Volume 648 Week 78 - Thursday 26 June 2008 
Volume 648 Week 78 - Thursday 26 June 2008 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Thursday 26 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Howard Neill Austin MBE 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 June 2008 of Howard Neill Austin MBE who represented the electorate of Hobson from 1975 to 1978 and that of the Bay of Islands from 1978 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and to the first readings of the Judicial Matters Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that item 28 on the Order Paper is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill a bill that we have asked the Leader of the House about on numerous occasions it now appears that another bill on the Order Paper is rapidly heading in that direction—that bill being the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We are wondering whether the Leader of the House might indicate whether there is a point at which those two bills might cross over. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. I think actually that doing something about global warming is slightly more important than doing something about trout. 
Questions to Ministers 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress 
1. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has been made on Treaty of Waitangi settlements? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Substantial progress has been made most recently with yesterday’s deed of settlement signing with central North Island iwi over the Crown forest lands. Yesterday’s event was a reminder of the importance of Treaty settlements as a part of our process of reconciliation. Through such settlements we are given an opportunity to acknowledge the injustices of the past while building shared ambitions for the future. 
Dave Hereora 
: In addition to the central North Island forestry lands settlement what further progress is expected in the Treaty settlement process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This afternoon we will be signing a deed of settlement with Taranaki Whanui. We expect before too long to be signing a deed of settlement with Waikato-Tainui over the Waikato River. Negotiations are under way from Northland to the top of the South Island with iwi in Te Tau Ihu where we expect to sign agreements in principle shortly. There is therefore a great deal of momentum in this process reflecting the goodwill of iwi around New Zealand towards working with the Crown. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why do final settlements include an apology from the Crown? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that in the last couple of decades Maori have shown that when the Crown is willing to be honest about the failures of the past iwi are eager to put those past differences behind us. This underlines the importance of understanding our past and of acknowledging that as a country we saw war we saw internal fighting and we saw for decades a failure to keep peace between our people. That is why I was so disappointed to see Mr Key’s attempt last night to gloss over difficult aspects of our history. Those comments were better suited to a revisionist tourist brochure than to a man who wants to be Prime Minister of all our people. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen a report stating that New Zealand is a country “with a continuous political tradition unbroken by civil war or revolution for over 150 years something a bare handful of countries can celebrate.”; and can he confirm that he not only was the author of those words but also delivered them in a speech on Waitangi Day 2005; and might he reflect on why he is so condemning of Mr Key when he himself has proclaimed this from the pulpit of his local cathedral? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed and no. What happened in the 1860s was an invasion by Crown troops of areas; the taking of that land; the use of overwhelming force to retain that land; and subsequently—even if that had not happened—the use of the Native Land Court to take lands improperly; and the breach of article 1 of the Treaty within the space of 4 or 5 years of the Treaty being signed. Even if the Land Wars of the 1860s had not occurred the Crown was in serious breach of the Treaty within a few years of 1840. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with Dr David Williams that the notion that New Zealand Governments may have been responsible in the past for cultural oppression seems to cause a significant backlash in public opinion—a notion that explains the use of the word “holocaust” in debate and in the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1996 Taranaki report to describe colonial Government policies of war land confiscation and the invasion of the pacifist Maori community; if so what actions has he taken to address the backlash to the Treaty settlement process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the word “holocaust” is best used for a particular event in history when some 6 million Jews were gassed and otherwise killed. That did not ever occur in New Zealand’s history in that form. However there were many injustices which need to be addressed. They should not however be dealt with as a matter of guilt on the part of the present generation of Pakeha. It is a matter for the Crown as legatee of those who signed the Treaty in 1840 to address those injustices. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Congratulations on yesterday’s settlement first of all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask his question. 
Hone Harawira 
: What advice has the Minister received about concerns that certain iwi in the far north may have to sacrifice their own claims to facilitate the united settlement being proposed for the far north; and what steps will he take to address those concerns before any settlements are signed with far north iwi? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that every effort will be made to ensure that any issues of cross-claims and competing claims will be dealt with to the satisfaction of those involved. Good progress is being made at the moment in a regional forum around some of the issues relating to the forests for example. This bodes well for achieving a solution that does not have the implications the member refers to quite properly as being of concern. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask Dr Cullen whether he has received any reports as to why that question was asked by Gerry Brownlee; and is it his responsibility as a historian or otherwise to educate the leader of the National Party on the history of this country? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure about the first part of the question but the Minister could address the second part. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When I was a history lecturer I did my best to teach people but not all of them were ever able to learn. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What was missing in the Minister’s understanding of New Zealand history that led him to make this statement in his speech in St John’s Cathedral Napier on 6 February 2005: “New Zealand is a country with a continuous political tradition unbroken by civil war or revolution for over 150 years something a bare handful of countries can celebrate.”; and why is it that it is OK when the Minister says it and OK when Governor-General says it but when Mr Key makes a comment which is taken totally out of context suddenly the Minister is all over the top of it like a cheap suit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The difference is that I am sure that the Governor-General understood the context in which he made his remarks; there is no evidence that Mr Key understood his context. If the member cares to refer to the remainder of that speech he will find that a great deal else is being explained. But let me help him. I was referring to the fact that we have had a Parliament since 1854 and that it has an unbroken tradition. The member might care to remind himself that Maori were not guaranteed representation within that Parliament until some years after it was set up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has the Minister received that would suggest that the leader of the National Party has been properly informed by the one-time Maori affairs spokesperson for the National Party—namely Gerry Brownlee—on a modicum of what happened in our history? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the risk of appearing totally politically incorrect it would seem to be a case of the blind leading the blind if Mr Brownlee was to try to instruct Mr Key about the nature of New Zealand’s history. I think he would do much better if he instructed him about the nature of joinery. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a series of emails between various parties including the editor-in-chief of Newstalk ZB—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber if there is to be an interjection. Members know that the member is on a point of order. It is important that members do hear what in fact they are being asked to grant leave for. That is the last warning. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document from Newstalk ZB acknowledging that it had reported Mr Key’s speech out of context. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Initially the member sought leave to table an exchange of emails. We would like to see the ones that were trying to bully Newstalk ZB before we saw the response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order we do not use ninth floor tactics on our side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table a paper presented to the foreshore and seabed conference by Dr David Williams “ 
Wi Parata 
 is dead long live  
Wi Parata 
”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electoral Commission—Scheduled Meetings 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How many times will the Electoral Commission meet before this year’s general election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Electoral Commission is an independent Crown entity and its meetings are not a matter of ministerial responsibility. However I have been advised that at this stage it intends to meet monthly. The chief executive has assured me that it will meet as many times as are required. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister constantly reply to questions in this House about the application of the Electoral Finance Act that those matters will be considered by the Electoral Commission when the commission has said that it will meet only another three times before the election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have just given the member an answer that disputes the assertions in his question and I stand by the answer that the Electoral Commission gave me. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why would the Minister take the assurance of the chief executive of the Electoral Commission at face value when 7 months into election year the commission has been unable to give us a definitive position on whether the display of party logos in election year is legal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because members of the Electoral Commission are honourable people. 
Hon Bill English 
: When exactly will the Electoral Commission have time to consider the issues that are being raised constantly by political parties given that of the nine items on its agenda when it met 2 weeks ago five were deferred for further consideration at its next meeting which is in another 2 weeks and the decisions on the other four which apparently the commission did make have still not been written up and released and we are now 7 months into election year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe that the commission will look at them at its meetings. The chief executive has said it will have as many meetings as it needs. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well when the Minister is considering how many meetings the commission might need has it occurred to her that politicians and party activists might need to know whether the display of party logos in election year is legal or not legal; or is the Minister happy with the situation where we will not find out until after the election when we may find out that we have all broken the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe that the people at the Electoral Commission are honourable people. They will make their decisions after consideration. They are not into conspiracy theories which that member is—we get one every day. If a cat dies it is the Electoral Finance Act’s problem if it rains it is the Electoral Finance Act’s problem and if it does not rain it is the Electoral Finance Act’s problem. I say to the member that he ought to have more faith in the officials rather than blaming and bagging them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister what reports she has received on the integrity that should attract to a complaint from a party that insisted that the electoral campaign period should be not from 1 January of any given year but from 3 months before the election and whose member is now complaining that 5 months before the election he does not have a clear definition? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is an irony in that. The truth is that Bill English and his party could have campaigned from 1 January if they had wanted to. They have wasted a lot of their money—and it is their money and they can waste it however they like—pursuing issues with the Electoral Commission and in the court rather than spending it on an election campaign. Why do they not just get on with it? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the problem does not lie with the officials but with an Act that she wrote supported and voted for in Parliament and that is so complex and confusing that 7 months into election year very simple issues like the legal display of party logos have not been resolved; and can she tell us whether at any time since she has been Minister of Justice she has been approached by the Electoral Commission to provide the resources it requires to resolve these issues; and if it has approached her what was her response? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member asked four questions; I am required to answer one: no.  
Hon Bill English 
: As the Minister of Justice can she comment on how fair and just it is that many of the issues that are to be decided by the Electoral Commission will not be decided until after the election; has she considered the fact that MPs could lose their seats through an electoral petition and financial agents could be fined up to $40000 because no one could tell them before the election what the law meant and is that Labour’s version of common sense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have absolutely no evidence that that assertion is correct. 
State Services Commission—Performance Monitoring 
3.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is he satisfied with the State Services Commission’s monitoring of the performance of other Government departments? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 In general yes. 
Heather Roy 
: How can he be satisfied when the killer of the 20-year-old woman mentioned in the news was able to give a false name in court and have the judge believe that he was a first-time offender when in fact he was a police informer in the witness protection scheme and had a string of serious convictions dating back to 1997 that should have seen him locked up and a young life saved? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are serious issues that underlie this case and we are applying to vary the suppression orders that limit what the media can presently say. The reason those suppression orders exist relates to the safety of people and the member ought to await the outcome of those processes rather than speculate in ways that can be harmful in a serious way to the interests of people. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has the Minister not released the report on Jonathan Alan Barclay which he has been sitting on all year and which shows that both the police and the Department of Corrections knew that man’s true identity—in fact everyone knew but the judge? When will he release it and stop being part of this despicable cover-up? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Rather than suppressing it I think that on the day of or the day following its arrival with Ministers the Minister of Police took it to the family of the young woman who had so tragically died. We are not suppressing it but there are already suppression orders— 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s not a year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —and it is not a year. There are suppression orders currently in force not from the State Services Commission and not from any arm of the Government but from the courts. Those suppression orders prevent the publication of that report in the form that it was presented to us. If we were to edit that report in full compliance with those suppression orders it would be largely meaningless to those people who read it. Accordingly in order for us to be more transparent not less we are applying to the court to vary those suppression orders so that we can tell people more than we are currently able to tell them. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—State-owned Enterprises 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Will the emissions trading scheme provide a windfall profit to State-owned enterprises Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power; if so how much weight should be given to the sustainable business council report funded by them to lobby MPs to hurry up and pass the emissions trading legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 If the member is trying to say we should discount people’s analysis because they stand to gain or lose under the emissions trading scheme we would have to ignore everyone’s views. That would of course be nonsense. What is clear is that there are benefits to our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme; just about everyone recognises that except National. In terms of electricity revenues the recycling of revenues to the Crown from electricity in order to help New Zealanders is one of the issues being discussed with support parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not a worry for this Parliament that he has endorsed this report and used it to argue that we should get on and quickly pass the bill when on the back page of the report it states: “The time available for preparing this report has precluded any robust analysis or even comprehensive review of available information.” and goes on to recommend a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the bill; and should we not do that work before this Parliament passes such far-reaching legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the cost and benefit of this scheme that has been well traversed for over 6 months at the select committee and more widely within the community. In terms of what I have said in respect of the report the member criticises the only comment I have made is this one and I will read it out because it is not as the member characterises it: “Climate change Minister David Parker said there are many opportunities arising from the move to a more sustainable opportunity. Business has mostly focused on costs so far. Investment in sustainability is much more likely to happen if businesses see a clear direction from Government. There is much to gain here especially if we stay ahead of the game but New Zealand stands to lose if we delay or abandon the emissions trading scheme in the irresponsible way National is calling for. The emissions trading scheme does not cause a cost; it reduces the cost to New Zealand in taking responsibility for our international climate change commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.” That is all I have said. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How much weight does the Minister think should be given to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the economic effects of carbon pricing when that report was funded mainly by Solid Energy—New Zealand’s largest coalminer? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member is exactly right. Some of the loudest critics of this scheme have been State-owned enterprises in the form of Solid Energy. The Greenhouse Policy Coalition gives itself a name that would have people think it was advocating progressive policies in respect of emissions control but of course it is not. It is another example of where different people and different organisations with different interests advocate for their points of view. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should Parliament give any credibility to a report that says: “The time available for preparing this report has precluded any robust analysis or even comprehensive review of the available information.”; is not such a report frankly worthless? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Most people have now got to the same conclusion as countries have around the world that an emissions trading scheme does not cause cost it saves cost. Obviously Dr Smith does not yet understand that because of his party’s opposition to the scheme. It remains abundantly clear that there are clear benefits to our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s Winston doing? He’ll put the costs in! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It actually reduces costs to taxpayers it does not increase them I say to Mr Brownlee and I am sad he does not yet understand that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister specify what specific costs to households will be reduced by the introduction of an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In terms of the emissions trading scheme itself as opposed to measures outside it the way all consumers’ costs are reduced is that New Zealand’s emissions go down with an emissions trading scheme and therefore the bill that is currently totally on taxpayers’ pockets through the Kyoto Protocol is minimised. It is absolutely minimised. Emissions go down. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What an obtuse argument. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member may shake his head but that is a known reality. No one can deny that; it is a truth borne out not just by our proposed emissions trading scheme but by the European one and the fact that other countries are going in the same way. Where would the increase in emissions come from? The earliest increase if we did not have an emissions trading scheme would be from deforestation. Emissions would increase again very sharply and very soon. Similar albeit less dramatic effects would be felt throughout the economy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for ex - Labour Minister Peter Neilson to claim that New Zealand’s international reputation on climate change will suffer severely if the legislation is not passed before the election claiming that it will cause job losses of 7600 in primary industry and 2715 in tourism when Australia is at least a year behind us in developing its emissions trading scheme when the Europe scheme covers only a few sectors and when the rest of the world is further behind still; is this report not just crude scaremongering from Labour’s mates to try to press-gang MPs into voting for a flawed bill? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I repeat that there are clear benefits for our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Government not follow the advice of Alex Sundakov who in severely critiquing this report today stated: “Rushed policy that is flawed like this bill creates more investment uncertainty than putting the time into a better thought-through emissions trading scheme.”— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: He’s being saying that for 6 years Nick. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I say to Mr Hodgson that it is interesting that when he was claiming a billion-dollar gain from the Kyoto Protocol Mr Sundakov was right and said there would be a $500 million loss. Noting that Mr Sundakov was absolutely right when Pete Hodgson was proclaiming a huge surplus why will the Government not today follow the advice of someone who has proved to be correct around these complex issues in the past? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That question sounds like Dr Smith is actually disclosing for the first time rather than saying that he wants the emissions trading scheme to proceed after a little while after a few little tweaks that he actually agrees with Mr Sundakov and thinks it should not proceed at all. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Policy release! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. The reality is that this has had the most robust process followed of any measure in this Parliament this term. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the crude convenience of the timing and slant of this report can the Minister assure the House that no Minister nor any ministerial staff had any communication with the two State-owned enterprises or with former Labour Minister Peter Neilson regarding the commissioning and publishing of this report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Mallard says I can give the assurance for him. I certainly did not tell them or cause them to prepare that report. 
