Volume 611 Week 35 - Thursday 4 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 35 - Thursday 4 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8387] 
Thursday 4 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Gambling Bill and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill and the third readings of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the bills arising from it. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why does she continue to say that she has confidence in the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Health when there are many examples of violent crime committed by immigrants and refugees together with the emergence of Third World diseases in New Zealand and what has she done about this? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister continues to say that she has confidence in those Ministers because she does. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In view of the fact that a Zimbabwean has been here for 2 years and has committed every sort of crime imaginable including kidnapping assault attempted murder and infecting women with HIV and has cost this country a fortune already does she think that that is an adequate response to the women of New Zealand and the people of this country in particular and why should not those women when they begin to lead miserable lives as a consequence of what they have contracted think that she as Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration are primarily responsible and guilty for that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is not the Government’s policy to comment on individual cases. Anyone who applies to come to this country has to meet health and character requirements. Generally any immigration action to revoke a permit or to remove or deport a person of the kind just described is triggered by a conviction and I hope in cases where that is necessary the person goes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister so far removed from the ordinary circumstances of ordinary New Zealanders that she thinks that is an adequate answer when there are women who will be leading miserable lives and die early as a consequence of her Government’s neglect when there are hospitals spilling over with Third World diseases—TB in particular—on the North Shore and in Auckland and when every sort of crime is being committed by all sorts of refugees and immigrants; is that her idea of being a competent able Minister and Prime Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member well knows the Prime Minister is very much in touch with New Zealanders. She spends a lot of time talking with them face to face. In this particular case the behaviour of that person—if proven to be correct—is abhorrent and a conviction will ensure his departure from this country. I hope that comes quickly if that is the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What on earth is that person doing in this country were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister runs a lax loose totally neglectful administration and that she does not give a damn what happens to New Zealanders as a consequence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is her observation that in the 4 years of this Government the tightening up of procedures to get in and out of this country has been greatly accelerated under the excellent leadership of Lianne Dalziel. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she possibly make that statement when just last night on TV3 in one series of news items alone it was reported: first that a Saudi Arabian was trying to get a licence to fly a plane in this country; second that a Zimbabwean was up on all sorts of charges including rape assault knowingly infecting women with HIV kidnapping and stealing cars; and third that a Kuwaiti who having cost the country a damn fortune got on a plane and stopped it by shouting out that there is a bomb on board; and does she think that is the way a Government runs a tight administration on immigration? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat that in the 4 years of this Government those procedures have been tightened up greatly. Thank goodness we are here and not him. 
Soy Infant Formula—Food Safety Authority 
2.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Was Geoff Allen from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority correct when he said on radio in respect of soy infant formula that was tested for GM contamination that “all soy formula were tested and all four were positive”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Yes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If all four of the soy infant formulas on sale in New Zealand tested positive are we correct in assuming that all four brands of soy listed on the Ministry of Health manufactured food database were contaminated with GM soy namely Karicare Soya 1 Karicare Starter Formula Infasoy and Infasoy Progress; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not familiar with the brands the member refers to but I can say that there are 20 GM organism products approved for release and consumption in this country and that they are among the 20 that have been approved. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister seen comments that the GM labelling regime is woefully inadequate? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I have seen the comments made by the member asking the primary question and I do not agree with them. Even though she has been told time and time again the member continually fails to acknowledge that the current labelling regime introduced by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in 2000 was a world first. She further fails to acknowledge that it is currently being reviewed. We have the best labelling regime in the world. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that it is not the possible GE contamination in soy infant formula that creates a documented risk but the phytoestrogens in the soy itself and given the recognition of that risk by the recent British Committee on Toxicity report why is our Government not making those soy-based infant formulas prescription-only rather than letting them be sold off supermarket shelves? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot answer the technical aspects of the member’s question. However I am surprised being a former dairy farmer that the organisations and businesses that promote soy the most are health food shops. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Minister not know the names of the baby-food products that tested positive for GE given that it was her agency that undertook the tests several weeks ago and she has only to pick up the phone to find them out; and given that taxpayers paid for the tests why do we not have the right to know the results of tests we have paid for? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In regard to the names like many other surveillance and audit samples taken every week by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority across many products those tests are aimed at ensuring compliance with the law. Where compliance is confirmed because GM organism presence is approved—as is the case in this situation—no further action is taken and the names of the products are therefore not reported to her. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister not have a moral if not legal obligation to tell consumers what foods GE has been found in given the current consumer concern about GE food and the fact that it has never been tested on babies or other humans or for its long-term health effects and that credible scientific bodies such as the UK Royal Society have expressed severe reservations about the safety of GE infant food; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have had 20 approved GM organisms in this country since 1998. I am not aware of any death or illness from the consumption of those products. 
Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Levy 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Does he stand by his description of farmers opposing the “livestock flatulence” levy as “whingers”; if not will he apologise? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The Government proposes a levy to fund research not to tax flatulence and I publicly withdrew the remark about whingers several weeks ago. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister is aware of the strength of farmer feeling on this flatulence research levy is he ready to back down? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of farming leaders acknowledging the value of the sector’s exemptions from emission charges? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have seen a statement from the former president of Federated Farmers Alistair Polson which says: “Farmers can take some comfort from the fact that the Government has rejected a flatulence tax on agricultural emissions.” That remark was made last year when the Government’s preferred policy was announced in April 2002. That policy was confirmed in October and applies today. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that he will retain the proposed methane research levy at $8.4 million per year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preferred option was and is that farmers will step forward with a sufficient research programme. If they do not and so far they have not then we reserve the right to put in a compulsory levy. If we were to do that it would be capped at that level. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does he still stand by his claim that farmers should be grateful that the Government has not put a billion dollar levy on agriculture to reflect its cost under the Kyoto Protocol or does he now think on reflection that he would have been better to follow ACT’s advice and not sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol until the United States and China do so? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is unlikely that I will ever follow ACT’s advice on anything at all. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While the Minister’s answer was probably accurate in that he may never have the sense to follow ACT’s advice that cannot possibly be a proper answer. I asked him whether he thought farmers should be grateful that he has not put a billion dollar levy on them. Why can he not repeat that in front of the farmers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not have talked about ACT policy at the end of his question. That then gave the Minister the opportunity to answer in that way which was within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How does the Minister react to claims that the farming sector is being singled out by the imposition of this levy and can he therefore advise the House if that claim is not correct what other industry sector groups are also going to face a research levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The farming industry most certainly is being singled out in this way. Farming is responsible for half of our emissions and they will be covered in total. The rest of our economy is responsible for the other half of our emissions and very large sections of that other half of our emissions will face a carbon charge. So in that respect farmers are being treated favourably indeed. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did the Government promise to consult farmers on the flatulence tax and then ignore 2000 angry farmers on the steps of Parliament today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government did consult with farmers and we consulted extensively last year. At the end of that consultation the president of Federated Farmers said: “Farmers can take some comfort from the fact that the Government has rejected a flatulence tax on agriculture emissions.” We did that subsequent to consultation. 
Mark Peck 
: Why are agricultural greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a very good question. Agricultural emissions are included in the protocol because Governments during the 1990s insisted that they should be—particularly the National Government of New Zealand in 1997. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked only one member to ask a question—one person only. That is the only warning today. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s answers that the Government is considering not now a flatulence tax but a research levy that it is the Government’s view that this levy will be paid by all farmers and that the Minister is ruling out any prospect of that $8.4 million being funded from other sources? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Not at all. If the funding can come from other sources and one hopes that it might yet then we will not need to impose such a tax to the extent that it does come. 
Hon David Carter 
: If or when the Government does back down on the flatulence tax who will ultimately pay this so-called voluntary levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is no back-down. If there is anything going on it is a back-up. What is happening is that the Primary Industries Council has resumed its discussions with the Government on how it may be that both parties can agree that the levy becomes unnecessary. Those negotiations have barely begun. I hope they work. It is far too early to know. 
Public Service—Political Neutrality 
4.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What conventions preserve the political neutrality of the public service? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
:  
The New Zealand public service has a long and proud tradition of public political neutrality. The Public Service Act of 1912 established the convention that the public service should be free of political interference or patronage. That convention has evolved over time but remains very relevant today. 
David Benson-Pope 
: How does the politicisation of the public service by the naming and attacking of public servants compromise this convention? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is an important responsibility placed on members of Parliament not to attack public servants. Public servants cannot respond because that would jeopardise their political neutrality. By attacking public servants politicians also compromise their ability to work with those individuals one day if they are in Government—but of course in the case of the National Party that will never happen so it does not matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: What advice would the Minister have for Government Ministers who regularly attacked civil servants such as Christine Rankin Kit Richards and in this last week the Prime Minister attacking Mark Prebble? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would take the advice of the State Services Commissioner who said: “Trust in Government is a precious commodity. Once it is lost it is hard to recover. That is why tough and legitimate scrutiny by Parliament of the actions of our public institutions is justified.” But it is not justified to attack 35 public servants who run our State services as that man did yesterday. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked this Minister who has a life of blameless excellence and is probably as modest as the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that cannot be part of a point of order. He should come to the point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I asked this Minister a direct question: what advice would he have for Ministers who attacked civil servants? Then I named three. He did not answer that question at all. He just read out a blurb from the State Services Commissioner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address that in the last part of his answer. I heard him. 
David Benson-Pope 
: To what extent does a convention that was established nearly 100 years ago still apply? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I noted earlier the convention of a non-political public service was introduced by the Public Service Act in 1912. Conventions develop and evolve over time but it is still relevant today. I believe that the following undertaking by a former State Services Minister Simon Upton is equally applicable. He said: “I feel compelled to offer an apology to you on behalf of some of my fellow parliamentarians who have little knowledge or regard for their civic responsibilities or current constitutional conventions.” The apology like the convention would apply to Mr English’s behaviour yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think that superficial saccharine hypocritical verbiage satisfies this Parliament when it comes to addressing the following very serious comment from a civil servant: “The appearance may be that these public servants are no more than political puppets especially since what they are now saying is different to what official papers at the time said.”; why does he think that the kind of answer he has given the House would suffice to address such a serious question about the integrity of the public service? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In fact those quotes go to the essence of this matter. The matter is one of a public servant writing to Michael Wintringham the State Services Commissioner to ask a question about a process and of Mr Wintringham writing back. The attributing of those comments to Mr Wintringham by Mr English is what has led to the integrity of public servants being drawn into question. That is why he is wrong and should resign. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of Labour who in investigating the “lying in unison” episode came to the conclusion that civil servants had broken the law over the Official Information Act but who has made no comment about that and taken no action on civil servants breaking the law? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am looking at the note here from Dr James Buwalda yesterday when he released his reply to that inquiry which states that no evidence of a conspiracy among officials to lie or deceive has been found. What he is saying is that the procedures were not followed properly that he will ensure that they are followed and that he will take the correct disciplinary action. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister not concerned about the editorial this morning in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 New Zealand’s largest newspaper describing the inquiry into the Immigration Service as “completely unsatisfactory”; if he is interested in an independent civil service why does he not order an independent inquiry into “lying in unison”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Anybody in this House should be concerned that this inquiry was one that was properly conducted but Mr James Buwalda began his life as the head of the Department of Labour only at the time of this inquiry. He is completely independent. It is an appropriate process for him to undertake this inquiry in the way that he has. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the odd interjection but there were too many interjections. I want to hear the answer. I am entitled to hear it as is every member of the House. I want members to restrain themselves in that regard. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To finish my comments I think that when anybody reads through what Dr Buwalda has done here as the newly appointed head of the Department of Labour he or she will see it is entirely and utterly appropriate that this inquiry has been undertaken in this way and therefore I think the conclusions stand up. 
Immigration—Labour Department Report 
5.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she accept the explanation of the memorandum asserting “everyone had agreed to lie in unison” provided in the report to her by the chief executive of the Department of Labour that it “was intended as a sarcastic and humorous response to media criticism of Departmental staff failing to answer media questions”; if so could she explain to the House which part was sarcastic and which part humorous? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I accept that that was what was intended. Whether it achieved the intention is a matter of personal opinion. I note that the Secretary of Labour also stated that “the annotation made by Mr Smith seems to display poor judgment a lack of professionalism and a lack of respect for the media”. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the report of the Secretary of Labour finds that the “lie in unison” memo was sent to 300 individuals but does not tell us whether any of them were Ministers of the Crown in this Government or staff in Ministers’ offices and can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that no Minister or ministerial staff member received that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware that everyone who received the memorandum read it. I did not receive a copy of the memorandum. The immigration private secretary in my office was not on the mailing list at the time that the memorandum was sent out. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tony Ryall withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that is grossly unfair. Mr Ryall was not interjecting on the Minister. He was giving a line to Mr McCully for further supplementary questions and I think that to turn round and say a member cannot do that is absolutely unfair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way: I heard the interjection quite clearly and loudly. I heard it and it distracted me from the question being asked. On this rare occasion I will be reasonable and let the member back in. However the member had better not make any more comments to anybody during the asking of questions today. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it the Minister’s position that the public of New Zealand should accept it as a coincidence that a senior manager in communications at her ministry wrote on a memo that “everyone had agreed to lie in unison” and subsequently did lie to the Ombudsman and to the  
New Zealand Herald 
; if so how does she explain that remarkable coincidence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Neither of those two assertions is substantiated by the report. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I ask the Minister again: can she absolutely assure the House that no Minister in this Government and no staff member in a Minister’s office received the memorandum that stated: “everyone had agreed to lie in unison”; if she cannot give that assurance which staff or which Ministers received that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not inquired of colleagues whether they received the memorandum or whether they were on that mailing list. I have looked at the mailing list for the time in question—from what was disclosed on the mailing list for that particular memorandum. I did not receive a copy of that memorandum in my office until the day that it appeared in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Firstly is this Minister telling us that 300 people were privy to that memorandum but that she and none of the officials in her office were and secondly why does she expect us to believe that there was no lying when that is precisely what happened in respect of the Ombudsmen’s office and the  
New Zealand Herald 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The memorandum itself is a media log that is prepared every week. I do not know how many people receive it but if the member says 300 people receive it then I am prepared to accept that. Not everybody reads it and a lot of people have made comments about how objectionable they have found it because of the consistent comments from the individual concerned. That has been happening for a very long time—going right back to the previous Government. I can tell the House that the immigration private secretary I have today who was not my immigration private secretary at the time is on the mailing list for the media log now but the immigration private secretary whom I had at the time was not receiving it—so no it was not received in my office at all. There has been no substantiation of the allegation that there was an agreement to lie. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: If the report of the Secretary of Labour—which is based on his investigation into this matter—can tell us that 300 individuals received the memo but does not tell us whether any of those persons were Ministers in this Government or staff members in Ministers’ offices then what sort of investigation did the Secretary of Labour conduct; and can the Minister understand that in those circumstances the public will conclude that the Secretary of Labour has been used to conduct a whitewash to cover up for Ministers or staff members in this Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. Two can be answered. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I really do not understand the relevance of that member’s question to the extent that there are many people in this House who receive an electronic newsletter daily that is called “PEN”. How many people delete it without reading it? That is the reality with the media log. It was not essential reading for every person who received it and many people deleted it on a weekly basis without even reading it. 
Climate Change—Kyoto Protocol 
6.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received about when and why the Kyoto Protocol will come into force internationally? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The protocol will come into force when Russia has ratified it. I am advised that the current expectation amongst observers of the process is that Russia will confirm its position soon. 
