Volume 613 Week 43 - Wednesday 19 November 2003 
Volume 613 Week 43 - Wednesday 19 November 2003 
[Volume:613;Page:10137] 
Wednesday 19 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Date 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 8 April 2004.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.  
Points of Order 
Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to question No. 7 on the Order Paper yesterday. Very serious allegations were made; that armed and drug-crazed home detainees had attacked security guards. I had no information about this but I felt an obligation to investigate this matter for the House. Unfortunately the one security firm that services home detainees has no evidence at all of this happening. I have checked with the police and they have had no complaint. Nor have they received any information from Mr Mark.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in the middle of a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is very close to contravening my statement. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yesterday Mr Mark was denied the opportunity to table an email. He will not give me a copy of that email because he was denied permission. I wonder whether he could be given the opportunity again to submit that evidence to the House so that I can follow it up.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
Having concluded that point of order you will have realised by now that from the start to the finish it never was a point of order. It was a blatant political effort made by a member whose party denied my colleague the right to give him the information yesterday. If he wants to behave in that petulant fashion then you should not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have finished and do not have to hear the member any further. The member is perfectly correct in what he says. Any member of course can seek to table a document—I have found that out; it has been drawn to my attention. If the member wants to seek leave to table it that is his business and his business alone.  
Question No. 6 to Minister 18 November 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the answer to oral question No. 6 yesterday in the process of which the Minister of Transport made this statement: “For example the police used to be sitting in cars and vans monitoring speed cameras. They do not do it any more because we think they should be doing other things.” People have rung my office and said that on a frequent basis they see speed cameras on the highway between Belfast and Rangiora that are staffed by police officers. In the interests of not misleading the House I invite through you Mr Speaker the Minister to make a correction to his clearly inaccurate statement.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no procedural issue for me to rule on. There are various steps that the member can take if he wishes to do so.  
National Party Leadership—Special Debate 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems that we are coming to question time. I seek leave that at the end of this question time we have a 1½-hour special debate on the issue of the recent changes in the National Party leadership as numerous as they have become.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that debate to occur. Is there any objection? There is objection.  
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
In light of the questions raised in the House today I seek leave to table an email received at our offices detailing circumstances surrounding two alleged assaults. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Education—Teacher Development 
1.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to lift student achievement through improved teacher development? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
Best evidence research released earlier this year found that the quality of teaching was the major factor in improving student achievement. Today I announced funding of $1 million for 13 research projects in this area. The projects range from effective teaching in different cultural contexts through to information technology numeracy and comprehension.  
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why is improving student achievement in areas such as numeracy and comprehension so important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We want all New Zealanders to be able to do their numbers and to comprehend what is happening in the world around them. I have received recent reports that suggest that at least some New Zealanders appear to be able to do their numbers one week but not the next. It is particularly concerning that the ability to consistently count from one to 14 appears to be beyond the grasp of some people but then it is hard to count when someone is stealing your stuffed dummies. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need the member shouting. I am well aware of that fact. [ 
Interruption 
] That is all right. It is his first day in his position and I am prepared to be generous. 
Simon Power 
: How is teacher development being improved when the Government’s flagship for ethics and professionalism the New Zealand Teachers Council saw the Minister sack its first chairperson Kathy Irwin; its second chairperson Stan Rodger left in June after just a year; its director Margaret Kouvelis resigned on 10 October; the Minister installed a crisis team earlier this year; and one of its other core jobs creating a code of ethics for teachers has still not been completed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is fair to say that progress as far as the Teachers Council has been disappointing to date. 
Rail Network—Government Contribution 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statements that the Government’s initial contribution towards the upgrade of the rail track will be $200 million and that it will be possible to recover the ongoing investment costs from that point on; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The Government’s commitment under the heads of agreement with Toll Holdings stops at $200 million. Toll Holdings will pay for any additional investments from which it derives commercial benefits including the cost of capital. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is he aware that Solid Energy New Zealand’s assessment of the midland coal line requires $183 million to be spent over the next 15 years and considering that this is just one part of the network but a considerable part of the $200 million available how can he be confident that that $200 million plus the access charges will be enough to renew and maintain the entire network? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s question answers itself when he says that $183 million is the estimate of our spending over the next 15 years on that particular aspect alone. If expenditure above the $200 million is required for commercial reasons then that is recouped. 