Food Pricing—Inquiry 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she been advised that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is conducting an inquiry into grocery food pricing; if so does she believe a similar inquiry might be useful here given that in New Zealand two companies control 96 percent of the market compared to Australia where a duopoly controls 80 percent of the market? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am aware that the Australian Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs has required the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to hold an inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries and that the commission is expected to report by 31 July this year. I will await the commission’s report before considering whether a similar inquiry would be useful in New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree with Consumer New Zealand that with a concentrated market dominated by a very small number of players consumers need better information on whether the prices they are paying are fair especially with rapidly rising food prices; and why will she not ask the Commerce Commission to initiate an inquiry or hold a Government inquiry into grocery pricing? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Having looked at some of the evidence that has already been presented to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry I think it would be useful to await its report before considering whether one would be appropriate here. Some of the evidence that has already been given in the commission’s inquiry suggests that profit margins are much higher in Australia than they are in New Zealand despite the percentages that she identified in the primary question. I should also make the point that the Commerce Commission does not have general powers of inquiry as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does and it could carry out a price control inquiry only under the current Part 4 of the Commerce Act. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the New Zealand Commerce Commission recently considered any matters that may be relevant to competition in the grocery sector? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Commerce Commission looked at this matter in declining both applications by Woolworths and Foodstuffs to acquire the Warehouse. The commission considered that the Warehouse was an important source of potential competition in a sector otherwise characterised by a duopoly and high barriers to entry. The High Court overturned the commission’s decision and this matter is now currently before the Court of Appeal. We should await the outcome of that appeal before drawing conclusions about the state of competition in the grocery sector in New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she concerned that supermarkets mark up staples even those with a relatively long shelf life like pumpkin and kumara by as much as 195 percent for kumara and 286 percent for pumpkin; if so does she agree that New Zealand would benefit from a code of conduct for supermarkets such as already exists in the United Kingdom aimed at making sure that farmers producers and consumers all get a fair deal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: One of the concerns I would have about that approach is that New Zealand exports 80 percent of the food that we produce. It generates 50 percent of our earnings. We have to think of our exports as well when we are talking about prices at the supermarket. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has she seen reports that both the two big Australian supermarket companies have been accused by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of price-fixing practices that are “as close to being illegally collusive as we can find” and is she concerned that one of those supermarket chains is also a dominant player in the grocery industry here in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed but as I said before I think it is more appropriate that we await the conclusions of the commission’s inquiry before we draw any conclusions in respect of New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the groceries market investigation by the UK Competition Commission— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table papers from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry. 
Document not tabled. 
Immigration Service—Oughton Report 
6.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What specific concerns did he raise with the new chief executive of the Department of Labour when matters relating to Mary Anne Thompson and the Oughton report first came to his attention last year? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was concerned to have appropriate assurances that the proper processes had been followed in this employment matter. I was assured that the State Services Commission had been advised and that subsequently Crown Law advice had been sought. When the Oughton report was released and I saw it for the first time I raised concerns that there were further issues of public confidence and I asked the Minister of State Services to ensure that the State Services Commission’s investigation was wide enough to cover those issues. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What precisely did the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour Christopher Blake tell the Minister when briefing him on the Oughton report on 14 December last year? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I have said to the member many times in the briefing I received on 14 December 2007 I was advised firstly that there had been an independent investigation into historical employment matters—that is the Oughton report—secondly that the report had concluded that Mary Anne Thompson had not sought to influence decisions about her family members’ applications for residence; and thirdly that disciplinary action had been taken against a Department of Labour employee. I was further advised that this matter had occurred under and had been dealt with and closed by previous chief executives. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can the public be expected to reconcile the Minister’s claim that he could not involve himself in matters related to the Oughton report because it related only to employment matters with his statement that he had expressed concerns to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour in the expectation that his concerns would be carefully considered and could possibly lead to further follow-up action by the chief executive—how does he reconcile those two claims? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As was appropriate under the State Sector Act I expressed concern to the chief executive; he was noted of that concern on 14 December. But I observed the law under which I was precluded—on advice that the matter was an individual employment matter—from becoming involved in the matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when the chief executive briefed the Minister on the Oughton report on 14 December last year his chief executive had not actually read the Oughton report on unlawful decision-making involving the head of the Immigration Service; if so does he consider that satisfactory performance by his chief executive? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Taking all matters into consideration including the fact that the chief executive was very new in the role— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How new? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—I think he was appointed 2 weeks before I took up the role of Minister of Immigration from memory—I believe he acted very appropriately and proactively. He took the following steps. Firstly he informed the State Services Commission; then once he had considered the report he went to the extraordinary length of seeking Crown Law advice as to whether he could if he had a mind to reopen matters; then he initiated the review of the Pacific division which he began planning in February and I believe announced in April of this year. Those are the actions in my view of a responsible chief executive. We have two inquiries pertaining to these matters—the inquiries by the State Services Commission and the Auditor-General—and the question is whether previous chief executives acted as responsibly as he did. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to Parliament on 14 May that when he was briefed on 14 December 2007 by the chief executive he expressed his concerns to him which the chief executive took seriously advising the Minister that he himself was looking into the matter; if so how seriously was his chief executive looking into the matter at that time when he had not actually even bothered to read the Oughton report—and did not read it until there was public inquiry through Official Information Act requests for it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would surmise that a new chief executive coming into a role and being advised—because an Official Information Act request had come through as the member rightly says—that a matter that had occurred under previous chief executives— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You would think he read it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —if I could continue—had been examined by an independent report which had concluded what I have previously stated to the member and had then been closed would at that time make the judgment that he did because it was at that point a historic matter. But as I have just said to the member the chief executive had already at the point when he briefed me contacted the State Services Commission. He had then sought once he had considered the report Crown Law advice as to whether he could reopen the matter and he then initiated a review of the Pacific branch. I repeat to the member that I believe that those are appropriate responsible and serious actions of a chief executive. The Auditor-General and the State Services Commission will determine the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of the actions of previous chief executives. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the third recommendation of the Oughton report which was that further investigation was needed into the issue of staff being instructed to make decisions they regarded as breaches of policy ever actioned; if so by whom and when? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that as I have said to the member the chief executive took it upon himself to look into all those matters and in terms of the Pacific branch review and the other actions taken by the chief executive that I have outlined to the member the actions or lack of actions pertaining to the Oughton report will be examined in full not only through the Pacific branch review but through the inquiries by the Audit Office and the State Services Commission. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Could the Minister clarify for this House that only the Minister of Immigration or the Associate Minister of Immigration can make decisions outside policy and that the decision in the case being questioned was made by an official who was then disciplined in relation to that report for that decision? Could the Minister clarify whether that is true and does it contradict the answer that Dr Cullen gave to me a few weeks ago that there is a possibility of an official making decisions under a delegation from the Minister? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The powers of the Minister and the Associate Minister are delegated to officials yes and officials have delegated authority— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Apart from granting residency. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Dr Lockwood Smith anticipates my answer and he is correct—apart from the granting of residency. Those decisions are made by my colleague the Associate Minister and me. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Is it true that the Minister made a statement to a select committee this morning that made it clear that the making of those decisions is confined to the Minister of Immigration and the Associate Minister of Immigration—not officials? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will try again: the granting of residence is not delegated. That power is conferred on the Minister and the Associate Minister yes. 
Illegal Fishing—Foreign-owned Fishing Vessels 
7.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: How many foreign-owned fishing vessels are known to have fished illegally in New Zealand waters in each of the last 3 years and how many of those were prosecuted? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 In the 2005 calendar year there were 13 foreign-owned fishing vessels known to have breached our fisheries laws when in New Zealand waters; in 2006 there were 14; and in 2007 there were 15. Most of the breaches were minor such as incorrectly marked buoys and did not warrant prosecution and 38 official warnings were issued by officers of the Ministry of Fisheries. Two were serious offences and prosecutions were made in both instances. Four cases are still active files and no prosecution decision has yet been made. The Ministry of Fisheries works closely with the defence forces and other agencies to patrol New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. There have been no recorded instances during the last 3 years of a foreign-owned vessel operating in New Zealand waters without an associated permit to fish there. 
Pita Paraone 
: Notwithstanding whether offences are of a minor or a major nature why does his ministry which averages well in excess of 200 prosecutions per year take such a soft line on foreign-owned vessels compared with New Zealand - owned vessels? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think it is fair to say that the ministry has concerns from time to time about the operation of foreign-owned vessels. The member has to keep in mind that foreign-owned vessels have to be chartered almost exclusively by New Zealand - owned companies. Many of those companies are Maori-owned; they are not owned just by general corporates. Companies charter foreign-owned vessels because it is much more viable for them to do so. If we restricted companies’ use of chartered vessels we would put many of them under extreme financial pressure. 
Pita Paraone 
: Notwithstanding the pressures on New Zealand companies that the Minister referred to in his previous response what sort of message does he think his ministry is sending to foreign-owned vessels illegally fishing in our waters when the operators of those vessels know that if they are caught they have a less than 5 percent chance of being prosecuted? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand has very comprehensive surveillance of vessels fishing in New Zealand waters; it is probably among the best surveillance in the world. The message that operators of foreign-owned vessels fishing in New Zealand waters can take is that if they are illegally fishing here they will be caught and they will be prosecuted. That is what New Zealand’s record shows. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister accept that the actual number of foreign-owned vessels fishing illegally in our waters each year is much higher than the number that are caught; if so why is his ministry not doing more to bring to justice those who are caught? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have referred to the number of vessels that have been caught breaching the rules minor or otherwise. Where the infraction is caused by a serious breach those serious breaches are prosecuted. The prosecutions are vigorous and the penalties are significant. No operators of foreign-owned chartered vessels want to come into New Zealand waters and face that. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Confidence 
8.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in that district health board under the commissioner. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister confirm that documents released under the Official Information Act show that he advised officials in December 2007 that he wished to appoint Sir John Anderson as commissioner at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board which was months before he expressed no confidence in the previous board and issued his ultimatum to the board demanding that it justify its continued position? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. All I can say is that my final decision was not made until the afternoon of 27 February. The member is referring to a factual misunderstanding concerning a mistake made by the Ministry of Health in the release of papers some of which were incomplete. This will be explained in court proceedings and I can comment no further on it. 
Jill Pettis 
: What progress has the commissioner made since he was appointed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: A great deal. He has moved quickly to appoint three deputy commissioners worked with management on a recovery plan and maintained close liaison with clinicians. Reports are that this process is proceeding very well indeed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister advise us whether it is a fact that Sir John Anderson has been a one-time guest speaker at a National Party caucus and an oft-times nominee of the National Party for various jobs and that he is a totally appropriate person to be looking into the problems of this district health board—which those members all know? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that I have never inquired of Sir John as to his personal political affiliations or previous political meetings but I hear tell that he is not a member of the New Zealand Labour Party. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister confirm that documents released under the Official Information Act show that an email from the Ministry of Health dated 18 February 2008—9 days before he sacked the board—lists the appointments of Sir John Anderson as commissioner and Brian Roche as deputy commissioner to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am aware of that suggestion which is based on a factual misunderstanding and once again I absolutely refute the inference that has been drawn. This matter is to be ruled on by the courts and under Standing Order 111 as the member already knows neither he nor I can comment further upon it. 
Craig Foss 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in this House on 21 February 2008 that “no decision has been made in that I have given the board a week to justify its position.” when documents released under the Official Information Act show that preparations for installing a commissioner demonstrate that the 1-week consultation was a facade and an abuse of natural justice? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let me state again to the member that my decision was not made until the afternoon of 27 February. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister confirm that he ignored Crown Law’s recommendation against appointing a commissioner to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—in particular Crown Law’s view that “It is Crown Law’s advice that the situation is not so severe …”— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As I have noted under Standing Orders 111 and 112 members are prevented from answering questions that may bear upon matters of potential prejudice in relation to judicial proceedings and especially in relation to documents that are privileged. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: These are documents that are in the public arena; they have been released under the Official Information Act. To say that they are somehow privileged is an utter nonsense and the Minister should not try to hide behind the facade of what he would say is a “factual misunderstanding” in order to dodge answering questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been listening very carefully because I am now aware that the matter is before the courts as I understand it. The member’s questions so far I think have been within the Standing Orders but we are at the edge of them. So if I may I just ask him to restate his question. Thank you. 
Craig Foss 
: Thank you Madam Speaker; I will restate the question. Can the Minister confirm that he ignored Crown Law’s recommendation as shown in documents released under the Official Information Act against appointing a commissioner to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—in particular Crown Law’s view that “It is Crown Law’s advice that the situation is not so severe that it displaces the principles of natural justice.” 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. I confirm that I took account of a range of advice but did not make my decision until the afternoon of 27 February. 
Chris Tremain 
: When will the Minister apologise to the people of Hawke’s Bay for his total lack of regard for natural justice in sacking our democratically elected district health board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The matter to which the member refers is now a matter that is before the courts. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first document I seek leave to table is the story in today’s  
Dominion Post  
in which the Minister comments on the sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a second document released under the Official Information Act. It is a Ministry of Health email dated 18 February listing and naming the appointment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a third document a Ministry of Health document released under the Official Information Act and dated 19 February 2008 advising against sacking the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Madam Speaker my question is to the Minister of Health and asks what recent reports he has received on primary health care. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In raising this point of order I wonder whether you would refer to Speaker’s ruling 54/3 which I think gets as close as I can find in the Speakers’ rulings to dealing with the matter I am about to raise. Ms Soper has just stood up to ask a question. She is wearing a badge emblazoned with the word “Labour”. It raises the question as to whether the blazer is an object that is being brought into the House as a visual display. It has no parliamentary crest and no authorisation on it so it clearly contravenes the Electoral Finance Act. That I would suggest trivialises the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That would be a matter for others to determine in the context of this House. It seems to me the matter is not contrary to any of the Standing Orders. Lesley Soper please ask your question again. 
Primary Health Care—Reports 
9.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on primary health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a report that quotes the National spokesman on health Tony Ryall as saying “What patients will want to know is that the fees they pay are reasonable and will not rise unchecked. For this reason we will maintain a GP fee review process”. That is the exact opposite of a claim he made last September when he said “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” 
Lesley Soper 
: What benefits have resulted from the increased investment by the Government in primary health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: A very great deal of benefits. Smoking rates are the lowest in New Zealand’s recorded history nine out of 10 patients rate the health of their child as excellent or very good primary health care costs in New Zealand have decreased and in the past 12 months just 1.7 percent of adults and 1 percent of children reported cost as a barrier to seeing a general practitioner. This strategy has been an undeniable success and now like so many other Labour policies the National Party is adopting it. The question remains as to whether National members could be trusted to honour that if they were ever in office. 
Social Development Ministry—Policy Staff 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many policy staff are employed by the Ministry of Social Development and how does this compare with 2002? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Ministry of Social Policy and the Department of Work and Income merged in 2002 and had 202 policy staff. In 2004 the Ministry of Youth Affairs joined the ministry. New functions were established including the Office for Disability Issues the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector and a new regional policy group. Then in 2006 the Department of Child Youth and Family Services merged with the ministry. As of April this year the ministry had a total policy staff of 351. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister justify the staggering 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff—from 202 in the year 2000 to 369 today—and can she explain in plain English why we have had this increase in the number of bureaucrats when we have actually had a reduction in the number of beneficiaries and when we have the Prime Minister on record as saying that she does not get many of her ideas from the Public Service in New Zealand; why is that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On this side of the House we actually support high-quality public services and robust policy analysis. It is not surprising that the member does not do so though because at a recent forum I was at with her associate member Anne Tolley Anne Tolley said: “National does not have any social development policy. I will throw a few ideas out to the audience and see what sort of reaction I get.” One would not need policy staff with that sort of approach. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What has been the impact of the building of policy capacity in the Ministry of Social Development? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Ministry of Social Development has built policy capability to develop policies such as Working for Families Working New Zealand Pathways to Partnership and the very popular—and this is supported across the House—family violence prevention policy. 