Jill Pettis 
: Is New Zealand’s commitment to international cooperation on climate change in any doubt internationally? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No not under this Government. However under a future Government it could be. For example the National Party currently has at least three positions on Kyoto: to pull out in the second commitment period— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer and he did not need to add to it in that way. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that part of the answer is not ruled out can the Minister be allowed to go on and finish it? I am sure he was going to say that the ACT party has been quite consistent. We have never been in favour of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That was a good try for a Thursday afternoon but the member knows that that is not a matter for a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to state very clearly to the House National’s position on the Kyoto Protocol. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to state that position. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What is the Minister’s response to the published reports and models of the international climate change panel of scientists which show that even if the Kyoto Protocol is fully implemented by all nations in the year 2100—97 years from now—any human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect will be reduced by only 5 years from what would have been the case had the Kyoto Protocol not been in force and why does the Minister not conclude as I do that the protocol is unfair is damaging to economies and will not work as the panel of scientists says itself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That same report states that in the next 100 years the temperature rise throughout the globe will be somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius. In other words this is the most serious environmental problem that New Zealand and the world face—the most serious. If the member says that because the Kyoto Protocol cannot do everything it should not do anything I would say that I strongly disagree with that Luddite approach to life and I strongly disagree with ACT’s position on climate change in general. ACT is absolutely convinced that climate change does not happen whereas the report of the panel of scientists that the member reads from indicates that it certainly is happening. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister still stand by the O’Hara report which stated that the agricultural industry contributes only $800000 to climate change research—a report he described as “expert assessment”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That report was signed off by Jeff Grant and myself as a comprehensive report. The O’Hara report is the first such report that has been made in the country. What is happening now is that a science plan is being drawn up and that plan is looking at the research in closer detail to see whether the exact amount of science called for in the O’Hara report is needed. 
Jill Pettis 
: Will the Minister please advise the House how this Government’s approach to international climate change negotiations compares with the approach taken by previous administrations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This Government’s approach to international negotiations has built on the excellent work done by previous National Governments which signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiated New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol target and insisted—indeed made it “a bottom line” for negotiation—that the protocol should cover agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Speaker’s ruling 116/1: “Ultimately the Speaker could refuse to permit a question to be transferred to another Minister for answer if the responsibility for a subject is so primarily held by a particular Minister as to mean that the transfer of the question would be an abuse.”This question was put down to the Prime Minister and is a question about the Prime Minister’s personal diary and her reasons for making diary decisions. If the Prime Minister is able to transfer a question of that nature then the Prime Minister does not need to turn up to Parliament at all ever again. She could transfer any question. Of course in the British House of Commons questions about the Prime Minister’s diary are the means by which one actually asks the Prime Minister a question. We do not actually need to use that convention here but now we have gone to the other absurdity which is that we can ask a question about the Prime Minister’s diary and she can transfer it—and has done so and shot through. That cannot be right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it is and it has been done on previous occasions. It is within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it may be in the Standing Orders but in the past it crept there because people had to be away through necessity whereas today it has become with our Prime Minister a matter of habit. In some weeks she turns up 1 day out of 3 then shoots through to open swimming pools. It may be creeping towards becoming a convention but I would like the matter referred to the Standing Orders Committee to ensure that it does not gain any more credence or currency in this Parliament. Frankly against international examples in terms of performing as the Prime Minister in front of the House she is a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member that the point of order is an interesting one. If he wants to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee about having a particular Prime Minister’s question time then that would be very interesting. I understand that the Prime Minister is not averse to that idea at all. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask for a particular Prime Minister’s question time as ludicrous as it should become given her past record of performance and appearance here. I am asking that she not be allowed to transfer those questions on a matter like this particularly when it goes to the core of her own performance as Prime Minister. That is why I have raised the matter—not so we can have half an hour or an hour like in the UK but so that she might like other Prime Ministers have done turn up here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 20/4 (Supplement) which I will read again: “Speaker’s ruling 116/1 recognises a longstop protection against abuse in transferring a question where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. In none of the rulings cited did the Speakers concerned actually refuse to allow the Government to transfer the particular question. The Speakers merely acknowledged that ultimately they could prevent that happening.” In this case I rule that the Minister can answer the question. 
Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Levy 
7.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Of the 20 or so meetings that Federated Farmers have organised to enable members of Parliament to explain and be questioned about the Government’s proposed greenhouse gas emissions levy on agriculture how many has the Prime Minister attended and if none why has the Prime Minister not fronted up at these meetings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I am advised that the Prime Minister has received only one invitation—from the Northland branch of Federated Farmers which branch she has already met with before. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Are the farmers of this country to understand that the Prime Minister is willing to climb every mountain visit any war memorial and visit any cooling-oil distributor but she is not willing to front up to the producers of the wealth that she redistributes to her supporters? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Prime Minister fronts up to the farmers of New Zealand as she fronts up to every other sector of New Zealand on a full-time basis. 
Jill Pettis 
: How many public meetings did the Government arrange for consultation on its preferred climate change policies and what level of participation was there from farmers? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This supplementary question illustrates the problem. The question is now asked quite widely to the whole Government and any Minister whereas the question was put down to the Prime Minister about her diary. What the Government organised and which lackeys it sent along instead of the Prime Minister is a question the Government should put down under its questions. The question the ACT party put down asked why the Prime Minister does not front up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion the member is quite correct. This question cannot be allowed because it is far too wide. If members are to put down questions and transfer them they have to be careful about the supplementaries. 
Hon David Carter 
: Has the Prime Minister or any Government officials held recent discussions with SheepCo Meat New Zealand and/or Fonterra about their contributing to the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research out of existing research levies; if so what is the outcome of those discussions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Primary Industries Council which embraces all the bodies that the member mentioned and a whole lot of others besides and the Government put out a press statement to say that they had begun talks yesterday. I invite the member to keep an eye on the media. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Noting that it takes two parties to achieve genuine consultation and negotiation has the Prime Minister been disappointed at the level of engagement by leaders of the farming industry last year when the policy was being developed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Prime Minister may be disappointed; I am not sure but I know that I am. During last year consultation on the preferred climate change policies was held during the course of 49 meetings 11 of which were specifically aimed at the farming and forestry sectors. The level of participation was disappointingly low. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has he received any reports of original climate change policy ideas being presented at Federated Farmers meetings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I most certainly have. One stunningly original idea was that New Zealand could both withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and give forest owners Kyoto forest sink credits. This suggestion came from the ACT party MP Gerrard Eckhoff. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did the Minister allow his Government to ever embark on the flatulence tax debacle when today he signals that it intends to “back up”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preferred policy position was is and will be that farming or the farming industries come forward with a research programme. To date they have not. They may do yet. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why will the Prime Minister not direct her Government to release carbon credits appropriated from farmers to fund methane emission research as the Government has already done for the State-owned enterprise Meridian Energy for energy research projects and make these credits available to the farming community to fund this dopey research if the Government deems it absolutely necessary? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s policy on projects does not include research. The Government’s commitment to research is best signified by the fact that we spend about $25 million a year on climate change research of which about $4.5 million is spent on methane mitigation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Could the Minister elaborate on his claim that the Prime Minister was invited to only one meeting? Is the Minister saying that the Prime Minister of New Zealand did not know what every other MP knew—that the farmers were coming to Parliament today and that they were going to make a presentation at the steps of Parliament; and is that the reason that she chose to go to an oil distribution factory in Auckland instead of being here and fronting up to the producers of the wealth of this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have no idea whether the Prime Minister of New Zealand was invited to such a function. But I do know that as the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change I was invited to a function only 48 hours ago. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to reconsider the ruling that you gave earlier. A Minister has now been asked a supplementary question which you allowed and which you said was a correct supplementary question and the answer that has come up is that the Minister has no idea. Well how on earth can the Government get away with a situation that the Prime Minister can now transfer a question to the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change and it can be ruled as a satisfactory answer for the Minister to get up and say “I have no idea”? The question should never have been transferred in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a look at that—the member has invited me to do so. 
Maori Television Service—Reception Interference 
8.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Communications 
: Does he stand by reported advice from the Minister of Communications that any interference issues resulting from the broadcast of the Maori Television Service from the Broadcast Communications Limited platform can readily be solved; if so how is this reconciled with advice provided by the Maori Television Service that interference problems could affect “tens of thousands” of Sky subscribers and VCR users? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that there is a range of potential solutions. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of evidence presented by Sky and the Maori Television Service is the Associate Minister at all concerned with the quality of advice he and his Cabinet colleagues are receiving from the Ministry of Economic Development on the transmission issues that presently plague the BCL broadcast platform for the Maori Television Service; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. Officials have been conscientiously working with a range of interested parties to provide advice on this matter. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that his colleagues the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Finance have been violently opposed to any use of a cheaper Sky-based platform which would solve the interference problems because of the need to bolster BCL’s cash flow so that the separation of BCL from TVNZ is not a complete disaster? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What I can confirm is that the Government is considering all options as it should be doing. 
Mark Peck 
: What process is the Government following in finding a solution? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government is consulting a wide range of interested parties and considering a range of options to find a win-win solution that best meets the interests of users. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of a Ministry of Economic Development statement last week that it had known for some time of the problems transmitting from BCL does that mean that the Associate Minister has only recently comprehended the scale of the problem or is it the case that the platform decision was already bound by the mantra of his Minister of Broadcasting that the Maori Television Service must be kept in the family therefore ruling out any chance it ever had of operating as a successful broadcaster? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As the member knows I have only recently become Associate Minister. However the Government has been fully aware of the issues with all of the options for some time. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Associate Minister received any reports from the Minister of Broadcasting on the interference issue given that he is the Minister responsible for BCL; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Associate Minister consider that the Minister of Broadcasting who is responsible for TVNZ which owns BCL the transmission company vying for the Maori Television Service platform had an obvious prejudicial interest in ensuring that a BCL-provided option won out and with that having blown up in his face it is now simply a case of ideological dogma over plain common sense? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government likes common sense which is why it is considering all proposals including those more recently suggested. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that question and the sequence of answers. I realise that the determination as to who answers questions is not your responsibility but the Government’s. However in this instance as I think the answers demonstrated where the Associate Minister did his best but was not particularly forthcoming there is a conflict between issues of policy and some operational issues. The original question was submitted to the Minister of Broadcasting because it related to the Minister of Broadcasting’s reaction to the advice his colleague the Minister of Communications had received from the Ministry of Economic Development. The notion of transferring the question to the Minister of Communications in effect placed that Minister in the rather impossible position of having to answer questions on his own advice about advice put to a colleague. I realise that you do not have direct responsibility in that area but it highlights a problem with the way questions are being transferred that sometimes makes the whole process of asking questions somewhat nonsensical. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments. I will certainly look at that issue. However this issue is different from the other issue that was raised. I will look at both issues. 
Immigrants—Citizenship Birthright 
9.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What does she intend to do about non - New Zealand pregnant women coming to New Zealand to give birth so that their children can claim New Zealand citizenship? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Current visitor policy prohibits visitors from travelling to New Zealand to seek obstetric treatment including any medical or midwifery services in connection with a pregnancy or the birth of a child. People who enter New Zealand as visitors with the intention of giving birth in New Zealand are in breach of their conditions of entry. It appears that problems have arisen from countries that are visa-free and therefore the New Zealand Immigration Service is looking at ways of improving compliance with current policy. 
Dail Jones 
: In view of the fact that newspaper reports indicate that some 1300 women have come here from overseas—and that shows a great failure on the part of her department—what does she specifically intend to do to revise the visitor category so that situations such as the one at North Shore Hospital do not recur. As recently as a week or two ago Brigid Maire had to leave that hospital at 4.20 a.m. with her 2-hour-old baby because there were not enough beds at the hospital—primarily because of all these overseas women coming here to have their children. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My advice is that people have been coming here from overseas for the purpose of giving birth for a number of years but that the practice increased as a result of changes to the provision of service in 1999 under the previous National Government. The decision was made to give those people access to funding for free maternity care while in New Zealand and to get rid of bad debts. That was seen as an advantage to the child who would become a New Zealand citizen. I think that is the real issue. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister realise that New Zealand First is not interested in what the failed National Government of 1999 did and has as much interest in that as it has in the failed policies of this Labour Party; and does she consider it just and fair on other immigrants who must go through the application process to live in New Zealand for overseas mothers to come here deliberately to give birth to a child and therefore claim citizenship for that child; and what will she actually do about this problem? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will answer the question asked not the supplementary information at the start. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was looking forward to answering that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister is not going to today. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The issue with regard to what we are doing today is that we have sent a letter to the couple who have identified themselves in the media as having deliberately come to New Zealand for the purpose of having children. That letter informs them that that is a breach of their conditions of entry and advises them than an alert will be placed on their travel documents. They will require a visa to travel to New Zealand again even though they now come from a visa-free country. That visa will probably be declined. 
Varroa Bee Mite—Research Funding 
10.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What public funding currently exists for research into the control of varroa bee mite and when does this funding expire? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I am advised that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has used public funds to support a $1 million varroa research programme. The bulk of that work was completed by June 2003. The Foundation for Research Science and Technology has never funded research specific to varroa control. An application from HortResearch for research into the control of the varroa bee mite was considered by the foundation but was not successful. HortResearch has been seeking the financial support of various interested organisations in order to continue parts of the varroa research programme. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What is the Minister doing to ensure that the demarcation dispute between the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry over funding does not jeopardise the bee products industry and all of the primary production that depends on pollination; and if he is doing nothing why is he doing nothing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think there is a demarcation dispute. The amount of biosecurity research funded by this Government has increased this time by 600 percent and still the varroa bee mite research did not make the cut. Some questions need to be asked about why that was. 
Helen Duncan 
: How does the foundation allocate its funding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Funding is allocated on a contestable basis using expert reference panels. Any research into the specific control of the varroa bee mite is assessed alongside other research. When it does its biosecurity research assessment the foundation focuses on the best means of protecting our ecology and agriculture from introduced threats in the future. The investment round—and I think this is important—was 300 percent oversubscribed; therefore a large number of research proposals missed out. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister concerned that the bee products and pollination service industries could be decimated when the varroa bee mite becomes resistant to present treatments and does he not realise that he does not have the luxury of time to delay the completion of the research? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member misses the point. I do not make research decisions. I am not allowed in law to do so. However I am concerned which is why I rang the chief executive of HortResearch a week or two ago and said: “Look what are we going to do about this?” I have had a letter from him to say that additional funding has been secured from the private sector and from within HortResearch as well which will keep some of the work going. Some of us are looking to see whether we can find some more money on top of that. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why does the Minister think that the bee-keeping industry should be totally responsible for funding because of biosecurity work by other State agencies when for instance the forestry industry does not pay for the eradication of the painted apple moth and the Asian gypsy moth? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: With respect the member misses the point again. I have never said that I think the private sector should be fully responsible. What is more—guess what—last year and the year before the research was paid for entirely by the Government. This time around HortResearch missed out on a research bid that it has never previously had any success with. Notwithstanding that the private sector and HortResearch which is Government-owned are trying to put together a programme. 
