what rationale the Government can spin around the creation of two categories of tenants with different sets of rights. Clearly the “one law for all dogs” argument that dominated the microchipping chaos cannot be said to apply to this bill. The Government cannot have it both ways and claim a “one law for all” position as it is currently doing in respect of the Geneva Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples then try to create a different set of rights for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. Both actions are actually a denial of human rights. 
This “Get Smart Bill” might never have needed to happen. However we say that there are already sufficient and considerable measures available in the Ministry of Social Development to extract the information that is supposedly needed. We are advised that the Ministry of Social Development can obtain the same information through informed consent and that ample powers already exist to achieve compliance. All this bill does is add another layer to its efforts to protect the benefit system. We need to ask what the more important protection is: the benefit system or the people. We agree with our friends the Greens that we would rather the focus be on people receiving the full amount of income support that they are entitled to than on introducing punitive measures aimed at cutting people off. 
This bill sets Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants apart from other tenants. The special privilege for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants is that they will be subject to data matching with Work and Income. It is KAOS in its absolutely worst degree. One group of citizens is being infected again by this Government’s festering sore—its beef against beneficiaries. Of course we in this Chamber are all beneficiaries of the State. We are dependent on the generosity of the taxpayers of this land for keeping us in paid work. A considerable wealth of information is available on each and every one of us either through our own web pages or promotional material or through formal mechanisms such as the annual declaration of pecuniary interests. The difference between the beneficiaries in this Chamber and the beneficiaries in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes is that we can sit behind the protection of parliamentary privilege the power of position or the safety net afforded by the Official Information Act in resisting the free-sale trade of our personal information. No such luxury exists for the beneficiaries targeted in this bill. It is as big a contrast as between the class act of  
The Avengers 
 and the comedy antics of Maxwell Smart. 
The Maori Party will not stand by and tolerate the targeted injustice that we see represented in this bill and similarly in Working for Families. The Maori Party will vote against this bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the third reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. In response to the previous speaker I say that the key word in the title is “matching”. The bill provides the chance to identify folk—folk who receive taxpayer-funded income support and who also receive taxpayer-funded housing support—for the mutual benefit of the taxpayer and of those receiving assistance. That is a win-win situation. For beneficiaries there is the opportunity to check whether they are receiving all the entitlements they are due and for taxpayers there is the chance to identify the few beneficiaries who may unlawfully be trying to enjoy the advantages of a State house and claim entitlement to an accommodation supplement. 
This is not an information-sharing bill; it is an information-matching bill. I think that very important distinction needs to be understood. The information exists on both departments’ files already; therefore the bill does not introduce to either of the two departments information that is surplus to requirements. The flow of information is one-way and is disclosed on a need-to-know basis. New section 67 inserted by clause 5 refers to the purpose of new section 68 which is: “to facilitate the disclosure of information by the Corporation to the department …” and states very clearly the reasons why that can be disclosed. New section 68(1) is also clear that: “the chief executive of the department may from time to time”—as is required—“request the Corporation to supply in respect of persons who are tenants in relation to Corporation housing”. New section 69 specifies very clearly exactly what information is allowed to be passed over. It includes people’s information to make sure that the right people are matched with the right information including rental details; income details which would already have been disclosed by the client to the corporation; and any contact details that might be helpful if the person is no longer renting with the corporation. The bill is very clear about what can be supplied and in what circumstances. The information can be passed only in one direction and in the sensible direction as well. 
There are two consequential amendments to the Privacy Act. Schedule 3 is amended to include reference to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 and section 97 is amended to include the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s new name as a specified agency. 
As other speakers have said some submitters suggested changes that fell outside the scope of this amendment bill. That signals of course that this bill does not resolve all issues peculiar to the administration of our benefit system or housing assistance system. We could do better and we need to be looking constantly at ways of improving both systems. 