Judith Collins 
: How productive is all that policy; for example how many of the extra 170 policy staff employed since 2000 are demoralised because they have been wasting their time working on the single core benefit which is the policy that we recall was announced in 2002 2005 and also I think in 1999 as well and that I understand is about to be introduced again? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The understanding I have is that the only demoralised staff in the Ministry of Social Development are the ones who listen to that member’s questions. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that all those policy staff are essential when a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research quality assurance review from 2006 noted: “A number of papers failed to establish either the existence nature or scope of the problem.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The policies that I outlined earlier—the Working for Families package Working New Zealand Pathways to Partnership and family violence prevention—all make a real difference to the lives of real New Zealanders. So the answer to the question is yes. New Zealanders are much more likely to support having those staff than the 36 that the Leader of the Opposition employs. 
Judith Collins 
: Well is it not true that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research also noted: “Nearly 50 percent of MSD’s policy papers were of average quality or below.” and a later review stated: “Concerns remain over the inconsistent quality of policy papers.”; and if an 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff is not enough to produce high-quality policy then how many more staff does the Minister think she needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The percentage the member quoted is a much higher pass mark than her deputy leader gave her in emails to his colleagues. 
Judith Collins 
: Not true! It is all lies— 
Hon Member 
: A very good member. 
Judith Collins 
: —and we have a very good deputy leader too. Does the Minister really think that an 80 percent increase in the number of policy staff in just 5 years is the most effective use of taxpayer dollars; and given the findings of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and others can she advise when if ever she will start to monitor whether her department has achieved value for money—or does she agree with the Prime Minister? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I repeat that I support high-quality public services and robust policy analysis unlike that member who has just given an indication to those public servants that under her party if it was elected to Government they would get the sack. 
Tertiary Education Commission—Staff Numbers 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received about staff numbers at the Tertiary Education Commission? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I saw a report yesterday from the National spokesperson on tertiary education stating that staff numbers at the Tertiary Education Commission had ballooned so spectacularly that it was now “the poster child of Labour’s bureaucratic excess”. This is curious and at variance with the truth. The truth is that the number of staff at the Tertiary Education Commission is lower than the number it had in its first full year of operation. One wonders why the National Party is so unable to count. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Is he planning to cut the Tertiary Education Commission’s funding; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. The Government has no plans to cut funding for the Tertiary Education Commission but the National Party does. Last week when cornered by an Auckland audience of parents asking how National would fund any policy in education Wayne Mapp told them that it would be through cuts to the Tertiary Education Commission. Even if those members abolished the Tertiary Education Commission in its entirety the savings would keep New Zealand’s education system running for just under 3 days a year. Like I said the National Party does not know how to count. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why should the public believe that he is not trying to set an all-time record for bureaucratic excess given that he told a select committee yesterday: “We haven’t finished hiring staff.” and that Budget 2008 buys 15 new extra bureaucrats over and above the 341 already allowed for not to mention the 300 percent of new money for more and more consultants and contractors? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are not 341 people working at the Tertiary Education Commission and there are not 341 plus 15. There are 287. Yesterday there were 287 tomorrow there will be 287 and in the first year of its operation there were more than 287. That is a reduction—get it? Why does the member always want to add GST several times to the truth? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a reply to a supplementary question on the estimates for 2008-09 which— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does she have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; and there is always room for improvement. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister support the approach of the corporation’s Timaru spokesperson who says: “We avoid putting rival gang members in close proximity to each other.” and the approach of the corporation’s top boss that it ensures that “opposing gangs are housed sensitively.”; if so why knowingly house gangs at all? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I do not want State houses associated with gang activity any more than anybody else does. We house people according to need. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Has the Minister received any reports that give conflicting views about State housing policy? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. In the same interview I heard the report: “I don’t think there is a New Zealander in this country who accepts that we should be housing gangs.” A minute later I heard that: “We should absolutely be looking at caring for that wife and those kiddies even that gang member.” These reports both came from National’s housing spokesman Phil Heatley. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe. What message is being sent to the hundreds of families on the waiting list for housing when not only does Housing New Zealand refuse to collect information on how many gang tenants there are but also says that we cannot discriminate against them for choosing to be part of a known criminal organisation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The corporation does not tolerate illegal activity in its houses and when it is reported my expectation is that the corporation will take swift and firm action. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena ano koe. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister of Police about Housing New Zealand’s policy of aiding known criminal organisations by providing them with housing and clustering them together; and since when were the rights of gangsters more important than the rights of law-abiding citizens? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: They are not. 
Phil Heatley 
: If the corporation listens to neighbours’ complaints about gangs and takes “swift action” how come the corporation lost the Ridgeview Road court case with the Salt family where boys allegedly had gang affiliations; and it lost it on the basis that it did not document the neighbours’ complaints and did not act on the neighbours’ complaints over a number of years? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I say again that I do not accept for a moment that State houses should be associated with gang activity in any way. We house according to need. There are processes that are followed in order to evict tenants who break the law or break their tenancy agreements. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister not have a duty of care towards women and kids who live with gang affiliates not to turn a blind eye to gangs congregating in the State house kicking in the neighbour’s door dealing with drugs and planning the next robbery? What sort of message does that send to those kids? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The corporation has the power to evict people involved in criminal activity in its houses. I would expect that power to be used on every occasion. 
Phil Heatley 
: How come the Minister’s policy of housing rival gang members “sensitively” and in different parts of a suburb so that they do not fight means that gang members get to live close to each other and away from those they do not like when the 10000 struggling families on the waiting list just take what they can get in terms of State housing? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Housing New Zealand Corporation takes a community’s needs into account when it houses families and particularly if it knows that a member of a family has gang affiliations. Can I just say that it was stated in the  
Timaru Herald 
 today that Jo Goodhew is reported to have said that if gang members behaved they should be able to live in State units. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document of estimates answers stating: “No policy reviews have been done”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation stating: “We avoid putting rival gang members in close proximity to each other.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document stating that the Housing New Zealand Corporation ensures that “opposing gangs are housed sensitively”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question stating: “We do not collect information on gangs.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I seek leave to table today’s statement in the  
Timaru Herald 
 that Jo Goodhew is reported to have said that if gang members behaved— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Question No. 6 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In answering Mr Field’s question I said that Ministers must make decisions on residence policy. What I meant to say was that Ministers must make decisions on exceptions to residence policy. I omitted the word “exceptions”. 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Most submissions were very supportive of the principles underpinning this bill and they offered many constructive suggestions to improve it. I would like to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work they have done in strengthening this bill. I support the changes that have been recommended. 
This bill will further embed the Government’s push to ensure that we have a transport planning and funding system that reflects the sophistication and complexity of the 21st century. The bill will see the full hypothecation of fuel excise taxes for land transport purposes. This is a very significant point in the history of land transport funding in New Zealand and will involve about $600 million per annum previously retained in the general Crown accounts being now ring-fenced exclusively for land transport activities. The bill also clarifies the existing legislation in respect of funding of land transport activities from revenue received from motorists and heavy-vehicle users. 
The bill has a requirement for a Government policy statement to guide the allocation of national land transport funds by the New Zealand Transport Agency on the basis of regional transport plans. As Minister of Transport I will remain responsible for decisions around the allocation of the fund to New Zealand road safety initiatives based on recommendations developed by the agency. The bill also provides for moneys from the National Land Transport Fund to be paid for activities that benefit users of pleasure craft. This is in lieu of a refund of the petrol tax paid by recreational boaties. This provision received very widespread support from the marine sector. 
The select committee has recommended allowing the funding to be used for more generic search and rescue activities. Under the bill regional land transport committees will be replaced by regional transport committees. These committees will have enhanced functions including the preparation of new 3-yearly regional land transport programmes and regional fuel tax schemes. The bill as introduced reflected the Government’s decision to move to a 3-yearly regional land transport programme and a 3-yearly national land transport programme. This move will increase certainty in the sector and will reduce consultation and “planning churn” and was well received by submitters. There will be increased flexibility to combine planning documents and consultation processes. 
To further acknowledge local government’s concerns the committee recommends that the bill expressly requires the agency to take into account the regional priority attached to activities when making decisions on the National Land Transport Programme. Groups such as the Automobile Association the Road Transport Forum and local government made strong submissions about the need to be involved in decision-making processes around land transport. The bill as reported back acknowledges such views. 
The Government’s commitment to rail’s role as a critical part of a sustainable transport system is evidenced by our very recent announcement that the Government will be purchasing Toll’s rail interests. I therefore strongly endorse the committee’s recommendation that an expressed reference be made to rail and coastal shipping in the purpose section of the Land Transport Management Act. 
The bill will see Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand replaced by a new entity—the New Zealand Transport Agency. Transparency and accountability of this agency was a major issue for the select committee and it has recommended improvements to the bill as a result. Given the role of the New Zealand Transport Agency as a funder and provider of land transport activities decision making must be transparent and there must be suitable accountability provisions. 
Finally the bill will allow regions to use a regional fuel tax to fund priority projects that cannot reasonably be funded from any other source within the time frame desired by the region—for example the electrification of the Auckland rail network. This is a vital project to achieve a sustainable future and to give users of public transport greater choice. It will be up to each region to decide whether to introduce a regional fuel tax. The bill provides that a region may raise a tax of up to 10c per litre for land transport projects with expenditure on roading projects capped at 5c. Many local government submitters although generally supportive of a regional fuel tax sought to remove the 5c cap on roading projects. The committee has recommended that changes be made so that the funding of facilities—such as walking cycling and bus lanes; and high-occupancy vehicles—does not crowd out the demand for general traffic projects under the 5c roading cap. 
In the Auckland region because it already has a well-developed idea of what projects it would like to fund under a regional fuel tax scheme the initial Auckland scheme will be developed by the Auckland Regional Council. The council will need to take account of the views of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee. 
I would also like to take this opportunity to signal my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. Members will be aware of recent media attention given to the rise in fuel prices. The Government always expected that a regional fuel tax scheme would need to provide for phasing in order to meet the affordability criteria that Ministers must apply when considering a regional fuel tax. Phasing will be a requirement of a regional fuel tax in the bill. Once again I would like to thank select committee members for the work they have done on this bill. It is a very significant piece of legislation. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I start by saying that although the National Party will be voting against the legislation we think there are some quite good bits to it. We think this legislation is a bit like the curate’s egg in that it is good in some places and not so good in others. I want to cover the areas where we are in support of the bill and it is a shame that it could not be split into parts so that we could vote on those parts separately. We will get to do that at the Committee stage but we will not be able to do it for the whole legislation. 
First of all there is the issue of hypothecation. The vast bulk of the public out there have not a clue what that is. It sounds like some dreadful disease that only penicillin can cure. But in its simplest form hypothecation is the dedication of everything that is collected from road users going to a dedicated land transport fund so that it can be spent on land transport - type purposes. 
For decades now the view of the general public was that we were just stealing their money. I was certainly on the raw end of some sharp barbed tongues over that and I am sure Labour Ministers in the 1980s would have got it as well. I think the public thought that Ministers were heading off to the Bahamas with a crate of Moët under their arms and spending up large. Of course they were not; the money was going to the consolidated account or to the general accounts and it was being used by the Government to fund education health and all sorts of other things. But that did not ever wash with the public. They all felt that if the money had been collected at the petrol pump from the road-user charges or from motor vehicle registrations then it should be dedicated back to that purpose. 
Treasury hates hypothecation. If there is one thing that stops Treasury staff from sleeping at night it is when we raise the word “hypothecation”. They start asking whether we will have a frigate tax a breast cancer tax and so on—why should one thing get a hypothecation and not the others? But I think it is a good move. It is a move the National Party campaigned for with our billboards at the last election. We thought that the times when the Government accounts were heavily in surplus were the times it should happen—as opposed to the times in the 1990s when the entire accounts of the Government were in deficit and finance Ministers had no scope to release any of the money they were getting from that. I think it was a coming together of all the political parties and the fact that organisations like the Automobile Association had campaigned so heavily for it. 
So there is that and there are a whole lot of things with regard to the aligning of the planning cycle and getting more purpose into how the programmes are constructed with some more certainty. There have been some bizarre examples of 1-year plans where the following year something that was due to start the next year was not even in the next 10-year plan. I think the Taupo eastern arterial route was a great example. In 2005 it was in the plan to start in 2006 and then when the 2006 plan came out it was not even in the next 10-year plan. As people all around the country used to say how can we make any provision for it how can we plan for it and how can we make things work? 
The Government is introducing a new thing called a “GPS” which is not the global positioning system that people might have in their cars but a Government policy statement. I will be interested to watch what the first structure of that comes out like. In theory it is quite a good idea. It sets out what the Government’s plans for investment and funding priorities are for the coming 3 to 6 years and it gives some strategic guidance to the transport sector. I hear about these things—about strategies and general guidance documents and so on—and basically they can be all things to all people from motherhood and apple pie to something of real substance. If the Government policy statement is to be a funding and priority planning - type tool then it will have some substance to it. 
The introduction of the regional land transport programme to rationalise land transport planning documents and to reduce consultation is I think a good point about what this legislation should be doing because the level of consultation across things like road building is absolutely crippling. The consultation has to occur at local level it then has to occur at regional level it has to occur at national level and then quite often it has to go back for a second or third tranche. 
I guess National’s biggest concern with this legislation is not so much some of the stuff that is in it—and I will get to the regional fuel tax and a couple of other bits that we are highly opposed to—but what is not in it. When Labour passed the Land Transport Management Act in 2003 the claims that the National Opposition made at that point were that if the legislation went through as it was it was so restrictive and so prescriptive on private sector participation in the funding and building of roads that it would never happen. 
Peter Brown 
: So it should be! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There we are—New Zealand First says: “So it should be!”. They do not think the private sector should be involved in funding the building of new roads. I can tell members that National does. I can tell members that every state Labor Government in Australia uses the private sector to fund roading. So does the Labour Government in the United Kingdom and so do socialist Governments in Europe. In fact Peter Brown would be hard-pressed to tell us of a country in which the private sector is not involved in funding road building. But he still brings his cloth-cap socialist dogma to the idea of private sector funding and he feels that New Zealand should somehow line itself up with Burkina Faso or Zimbabwe—no actually Zimbabwe allows it. Interestingly enough the biggest builder of private sector roads in the world at present is communist China. So Peter Brown is further left than the communists—that is all I can say. 
This bill should have done something about the Land Transport Management Act. This is a Land Transport Management Amendment Bill so it could have. It could have taken out some of the prescriptive dragnets that are in there such as the 35-year concession period. It could have opened that up and made it a bid parameter. It could have allowed some things that the private sector has regularly said it would participate in if they were in the legislation. The private sector has said it would participate in building roads but not while the legislation is as blocked and prescriptive and as restrictive as it is. 
Now I come to some of the stuff in the bill that we are very very opposed to. The first of those is obviously the regional fuel tax. One of the things I found interesting happened at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last week when we asked Land Transport New Zealand how it was that it finished a financial year with $220 million unspent. It said it was because there are so many little pots of money. It said: “Money that is allocated for this purpose to this region for that cannot now be moved over to another region or another purpose if the project does not come on stream on time.” That is quite clearly a nonsense. If the money is in the account and a project falls over because it does not get its consents or it does not get its ducks in a row or get lined up by the local authority or whatever then surely the funding agency should have the ability to move that money to one of the other projects that is begging to get started. 
What we will be doing with the regional fuel tax is creating yet another small packet of pots so that one region can have it but a region next door may not. That was interesting in itself. We heard a lot of the big trucking operators say that if they are going to be operating out of Auckland which has a regional fuel tax—and the Waikato region does not—then they can set up a fuel base just across the regional border and transport their trucks down there with hardly anything on them and fuel up accordingly. 
Those grey mucky lines in the sand mean that a regional fuel tax can cause major disturbances for a proper regime. More important what is hilarious about this is that we are passing this legislation at a time when the Prime Minister says she knows that New Zealanders’ pockets are under strain. She knows they cannot afford it at present so we will not allow the regional petrol tax to come in next year at any rate. So why are we passing it? Why are we rushing legislation through to allow a regional fuel tax when the Prime Minister says she knows it cannot be afforded by New Zealanders and that she will not be allowing it to occur in the next year? 