Public Service—Political Neutrality 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Who was the public servant who made the inquiry to the State Services Commission in July 2002 who concerned about the political neutrality of the public service said: “The appearance may be that the public servants are no more than political puppets especially since what they are now saying is different to what official papers at the time said.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of State Services 
: The Minister has not been advised who the public servant was who made the particular inquiry. As the member indicated the approach was made to the State Services Commission. That is entirely appropriate as it is the State Services Commissioner who is responsible for maintaining the political neutrality of the public service. Public servants who are in any doubt about matters of conduct or integrity should be encouraged to seek guidance from the commissioner. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister said these words: “I would welcome a select committee inquiry I am very happy for officials to speak completely openly because there’s nothing to hide. I am not putting any restrictions on anyone talking.” how can the select committee possibly interview this person who effectively believes that the Government was lying on this issue; how can we talk to this person if the Minister will not say who it is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would imagine that the best way of approaching this since the person is clearly known to the State Services Commissioner whom that person appropriately wrote to and who appropriately replied back would be to talk to the State Services Commissioner who appears in front of select committees. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the State Services Commissioner be investigating the apparent discrepancies between the statements made to the select committee by civil servants and the documents dating from late 2000 and does he think it strange that all civil servants are now agreeing in every detail in their account of what happened? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Minister’s understanding is that the State Services Commissioner has been very interested in this process that all documents of course were released before the document that is being referred to by Nick Smith was able to be released and that he has subsequently been very much interested in making sure that all public servants behave in an appropriate fashion and that all material is made available. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he agree with the anonymous public servant when he said what the civil servants are now saying “is different to what official papers at the time said” or is this another example of a public servant making “a sarcastic and humorous response”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine this has been dealt with fully by the fact that public servants under the umbrella of the State Services Commission with the State Services Commissioner at their head did appear in front of Opposition MPs and in front of the media to explain all of this at a press conference so that nothing was held back. They have been very open. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister give an assurance to this House that the select committee will be advised who this public servant was or is the Government now backtracking on the commitment given by the Prime Minister that the select committee would be able to speak to anyone who made any comment about the “corngate” issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Prime Minister of course has made statements that she fully stands by but I repeat that this person appropriately wrote to the State Services Commissioner and that is the appropriate place to go to. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The base question that I laid today was who the person was. The Minister says to go somewhere else and get it—get it off the State Services Commission. I then asked a very simple question as to whether the select committee would be able to know who the person was so that it could properly complete its inquiry. Again the Minister did not answer the question. If we cannot get answers to questions in the House quite frankly what is the point of Parliament or question time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a rather silly comment at the end. There is a great deal of point in Parliament and question time. A lot of things come out in question time. The Minister did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister give an assurance that the State Services Commission will advise the select committee of who the person was who wrote this message so that the select committee can get to the bottom of the “corngate” issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The memo was appropriately written to the State Services Commissioner and the question is therefore appropriately directed as to whether he wishes to disclose the name of that person. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Ah! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the member who as usual brays in the middle of the answer to his own question that getting to the bottom of the issue created by himself is not something that anybody else cares about in this House. We know that there is no issue here to be dealt with or to be got to the bottom of. If he really wants to know who this person is then the appropriate person to go to is the State Services Commissioner. 
Trial Indonesia—Spiritual Leader Abu Bakar Bashir 
12.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What if any concerns has New Zealand expressed about the outcome of the trial in Indonesia of the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have expressed concern that the person widely regarded as being the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah Abu Bakar Bashir received a short sentence of 4 years for lesser offences instead of the life sentence he could have received if found guilty of the terrorist acts and being leader of the terrorist organisation that he was charged with. Jemaah Islamiah with links to al-Qaeda and responsibility for plotting terrorist attacks across South-east Asia poses a major threat to security in the region. The inability of the Indonesian prosecution to satisfy the court that Bashir was the leader of Jemaah Islamiah did not produce the definitive outcome and the ability to impose a long deterrent sentence for terrorism that many had hoped for. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What information is there to suggest that Bashir has clear links with or influence over terrorist groups? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is a range of information that points to those links. One pointer is that many of those on the police most-wanted lists for terrorist suspects in South-east Asia are graduates of Bashir’s religious school in Central Java. While he may not have had operational control over terrorist activities people argue that charismatic imams such as Bashir motivate those who actually carry out terrorist acts. Finally the judges in the trial accepted that Bashir was aware of and had approved Jemaah Islamiah activities such as military training in Afghanistan despite his purported denial that Jemaah Islamiah even existed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister received any advice from our embassy in Indonesia concerning the implications of the light sentence handed out to the Jemaah Islamiah leader and what does that say about Indonesia’s commitment or otherwise to the elimination of terrorism in this region of the world? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would not go so far as to say that the outcome of this court trial represented a lack of commitment by Indonesia to dealing with the organisation and with terrorism. After all the major country in which these terrorist activities are taking place is Indonesia. It has badly damaged its economy and most of the victims—for example 11 out of the 12 victims in the bombing of the Marriott Hotel by Jemaah Islamiah—were Indonesian workers. I think the failure was the failure to produce the level of evidence needed to get the conviction that most people wanted to see. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave to be able to ask another question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave to be able to ask another question Is there any objection? There is. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 2 September. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill is the Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson’s rambling through of the recommendations from her friend Sir Geoffrey Palmer for disciplining judges. When I spoke before I ran through the actual provisions which attempt to do nothing except allow a crony to be appointed as a judicial administrator or a judicial supervisor and then leave with the Attorney-General as it is now a discretion whether to take a judge through a process that could end up in dismissal. This is a smokescreen for a far greater constitutional barbarity. That is the sacking of our entire top court appointed completely away from the politics of New Zealand and replacing it with a completely new top court all to be appointed by the Hon Margaret Wilson with the assistance of her independent assistant the Crown Solicitor and the advice of that paragon of constitutional virtue Sir Paul Reeves who left Fiji in a completely ungovernable state. 
 The judicial matter that is not covered here is an appointment process that would have involved creating an apolitical and obviously impartial cross-party approved court. This bill might have provided for endorsement of nominees; for example by the leaders of parties representing say 66 percent or 75 percent of the members of the House; and might have provided for some other kind of process which would have an equivalent effect and achieve the kind of buy-in or support that we get for the Auditor-General’s appointment or the Ombudsman’s appointment but it does not. The Minister wants to ram this through. I say now that I will move an amendment to the referral motion to omit all words after the word “consideration” so that the ordinary Standing Orders will apply and the bill is not rammed through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has given notice of that amendment and I will allow it to be put at the end of the debate. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and recommend its speedy passage through the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the very good comments of my colleague Mr Richard Worth on the Judicial Matters Bill when the House last debated it I would like to make a few comments. The National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. However we have many reservations about the provisions of the bill and we give no guarantee that we will support it after that process unless there are significant changes. In particular we note that this bill is yet another attempt to rein in judges and to put controls over them in their work yet no control has been put over the Attorney-General’s exercise of the appointment of judges. 
That is a real concern because the judges of the High Court and the District Courts many of whom I along with my colleague Richard Worth know very well are people who give tremendously in terms of the public service and who contribute hugely to the functioning of New Zealand’s judicial process. Yet they are human. They do occasionally make mistakes. Sometimes they will lose their tempers or make a comment that will be interpreted by the media or by a litigant as being disrespectful and I would hate to see a time when judges who are human and sometimes have idiosyncrasies are pulled up in front of a complaints body because they have been politically incorrect or they have told someone that he or she is talking a load of nonsense. I can understand why judges occasionally want to say that and they should be able to do so in a democracy. 
One of the concerns we have is that that complaints body will try to stop judges from doing their jobs in the best way that they can. Quite often the work of judges can be mind-numbing and boring because it involves a tremendous amount of administration particularly in a District Court. It is a role that often takes them outside the normal sphere of society because they have to be very careful what they do and are seen to do. They are people whose every action will be scrutinised by the media and the public. 
Having been involved in the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland District Law Society for many years—in particular in relation to the complaints process in the Auckland society—I know what happens when a body is set up whose sole purpose is to look at complaints. If a body is set up for complaints the chances are that complaints will be invited. We will have the very same people complaining constantly about judges who today complain constantly about police officers trying to do their jobs. Unfortunately decisions will be made by those who will be desperate to be seen to be being tough on judges and to be upholding the rights of litigants. The work of judges will become more difficult and it will become more difficult for the Attorney-General and future Attorney-Generals to get the top people into the judiciary. For many lawyers going into the judiciary means taking a huge pay-drop and a massive loss of freedom and means imposing on themselves all sorts of restrictions that senior barristers and solicitors would not normally have to endure in their own practices. 
One of the things that High Court judges have mentioned to me in my time with the Law Society and as a member of Parliament is that they dislike the fact that sometimes when they are in the middle of a major commercial case which might go on for weeks and weeks they are taken away from the High Court in Auckland and sent off on circuit to go and deal with criminal matters for a couple of weeks. The civil case is delayed and delayed and delayed and by the time they get another chance to deal with it months have gone by. That is what is happening. 
We would like to see something in this bill that addresses the issues around the operation of the judiciary rather than constantly pinging judges for every little thing that they say or do or do not say or do and that looks at how we can help judges to work more effectively and make their work much more rewarding to them as highly trained professional highly committed and intelligent people who go into the judiciary because they want to give more to the public of New Zealand rather than take. We would be very interested in looking at that. 
We also note with concern that we are still not dealing with the fact that we have judges in New Zealand who are being appointed for particular skills such as top commercial lawyers who spend almost all their time dealing with rape case after rape case after methamphetamines case after murder case after brutal robbery case. We have very very highly skilled and experienced people who are being wasted on cases in which they have no more particular skill or knowledge than any other judge. Ex - Crown prosecutors and former top defence lawyers are having to sit through weeks and weeks and months sometimes of very complicated commercial law matters which again are not their speciality. 
I would very much like to make a plea for the judges—because clearly the Attorney-General does not care—that these people who are very successful people in their own right and have so much to contribute feel hugely frustrated that they are not able to practise their profession as a judicial officer in the area where they best can. That is such a waste when we have people like that who are simply not being listened to by the Minister and who are simply not being used in the most effective way. 
I am pleased to see that there is a move to increase the numbers of judges. I know that—particularly in Auckland—there is a huge deficit in their numbers. One of the reasons is the massive increase in the use of methamphetamines. The fact that Parliament has now seen fit to increase the penalties for taking methamphetamines and labelled it a class A drug has meant that there is now even more of a delay in High Court trials. That is a huge concern because justice delayed is clearly justice denied. The fact that the P and methamphetamine epidemic has generally not been dealt with and has not been addressed by a significant increase in the number of police—other than those who give out parking tickets and speeding tickets—is a disgrace. I would like to see the provision for more judges to be made so that they are there when needed not 5 years after the event. 
In summary the National Party will support this bill through to the select committee with grave reservations and we will do our very best to improve the bill in the best way possible for New Zealand. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I support the passage of this bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
. referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Stephen Franks has given notice of an amendment to omit all the words after the word “consideration”. The question is that Mr Franks’ amendment be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to. 
Immigration Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members of the House who although they did not agree with the provisions of the bill allowed it to include an out-of-scope Supplementary Order Paper. This amendment was required to address a serious situation where a High Court ruling enabled the release from detention of two individuals who were unlawfully in New Zealand and awaiting removal. The only reason they were still in New Zealand was that we were unable to obtain travel documents for them because in both cases they refused to sign applications for them. The fact that both were released without conditions is of significant concern. It occurred because there was no basis to detain them so there was no basis to impose conditions on them either. The fact that the judge said the writ of habeas corpus was issued “albeit with some reluctance” was a significant signal from the court that it was up to Parliament to fix this. 
Section 60 came into force in 1999 when National was changing the rules around removals from New Zealand. The 3-month limitation was believed to be a sufficient balance between the time needed to obtain travel documents and the amount of time someone would be detained. No one contemplated someone holding out for 3 months—effectively preventing that person’s removal and effecting that person’s freedom. I hope the lawyers who successfully argued for this loophole are satisfied at the result of their work and at what they have achieved for their clients. 
I hope that in light of the changes that have been brought in the Green Party stops saying this amendment is indefinite detention. It is not. It is a warrant of commitment that can be renewed on a 30-day basis by a court. The court retains the ability to consider exceptional circumstances even though it is the action or inaction of the individual concerned that means he or she cannot be removed. If the particular individuals concerned had signed their applications they would not be in detention—they would be gone—and if certain charges were proven maybe a woman would not be lying critically ill in hospital today. I am not blaming anyone for that; it would be wrong to do so. I would say though that members of the Opposition would do that if it were the other way round—they would blame this Government if we had been responsible for bringing in section 60. But it is not a case of fault; nobody could have foreseen that this would occur. 
 The only person in the Committee stage of this bill who behaved appallingly was the Hon Murray McCully and I use the word “Hon” with some difficulty. I spoke to him before Supplementary Order Paper 131 was moved and he said that I could trust him that I could approach him on matters like this and that I should feel confident about doing so because the National Party would support matters such as this. What did he do? We brought it to the House and yes he supported it but he spent his entire speech absolutely trying to tear strips off me for taking 3 weeks to bring a measure before the House. Well there was no earlier opportunity at which Parliament could have addressed the matter. I think his lack of graciousness is reflected by the fact that every other member in this House including the Hon Richard Prebble participated in a really good debate. Dail Jones Lockwood Smith and Pansy Wong all contributed to a really good debate and where we disagreed even that was dealt with in a very reasonable manner. Mr McCully really set himself apart as somebody who only plays politics with these matters. He does not know anything about the immigration portfolio. He has no history in it nor any knowledge of it. He does not know anything about immigration law. He has used this issue to rubbish the Government and to pursue his own political agenda and I say shame on him. 
I am very resentful of comments made by the Green Party and I want to highlight those because I would have expected better from the Greens. They say that this is a measure designed to ensure that individuals are subject to racism and selective discrimination and that the discretionary language that is used in the legislation is evidence of that. I pointed out in the Committee stage that the bill itself simply uses the language of the existing Act; the existing Act uses the language of discretion. It says that any residence visa or permit is at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration. That is the way the legislation has been written for years and years across Governments. So the bill is simply adopting that same language. 
I do not particularly like the language of discretion because it creates an impression that is not reflected in practice so I will repeat what I said in the Committee stage which is that there will be a complete review of the Immigration Act next year. I am inviting parties to play a role in that. I do want to change the language of the legislation but I also want to ensure we adopt a very sensible approach because as we have seen in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that we had to include in this legislation there are people who will say anything do anything try anything cheat anything and defraud anything to stay in this country whether or not they are entitled to. They remain the minority. The vast majority of migrants who come to this country are good decent hard-working people who deserve to be applauded in this House for their efforts and not diminished as they are by the New Zealand First Party. 
I think it is very very important for us to understand that the legislation we are putting through is entirely focused on improving outcomes for skilled migrants and for New Zealand. Settlement outcomes will now drive the skilled immigration part of the programme. 
