Volume 638 Week 41 - Thursday 5 April 2007 
Volume 638 Week 41 - Thursday 5 April 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8691] 
Thursday 5 April 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Indonesia—Deputy Speaker 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr MuhaiminIskandar the Deputy Speaker of the Republic of Indonesia is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome the members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Televising of Parliament—Testing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before members depart for the Easter adjournment I would like to remind the House of the work that is progressing to webcast and televise Parliament. During April remote-controlled cameras will be installed in this Chamber. These cameras will not be operational when the House resumes in May. However the cameras will be tested during the 3-week period of sittings in June. The images from that testing will not be broadcast. 
Provided that the testing is successful the proceedings will be webcast from 17 July and provided to any broadcasters that wish to take them. Discussions are under way with potential broadcasters now. It is intended that the present rules for filming Parliament that apply to commercial operators filming proceedings will apply to this service. The protocols for filming will be considered by the Standing Orders Committee in May. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 3-week adjournment which covers the Easter to Anzac Day period. When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 May priority will be given to the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the remaining stages of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The first Wednesday of course will be a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for telling us what the business will be when we return. I did not pick up what he intends to do about the merger bill in respect of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd. We heard this morning that there is some commercial urgency around this particular matter. The Government sent the bill to the Commerce Committee on Tuesday for report back by 30 April. That is a very very short report-back time and certainly a difficult proposition given that the committee had not anticipated receiving the bill and that most members have diary engagements that make meeting that commitment exceptionally difficult. The prospect of report back to caucuses as required by a coalition partner is also difficult. Of course if the period were to be extended by 1 week then because of the Tuesday arrangement we would effectively need 2 weeks to get that done; even then we would be pushing it. So I wonder whether we might allow the Leader of the House to explain what those commercial imperatives are. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is certainly not a matter for a point of order. My understanding is that as the chair of the Commerce Committee Mr Brownlee has expressed a wish for the select committee not to meet during the 3-week adjournment as that might be somewhat strenuous for him. I understand also that he will be seeking leave to extend the report-back date by 2 weeks. I have no objection to that leave being sought and granted and we will proceed with the bill after that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 There is no agreement to extend the bill by leave for 2 weeks. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I know he has offered. There has been a long discussion in the select committee and there is no agreement to do that. But if there is some particularly pressing commercial reason why that should happen I find it surprising that the National Party has not been told what that is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to take some care in what I say now because this bill is being considered at a select committee. There has been some discussion in closed hearings. Both myself and a lawyer from the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit briefed the committee on the reasons and I do not think it is appropriate to repeat them in the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think it might assist members if— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to clear that up if I may. There was no reason given for— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. I am sure it would be helpful Mr Brownlee but I have a more fundamental issue and that is these matters should be raised at the Business Committee. That is the whole purpose of the Business Committee. They were not raised at the meeting on Tuesday. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason they were not raised on Tuesday is that the bill at that point had not been dealt with by the House. Secondly there is no Business Committee meeting before the next report-back date. If there is something very pressing we should know about it. I have listened to the briefings our people have listened to briefings and despite the protestations from the Minister that he had someone from the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit giving appropriate advice no reason was given for the speed and haste around this bill. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are two points. Firstly of course if leave is not sought then the Government is not going to be distressed by that. It means the bill will come back when the Government wants the bill brought back and these matters can then be discussed at that point. 
But of course the select committee is perfectly capable of dealing with this bill given its very limited nature and content if it actually meets during the adjournment. I think it is worth saying that adjournments are not times when all those except Ministers simply disappear to the four winds and put their feet up and enjoy themselves. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am not prepared to accept that comment from a Government that is having an adjournment only because it has not got enough work to keep Parliament going. Everyone knows that because most people in this country can read an Order Paper. So the Minister should not start that sort of nonsense. 
The second point I would make— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I listened to your point of order and say that it is still not a point of order within the Standing Orders. But I tell the member that he was perfectly entitled to seek leave if he wished to do so. That is the correct way to proceed. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance on this matter. We are going into a 3-week adjournment and I have 180 questions that are overdue from the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Benson-Pope. I have written to the Leader of the House. What else are we supposed to do to get the Minister to answer questions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thought about this matter just before coming down to the House. My office will be following up with the Minister’s office and I thank the member for following that procedure. 
National Party—Leadership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise a point of order under Standing Order 35(1)(b). That Standing Order relates to the necessity of parties informing you about their leadership and whips. The National Party website at 11.55 a.m. recorded a press statement from “National Party Leader Bill English.” I would like to know Madam Speaker whether you were informed of a change in the National Party leadership—or was he perhaps gone by lunch time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There has been no such notification. 
Questions to Ministers 
Disability Strategy—Achievements 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What significant achievements have recently been made under the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I am very pleased to announce that last Friday in New York on behalf of New Zealand I signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities along with 81 other countries. The convention makes it explicit that all signatory States have the obligation to ensure that disabled people enjoy human rights on the same basis as non-disabled people. New Zealand has had extensive involvement in the negotiation of the convention including chairing the ad hoc committee. I believe that it is something the whole country can be proud of. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other significant achievements have been made recently under the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is quite an extensive list but just to highlight a few achievements over the last year I will mention our Government has made New Zealand Sign Language an official language of our country launched the Sign Language curriculum and closed the last institution for disabled people as well as repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. Despite the last measure having widespread support from the disabled community the National Party has continually opposed it—a move the Disabled Persons Assembly has called offensive outdated and out of touch. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the promised guidelines for the disability sector from the Department of Labour have not as yet been made available to it and is she in a position to advise when that will occur; if not can she assure the House that this matter will be addressed with some urgency? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The guidelines are for the labour inspectorate in terms of its implementation of the Act rather than being a guide that the sheltered workshop providers need. But I can confirm that that publication will be available shortly. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Education is obviously on the naughty step for swearing. I am wondering whether I can seek leave to defer my question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry would the member please withdraw that comment. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is the point the member wishes to make? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I seek leave to defer my question until the Minister is able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Please ask the question. 
Education Standards—Botswana Visit 
2.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What if anything did he learn about education standards from his visit to Botswana “to progress international education opportunities”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: During the Minister’s recent trip to South Africa to attend the 16th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers he responded to an outstanding invitation to the previous Minister to visit Botswana. The main objective of the visit was to discuss the targeting of New Zealand as a study destination for tertiary students. Botswana has a capacity problem currently with only one university and another under development. 
Katherine Rich 
: How does the Minister think the people of Botswana would feel now that he has implicitly bagged their education system in particular their exam system and does he think he might offer to refund the people of Botswana for his hotel costs as he has been such an ungracious guest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The people of New Zealand paid for his hotel costs in Botswana. On the other matter actually the Botswana Ministry of Education like many post-colonial countries has recently moved to introduce its own examination system replacing the Cambridge system. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why do students from Botswana want to come and study in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: They want to come here for the very simple reason that we have a world-class education system. In particular of course they want to come here for New Zealand’s university and polytechnic system. I might say that the Minister for Tertiary Education was recently approached by the Ugandan High Commissioner on a similar matter. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister embarrassed that a spokesman for the President of Botswana was moved to contact Radio New Zealand National to put the record straight about his veiled criticism of Botswana’s education system when Botswana is achieving better literacy rate gains than New Zealand and when we look at Unesco figures of literacy Botswana has a youth literacy rate of 94 percent and New Zealand has a blank line? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When I saw a press statement issued referring to Bill English as the leader of the National Party I did have doubts about our literacy rates in New Zealand. But on checking I found in fact that that was some kind of error and no doubt was wishful thinking on Mr English’s part. New Zealand has an extremely high literacy rate. Botswana of course coming off a lower base has had bigger gains in literacy—that is not very surprising. 
Katherine Rich 
: When visiting Botswana did the Minister talk about the nearly 5000 New Zealand students who were stood down in 2005 for bad language particularly verbal abuse of staff and students; and does the Minister think that his language in Parliament yesterday makes it any easier for teachers to stop this kind of language being used in schools? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister obviously accepts that the language he used yesterday was inappropriate in the House. I note that if senior secondary school students read D H Lawrence they would certainly come across that word and if they read  
Once Were Warriors 
 they would have difficulty coming across any other word. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain what should happen in a school today if a student swears at a teacher and then says: “If it’s OK for the Minister of Education it’s OK for me to use that kind of language.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister apologised to the House once he realised what he had actually said. If the member opposite thinks that no New Zealand schoolchild has used that word she lives in a very rarefied ivory tower indeed. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister think it is a diplomatic faux pas for a Minister of Education to be the guest of Botswana and to have his hotel costs paid for by the good people of Botswana only to bag their education system so that a spokesman of the President of Botswana was moved to ring Radio New Zealand National to put the record straight; and has the Minister spoken to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because this could potentially be a diplomatic faux pas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but the one thing I can say is that it is good to know that when somebody rings  
Morning Report 
 to set the record straight they do sometimes set it straight! 
Water—Tainui Ownership of Waikato River 
3.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: He aha anatohutohu mena kei a ia etahi ki te Minitamonga Take Taiao mo te papatanga o ngakorero a te kaiwhiriwhirimo Tainui a Tukoroirangi Morgan ara tanaikira “ko te rangatiratanga ki te wai te mea e aukati neiitetahiwhakataungakerememo te awa” i te mea ko te kaupapa here a te Kawanatanga e meaana ko ia ke te rangatira o te wai? 
[ 
What advice if any will he be giving to the Minister for the Environment about the impact of the comments from Tainui negotiator Tukoroirangi Morgan that “water ownership was the stumbling block to a settlement of the river claim” given the Government’s policy on water ownership? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will not be giving any advice to the Minister for the Environment as he is already well aware that the Crown is negotiating to settle Waikato-Tainui’s historical river claims in a way that recognises their special relationship with the river and is consistent with New Zealand law which does not provide for ownership of water in rivers and lakes. My negotiations with Waikato-Tainui negotiators including Tukoroirangi Morgan take place face to face and fortunately do not need to rely on the vagaries of second-hand reports. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In negotiations with Tainui is water above the Waikato River bed a part of the settlement? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated in my primary answer my negotiations with Tainui negotiators take place face to face not on the floor of the House and certainly not through the print media. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that the question was quite specific in respect of asking whether the issue of water was part of the negotiations. I do not believe that I got the answer required in that response. Could the Minister clarify please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows members do not always get the answers they require. Ministers have to address the question and in that instance the Minister did. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Madam Speaker I am happy to add to my answer if it will help the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: By all means. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Crown is negotiating to settle Waikato-Tainui’s historical river claims in a way that recognises Waikato-Tainui’s strong spiritual cultural and physical interests in the river but is at the same time consistent with New Zealand law which does not provide for ownership of water in rivers and lakes. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In response then what would be the difference between the Te Arawa lake bed settlement which included the notion of a Crown stratum and the Waikato River settlement under those terms? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I simply cannot make a comparison between a settlement that is concluded and a negotiation that is in progress. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received any reports on other comments in relation to Treaty settlements and the ownership of rivers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report stating that the Treaty of Waitangi does not provide for settlements to involve rivers as only fisheries and forests were mentioned. This is rather strange. It is a statement attributed to Mr John Key—a statement that I find bizarre given that the NgaiTahu settlement included statutory acknowledgment over some 18 rivers. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. How does the Minister reconcile his statement this week that New Zealand law does not provide for ownership of water in rivers and lakes with the advice from the 1999 Whanganui River report of the Waitangi Tribunal that stated: “While the popular view was that rivers are ‘public property’ there is no legal basis for that view”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I reconcile it on the basis of fact. It is the case that New Zealand law does not allow for the ownership of water in rivers and lakes. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How does the Treaty settlement policy recognise the concept that Tainui refer to as te mana o te awa which the Associate Minister for the Environment Nanaia Mahuta also endorsed on  
Marae 
 last Saturday that the Waikato River is a whole and indivisible entity and that the water cannot be separated from the river the bed or the banks? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member will understand working through the different views and concepts is one of the most important and challenging parts of any Treaty negotiation. 