I say that there are plenty of other mechanisms to fund land transport. Some of our opponents are now saying: “Oh if you don’t allow a regional fuel tax it means you’re opposed to a whole lot of projects that could be built such as Penlink.” We are not opposed to Penlink at all. We are very much in favour of Penlink the big road project out to the Whangaparaoa Peninsula being built. But a regional fuel tax is not the only mechanism to fund Penlink. It could be a whole range of other instruments that other countries use such as public debt private debt infrastructure bonds a whole range of public-private partnerships and so on. 
The last thing I want to say because I think I have only about 10 seconds left is that for a long time Land Transport New Zealand and Transit were separated. Everyone thought that was a good idea. Now somehow for some reason the Government thinks bringing them back together is a good idea even though it was totally and highly opposed to it at the time. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the second reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill (No 2). That was a very interesting speech from the National member Maurice Williamson; I point out that this Government is very supportive of public-private partnerships and say that of course they have their place. But unlike the member who has just resumed his seat we believe that the Government has an active role in providing infrastructure in the country and that is why we have had an unprecedented road-building and infrastructure-building programme. It explains why when Maurice Williamson was Minister of Transport he did not build a single new road in this country. Every morning he would get out of bed rush to the window and hope that the market like the tooth fairy had somehow magically delivered him a new road overnight. He would throw open the windows and be incredibly disappointed that the market had not delivered for him. Unlike that member we understand the reality for a country like New Zealand and the Government is an active partner in the road-building business in this country. 
I am not a member of the select committee that considered this bill but I am chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I tend to try to look at all these pieces of legislation in the view of climate change policy because the Government has taken an all-policy approach to climate change and we are looking across the board. This bill is very good for climate change policy. The member pointed out the hypothecation of a fuel excise tax which just means basically that the tax is all tagged now for land transport purposes and that includes public transport. The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues told us at the select committee this morning that there has been a 6 percent increase lately in people taking public transport. Obviously fuel prices are taking people out of their cars and putting them on to public transport. 
But the Minister made the very good point that public transport has to come first. There is no point waiting for there suddenly to be this overwhelming demand and then trying to play catch-up. If the buses and the trains are not there for people to travel on then they will not be able to take public transport. So public transport has to be ahead of the game and we have put an awful lot of money—I think it is over a 100 percent increase—into funding for public transport; I cannot remember the exact amount. But this hypothecation of that money going towards things like public transport will be very good for the Government’s commitment to climate change and to carbon neutrality. 
On that note I will pick out just two things in this bill that again flow into the Government’s climate change policy—those are of course rail and coastal shipping both of which the Minister mentioned. The Government’s decision to buy back the rail system is an incredibly important decision for this country. I think all of us know people who go overseas and then comment on the extensive use of rail in other countries that we like to compare ourselves to. We can look at what happened to our rail system in the 1990s and the early 2000s and be incredibly happy that the Government has bought back those assets and is committed to getting them going again. In Gisborne we have not had rail since Cyclone Bola so we have been a long time without any kind of formal rail system. We are very very pleased up my way to know that the Government is committed to rail and that rail does form an important part of transport policy when it comes to climate change. 
The other system that forms an important part is coastal shipping. I believe that coastal shipping is key in the climate change transport area to reducing our emissions. We need to remember of course that the transport sector is a very large part of our emissions. Imagine if across the whole country we had integrated transport networks and that more people—not just the people in Auckland and Wellington who already have pretty good public transport systems—were able to move out of their cars and into a public transport system. I am sure we would see an even greater emissions reduction. 
I wanted to take a very short call on this bill following on from the evidence given this morning at the select committee by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. We spent some time on this matter and it is good to see that across all Government portfolios and across all Government areas and ministries we are taking an integrated approach to climate change issues. We are also taking a consistent approach. I challenge the next National Party speaker to stand and speak on climate change. Are we surprised that when something else has come along that is good for the environment—another piece of policy that is good for climate change—those members are voting against it? There is a huge vacuum in the area of climate change that the next National speaker needs to address. This part of our emissions profile is big it needs to be addressed but once again from the National Party we have all problems and no solutions. Thank you. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I have not heard another member manage to confuse so many of us in such a short speech. For a start she challenged the next speaker which is me Pansy Wong to talk about climate change. I thought let me have another look at the Order Paper. We are actually debating the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill—right? I was really confused; she wants me to take a call on climate change? I thought wow she might like to join our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because she might learn a few more things in order to clear up some confusion. I wish that the next Labour member to take a call would speak to the statement made by Moana Mackey that the Labour Government embraces private and public partnership in building roads. I would like Labour members to name just one instance where that has happened in the last 8 years—just one not two; we need only one. Well I bet there are none. 
The other thing that has me even more confused is that every week in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we consider another bill like the Public Transport Management Bill the Labour members keep complaining about the lack of usage of our public transport and about how we have to do more. But just now Moana Mackey told the House that Labour is very happy that the usage of public transport has gone up and up in the last 8 years. So why is it that half of the Labour members complain about the lack of usage of public transport while the other half keep saying how much it is going up? I am looking forward to the next Labour member taking a call to clarify some of those statements. 
Another statement that I thought quite interesting was that the member said New Zealanders were really happy that the Minister of Finance had spent almost $1 billion on buying back the train system. Actually I want to tell that member that Australians are even happier than New Zealanders about that. They actually described New Zealanders particularly Michael Cullen as having a “Helen moment”—whatever that means! After negotiating a so-called sale price the Government suddenly discovered that it might have had a liability there that it had not taken account of. 
During the select committee process on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill we travelled to Christchurch and we travelled to Auckland. We met during the adjournment and we listened to submissions during House sitting hours after question time which meant there was a real sense of urgency to push the passage of this bill. Our chairman the Hon Mark Gosche kept impressing on us the importance of rushing the passing of this bill and I now have a lot of sympathy for a lot of the submitters who travelled to all sorts of places—Invercargill to Christchurch etc.—to help rush through this bill. They thought that the Labour Government was being courageous and bold when it announced that its policy and measures such as a regional fuel tax would be implemented as soon as the bill was passed. They thought that the Government would have the conviction to carry that through. 
We have just learned from the Minister of Transport though that she is going to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. She will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper but I believe that she has also been taken by surprise. I remember that one day while we were in the process of rushing through this bill the intelligent and effective member my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson came to the select committee and asked whether anyone had heard that the Prime Minister had already gone out and made an announcement saying that she would not let New Zealanders suffer from another petrol price hike. Well I have bad news for the Prime Minister too. Another of her Ministers the Hon Maryan Street announced just prior to Christmas that the accident compensation levy on petrol would go up by 2c on 1 July. I am afraid that the price of petrol is on the rise; accident compensation seems to be a black hole in terms of cost escalation there. So it was to our surprise that while we were rushing the passage of this bill the Prime Minister unilaterally made an announcement saying we could forget it; the regional fuel tax would not be introduced until New Zealanders found it affordable. Looking at the forecasts for the price of a barrel of oil I am not too sure for whom and when it will become realistically affordable. But it was very disappointing for those of us who had put so much time and effort into the bill—in the spirit of cooperation even though we will not be supporting it—to see all that rushing come to a standstill. 
The other issue I will raise is that this Labour Government does seem to like to tinker with structures. For some reason Labour believes that fixing structures or dismantling structures will somehow achieve a policy objective. So here we are debating this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and looking at the coming together—the integration the merger—of Land Transport New Zealand the office of the Director of Land Transport and Transit New Zealand into a single strategic Crown entity to oversee policy funding etc. It was quite interesting when the Hon Maurice Williamson started to find it necessary to question all of the submitters who came before the select committee because they were the same people who had complained to him years ago asking why the Government had one single entity with the priority of being the essential body overriding local authorities. People felt that local projects were being given low priority. They badgered him and eventually he yielded to their wisdom and agreed to the disintegration of that structure only to find it is being put together again 9 years later. 
I get a bit cynical because the Labour Government also has a ploy a plan and it keeps changing its Minister as well. Therefore if anybody brings up a query they will say: “Oh well that was the previous Minister.” So I am very cynical about this move which means that in future whenever there is something wrong people will say: “Well that was the previous Land Transport Authority.” or “That was the Office of the Director of Land Transport.” rather than say: “Well that’s where the buck stops.” I can demonstrate with Immigration New Zealand which is in big trouble at the moment. We have the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who has just taken over from the Hon David Cunliffe who took over from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and before her was the Hon Paul Swain. That is why we have lost track of who can actually be held accountable and I wonder whether the same ploy is now being used on this structural change. So I am afraid even though we like some parts of this bill we will find it hard to support it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are parts of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that we are delighted with and there are parts that we will endeavour to change. 
Let me first explain the parts we are more than happy with. We are happy with the merger of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit. Providing that there is the right governance structure in place the right management structure in place and the right amount of transparency and accountability we are more than happy with that. We are more than happy with the planning arrangements that this bill provides. We are delighted—absolutely delighted—that money will go into maritime search and rescue from the excise tax taken on the fuel that boat users purchase. We have advocated this for a long time and the Minister was gracious enough to tell me sometime ago that this is a direct extract from New Zealand First policy. We are—and indeed I personally am—also delighted with the hypothecation of the excise tax into road and transport funding. 
As I listened to the Hon Maurice Williamson I was thinking that in 1989 I went to the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was shadow Minister of Transport or the transport spokesperson. At the time I was working for port companies on port reform and we were trying to get ships to work 7 days a week 24 hours a day and with modern equipment. That would make a huge impact on shipping and the export of our commodities. It would also make a huge impact on cargo—freight—travelling to and from ports in a timely managed manner. I told the Rt Hon Winston Peters that our roading and rail networks would not keep pace with the port network. That was long before I even thought of becoming an MP. Sometime later when New Zealand First was formed I reinforced those concerns to Winston Peters again before I was an MP even before I put my hat in the ring I think. 
He put into the ballot for members’ bills a bill that would hypothecate all the excise tax into the transport account. The bill came out of the ballot and I have here the  
Hansard 
 of the then Minister of Transport. Much of what he said is childish. He said: “I want to start by saying right from the very beginning that the Government is totally opposed to this Bill.” He went on to say: “we disagree with … ‘all duties and taxes’ because it is just a nonsense. The first thing is there would not be enough roading projects out there to do or enough contractors out there to do them”. This was 6 years after I went to Winston Peters in a professional capacity and told him that roading was not keeping pace with the freight on the roads. The honourable Minister went on to say: “Even at conservative estimates with the doubling of the current annual road expenditure and present levels of charge Transit New Zealand has identified no more than $500 million worth of projects that are worth doing in the future.” With that the bill was voted down. The Minister of course was the Hon Maurice Williamson. 
Winston Peters had a second go at this when as Treasurer of this country he started the scheme to transfer money across to the roading account on an annual basis—an extra 2.1c a year. By now it would all have been done. One year after New Zealand First started that we got dumped—we were in coalition at that time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You walked away. 
PETER BROWN 
: We were dumped by the National Party. Months after that the transfer ceased—it was a no-no. We have heard for the last 3 years from the Hon Maurice Williamson who in particular has been on the road to Damascus that all the money must be put into the roading account yet he told us tonight that he will walk away from it again. 
Having said that I also have to say that we have some major concerns with this bill. I want to outline our concerns—first and foremost in respect of clause 5 which describes the new section 4 “Treaty of Waitangi”. The new section begins: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to land transport decision-making processes”. In other words it does not say what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi set out to achieve. Nobody knows. We will put up a Supplementary Order Paper to amend that clause—at least two amendments possibly three—and we hope the House will vote for them because we want every clause in this bill to make sense to any New Zealander reading it. Nobody can tell us what that clause means when it refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and I invite subsequent speakers to tell me if they know. 
Another concern that New Zealand First has relates to the regional fuel tax. We think it is unnecessary and we think it is another imposition that will be put on to motorists—the truck motorists the diesel motorists and the petrol motorists—in an unfair and unnecessary way. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But you’re going to vote for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Williamson that we will put up a Supplementary Order Paper to address this; we will not just abdicate from the situation. I am certain that the member will support our efforts to do that. 
There is a better and fairer way to use some of this GST windfall that the Government is collecting due to the price of petrol and fuel going through the roof. I have figures that show that the current cost of a litre of petrol is 212.9c. Of that figure the Government collects 23.65c in GST. Pansy Wong just reminded the House that the accident compensation levy will go up by 2c or so in July and there will be GST on top of that. So the price of a litre of petrol will go up even more. A year ago or thereabouts the cost of a litre of petrol was 155.9c and the GST component was 17.322c. At current levels that is a windfall gain in excess of 6c—nearly 6.5c. 
Dr Cullen’s argument is that if people buy petrol they will not buy butter or cheese and they will not go to the movies—areas where he would collect GST. There is an element of truth in that but it does not apply to every New Zealander. Some New Zealanders put their money into the bank some put their money into shares some go out and spend it leisurely—there would be a GST component there—and some probably put their banknotes or coins under the bed; I do not know. Those people have the ability to spend their dollars in a discretionary manner. They spend it use it or invest it for their social and economic well-being. We say that 4c of this 6c windfall should be put into a regional fund for the economic well-being of the whole country and that regions should be allowed to bid for it. It will work and it should be given a go. We must get away from the idea that every time we have a problem we should charge the motorists more. We must move away from that. 
Let me just briefly comment on public-private partnerships. We do not believe in them because they will mean paying tolls. There are two or three areas of concern. Firstly the Government can borrow money more cheaply than private enterprises. Secondly there must be a profit motive when private enterprises are invited into building or doing any enterprise. If people agree with that so be it. Thirdly and more important when a member of Parliament gets into his or her car and travels here and there he or she gets refunded by the taxpayer as do the businessman and the person servicing the community. But the average Joe pays his toll from his net income—he has paid tax before he has to pay his toll and that is unfair. That is why we are against tolling this country and raising petrol costs above what is reasonable and fair. This bill needs to address the concerns that New Zealand First has raised. Thank you very much. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens support the second reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill subject to some minor tweaking in a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage which I am sure will be no problem for the Government. I want to talk about two main issues today in this second reading speech. The first one is about the question of hypothecation of all petrol excise and road-user charges to the National Land Transport Fund. The Green Party is the only party in Parliament that has consistently challenged the view that all tax on petrol ought to go into roads any more than the view that all tax on tobacco ought to go into cigarette factories or that all tax on booze ought to go into liquor outlets. The reason is that road use causes substantial external costs to the rest of the economy that have to be funded out of general taxation. Until now the petrol excise has been contributing to those costs. It has not been paying all of them; it has been contributing to them. 
Last night the Institution of Professional Engineers put out a very well-considered report  
Transport: Engineering the Way Forward 
. Although we do not agree with everything the institution says in many respects it has agreed with Green Party policy particularly where it states in its report: “The mix of public and private providers funding mechanisms the interdependency of modes and network availability may deter the selection of economically optimal modes. Government needs to ensure that the pricing of each of the three freight modes matches the real costs including non-direct costs.” 
There have been two major Government reports the Land Transport Pricing Study of 1998—which Mr Williamson will remember—and the surface transport costs and charges report of the early 2000s. A lot of money has gone into both of those reports. Both of those reports showed markedly similar outcomes. Rail for example paid a very high proportion of its total costs to the economy private motorcars paid very substantially less and heavy trucks paid substantially less again—56 percent was the figure for heavy trucks. 
So if we are to put all the petrol tax and the road-user charges into a land transport fund in order to pay for transport then we need to have another way that makes real in terms of the price of transport the costs that it causes to the rest of the economy. Something that would do that transparently would be better than the current system but we do not have anything to do that. There is no intention to do that. Both of those reports showed that the minimum band of confidence for the costs that are caused to the rest of the economy is about $1200 million a year. That was at the bottom of the band. There is no proposal by anybody in this House that transport users should pay that; that is a subsidy from the taxpayer. 