I will finish with a quote that my colleague started to read out in the second reading of this bill. The email he was reading from continues: “I occasionally work as a volunteer at an immigrant support group just outside Wellington. That experience really brings home what the previous policies have allowed to happen: a Russian neurosurgeon who can’t get a job as anything other than the shelf-stacker at Woolworths because he can’t speak English to conversational level; accountants lawyers all manner of skilled professionals all with the same problem. I can give these people advice in their group sessions but the reality is that their residency allowed them to move to a country where they could not carry on with their lives with the same level of professional status as they previously held. It’s actually quite soul-destroying to be powerless to help these people. I would defy any commentator or journalist who is criticising your latest policy to join me at a community church in Johnsonville and look into the eyes of the 30 to 40 well-educated people who dreamt of their new life in New Zealand who can no longer hold the same status in their local communities whose egos have been shattered whose self-confidence is diminished and whose faith in New Zealand is fading.” This policy is good for skilled migrants and it is good for New Zealand. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The Minister of Immigration who has just resumed her seat spent most of her third reading speech dwelling on the provisions of clause 15A which amends section 60(2) of the principal Act. She seemed to be in something of a blue funk about the fact that I had made some unflattering references to her in the Committee stage of the bill but she does not seem to have listened very carefully to what was said and I will repeat some of those things today given this the third reading debate. Hopefully she will learn a lesson from it. 
Like other members National Party members did support the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that was outside the scope of the original bill. I do not dispute the outline of facts as provided by the Minister nor indeed do I disagree with her chiding certain members of the legal profession for the role they have played in this regard. What I do say to the Minister is that if she is going to accuse people of playing politics in these matters she needs to look in a mirror because the Supplementary Order Paper that we were told was so urgent was given to members of the National Party on the morning of the day on which the Government intended to introduce it to the House. It was given to Mr Peters of New Zealand First on the morning of its introduction and I understand that it was given to the ACT party and to Mr Prebble on the morning of its introduction yet I have been told that it was given to United Future—the Government’s very reliable lackey—some weeks in advance. The message I want to give to this Minister and to other Ministers is that on important matters of national security on important matters that attend our national interest Ministers can get cooperation by asking early and asking honestly for the cooperation of members on this side of the House. But they will not get fulsome cooperation they will not receive the support they might otherwise get if they treat parties differently. 
The matter at the heart of clause 15A is an important matter. I absolutely agree with the Minister about it and say with all sincerity that we could have dealt with it earlier. It was more than 3 weeks since the time of Justice Chambers’ decision when this matter came to the House and I say to the Minister as I said in the Committee stage that she must have been told by her counsel that they were going to lose that court case. It was a lay down misère . Anybody who looked at Justice Chambers’ decision could see that it was correct and could see that Parliament might have left an unintentional loophole when it dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion. So it was only correct that we should deal with that matter with due expedition. 
I say to the Minister again that it could have been dealt with earlier. The cooperation that she sought would have been forthcoming from this quarter and I am sure that it would have been forthcoming from other quarters—as it finally was. But I take exception to being treated differently from the United Future party and presumably from the Greens on a matter such as this. If it is a matter of national interest and if the Minister wants us to put politics to one side then she must deal with all parties even-handedly and equally. She failed to do that. If she expects to be treated with any charity in the House in future on these matters then she had better rethink the way in which she approaches them. If these matters are important enough to require members to put politics aside then first the Minister must put politics aside in making an approach to members of other political parties to seek their cooperation. I will have no sleepless nights from her taking offence at some of my less charitable comments about her stewardship of this particular Supplementary Order Paper but I promise her that she will have some very sleepless nights in future if that is the way she goes about dealing with matters that are so important to our national interest. 
It is also worthy of note that this matter which was considered so important that we were required to put aside party politics was being dealt with while concurrently in this House this Minister was trying to use the procedures of the House to avoid giving straight and honest answers to questions that by any measurement are important questions. I have never seen in my time in this House a memorandum with an assertion by an official that there was an agreement to “lie in unison”. The Minister herself has said that if it were the case that there was a conspiracy then she must have been a part of it—part of an agreement to lie in unison. So the Minister asks us to put to one side— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill which has nothing to do with the matter that the member is now addressing. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Speaking to the point of order I want to say that the Minister spent a good part of her speech talking about the response from Opposition members to her request for cooperation in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 131 which was outside the scope of the original bill. It is perfectly in order for me to relate to the House the circumstances and wider environment in which that request was received and dealt with. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members. I was getting a little concerned about the width of the speech and that is why I tried visually to bring the member back to the bill. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister asks too much of members of this House if she on the one hand is going to approach members of other parties say that this matter is so important that she wants to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the original bill and ask for their cooperation in doing so yet on the other hand on a matter that causes very great trouble to members of this House is dealing with members on a less than even-handed and open basis. I say to the Minister again that if she wants cooperation on such matters then she has to revise the way in which she deals with her responses to questions on matters of considerable legitimate public interest. 
In relation to this bill I want to refer in particular— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I didn’t have to let you know anything. It was a matter of courtesy that I let you know. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the Minister wants cooperation she has to consult members. If she wants members to take a non-partisan approach to a matter of considerable national interest then she has to revise the way she does business. She went— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Well I won’t do that with the National Party again. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister can choose whatever method she wants but when she has made her bed she has to lie on it and I tell her she should reflect on that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What you said on the phone wasn’t what you said in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr McCully has the floor. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the Minister would reflect on the fact that she did not tell me she had approached other political parties some weeks in advance then she might put a different complexion on this matter. 
I want to refer in particular to clause 5 which deals with the powers of the Minister and the powers of Immigration Service officers. Section 10(3) in clause 5 states that there is to be no recourse to review proceedings in the court in relation to decisions about visas or in relation to decisions of the Residence Review Board. In clause 6 we find a new section 10A to be inserted in the principal Act that has wide-ranging powers for the Minister and immigration officers that make it clear there is to be no review of the decisions of the Minister or officers of the Immigration Service in relation to invitations to apply for visas or to any of the other provisions of this Act. 
 I say to the Minister that with these extensive powers and protections being granted to the Minister and to her officials members of the public will be looking to be reassured that the Minister and those officials will use those powers and the protections that go with those powers in a way that is in the public interest and in a way that is professional and beyond reproach. When they see that there are memos floating around the most senior offices of the Immigration Service asserting that there is an agreement to “lie in unison” they will look at section 10(3) in clause 5 and subsections (1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) of section 10A in clause 6 and will ask members of Parliament whether we are sure that this Minister and these officials should receive these powers and these protections from review by the courts of this land. Those are questions that remain unanswered in this House today as they have been through the earlier stages of the bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I confess I am a little bemused by the response of the member who has just concluded his speech on two counts. The first is that the Government was under absolutely no obligation under the Standing Orders to consult him or any other party on Supplementary Order Paper 131. The fact that this Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel did so was purely a matter of courtesy. It is instructive to find how that courtesy is received in the House. I congratulate the Minister on consulting the other parties. 
The second and more important reason that I am bemused by the National Party response is that if one takes its rhetoric at face value for the life of me I cannot imagine why it would not support this bill. This bill does nothing to increase the number of immigrants but it increases the quality of the contribution of our immigrants to the growth of this nation’s wealth. This is all about building skills. It is a win-win because it also means that immigrants are able to exercise the skills that they bring into our country. My electorate of New Lynn must be the luckiest place on earth. We have trained scientists delivering Foodtown pamphlets and trained doctors driving taxis. It must be heaven on earth if we can afford such high-powered deliverers and taxi-drivers. Could it possibly be that the immigration framework we inherited from the previous Government allowed people into the country then forgot about them and did not integrate them into the workforce? This bill is overdue. I recommend its speedy passage through the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There is nothing like listening to someone who is so naive that he knows nothing about the formation of policy. Those very same people were being allowed into the country in 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 and 1990—and he tried to come to this House today with a clean pair of hands and say that he and his colleagues are fixing that up. Does he not understand what happened in the late 1980s how it was repeated by the previous National Government how it became an issue at the 1996 election and how Labour went on after it came to power to fill this country with 72500 people per year? Even though he is a new member naivety is not a good enough excuse for him to use. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Wrong again! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Right again! It is all in the facts and figures but of course Lianne Dalziel images somebody who is useless inept bungling and ineffectual. Who said on the  
Assignment 
 programme that she knew of no fraud in immigration? The website was then opened in front of her eyes and she was like a possum in the headlights. Supplementary Order Paper 131 goes a miniscule way in the right direction and we support that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Those people have all been convicted. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do members notice how much Lianne Dalziel shouts all the way through my speeches? She is so negligent hopeless conceited big-headed supercilious egotistical and self-important that she thinks she can match us on this. We support the principle of the Supplementary Order Paper but we do not support the bill. Lianne Dalziel is also the person who came into the House today and said the majority of immigrants are good hard-working people. Is that not great! What about the massive minority the thousands and thousands who are not like that? What about the 12000 in Auckland alone who are on welfare? What about the thousands who fill the State homes in Auckland that New Zealanders should be living in? What about the rack-renting immigrant up there—and there are numerous ones like him—who has 14 poor Asian students paying $175 a week in a 3-bedroom home? He is in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house paying $65 a week with State aid for housing support. That just stinks! This woman from Christchurch knows nothing about the real circumstances in this country. She laughs and giggles but she gives it all away by shouting out when I am talking. She is indifferent negligent unfeeling untrustworthy and perfidious. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This woman laughs even though some New Zealand women have just been infected with AIDS by someone whom she allowed into the country. He has been here for 2 years. The riff-raff from the rest of the world whom no one else will have Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark welcome—and Lianne Dalziel laughs. 
I want all New Zealanders who are listening to this debate today to remember this every time that they cannot get a hip operation a cataract operation or any fairness in their country. About their own taxes they should remember the Prime Minister and Lianne Dalziel because they have been tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus to every foreigner—to everybody but someone born here. In some other countries that would be called treason or treachery. Lianne Dalziel has brought tens and tens of thousands of people here. How many of the immigrants that the Minister has brought here are actually employed today? Is it half of them? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: More than that! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am sorry it is not more than that. That shows how ignorant she is. It is not even 20 percent because they come with children and grandparents. I know people who have come here and brought eight adults here even though they have never left the benefit. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Give me an example. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is no use running to her. She accused Murray McCully of not understanding immigration but this woman knows nothing about her portfolio. Every time that Lianne Dalziel is told by the media or by me what is going wrong in her portfolio she says she will look into it and have an investigation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Give me the evidence. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What is the Minister doing in her job if I have to find the evidence for her? 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s in the papers! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The Minister should pick up any Chinese-language newspaper; she would find it is all there—the advertised frauds for the English-language test. It is all advertised. This Minister has done nothing about it. She has not got off her half acre and done a thing. The smug arrogant way that she conducts the affairs of her portfolio which is paid for by taxpayers knows no bounds. 
Why would we want the flotsam and jetsam that drifts into the country like that Zimbabwean the other day? It is not just him. What about the Saudi Arabian who tried to falsify his pilot exams? That was on TV3 last night. What about the guy who was being sent back to Singapore and claimed there was a bomb on the plane? This country is just going amuck because of a useless hopeless Prime Minister who has predicated the whole economy on massive immigration. 
It is all in the Reserve Bank governor’s report today. He says he cannot bring interest rates down for the benefit of ordinary New Zealanders because house prices are fuelling inflation in Auckland. Why should a poor farmer who is producing on the land pay $60000 or $70000 by way of losses because of a rack-renter and property speculator in Auckland? This is a rotten economy for being run in that way and it is being run for the benefit of foreigners—people who do not belong here—who in the massive main are not employed here. The Minister’s own department told her last August after the election that some of those people will not be employed in our economy for the next 25 years. 
I have a message for some of the Maori members of this Parliament. They should not talk to me about tino rangatiratanga while they support the Labour Party. They should not dare to talk to me about Maori mana and tino rangatiratanga whilst they cram this country with foreigners—in greater numbers now after 10 years than the whole Maori population after 1000 years. The Maori members should stop that humbug. I ask them not to tell me about tino rangatiratanga and what will be done at all the hui when right now this country is being overrun by a population from abroad that is greater in numbers than Maori though they may have been here for 1000 years. 
This arrogant Minister and the Prime Minister will not get away with it at the next election. They think they have a measure in the Supplementary Order Paper whereby somehow they can force a guy to sign his passport photo. What a redeeming feature that is for this Government! The whole immigration picture is unparalleled anywhere in the world; it is rotten to the core. In Auckland there is all sorts of prostitution going on and abuse of women—and Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark call themselves feminists! Mind you they are very weird feminists. But I hope and it is a sad hope that when those poor women whom a foreigner—a toerag who should never have been here in the first place—has infected with HIV start to live awful lives their families will remember Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark and I hope they will remember David Benson-Pope and the United Future party. I hope they will remember every one of these scumbags who have allowed that to happen. All those victims had better look around really hard and ask themselves how that person ever got into this country to assault them. 
Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark are so naive that they do not realise we have African immigrants here—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the Minister to desist from interjecting please. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: One could train a parrot to be the Minister of Immigration. All it would have to say is “Lianne wants a cracker. Lianne wants a cracker.” She sits on her perch and she parrots that there is no fraud. How deceitful is that? With a bit more intelligence and training Lianne Dalziel could become a circus clown but she is not fit to be the Minister responsible for immigration. The Prime Minister is not fit for her office either given that the key determinant of her responsibility is the health and security of every New Zealand citizen. 
Helen Clark and Lianne Dalziel have been derelict in terms of their responsibilities; they have totally abandoned them. The North Shore Hospital and Auckland Hospital are reeking of and packed to the gunwales with Third World immigrants and Third World diseases with 70 percent—two-thirds and more—of the TB patients being immigrants coming from overseas. Why was a New Zealand woman tossed out of a hospital 2 hours after giving birth to a baby in the middle of the night—at 4.05 a.m.? It was because the hospital was crammed full with foreigners. Government members should make no mistake about this: we will tell every New Zealander just what a rotten administration that Minister is involved with. The first thing New Zealanders will do is to get rid of her. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to this bill. I intend to respond to many of the points just made by the right honourable gentleman. But first let me tell members what happened in the Committee stage because members would not have picked that up from Mr Peters’ contribution and I want to start with a positive statement about how the bill was debated. 
I appreciated the fact that the Minister of Immigration participated during the Committee stage of the bill. Not only did she participate but she made some useful contributions in reply to points that were made so we had a genuine debate about the bill. I appreciated that because there is a tradition coming into this House of Ministers not participating in the Committee stage and that denigrates the whole of Parliament. In fact some Ministers go so far as not even to sit in the chair but to put in another Minister who has no knowledge of the legislation. I think there is a duty on the Government to debate legislation. I tell Mr Cunliffe who spoke earlier that he did not make a proper contribution. He just indicated exactly the point that I am making. He did not debate this bill. I hope that a Government member will get up and speak about this bill because we should have the bill itself debated. 
I also tell the Minister that I appreciated the offer that she made to me—and I suppose she made it to other parties—to allow me to speak to officials about Supplementary Order Paper 131 which she introduced. I took advantage of that. Up until then I had been considering voting against that Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for that is that the Supplementary Order Paper gives immigration officials very great powers to be able to hold people in jail and in a free society Parliament has been very reluctant to do that. I was not sure from looking at the Supplementary Order Paper whether it went further than was required. 
 However after talking to the officials I am satisfied that it does not do so and that it is necessary when a person has been ordered to leave the country. I understand that countries like Iran Afghanistan and Iraq—although I would like to think that the Americans will fix this—refuse to issue papers until a person signs for them. Those countries ought to take responsibility for their own nations. In those circumstances I think that it is reasonable that this Parliament says to officials that if a person in that position is ordered by the courts to leave the country and he or she refuses to sign the necessary papers he or she should be held in jail. 