Election Funding—Electoral Act 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he completed the review of the electoral finance regime; if so what specific changes to the Electoral Act 1993 if any will he be proposing? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No but work is well advanced. In congratulating the newly reinstated leader of the National Party I am pleased to advise that the review— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members once more that both questions and answers should not contain throwaway comments and imputations against other members. We will stick strictly to the question and the answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I apologise. I relied on what I had read but never mind. Work is well advanced on the review and I am pleased to advise that it is progressing well. Final decisions are certainly not far off. I can also advise Mr English that the electoral finance proposals I will be putting forward will involve a clear choice between either an open a transparent and a fair system or a continuation of the current system which regrettably  
The Hollow Men 
 shows is unduly open to secret trusts and manipulation by hidden and wealthy interest groups. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has discussed the proposal for State funding of up to $1 million for the Labour Party with the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party or the president of the Labour Party; if so what was the nature of those discussions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I discuss all such major proposals which anything to do with electoral law reform certainly is extensively within my own caucus. It would be bizarre if I did not do so. The member will see in due course when the work is completed—as I indicated the work is not yet complete on this matter but when it is—I will introduce a bill to the House which will then be subjected to the full and normal parliamentary process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it just a coincidence that the proposals include a proposition for State funding of the Labour Party of $1 million next year when Labour has yet to pay back the roughly equivalent amount of $800000 because of its misuse of taxpayers’ money at the last election? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s outrageous. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I find myself for once agreeing with Dr Nick Smith that the question was outrageous and I think it contained many completely inaccurate assertions the most foolish of which of course as I—[ 
Interruption 
] Had the member paid attention to the answer to his principal question he would know that I have not yet completed the work; therefore the assumption on which this question is based simply cannot be sustained. The work continues. When a bill is put into the House then the substance of that bill will be able to be scrutinised and debated by not only the Parliament but any New Zealander with an interest in it when it is referred to and goes through the select committee process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should any member of this House or any— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Peters; I saw and I called Mr Bill English because I saw him first. I acknowledge you will be called next but I had already called him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When I get to my feet to raise a point of order I will actually be afforded the chance to say what it is without you being a soothsayer and presuming what I am about to say. That is the first thing. The second thing is this is not the first time that has happened and with respect you know what the procedure is. You should look to both sides of the House—in this case to the other side of the House first—to see whether any member is seeking the call. That procedure has been used here for decades and I wish you would proceed to use it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation but it is for the Speaker to determine who is given the call. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should any party any member of Parliament or any member of the public support Labour in using its Government majority to pass a law that compels taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets for $1 million for the Labour Party to help the Labour Party pay off the $800000 that it owes taxpayers because of its misuse of public money at the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is clearly having a bad day with comprehension. The work is not complete. There is therefore no such proposition before this Parliament. I refer the member to the one major document on the subject of State funding which we all have the advantage of being able to look at historically: the royal commission report. If the member considered the sort of proposal in that report I think he would work out that if that were to be implemented for instance the New Zealand National Party would benefit by precisely the same amount as the New Zealand Labour Party and the smaller parties in this Parliament would proportionately do somewhat better. But more important no such work is complete. There is no bill before the House. When there is I am sure we will have a full and an interesting debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Which parties has the Labour Party discussed these proposals with and which parties support its proposal to pass a law to make taxpayers pay $1 million to the Labour Party so it can pay back the $800000 it owes to taxpayers for misusing public money during the last election—which parties support that? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member should first understand—and let us clear away the red herring he keeps introducing into this—that the $800000 he refers to which is completely unrelated to any legislation that I have anything to do with will be paid within this financial year. If the member thinks through the implications of that he will see there can be no relationship between that and any bill that will still be in the Parliament being debated at the end of this financial year. The Government is talking with a number of groups and parties about the shape of a possible bill. As I have already said to the member that work is still work in progress; no final decisions have been made. When they are made a bill will be finalised introduced to the House and referred to a select committee where members of Parliament and members of New Zealand society will be able to contribute to the debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether Labour has the support of New Zealand First and United Future to push this bill— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In my view the last question was out of order but this one definitely is. What New Zealand First or United Future think of these proposals is not the business or the responsibility of the Minister—quite the converse that is the responsibility of the individual parties concerned. Therefore the question is entirely inappropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is correct. I was waiting to hear the full question but it was about parties not the Government and that is where the responsibility lies. The member may wish to recast his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of this question is to find out whether there is parliamentary support for the idea of State funding for the Labour Party and it is clearly within  
Cabinet Manual 
 procedures that the Minister is responsible for ensuring that there is support for legislation. That is in the  
Cabinet Manual 
; it is not just something we made up. It is what the Prime Minister requires of her Ministers. Ministers are regularly asked about the arrangements they have made to get support for legislation and in this case Labour must have the support of New Zealand First and United Future to put $1 million into Labour Party coffers or he would not even be proposing the legislation. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yet again the member started his point of order with a complete misrepresentation of the facts. This question is not about party support; it would not have been allowed I am sure if it were. It was simply about whether I have completed the review of the electoral finance regime. I have answered that question thoroughly for the benefit of the member. He now tries to make up a new question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe he has sufficient votes in the House to push through such legislation before the end of the financial year so that Labour can use the $1 million of State funding to repay the $800000 that it has not yet repaid for the misuse of taxpayers’ money at the last election? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When members are quiet I will call the member to address the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have told the member in response to virtually every question he has asked there is not a bill to push anywhere—it is not yet complete. When it is it will be introduced. I have already said it is my absolute expectation that the point the bill will be at by the end of this current financial year is before a select committee and open to submissions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the review covers the issue of a political party stashing hundreds of thousands of dollars into one account then transferring it by one transaction to the campaign account and claiming that that abides by the electoral law of this country which is precisely what the National Party did at the last election and can the Minister then confirm that the review also covers the statutory responsibility of statutory officers to prosecute that party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is to address the general substance of that question not specifically the part about the National Party. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The underlying cause of this review is that the public should have the highest confidence that the electoral system is transparent fair and not open to the undue influence of wealthy interest groups. The changes I am working towards will help to promote participation in this parliamentary democracy. It is the Government’s view that there should be transparency and openness about the sources of private financial support for political parties and candidates in order to prevent the undue influence of unnamed groups or individuals who are effectively trying to buy an election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Labour Party want to put its hand into taxpayers’ pockets in order to bail out a broke Labour Party that is desperate for re-election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: When the bill is complete it will be introduced to the House. I fully anticipate the bill dealing with electoral finance reform to be referred to the appropriate select committee where I am sure it will be subjected to considerable scrutiny and debate. I expect that is where the bill will be at the end of the current financial year. 
Environment—OECD Reports 
5.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What reports has he received from the OECD on New Zealand’s environmental performance? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House and my predecessor in this role that the OECD’s environmental performance review for New Zealand was released— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; would the member please be seated. Would people please keep their conversations outside in the lobbies so that the level of chat in the Chamber can be lowered. Again I am not sure whether the member is talking into his microphone. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to advise the House and my predecessor in this role that the OECD’s environmental performance review for New Zealand was released today. The report acknowledges that New Zealand has made very good progress since the OECD’s previous New Zealand report. Specifically the report notes that New Zealand has done particularly well in the areas of keeping environmentally harmful subsidies in the agriculture and fishery sectors among the lowest in the OECD; improving drinking-water quality; improving integration and balancing of environmental and social concerns through the Resource Management Act; and expanding our protected areas including marine areas and indigenous forests. The report confirms that this Government is making good progress towards protecting and enhancing our clean green image which is so important to all New Zealanders. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government doing to meet the recommendations for further action that are outlined in the OECD’s report? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Although noting the very good progress the Government has made the report does concur with our view that more needs to be done in particular areas. These include water and waste management and environmental reporting. I am pleased to say that progress is being made in all of these areas. The Sustainable Water Programme of Action is soon to produce a national policy statement on water quality and allocation. The Government is supporting the introduction of a product stewardship framework supported by a waste levy as set out in the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Ministry for the Environment is currently preparing a second  
The State of New Zealand’s Environment 
 report which will use a core set of agreed national environmental indicators. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can he and the Prime Minister say with a straight face that this Government is leading the way on sustainability when after 7-plus years of it being in office this authoritative report states that there has been a notable decline in water quality in rivers and lakes that greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster here than in most OECD countries and there is great uncertainty about how New Zealand will meet its Kyoto targets and that the Government decision to retain forest credits is contributing to the loss of forestry plantations and when the report highlights policy failures and waste in water in oceans in environmental indicators and in biodiversity; how could it be worse? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Easily. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders require that a question be addressed in the public interest. The answer “Easily.” when such important issues are being dealt with cannot possibly be seen as addressing the question. If the answer “Easily.” is going to be acceptable from the Government for any range of questions on environment health education and the like then we really are going to make a farce of question time and the accountability of the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Answers to questions should be concise. That means they should be as short as possible. A question starting “How” can be answered by an adverb. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that it is the last day of school so to speak but would the Minister please—[ 
Interruption 
] Would members who wish to stay in the Chamber please be quiet when I am speaking. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question began with the words “How can the Prime Minister say” then went on to a number of statements that are a partial representation of what is in the report. My answer was completely accurate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Your answer may well have been accurate but it was not full. Would you please add to your answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is important first of all to note that in the words of the director of the environmental directorate of the OECD in Paris this report is a review of New Zealand as a whole taking into account the combined efforts of Government business non-governmental organisations and civil society over a 10-year period. It will not have escaped Dr Smith that his party was in Government for part of that period. None the less the performance is satisfactory. I can however assure Dr Smith that the next review from the OECD in 10 years’ time will refer to a period when there was only a Labour Government in New Zealand. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister concerned about comments in the report that the greenhouse gas intensity of the New Zealand economy is the fourth-highest in the OECD that dropping the proposal for a carbon charge has created great uncertainty about how New Zealand will meet its Kyoto targets and that little progress has been made in applying the “polluter pays” principle; when will the Government take action to stop the taxpayer subsidy of high greenhouse gas emitters and other polluters? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I am concerned as I believe we all should be about the criticism and suggestions—positive ones—that are made in the report. I am also very encouraged about the development of climate change policy as is I know my colleague. In this House we know only too well why that policy development was stalled and we should all welcome the fact that Opposition members—some of them it would appear—have finally acknowledged that climate change and global warming are realities. The member will be aware of the extensive consultation documents—there are five of them I believe; discussion on them closed recently—that will lead to the development of policy that makes great progress in these areas. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government review its decision as recommended in the report to allocate carbon sink credits and liabilities to forest owners noting that the report says that the Government decision to retain those forest credits is contributing to record rates of deforestation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware that proposals presented in the consultation documents I referred to which the Government has spent the last 3 months discussing with the public propose devolving sinks and liabilities. If New Zealand does that it will be the only country in the world to do so. This Government is however not about to give a windfall for past actions of forest owners. We want new actions to be undertaken and proposals such as the afforestation grant scheme proposed in the consultation documents provide such incentives. I must say that no one in this House has escaped the irony of National members supporting the devolution of windfall gains but not the liabilities that might be commensurate with it and that has been reflected in their extraordinary myopia about the rural sector’s methane emissions. 
I seek leave of the House to table the OECD environmental performance reviews of New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I apologise that I did not do this at the end of question No. 3 but I seek leave to table for the assistance of members opposite a copy of  
Case Study 1 NgaiTahu Statutory Acknowledgment for the Clutha River 
. 
Document not tabled. 