I will turn now to the regional fuel tax which is the second-best way of funding public transport. It seems that even full hypothecation is not enough and the Government wants even more money to go into more roads. This is a huge subsidy again to road transport users. 
Our preference was for the regional fuel tax to go into public transport which has been dramatically underfunded compared with roading over many years. We did manage to negotiate that only 5c could go into roading. If a second 5c is wanted then it has to go into alternatives—not just public transport but cycling facilities and so on. But it has been clear for many many years that public transport is the poor relation and has been underfunded in terms of what is economically efficient for the economy and the oil prices have just brought that home very clearly. 
Last month’s figures show that vehicle kilometres travelled on the Auckland motorways are down by 3 percent. When have we seen that? Not only has the rate of increase stopped growing but also there is now no increase; there is now a reduction. That 3 percent is an average; it is 7 percent on the North Shore. Is that because the people who live on the North Shore cannot afford petrol and the people who live in South Auckland can? I do not think so. It is because the people on the North Shore now have an alternative. They have a very good busway and they are using it. The people in South Auckland who can afford transport the least do not have a very good alternative. So they are still using their cars. 
Let me spell it out really clearly for the House: better public transport reduces road traffic. It reduces maintenance costs it reduces congestion and it reduces the need for more roads. The Green Party is not saying that we should have no roads as the Government always suggests when we ask a question—”Oh we need roads for buses.” We have a lot of roads; they are full at the moment. They do not need to be full if we use them better and that is what we want to do. 
But what happens if we need public transport? Auckland pays. What happens if we need a new road in Auckland? The country pays. If we need to electrify the rail system to increase the number of passengers it can carry from 6 million trips a year to 38 million then Auckland pays not just its own nominal half share but also the interest on the Government’s half share as well. Auckland is effectively funding the whole thing and with this legislation we are very generously allowing it to do it. If we want a new motorway costing more than twice what that full electrification programme will cost for just 4.5 kilometres of motorway tunnel in Waterview then the approach is: “No problem; the Government will pay for that.” We keep hearing that Invercargill is not prepared to contribute to electrifying Auckland’s rail but Invercargill is apparently quite happy to pay for a tunnel under Waterview to complete as they call it State Highway 20. This is completely false economics. 
But the Greens are pragmatists. In the absence of any other form of funding and given the essential nature of finishing the rail scheme in Auckland we will support the regional fuel tax and it is important that Auckland has asked for it. The Supplementary Order Paper will make clear I gather that that will be phased in at the rate needed. We support that as well. 
But there is a problem. On top of the regional projects chosen by democratic consultation in the region through the regional planning process Ministers can add their pet projects on top and make Auckland pay the interest charges on those pet projects under new section 65N which is to be inserted into the Land Transport Management Act by clause 31. This is what I call the Ministers’ pork-barrel clause. I thought initially that new section 65Q which references new section 65J meant that the Ministers’ choices for new roads in Auckland would also have to be consistent with regional priorities as established by a democratic process in Auckland. But a closer reading of that clause has revealed to me that that is not the case. In fact after the regional priorities have been established and applied to the first 5c that Auckland will fund through the regional fuel tax Ministers can add a second 5c that does not go through that process and that they do not have to put through that process and Ministers are not obliged any longer after the select committee—as they were when the bill came in—to be satisfied that their projects are consistent with the region’s priorities. 
This is the worst kind of roading pork-barrel politics and I do not believe that the Government intended it. It took me so much time last night when I had another look at this to work circuitously around the clauses and around the actual impact of what the select committee had done that I think it is a mistake. I do not believe that Ministers would want to force Aucklanders to pay the interest costs through a regional fuel tax on roading projects that they had not chosen and that were not consistent with their priorities. I think that it is just one of those drafting things that creep in inadvertently. On that basis we will vote for the second reading because I believe that can be very easily fixed in the Supplementary Order Paper next week. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. There is an out-of-Parliament experience that a select group of MPs have on a regular basis as we go back to our homes. It is called the “rush-hour rock” a curious tradition in which over 1.4 million New Zealanders or about a third of our national population juggle and jostle for road space. 
This morning I logged on to aucklandtraffic.co.nz to see whether things had miraculously changed. I want to share some of the views of Aucklanders about the traffic flow in Auckland City. There is Shaun who says “I live in Pukekohe. Leaving at 6.30 a.m. each morning it takes me approximately 1.5 hours to get to Greenlane where I work.” Warren says “Auckland’s public transport system has the worst patronage in Australasia. There are more cars per capita in Auckland than any other city in the world.” Andrew says “Insufferable and Third World. I have lived and worked all around the world and this is my context. Major investment is needed quickly.” Juanita says “It is horrible every morning north bound and it is horrible every evening … south bound. That’s a possible total of 1½ to 2 hours a day … when I can spend that time at home with my kids. Not just that … I have to leave even earlier which takes time from my kids to get to work on time and leave way later than the actual time I work till … just so the traffic isn’t soooo bad … again more time away from home … I hate Auckland traffic …”. Is it any wonder that in the 2007 Quality of Life Survey the residents of North Shore Waitakere and Manukau are the least satisfied of all New Zealanders with their work-life balance? 
The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is huge—huge in its scope and huge in its impact on New Zealanders. It sets out the Government’s high-level priorities for land transport puts in place a new system for the funding and planning of land transport and introduces full hypothecation of fuel excise duties to the National Land Transport Fund. The impact of two key issues addressed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is alone significant: firstly the proposition that rail should be more integrated into the transport planning and funding framework; and secondly the tightening up of the rules and regulations around regional fuel taxes. 
But many other aspects of this legislation must be seen as being some of the most significant issues facing the nation. No discussion on this bill could begin without acknowledging that the development of public transport including walkways must be a key response to the dual challenges of peak oil and climate change. Across New Zealand 70 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions from transport occur in urban areas. Improved public transport systems will result in lower emissions greater oil independence less smog lower petrol bills and a greater quality of life given that the chronic road congestion could significantly diminish. We need to make a long-term investment to significantly reduce emissions by making our cities more walking and cycling friendly investing in high-quality bus services and innovative light-rail systems reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and reducing our relatively high levels of car ownership. The issue of investment—the economics of change—is the crux of the matter. 
In the medium to long term public transport will benefit lower-income earners by providing affordable transport as petrol costs continue to increase as a result of the global peak oil production crisis. In the face of this crisis our priority in the Maori Party has always been to ask what measures might be put in place to assist low-income earners with petrol price rises in the short term. Although we must significantly reduce oil dependency and strategically plan for the utilisation and development of sustainable energy resources we must equally be vigilant to ensure that all New Zealanders are able to access affordable transport options in a world where oil shortages will mean ever-escalating petrol prices. We will not forget the relentless pressure on working families on families living in severe and significant hardship. Homeownership education energy food and health care costs have also risen faster than the overall rate of inflation. Families are struggling to meet the cost of a basic standard of living. Our hospitals are facing the pressure of children suffering Third World diseases the origins of which have been clearly linked to overcrowding and income poverty. We will continue to speak out about poverty and the desperate conditions that many of our urban dwellers face. 
We must protect their interests at all costs so we will demand that the motorists who pay the extra tax are able to see a clear benefit from doing so in the form of additional public transport options including footpaths that the region might not otherwise get. There must be a clear relationship between the introduction of the fuel tax and tangible results—and quickly. In the case of Tamaki-makau-rau—Auckland—for instance we need to see progress made immediately in developing a high-quality rapid transit system incorporating an electrified rail service and the North Shore busway as well as a significantly improved network of public transport services right across the whole Auckland region. 
There are of course other groups that stand to benefit from the improvements to the land transport management system. The inaccessible nature of public transport was brought to the attention of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by CCS Disability Action. The concepts of participation accountability and non-discrimination against disabled people must permeate through land transport planning and funding. It is pleasing to see that specific provision is made for such groups to be included in the consultation rounds of regional transport committees. 
I have concentrated on Auckland in response to the concerns of my constituency in my capacity as the member of Parliament for Tamaki Makaurau. There is no doubt that the electrification of the Auckland rail system will be a major step forward for passenger rail services. The Ministry of Works had plans to electrify Auckland rail in the 1940s. The plans were shelved then just as they were shelved again in 1970. This is the third go at ensuring that the Auckland region is equipped with a world-class public transport rail service. Who would not support the decision to invest in new electric trains upgraded rail stations ferry terminals passenger information and integrated ticketing and other public transport capital projects? Putting it another way if it is a choice between fast clean quiet electric trains and old polluting diesel trains that are bursting at the seams at rush hour I know which locomotion I would be sitting on. 
Finally we are well aware that the controversy around the regional fuel tax has fuelled hot debate in our own party and across the motu—the land. I believe that the submission from the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development had some interesting things to say in support of the bill’s provision to enhance long-term integrated planning and funding of land transport in New Zealand. The submission suggested that we need to better integrate rail ports and freight transport logistics into transport planning. Given the need to keep the cost of consumer goods like food as well as the cost of public transport as low as possible this is a critical point that perhaps needs more work in the Committee stage of this bill. The submission also recommended that regional fuel taxes should be optimised according to the transport needs and priorities of a region not to a predetermined formula decided by statute. 
The stages that are required to secure approval for a regional fuel tax include sign-off by the regional transport committees the regional council and finally the Minister. In all of these stages the existing Local Government Act consultation process requires that tangata whenua and Maori communities be involved. We are satisfied that such a process is adequately robust to ensure that regional fuel taxes are committed to only if they will contribute to publicly supported and beneficial regional transport projects. 
During the select committee process of this bill the regional fuel tax regime was tightened up. This resulted in a decision that the regions are unable to implement a regional fuel tax without the prior permission of the Minister. But the other key change was that the maximum amount of 5c for roading has been amended and clarified to include carriageways bridle-paths and footpaths. This created a much broader definition of roading that effectively includes within it all but a handful of public transport and freight terminal projects. 
We will not shirk from being outspoken in caring for the interests of those who are suffering. We are enthusiastic about getting people off the roads improving the public transport system and making a long-term investment in the quality of life of New Zealanders while at the same time enhancing the quality of our global environment. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future strongly supports the second reading and subsequent stages of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill as providing a new way for the planning development and funding of land transport - related issues in this country. 
I will use two local examples this afternoon to demonstrate the impact of this legislation on the people whom I am privileged to represent in this House. In a few days’ time we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of New Zealand’s first urban electric rail passenger service—the Johnsonville line. For about 25 of the last 70 years I have been fighting a battle to keep the Johnsonville line and it has come and gone as various councils have come and gone and as various people with their bright ideas have come and gone. But the really good news is that the decision made last year to commit $227 million to the upgrading of Wellington’s urban rail services has finally given that line a security it has lacked from probably the very early years of its foundation. We will soon start to see work developing to upgrade the tunnels and the platforms so that new units can come on to that line as part of the bigger Wellington urban transport package from 2010. 
I say that today because the framework this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill ushers in in terms of the funding and the responses given to the various modes of transport is what makes it possible. I can recall in the late 1980s that a very prominent report the McCutcheon report on public passenger transport was supposed to be definitive in terms of assigning a value to the various modes of passenger transport alongside roading and ensuring that we got a fair and equitable funding regime for public passenger transport services be they bus train ferry or whatever in comparison with the funding that was dedicated to roading. The presumption at that time was that our system was biased in favour of roading and against public transport. Frankly 20 years later it has not really worked out that way. This bill is the latest effort to put in place a much better coordinated strategy that will deliver benefits to the people we represent. 
The second example that I will quote to the House is almost as old as the first one—that is the struggle to get some finality on the best way in and out of this city to the north. It is called Transmission Gully. It has had a variety of names over the years. There was an ill-fated plan a few years ago to cantilever a highway out around the rugged Cook Strait coast to the north and somehow go through a whole lot of local communities and provide that security and safety for the people of Wellington. Well that was utterly rejected—90-something percent of the submissions made were against that proposal. 
One of the things United Future was able to do in negotiation with the current Government after the last election was to get a commitment that the funding that had been hitherto set aside for resolving Wellington’s western corridor transport issues could be transferred to Transmission Gully if that proved to be the most popular and viable outcome from the region’s point of view. So that has come to pass. Now we have the decision this week on a new route which will be announced shortly and a clear commitment from the Government—which we welcome—that the next stage can proceed thus making possible the construction of this highway which has been posited as a highway since 1939. The area was first identified in 1906 as being a viable option for the main trunk railway line north so the idea has been around for over 100 years. We are now finally at the point where decisions can be made that give some certainty that this project will proceed. 
That is where the other part of this bill becomes important—the provisions relating to how the funding will be delivered through the regional fuel tax. We support the notion of having a regional fuel tax for projects of this type. We welcome the cap being put at 5c for roading projects. The other criteria contained within this bill are to ensure that that tax will be applied only under very specific and tight conditions and they are these. Firstly the project has to be identified as being the primary priority of the region and of regional significance. Clearly that would apply in the case of Transmission Gully. Secondly the funding has to be for a specific project—for example the development of a road. It cannot just go into the general pool. Assuming that the time comes when the funding for the project has been exhausted then the tax itself is exhausted. 
The regime that the bill introduces is critically important for the delivery of good transport services for the people of my electorate and for the people of the Wellington region in general. Right across New Zealand we have had the debate for a very long time—the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples alluded to it in respect of Auckland—as to how we fund necessary transport infrastructure. We can all hark back to a golden era which is ill-defined when all these things were provided for perfectly but the reality is that over the postwar period in particular at the urban level at the State highway level and at the national level funding for our transport infrastructure has been on a steady decline. It reached its apogee in the early years of this century when in short order the Government had to rescue the airline and the railway it had to acknowledge that roads were chronically underfunded and it also had to rescue the national power system. We can never let that situation occur again and that is why a bill of this type is so critical. 
I am aware that there will be a whole variety of issues and interests about some of the bill’s provisions. I noted yesterday for instance at the Federated Farmers national conference that some concern was expressed about the composition of regional land transport committees. People were asking why it was that some of the major user groups were apparently excluded from at least some of these committees at a specific regional council level. That is a matter that the House can explore as the bill proceeds through its remaining stages. But it is important that we have in place framework legislation that enables us to start to make real progress on some of the big transport issues the resolution of which have eluded us for so long. 
The relevance of this to our national economy should not be underestimated. We are a small isolated trading country. We rely on our ability to get products to market quickly and efficiently. If our roading systems or our rail systems are not up to the mark then a couple of things will happen. Firstly we will simply be bypassed by a number of the shipping companies—that is happening already. The outlets for our products will be reduced. Secondly at a provincial and regional level we will see competition taking away goods from our area to other areas not necessarily because the prices are better but simply because the transport networks make that more possible. If we are really serious about good infrastructural development to assist the growth of our regions then the package of measures that this legislation introduces needs to be proceeded with. 
I am very supportive of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I welcome the fact that it means we can address significant local transport priorities particularly those relating to rail and to road. When we talk about peak oil and everything else there are people who ask why we are building more roads at a time when petrol prices are rising. Those people fail to acknowledge that the motive power for vehicles will change. It may be that some of the hybrid systems now being developed will become more sophisticated. Other alternative forms of energy will be developed. There will always be cars. There will always be people wanting to go from A to B by motor vehicle. We need to ensure that our roading network is capable of serving their needs. 
I am very happy to support the bill. I see it as a hugely positive step forward. I acknowledge that the climate that it has brought about—which has seen issues like urban rail in Wellington given some certainty for the long term—will see the development of Transmission Gully which will give certainty not just to current generations but also to future generations of Wellingtonians. These are immensely positive and beneficial steps for our region. This bill is certainly part of making that happen. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I speak in regard to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. This bill relates to the fundamental changes that the Labour Government is bringing about in the transport sector as the result of a number of inquiries that have identified some major problems in terms of value for money that the sector has encountered over a number of years. The ministerial advisory group report was probably the first report on the issue and it indicated there was a serious concern about value for money in many of the projects especially in the Auckland region. That report was I guess a bit of a wake-up call for the Government and it gave a formal indication that there were problems in the transport sector in terms of the way money was being used in the procurement of roading projects. 