I now turn to a criticism of the Minister. When it became obvious that the Minister knew about the Supplementary Order Paper a month ago—and apparently she did consult United Future—I think that she should have consulted the National Party and other parties in Parliament. It is a regrettable tradition under MMP that that is not happening. Mr Cunliffe can say that there is no requirement under the Standing Orders for a Minister to do that. I say so what! I tell that member that in that situation there are parliamentary conventions whereby members should participate in discussing the matter. For me to receive a copy of the Supplementary Order Paper only 3 hours before the debate—and I think it was the same for New Zealand First—was not satisfactory. That reflects upon us as parliamentarians. If we had had earlier notice we would have been able to look at the Supplementary Order Paper and I might have been able to discuss the matter properly with my caucus. I tell that Minister and other Ministers that as a whole I believe that most parliamentarians want the immigration system to have some integrity. ACT would have supported that. I say in a parliamentary sense that if Mr Cunliffe ever finds himself in that situation again he should circulate the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I now turn to the bill itself. I shall deal with Mr Peters’ comments because in my view part of his anger is that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the sorts of statements he has been making for the last year. The bill moves away from a points system to one that will enable the Government to discriminate. How do I know that? I was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but a member from New Zealand First was. The committee’s report to the House stated that one of the reasons it did not like the bill was that it thought people could be discriminated against. How could they be discriminated against? They could be racially discriminated against. In fact under the bill foreigners could be discriminated against and Mr Peters made it quite clear in his speech that that is something he wants this Government to do. 
I realise that immigration is a very difficult issue because we make arbitrary decisions. Far more people want to come to New Zealand than we will ever accept and that is a good situation. We have to work out a way in which people will be selected. All the immigration nations like Canada Australia and New Zealand have moved away from the sort of system that this bill moves back to where priority is given to things like jobs. When one says that jobs should have priority it sounds good. But as I pointed out in the Committee stage one of the skill areas where there is a critical shortage is truck driving. Will that be included? No apparently it will not be; the Minister told us that truck driving would not be included. But what does happen and used to happen—and I have been in this House long enough to know the old immigration system—is that the same consultants who help people to work out their points under the points system will find it much easier to get people into the country by finding them jobs. Will they be bogus jobs? No they may be real jobs. They may even be jobs in Invercargill which apparently are of higher priority than jobs in Auckland. Will the jobs last? Of course they will not. Will there be an internal passport system whereby a person has to stay in Invercargill? Of course there will not be. 
The sort of law that has been put forward in this bill will not result in a better immigration system. I do think that it will discriminate against the Chinese. I do think that it will result in fewer Chinese people coming to New Zealand and that that is one of the objectives of the Government. Personally I do not think that it is a good idea. I believe—contrary to Mr Peters—that the immigrants who have come to this country have done a great job. 
Mr Peters gave us as an example the terrible things that were happening at North Shore Hospital. I can speak with some authority about North Shore Hospital; I spent a week in it after the last election. I had pneumonia was taken to North Shore Hospital and was treated very well. Mr Peters said that North Shore Hospital—and I think I am quoting him correctly—is full of foreigners. That is correct. North Shore Hospital is most certainly full of foreigners; in fact it is a positive United Nations. All but one of the doctors who treated me and treated me extremely well were immigrants. They were not all driving taxis. They were treating me. My physiotherapist was—I think the term is “Cape Coloured”; that is probably politically incorrect now but the ACT party does not worry about things like that—from South Africa and she was a very very competent physiotherapist. The nurses also came from around the world including the Pacific. Did I feel that I received inferior treatment at North Shore Hospital? No I did not. 
I advise the House that but for immigration we would literally be in the shit. Our sewerage schemes around New Zealand are being run by engineers from around the world and many of them are South Africans. Indeed if one looks at skill after skill in this country one sees that the people concerned come from overseas. The New Zealand First Party told us in the Committee stage— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is that? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is because we have never had enough skilled people. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ours have left; that’s why. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is true. They did leave and a lot of them left because of the policies previously introduced by that member. A lot of them left because of the policies of successive Governments. I accept and the ACT party does that the best immigrants to come into New Zealand would be New Zealanders. Does this bill help to do that? No it does not. All the policies put forward by Mr Peters will not get Auckland’s traffic going. The reason Auckland roads are jammed is that this Parliament has not voted enough money for roading. We do not have a decent planning scheme and we probably need some immigrants to tell us about one instead of the lunatic measures that we have. 
Then the member made a despicable appeal to Maori as though they were affected by immigration and talked about crime. I ask Mr Peters what the population make-up of our prisons is. Is it made up of the foreigners whom he is referring to? Has he read the statistics? He says he has. What is it Mr Peters? The member is not prepared to answer that because he and I know that the prison population is 52 percent Maori. What is he doing about that? That is a disgraceful statistic and we should do something about it. Blaming crime on foreigners does no credit to New Zealand First. 
I say to the House that I will vote against this bill because I actually think that the Labour Government is not standing up to Mr Peters. I am quite prepared to do that. I say that this House and this country do not need this bill. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. I notice that we are the only party to support the Government on this bill. I was very concerned when I heard Mr Peters speaking on immigration policy because I get upset when words are spoken that bring division to our nation and when we start to put one person against another and deal with issues rather than the actual situations we face.  
What is so wrong about trying to move forward with a residence policy that allows New Zealanders to accept those immigrants who will make a positive contribution to this country? Nobody doubts that we need immigration in this country. The law we are passing today is bringing about many changes that New Zealand First proclaimed it wanted. It makes so much sense to move from a system dictated by a “first come first served” approach to one that puts the people most likely to integrate successfully into New Zealand society at the head of the queue. Otherwise the people we want might be stuck at the back of the queue for 2 years and what sense does that make to Mr Peters? They might lose their job offers and go somewhere else that can offer them quicker entry. At the same time we would be letting people at the front of the queue get in first when they might not have a relevant job offer and when they cannot find work be more likely to be a drain on the taxpayer through the benefit system. 
That is why we are supporting this legislation and why it will be passed. To let people come out here without proper work is unfair to them as it makes it much more difficult for them to integrate into New Zealand society. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I agree. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Good I am glad the member agrees. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What are they doing here? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: We are passing this legislation to make it better which was New Zealand First policy. 
I have heard some members talk about the fact that under the current system people hoping to come and live in New Zealand have had to put their lives on hold for as long as 2 years before they hear the outcome of their applications. I have no doubt that this is the case but to claim that this bill would have the same impact shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what this legislation will do. After expressing interest in applying for residency those who do not receive an invitation to apply within 3 months are lapsed from the system—based on the information they submitted. Those are people who would not settle easily into this country. Letting them know within 3 months that they have not been accepted must surely be better than keeping their lives on hold for 2 years. 
I believe it is a privilege to be able to come and live in New Zealand not a right. I was in Australia not so long ago and spoke to a young waitress serving at the table. She thought woe is me that I was an Australian and she actually thanked me for allowing her into Australia. I thought that was a refreshing attitude. People should not come in as of right but because they recognise that it is a privilege to come to another nation. 
This legislation will help discern those who are better people for our nation. This process also means that those who are invited to apply will wait for no more than 3 months to hear whether they have progressed to the next stage. Just because someone has lapsed from the system does not mean that he or she cannot try again. The fact that a person will know his or her status within 3 months gives that person more time to improve his or her chances—by acquiring a relevant job offer for example. 
One of the problems under the old system was that in waiting up to 2 years for residency an applicant who had a job offer might have lost it because the employer was sick of waiting. In the case of university lecturers coming from overseas for example entire courses have had to be delayed because their applications were taking too long. This bill will change that. Under this bill we should be able to pick up on those people from the start and say: “Right this person will help our country move forward so let’s make sure he or she gets priority.” That has to be common sense in anyone’s language. 
From reading the select committee report it is pretty clear that even the other parties in the House that are voting against the bill do not have a problem with the idea that we should be an active recruiter rather than a passive receiver of immigrants. New Zealanders have gone to many nations all over this world and made a difference with the skills and talents they have put forward. I want people who can make a difference to this nation to feel free to come back and be welcomed not to be discriminated against on race colour or any other thing. They should feel part of New Zealand and able to call it home. We are going to build a great nation in New Zealand and it will be made up of many races many cultures and many people. We will put systems in place that will make that possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who said? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Peters that systems are not perfect but we are in the process of changing the system to bring improvement. If we do not bring improvement or change anything we will not get a different result. United Future believes that it will get a different result because we stand by this legislation to make a difference to this nation to bring good people into this nation and to create a great nation in the days that lie ahead. We are glad that we are brave enough and bold enough to support this legislation at this time. 
National recognises that there is a need to match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy but its objection is that it can be done in a more transparent manner than this bill proposes. [ 
Interruption 
] Is the member going to take a point of order? I agree that the more transparency the better but I have yet to see any proposal from National members as to how that could be achieved. I am sure they understand that the one thing about immigration policy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member invited me to raise a point of order and I do so now. I like a good joke and I seek an extension of time for this speech. 
Dail Jones 
: 5 minutes? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes 5 minutes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who was speaking was giving a strong speech and a good speech and I think you should rebuke Mr Peters for breaking it up. If he is sincere and wants to move an extension of time he should do so at the end of the speech. It is extremely unparliamentary for a member to break up a speech just because he or she does not like it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Prebble is quite right and I thank him for that. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am sure they understand that unlike other portfolio areas where a lot of substance is contained in the legislation the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the criteria that is collected in the manual that immigration officers use when assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be. That does limit the degree of transparency and therefore my challenge to the Government is to communicate as openly as possible with potential applicants other interested parties and the public about how its immigration policy will be applied. Despite our disagreement over the bill I am sure that the National Party and the Green Party will join me in urging the Minister to follow that path. 
Part of that information campaign must include ensuring that applicants have accurate expectations about their chances of success. In the course of assessing an applicant’s potential immigration officials must ensure that applicants have realistic expectations about what they will find when they come here. As much as we think that our country is the greatest in the world we need to dispel the misconception spread by some consultants that its streets are paved with gold. 
I also think it is important that we get more information about the kinds of skills that are deemed to be in short supply. Under the Government’s proposed policy bonus points will be available to applicants who hold a skills set that is in demand here and for a job offer that is relevant to those skills—particularly if it is located in a region that is experiencing shortages. 
I would think that many people are surprised as I certainly am that New Zealand First does not support this bill. There can be absolutely no doubt that this bill conforms to its manifesto at the last election which said that New Zealand would give greater priority to immigrants who have the “skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” I feel sorry for New Zealand First voters that they have been betrayed in this way but United Future has come to the rescue. That party’s excuse that it will not support the bill because the overall number of immigrants will remain the same just does not wash because that is right outside the scope of this bill. Even if New Zealand First cannot achieve that in this bill it should at least follow through on something it has pledged to its voters. 
I support this bill because it is not about reducing the number of immigrants as part of some knee-jerk response to the cultural insecurity of New Zealanders. Rather it is about the Government being a lot smarter about the people we accept as residents. United Future is in favour of immigration and we are pleased that the overall level of migrants will be sustained for the next 3 years. But in the longer term we need to stop dealing just with immigration policy and high inflation as a more strategic approach would be to see this as just one part of an overarching population policy. Those who want to drastically cut the number of immigrants fail to recognise that in the light of an ageing population and the slowing birth rate we need to maintain a sizeable working population to fund our State services. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said New Zealanders liked a joke and those who were listening would want me to move an extension of time for that last speaker. I would like to see him read his speech a second time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I know it would be normal at this point for me to make a very short contribution but I will not do that. In my 7 years in this House I have heard some speeches expressed in terms that I have found difficult to comprehend. The speech we heard today from Winston Peters—and I would not dare to use the words “right honourable” because they do not belong next to those two words—was the most despicable most terrible speech— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That little traitor might not deserve the words but I do and I have worked for them. So he will use them or he will be out of this House. That is my point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The point of order is correctly raised. What the speaker said could be taken as a reflection on Mr Peters. I was going to say earlier on that frivolous points of order will not be raised. In the case of Paul Adams of course he invited it. We have had a very robust debate this afternoon and I encourage that. It is meant to be interactive. Almost without exception speakers have been provocative but so far I think the debate is going pretty well. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I will come back to the member for Tauranga’s speech in few moments. 
Firstly I want to do something that also is quite rare and that is agree with some of the points made by the Hon Richard Prebble. Richard Prebble asked Government members to defend this bill and I would like to say to him that the viability of this bill will be proven in the next year—not by speeches made in this House. I also say to him—as he would have experienced when meeting constituents who have come to this country over the last 10 or 12 years—that it has been extraordinarily difficult for those people to settle in this country and participate in the work they have been trained for and expect to be able to carry out when they come here. It is a terrible shame that a great many of those people have the skills the training the education and the will to work for the benefit of New Zealand but are not able to. If it is a matter of dealing with our immigration law to try to stop that happening again in the future then that is why this bill should be supported. Yes it has to be tested to see whether it will work but I believe it is a better piece of legislation and a better system than that which we are trying to deal with as a Government at the moment. 
Like Mr Prebble I have also spent a lot of time in the public health system this last 15 to 16 months though not as a patient. In the last couple of weeks for instance I saw a lot of people of all races who were patients in Auckland Hospital. An awful lot of the staff of that hospital have been educated and trained overseas and have worked overseas and are now giving their efforts to keep New Zealanders healthy to help New Zealanders who are ill and to help people who need their assistance. 
 In the one ward that my wife was in I probably saw two New Zealand - trained nurses in the entire 7 days. There were others there but in terms of who looked after her there were two New Zealand - trained nurses. All of the rest were overseas trained—the people Winston Peters says should not be here the people the honourable member for Tauranga says should not be in this country the people the Hon Winston Peters says should be sent back. 