District Health Board Auckland—Leave of Absence 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When did the Ministry of Health or his office first become aware that Dr Bierre was taking leave of absence or standing down temporarily from the Auckland District Health Board in light of his answer yesterday that: “I have no recollection of being told that Dr Bierre had been stood down but I may have been.” and how? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I became aware of the matter when Dr Paul Hutchison the then National Party health spokesperson asked me a parliamentary question on 16 July 2006 about conflicts of interest. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was very careful in the wording of this question because that information has previously been given in the House several times. This refers to the Ministry of Health or his office so I would ask the Minister to address that question. It is not him personally being advised; it is his office or his ministry. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As to either/or I have no information indicating that at all but the office would have been informed before the Minister was. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When did the Ministry of Health first become aware that Dr Bierre was taking leave of absence or standing down temporarily from the Auckland District Health Board and how? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am now informed that as part of discussions in late 2005 about the Auckland service reviews Auckland District Health Board staff indicated to the ministry that Dr Bierre may be standing aside. This was in the context of his being nominated by the board as an assessor for haematology. The Minister was not informed by the ministry about that fact at that time. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the Auckland District Health Board chairman and deputy chairman consider that they have done a good job and have saved taxpayers’ money and would he agree that this sort of claim will do nothing to assure taxpayers that their interests are best served by health bureaucrats negotiating supply contracts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly district health boards need to be looking for savings to improve productivity in the health system. I have no better authority for that than the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key who referred only a short while ago to introducing more competition into the health system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health in fact receives and monitors the minutes of the Auckland District Health Board and that it received the minutes of the February 2006 meeting of the Auckland District Health Board which clearly set out that Dr Bierre stood down from the board because of the lab testing contract; and is the Minister saying that despite his officials knowing that Dr Bierre was standing down because he was bidding for the contract no one in the Minister’s ministry informed him of this fact? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The information I have is as I said that there was a stand-down in late 2005 in respect of assessment. The reference in the March Auckland District Health Board papers noted that Dr Bierre had stood down. This was not noted by the ministry at the time and as the member will be aware there is an incorrect reference in the financial review papers to money being received contributing to “laboratory services” which should have stated “for service reviews”. So I do not have information on that matter; I would be happy for the member to table that paper. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the ministry learnt anything from this very sorry district health board lab saga which involves a lab contract that proposed to save millions by using an untested and uncertain provider; if so why is the ministry pursuing through Pharmac an unproven 9-week treatment regimen being proposed in respect of the drug Herceptin on the basis to oncologists and others that they get either 9 weeks or nothing—what has the ministry learnt in respect of this drug from the district health board lab saga in Auckland? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a long bow but I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have a specific briefing on the matter that the member refers to. My understanding is that that matter is resting with the district health boards at the present time and that 9 weeks’ treatment is quite standard treatment for a range of cancer drugs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would it be satisfactory for the Ministry of Health to have been aware that Dr Bierre was standing down as a member of the Auckland District Health Board because he was bidding on a half-billion-dollar contract involving that district health board and not to have informed its Minister of this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the ministry had been aware of that fact and did not inform its Minister I would be most surprised. That would seem to me to be a serious lack of duty on the part of the ministry. I am advised as I have told the member that the ministry was aware he was standing aside but that it was over a much lesser matter—it was in relation to being an assessor for haematology and obviously that was an appropriate action to take. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is happening here now that the Minister has accepted that it would be serious negligence on the part of the ministry which monitors these minutes if it did not inform its Minister and what is happening here when the Ministry of Health had the minutes and the Minister’s appointed board monitor Graham Aitken was at the meetings where it became aware that Bierre had stood down and where the Minister’s appointed chairman Wayne Brown knew that Bierre was standing down because of this bid—but no one told the Minister; and were these people not responsible under the no-surprises policy to tell the Minister of these events? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am a little surprised by the member’s statement regarding February because the person concerned Dr Bierre had already stood down from the board at that point in relation to being an assessor for haematology. So the action following that case was perfectly appropriate and not of the level of seriousness or involvement that would necessarily have required it to be brought to the attention of the Minister. It is quite a different matter from the issue of the very large contract that the member refers to. I give him an assurance that if those minutes show that that was the case I will take that up with the Minister and I am sure the Minister would want to talk to the Director-General of Health about that matter. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Should Wayne Brown the Minister’s appointee as chairman have told the Minister that Dr Bierre had stood down in a bid for a half-billion-dollar laboratory contract under the no-surprises policy and does the Minister realise that he wrote to Mr Brown reminding him of the importance of the no-surprises policy only one day after Dr Bierre had stood down? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before Dr Bierre was taking leave from the board from mid-January 2006 in relation to the other matter. I am not clear therefore how he could have stood down again in February 2006. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister agree with the chairman Wayne Brown who said: “It’s not a fiasco. This is a great result.” and what is so great about Mr Brown failing in his basic duty under the no-surprises policy to advise the Minister of Health that one of his board members had been stood down because he was bidding on a half-billion-dollar contract involving that board? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have said now on a number of occasions that Dr Bierre who is greatly associated with the National Party stood down at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is very close to the National Party. He stood down in late 2005 and the beginning— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is very close to the National Party. He stood down in late— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He doesn’t want to answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is very very close to the National Party and particularly Dr Jackie Blue. He stood down in late 2005 and early 2006 in relation to being an assessor for haematology. As I say if the member cares to provide the evidence he has I will follow up on it. I do not have that advice or information at all. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the invitation of the Minister of Health I would like to table advice from 2 February that the chair advised that Tony Bierre had taken leave of absence which had been granted by the chair for the period of the request for proposal being issued for the community laboratory contract. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Enactment 
7. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 on behalf of  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does she have confidence that the Government has the necessary support to pass the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of State Services 
: The Minister has confidence that there will be the necessary support if members listen carefully and rationally to the information provided to the select committee on why the bill is needed and what it actually does. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she hold to the advice she gave United Future last year that she would be prepared to advance the proposal for pharmaceutical and medical devices but leave complementary medicines outside the regime; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That was explored as an option but as it has turned out it would not be acceptable to have such a treaty if complementary medicines were left out. Additionally as the member knows complementary medicines are subject to no regulation at the moment and most people in this House would believe that they are something that is required to be regulated for public safety purposes. 
Judy Turner 
: If support for the bill is not forthcoming what regulatory regime for New Zealand does she then envisage for pharmaceutical medical devices and complementary products given the winding down of Medsafe’s regulatory capabilities? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If this were not to proceed then New Zealand’s ability to regulate on its own in a way that would be recognised internationally would be much more difficult and much more expensive. Clearly there is a need to regulate complementary medicines. There have been something like 257 cases where complementary medicines have been reported to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring where compounds as disparate as heavy metal and Viagra have been found and in three cases people actually died. Regulation is clearly needed. In regard to the other side of the regulation the current regulatory regime is out of date and does need upgrading. The most effective and the cheapest way and the way that we will be recognised internationally is to do that through the joint therapeutic authority. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister saying she went to the Australian Government sought to negotiate to remove the complementary health sector from the legislation and was vetoed by the Australians and does this not suggest that this proposed regime if it went forward would be a completely one-sided regime and that we would have to meekly capitulate to the Australians as the Minister presumably did over that negotiation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely not. That is a very silly statement. What the member knows about the joint therapeutic authority is that New Zealand has absolutely equal rights with Australia. Neither country can move without the concurrence of the other country. I compare that with the Food Safety Authority that National was quite happy with—we have one vote out of 10. In this authority we have one vote out of two. And this bill and this authority are subject to judicial review subject to the Ombudsmen Act and subject to the Official Information Act with all those other safeguards so implied. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that this Government is facing a huge international embarrassment because of the appallingly incompetent handling of this issue by Annette King and Phil Goff and that the Government has introduced this bill and lost its majority in this House for that takeover? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the fact is that the National Government in which Tony Ryall was a Cabinet Minister supported this legislation when it was in Government. It moved forward with that and again it has flip-flopped. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please hear the Minister’s reply in silence. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Immediately after your comments someone—I think it was Wayne Mapp—interjected. I ask that the rules be— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did hear someone interject. Would the member please leave the Chamber. 
Dr Wayne Mapp withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Quite to the contrary of what Tony Ryall has said unlike the National Government which never consulted anybody on anything when it was trying to force legislation through the National Party has been thoroughly consulted on this issue all the way through. I have sat in on a number of the meetings where Mr Ryall has received absolute opportunities to ask questions and to have input. [ 
Interruption 
] I have sat in on meetings where— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but both members will please leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tony Ryall withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept that you have made a decision about the member leaving the Chamber but you can see the problem. It is impractical in the House to say that answers are heard in silence when the member is wilfully and provocatively misrepresenting the facts. How can the member sit there and be expected to be quiet when he was at the meetings Phil Goff refers to and they were not of the nature he is referring to? I just say to you for the next time you ask that questions and answers be heard in silence that we can accept that provided the answers are not provocative. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member Mr English is to leave the Chamber too because he also intervened during the answer to the question. The question itself also involved assertions that were made. There was a response to those assertions. The question in which those assertions were made was heard. The answer was not. That is the basis upon which I have made my ruling. Members of the House are getting tired of being unable to hear answers to questions. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government has set out to try to win the understanding and support of as many parties as possible for this legislation. It is not essentially partisan legislation. It is about the protection of public safety. Everybody acknowledges that and acknowledges the need for change. It is about the creation of a world-class organisation of international standing effectiveness and credibility which we do not have at the moment. It is about protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty which it does and it is about enhancing our closer economic relationship with the Australians which I understood the National Party was strongly in favour of. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Surely the second part of the answer given by the Hon Phil Goff lends a lot of weight to the argument advanced by Mr Bill English. If he had given an answer like that right from the start—a factual clear answer articulating Labour’s political position—it would not have brought the sort of response that came from firstly Dr Mapp then the Hon Tony Ryall. I do not think it will escape the attention of the public that a Minister could sit in the House yesterday using all sorts of profanities then simply stand up and withdraw and still be allowed to remain in the House. We take deep exception to the fact that Ministers can use the opportunity when answering a question to have a good old across-the-board slap at the Opposition while at the same time doing so with your favour. That seems to me Madam Speaker to be most unfair. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is really being stated here is that if National members do not like what is going on they reserve the right to behave extraordinarily badly. For a party that seems to regard smacking as the answer to any kind of behavioural problem it seems to me that they are inviting us to come across and engage in some kind of physical correction at that point. It is simply unacceptable to tell you that if people do not like what is going on with your rulings they will behave badly. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Madam Speaker I heard you clearly ask two members of the House to leave. I heard you ask Mr Ryall to leave and I clearly heard you ask Mr English to leave. He is still in the Chamber in defiance of your request. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Mr English is preparing himself to leave—because I did hear him; he was gathering his papers at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will leave as instructed. I intervened in an earlier answer of Mr Goff’s but not in the case for which you are ejecting me from the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am ejecting you for the earlier intervention when the answer was to be heard in silence. I have given you the courtesy of remaining for the point of order while it was being heard. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking some clarification from you in response to Gerry Brownlee’s point of order. My understanding of the situation was that when Mr Goff gave his first answer the barracking from back here was so loud that members such as myself were entirely unable to hear any part of the answer and that is why you asked that the House hear his reply in silence rather than as a result of a couple of interjections that Mr Brownlee mentioned. From that point of view I point out that there are members who are getting extremely fed up with not being able to hear answers because of unprovoked barracking from the back. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that because it is very difficult to hear what is being said. Members up here might be able to hear but the member makes a very valid point—they are not the only members in this House. Everyone has an equal right to be heard. It is very difficult for the Speaker to judge the quality of answers or whether an answer is within the Standing Orders when they cannot be heard. We will now move on. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When my colleague Mr Brownlee raised a point of order just a brief minute ago a Minister on the Government’s front bench twice interjected quite loudly. It was clearly audible on this side of the Chamber. I put it to you Madam Speaker that since you have asked two of my colleagues to leave the Chamber we can reasonably expect you to enforce rigidly the Standing Order that says members cannot interject during a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that is the case then those also who intervened elsewhere should leave the Chamber. It was not only one intervention. There were several interventions and that is why I did not raise it at the time. But I am quite happy for all those members who interjected at that time to leave. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry there were other interventions on this side of the House during that. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I actually have a very clear recollection of what occurred when Mr Brownlee was raising the point of order. I have to beg to differ with you. When I heard the Minister who has now left the Chamber there were no other interjections. It was very clear; I heard that Minister and that Minister alone on two separate occasions during Mr Brownlee’s point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may well be true but I heard encouraging support for the point of order of Mr Brownlee. That also counts as an intervention. We have to get some clarity of the rules here. So will those who intervened please leave. The member on the Government side has. I ask the members on the Opposition side who were making an intervention when Mr Brownlee was making his point of order to also leave the Chamber. Members do not seem to be aware of what they are doing. That is part of the problem. I am waiting. I want those members who gave encouragement verbally to Mr Brownlee during his point of order to leave. If we are going to apply the rules strictly—on that occasion there were several interventions around the Chamber which is why I let it go so he could finish his point of order which was obviously an important one. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have asked any members on this side of the Chamber who feel they were guilty to leave and obviously they have an obligation to do so. But I want to ask for an opportunity for us to hear the tapes because I have a clear recollection of what happened which with respect is different from yours. I suggest to you that it is possible that members on this side of the Chamber are behaving quite honourably by not leaving at your invitation. I would like to verify that by listening to the tapes that are available because I seek the opportunity to verify my recollection of events. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We do not operate a third umpire in Parliament. I think it would be very very dangerous if we got into that position. The flow of business would be slowed down very dramatically indeed. I suggest to you Madam Speaker that you may well be right in that people were not aware they were making various kinds of noises. If that is so then it is clear at least that it was not a guilty intent on their part. If they were not aware they cannot be aware that they should leave the Chamber either. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In reference to the previous question I seek leave to table a letter from Annette King in which she denies 6 years of requests under the Official Information Act for minutes of the interim ministerial council which contradicts what the Minister said about the body being subject to the Official Information Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Radio New Zealand—Complaints Procedure 
8.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday “That is what one does by making a formal complaint: one complains right to the board of Radio New Zealand.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Broadcasting 
: As I explained yesterday the broadcasters and the Broadcasting Standards Authority have an agreed process in place for complaints. The first step for all complaints except those relating to a breach of privacy is that the complaint be lodged with the broadcaster within 20 working days of the incident. If the complainant is unhappy with the broadcaster’s response he or she can then refer the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statement in the House yesterday with the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 which states that “no responsible Minister … may give a direction to the public radio company … or any director or officer or employee of the company … in respect of … A particular programme or a particular allegation or a particular complaint”; and does the Minister realise he has broken the law—yes or no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Easily and no. Making a complaint is not giving a direction. 