That led to the  
Next Steps in the Land Transport Sector Review 
 which was a more substantial document that had to determine what the options would be for the future reform of the transport sector. We are seeing that reform in the legislation here today. The proposed merger of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand with the enhanced role of the Ministry of Transport really is an indication of one of the options that the Next Steps review came up with and it has been followed by the Government in this case. 
On National’s side of the House we have a former Minister of Transport Maurice Williamson who has indicated that in many cases in the past the combination of provider and funder caused a number of problems. Not very many years ago they were actually devolved into two separate groups in order to resolve that problem. Now that we are putting them together again the problems encountered many years ago may potentially come back to haunt the transport sector in the future. 
That is of great concern to National because the strategic decision to merge the two organisations under the Next Steps review may not be the best solution to the problem of ensuring there is value for money in roading. It smacks of a rushed decision-making process by the Government. First of all the Government was not willing to acknowledge it had a problem regarding value for money and procurement. Then when proposals did come before the Government it became a matter of snapping up the proposals that it thought would be easiest to get through before an election. The Government did not have the confidence that the sector would demand in decision making at a level that will influence the future of the transport sector for many years to come because this is a major structural change in how we govern our transport sector and a large amount of Government funding is used in that sector. 
Another aspect of this legislation is the use of extensive planning processes. The National Party welcomes that; planning certainty has been long overdue. Many contractors have made it clear that they believe that certainty is a key driver of their ability to deliver serious roading projects for New Zealand. Those projects typically have a long-term life cycle in building and construction and also in usage. A year-by-year process of indicating what would be funded has caused a number of dilemmas to those who would provide the construction capability because they cannot plan ahead in the sense that they want to. The 3-year planning cycle that has been provided here is a start but the reality is that that industry along with many other strategic industries in New Zealand needs to have a much longer process than that. If we look overseas we see that many countries engage in 20 to 30-year time frames for their planning processes which gives even greater certainty to organisations involved in providing construction services. So although some planning is provided here it is not planning to the extent that would provide the impetus for the long-term solutions to be reached that we need as a country on many of these issues. In some ways having that planning provision in the legislation is a start but it certainly is not a solution that is in the best interests of New Zealand transport policy. 
Regional petrol taxes are another big part of this legislation and that is probably the most interesting provision from a public perspective. That is probably the element that people have grappled with because they understand the potential for 10c a litre to be added to petrol prices at the pump. At the moment petrol prices are excessively high as they are around the world. In a lot of cases the issue is one of supply and demand but essentially the public are resistant to another petrol tax being put on to them at a time when the economy is very slow and personal household budgets are very tight. The Prime Minister has even indicated that although this legislation will provide for regional petrol taxes she does not intend to implement them in the next year. We have an election coming up and it seems very convenient to pass legislation to provide for regional petrol taxes but then not implement them. 
If the Prime Minister thinks her decision will influence the voting public and they will be swayed by having a 1-year moratorium on petrol taxes even though they know they will be hit with them in the second and third years then she has a lot to learn. Clearly the public will see through that. They know that that provision is only a temporary measure to try to abate any cost increase and influence them to vote for this Government at the election. That simply will not work. The public know that petrol prices are high now and will go higher. A 1-year moratorium on petrol tax increases by the Prime Minister for the sake of political expediency will not work in terms of getting votes at the ballot box. 
It is also interesting to look at what the Minister of Transport Annette King said at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last week about regional petrol taxes. She was very averse to agreeing with the Prime Minister’s statement. The Minister is much more resilient in terms of knowing that if the roading projects or the public transport funding that is envisaged for Auckland is to go ahead there probably will need to be some kind of regional petrol tax in Auckland in the next year. The Minister was less willing to grant an assurance to the public of New Zealand that there would be such a moratorium for the next year. So we see a conflict within the Labour Party as to whether there will be a moratorium. It is doubtful whether the public can give much credence to what the Labour Party has been saying in this area because if Labour is passing a provision for a petrol tax then it intends to impose the tax. It may give a short time-frame out of that process but in reality it will impose that petrol tax at some point in time. 
It was interesting also to see what New Zealand First has come up with today in respect of petrol taxes. From listening to the speech by its member it seems that New Zealand First will not support the petrol tax and thinks it should come out of the GST component of the petrol price. That would be an interesting proposal in the sense that if the money was taken out of the GST component of the petrol price then that money would have to be taken out of some other form of Government spending. The GST component goes into the funding of the Government accounts so is New Zealand First also proposing that funding for superannuation or for its SuperGold card be reduced so that the funding the petrol tax would have provided can come from GST? Maybe that is what New Zealand First is saying but we will have to wait and see whether that is the case. But perhaps it is talking about a reduction in the foreign affairs budget to take account of lower funding from GST and from the Government from taxes to reconcile with New Zealand First’s reduced petrol tax formula. 
The regional petrol tax was also probably the part of the process that most submitters concentrated on in the sense that many councils told the select committee that they would want to have the ability to determine how the funding would be split. Currently this legislation provides for a mandatory 5c:5c split and although the Maori Party indicated that there had been some change in that definition the change is very nominal. The reality is that many councils especially those outside Auckland will not want to spend 5c a litre of any regional petrol tax on public transport simply because they do not have the ability or need to do that. The Government of the day should have taken notice of what the regions have said; the Auckland region was the only one that encouraged that split. That is another issue to do with a regional petrol tax that needs to be addressed in this legislation. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is amazing how little can be said in 10 minutes and the previous speaker is an expert at it. He gave a description of everyone else’s policies but there was not a sentence about what he thinks about this bill from a policy perspective. However I am happy to take much less than 10 minutes to say how important this bill is for my constituency of Otaki. 
The Horowhenua and Kapiti area is looking for new transport initiatives to take place the most important of which is Transmission Gully and that is why I am in support of this bill. I believe that it provides a valuable tool in our toolkit so we are able to construct that important road but the fact that the bill also puts out longer-term plans to allow for the inclusion of public transport is also very very important. We need electrification of that railway line. It goes through to Waikanae at the moment but it needs to go right through to Palmerston North. The region has to take a holistic view of that issue. To build an expensive road like Transmission Gully we need to look at every option around. That is what this bill does. It gives us another option to look at as a region and I appreciate that enormously for our community. 
This week alone the preliminary investigation has come back showing the road as being $285 million cheaper than we thought it would be but there is still a gap between Crown funding and what the region will have to come up with. That is why this kind of legislation gives us that extra tool in the toolkit. I support it because we have to ensure we have modern 21st century transport for the Wellington region and this legislation will be welcomed by my constituents. That is why I wanted the opportunity to take a brief call in support of it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill continues to progress this Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by making changes to cover for work-related injuries; to eligibility for and entitlement to weekly compensation; and to entitlement to and processes for vocational rehabilitation. 
The bill introduces cover for a mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden traumatic event in the course of employment. This is a major development for the scheme and brings New Zealand’s cover into line with the cover offered to workers in many other countries. The bill is not intended to provide cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a gradual process such as mental stress caused by work overload or the temporary distress that constitutes a normal response to trauma. 
The bill introduces changes to the provisions for work-related gradual process disease and infection to provide more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined and to remove some existing barriers to cover. It does this through amending the test of work-causation set out in the existing Act. The bill also introduces changes that allow greater flexibility to amend the list of occupational diseases provided in schedule 2. The bill updates the weekly compensation framework in order to improve access to weekly compensation particularly for seasonal and casual workers. It provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. It allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and increases the rate of weekly compensation paid to potential earners. 
The bill also enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation in order to provide better outcomes for claimants. The changes include removal of the existing age-limits for eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants. 
The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation to provide a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. It enhances the scheme’s responsiveness to the needs of claimants. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 We have seen the headline in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today: “More price hikes in the pipeline for drivers” due to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) levy increase through the petrol tax as well as motor vehicle registration fees. We can be assured that with the passage of this bill with the support of New Zealand First there will be continuing price hikes for employers and for the self-employed in terms of their ACC premium through the work accounts. 
Last night we had the revelation from the Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street that she and the ACC actually have no idea of the cost of some of the new coverage that is introduced by this legislation. For example the estimated cost for mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event ranges between $7.6 million and $76 million. That is a wild guess—I would not even use the word “estimate”. According to the Minister it does not matter to her that they do not know how much roughly the changes will cost so long as New Zealand can lead the world. We are quite fed up with the Labour Government wanting to lead the world and leaving New Zealanders behind to cope with the increased living costs—those arising from the emissions trading bill the regional petrol tax and now the ACC premium—so that the Government can stand up and say it is leading the world. Last night we heard the expression “leading like a pack of lemmings jumping off a cliff”. That expression kept resurfacing and it is very appropriate. 
Let me go into a bit of the detail of this legislation. I will cover the three major changes or new areas of coverage introduced by this legislation. The interesting thing is that the first two—mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event and the changes in the onus of proof with regard to injuries caused by gradual process—are all changes that would apply to those we call workers but it would not apply to non-workers or non-earners. The reason the Labour Government so boldly introduced those changes is that they have to be funded by employers and the self-employed. When it comes to non-earners the Government suddenly says providing cover would be too expensive and is not affordable. Indeed officials have produced reports stating that it is too expensive to extend the coverage to non-earners so it cannot be done. It is interesting that the Labour Government is blatantly making the statement that an earner’s life his or her well-being is worth more than that of a non-earner. If women who are not in the workforce suffer the same traumatic experience then they will not be covered. There is a problem of equity. If new coverage is to be funded by employers and the self-employed then the changes will be introduced but when it comes to non-earners and the cover is to be paid for from general taxation then it will not be funded. That is the equity issue. 
There is also another problem. I am not sure whether this is true but someone has told me—this has still to be checked out; I learnt this only yesterday—that in respect of volunteers the Volunteers Employment Protection Act means that when volunteers attend their voluntary work they are assumed to be in the normal workforce. The Minister may think that volunteers who attend the same traumatic event as for example a firefighter would be treated as if they are in the normal workforce which means they would be covered. We were told that volunteers will not be covered. Of course that is also a contradiction given that the Minister said that the cost of providing cover is not a concern because such events will not happen very often. After 9 long years Labour has suddenly felt the need to rush this legislation through. On the one hand it is confessing that it does not know the cost of providing cover and on the other hand it is saying we should not worry about the cost and this provision is being introduced because such events will not happen very often. I am afraid that with law and order being an issue and crime getting out of control they may happen quite often. 
The other issue I want to point out is that this legislation is not very fair to employers. Representatives from Massey University came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said they had tried very hard to be good employers and had introduced good work practices to avoid injuries due to the height of laboratory bench tops or using a keyboard all the time yet no matter how much good work practice the employer introduces into the workplace when there is an injury the employer will assume the liability for it. At present there is a need to prove that the injury was more likely to have occurred at work than after work. My good colleague Colin King raised a very good point. He is a champion shearer but he is too modest to admit it and he is also a rugby player. Last night he gave us some personal examples of the difficulty of holding the employer totally liable for back pain for example. He asked how we could know how much of it was attributable to shearing work and how much was because the individual also engaged in rugby activities. It was very very unfair to make that change in the onus of proof even though a provision has been put in to say that where there is doubt the ACC can investigate. We all know that the Privacy Act and all sorts of legislation will make it difficult for employers or even for the ACC to inspect any individual’s home environment in order to decide whether it has contributed more than the work environment has to those gradual injuries. 
The last matter that I want to raise is one that I think is really outrageous. For a long time the legislation has had a provision that if an individual intentionally inflicts self-harm then he or she would not be entitled to accident compensation. Labour with the support of New Zealand First has repealed that provision. That means that an individual who intentionally inflicts self-injuries or who attempts to commit suicide will now be entitled to compensation as well as to treatment. We would feel appalled about anyone in New Zealand going out there to encourage or entice people to commit suicide. But we in this House are now passing legislation that is against the objectives of the accident compensation scheme. One of the scheme’s principal purposes is to minimise injury. We are now sitting here and debating the passing of legislation that says it is OK for people to inflict injuries on themselves and in fact the corporation will pay them compensation. What a nonsense that is. In 2005 there were an estimated 5000 reported cases of attempted suicide and the Minister and the officials did not even bother to estimate the costs relating to that. But what is the message we are sending out here to people—that it is OK to inflict self-injury? Is that why the corporation is spending $5 million on a campaign—to say that is OK? It is appalling it is an outrage and National will vote against this bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is an extraordinary admission that one’s plan for the future is as pessimistic as that of that member Pansy Wong; that one can be an Opposition spokesperson and longstanding member of Parliament—as that member is—whose main criticism of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is that one does not want New Zealand to be a world leader in the area of injury prevention and compensation for working people. That shows a remarkable lack of optimism for our country and security and a lack of confidence in our people. I am staggered at the contribution that member has made because if there is one area where New Zealand has an extraordinarily proud record it is accident compensation. I say to Mrs Wong that we can be very proud of this scheme and that her speech and lack of policy detail and vision in this area are extraordinary. To criticise something around the edges then say she will not vote for the whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.  
Labour is very proud to support this legislation in Parliament this afternoon because in Government we have continually expanded extended and maintained the protections for our accident compensation scheme. That has been an important principle underlining our policy whenever we have brought bills like this to Parliament. The Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street has outlined the two key areas that the scheme will now cover: workers who suffer a sudden traumatic event and casual and temporary workers in our economy. The passing of this bill alone could benefit up to 400000 people. I find it unbelievable that any party could vote against a bill that could potentially extend the hand of support from our society to 400000 temporary workers. That is why this bill is so important and why our plan for the future is so important as well. 
The National Party’s record on accident compensation is woeful. We are more than happy to debate that with National members on the campaign trail because National’s policy will always mean less cover not more for the most vulnerable workers. That is the stark reality of National’s privatised model and the fact that National members will not talk about it in the debate shows how embarrassed they are about it. It is not aimed at helping the many; it is aimed at delivering to the few. That is why that party will not talk about it. But we know from National’s record in Government that the people it puts in charge of accident compensation are the likes of Jenny Shipley and Murray McCully. Those two names are an open-and-shut case as to National’s commitment to accident compensation. 
We know from the work that has been published—I know that the Minister recently launched a book by Hazel Armstrong and Rob Laurs that covers this area—how important this scheme that Sir Owen Woodhouse brought to our country has been. I say to Mrs Wong and the other members of her party that when we debate in Parliament the importance of the scheme we ought to debate how to improve the scheme—how to make it better and take it— 
Pansy Wong 
: We’re so scared. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member says she is scared but this is not about intimidating politicians. She is so limited in her vision that she thinks this is a political issue. This is about working people in our country and about making sure that if some terrible event happens to them—it could happen an hour from now and none of us would know about it—then our community gives them protection. If the member is too narrow-minded to support a bill that does that because she is interested in the politics rather than the principle and the policy then she can go out on the campaign trail and debate it. We want to do that; we want to make accident compensation an election issue. By passing this bill we can report to the people we believe in and represent that 400000 of them will get extra cover that they did not have before we became the Government. For that reason alone the bill is worth our support. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this third reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I must say that the previous speech was a somewhat self-righteous contribution by the Hon Darren Hughes. He forgets who introduced accident compensation back in 1974. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No I didn’t forget. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well the member might have forgotten that in a commentary on  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 people such as Sir William Birch were very much endorsed in their views by none other than the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse. 
I think it is important to go back for just a moment to 18 October 1972 and the occasion of the third reading of the initial bill when the Rt Hon Sir J R Marshall said: “I am proud to have been associated with it and proud that the National Government has taken the lead in introducing legislation which leads the world in this field. No other country has ventured into this area to the same extent as the National Government in New Zealand has done to provide coverage for people who are earners and who suffer accidents at any time of the day or night without recourse to the question of negligence.” 