In conclusion I want to counter one contribution that was made although I do not remember at what stage of the debate it arose or even who gave the speech. I was rather disturbed to hear it suggested that the gains in savings from stopping those attempting to double-dip were so insignificant as to almost relegate the bill to be not worthwhile at all. New Zealand enjoys relative to other countries very low levels of corruption and therefore systems that demand honest dealings particularly from those who benefit from taxpayer assistance are hugely important to the ongoing ethos of this country. We want to maintain that standard and I do not think it matters whether the consequential benefit in taxpayer dollars is minimal compared with the honesty that is demanded of people. That is not too high a price to ask in order to maintain systems that are free from corruption. United Future is happy to support the third reading of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill which the Green Party will be opposing. I did not sit on the Social Services Committee; my colleague Sue Bradford did. Our concerns echo almost identically the views expressed so eloquently by the Maori Party. We also share all the concerns articulated by Te Ururoa Flavell. The bill singles out and discriminates against beneficiaries when there is no need to because ample powers exist already. We believe the bill provides huge potential for undermining the privacy of that segment of our society. 
But the wider issue that really concerns the Greens is that for a Government that professes to be passionate about democracy this Government seems to be increasingly resorting to surveillance technology. Last week it was embracing microchipping technology; this week it is data-matching technology. We wonder why so much surveillance technology is being embraced by the Government. It seems not concerned that we seem to be adding just one little bit then another little bit and slowly laying the foundations for a surveillance society. Instead this society should be open democratic and trusting. 
We see the bill as being an unnecessary targeting of beneficiaries and the establishment of just another little step in the development of a surveillance society. We are extremely concerned about the undermining of privacy that this bill involves—and frankly why would we have a bill that simply targets one group in our society? We do not think a good reason has been put forward by the Government as to why we need this bill when ample powers exist already. 
We do not share the view of United Future that there is no potential for abuse of information data-matching. We think there is great potential and therefore we will be opposing the bill. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In rising to support the bill I have to say that 7 years was a long time to wait for it to come into the House. Seven years ago National introduced similar legislation and Labour did not value its merit then. It has taken the Government 7 long years to now see the importance of the matter. The bill provides for an information-matching programme between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. 
All that the bill does is to enable the corporation to provide information to the ministry to help the ministry—no more and no less than that. The bill is not as the Maori Party has asserted a “spy bill”. It is not an “SIS bill”. It relates only to information disclosed to one ministry: the Ministry of Social Development. I disagree with the previous speaker from the Maori Party who claimed that the ministry already has the power to collect the information through informed consent. I really do wonder how realistic it is to say that when the bill deals with cheats. I do not know of many cheats who would voluntarily inform their details to a ministry so that they could then be caught cheating. The bill is about the cheats; it is not about discriminating against beneficiaries. Furthermore the bill is not about all information but is merely about information needed for the purpose of helping the ministry firstly to verify the entitlement or eligibility of any person to or for any benefit; secondly to verify the amount of any benefit to which any person is or was entitled or to which any person is or was eligible; and thirdly to recover debts due to the Crown—acting by and through the department—in respect of benefits. 
 We have heard in previous readings of the bill that there are four reasons why the information-matching mechanism is desired. They are firstly to assist the ministry in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt arising from benefit and allowance overpayments; secondly to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt; thirdly to assist in the detection of fraud and to help to track people who are in debt to the ministry; and fourthly to identify beneficiaries who are not receiving the correct income support entitlements. Put simply this bill is designed to uncover and detect fraud and fraudulent activity that dishonestly use the taxes of hard-working New Zealanders. Who would not want such activities to be stopped or at least reduced if not prevented? Who would not want to catch those cheats? 