Shane Jones 
: Is the Minister aware of examples of how other members deal with broadcasting complaints? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that it is quite typical for media organisations of all types to receive calls from Opposition members if they are concerned about something that has been said about them. All members are able to do so if they are concerned. The Minister stands by his right to complain when he is as badly misrepresented as he was by Mr Sean Plunket. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister understand that under the Broadcasting Standards Authority code for which he is responsible if a member of the public wishes to make a formal complaint about something he or she has seen or heard on radio or TV the correct procedure is to put the complaint in writing to the chief executive officer of the broadcaster concerned and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the response to refer it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority; and could the Minister explain why the code would not apply to the Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister would certainly have intended to write to Radio New Zealand; in the end he has not done so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports that would enable him to give an assurance that no Radio New Zealand staff member including Sean Plunket spoke to any National Party MP about this particular issue this week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly cannot give an assurance that Mr Sean Plunket did not speak to any National Party MP. I am aware that Mr Plunket applied for the job of chief press officer with the National Party. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement before the 1999 election when she said that turning on journalists shows that one is in trouble and that “100 times out of 100 it backfires. When you end up blaming the media for your problems you have a very big problem.”—or would he say: “I’m fed up with you Helen. I’m fed up with you.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can certainly understand why the Minister is fed up with that particular member. But the reality is that when one is accused of something by a radio journalist that is totally out of order totally unacceptable and totally offensive anybody has the right to complain. The Minister has the right to complain in that matter. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister understand that rather than breaking the Radio New Zealand Act the Minister of Broadcasting should be focusing on the digital TV launch; and is he not worried that with the launch of digital TV in less than 4 weeks there is virtually no public awareness of FreeView he still cannot tell us how much a set-top box will cost and he cannot tell the House how many households will be tuning in to FreeView on 2 May? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I fail to see the connection of that question to the primary question but nevertheless I am sure that the Minister is on top of that matter. I know that he has been a very strong advocate of digital radio and television for a very long time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When listening to Dr Cullen’s answer on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting I heard him assert that any Minister threatened by the media could respond in the way that Mr Maharey did yesterday. Connecting that to a note that the Clerk’s Office has sent round to everybody telling us that Parliament will be televised very very shortly—in fact from July—I ask is it your intention Madam Speaker to have perhaps a 7-second delay button so that the nation might not be subjected to outbursts such as Mr Maharey gave in the House apparently quite justifiably yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest that if you were to do that Madam Speaker you might have something like a 5-minute delay button so that you could cancel points of order that were out of order from the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a valid point of order. 
Commerce Act—Price Control 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What responses has she received to the release of the discussion document reviewing the price control provisions of the Commerce Act 1986? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 A  
New Zealand Herald  
headline today described the document as a plan to give the watchdog bark not just bite. That is because the proposals include light-handed alternatives to price control. They have been welcomed by a range of interests. The head of the Employers and Manufacturers Association said that it puts more focus on investment and gives certainty for investors Air New Zealand said that it was pleased the Government had shown leadership in initiating the review and Vector said that the changes were very much in the right direction. I am very pleased to see such a positive response to this very good review. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What options are included in the discussion document and what are the objectives of the proposed reform? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The aim of the reform is to improve certainty and predictability while maintaining flexibility and while ensuring most important that there is investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure. This is reinforced in the proposed purpose statement for this part of the Act. The discussion document proposes information disclosure and a negotiate-arbitrate regime proposes to set input methodologies as a stand-alone process and as well proposes to introduce a limited form of merit review. It is a well-balanced set of options and I look forward to receiving submissions. 
Export Year 2007—Progress 
10.  
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Is he satisfied with the progress made during Export Year 2007 so far; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No but then I have higher standards in terms of international matters than the camel-riding member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please—I have already asked members not to make those statements. They should just ask the questions and give the answers. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: What evaluative tools does the Minister have to measure the success of Export Year 2007; and according to these tools how successful has Export Year 2007 been so far? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The tools will of course be applied at the end of the year. The reaction of business around New Zealand to for example the Market Development Assistance scheme increase has been extraordinary. Applications are overwhelming. There was extensive attendance including attendance by the deputy leader of the National Party at New Thinking Week which was very very well received. The chief executive officers’ forum was exceptionally successful. Around the country exporters’ breakfasts have been held. The Path to Market programme for Export Year 2007 is going very very well. There is widespread business satisfaction with Export Year. I think the member could consult with someone like John Hayes who is more on top of that matter than the member. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that Export Year an initiative advocated by New Zealand First is to promote and support our exporters—something that previous administrations have failed to do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Absolutely. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: How does the Minister expect to boost New Zealand’s export performance when Export Year 2007 pin-up boy Ken Stevens yesterday stated that “we haven’t got any direct mechanisms in place to do that apart from an awful lot of enthusiasm”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think Mr Stevens was pointing out that as anyone who is involved in exporting knows the Government does not direct exporting. It encourages; it supports. We do not want the approach whereby a Government directs firms to export even if Tories do. 
Chris Tremain 
: What specific initiatives going forward from here does the Minister have planned to kickstart Export Year given that Export Year advocate Ken Stevens believes there are no direct mechanisms in place to increase exports 5 months after Export Year was launched at the end of November? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ken Stevens did not mean that in literal terms. Ken Stevens was one of the people who promoted the increase in funding for the Market Development Assistance scheme from $6 million last year to $40 million this year. That is direct support to exporters—something we are very proud of. As to the first part of the question the member will know at the appropriate moment and in the fullness of time. 
Chris Tremain 
: Does he think that given the ongoing increase in the exchange rate and recent moves to lay off 140 workers by large exporters Click Clack and G L Bowron in Christchurch Export Year 2007 is doomed to be another part of the Government’s economic transformation agenda that promises much but delivers very little? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I see that the former currency-dealing Leader of the Opposition is promoting an “80c Kiwi”—something that I think is stupid and irresponsible other than the fact it would be an indication if it stayed in the longer term of a very strong economy. I think we are strong but not as strong as that. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Minister considered in line with his usual practice of disguising inefficient economic development programmes by giving them a new name the potential of renaming Export Year 2007 as “Export 9 Months 2007” given the lack of progress made in the first 3 months of this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thought the member was better than that. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answer is no. 
Food Labelling—Government Policy 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: Does she agree with the editorial of last weekend’s  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that the New Zealand Government has “chosen … the route of obfuscation and non-transparency” by not requiring labelling that allows New Zealand consumers to know where their food comes from? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: No. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that when the average supermarket shopper picks up a packet of bacon like the one I have here showing a Kiwi symbol and labelled “Kiwi” and “taste of New Zealand” he or she is likely to assume that it is New Zealand pork; if so can the Minister explain to this House and to the people of New Zealand why it is OK to state on a label like this “taste of New Zealand” when the producer cannot guarantee that it comes from New Zealand at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that the Commerce Commission which is an independent statutory authority is considering a complaint on this matter and it would be inappropriate for the Minister to comment. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is this not evidence that the present system—and the complete lack of any monitoring—is not working as is the recent case where two schoolchildren uncovered the deceptive marketing practices of Glaxo Smith Kline; and does consumer protection under this Government have to rely on school science projects? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have thought that the prosecution and heavy fine were evidence that the system is working. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports about those who appear to be very concerned about what food people eat yet in respect of complementary medicines want no provision for advice to the consumer at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have heard comment on that particular matter but then again one does not always expect consistency from all members of Parliament. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Number of Recipients 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education on 1 July 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: From 1 July this year up to 92000 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres will be eligible for Labour’s 20 hours free policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can an early childhood provider who has opted in refuse to enrol a child because the parent refuses to pay an optional charge? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Optional charges are not allowed under the policy; otherwise it stops being 20 free hours for that part of it of course. A charge is available for other provision outside the 20 hours. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister agree that a large proportion of the parents of the 16 percent of children who currently commence their formal education at decile 1 schools without any experience of formal early childhood education actually do watch wrestling programmes on TV that the decision to programme commercials during such shows is in fact inspired and that criticism of such programming demonstrates the disconnection of the National Party from the real world of a significant portion of New Zealand’s population? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed. I should perhaps clarify something that I indicated by way of interjection yesterday. I myself actually do not watch wrestling. However if people get Sky Box Office Preview they will notice that often wrestling is being advertised at that point and if they look at the audience they will notice there are a large number of women in the audience. 
Paula Bennett 
: Which is true: the Minister of Education’s answers to written questions that early childhood education services cannot refuse enrolment or access to free early childhood education for the reason that a parent refuses to pay an optional charge or his answer to the House yesterday: “… centres have always had the right to say who they will enrol.”—or is that just another slip of the tongue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. If I could slightly correct the answer I just previously gave to the member I understand that the centres can charge for other activities—optional activities—within the 20 free hours. 
Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is some confusion about the answer the Minister gave to that supplementary question. With your permission I will repeat the question because he has not answered it and he has now confused the actual question. I want to readdress that question to the Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister was addressing the question. He was attempting to be helpful. But the member may ask a supplementary question. 
Paula Bennett 
: Again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you have had that supplementary question and the Minister addressed it. But you have more supplementary questions. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can a service that does not run sessions or an hourly rate and that is 100 percent teacher-led simply deduct the $90 for 20 free hours off its weekly fees? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am afraid I do not have the information in front of me to be able to answer that question for the member. Perhaps she might care to put down a written question given that Parliament is not meeting for another 3 weeks to get back an answer more quickly. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has he seen about how many 3 and 4-year-olds would receive 20 free hours of early childhood education under National Party policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The policy is to scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education despite Mr Key saying he wants to see these young kids able to have 20 free hours. But then of course he has already promised more money for private schools and that will reduce the amount of money for early childhood education. 
Paula Bennett 
: How fair is it that some centres are saying that they want to play strictly by the rules and as such cannot offer 20 free hours and some are listening to the Minister of Education fudge his whole line of what the rules are and will break the rules knowing that the Minister will not enforce them because he has to make this policy work in order to have any credibility? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the Minister will ensure that the rules are enforced. We are not going to get into a position where we offer 20 hours’ free early childhood education and it is not free. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I refer back to an earlier exchange in relation to the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. The Government would like to make progress on that bill in the next parliamentary session. Of course that session is dominated in its latter part by the Budget which starts on 17 May but if we extended it by 1 week that would not create a problem in terms of making some progress. I therefore seek leave that the report-back date be extended to 7 May which would assist the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Major Events Management Bill 
Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That Supplementary Order Paper 106 relating to the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party would like to speak on this motion because I think that the Supplementary Order Paper it deals with— Supplementary Order Paper 106—brings this House into disrepute by imposing on New Zealand a law to throw streakers into jail. That is the guts of it. There are so many serious issues before this House and the world including global warming war and peace issues violence in society and poverty in New Zealand and around the world. Yet what are we spending Parliament’s time on? We are spending it on legislation to give prison sentences to streakers. It is absurd and laughable and the Greens oppose the motion. 
Streaking has been of amusement both to spectators and to New Zealanders watching events on television since Michael O’Brien started the practice back in Twickenham in April 1974. The police officers there were themselves somewhat amused as they intervened to cover certain parts of his anatomy with a police helmet. Three decades on streaking has become accepted as being part and parcel of sporting events and sporting culture and the people participating in the practice are willing to take the penalty for it. Our most recent case was of the woman in the bikini Lisa Lewis who streaked in Waikato not long ago. She was had up for disorderly behaviour fined $200 and had to pay court costs of $130 but she was willing to do that. Of course we know that she sold the bikini she wore on that occasion on TradeMe for a price of $4500. 