What we are concerned about in regard to this legislation that Labour has brought in is the fact that unfortunately it blurs the margins between injuries and accidents and other medical conditions. The bill is extremely poorly thought-out and it is extremely poorly costed which has been evidenced by the fact that when I spoke on this bill in its first reading we learnt that the difference in the costs estimated by the Labour Government at that stage of events went from $7.2 million to $72.2 million—a 1000 percent rise. And 9 months later after the select committee process—which unfortunately I was unable to be present at—the Labour Government still comes up with totally inappropriate and loose costings. It is no wonder this Labour Government is on its way out. It is no wonder this Labour Government has taken New Zealand two slots down the OECD ladder in the last 9 years to the point where we cannot afford decent health we cannot afford decent education and we cannot afford a good social welfare system—let alone the sort of accident compensation scheme that we deserve. 
I would like to go through some of the aspects of this legislation about which the Labour Government has been only too ready to lead New Zealanders over the cliff like lemmings. The first aspect relates of course to work-related gradual process disease and infection. If I look at the report of the ministerial advisory panel I see on the very first page that the advisory panel recognises that further research is required to fully calculate the cost implications of its recommendations. Surely any responsible Government should have made sure that it is more accurate than a span of 1000 percent. The Labour Government of 2008 has totally totally failed to do that. 
The ministerial advisory panel also suggested that the barrier for cover for claimants was inappropriate and the panel noted that the burden of proof rested with the claimant and could be hard to meet. But this Government has totally reversed the burden of proof so that it now rests totally on the employer. It is very interesting to see what large companies such as New Zealand Steel—a very good New Zealand employer that employs over 1200 people in my electorate—have to say about the costs. That company is absolutely appalled as to how those costs have been worked out. 
But I want to just go on in the last few moments to talk about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide and what New Zealand Steel had to say about that. It said that the proposed change will provide entitlements and incentives for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries actions that New Zealand society considers abhorrent. It actually provides incentives for individuals to self-harm. The very fact that this Labour Government seriously considers adding this clause is an indictment on it an indictment on its sense of fairness and an indictment on the very fact that it lacks a practical common-sense approach to problems facing society. That is why there cannot be a bipartisan agreement on this legislation today as there was back in 1974. I have looked through the  
Hansard 
 of 1972 to see whether there was any mention of self-inflicted harm and indeed there was not. It is a sad day when this Labour Government brings in such incredibly irresponsible legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just on that point—about self-inflicted harm—I agree with the member that it is a sad day. But the bill actually reflects what is happening in society and there is little anybody can do about it. New Zealand First members checked into the issue and we felt as concerned about it as the member obviously does but the bill reflects what is actually happening and it is better to have legislation that covers it. 
Let me just say that the accident compensation scheme legislation that the National Government brought in in 1974 was good but by crikey subsequent National Governments decimated it—cut it to shreds. In 1974 it was good legislation but then that Bill Birch and a few others got on to it and they tore it to shreds. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation but we think it should have gone further. For example we would like to extend the coverage and we would like to blur the line between accidents and sickness and that can be done. Years ago— 
David Bennett 
: Is that out of self-interest Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Bennett should shut his mouth for a minute and he might learn something. Years ago I was covered by accident compensation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members are making so much noise over there that they cannot even understand their own thinking. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is about time members paid attention to the speaker. 
PETER BROWN 
: Some years ago I was covered through workplace insurance—and most New Zealanders see the Accident Compensation Corporation as an insurance company. My health was also covered by the company. I cannot for the life of me see why gradually those two entities cannot be combined together. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How are you going to fund it Mr Brown? 
PETER BROWN 
: We can fund it in the same way—pay for it. Think a little bit and pay for it! The National Party has raised two issues and they both revolve round funding. If that woman over there would stop shouting like a fishwife she might learn also. 
The National Party wants more coverage and New Zealand First has some support for that. National wants cover for people who witness a traumatic event who are not workers—in other words people covered by the non-earners account; in other words people covered by the taxpayer—and it wants retrospectivity. 
David Bennett last night made a big play of retrospective legislation only to be torn to shreds because he had no substance to his argument by Russell Fairbrother. I have never seen an MP in this House verbally torn to shreds to such an extent because he did not know a thing. He was so bad so ashamed that he got under the desk. All one could see was the cue ball! 
Both aspects require extra funding so where does it come from? Well the National Party tells us that there are umpteen dollars in the Crown account—so much that it will give very significant tax cuts if and when it becomes the Government. So National is saying—and I assume it has done its homework—that there is plenty of money to dish out to taxpayers. Well what about giving a little bit to accident victims by extending the coverage? 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much Mr Brown; how much do you need? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not need it; National is saying it wants to extend the coverage. Let me give the other option. Accident compensation is meant to be fully funded by the year 2014. That is not set in concrete. Moving the date out another 10 years would allow some funding that currently goes into accident compensation to be spent in another area. I have checked that out. It is quite reasonable and quite straightforward. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much? 
PETER BROWN 
: That member does not have a clue what she is talking about. National had a very good idea and it implemented that very good idea. It saddens me somewhat because at one time I was a member of the National Party that National members are now behaving like hollow men with an empty drum making an empty noise. That member behind me David Bennett makes as much empty noise as anybody I have ever known. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He is their star! 
PETER BROWN 
: He is their star! We need to do more for accident victims in this country. In our view this bill is a start and it is a good start but there is more to come. I hope the National Party takes that on board because from the way National members are talking I think they will rescind this legislation if they get on the Treasury benches. The public should be aware that National will rescind this legislation if it gets on the Treasury benches and that would be a sad day for New Zealanders. 
I have the utmost sympathy for people who are involved in very serious accidents. I have spoken to many of them. I have seen serious accidents during my time on the waterfront and in shipping; we do have them from time to time. I can tell members that accident victims lead a life of hell and it is about time that this country did more for them. The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) goes some way towards doing that but it does not go far enough and I know that the Minister for ACC has taken note of New Zealand First’s views. However New Zealand First supports this bill because it does that much more for accident victims. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to apologise to Dr Paul Hutchison the speaker before the previous one. He was due to speak for another 4 minutes but because of an equipment malfunction that time was taken off him. I say to Dr Hutchison that he has 4 minutes remaining. I know that the member was just warming up and he is most welcome to take the remainder of his call now if he wishes to seek leave to do so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to speak for another 4 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 That is very generous of you Mr Deputy Speaker and very generous of the House because the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that needs to be properly aired. 
One of the things I wanted to speak about was the fact that it was Sir Owen Woodhouse who acknowledged in a piece he wrote entitled  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 that the “basic principles which support the accident scheme have been under the closest scrutiny for about 30 years both here and overseas.” His piece continues: “Except for the occasional ideologue they have been regularly approved during that long period. In Government circles for example they were expressly endorsed by Sir William Birch on 11th November 1991 and as recently as 2nd May 1995 by the Honourable Bruce Cliffe.” 
The concern that National has had today involves the excesses that Labour has gone to in terms of this legislation. If the amendments that Labour proposed to put in had been well thought-out equitable and not inconsistent then maybe we could have achieved a bipartisan approach to them. 
In my last few minutes of speaking time I want to express the fact that good employers such as New Zealand Steel—employers that took a very practical aspect and view towards accident compensation—were horrified by some of the things in this legislation. In relation to cover for work-related mental injury New Zealand Steel stated: “the proposals offer an increased level of cover but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual.” 
When New Zealand Steel goes on to talk about personal injury caused by work-related gradual process it states: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual … the ACC scheme should not be a default for what the New Zealand public health system cannot cope with.” That indeed is a very important and appropriate point to make. The company says it is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy. 
Finally New Zealand Steel made the point about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicides. We heard time and time again about the awful incident involving the train driver and the mental injuries that he received. But if there happened to be a young woman with a child at that rail crossing who witnessed that horrific scene that young woman would not be covered under this legislation. That is why National will not support this legislation. It is inequitable it is inconsistent and as well as that it has been hopelessly costed in terms of the realities of the funding. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night as the debate raged on about this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) I thought back to when I was the chief executive of the Race Relations Office and to the incidents that happened at my workplace. Someone collapsed in our office and we tried CPR. Green stuff started coming out of his mouth. It was pretty yucky and he died. I remember another time when a young man’s face was half shot away by a gang member in front of us. It is 30 years later and I remember every incident so very clearly so it gives me a real understanding of some of the issues that this bill is trying to address. 
The mental injury arising from a sudden traumatic event such as a death in the workplace is not something that one can address just as an agenda item at the weekly staff meeting and then hope it is the end of the matter. Mental injuries are not that easy. Fortunately the level of awareness around mental health issues has advanced dramatically over recent years. In fact in a recent infamous poll veteran rugby hero John Kirwan was ranked at the top end of the list; he was placed sixth for being open and honest about mental health issues. In a poll of 85 politicians were ranked at an all-time low stuck between slot 66 and 82—that is the dozen of us who even made the grade. Although the poll did not do much for our collective mental health I did think it was interesting that the public mood was so positive about the way in which Mr Kirwan has brought a taboo subject out into the light. So it is pleasing that today we have legislation in place to ensure that there will be cover for the appropriate treatment to facilitate rehabilitation for mental injury from such traumatic events. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) currently compensates for mental trauma for victims of sexual abuse and physical injury and we are glad to support the extension to cover mental trauma resulting from workplace incidents. It is indeed progress as the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers found that we have legislation that appears to reflect an improved understanding of mental injury. Of course there is probably no more stark example of the need for an appropriate response to workplace trauma than the tragedy that occurred in my own electorate of Tamaki Makaurau in 2001—the horrible triple murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association—that were experienced by a survivor who has suffered years of serious injury and rehabilitation. I place on record here my acknowledgment of the significance of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in upholding the appeal for the right to sue the Department of Corrections which manages Parole Board orders. But for the purposes of this bill today I simply say that when we consider the types of workplace incidents in which trauma may be experienced there is no more powerful justification for the need of such support than when one considers the horrific violence witnessed in the RSA murders. 
There was however a very good point made in the course of the bill by Victim Support and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) which has been spoken about today. Both of those groups highlighted the fact that treatment for mental injury from witnessing a trauma should be available to all people not just to employees. The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) gave a recent example of the horrific effects that would play out for years to come in relation to that 8-year-old boy—again in my electorate—who witnessed his mother being attacked in the Manukau City shopping centre car-park. The association submitted that it was blatantly unjust that although a young boy would not be eligible under this scheme because he is not a worker an employee of the supermarket who witnessed the event would be covered. The distinction between compensation in respect of whether mental harm occurs in the workplace or elsewhere is an arbitrary one and we sincerely hope that the Minister is able to give priority to ensuring that appropriate cover is in place to support all persons. 
The recent case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal gives us considerable confidence that this Minister is prepared to respond quickly. My colleague Tariana Turia is responsible for having brought to the House a ruling from the Human Rights Commission of 19 May 2008 which was described as a “landmark in human rights law in that it shows how any New Zealander can challenge legislation they believe to be discriminatory and impacts upon them adversely”. The decision made on that day concluded that provisions in the accident compensation law are inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination specifically on the grounds of age. And here we are just a month later with amendments that stipulate that age limits for weekly compensation cannot be used as a factor in deciding whether vocational rehabilitation would be cost-effective. So I congratulate Minister Street Tariana Turia and of course the plaintiff John Howard on a successful action across all fronts. 
I can only hope that it paves the way for another ground-breaking ruling to be made on another case now before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I refer to the case taken by the Child Poverty Action Group in which it alleges the in-work tax credit discriminates against 220000 children on the basis of work status. This is an act of discrimination that leaves around 150000 children in severe or significant hardship because their families are denied at least $60 a week in family support. 
We support the changes to provisions for vocational rehabilitation and independence. The bill gives ACC the discretion to extend the 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation recognising that for some claimants rehabilitation cannot be easily wrapped up within the defined time frame. We are pleased also to support the repeal of section 119 so that ACC can provide entitlements to claimants suffering wilfully inflicted injury. There is still much to do to address the gaps in the protection of young and older workers the disabled and those who have been affected by asbestos or chemical solvent exposure. But this bill makes significant steps to improve access to compensation for previously disenfranchised groups particularly those engaged in non-standard work those mentally injured by trauma those between work and those in seasonal and casual work. The Maori Party has always taken an active interest in both workers’ rights and the right to work and we are happy to support this bill at its third reading. Kia ora. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to talk on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the third reading of a bill that we have had substantial debate on over the last couple of days. 
I think there is an element of irony in that we are about to farewell one of I guess the personalities of this House who is known as somebody who will stand up and say what he believes in. It is very good to see that such a good-sized audience has come here to hear him. I will try to stretch out my speech to 5.30 p.m. when Nandor Tanczos will come here to give his valedictory speech. It is good to see that so many people have come here so early to support him. 
This bill is an example of ideology not being implemented in reality. If the ideology behind this bill were taken to its full extent the bill would not have the limitations that Labour has put in it. Although it recognises that mental injury deserves accident compensation treatment and support in the future it has a number of fish-hooks that limit the application of accident compensation coverage. 
The biggest delineation in the bill is that between work-related and non - work-related injury. The bill applies only to work-related injury. A number of submitters suggested to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that it was unfair that there was no encompassment of non - work-related injury. If we were to take the ideology the pure basis for the legislation to its full extent we would have the legislation cover both work-related and non - work-related injury. 
One of the submitters gave a very clear example to show when mental injury is covered and when it is not covered. The New Zealand Institute of Safety Management gave an example that had a number of possible scenarios. A motor vehicle accident could create two classes of injury. First of all the employee who was driving will have his or her physical injuries covered which is what happens now plus any mental harm that may arise—that is the additional component under this legislation. The pedestrian who was hit by the employee not being at work will have his or her physical injuries covered and any mental harm that is caused by those injuries will be covered under this legislation. That is pretty much as one would expect for those two cases. However the witness who was mentally injured not being at work will get nothing. That situation is not covered by this legislation. That non - work-related injury is exempt from receiving the benefits of the accident compensation system. But an ambulance employee who experienced mental trauma from seeing the event is entitled to claim; because that employee was at work he or she will be covered under the legislation. Many submitters raised that concern in the select committee. 
Another big concern that was raised in the select committee related to the examples that were provided. A number of examples were given of train drivers and dairy company tanker drivers who in circumstances totally beyond their control had suffered mental injury because of somebody else’s actions affecting them when they were driving in the normal course of their work. Such situations will be covered when they arise in the future but the examples that were given to the select committee will not be covered under this legislation because there is no element of retrospectivity in it. The point that was being made last night was that if we are going to provide cover for people then taking it to its pure policy extent we should also provide cover for the examples that had come before the select committee—people who while being engaged in their normal work conduct had experienced circumstances beyond their control that had resulted in their suffering mental injury. Those people had quite horrific stories. I do not think anyone on the select committee would wish those experiences on anyone. I think the select committee members would certainly want to see some kind of recognition of the injury that those people had sustained. But they will not get anything under this legislation. This legislation will not provide any support for people who have suffered that kind of mental injury in the past. 
That is a shame. If Labour in promoting this legislation had really wanted to deal with the issue it would have dealt fully with it. It did not. Labour members picked out only what they felt they could deal with in terms of this situation because they had looked at the numbers and from the way that the numbers stacked up it would be very expensive to extend this legislation in the way that New Zealand First had proposed earlier. Full coverage across a whole range of situations would be a major expense for the accident compensation system and on the Government of the day. 
This legislation also will be a major expense for the employer. There is no definite indication of what the actual cost will be. The cost to the employers is up in the air; there is no definite figure that can be plucked out as being the amount that the employers will have to cover in the future. There was a range of estimates from the extremely low—say $30 million—to a much higher figure that would be well beyond the means of many employers. 