It is interesting to note that there are some 65000 Housing New Zealand Corporation properties and that approximately 190000 individuals reside in them. That is a lot of houses and a lot of people. State houses should be available for families who need such assistance but not for those who just want them and think they are their right. We have heard that nearly 7000 State tenants have paying boarders. When those board payments are not taken into account or disclosed then that amounts to a situation whereby the State and taxpayers are being ripped off—not by all tenants but by enough to justify this bill. State houses are intended for needy families not for people who run a boarding house business and make money at the expense of needy families and hard-working taxpayers. Many tenants in State houses receive money from boarders pocket that money and do not declare the rent they receive as part of their income. But it is income it is fraudulent to not declare such income and that defrauds hard-working New Zealand taxpayers. 
We have heard objections that under the privacy legislation this bill is not acceptable—that it is an infringement on the privacy of citizens and on their rights. I say that many people are so focused on their rights and on what they believe are their absolute rights that they forget their corresponding duties and obligations: the obligation to pay the rent the obligation not to defraud hard-working New Zealand taxpayers the obligation not to cheat the system and the obligation not to defraud. How far can the cheats in our system hide behind the privacy veil and claim their right to privacy when they publicly and flagrantly cheat hard-working New Zealand taxpayers? Do the cheats really deserve total immunity from prosecution by claiming the defence of privacy? I do not think so. And how much double-dipping is our society required to put up with without saying and doing anything about it? 
This bill will do something about it. It has been scrutinised by the Privacy Commissioner—from a privacy point of view—who knows that the bill aims to address double-dipping whereby tenants obtain more financial assistance than they are entitled to from the two Government departments: the double-dipping of receiving subsidised housing provided through Housing New Zealand Corporation and the payment of accommodation assistance. As the commissioner observed very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. Protecting that money is a matter of significant public importance. Her report states: “We are of the opinion that the use of the programme will bring monetary savings in terms of identifying fraud and overpayments and these are likely to be both significant and quantifiable. We also accept that it may lead to early detection of overpayments and that this may result in benefits to society. The commonality of information reduces the privacy concern about MSD acquiring an unwarranted and intrusive view of its clients’ affairs as a result of this match.” 
Not all Housing New Zealand Corporation records will be disclosed and not every bit of information about Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants will be disclosed. This is a “catch the cheat” bill that is not dissimilar to the information matching that is currently permitted under the Department of Corrections - Ministry of Social Development inmates match and the Inland Revenue Department - Ministry of Justice fines defaulters match. The common denominator with those matches is that they are aimed at the cheats—those who are stealing from hard-working New Zealand taxpayers. Cheats have to know that if they break the rules they run the risk of being caught. For the majority of good responsible rent-paying rule-abiding State tenants this bill will hold no fear. The cheats are now more likely to be caught through the information-matching processes prescribed by the bill being put in place. 
There is a mischief out there and there are cheats in our system—the double-dippers. Those cheats need to be caught. But we also need to be practical and realistic. To set up this information-matching procedure will cost money both to set it up and to administer it. In order to be financially viable the savings must outweigh the costs. We understand the Ministry of Social Development expects to save about $1.4 million a year. We need to ensure that the costs do not exceed the savings. This information-matching process is not designed just to be nosy about people; it is about detecting fraud preventing double-dipping catching the cheats and ensuring proper transparency and the accountability of the tax dollar. This bill does not allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about its tenants to all and sundry—to debt collectors and others—but is limited to information disclosed to the Ministry of Social Development about tenants who are receiving taxpayer-funded benefits or a taxpayer-funded service. It is to ensure that the taxpayer is not being ripped off and to ensure that the tenant is not double-dipping and cheating the system. 