Craig Foss 
: Free enterprise. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: “Free enterprise” I hear from the back here so I hope that means the National Party will support the Green Party’s opposition to this motion. 
We have other instances such as Marc Ellis who is a very strong advocate. He had his National Nude Day and actually offered a monetary reward to anyone who streaked in front of the Prime Minister. But whether or not we support Marc Ellis on that streaking is an area of considerable entertainment and amusement for the New Zealand populace. It is not an area where we need to be obeying the dictates of the multinationals and their advertisers who are instructing the World Cup body to ram this legislation through the New Zealand Parliament. It could impact on the whole New Zealand culture—on the relationship between the fans of sporting events and what happens on the field. 
I think one of the advantages of going to a major event these days is that there is a lot of entertainment on the stands and a bit of entertainment with streakers on the field sometimes as well. Some of the entertainment has been reduced a bit recently. I know it used to be quite entertaining on the cricket terraces at Eden Park although there were some downsides to that with the sexist and racists comments that sometimes ensued. But there was a whole theatre going on on the terraces for a while and sometimes streaking was an additional part of that entertainment. 
We now have the New Zealand Sevens in Wellington which is almost total theatre. People go to watch what is happening in the stands and possibly to see a streaker on the field. In some ways the Sevens competition is a bit secondary although I think people take an interest in and pleasure from the times when New Zealand actually wins. 
Hone Harawira 
: It’s been a while. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes it has been a while. Sometimes it is Fiji that wins and I think Samoa is doing pretty well at the present time. I can speak from my own experience. When I was a young kid I used to go along to what was then called Lancaster Park—before its name was commercialised—in Christchurch selling programmes and all the rest of it. The Ranfurly Shield was held by Canterbury for many years. It was a great event to go along to. Towards the end of the game sometimes the kids including me would get a bit excited and run on to the field just before the game ended to get the players’ autographs. Under this bill kids like that would be up for 3 months in jail. That is utterly absurd. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Ridiculous! 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It is ridiculous. We are taking away the magic of these events. This is a Supplementary Order Paper to a bill that is being shaped by the advertisers—not the national advertisers the multinational advertisers such as Adidas Reebok and Coca-Cola etc. They want what they call “clean” stadiums. In fact the original bill proposed a 5-kilometre zone where people are not allowed to put up other advertising that might be deemed to be supporting an opponent advertiser. 
Given the nature of Kiwi culture I think this whole thing will be a challenge to sports fans. Rather than reducing people streaking and doing other forms of advertising it will actually increase it. What better challenge is there than to have Tui-type ads and what not within the 5-kilometre zone or in the stadium? There is no way they can really stop it because people can wander in with a jacket on wearing a T-shirt underneath with a humorous advert and then just pull off the jacket and make a slogan with the letters on each T-shirt or whatever they want to do—symbols take-offs of symbols etc. It is a joke that we should bring in such essentially repressive legislation just on the dictate of advertisers. 
There is also a political dimension to it. There are 350 proud New Zealanders who in 1981 went on to the pitch at Rugby Park in Hamilton. My friend Hone Harawira here will testify to that as well. They are now considered heroes in independent non-apartheid South Africa because they stopped that game. That was shown on South African television. It was a major impetus really. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: They were cheering in the streets. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: They were cheering in the streets as my friend Nandor Tanczos has just said. Under this legislation all of those 350 people would be up for 3 months in jail or a big fine. That is completely off the wall. 
The definitions in this legislation as to what constitutes a major event are very broad. It can be anything. Basically as long as quite a few people are there it becomes a major event and Cabinet can by Order of Council determine it to be a major event at any time. We are not talking about just one event—the Rugby World Cup—we are talking about legislation that is against streakers and anything like that. 
There are books around such as  
When Corporations Ruled the World 
. The legislation that the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to amend is part of that. This is being done—let us be honest—on the dictates of multinationals which is making it more difficult for New Zealanders to have fun. That is the guts of the whole thing. 
It is important that New Zealanders do not see their participation in sporting events as being just marketing fodder. That is how this bill is treating us—as marketing fodder. Overseas they give the rights to Reebok Coca-Cola or whoever the advertiser is for the World Cup or any event—it could be a Super 14 game. Whatever it might be they give the rights to the advertiser and from that point on we are just marketing fodder. We cannot be distracted from that product that advertising logo being shoved in our faces along the 5-kilometre route to the stadium—because there is that 5-kilometre exclusion zone—on all the fences around the stadium and on the billboards around the grounds of the stadium. It is a case of bash bash bash with the advertisers’ messages. Obviously it is very hard to avoid that sort of thing in society given the power of those multinationals but we should not be encouraging it and reducing our own rights by saying to streakers like Lisa Lewis—who gave a lot of fun to the nation and appeared on lots of TV programmes: “You were wrong.” 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Despite the fact that this motion stands in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard the National Party will be supporting it. I will briefly explain to the House why that is the case. This motion has the effect of referring Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the Commerce Committee which is considering the Major Events Management Bill. The reason we are supporting the motion is that were we not to do so members of the public would be denied the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposal the Minister wants to put before the House. 
I will make no comment at all on the content of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister wants to introduce. I think the select committee deserves an opportunity to look at that and members of the public deserve an opportunity to make their submissions on it. The only way we can facilitate that is to refer Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the committee by way of this motion. It is clear that the content of the Supplementary Order Paper is some distance away from the main purpose of the Major Events Management Bill. The only way we can make sure the opportunity is there for the Minister’s proposals to be considered is to support this motion. 
The Supplementary Order Paper relates to an important bill. Anyone who has looked at the scale of major upcoming events—in particular the Rugby World Cup—understands the need for some sort of machinery to deal with it. We can talk about that on another day. Members of the public certainly deserve the opportunity to inspect and make submissions in relation to the bill. Accordingly I support this motion. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i te Whare. The Major Events Management Bill is not just about streakers and the like although I have no doubt that that kind of carry-on will be banned as well. Supplementary Order Paper 106 is about convicting people for pitch invasions and that makes me think back to that day that Keith Locke was referring to—Saturday 15 July 1981—when a few hundred people forced their way on to Rugby Park in Hamilton and stopped the match between South Africa’s ambassadors for apartheid and Waikato. 
I was going to say that a few hundred Kiwis forced their way on to Rugby Park but I also recall that on that day I ran into Gary Foley and a bunch of the Koori brothers who had come across from Australia to support the anti-apartheid movement. I remember them laughing at a bunch of us who had come down from Otara on that morning dressed for action with full-faced motorbike helmets padding heavy jackets and boots. Gary and his mates were in their swish day gear: nice pants body shirts and dark glasses. Little did they know that by the end of that day they would be covered in their own righteous blood and the boys from Otara would be having the last laugh. 
I can remember the image on the evening news of another lost soul from overseas—a man who clearly did not fit into his world—peering anxiously from under the grandstands at Rugby Park. I knew that his debut would not take place on that day either. His name was Errol Tobias—the forgotten winger—and he is the man who is never interviewed on sports programmes any more. He is the token black whom the South Africans had picked at the last minute to try to deflect the world’s anger and attention away from the continued oppression of their black citizens at home while their wholesome white Springboks were playing rugby half a world away. 
I raise these memories because I have no doubt that a number of people in this House were also in Hamilton on that day—a big day in one of our nation’s darkest times and a time when many MPs rightfully claimed their badge of honour for marching against apartheid. It was a time when 32000 people signed a petition against the tour and it was a time when two of the country’s powerful organisations also came out against the tour—the Federation of Labour and the Labour Party. So I ask whether Labour members’ memories have become so blurred by power that they would deny their own kids the rights they fought for so passionately in 1981. How quickly we can deny our own history if 25 years later we pass legislation to make such actions illegal. And whom does this suit? 
To make pitch invasions illegal may be great for the hosts and producers responsible for the timing of sports broadcasts to keep sponsors like Adidas and Nike happy and to ensure that international broadcast rights and fees are not jeopardised. But it does nothing at all for the right of every Kiwi to voice opposition to the hosting of sports events that are clearly against the national psyche. I raise these memories because 5 July 1981 is an important day in the history of this nation. It is when we said to the world that we were serious about our opposition to a regime that practised terror on its own citizenry. 
I also recall a couple of feisty little ex-pat Cuban generals Ripeka Evans and Donna Awatere Huata trying to get everyone rarked up for some serious action while just down the ranks a bit Father Terry Dibble and Reverend George Armstrong were leading others in that old protest classic “We shall overcome.” I remember Donna and Peka putting me and a couple of the other brothers from Otara into the front line with clear instructions not to listen to anyone else but them. I do not mind admitting that we laughed at these two little hens telling us what to do before we realised that we did not even have a plan and that maybe they actually knew what they were talking about. I remember that it was Donna’s father who made me actually listen to Donna. Donna’s father—Colonel Pita Awatere who had been a commander of the Maori Battalion—had led a march along with others almost 20 years before that. That march had been up Queen Street to protest the New Zealand Rugby Union’s decision to leave Maori out of the team to tour South Africa just to comply with South Africa’s apartheid regime. I can remember saying to the boys at that time: “Watch Donna and when she says ‘Go’ we go.” 
When I study the 1960 protests I see that people protested on rugby fields even then. Yet here today we would think to put an end to that tradition. I say again how easily we forget our proud tradition of protest and demonstration. I recall vividly the cattle trucks surrounding the park the police on every corner the protons on their way to the game and the hatred and filth spewing from drunken ruby supporters. I can remember thinking: “Come on Donna we can’t wait forever.” as we marched closer and closer to the park. I remember that 90 percent of the protesters were just dressed normally and that our lot from Otara looked a bit out of place amongst all the thousands of keen and happy Pakeha who were marching alongside us singing and chanting. 
I remember seeing people in the second row of the protest march just behind the lead banner with wire-cutters bolt-cutters and ropes. They were ready to pull some fences down. I remember Donna giving me the old “hold your horses Maori boy” look as we got up to the park. I could feel the spit the beer the abuse and the cans that were getting thrown at us from over the fences. Then all of a sudden we were right alongside a fence. 
I raise these memories because they speak of a people galvanised into action. The right to take that action is being denied by this Supplementary Order Paper. I also remember looking at Donna and seeing her pointing at the fence and yelling: “Go! Go! Go!”. Before the poor guys in the second row could even get their wire-cutters going properly everyone had grabbed the fence and before we could say “Springboks go home!” the fence was gone gone gone. Where just seconds earlier hundreds of protons had been hurling abuse at us suddenly the bank was clear and we surged on to the field behind Wally Te Ua and a bunch of other priests and their Melanesian cross. I remember getting out in the middle of the field and seeing everybody jumping around like idiots clapping and singing. I looked across the protest ranks and saw that only a few hundred of us had got on to the field. I looked around the whole park and saw that tens of thousands of rabid rugby followers were incensed at us for getting on to that field. 
I raise these memories because invading the pitch on that day was like putting a poultice on the national obsession for rugby at any cost and saying to the world that there were deeper meanings for Kiwis than just a game of bloody football. 
I can remember the howls of drunken fury from the protons in the grandstands—it was quite funny really. I can remember them hurling empty cans of beer at us and watching their cans fall short. They then threw full cans of beer that came raining into our ranks and poleaxed those without helmets. I can remember the Pakeha protesters throwing the cans on to the ground in front of us. I can remember the boys from Otara grabbing the full cans and taking a swig before hurling them straight back into the grandstands again. 
 I can remember that people were proud to be on the park on that day yet today we would make that pride a sin by accepting this Supplementary Order Paper to suit the Rugby World Cup. I can even remember that one of the really really great memories I have from after that day was knowing that in the whole of racist South Africa people were riveted to their screens on that day—they were all watching TV waiting to see their beloved Springboks take the field—and that 400 Kiwis ruined their day. I heard stories come out of the “Republic of Rednecks and Racists” that people there were calling their television stations and demanding that the New Zealand Police shoot us so that the game could go on. I raise these memories so that we are wary of sneaky Supplementary Order Papers that give greater weight to the timing of sport than to hard-won civil liberties. 
Last week I spoke out against the paranoia and the racist assumptions that drove the overloaded Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Today I link that same paranoia to this Supplementary Order Paper—“SOP” could be an acronym for the suppression of protest—and I warn the House that if we do not have the courage to start opposing these insidious little pieces of creeping fascism then we will one day soon find our own children charged with treason for daring to oppose a game of football. The process for connecting the dots is already there. 