So there are three problems with this legislation. The first is the exemption of non - work-related injury. The second is that it does not cover all situations in the sense that the people who provided their stories in front of the select committee will not be covered by it. The third problem is that the costing of it is not identifiable; there will be major costs for the employers but those costs have no formal basis in the sense that they have not been promoted and we do not have a concrete figure to work with. 
We are getting close to 5.30 p.m. and Nandor Tanczos’ valedictory speech. Nandor has not arrived yet but I say to the Green Party members that as a National Party MP and also as somebody from the Waikato it has been a privilege to have Nandor represent the Waikato and his party in Parliament. He has been a national figure and I think everybody in this Parliament will treasure his having been here. The personalities who make up a Parliament are something that we look forward to and something that I think the public look forward to as well. The personalities are the ones who get the coverage; they represent different points of view different beliefs or different expressions. 
Hon Member 
: The House of Representatives. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is the House of Representatives as my colleague has said. It is good that we have representatives from a wide range of backgrounds. The public support for Nandor in the gallery today is an example of that. I have been told that I have to keep going! I say to Nandor that he is late for his valedictory speech. We will have a vote now but I want to say that it has been a pleasure to serve with Nandor and the National Party wishes him all the best. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Valedictory Statement 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I give thanks and praise unto the Most High Jah Ras Tafari. I give greetings to all in the name of the Holy Trinity—the Almighty Father the Divine Mother and the Child that is love made life. I greet the members of this House for the last time as one of them. I greet those in the gallery and I thank them for honouring me with their presence especially my beloved Ngahuia Murphy. My greetings also to my apu and my anu my friends family allies and supporters watching from Africa from Europe from Asia from the Americas and from Australia. I say “Jah guide” to them all. 
I was elected to this Parliament in 1999 and my life changed. I knew that it would. Unlike most members of the public I had a pretty good idea of what being an MP was like. It was one of the reasons I hesitated to stand. I say “It’s life Jim but not as we know it.” It is an intense 24/7 job. We digest enormous amounts of information which is sometimes boring and then we have to make decisions—decisions that affect real people. It means being constantly available to the media to the public and to the party. It means scrutiny of every detail of our lives—particularly for a dreadlocked Rastafarian. I stood I guess to demonstrate that we do not have to be of this world to be effective in it. Be true to oneself whoever one may be and take one’s seat as an equal whether it is here in the House of Representatives or in the dust of the streets. So when a kid grabbed my arm on the dance floor and asked: “Hey bro what’s up in Parliament?” I considered that to be an honour because my purpose here has been to represent those who have had no voice here—those held in contempt by too many of us. 
I came to Parliament thinking that the members were all a bunch of bastards and I was wrong. There are many good people here. The very notion that all politicians are dishonest is misconceived because if we think that politicians are all venal then we expect nothing from them but venality. We should raise our expectations. We should expect more from question time than a bun fight. I have avoided question time for years if I have not had to be here to ask a supplementary question because question time is the time when I am most ashamed of being a member of Parliament—question time and general debate—and members all know what I am talking about. We should grow up. This is our national legislature. We should treat it and the positions we hold here with more respect. 
But I do not blame just the MPs. The buzzards who sit watching us from up in the press gallery waiting for the next political corpse to pick over are also to blame because they will always report a fight which is why the pugnacious Mr Peters always gets a headline. But if we stand to talk about anything real most of them flap their wings and fly away—most of them. I thank the journalists who are here today for being here too. Maybe corporate media ownership is to blame for the lack of analysis prevalent in the New Zealand media or maybe it is just contempt for the audience. 
One thing that I am proud of is the independent prison Ombudsman. Most people do not care much about what happens to people in prison to the point that four police were acquitted yesterday after repeatedly batoning and pepper-spraying a man in police cells. What is next? Will they get away with murder? Oh I forgot; they already did—in Waitara. But I care because I know that any of us here could have been there but for the grace of God. The media will report a death in custody but not an institution that will prevent such deaths. The day of the announcement that there would be an independent prison Ombudsman was the day that Trevor Mallard demonstrated his pugilistic skills with Tau Henare out in the lobby over there. There are no prizes for guessing what was covered and what was not. So to the media in the gallery I offer my love to them all but I would ask that they scrutinise themselves at night as fiercely as they scrutinise us during the day. 
Some people say that Guy Fawkes was the only politician to enter Parliament with honest intentions. I do not think that is true. Many perhaps most MPs enter with honest intentions but we are compromised by this institution. How many times have Green MPs spoken in this House and had other MPs sidle over and tell us quietly: “We agree with you.” but have then seen them silenced by their hopes for advancement for promotion or sometimes just to stay where they are? My mum used to say that we have to get into the system to change it and it is true that we need good people working within it but the danger is that the system changes us as much as we change the system if not more. And that is why I am leaving after 9 years. For those members of the public who judge the behaviour of others by their own standards I want people to know there are no perks coming to me. After 9 years it is time to cleanse my soul. 
To all members of this House from the most senior to the newest entrants I pray for them that they remember the light that shines from within them so that they can light a path for themselves and for others. The problem is not how many people enter this place with honest intentions but how many people leave with them intact. It is easy to slip. We become bloated by self-importance. People open doors for us they clean our offices at night they provide us with advice and support and they wait on our decisions. I say many thanks to all the people who do that—the friendly security the select committee staff advisers and cleaners. And my thanks go to the fantastic Green Party staff up there in the public gallery who are so critical to the work we do as MPs. You guys rock! 
My thanks go also to those outside this place who research and campaign because Parliament relies on the free work done by non-governmental organisations and ordinary people who come to select committees to raise public awareness about issues of importance. Take climate change for example. It took years of campaigning advocacy and accumulating evidence outside of Parliament before any party—except the Greens—took this issue seriously enough to take a position on it if not to take any serious action on it. Unfortunately despite evidence that urgent and drastic mitigation is needed right now to avoid catastrophic climate change this country still has a lackadaisical mitigation strategy. There is growing concern that oil production is reaching its peak at the same time as demand is increasing both from increased consumption in the West and from economic expansion in Asia. The Government’s strategy is to build more roads. I am not sure whether that is the climate change strategy or the peak oil strategy—perhaps it is both. And National members should not laugh because I have not seen their policy yet. 
I have not even begun to talk about metals depletion or the food insecurity and political instability that will result from climate change and peak oil or the sustained economic recession that will result as the global economy crashes into the ecological limits of our planet. If members think that the life we are living in privileged countries like Aotearoa New Zealand is sustainable in any way then they are seriously deluded. In my view industrial civilisation is coming to an end. I believe we are in the last days of the oil age. We need a transition strategy away from a growth economy to a steady-state economy but it will not come from Government because Governments are almost universally compromised by the corporate agenda of globalised trade globalised capital transfers and globalised investment. It does not matter whether it is the left hand or the right hand—it is the same brain that is in control. Where the transition strategy will come from and where it is already coming from is ordinary people working in their communities. It will come from transition towns permaculture design better transport campaigns and community sustainability plans. I pay tribute to those far-sighted ones who are showing us the way because as the saying goes when the people lead the leaders will follow. 
We need to make a major redesign if we want to build resilient systems that provide genuine food security genuine energy security and allow us to live rich abundant and meaningful lives in a sustainable way. To do that I believe we need a technological reform so that the protection of the integrity of ecosystems is a primary design element rather than a clip-on. We need economic reform to build a steady-state economy. In particular I believe that we need land reform where security of tenure is based on use rights rather than paper ownership and to free up land for smallholders. Growing evidence suggests that the most productive farming systems are small-scale diverse-cropping organic systems. Under our current distorted economic framework they are not the most profitable but they are the most productive. They will become even more important as the cost of running farm machinery and producing synthetic fertilisers and pesticides grows. 
Lastly we need constitutional reform. We have a bizarre notion in this country that the Queen is a source of justice and power. I say “Fiyah bun that raasclat!”. I hope to see the day when New Zealand becomes a republic decentralises political power and recognises the rights of tangata whenua to their tino rangatiratanga. People get confused by that. The version of the Treaty signed by Governor Hobson and by 512 of the 559 chiefs—the version recognised in international law under the doctrine of contra proferentem—was the Maori language version which did not cede sovereignty to the Crown but did affirm the tino rangatiratanga of hapu. In my opinion we Pakeha people make a mistake if we say we do not want that for Maori people. We should say “Of course we support that and what is more we want some for ourselves.” I do not believe that this parliamentary system works very well for anyone except MPs and corporate lobbyists. 
One of the first things I did on entering Parliament was buy a watch. Since then I have been shackled to the system. I have been cuffed to the prison bars of time or at least to the prison that we make of time. This arbitrary Roman calendar disconnects us from the natural rhythms of life and of the planet. So today I remove that shackle because when I look at the state of our rivers our atmosphere and our people I do not need a watch to tell me what time it is. 
[ 
Watch smashed with a panel-beating hammer. 
] 
Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. In summary this bill increases the maximum penalty for participation in an organised criminal group from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. It also makes participation in such groups an aggravating factor when sentencing an individual for offences committed as part of the offender’s involvement in organised crime. 
Organised criminal activity in New Zealand ranges from sophisticated transnational operations involving many millions of dollars to small-time street gatherings of patched gang members. It is those criminal groups both large and small who plague our communities with intimidation extortion illegal drugs identity fraud serious property crimes and violence. The tools needed to combat the diverse organised criminal gangs must therefore be comprehensive flexible and effective. This Government is dedicated to combating organised crime at all levels and has previously announced key initiatives such as the organised crime strategy and the intended establishment of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand or “OFCANZ”. 
However the success of the Government’s strategy and of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency will depend on the provision of a strong statutory framework that provides an effective platform from which to launch our law enforcement interventions. Thus this bill is the third of four major pieces of legislation to tackle serious and organised crime in New Zealand—namely the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill and finally the intended search and surveillance powers bill. The new powers penalties and law enforcement improvements provided in these four bills will enhance investigations facilitate prosecutions and provide tougher action against organised crime and gangs. 
The first amendment provided in this bill increases the penalties under section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. Section 98A was originally enacted to meet New Zealand’s international obligations under article 5 of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. The section extends criminal liability beyond the traditional parameters of aiding and abetting or conspiracy by enabling the prosecution of those who direct criminal organisations without otherwise engaging in criminal acts. Section 98A enables the prosecution of the leaders and members of organised criminal groups who plan and organise those criminal businesses without getting their hands dirty. Those gang chiefs or kingpins are often the real controllers of criminal activity: the ones who direct others and make the big decisions; the ones whom prospects look up to and want to emulate. Therefore the formulation of section 98A is broad enough to capture the recruiting of gang prospects and the financing and strategic planning of gang activities. 
This bill will increase the maximum penalty for those activities from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. I do not believe that the current penalty level adequately reflects the range of culpability caught by section 98A offending. In particular it does not reflect the potential application of the section to deal with crime bosses who organise criminal activity without directly committing crimes themselves. Increasing the maximum penalty for the offences covered by section 98A will not only send a strong message to gang leaders that their behaviour will not be tolerated but also greatly increase the ability of the police to combat those socially corrosive activities. 
Section 98A of the Crimes Act requires proof of the existence of an organised criminal group and of the gang members’ participation in that group. In the absence of proof of a completed crime communications interception is critical. However because section 98A does not carry a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment or more an investigation undertaken under that section does not qualify for the issuing of an interception warrant. That also means that intelligence gathered when using an interception warrant obtained on other grounds cannot be used in a prosecution undertaken under section 98A. Those are critical deficiencies and they have resulted in the police being hamstrung when they have attempted to enforce the law. Increasing the maximum penalty for breaches of section 98A from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment will ensure that interception warrants will be available to the police when they investigate offending by crime bosses and will thus significantly increase the ability of the police to obtain a conviction. Although the availability of interception powers is not the substantive justification for increasing the maximum penalty it is an important consequence of the amendment. This bill will not only make it easier for the police to detect and prosecute gang leaders but also ensure that when crime bosses are held to account for their offending the penalties imposed reflect the seriousness of their actions. 
The second amendment in this bill adds gang or organised crime participation as an aggravating factor for sentencing under section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The list of aggravating factors in section 9 already targets elements of violence premeditation and severity that are inherent in gang-related offending. But once again this amendment sends an important message to those organised crime leaders who try so hard to avoid direct responsibility for their actions. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that gangs and other groups within the community who are responsible for major organised crime must expect those who represent them in committing crime to have their connections recognised as increasing the seriousness of the offending. Similarly the courts have long recognised gang leadership as an aggravating feature. This bill will extend section 9 in recognition that offending is more serious when it is committed for the benefit of at the direction of or in association with an organised criminal gang. The purpose of that is to provide parliamentary support for that judicial observation and it is aimed at deterring and undermining ongoing participation in entrenched gangs. 
This bill is an omnibus bill—that is a bill that amends more than one principal Act. As such it is intended that the bill be divided into the following two separate bills in the Committee of the whole House stage: a crimes amendment bill and a sentencing amendment bill. 
This bill will enhance the capabilities of law enforcement agencies and ensure that organised criminal gang leaders who organise and plan crimes are able to be brought to justice. I intend to move that the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee be directed to report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 There cannot be too many bills that come to this Parliament with only two pages but that is the case of the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which National unreservedly supports. These are serious issues and I think most members on this side of the House will ask why the Government has not moved more quickly to deal with those issues. The problem of organised crime in New Zealand which the Government has been hugely slow to deal with is an insidious growing and dangerous one. I note for example that Hell’s Angels is rated the most influential crime group in New Zealand and the hardest to catch. I raise its motto as an issue for consideration by this House as to the seriousness of this issue. What is its motto? Its motto is “Three people can keep a secret if two are dead.” 
I think we all know about the rise in violent crime in New Zealand. I think we all know also about the epidemic of methamphetamine otherwise known as P that is taking an increasing hold on communities—not only communities in South Auckland but communities where what might be known as the higher socio-economic groups live. It is truly frightening. As grandparents and as parents we must be very concerned about what might happen to our children who are exposed to these drugs which to a significant extent are distributed by gangs in New Zealand. We are not talking about only one gang. I have probably been wrong in singling out Hell’s Angels. We are talking also about groups like the Headhunters and Highway 61. 
National has been very committed in taking a strong stance on organised crime. I think we have felt incredibly frustrated that the Government has not been prepared to respond to some of the things that National has said as a matter of policy are very much part of the fabric of what I am certain will be a new Government in 2009. I will talk for a moment about some of the things we will do to deal with this issue some of the things we will do to give the police increased powers to listen in on gang communications and some of the things we will do to give the police increased powers to storm gang fortifications and destroy them. This Government is seemingly reluctant to do that even though—and I am looking at the Minister of Justice—there are already some powers in the legislation that the Government seems reluctant to employ. We will also make it illegal to be a member of a criminal organisation. I pause sadly I guess but with wry amusement to note that in connection with Part 2 of the bill our announced policy is to amend the Sentencing Act to make membership of a gang an aggravating factor in sentencing. Wow! The Government has taken that policy. Well maybe it is good that it has snatched the policy but it should have taken it a long time before this and it should have implemented it in legislation rather than leaving it to this very last moment. 
I think also when we look at these issues relating to organised crime that we need to focus a little more strongly on the plight of victims than this Government is prepared to do and I would like to say something about that. It may be the case that the Government will take these policies; if it does then good on it! That is an acceptance of the fact that the policies that National espouses are strong and an indication that they enjoy some degree of bipartisan support across this House. One of the things we will do for example is set up a victim compensation scheme funded by a levy on all offenders at the point of sentencing. To this point the Labour-led Government has dismissed that and I think in quite sneering terms. It is interesting to note that in Canada there is such a scheme and that the United Kingdom Government brought in such a regime as recently as April 2007. There are other things that we will do in connection with the plight of victims. 
Dealing with organised crime is very challenging and very difficult—I doubt anyone would dispute that—and we have a whole lot of policies that are firmly focused around that issue. It is unenviable police work and those who are present in the House who have had experience in policing will know how dangerous it is and what the consequences are for those involved. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.