 State houses are for those in need. There is a considerable waiting list for State houses and State tenants have a responsibility to be honest. They should not be rewarded for dishonesty—for fraud. Taxpayers have a right to know that their taxes are being spent properly by going to those in need and not augmenting the coffers of the cheats. After 7 long years we now have a sensible bill. National supports this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 27 June. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As Dr Worth said on Tuesday night the National Party supports the first reading of this legislation. I cannot help start my first reading speech by observing that it is incredible to think that in the 1980s the then Labour Government had an outstanding trial lawyer as Prime Minister in David Lange; a distinguished ex - law professor as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice—and that was brought home to me today when Sir Geoffrey Palmer was speaking before the Justice and Electoral Committee in his capacity of chairman of the Legislation Advisory Committee—and lawyers like Bill Jeffries David Caygill and Richard Prebble in key portfolios yet today Labour can provide only people of the calibre of Clayton Cosgrove to be Associate Minister of Justice. I really enjoy working with Russell Fairbrother on the Justice and Electoral Committee and I cannot understand why he is not the Minister of Justice especially given the performance of the Minister in the House today during question time. With those preliminary comments I now pass on to debate the bill. 
I begin by paying tribute to justices of the peace and the work they do. As Dr Worth said—as befits a person of his scholarship—the job of justice of the peace is “an ancient and honourable job”. Indeed my research has indicated that it goes back to a statute of Edward III in 1327 which provided—and I ask the woman MPs of the House to excuse the sexist language—that “good men and lawful shall be assigned to keep the peace”. As that great National Attorney-General John Marshall said on 5 July 1957 when introducing the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Bill—and I quote from  
Hansard 
 Volume 311 at page 639—“The office of justice of the peace is an ancient and an honourable one. The extent and importance of the functions of the office have varied from time to time but for six centuries of British history Justices of the Peace have been an established feature of the British way of life and an element in the administration of justice.” A little further on he says: “The system of appointing Justices of the Peace came to New Zealand with the first colonists as part of the law of England.” 
The work of a JP is varied and very important and I can identify at least three major tasks: first the routine administrative tasks performed every day by JPs often at the most inconvenient times; second the tasks sometimes performed by JPs under the now repealed Coroners Act of 1988—we are now working towards a regime of full-time coroners but the work of JPs in this area is to be praised and acknowledged—and third judicial functions such as hearing depositions dealing with miscellaneous court matters like careless driving charges and helping District Court judges with bail applications and adjournments quite often on Saturdays and public holidays. So justices of the peace play a very important role in New Zealand’s criminal and sometimes civil justice systems and generously give of their time. 
As is well known the bill has three main provisions. The first is it requires all newly appointed justices of the peace to undertake training before taking their oath of office. For some reason the training that is proposed relates only to the administrative functions undertaken by justices of the peace rather than also relating to the judicial functions. I would have thought that was rather strange because if ever there was an area where training was needed it would be the performance of judicial functions. The second is that the bill introduces a new disciplinary regime to enable a justice of the peace to be removed or suspended from office or subject to lesser disciplinary action in less serious cases. The third is to permit the designation of “JP (retired)” for JPs who have held office for a period of over 10 years. 
As can be seen the bill deals with three matters of varying degrees of importance but it does not deal with some issues that I would have thought it could deal with. The first relates to qualification for appointment. I think there is an argument to be made that the vetting of applications could be much stricter. The second aspect and it is linked to the issue of the education of JPs is that of continuing education. In the various professions these days for example there is a requirement for professionals to receive continuing legal education or continuing medical education. I cannot see why the bill cannot provide for that and maybe the select committee could consider that matter. The third aspect that I think could be looked at given the fact that justices of the peace are by and large a very sensible and professional lot who contribute a lot to the community is the jurisdiction of judicial justices of the peace. I would like to see it increased so that for example they can deal with such matters as imposing a fine of say up to $7500 or imposing terms of imprisonment. I think justices of the peace could play a role in respect of diversion. I certainly think they could play a role in respect of restorative justice. 
It is extraordinary that a bill that deals with only three matters is rather long and complex legislation. To my way of thinking although of course National members do not oppose it going to a select committee it somehow misses the plot in that it fails to deal with a number of important matters. I took a good look at the Justices of the Peace Act of 1957. That Act is very simple legislation made up of 10 sections. It deals with the appointment of justices their functions and powers their attendance at court and other such matters. In the 1950s the lawmakers managed to express themselves reasonably succinctly in 10 sections yet the bill before the House which amends the substantive legislation is longer than the Act itself. 