I invite the member for Tauranga to read his  
Hansard 
 and then give me a copy of it signed saying that he would be proud to have that speech put into every letterbox of every New Zealander in this country. I invite every member of New Zealand First to also sign that speech saying they agree with every single thing that that member said in his speech. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the Rt Hon Winston Peters could desist from a barrage of interjections please. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: We had to sit and listen to the vitriol the hatred of the honourable member for Tauranga. We had to sit and listen in silence to the most despicable speech I have heard in my time in this Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] It was filth it was disgusting and it should be printed by every newspaper. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The interjection made by Mr Peters now is right out of order. He called out a number of times “I am not a traitor …” which is probably out of order because it is an innuendo implying that the member speaking is a traitor. He then made it clear that he was not a traitor but that the member was. That is quite out of order and Mr Peters should be asked to withdraw and apologise. As the speaker has pointed out I do not think he interjected on Mr Peters’ speech once. Mr Peters is being very unparliamentary. He is clearly trying to break up a speech he does not agree with. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Lianne Dalziel barracked for the whole 10 minutes of my speech. Everybody understood it and everybody knew it. I never protested of course. In respect of seeking sanctuary under your ruling I did not say a word about it but that member has and then he thinks he can carry on with that sort of tirade and get away with it—having received your ruling that I may not make an interjection. If he wants me to keep silent—this is a convention—then he had better stop trying to be provocative himself otherwise he will get it all back in his face. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank both members. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Peters does not understand. [ 
Interruption 
] If he does then his statement does not indicate that. The member may not suggest that other honourable members are traitors and clearly that is what he was doing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Sorry what was the word the member used? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: “Traitor”. He was calling out “I am not a traitor …” then he told the member who is speaking that he was a traitor. That has to be out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. That word is not acceptable in the House. Whether it is acceptable to the person it was aimed at or not it is not acceptable in the House. I did not hear it because Mr Peters speaks away from the microphone and away from the Chair. But if he did use that word in relation to any members in the House I would ask him to withdraw it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said I was not a traitor and he provoked me into saying that he was. I apologise for that. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: If I could continue with my speech I am not interested in the interjections of the member for Tauranga. If I am labelled a traitor—as I have been about four times by him—a traitor to his cause and his beliefs then I plead guilty. There is no way that I will have anything to do with the beliefs of people like Mr Peters. Throughout the world I have seen that sort of vitriol and that sort of politics leads to people parading around in countries like the USA covered in white burning crosses and lynching people. That is the nature of the politics we are dealing with in a speech like that. That is the nature of the politics that New Zealand First members sign up to by following a leader like the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
I will go back to the hospital that I have spent some time in. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even though Mr Peters might be prepared to accept that I am not. No the member may not suggest that Mr Peters and his fellow MPs are members of the Ku Klux Klan. [ 
Interruption 
] He most certainly has done so. I take his final remarks as suggesting that. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the member might not but I do. I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. Any suggestion that New Zealand First or its voters are members of the Ku Klux Klan— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but I did not think that Mr Gosche had gone that far. I know he mentioned the Ku Klux Klan in reference to some things he was talking about but I did not think that he went as far as to directly refer to any members of this House. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I will finally finish this speech by going back to that hospital and those wards I was in where not only did I see a lot of migrants working there as nurses doctors and other medical professionals but also I saw the migrants of 20 or 30 years ago—my family my aiga my people from the Pacific. Once again we are seeing the type of vitriol and hatred that the Pacific people had to endure 20 or 30 years ago but now there is a new target. That is the target that the New Zealand First Party has chosen to build its support base on. That is the sort of politics that might attract a few people in this country. Thankfully the vast majority of New Zealanders reject it. I want the media of this country to report the entire speech of the Rt Hon Winston Peters because it is the filthiest most racist speech I have heard in this House in my time. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to that member say he is not prepared to defend his country and his people in it. As far as I am concerned he is a pinko quisling traitor. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any further assistance on this one please. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I thought I could advise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Prebble might be able to help me. He is in the centre of it there. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The final remark made by the member who has just sat down is out of order. One may not call someone a traitor. But after you have asked that member to withdraw and apologise I think Mr Peters should then withdraw and apologise for his remark. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Prebble. I require the Hon Mark Gosche to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Under ordinary circumstances I would. I am not prepared to withdraw the comments about racism. If I have to leave the House I will do so. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member cannot make a statement that is out of order and then just say that he will be required to leave. In fact if he does something as serious as that he might end up being named. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is correct. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do say to the member by way of help that the rules are quite clear. One cannot call another member a racist in the House and he should withdraw and apologise for that statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Prebble. That is absolutely right. At the end of the member’s speech those words were spoken. I require you to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am going to deal with Mr Peters now. I require Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise to the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is an interesting speech that we have just heard from Mr Gosche. I ask him to read the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee report because there was a submitter to the committee who likened this legislation to the apartheid legislation in South Africa. Of course Mr Gosche is not here to listen to this. He got his tail between his legs and has gone instead of sitting here and listening to what a member has to say. It is all very well for him to stand here and abuse a member of the House but we would expect him to sit here and listen to the reply—the truth rather than the type of speech that he has just made. 
Mr Glynn a solicitor in Auckland who used to live in South Africa stated that the Immigration Amendment Bill infringes values regarded as fundamental in any democracy and sets a dangerous precedent by excluding the review of administrative decision-making. Mr Glynn stated that he had previously practised law in South Africa and that the unfettered discretions and retrospective policy-forming policies in this bill are reminiscent of powers found in much South African legislation prior to the democratic elections in 1994. Mr Glynn a solicitor from South Africa believes this bill is akin to the days of apartheid in South Africa. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where’s Gosche? 
DAIL JONES 
: Where is Mr Gosche and what does he have to say about that? I cannot believe that people such as Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling who were members of that party over there could possibly have supported legislation that is similar to apartheid legislation in South Africa according to one of the submitters to the select committee. The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates an immigration system that cannot be trusted. Mr Gosche seems to be in favour of an immigration system that cannot be trusted. He does not seem to realise that it can be used against the very Pacific Island people to whom he was referring. This bill leaves the door wide open for abuse of entry from the Pacific Islands to New Zealand. It creates a system that can be used in a discriminatory or racist manner. 
The Auckland District Law Society stated that this bill creates legislation that can be used in a racist manner. Who supports racist-type legislation in the House? It is the Labour Party and the United Future party. That is the clear view of the Auckland District Law Society submission. This bill also supports a system according to the Auckland District Law Society that could be open to corruption. The society stated that immigration officers can use the powers contained in this legislation to issue unreasonable and unnecessary conditions on permits or make special conditions unclearly inaccurately or with ambiguity. There could not have been a worse type of legislation ever seen in the Parliament and this Labour member of Parliament Mr Gosche unctuously supports it and criticises New Zealand First which is opposing an apartheid racist and corrupt form of legislation while Labour Party members sit there and support it. 
Suggestions have now been made about doctors in hospitals. I am looking at a  
Western Leader 
 article from the end of last month that explains the problems now being associated by New Zealand doctors with immigration. Because there has been so much immigration to New Zealand by foreign doctors there are now too few jobs for New Zealand doctors. There are too few jobs and too many doctors. Medical school graduates are struggling to find jobs in hospitals. It is not surprising if all the jobs have been taken by foreign doctors. It is also not surprising to have nursing staff here from overseas because this Labour Party policy is a low-wage policy. Our doctors—and in particular our nurses—cannot stay in New Zealand. They do not earn enough in New Zealand once they have graduated. They have student loans to pay back. How can they afford to pay those back on the low wages that the Labour Party has for nurses today? Of course they go overseas and their places are taken by low-wage workers from overseas. We are turning into a low-wage country and the Labour Party supports a low-wage policy. 
It is no wonder the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was highly critical of this legislation. The support given by the Council of Trade Unions for this bill was very very conditional and qualified. In fact the Council of Trade Unions policy is very similar to New Zealand First policy. We believe that this legislation continues to facilitate the Government’s policy of excessive immigration to New Zealand and it is contrary to the New Zealand First policy of supporting an infusion of overseas skills and expertise—but not at the same time as we fail to train and improve the skills of our own people. Priority should be given only to people who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals. 
Nothing in this bill suggests that that would be the case. What we have in this bill is the failure of Labour’s policy in the last 4 years. It has been running a points system which the Minister during the Committee stage indicated had failed. She had a points system based on 24 points and far too many applications were lodged on that points system. It was increased to 25 points and then to 26 points. We got up to 29 points and it was still not working. Labour’s policy failed miserably. She has run on that policy for almost 4 years. It has taken her 4 years to find out that the thing is not working. What did she do? She introduces a bill that lapses 20000 applications overnight. 
 All those people had been waiting in the queue hoping Labour would do something. Overnight she lodged a bill in urgency whereby 20000 applications lapsed and 46000 people were written off. That is what will happen in the future. If an invitation to the New Zealand Immigration Service does not meet the approval of this Labour Minister and her officials they will just tear it up and throw it away—there is no need to reply. That is why the magazine  
Auckland Today 
 in its August issue indicated that this legislation would favour white South Africans and people from white Europe and is opposed by and would not favour Chinese and Indians. Pansy Wong has made it very clear time and time again that of the 46000 applications that were lapsed the majority were Indians. That is a racist policy to lapse the applications of one group of people. Mr Gosche talks about filth etc. yet he is supporting racism—rampant racism in the policies of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member I believe is not allowed to say that another member is supporting racist policies and I ask that he withdraw. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I do not believe that the member was accusing the previous speaker of being a racist. What he was doing was referring to whether the bill was racist and that must be in order. Indeed the minority report that New Zealand First put in which was accepted by the committee made that very case. The House should look at that because I am sure members opposite are interested in whether the bill is racist. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you very much Mr Prebble. That is very helpful. It had not gone past me that the member was within the bounds of what can be said. 
DAIL JONES 
: The evidence before the select committee was very very clear. It is there—the Labour Government obviously has not read it. The junior Government whip has not come to grips with what is in this bill. The Labour Government clearly has not come to grips with what is in this bill. All the matters were referred time and time again to the select committee. 
The New Zealand First policy is very clear. We moved various amendments in the select committee. We wanted to make sure that the policies of this Government and of this bill would ensure that no more than a total of 10000 residence permits are issued per annum. That policy was rejected by the Labour Government. We wanted to have it made clear as far as the policies in this bill were concerned that such migrants have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand—such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand. 
The Labour Party opposed that view—in fact all other parties in the House opposed that view. The Minister said this bill is meant to relate to jobs that are available in New Zealand. If she is talking about matching the immigrant with the job I point out that that is what the amendment was all about. The amendment said: “… migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.” New Zealand First asks what is wrong with that. We do not want migrants coming here to take jobs from New Zealanders. The Labour Government does want migrants to come here to take jobs from New Zealanders. We do not want migrants to come here without jobs. The Labour Government still wants migrants to come here without jobs. We had an amendment before the House making it clear that migrants come here only for jobs that are approved for them. 
This bill is a flim-flam. It is humbug. It does nothing to change the existing Labour Government policy—the Minister said so herself. Ultimately she has a discretion in terms of immigration policy. Mr Adams talked about one manual. In fact there are two manuals and they are thick. I have copies of them and I have read them. This bill is flim-flam humbug and does not change anything. New Zealand First must oppose it. 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I stand to congratulate the Minister on a fine job on this bill. I think she struck the right formula and I support the speedy passage of this bill through the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 The Minister in her address said that there will be another Immigration Amendment Bill coming into the House next year. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No I said we were reviewing the Act next year. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If the Minister is reviewing it it means there will be another piece of legislation to come in. We have here legislation that has not been thought through. The Minister has admitted—just now again—there will be a review. There will be another piece of legislation coming in again next year. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not next year. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well the year after. The point is why does the Government not do it right and get it right the first time? The issue that we are constantly faced with is a Government that comes in with ad hoc legislation just to make some points because there happens to be a little issue at the time. 
I refer back to the National Party’s minority report on page 11 in the commentary because our position has not changed. We said: “The National Party has concerns that this legislation could be applied in such a way as to compromise some fundamental human rights principles. Its lack of transparency in procedure could lead to corruption. While it is recognized that there is a need to better match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy National members believe that this can be done in a more transparent manner that does not compromise New Zealand’s international reputation.” 
Nothing in the debate that we heard in the Committee stage would affect and change our position on what we thought was very important legislation. We are very concerned—and this was debated at length during the Committee stage—about section 10(3) in clause 5 which says that no review proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of a refusal or failure to issue a visa. What we are seeing here is that the Minister is going to have the power to allow people to come into New Zealand by invitation. The bill not only gives the Minister the absolute power to choose who can apply for residence but absolute power to decide who is granted residence—that is what it says. That is the issue. The Minister will decide who may apply and who is granted residence. 
We felt that that was wrong and we debated it at length. The absolute power that the Minister will have will mean that no one can appeal. If we look at subsection (1) of section 10A inserted by clause 6 we will see that it states: “No person is entitled as of right to an invitation to apply for residence.” It goes on to say that no one will have the power to appeal. One would have thought that people who have the skills who can add value and who want to make New Zealand their home should be given the opportunity to come to New Zealand to be able to invest here live here and raise a family here but what this bill does is to bring in discrimination. It has been seen in the select committee reports that have been talked about this afternoon and also in reports that the Law Society has issued. The Auckland Law Society said that it was concerned that this legislation could lead to corruption. 
The bill gives the Minister of Immigration absolute power to choose who can be invited to apply for residence in our country which is a huge power to give to a Minister. The Minister can extend that power to officials within the Immigration Service—the very same officials who are being investigated for the possibility of lying in unison. There was even a question today about officials lying in unison and this bill is giving them the power. This legislation gives those officials plus the Minister extraordinary power which National believes is unwarranted. 
The Auckland District Law Society also went on to say: “We are ashamed that this kind of legislation is in front of Parliament.” and that is pretty powerful stuff. We argued that this legislation offends against the concepts of fairness natural justice and transparency. We voted against this right through the process and we are going to continue to vote against it. 
I just want to look more closely at clause 6. What we should be doing is giving powers that will be in the public interest which will lead to a win-win situation for our communities and for New Zealand but section 10A inserted by clause 6 gives the Minister and officials the power and we are saying that that is not right. 
We did support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper but there are major concerns that a Supplementary Order Paper that looks at the very important areas of security and protection for our communities was lodged on the morning of the debate. One would have thought that if that Supplementary Order Paper was so important and if the Minister wanted support from this Parliament to pass this sort of bill she would have had the courtesy to have said to all parties: “This is the bill. We believe it is in the public’s interest to have this bill before the House.” But no what happened? Opposition parties did not get it. National did not get it. I understand that New Zealand First did not get it. ACT did not get it—no way! But what party did get it? There was one party that was privy to it and that was United Future. 
As I said we were supporting the Supplementary Order Paper and one would have thought that if the Minister wanted the support of this House to be able to promote this bill it would have been in the Government’s interest to bring in the Supplementary Order Paper earlier so that we could have looked at it more closely. National is not opposed to immigration. We want to get a win-win situation. We want people here who can add value. 
There are a lot of immigrants in the area that I represent. For instance if we look at the health field we will see that a lot of doctors in the Piako electorate are from South Africa and they do a very very fine job. Mr Jones talked about some New Zealand doctors being unable to get work but out in my area there is actually a shortage of doctors. If we did not have immigration and if we did not have those doctors from South Africa in Piako then our communities would suffer. So we do support immigration. We support those people who can bring those skills into our communities but we are deeply offended by a system in which a Minister can say who can apply for residence. That places too much power in the Minister’s hands. 
I recently had occasion to deal with a big employer in my electorate who had some immigrants who had residence but who could not speak English yet they had been to a polytech and had a certificate to show that they were literate and that they had the numeracy skills to be able to work. The point I make here is that we want immigrants who can add value and we encourage that sort of thing but unfortunately there have been abuses of the system and that needs to be tightened up. I say to the Minister that that is why we supported the Supplementary Order Paper but there is nothing that we have heard in the Committee stage that changes National’s position. We are voting against this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Building Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Building Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will be moving that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
This bill is the culmination of an extensive range of reviews and a thorough consultation process and I wish to pay tribute to the literally hundreds of stakeholders who have offered advice during its development. I particularly want to thank all the retired builders and engineers who have made contact with me personally to talk me through some of the wisdom they have managed to accumulate over a number of years. I have found that very very helpful indeed. 
This bill marks an important milestone in the development of an appropriate regulatory framework for the building industry that both the industry and consumers have been seeking. Although the weathertightness issue was a catalyst for this work scrutiny of the industry through the Hunn committee the Government Administration Committee’s inquiry into weathertightness and indeed the review of the Building Act itself allowed us to look at wider issues relating to building regulation. Like a well-designed building the changes reflected in this bill are a complementary and integrated package. They are designed to work together to minimise risks of future regulatory failure. The catchphrase I have acquired for myself over recent weeks since we concluded the discussion document work is “design and build it right first time”. That has become a motto for me and if we can get that right then the risk of the kinds of things we have seen happen in the past occurring again will be minimised. That does not mean there will not be failure. We cannot actually prevent failure from occurring altogether and that is why the bill addresses consumer protection as well. 