Steve Biko once said: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” The Maori Party will not vote for a Supplementary Order Paper to satisfy the oppressive demands of sport and television producers and advertisers and we will not support the demand to set aside valid protest. Kia ora tatou. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who spoke before me and say that I respect his comments about the Springbok Tour of 1981 but I believe that his speech is somewhat wide of the mark in respect of what we are here to discuss today. Supplementary Order Paper 106 does not deal with the issues the member spoke of. There will still be the right for anyone in this country to protest and to invade a pitch if that is what protesters ultimately end up doing. This particular Supplementary Order Paper deals with another form of pitch invasion—invasion by marketers who choose to take over from marketers who have paid for the rights— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: You’re reading the wrong bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I will come back to that; I just wanted to touch on the main bill itself because the Supplementary Order Paper comes into it. 
This is ambush marketing. I will just talk about Nike’s ambush marketing in 1996. Adidas had put up a $50 million campaign for the Olympic Games of that year but Nike used the opportunity to overtake the whole Olympic Games. So at the end of the Olympics when a survey was done of who had been the major sponsor of the games it showed that Nike had managed to overtake Adidas in the minds of those surveyed. 
The Green Party spoke today about new section 25A “Offence to invade pitch at major sporting event” proposed for insertion into the Major Events Management Bill by Supplementary Order Paper 106. Green members talked about streakers and how it was an offence for streakers to invade the pitch. I want to bring members back to a couple of other incidents that did not involve streakers but that were incidents where match officials were required to take people off the paddock. One was in a Tri-Nations game in August 2002 in South Africa when 43-year-old Pieter van Zyl tackled the referee to the ground just a few minutes into the second half of the match which was won by the All Blacks 30-23. Members will remember that particular incident. Pieter van Zyl had evaded 419 security officials to launch— 
Hone Harawira 
: So who kicked the last goal? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —good question—an assault as the All Blacks scrum half Justin Marshall was about to feed the ball into the scrum. People will remember that RichieMcCaw dealt a blow to the invader and it took him a while to get up. But that was one example where this sort of Supplementary Order Paper becomes quite important. 
Another example was where a steward was hurt back in June 2001 in a case of cricket chaos when literally hundreds of people invaded the pitch. The only protest in that instance was that the Pakistanis were losing the game. Did those people have a right to invade the pitch in that instance? I would say that they did not in that situation. So there we have a couple of examples of situations where pitch invasion is illegal and does need to be dealt a blow to—it really does. 
I wish to make one other point before sitting down: National does support this Supplementary Order Paper. There are two points that I wish the Minister in charge of the bill to consider. The offence in the Supplementary Order Paper attracts a $5000 fine but I want the Minister to consider pitch invasion by spectators who are paid by ambush marketers. There was the example of someone who invaded a pitch with a Vodafone sign painted on his back. Once again if Vodafone was not a major sponsor of that particular event but was using ambush marketing tactics to have someone invade the pitch then I think we have every right to find that person and to get him or her out of there. But I would suggest that giving a $5000 fine to a sponsor that has not paid one cent to be at a World Cup final but that still gets its brand in front of millions and millions of people after an incident at that final is nothing. We need to consider that when protecting the rights of sponsors that have put up millions of dollars to have their brand put in front of the public. 
The second point I make is about the definition of the word “propels” in proposed new section 25A(2). We have to consider only the likes of Mexican waves that traverse around stadiums. The definition of “propels” in the Supplementary Order Paper is “intentionally setting an object in motion in any manner including for example throwing kicking dropping or rolling.” In a Mexican wave situation any number of people could be liable to be fined for throwing items into the air that end up on the pitch. So that is just something to consider with regard to that matter. 
Those are a couple of points that I would like members to consider. National will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Previous speakers to this motion have taken the opportunity to range quite widely over the issue of control at sports venues and I would just like to indulge myself for a little bit and do the same. I just pass the observation that one of the disappointing changes that has occurred in New Zealand life is that a dad can no longer wander on to a rugby pitch with his son at the end of a big game just to look at the turf to go and stand at the spot where the first five kicked the winning goal and that sort of thing. It was so much a part of the upbringing that I had and that other members of the House would have had. People can no longer wander on to the cricket ground at lunchtime and impress their sons with their understanding of the nature of the wicket and its little indents and point to where the fast bowlers’ prints were made. 
The National Party is supporting this motion at this stage as part of a process to enable the select committee to hold hearings and hear what the public have to say. We will do so because the provision of this Supplementary Order Paper 106 is a long long way away from the original intent of the bill when it first came into the House and we debated it. We will support the bill to give the public the opportunity to have their say. 
I will make one final point though. I have just been watching the clock. A good half an hour of the time of this House has been taken up—and it is disappointing that it has—simply because the Minister responsible for this bill as usual did not get it right in the first place. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: He’s not even here. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: He is not even here. He did not get it right in the first place. We have come to expect that from this Minister. If he had really been on the ball he would have realised that this was a critical issue that needed to be considered and it should have been included in the original bill so that we would not have wasted half an hour in this House. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question That Supplementary Order Paper 106 relating to the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the outset I make it clear that I am not trying to relitigate a matter that has already been the subject of a ruling from the presiding officer. 
There was an exchange in the House earlier this afternoon at question time. The Speaker asked a couple of my colleagues to leave the Chamber and there was some debate. As a consequence I have gone back and listened to the tape of proceedings. In a nutshell what happened was that after the Speaker heard a point of order from Mr Brownlee I raised a point of order to make the Speaker aware of the fact that a Minister on the Government side of the House had interjected twice during Mr Brownlee’s point of order. The Speaker said that all members who had interjected should leave the Chamber and the Minister duly did. The Speaker then invited members on the Opposition side of the House to leave the Chamber if they had interjected. There was some discussion as to whether members on this side should leave; none did. 
There are two problems that I wish to raise. The first is the suggestion that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber had interjected during a point of order from Mr Brownlee. I now know from seeing the tape that that suggestion is incorrect. The Speaker obviously was at fault with her recollection and she did not recall those events correctly. I have now satisfied myself of this upon hearing the tape. That is a relatively minor matter. But the impression would have been left amongst the people who were listening that some members of the Opposition may have been sufficiently dishonourable after having been asked as a matter of honesty to own up to interjecting to have not left the House when the Speaker had requested them to do so. 
It is quite clear to me that the reason that no members on this side left the House when asked to do so by the Speaker was that no member had offended. It is very clear that no members on the Opposition side of the Chamber raised their voices until after Mr Brownlee had sat down upon finishing his point of order. No interruption was made by members on the Opposition side of the House to that point of order and no offence had occurred. 
With that being the case we are left with a situation where the Speaker has given the impression that some members of the Opposition may have behaved dishonourably and the Speaker has given that impression on the basis of a faulty recollection of events. I take strong offence at that impression being left by the Speaker. I believe that the Speaker owes all members on the Opposition side of the House an abject apology and I seek that apology from the Chair now. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The problem with that point of order is that it is not possible to discern by listening to the tape whether an intervention or interjection was made while Mr Brownlee was on his feet. This is not a television monitoring office at some sort of rugby league game or rugby game. The point of order sounds fair and logical until one comes to the probative value of the evidence that Mr McCully has sought to hear. He said that he did not see it but I am sure he meant that he did not hear any interjection. Unfortunately the tape of Parliament would not disclose that. Anybody who has been here for a while would understand that to be the case. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 As well as concurring with the point just made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters I would also make the point that my understanding was that the matter was left at a point where it was accepted that there had not been any dishonourable intent to deceive. I understood that the point had been made that perhaps it was an inadvertent— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 There is a longstanding tradition in this Chamber that if a member takes offence then usually an apology is required of the person who has caused offence. In this case I have a very clear recollection of events. I am relying not just on the tape but also on my own recollection. I disputed this matter with the Speaker at the time and it is quite clear that my recollection is correct. The Speaker’s recollection of events was wrong. No intervention was made until after Mr Brownlee’s point of order had finished. I want to make it clear that I take offence at the comments made by the Speaker. I feel I am owed an apology and I believe that every member on the Opposition side of the House is owed an apology. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. It was actually out of order in that I think in some way the member was criticising the Speaker. The matter was dealt with at the time and that really is the end of the matter as far as dealing with that issue goes. 
The member has said that the impression may have been created that there was some dishonesty on the part of members on the Opposition side of the House. That is why I let him continue with his point. It was so that the member had the opportunity to clear up that impression that may have been created—assuming that the same people are listening at this hour as were listening at the other hour. 
So I thank the member for raising the matter but it was dealt with by the Speaker. If the member wants to take it further it is a matter for a notice of motion. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This matter is viewed very seriously by members on the Opposition side of the House. Matters of impartiality on the part of the Speaker and on the part of every presiding officer in this House are taken extremely seriously particularly in the climate we find ourselves in at the present time. I would ask for the Speaker to give reflection to this matter and to consider giving a written ruling on the matter. Specifically in relation to that written ruling I would request that consideration be given for an apology to be made to those members who have every right to take offence at the impression left by the Speaker this afternoon. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have suggested to the member that it is a matter for a notice of motion from the member. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am happy to oblige. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the matter. We will move on. 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is the next stage in the process of making the SuperGold card announced last year a reality. This card was a centrepiece of New Zealand First’s election campaign where we were the only party to offer such an initiative and it is currently a critical part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Government. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s on it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: As I have said before some talk à la Mr Gerry Brownlee and some do as New Zealand First does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tell us what’s on it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh that is the great news. Nothing so insignificant that I could possibly cover in the next 5 hours. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Just try. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Nothing so insignificant that I could possibly cover in the next 5 hours. Unlike the National Party we have policies. And my challenge to Gerry Brownlee is simply this. I ask him to name one thing just one thing that the National Party has done in the last 7 years of New Zealand politics—just one. Apart from losing three elections and having five leaders— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There would be many things that the National Party has done in politics in the last 7 years and to use the member’s own term far too many for me to elucidate in the limited number of hours we have before the House adjourns. But I tell members one thing that the National Party can claim great credit for and that is relieving the people of Tauranga of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: When I asked Mr Gerry Brownlee to name just one thing I meant a positive thing not a negative thing. I know National has a list as long as one’s arm of negative things. I meant that he should name just one positive thing and all I can hear now is a deafening silence. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Give us some actuals. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is my question. What is one positive thing that the National Party has done in the last 7 years? The answer is doughnuts—nothing nought zero. 
We are very pleased that this bill has progressed to this point and we look forward to seeing the SuperGold card become a reality. The purpose of the bill is to enable the full effect to be given to our intentions with regard to the SuperGold card. I would pay attention if I were that member over there because it will not be long before she will need it. I am pleased to report to the House— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I think he has already reached that goal well before me! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: And in fact by the looks of it that time will be closer than we think. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has the member already reached that milestone? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no no. I have a challenge. I challenge that member to get up when I have finished—to make a speech when I have finished not by way of interjection but when it is her turn. I am pleased to report to the House that the Social Services Committee has recommended the bill be passed and has reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. I would like also to thank those who made submissions. We now call on all parties in this House to support the bill through its final stages. 
The SuperGold card is aimed at improving the lot of the more than 540000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over or who otherwise qualify for and receive New Zealand superannuation including those who receive the non-qualified spouse entitlement or a veterans pension. The card will be available from August 2007 and will enable seniors to access discounts from participating businesses while facilitating easy access to Government and local authority concessions entitlements and services. That type of one-stop shop approach is long overdue and will be of huge benefit to seniors. 
Sandra Goudie 
: List the discounts. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The discounts will be legion. They will be infinite. Over time they will be infinite. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What are they? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well there are rates for a start; there are medical people for a start. A whole lot of businesses will say to themselves that if they can guarantee the solid consumer loyalty of 540000 people they will be in for it. Whether it is insurance—chattels household and life insurance—or something else the options the opportunities and the chances here are infinite. That is the beauty of the scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s all there now. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not there now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it is not there now. If it was there now why would we have the National Party approving the bill at the select committee and bad-mouthing it in the House? But then again it is the consistent action of the National Party to say one thing in a committee something else in the House and something else on the hustings. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I think that is what Grey Power told that member. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The feedback from our seniors community to date has been extremely positive and there is an air of expectation surrounding the SuperGold card’s August launch. 
Part 1 makes two amendments to section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964. That section of the Act enables regulations to be made for the issue and use of entitlement cards. The first amendment in Part 1 will allow regulations to be made allowing for cardholder photographs to be placed on entitlement cards. Members should not forget that having a photograph on the card is the choice of the senior. Seniors can decide whether they want that. The Government will provide cardholders with the choice of having their photo included on their SuperGold card which will be useful for those who do not have photo ID. 