Colin King 
: That tells us something. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It does tell us something. For the benefit of Mr King it tells us something about wordiness of expression and sometimes over-prescription. It exemplifies an unfortunate trend in legislative drafting towards making complicated and complex that which need not necessarily be so. I am sure this bill could be made more succinct. I think it was Mark Twain who said: “I apologise. I didn’t have time to write a short letter. I had to write a long one.” A similar sort of thing could be said about legislative drafting but if we knuckle down and put a bit of time and effort into it we can end up with something that is more succinct than this rather wordy effort. 
But with those preliminary comments in mind National does not oppose the first reading. I think the bill should go to a select committee. Further work needs to be done on it and during the course of the Committee stage some of those other areas that I referred to can be incorporated into the bill. I do not think that would undermine the general thrust of the bill and it would make for better legislation. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I did not come down to the House with the specific intention of seeking a speaking slot. I am delighted to see that the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is the item on the Order Paper that we are now dealing with. I would like to make just a few brief comments. I appreciated the comments of my learned friend Chris Finlayson. I am actually a JP and have been for some considerable time. I serve in all sorts of capacities in Wellington the district I live in and in Invercargill. I carry my stamps and paraphernalia with me. It is a task that many people do willingly and they make a contribution to the community. I am sure Parliament would recognise the service that JPs give. Nevertheless there are some important issues. 
I certainly support the tenor of the first part of the bill—that there needs to be some training and some ongoing training. However I have a concern and I would not like this to be taken out of context. The great majority of people who are JPs do it as part of their community service. They do it to the best of their endeavours and they make their best endeavours to keep skilled for the job’s requirements. However there are a few people who like “JP” after their name and they do not contribute greatly to the services of being a JP. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to the selection process in a minute. I have more concerns around that than around almost anything that JPs do. 
 The very status of justice of the peace is interesting and it is probably regarded more highly outside New Zealand than it is within New Zealand. Just on Monday of this week a foreign national from Malaysia wanting to renew a passport came to see me. That person had had all the relevant documents certified as exact copies by the registrar of the court but the copies had been rejected by the Malaysian authorities because they wanted the copies signed by a justice of the peace. I would have thought that the registrar of the court would outrank by many degrees my humble self in my role as a justice of the peace—who knows? The passport may have been rejected subsequently. However around the world the role of justice of the peace may certainly differ slightly but justices of the peace are held in reasonably high regard. 
I support the regular training of justices of the peace. Training should not be limited to the initial training but there should also be regular refresher courses. The justice of the peace association to which I belong does its very best to continue with training programmes. However there is no mandatory requirement for justices of the peace to be attached to the association nor is there any mandatory requirement that justices of the peace do any ongoing training and I have to say that attendance at the association is probably only about 50 percent in the area I am in which concerns me. I do not think that is something we can legislate for; however we need to acknowledge that that area needs some kind of attention. 
The other area I wish to comment on is the selection process and I alluded to this matter earlier. I know that some members of Parliament make recommendations for the appointment of justices of the peace—or at least those members are certainly in a position to make recommendations to the Minister if not the appointments themselves—and some interesting people have been appointed as justices of the peace. In the past entire campaign committees have been made justices of the peace and I am aware that the appointment process for justices of the peace has been abused. Because of that I have set some ground rules in my area. If anybody approaches me as an MP who could make a recommendation I tell them that the people I listen to are members of the justices of the peace association. Again I am trying to empower and strengthen the association’s role and that keeps people in touch as well. If the association gives an applicant its approval I will sign off the application. I think that doing it that way takes into consideration ethnicity location and ability because it is very easy to find people who are prepared to authorise documents and that sort of thing but people who can take the next rung do some of the court work and step up to the mark in that capacity are a little harder to find. We need to have our MPs working with the justices of the peace association more in that area to ensure that we have the right kind of person coming through. 