In the discussion document we issued I said that the pendulum had swung too far one way and it was our challenge to ensure that it did not swing too far the other way. I believe that the bill represents a position of balance. That being said in my view there are those who overstate the innovation versus prescription line implying that they are opposites. They are not. Innovation cannot be used as an excuse not to build homes that are weathertight to use a very relevant example. I think that needs to be held in people’s minds—that innovation cannot be used as an excuse not to deliver a minimum standard for consumers. 
The performance-based approach has been retained but adapted to provide greater information on the outcomes sought their measurement and best practice on how to achieve them. There are changes to improve monitoring and enforcement of the building control system and to ensure the competence of those who provide the services—the designers the builders and other critical sub-trades. 
The purpose of the bill is established in the legislation. The performance standards and the licensing regime are designed to ensure that people who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health that buildings provide an appropriate level of amenity for people who use them that people can escape from buildings if the buildings are on fire and that buildings are constructed and used in ways that promote sustainable development. 
This bill strengthens the building regulatory regime by providing the framework to ensure that inputs into buildings are of high quality. There is a strengthening of the role of the regulator and there will be a review of the building code within 2 years to make sure it is specific enough about standards. The bill provides for the development of compliance documents that set out how the building code standards may be met and for best-practice guidance documents to provide information to territorial authorities in recognition that they are co-regulators in respect of this legislation. It requires accreditation and audits of building consent authorities and provides for the licensing of building practitioners. 
On the consumer side the bill incorporates a reference to amenity alongside the existing references to health and safety. It requires the regulator to achieve the overall purposes of the bill but also to take account of the important role played by household units in people’s lives. It gives express recognition to the importance of standards of design and construction in achieving its objectives increases the emphasis on durability and standards of maintenance and provides for mandatory standard warranties. Sustainable development will be promoted by the development of building standards in relation to energy efficiency energy conservation water efficiency and water conservation. 
This bill has had a lot of input already and I am sure that the select committee process will see it even further improved. I am very committed to maintaining the open mind I have had on this bill right from the outset. I know that stakeholders will be keen to pursue some matters as they have already raised them with me. For example I know that many would like to see further work done on the question of developers—from the perspective of the consumer but also from the perspective of the head contractor—and I know that bonds will be the subject of much discussion at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill of 386 clauses is the tombstone for Mr Hawkins. That is the reality. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister of Commerce might say “Oh!” but we know the truth of this. That Minister who spoke on this issue was brought in because of the failure of Mr Hawkins. The weathertightness tribunal had to be driven into being by this side of the House. A reluctant Government and Prime Minister kept saying the issue was simply a beat-up. Those are the facts and those are things the Government cannot deny. There are now 3000 claims for individual buildings before that tribunal and many others before the High Court. 
Brian Connell 
: How many resolved? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is a very important question. How many have even been assessed? Very few have been assessed and virtually none have been resolved and that is an indictment on the Minister. The Minister herself now seems to be in trouble so we now have to ask when she will be deemed to have been caught out by this bill by her responsibilities in relation to the weathertightness tribunal and by the complaints of house-owning consumers about the time delays of that legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not my responsibility. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I guess that that says everything! Sometimes it pays not to interject too much or too loudly. This side of the House recognises that there was a necessity to reform the legislation. That is why we will support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Well done! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Did the Minister expect anything else? The Minister should know that National has been asking for a considerable amount of time for reform of this legislation. 
Jill Pettis 
: You had 9 years! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will not bring me into the debate. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I should not respond but I remind the previous interjector that the previous Act was a Labour Act. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No it wasn’t; it was brought in in 1991. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was the result of a taskforce created by the previous Labour Government and Labour voted for it because in essence it was its legislation. We know there have been problems with the current legislation and in particular they relate to the skills within the building industry and the way that the building code has worked. There are some good things in this legislation but we will seek the advice of the industry on it. 
One of the things I would like to raise with the Minister is why a $10000 limit was chosen before the new regime—which the Minister did not actually talk about—where every building has to be constructed under the supervision of a licensed building practitioner. What can one build for $10000? Almost nothing! It is effectively saying to homeowners who simply want to add a room on to their homes that they now have to do that under— 
Brent Catchpole 
: A garden shed! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —or a garden shed but an expensive one I would suspect—the supervision of a licensed building practitioner. That is on top of the inspection by the local authority or the building certifying company that has been chosen. The Government has added substantial cost at a very low threshold. The Government has to think again about that $10000 limit. It is simply too low and will add costs. There has been an estimation that in general terms it will add 2.9 percent to the cost of all buildings. That is pretty significant. A typical house in New Zealand costs $100000 to $150000 to build. 
Brian Connell 
: $200000! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am talking about construction. That means there will be additional costs of $3000 to $4500 just because of this legislation. That is a pretty significant impost. The select committee will be looking very carefully not only at that balance of consumer protection a legitimate and proper role for any Government but also at the cost of it. Does this regulatory regime go too far? I flag to the Government that one area we will be particularly looking at is that threshold of $10000. 
The other issue I am particularly concerned about which I raised at the time is the overreaction in relation to the Building Industry Authority. I hardly need to tell this House of the shambles that that authority got into firstly because of the incompetence of the Minister and secondly because there were some difficulties with the competence of the authority itself. But is the right response then to disestablish the Building Industry Authority and bring it under the direct control of the Minister who is obviously looking forward to being able to extend her ministerial tentacles to even higher and greater levels of control than ever before? If that is her plan I can only hope she does a better job of it than she does with immigration. There is a dysfunctional department if ever there was one. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’m “Mrs Fix-it”! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No the Minister is not “Mrs Fix-it”; Dr Cullen is “Mr Fix-it”. The Minister should not get an overblown sense of herself. The reality is that Dr Cullen is “Mr Fix-it”. This Minister is “Minister Bungle”. She needs to get the ranking right. 
We are particularly concerned about the issue of the level of ministerial control over the new organisation. By all means reorganise the Building Industry Authority; I think that was necessary. But it was not necessary to disestablish it. In fact the proof of that is that once the organisation of the Building Industry Authority was somewhat reformed at an administrative level the problems of the authority largely disappeared. So now we have a whole swathe of legislation that adds substantial costs of 2.9 percent to correct something that has already been corrected. That is again something the Opposition will be looking carefully at during the select committee process. 
We would like to think that the Government does have flexibility about some of the things that are mentioned in the bill and that the more extreme elements whereby the Minister extends her tentacles in order to have ministerial control are effectively deleted because if her immigration portfolio experience is anything to go by then her having such control is dangerous; it is simply dangerous for this Minister who says she did not participate in a cover-up in relation to immigration but conversely whose staff did not even know of the dysfunctionality of her department. 
Brian Connell 
: Was she conscious? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Was she conscious of it? If that is the case in her immigration portfolio how well will she manage this process? Not well at all I would have to say. We will support this bill going to the select committee. We do have significant reservations. I would like to think they could be corrected because legislation of this nature has to run across different Governments over time. It is important that we get it right at the select committee. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This bill is a monument. It is a monument to the failure of the laissez-faire free-market philosophies of the 1980s and 1990s. This bill is a monument to the naive ideologies of the 1980s Labour Government known as Rogernomics and of the 1990s National Government known as “Ruthanasia” and to the ACT party’s base philosophy and the base philosophy of the right-wing elements of the National Party. This bill is a monument to the naive idea that if one leaves things to market forces everything will turn out all right. That sounds good; personal responsibility without Government intervention sounds like quite a good idea—everyone free to do anything he or she wishes as long as it does not unduly impact on the rights of others. But a self-policing market with competition deemed to ensure that consumers receive the best quality at the cheapest price is a nullity. It just does not exist. The abysmal failure of the present Building Act is testament to the fact that self-policing markets do not work. 
With the Building Act 1991 we had deregulated building practice. The Local Government Act that came in at a similar time subjected territorial authorities to cost-efficiency practices. We found an unregulated building industry. What did we get out of those things? We got cowboys people with merely a dog a ute and a radio who would turn up with a hammer in hand and offer their services for less than the more reputable builders could offer theirs—low cost but low quality. Consumers lacking knowledge and information to compare building practitioners and compare work quality were sucked in. The ideas that one’s home was one’s castle and that homes stood the test of time were shown to be fallacies. The whole market philosophy of one gets what one pays for unfortunately became the reality for a lot of homeowners in New Zealand. The requirement for territorial authorities to be cost-effective coupled with a lack of adequate guidelines put pressure on territorial authorities to speed up building consents and certification processes and to reduce their level of inspections. Cost-effectiveness can be a good thing at times but when it comes to the question of regulation and the policing of work it is often the enemy. 
So what can we learn from the failed practices that the present Building Act gave us? We can learn that market forces left to their own devices without regulation or policing will always result in quality reductions. Parties to transactions who have inadequate information or knowledge to assess competitive offers will suffer. Market forces may work in purely commercial environments where there is a level playing field where there are real alternatives and where both parties have skilled knowledge of what they are dealing with; they do not work in the imbalance usually evident in retail transactions between commercial enterprises and the general public. It is totally naive to think they will. 
This bill seeks to provide the necessary balance between the freedom that encourages enterprise creativity initiative and the benefits of competition against the restraint through the setting of standards and the policing of standards that is necessary to ensure that minimum standard levels are adhered to. The balancing of that freedom and that restraint will provide the maximum benefit for New Zealand society particularly for consumers and this bill seeks to achieve that. No doubt during the select committee process we will be able to fine-tune that. With the input of people from all sectors of the industry coming from all perspectives we will be able to find the balance that is best for New Zealand society. We certainly do not have it now. Certainly the experience that we have had over the last year or two through the problems with the weathertightness of homes graphically demonstrates the need to provide that level of restraint. 
But what is at the root of this bill to make it successful? Perhaps in my view the most important aspect of these reforms comes down to the question of education the training of building practitioners guidelines and clear standards acceptable solutions ways of doing things that can be proven and certified by a reputable authority and oversight—building certifiers territorial authorities and the restructured Building Industry Authority working effectively. It is important when we talk about that education area that all those things do work effectively. 
It is important that the training programmes that are brought in for building practitioners go beyond the mere technicalities. I am afraid that is the problem we have with our current system where the programmes are broken down into modules and people are taught how to do this specific thing or that specific thing without there being a holistic approach to the whole of building practice. Too many gaps in that situation are left. Training is critical. It is important that it is not just functional but also trains building practitioners in quality standards and implants in them the need to be proud of their work. 
In terms of guidelines and clear standards it is important that they are also balanced. Although there is a need to provide those guidelines if that becomes too heavy if the amount of paperwork and the cost of that paperwork get out of kilter then builders simply will not buy it. It is important that a clear balance of that information is there. In these days of electronic transactions and information it may be that use of the Internet is the most effective way to deliver that. 
But there are underlying problems with our education system at the moment that I fear will also impact on this unless they are addressed urgently. I refer particularly to the interface between secondary education and workplace requirements which from what I have learnt from the industries I have talked to is nothing short of abysmal. For example with regard to the engineering industry one of the leading Hutt Valley firms approached a local college and asked to speak to the metalwork teacher. The person on the other end said “A what?”. The firm repeated it and the person said: “I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.” There is a problem with particularly engineering in that training in our secondary schools towards that very valuable area of work is not happening. Therefore we are getting to a situation where students who do pick up engineering at a tertiary level pick it up because they see it as something one does if one cannot do anything else and we are not getting good-quality engineers. I learnt that engineering is a high-tech business now and there is a need to have capable students who are able to do it. 
That is just one area of building practice. In the other areas of building practice it is important that we train people that being a very good builder a very good carpenter or a very good electrician or being any other occupation involved in building practice is something to be proud of a career that has a great deal of respect and one that people can be proud to be part of. 
So United Future welcomes the bill. It is the result of quite a lot of discussion and consultation through the select committee inquiry into weathertightness and through the subsequent discussion paper and the feedback the Government received from that. It builds on all those things and enables us to work towards a future for the building industry that is positive for our society and that regains it the respect it once had. However there is a lot more work to do yet. In my estimate this bill probably goes 75 to 80 percent of the way in terms of the legislative requirements but more important are the regulations that will follow. The training in and testing of products and processes will need to be set up and will need to be robust. We are very pleased to see the certification of builders. We are very pleased that territorial authorities will again have primary responsibility for the issue of code compliance certificates. We are very pleased that there will be better regulation of products. It is important that not just products but their interface with other components of buildings have attention. This will be an interesting and useful project to be involved in. United Future is very pleased to support this first reading. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is proud to have made a substantial contribution during the weathertightness of homes inquiry. I congratulate this Government on sitting up and taking notice eventually that there was a problem with leaky homes. For so long this Government sat on its backside and did absolutely nothing. In fact it completely shut out all the reports that were coming in about leaky homes. But finally it has sat up and taken notice and I am delighted that it has done so. New Zealand First will support this bill going through to a select committee. We see it as a means of straightening out the building industry where it has gone off the rails and as an attempt to get the confidence back into the industry that the public expects to have in it. 
We have an issue with a number of the provisions in the bill and one of those is to do with the fact that so many issues are to be determined by Order in Council. Some of those issues concern who is to be licensed how people are to be licensed and what they are to be licensed for. The only problem with doing that by Order in Council is that it does not allow for public debate on those issues or for a proper public consultation process to decide them. It means that the Government can make the decisions on its own and the Minister will abdicate her responsibility on those issues because they are to be determined by Order in Council with no public consultation. 
We see it as timely that this bill raises the issue of licences. The building industry needs licensing particularly in light of the weathertight homes and the leaky-homes problem that has plagued us for a number of years now. Many areas of the building industry are already licensed and I mention architects electricians and plumbers to name but a few. But up until now builders and the building industry have not been licensed. I have two words of caution in respect of the licensing scheme. Firstly I am concerned at the manner in which the licences are to be decided. As I mentioned it is all to be done by Order in Council. But secondly the main concern is that it will create a difficulty for people in terms of knowing what they are supposed to be doing at this point in time. 
 I raise another issue which is to do with the ageing workforce. There has been a worldwide study on the ageing workforce in the construction and building industry. Last month’s Hanscombe/Means report shows us that the average age of a skilled worker in the United States is 49 years. In Canada it is 45 years. New Zealand did take part in this worldwide survey but I was not able to extract our figures from the other section that we ended up in unfortunately. It is an interesting survey. It shows that the workforce and particularly the skilled workforce is ageing. We are not getting young people coming into the construction industry because during the 1990s so many of them went into computers and the high-tech industries;that was a softer option and there was a lot more money to be made. That is leaving a vacuum. 
Having said that I point out that members of this Government may see that situation as a golden opportunity to bring in a lot more immigrants to fill those job vacancies. That is a major danger firstly because it forces the value of our workforce down and means wages will be suppressed and secondly because it means there is no need to educate and upskill our own people. We will end up with a lot more immigrants coming in and filling those vacancies because it is an easy and a quick option to bring in immigrants to fill those spots rather than to train up our own people. By failing to train our own people we will end up with a workforce that is depressed and there will be no incentive for our young people to enter the construction industry and train properly. That is a major danger in the Government’s approach of opening the doors to immigrants just to fill a vacuum that has been created over time. 