The second amendment in Part 1—and I emphasise these words—will in time enable regulations to be made allowing for microchip technology to be embedded in the entitlement cards. The microchip would contain the same information that is currently able to be stored on a magnetic strip but in a more secure form of technology. In essence the provision future-proofs the capability and capacity of the SuperGold card. Although there has been some resistance to and hesitation about the use of microchip technology I can assure members that our seniors have nothing to fear from this development. The reality is that many seniors have already embraced this technology. If they have a current passport they will already be using microchip technology. Many loyalty cards and travel discount cards are already making the transition to microchip technology if they have not already made it. The banking sector is moving towards microchip technology. It is said that by the end of this year every bank will be providing that technology primarily because it is more secure and when that occurs then very quickly magnetic-strip technology will become redundant. 
I want to address the comment made by the Greens over here on my right. I say no we do not put the microchip in the human being; we put it in the card. So it is not a case of trying to address the issue as though it is like the microchipping of dogs. This case involves humans and as I said it will be up to them in time to express whether they need the microchip. In fact microchip technology is now the status quo even here in Parliament. Every member of this House—and I invite members to pull out their security cards right now—and all of our staff are using microchip technology in our new security system again replacing magnetic strips. It would be cruel and duplicitous for MPs to embrace the advantages of this new technology for themselves and for their own security then to deny it to our seniors community. That would be illogical unreasonable unfair and prejudicial. This provision should be viewed as a positive step and one that will bring our seniors into the 21st century. 
Part 2 amends schedule 1A of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995. The amendment will allow information about births deaths and marriages to be used by the Ministry of Social Development in order to verify entitlement to the SuperGold card. 
The SuperGold card is an important initiative. It will provide tangible benefits that will make a real difference to the lives of senior citizens. It recognises the myriad of contributions they currently make and will go on making to New Zealand society. Put simply it is there because they deserve it. The card will be sent automatically to people who receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension with a special version for veterans with war and emergency service. The card will be of credit card size. It will carry the cardholder’s name and client number. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Can you expand on local authorities? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We will address the issue of local authorities as time goes on. The member should not worry about it because help is on its way. The card will indicate whether the person receives New Zealand superannuation a veterans pension or community services card benefits. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Come on! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It will replace the community services card and the New Zealand superannuation card for senior citizens. People who currently hold those cards will be able to access their entitlements through the new SuperGold card. 
I commend this bill to the House and I say to the member who has been shouting out during the duration of my address that if all she has ever done in her political career is to pull out a few mangroves— 
Jill Pettis 
: No jump out of cakes! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —jump out of cakes and pull out a few mangroves then she may be inclined to resist what is a very very sound and wise move for the elderly people of New Zealand. But I commend the bill to the member because out in the Coromandel in the humble streets villages and hamlets of the Coromandel people in their tens of thousands are waiting for this new technology to be made available to them. As in Thames and the Coromandel around the whole country elderly people are waiting for this measure. I ask my colleagues in this House to put aside their partisan narrow and prejudicial political views in order to for the first time in a long time support the elderly of New Zealand. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I was not going to speak on this bill today but the efforts of the Rt Hon Winston Peters have forced me to do so. One of the things we expect when something like this is put up is that there would be some tangible benefit for the people who are being tagged in the way our elderly are being tagged by this particular system. We should make no mistake. This bill is not about enabling a piece of plastic to be sent to every person in this country who is over the age of 65. It is about allowing the Government to crossmatch information about elderly people. It allows Work and Income to dive into all other Government files to find out all the personal details that other laws protect prying eyes from under the privacy laws of this country. So it is a significant change to legislation. 
The Minister can dress it up as being a SuperGold card that recognises the contribution those aged over 65 have made to this country. That contribution is significant—we do not have any issue with that—but what do they actually get? The Rt Hon Winston Peters wants to say that they will get a rates rebate. Well they get that now. The Rt Hon Winston Peters wants to say that they get medical benefits. Well they get those right now. He wants to say that they get transport benefits. Well they get those right now right this instant. Anybody who watches the news on television will know that every night competing insurance companies in this country are trying to get the custom of those aged over 65. But apparently this particular card will do something about that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Much more than that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We are told by the Minister that it will be much more than that but in 10 minutes in this House he could not name one other thing that this card will deliver to those aged over 65 apart from the range of benefits already in place for them. 
I say to people that they should have a good look at this— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Petrol! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Here we go—the Minister just said “Petrol!”. There will be discount petrol with this card. If Mr Peters goes to Countdown Woolworths Pak ‘N Save or any other supermarket he will get a discount on his petrol of up to 8c. So I want to know whether this card will give senior citizens a discount of more than 8c per litre of petrol. If it does granny will fill my tank on a weekly basis! 
I think Mr Peters needs to say what else there is. I ask Mr Peters to give us just a couple of little snippets. I suspect that when Work and Income sends out these cards the envelope will be bulked up with a few free vouchers for cheeseburgers at McDonald’s. That will be touted as being of huge advantage to the elderly in this country. 
I want to go back to the substance of the bill which is Part 1 the bit that extends the Social Security Act to allow Government agencies to go into the exercise of crossmatching. In particular it says it will allow for diving into the register of Births Deaths and Marriages and all the rest of it. What we know is that they want to be able to crossmatch records from banking institutions and the Inland Revenue Department—those are the two they are after. This bill will enable that because Mr Peters has told the House that there will be a computer chip on the cards under this particular bill. What that means is that it is a store of all one’s personal information. So if someone is picking up national superannuation it will be recorded there. If someone has national superannuation paid into a bank account the number of that bank account will be there. If there is a tax liability someone’s tax number will be there. They will be able to work out whether the flow of tax equals the flow of cash coming back into the account. I ask Mr Peters whether that is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No that’s wrong. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is correct—confirmation from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. So what we are seeing here is a reverse idea. Whereas a Government might usually go to the younger end of the population to get them to embrace this microchip technology in this case the Government is being very cunning and has decided to go to the elderly in this country and virtually say to them that if they want to keep getting rates rebates medical benefits and various other Government services then they have to pick up the card. 
I guarantee that within 6 months of this card being available it will be a requirement for elderly people—or people over the age of 65; many of whom are hardly worthy of the description “elderly” as they are very very fit—when they go to the doctor to hand over the card so that a picture can be built up for the Ministry of Health as to how much these oldies are costing us and how many services can be limited to that group. So we will see the Government using this card to amass a whole lot of information which ultimately will see it narrowing down the services and benefits provided to elderly people. I am disappointed in the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The elderly in this country have given him a lot of political support over the years and to repay them with a card that will do little more than give them the occasional free cheeseburger at McDonald’s seems to me to be a little bit sad. 
The Minister also said that this card would lead to insurance benefits. Well that is a pretty interesting way to allow Government agencies to dive into a contractual arrangement between New Zealanders over the age of 65 and the private sector. What possible reason would there be to have that information? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What are you talking about? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Exactly! The member says he does not know. That tells me that his good intention to provide a service card that recognises the contribution of those over the age of 65 has been well and truly usurped by the current Labour Government which we all know believes that if the State does not do it nobody should do it. I think that those over the age of 65 who are largely very responsible and have very few insurance claims for personal reasons—for fire and all those property damage things—should be very very concerned about the information that this card will amass finding its way into Government circles. 
The Rt Hon Winston Peters is sitting there and shaking his head. But he was the man who told us that a chip is going on this card. Once a chip goes on the card then anything and everything is possible when it comes to knowing information about that particular individual. I do not think we should be just lightly buying the line— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why don’t you ask mum! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well unfortunately Mr Peters my mother is no longer alive. If she were I would ask her. I am sure she would share all the concerns that I am articulating in the House here today. 
I think we should be very concerned that having to walk around carrying an identity card is the thin end of the wedge for all New Zealanders. There is no question about it. It is easy is it not? We go out and say to the people: “Here is something for nothing.” Of course they will say they will take it—particularly as it has the implied threat that if it is not taken up their medical benefits will go their rates rebates will go their insurance benefits will go their transport subsidies will go and the very income that they might rely on could also go. 
I want to know right now from Mr Peters: if people pick up national superannuation will they automatically get this card? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes they will. It says in the bill that it will be sent to them automatically. So the moment they pick up national superannuation they are chipped straight away. A large chunk of the population has a big target on its head. The Government knows where they go what they spend and how they spend it and what they are costing the tax base. That is inappropriate. For that reason alone people should be very concerned about the intentions behind this card. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 What an extraordinary contribution! We can tell that it is near the end of the term and that that member is about to have a little no-contact time—thank goodness for that. A member of the National Party has had the audacity to come into this House and say: “Huh—so senior citizens will get cheap health care! Huh—so they can get a rates rebate! Well they can get that now.” Actually senior citizens of New Zealand can get that now only because it is this Government’s policy to ensure that they are much better supported have much more security of income and have much more money of their own to spend compared with what they had under that member’s previous National-led Government which decreased senior citizens’ entitlement to superannuation and increased their expenditure on essential items such as health care and rates. 
Senior citizens in New Zealand now get an average reduction of $20 in the cost of each visit to the doctor because our Government has put more money into primary health care and has ensured that people aged over 65 get priority. They now get a $12 reduction per item on Government-subsidised medication when they fill their prescription at the chemist. That is good for senior citizens and as Winston Peters alluded to in his introductory comments the rates rebate now benefits all senior citizens compared with the half dozen who were able to get it previously because the thresholds were never adjusted under the then National Government. 
Just this week on 1 April our Government under the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First increased superannuation by over $20 a week for a married couple and by over $10 a week for an individual. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What’s this got to do with this bill? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Sandra Goudie can bleat all she likes but every person aged over 65 in New Zealand has a better memory than that member. Those people will remember that National cut the income of superannuitants—people who are entirely dependent on superannuation for their living—and increased their outgoings. Not one single person aged over 65 will forget that. 
This Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is the next step in making the SuperGold card a reality. Its purpose is to enable the full effect of our intentions in relation to the delivery of the SuperGold card promises. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 and the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 because those pieces of legislation need to be amended so that the full effect of the SuperGold card can be implemented. For New Zealand residents aged 65 years and over or for those who would otherwise qualify for and receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension the SuperGold card will be of direct benefit. It is a joint initiative between the Labour-Progressive Government and New Zealand First. The card will allow cardholders to access commercial discounts from participating businesses and will help facilitate seniors’ access to concessions from both central government and local government services. 
I am very pleased that the Social Services Committee has recommended that the bill be passed and that it has reported it back to the House without amendment. I am sure it would have been of huge advantage to Gerry Brownlee if he had talked with at least one of his colleagues who served on the Social Services Committee or if he had at least read the report back to the House. He clearly did neither. I acknowledge and thank the members of the select committee for their prompt and rigorous consideration of the bill. 
There was some debate about the implementation of the policy of having a chip in the card and that is good—we need debate about things such as that. But Gerry Brownlee did not know when he made his contribution that the bill creates a new power that will allow entitlement cards to contain information on either a magnetic strip as is currently provided for or an embedded microchip. What we are trying to do is keep our legislation up to date with the progress of technology. The intent of the provision is to future-proof the law in order to allow the use of smart card technology at a time when the Government considers that it is of benefit to do so. Smart cards are examples of an expanding technology that is in use in a number of social sector agencies around the world as well as in banking in transport and in customer loyalty schemes. So in the future there may be some value to cardholders in adopting such technology in relation to their entitlement cards. 
This amendment allows entitlement cards to be issued with an embedded chip but we have no plans at the moment to implement the provision. The amendment simply takes advantage of the legislative opportunity presented by the bill to allow for the future possibility of the Government deciding to keep up with modern times. It allows for a decision to be made in the future. For Gerry Brownlee to attack that is extraordinary given how much time he has spent raising spurious points of order in accusing Government members of filibustering. Actually through this amendment we are ensuring that future legislative time will not be used up when the opportunity for legislative provision presents itself. 
The SuperGold card is the card for the nearly 540000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over or who otherwise qualify for and receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension. It is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary contribution that senior citizens have made to our nation and also an acknowledgment from this Parliament—and particularly from the parties supporting this legislation—of that contribution and of the respect our senior citizens deserve. It will be a physical reminder of our Government’s commitment to seniors and veterans. It will improve their standard of living by reducing the cost of goods and services through the commercial discounts accessible through the card and by helping them to access the range of services entitlements and concessions available. The bill is a fine example—and well may the Opposition take note—of how modern-day Government works. Cooperation and delivery on promises and arrangements made—in this instance the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First—lead us to something of this kind. The SuperGold card is a first-ever for our New Zealand senior citizens. It is an acknowledgment as I said of the contribution our senior citizens have made to our whole nation. 