Another issue I wish to raise which is not covered in this bill is the safety of justices of the peace. I am aware of at least two justices of the peace in my area who have either done court service or been required to make some kind of decision as to whether they will authenticate documents and then have received anonymous threats by phone by mail and by various other means. I think we can assume that those threats are some kind of repercussion from what those justices of the peace have done while acting in good service—which they are not paid for—and now they are reasonably concerned about their situation. I would hope that the Minister of Justice is giving that area some due consideration. 
I am sure this issue certainly rates very highly with the two justices of the peace whom I am aware of and I would suggest that theirs is not a unique situation. Although the police are prepared to act it takes quite a bit of police effort to actually trace anonymous calls and letters. Meanwhile those justices of the peace are still receiving the threats—despite having the police drive by reasonably frequently and doing what monitoring they can. So I raise that issue for the House’s information. A number of people in the community are fulfilling the role of justice of the peace with the best of intentions yet they face a very adverse reaction from some undesirable people in the community for doing that. So that is an issue we need to give some consideration to. 
I note also that there is provision in here to have a “JP (retired)” section. I stated earlier that some people like the title. I think after people have given a lifetime of service for which they are not paid it is nice to acknowledge that and I support that provision. I am not sure whether it is in the principal Act—I did not have time to read it—but in clause 5 in Part 2 there is a “when JPs turn bad” section to defrock them or whatever the term is to remove them from office. I wonder how often that happens or whether something has occurred that has precipitated that to be considered in here. I would be very interested to receive the explanation on that. 
In general I support the legislation. I echo the comments my colleague Chris Finlayson made. It is a rather lengthy amendment bill for the three short sections it deals with and the principal Act is not so lengthy. I support it going to a select committee and I look forward to seeing what sorts of submissions come in particularly from any JPs out there now who have some concerns around this. Maybe there are some issues that need to be considered because an amendment bill to the Justices of the Peace Act is not something that would come before this House very often. It is an opportunity for other issues to be considered as well. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 With a couple of minutes to go I want to introduce the Maori Party statement before we go off and have a break. Tena koe tena tatou katoa. 
In introducing our position on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill I want to talk about one of the people involved in my own constituency in a historical context. I turn to one of our people whose name was Karauria Tiwaka Anaru also known as Claude who was born on 2 June 1901 at Raukokore in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Claude Anaru was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1947 and with the support of Mr C J Wright he was largely responsible for the formation of the Rotorua and District Justices of the Peace Association. Claude later became president and first life member of the Rotorua and District Justices of the Peace Association. He married Hanahira Riripotaka of Te Arawa who played a prominent part in the Waiariki branch of the Maori Women’s Welfare League and was also a justice of the peace. 
I use these examples—fine examples they are—in considering this particular bill. I understand that they were individuals of high integrity of considerable standing amongst our community people with a deep understanding of Maori culture language and whakapapa and with enormous expertise across health social services legal and tribal affairs. They demonstrated discipline. They represented the type of outstanding and upstanding member of the community we look for in justices of the peace. 
It is disappointing that such high ideals have clearly not been reflected in other JPs which has caused the new proposals endorsed in this bill. It is with some disillusionment that the Maori Party has become aware of the record of complaints kept by the Ministry of Justice about JPs including convictions for offences such as bankruptcy and personal conflict. We support the introduction of the new disciplinary regime although of course we are concerned at the eroding values that would see people destroy the trust and confidence that the public places in such roles. We believe that standards need to be upheld and that in the interests of excellent public service accountability and safety a consistent and transparent procedure for disciplinary action must be in place. 
It may well be that in the initial training in the role of justice of the peace—which is initiated in this bill—including the background to the history of these positions will assist in providing the context for the duties and responsibilities that a justice of the peace takes on. Indeed the Maori Party would suggest that the training component for the new provisions of this bill must go much further than simply administrative renewals of licences and updating the JPs on changes. We would recommend that a programme of cultural safety be introduced. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.