The ageing workforce is in danger of being forced out of the building industry because people feel that they will have to retrain to gain a license. It would be a shame to see the ageing workforce that we have—the skilled workers already in the industry—being forced out because they have the knowledge to train the young ones who are coming into the industry. This Government crows long and hard about the Modern Apprenticeships scheme but I point out that the scheme is nothing more than a renaming or if one likes a rebranding of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority training programmes. All that the Government has done is to dress them up in a different title and to put them straight back out there. That scheme does not give young people a proper apprenticeship or the full work experience related to the industry they are in. So there has been no change as far as this Government’s so-called Modern Apprenticeships scheme is concerned. 
This bill dissolves the Building Industry Authority and replaces it with a chief executive but a chief executive of what? It does not explain what the chief executive is to look after. The bill gives some of the chief executive’s job description but does not state he or she has responsibility for an entity. The bill also puts the responsibility for meeting the code of compliance on to the building owner. It takes that responsibility out of the hands of the builder and puts it on the building owner. In the recent history of the building industry we have had a situation whereby developers and builders have gone into liquidation for the sake of avoiding their responsibilities. Not everybody is doing that but some unscrupulous developers and builders have gone into liquidation in order to walk away from their responsibilities. This bill now puts the onus of repairing and getting a building up to standard back on to the building owner where the building owner has not had the opportunity to obtain recompense from the builder. That needs to be looked at during the development of the bill. 
There are a number of implied warranties. One of the most important issues concerns Standards New Zealand. Too often Standards New Zealand is sponsored and is therefore captured by an interested party. That is a big danger. This bill does not deal with that. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to this bill on behalf of my colleague Sue Kedgley. We welcome the bill’s introduction and we will be voting to support it going to a select committee. 
First I refer to the significance of the building industry. The building industry is a multibillion-dollar industry in New Zealand at around 4 percent of gross domestic product. It consumes large amounts of natural resources and also uses in the production of building components large amounts of toxic substances. Many of those processes have resulted in long-term toxic pollution in the past—for example from timber treatment plants. The building industry also produces the places in which we spend a great proportion of our lives both at home and at work and hence it has an enormous influence on our patterns of resource use and health. Buildings last for many decades; hence the decisions made today will have long-term consequences for the health and resource use of future generations. 
I have some general comments to make on the bill and I will turn first to leaky houses. It is the perception of the Green Party that this bill has been primarily driven by the leaky houses fiasco and it is good that the Government is responding to the problems in the housing regulatory system that resulted in the leaky houses problem. But we also believe it is important to use this opportunity to review the entire regulation of the building industry and not just those parts that are specifically related to leaky houses as this industry is far too important just to tinker with around the edges. We have already made and in the select committee will continue to make a variety of suggestions to improve the bill in relation to healthy houses and environmentally sustainable building practices. 
I turn to the regulation of the industry. The leaky houses syndrome has made it clear that the current laissez-faire system of regulation is simply not working and has not worked since the current Building Act was introduced in 1991. We therefore welcome moves to make the regulatory system more robust and to move away from the market fundamentalist mindset that led to a building industry that no longer could build waterproof houses. Those who support that ideology said that the market would fix that. Well the market did not fix it and now the Government has to step in to fix up the mess. It is perhaps one of the more damning proofs of the failure of the new-right ideology that its supporters were unable to develop a building regulatory system that could keep water out of houses. God only knows what will happen if they ever get their hands on health care. 
However committed as we are to ecological sustainability and to the rights of building owners we are also concerned that owner-builders and innovative eco-friendly builders could be unnecessarily caught up in building regulations. Hence in the select committee we will be looking to ensure that the bill provides sufficient space for Kiwis who want to build their own homes and especially for Kiwis who want to use ecological building principles in building their own homes. In terms of the provision in clause 3(b) regarding the level of amenity that buildings must provide it seems hard to believe that that was not previously in the purpose section of the Act and we certainly welcome its inclusion in the bill. 
I turn to the issue of health. It is great that the purpose of this bill includes ensuring that people can use buildings without endangering their health—unlike the old Act which just referred to safety. That is a major advance. The select committee inquiry into leaky houses on which my colleague Sue Kedgley sat revealed that indoor air quality is a major health issue. The danger that spores from  
Stachybotrys 
 mould pose to human health is a little-appreciated aspect of the whole leaky buildings problem. But there are many other issues of indoor air quality such as the formaldehyde and the like that comes off particle board floors in gases for many many months after houses are built. Many people have experienced ill health after moving into new or newly renovated buildings because of the toxic gases released from newly produced building components. There are also issues of toxic timber treatments such as copper chrome arsenate being used on exposed timbers. That is now being phased out in other countries. However with regard to health there is a gap in the bill as it stands which is the absence from clause 22 of any factors related to health that the chief executive must take into account when writing the building code. We will be seeking to amend the bill at the select committee to introduce such factors. 
In terms of ecological sustainability we welcome the inclusion of a sustainable development clause in the purpose of this bill. We appreciate the efforts the Government went to to ensure that it was part of the bill it introduced. But we also believe that careful attention needs to be paid to the definition of sustainable development. We believe that it should not mean that economic growth continues ad infinitum regardless of its ecological impact. On the contrary we support sustainable development that means that the resources used today are renewable and can be used by our children and our children’s children. We are pleased that in clause 22—the factors that the chief executive needs to take into account when compiling the building code—we find the whole-of-life costs of a building. It may be cheap to build a house from copies of Richard Prebble’s book 
I’ve Been Thinking 
 but the house would not last long and pretty soon we would need to pull it down and start again. We are also pleased that the same clause includes “the need to facilitate the efficient use of energy and energy conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy in buildings”. If more attention had been paid to that over the last decades we would not have faced the recent power shortage. Again we are also pleased that the same clause includes “the need to facilitate the efficient use of water and water conservation in buildings”. 
In conclusion while we seek to deepen the bill’s commitment to healthy houses and ecological principles we will also seek to ensure that owner-builders and eco-builders are not driven out of house building. We welcome this bill and look forward to its progress through the House. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party which opposes this bill. This bill should not be called the Building Bill. It should be called the “Anti-Builders Bill”. It should be called the “Anti-Business Bill” because once more we see a Government—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand from the Standing Orders that running commentaries are out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called the member to order. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The bill should be called the “Anti-Builders Bill”. I sat on that select committee and I accept that there was a problem with leaky homes but what do we have here? We have legislation that is just hammering builders. [ 
Interruption 
] Before I start I would like to say to that member that perhaps he might like to read up on some philosophical history—some writers like Adam Smith— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in this House that there are no interjections on other members—basically because it affects the microphones. I bring the member to order. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that one of my colleagues on the other side was somewhat maligned in that regard. She was not responding to any interjections from the member concerned. She was simply responding to the speech given in the address. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard an interjection. I call the honourable member Deborah Coddington. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This morning in  
The Dominion Post 
 there was a cartoon and it was a take-off of the television programme  
Who wants to be a Millionaire? 
 Instead it had a contestant saying: “Who wants to be a homeowner?” In future a similar cartoon will say: “Who wants to build a house?” The effect of this legislation as my colleague Mr Brent Catchpole has already pointed out is that it will raise the cost of building a house considerably both for a building industry person—a builder or building business—and for the consumer. Whether that means adding on another bathroom or a garden shed—this legislation does not detail that—it will cost a bomb. Again we have legislation by stealth and we have this Government using an Order in Council to say what the levies will be. 
I asked this Minister a number of questions. In April I wrote asking her what would happen with the $11 million that the Building Industry Authority had collected illegally having overcharged local authorities for building consents. I finally received a reply in July after following it up with other questions. She admitted that $11.5 million had been illegally accumulated over the last 10 years from levy surpluses but that it was “not practical” to return those to the many thousands of building owners who had paid the levy in the past 10 years. It was “not practical” to return to people the money they had overpaid. That just shows members how useless this Minister is. 
I followed that up with another question. I asked: “How much is the single largest levy being held in the reserves of the Building Industry Authority?” Some of the building companies that pay these levies pay over $500000 a year. There could be considerable amounts of money owed back to building companies like Fletcher’s and any of the other big companies. She said she was not able to answer that question because the information was not held “in a way that allowed the information the member requested to be produced”. That is another example of how useless this Minister is. 
By the way the Building Industry Authority will now be dissolved and come under the jurisdiction of some sort of chief executive—of what sort we do not know. I then followed the issue up and asked her what total increase in budget did the Building Industry Authority now require and what specific issues would it be responding to? Well what a coincidence. The increase in budget is almost exactly the amount that was illegally collected from building consents—$10 million. That is $10 million compared with unaudited accounts for the previous year showing Building Industry Authority expenditure of $5.25 million. That is just another example of how incompetently this whole issue has been handled. 
How many new staff will be employed? This legislation is about building a new bureaucracy. The landlords in Wellington will be thrilled by it. Already they are rubbing their hands together with glee as a result of this Government increasing the size of its bureaucracy all over town. They are doing very well out of this Government. I asked how many new staff would be employed by the Building Industry Authority as a result of the “new demands” noted in her letter of 16 July. The answer is that the business plan for the authority includes provision for an additional 21 staff to be employed progressively to reach a full complement of 39 staff during the 2004-05 financial year. I remember that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority started off with about 21 staff. It now has about 250 and is still growing. 
Brian Connell 
: A growth industry. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: A growth industry. Yes that is what this Government is into—tax and bribe. This Government calls taxes levies but we all know that they are taxes by any other name. 
This legislation takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Why did we not deal with the real issues involved in leaky buildings—issues that people came before the select committee and told us about? There were some very nutty submissions but there were some excellent submissions as well. There were submissions on the results of a change to untreated timber. I remember someone telling the committee that the only way people could use untreated timber for framing in New Zealand housing and get away with it not going mouldy was if it never ever got wet. How many times would that happen? They would have to build a house in the desert for untreated framing timber to never ever get wet. 
So what happens?Over the years—not because of so-called laissez faire policies that we have never had in this country; I do not ever remember anyone saying that the market would fix leaky homes. I wish people would get their facts right before coming out with statements like that—if untreated timber is used in framework and it gets wet even if it dries out mould sets in when the cladding and everything else goes on. Leaky buildings are not so much about water coming in from the outside as condensation from the inside. 
Over the years we have become obsessed with health and safety with regulating away any sort of personal responsibility. Because of over-regulation not under-regulation we have buildings all over this country with not enough ventilation and they cannot breathe. Again this Government cannot even keep burglars away from houses; the cops cannot even respond so we have to shut everything in our houses. We cannot leave a single window open for ventilation. That is the problem. 
 What does this Government do? It polls and polls and polls and it has a knee-jerk reaction to the Opposition benches just as it did on the Immigration Amendment Bill. It comes in and punishes every good builder and every good building company by making them license. Compulsory licensing has done nothing to protect kids from schoolteachers because the Teachers Council is so politically correct and so useless that it cannot even license teachers. We will see the same thing with the licensing of every single builder in this country. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I believe the Building Bill has good intentions. The National Party supports its going to a select committee but with some reservations about the Government’s ability to get this issue right. The key reservation that I hold as the member for Rakaia is that although the bill thus far displays some common sense I question whether the Government can assure us that it will continue with its common-sense approach when it comes to the enforcement regime. I have reservations that that is possible with this Minister. 
The bill swings far too far. It adds too much regulation and I am putting the Government on notice now that I will be watching carefully to see that it does not set up a bureaucratic nightmare. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Swain is calling out. He does not care about the average Kiwi in this country but we do. I am not quite as pessimistic about it as my colleague from the ACT party but I share on balance some of her concerns and I am not alone. 
I noticed even before the bill was introduced that the Mayor of Timaru and meeting chairperson Wynne Raymond said that the wholesale rewrite of the legislation had gone further than many had imagined. When one picks up a bill that has 386 clauses one knows that people have reason to be concerned. Excess regulation leads to greater costs for home-owners and I fear that that will lead to some people not being able to buy their own homes. That is a travesty and a cruel blow to those people who have worked hard to get a deposit together only to find that because of the impost of these costs they keep falling below lending thresholds. 
Dr Mapp has already brought up a figure for increased costs on the average building of about $3000 or $4000. My figure on a $200000 home is about $7200 and that is just the threshold that will see those people without a home for ever and a day. If we talk about percentages 2.9 percent does not seem much but it is a lot when one adds it up in dollar terms. 
The other concern I have is that the threshold of $10000 when one needs to have a registered or a certified builder in place is too low. I fear that that will be the end of do-it-yourself builders. 
The other thing which I will be brief about is that this bill has been brought to the House in this form only because of the work the National Party did around the leaky homes campaign. I want to recognise the sterling work that Dr Mapp did in that regard. Is he receiving any credit for that? The answer is “No”. Why not? Is it just possible that he is a victim of his own success? He is a very competent and popular MP unlike some members of the party opposite. They may be household names in their own caucus but it is not the same as being a household name across the country like my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. If it were not for the work that Dr Mapp did I put it to members that the Government would not have dealt with the issue. Some of them will remember Helen Clark banging on in the  
New Zealand Herald  
when she raised the issue in a very coherent way that this was just a beat-up. Then suddenly she realised that she was facing—and this country was facing—the biggest building crisis that New Zealand had faced in decades. To her horror she discovered that the Minister in charge was George Hawkins—hapless George Hawkins. That put a chill wind through most of us. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Three hundred and eighty-six clauses—it’s his tombstone. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes as someone has pointed out to me all 386 clauses are his tombstone. Leaky homes are just a precursor to some of the litany of deception from this Government that has gone on. I do not want to go into it in any great detail as the time does not— 
Simon Power 
: Oh go on go on go on. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: All right then the member has talked me into it. I ask members to listen to some of the minutes of the Building Industry Authority meeting that was held in June 2002. David Peach told the meeting this: “Create no expectations of solving this crisis.”—and that was easy for George Hawkins—“Don’t acknowledge or even suggest a history of inaction”—that was more difficult for George Hawkins—“and don’t dob people in.” Helen Clark had a real problem with that one. 
I just want to direct some guidance and advice to the select committee. I ask it to look at the compliance and bureaucracy implications of this legislation because this has the potential to become a bureaucratic nightmare. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 We now have “Mrs Fix-it” in the seat who has taken over from the hapless George. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). He must not refer to a member by her first name but she must addressed by her proper name or by the position or portfolio she holds. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I mean Mr Hawkins. I was interested to read one particular clause in this bill clause 172 which provides for building work to be carried out or supervised by licensed building practitioners in certain cases. It is stated in the commentary that any work over $10000 will require registered people involved in certifying that work. What will happen—and this will come up during the select committee stage—to those people who are do-it-yourself people? What will happen to those people who watch those television programmes like  
Mitre 10 Changing Rooms 
 or the sorts of programmes where there is a view that encourages people to go out and do their own thing—to go down to the local building shop and to do their own building? Those programmes show people how to do it. What is going to happen to those programmes like  
Tool Time 
—you know Tim the Tool Man? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Bob the Builder. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a good programme to watch is it not? This bill says that there will be huge compliance costs. Regulatory creep will come in—and that is a phrase that I am using more often in relation to increased compliance costs. For the people who want to do additions to their homes—be it in terms of the labour content or adding on a bathroom a kitchen or whatever which they have been able to do in the past—clauses 172 to 175 will mean that their ability to do their own thing will be limited. 
The point I make is that these issues will need to be addressed at the select committee ultimately when the bill is reported back and during the Committee stage. I am drawing the House’s attention to these clauses because my view is that they inhibit and take away that entrepreneurial spirit—that get-up-and-go to do one’s own thing. Not being able to do that is something we have great difficulty with. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.