The genesis of the card can be found in many different places but this legislation has come through New Zealand First and in particular its leader Winston Peters. He has brought this bill into the House by way of arrangements made with our Government and I am very proud to be part of those arrangements. I hope that all parties will support the bill. 
It is not that long ago and people will not have forgotten—in fact in my understanding it is as recently as the publication of the book  
The Hollow Men— 
that there was talk amongst the National Party leadership of increasing the age of superannuation entitlement to at least 68. Indeed that rings true with a promise made to elderly people by Jim Bolger in a former National Government. So this nation needs to think about who will look after not only our young families but also our senior citizens. 
The legislation will be easy for people to understand. There are contact phone numbers for people to ring if they are interested in what this will offer what exactly the entitlements will be and how discounts and benefits can be accessed. There is also a phone number worth noting by businesses interested in becoming involved—0508 650 000. I encourage businesses that are tuned in listening to our Parliament this afternoon to ring that number and find out how they can be involved in this card. Concessions on local government services and central government services too are some of the advantages we will be able to provide for those people who are able to use this card. 
Those people are people we value very much: our mothers our fathers our grandparents our kuia our kaumatua—people such as those. All of those people are part of our family and that is who we are supporting here. So I am doing an advert in a way for people to get involved because it is for people who are dear to us that we support the progress of this SuperGold card. It has been successful in countries like Australia and I know many people in New Zealand who have friends in Australia are asking why we have not got it in New Zealand. 
I say thank you to Winston Peters and his arrangement with the Labour-Progressive coalition Government for being able to progress the card in this Parliament today. That is a very worthy exercise and I look forward to other positive and supporting contributions from members in the House so that we can see the continued progress of this bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would also like to acknowledge Grey Power and Fly Buys for their initiatives from which the idea for the SuperGoldentitlement card was probably born. I note there is no indication of any involvement by New Zealand First in the Social Services Committee which considered the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I guess that is one of the reasons why I seriously question whether the Rt Hon Winston Peters understands what is in the bill. He said—I quote from  
Hansard— 
in the first reading of the bill: “including offering cardholders the option of including their photograph on the card.” That gives the idea that a photograph will be optional. 
But on looking at the submissions—only three written submissions and one oral one—I note that the New Zealand Law Society talks about clause 4 and outlines the purpose—that is to provide regulation-making powers for cardholder photographs to be included on entitlement cards and for microchips to be embedded in entitlement cards. The society points out that clause 5(1) amends section 132A(1) of the principal Act by inserting paragraph (ba) which states: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures requirements and other matters in relation to those photographs:”. The general policy statement at the beginning of the explanatory note of the bill states: “The Super Gold Card will offer the option of including a photograph of the cardholder if he or she wishes.” 
In the first reading of the bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that the photographs of cardholders would be on a voluntary basis. In fact the society says the new paragraph states it will apply to any category of entitlement card not just to SuperGold cards and does not require that the photograph will be at the option of the cardholder. So that submission made by the New Zealand Law Society makes it quite clear not only to the Rt Hon Winston Peters but to the rest of the New Zealand public that the photograph is not optional. I think that underscores the lack of interest in the process of the bill by New Zealand First and therefore the lack of understanding by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on that issue. 
The New Zealand Law Society states that clause 4 actually confirms that and that it does not contain any such qualification either. “ ‘Entitlement card’ appears not to be defined in the Social Security Act but it would appear that the term is not confined to SuperGold cards.” I just wonder whether the select committee addressed that omission as well. The society states the proposed amendment will enable regulations to be made requiring the inclusion of photographs on any category of entitlement card not just the SuperGold card but if that is required in a regulation it will not be optional. So I strongly exhort the Minister to develop some understanding about the legislation that will implement the SuperGold card. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s rubbish. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The New Zealand Law Society wrote that “rubbish” so is the Minister rubbishing the New Zealand Law Society? I would have thought he would have some appreciation of the quality of its expertise and contribution to the process of considering the bill. I strongly recommend that the Minister look at the submissions and the bill and quickly get up to speed about what the bill is really doing. 
I guess that causes people a little concern about Mr Winston Peters’ understanding of the bill in its entirety. Although he talks about all the entitlements I say again the New Zealand public should be very concerned about what those really are. I wonder how many local authorities know that they are being targeted as people who will be part of the SuperGold card. Are the ratepayers of New Zealand happy with what may be going to cost them considerably in yet another imposition by central government on their rates demands? The Rt Hon Winston Peters needs to be very clear about the impact of those costs on ratepayers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Your mum and dad are ratepayers. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is right. We are very supportive of our older citizens having as much support as possible and of getting discounts. They certainly get a number of discounts through the Grey Power card which was a great initiative—and I am disappointed that “Sir Winston Peters” has failed to acknowledge Grey Power and its wonderful inspiration for this idea. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You got that wrong; you got the “Sir” wrong. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I had better tone it down; it is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Given the honorifics one would think he would have taken a bit more interest in the legislation and understood it. Perhaps we may see a little interest from the member as the bill progresses through the House and we try to get it right given he exhorted that to happen. 
I also note that the Minister has lauded the interest in the bill. One really has to question how much interest there has been and whether people are happy enough with their current Grey Power discount card because there were only four submissions on the bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They’re happy; that’s why. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Then do people really understand what this bill is all about? The actual wording of the bill gave the National Council of Women of New Zealand some concern as to who might fall outside the scope of the criteria for entitlement to the card. Again I think that issue needs some clarification. Hopefully those matters will be addressed in the Committee. 
Perhaps the Minister would like to take another call and outline what the discounts will actually be. We have not yet heard anything from him that gives any specificity on what those discounts— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They’re too big. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: He says they are too big. Well if they are to be as big as that then I say again to the New Zealand public that they need to be very concerned about the escalating cost of their rates demands as a result of a Minister who wants to place more and more of central government’s decisions and policy costs on to local authorities and thus on to ratepayers. There is no doubt that any discounts from local authorities will be borne by the ratepayer—except of course for those available under the rebate scheme that already exists if the Government is looking at extending that on to the discount card. It was interesting to note some of the speeches to the House on that issue. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am absolutely delighted to take a call on the second reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. It is very interesting that National members are actually terrified to see that a group of people in society will be advantaged and will perhaps get more than they currently get. It is a shame that this group of people comprise National members’ mothers grandmothers and elderly parents. I have never seen such merchants of misery and doom making up fiction as they have gone along. I really wonder who put the venom in their Easter eggs. I can assure those members that Grey Power is extremely happy with the SuperGold card. It cannot wait to see the card become a reality for our senior citizens and veterans. 
As we have heard this measure is an extremely important part of New Zealand First’s supply and confidence agreement with the Government so we must acknowledge the Government’s part in ensuring that the SuperGold card has eventuated in a very prompt way particularly through the efforts of Minister Dyson. I think this initiative and the legislation actually emphasises the positive aspects of an MMP environment—an environment that the National Party is not happy with. We know we can work together in the best interests of New Zealanders if we all have the goodwill. This is an excellent example of MMP and how the MMP environment works. We know we can make a positive difference to the lives of our senior citizens and veterans. New Zealand First has always had that as one of its objectives. 
It is important that the most vulnerable people in our society—the very young and the seniors—are always looked after. In this instance the seniors are our focus and we have stayed very true to our election platform. We did not promise the moon and deliver dust; we have actually delivered on what we went out to the people on. In New Zealand First we have not forgotten the very young. We are going to continue to work on the issues that benefit them such as free medical care and oral health-care—all of those things that are very important to us in New Zealand First. 
The SuperGold card will provide negotiated discounts from participating businesses and I assure the National Party that those businesses are very keen to be part of this particular venture. We know that our seniors already know the value of this card. It operates in Australia and our seniors are keen to have the same benefits and advantages that are available across the Tasman. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: And it’s about time too. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It is about time. After all is said and done if it can be done in Australia it can definitely be done here. It is long overdue. We know from the Australian experience that the gold card system over there has definitely got better as time has progressed. 
New Zealand First sees the benefits available through the SuperGold card as being complementary to the Grey Power card because the cards have a common objective of ensuring the best and most extensive use of the purchasing power of seniors’ incomes. We know that in many cases their incomes are limited. Basically the SuperGold card will concentrate on the provision of services to the widest possible number of seniors throughout New Zealand. We have heard about many of the benefits here today. There may very well be individual companies in less populous areas that can see advantages of being aligned with the SuperGold card and we will encourage those companies to do so. 
As has been said this card will be available from August 2007 and will enable seniors to access with ease the Government and local authority concessions entitlements and services. This type of approach will be of huge benefit to seniors. We do not want them to have hassles to get these particular discounts; we want it to happen easily and without stress and to ensure that they actually get what they are entitled to. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Absolutely! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Absolutely! We look forward to the time that the SuperGold card will be sent out to senior citizens who receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension. We heard today that there will be a special version for veterans with war and emergency services. 
We do not want any hassles around the card. I was very delighted to hear that there will be a SuperGold card website. That is a great development for seniors. It is so pleasing to see that many of our seniors are getting onto the Internet and taking advantage of this particular technology. I know that SeniorNet computer classes are available in many communities throughout New Zealand. I know they are available in my home town of Cambridge. The seniors are taking full advantage of those particular classes. As with other discount cards the Internet will ensure that a printed directory with the range of available concessions and discounts can be updated very easily. 
It was very interesting to read in the report back to the House that there was some hesitation and resistance to the use of microchip technology which is future technology. Winston Peters has assured the House that our seniors have absolutely nothing to fear from this particular technology. Many of the seniors who use a passport are already aware that they also now contain a microchip. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Ninety-nine percent of them have got it. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: As my honourable colleague Doug Woolerton said 99 percent of them have it. In Parliament we all have cards that use microchip technology. The magnetic strip technology that we have relied on for so long has now been made redundant. The use of microchip technology will not occur until the technology is widely available. The SuperGold card will not be an identity card as some of our National colleagues have said. On that point we do not even know yet whether National will support this particular bill. 
We are very aware in New Zealand First that our seniors face many many challenges to make their pensions stretch further so that they can enjoy the busy lives they lead. One senior said to me recently: “I am far busier now than when I was working. I am busy doing voluntary work in the community looking after grandchildren when they are sick so their parents can go to work and in between times trying to follow some of my own interests.” That makes seniors very very busy people. Our seniors do make very valuable contributions in so many ways and this particular card just recognises that. As my colleague has said National does not recognise their contribution. 
I visited the St John Ambulance Association recently in Cambridge and I was really impressed with the service that it offers. I was also very interested to see that many of the volunteers were our senior citizens. They were busy working and going out each day to the St John Ambulance service. Our seniors make a huge contribution to the community and to every New Zealand family. Where would we be without them? It is absolutely essential that we recognise the contribution that they make. 
New Zealand First supports the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill totally. The party wants to have a very positive future for our seniors and our veterans. This legislation is a great development. I must give out the freephone number while I am here so that senior citizens who want to make inquiries can do so. The free phone number is 0800 254 565. We in New Zealand First believe our seniors have earned the SuperGold card. We look forward to this bill passing through the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to debate the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I assure Barbara Stewart that National supports the idea of concessions and of a discount card for senior citizens. We all appreciate the contribution our older people have made for us. But I want to make sure that senior citizens understand clearly the very limited scope of this bill. It is only a technical amendment that does not actually guarantee the delivery of any services at all. 
The bill reminds me of the fairy tale  
The Emperor’s New Clothes 
. Members will remember the story. It is about an emperor—a gorgeous peacock of a man who loved clothes and all that was glittery and gaudy. He loved and wore shiny fashions jewels and baubles. Members will remember in the story that he bought a wonderful new super gold suit of which he was enormously proud. But that suit proved to be a mere illusion. Alas when the poor emperor was out parading in front of his people a little boy pointed the finger at the sham and the poor emperor discovered he was stark naked. 
Today I am really concerned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs might just find himself equally as naked and exposed. You see the Minister has made lots of lovely promises today just as he did at the first reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill when he said that it will create a card that will offer a range of concessions and discounts from central government local authorities and businesses. 
We support rewarding our elderly people but the problem is that this bill will not do that. All it will do is set the rules to allow a card—any card—to be issued by the Government. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 so that the Government can issue a card that includes a photo and a microchip. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.