Mark Gosche 
: What benefits does the Toll Holdings deal offer New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It undoes the worst effects of the very soft privatisation deal entered into by the National Government in 1993. It gives the country the chance to get a decent infrastructure for rail and a better balance between rail and road freight. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember the view taken by the Labour Party on 20 July 1993 when it announced its support of this deal except that it said the timing was wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Even the best of us occasionally err. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the long-term value to New Zealand of having a functional rail system is considerably more than $200 million and that that value includes reducing or avoiding heavy trucks on routes such as the Napier-Gisborne highway and the road to Port Chalmers through Dunedin City? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I absolutely agree with that. Indeed I think the best example is what would happen if the rail infrastructure collapsed and central North Island logs had to be carted by road over the Kaimai Range into Tauranga. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm for the House that the contribution is capped at $200 million and can he tell the House that this initial contribution will be the final contribution the taxpayer has to make? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I certainly cannot confirm the latter because the Government may have other reasons for infrastructure improvements beyond the commercial need of the time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What assessment has the Government done so far of what capital expenditure it might have to commit over and above the $200 million? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is still a lot of work to do on the long-term infrastructure needs of the rail system. I think it is fair to say that we knew a good deal more about it than some other potential players when recent events occurred. 
Exports—Security 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Does he stand by his comments on 5 November 2003 regarding the Government’s proposal to have exporters pay for new national security measures that “… those who benefit from New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and secure trading partner should contribute to the cost of meeting these new requirements”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Customs 
: Yes because both the Government and traders benefit from New Zealand being seen as clean green and safe so both the Government and those who trade should contribute towards security costs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Noting that answer does the Minister agree that all New Zealanders benefit from improved security at our ports not just those who import and export goods; if so why does the Government not pay for these reforms as part of its core obligation to protect its citizens rather than singling out import and export businesses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A good part of these increased costs are a requirement for United States trade—in particular compliance costs imposed by the United States Government. There is no particular reason why the New Zealand Government should bear all those costs. The argument the member puts forward would of course apply to a very large range of Government services for which the Government charges. Should it choose to do so substantial increases in tax rates would be required which is contrary to the submissions the member has made to me. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Why has the Government chosen this approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government pays a good deal already to protect New Zealand’s borders and keep them safe for all New Zealanders—some $35 million a year for customs services. The United States and other nations need to be assured of the safety of all goods on ships and aircraft and it is appropriate that there is a sharing of costs in those respects. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why does the Minister think it is justifiable to place up to $20 million worth of costs on industry and exporters when all other security is paid for by the State? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly a good part of the reason for that is that these costs are being applied from elsewhere. This Government unlike most other Governments in the world is taking on the responsibility of trying to ensure that New Zealand exporters can in effect get into the fast lane in terms of access to the United States. To meet these requirements would cause considerable difficulties on shore in the United States and those costs elsewhere are being met directly out of the private sector. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that these costs in regard to exporters are being imposed on carriers and does he not recognise that a carrier of a large quantity of cargo will pass on a relatively small cost to an exporter as against the carrier of a small volume of cargo who will be forced to pass on a heavy cost to an exporter; and does he think that is fair and equitable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the charge is a per-container charge rather than a per-ship charge. A question about the flat rate issue has been raised by some interested in this matter and obviously we need to make sure that that is the fairest way of approaching it. Most other approaches would have higher compliance costs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement in the House yesterday regarding the proposed border security measures that they are “a response to demands from the United States. In other countries around the world it has been basically left to the private sector to meet those conditions.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand the Minister of Finance made those statements on the basis of advice from the Minister of Customs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the fact that the Canadian Government has recently announced spending of Can$172.5 million for port security therefore treating border security as a national defence issue alter his stated view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. In the case of Canada of course some 88 percent of its exports go to the United States. They are effectively a one-nation exporting country compared with New Zealand. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the fact that the United States Government has allocated US$2.3 billion in its 2003 Budget for its customs service to carry out its border security role in any way alter his stated view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Off the top of my head I am not able to scale the United States versus New Zealand in that regard. I would emphasise that the New Zealand Government already spends a large amount of money on border security and those costs are continuing to rise quite rapidly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Government planning to rush its port security proposals through before Christmas as an amendment to the Border Security Bill without proper parliamentary or select committee scrutiny? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Customs was advised by the Leader of the House that there is no intention to rush this bill through before Christmas. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave first to table a document showing that Ottawa is pumping $172.5 million— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Secondly I seek leave to table a document showing the United States of America is putting $2.3 billion towards— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Legal Aid—Eligibility 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are the eligibility criteria for receiving legal aid and what powers exist for the Legal Services Agency to recover any or all of the financial assistance delivered under this scheme? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Sections 8 and 9 of the Legal Services Act set out the eligibility criteria for legal aid for criminal and for civil matters. The criteria for criminal legal aid date back to 1912. Aid is available in criminal matters where any adult applicant charged with a serious indictable offence in New Zealand does not have sufficient means to obtain legal assistance and the interests of justice require that he or she be granted it. The Legal Services Agency can require an individual to make a contribution towards the cost of a lawyer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will the Minister do about Yiyu Zhang a Chinese on a student visa convicted of 39 charges including kidnapping threatening to kill and aggravated robbery who was able to use the law to buy a shorter prison sentence by paying $64000 in reparation yet was able to plead poverty and receive $41000 in legal aid? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers that question this is the only warning I am giving. The question will be heard in silence. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first part of the question asks what I would do. The member will know well that under section 98 of the Act which sets out the limitations on the Minister’s powers to direct I cannot direct the Legal Services Agency to do anything and I note that every member of this House voted for that clause. In relation to the agency’s ability to recover money my understanding is in this case that it is investigating whether any of the legal aid money can be recovered. It is worth noting that more than $12 million was recovered last year from those granted legal aid. I make the final point that not to grant legal aid to somebody facing a charge that in this case resulted in 10½ years’ imprisonment would not only breach our international legal obligations but would be totally contrary to what the National Party spokesperson on justice says about people not representing themselves in court. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind a little bit of interjection but there was too much during that answer. I will not be giving a warning again. 
Tim Barnett 
: How much is spent on legal aid and has there been a blowout in legal aid expenditure? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Last year we spent about $82 million on legal aid. This year we are tracking towards much the same level. There has been no blowout in legal aid expenditure over the last 4 or 5 years in contrast with the mid to late 1990s when annual increases in legal aid were running at 17 percent and 19 percent. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister not even consider his usual practice of promising a review for a case where someone has got what the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 30 October stated was a 2½ year discount on his sentence for a $64000 reparation payment yet it appears he was so poor he could not meet his own legal aid bills? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I very rarely respond to calls for reviews from that member so I will not be doing so on this occasion. The money was paid by the family. It was under no legal or moral obligation to do so. I only wish that the New Zealand families of offenders were as forthcoming as that in trying to make amends. Legal aid is determined on the financial ability of the individual not of the individual’s family. That law applies to all New Zealanders. In relation to the payment of that money I understand that the victims are very pleased in this case to have received substantial reparation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that every political party in this Parliament but one is for wholesale immigration and soft treatment of those sorts of crooks when will the Minister stop wasting—[ 
Interruption 
] It is true all right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the final warning. The member interjecting is very very lucky. I want the Rt Hon Winston Peters to restate the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the record of every political party in this Parliament but one being in favour of wholesale immigration and a soft touch when those people rip the New Zealand taxpayer off when will the Minister do something for people like Mary Bloggs who pay their taxes look after their families and are good citizens instead of kowtowing to every group in this country that has no long-term interest in New Zealand’s financial or social viability? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The premise of the member’s question is wrong. That person was not an immigrant; he was an international student. He was one of 82000 international students who come to New Zealand each year returning to this country about $1.7 billion a year. Inevitably amongst 82000 people we will get some ratbags. He was one of them. 
Judy Turner 
: In light of the personal and financial sacrifice made by kinship carers such as grandparents does the Minister agree that they should not be means tested when applying for legal aid for the purpose of seeking guardianship of children in their protective care; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The rules apply separately to criminal and civil legal aid as I am sure the member is aware. I am also aware of the plight of some of the people in the position she is talking about. I would like to see something done to help people in that situation. There is currently a review of eligibility for legal aid which should consider that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How fair is it that the millionaire family of a foreigner can pay $64000 to get a 2½ year lesser prison sentence but expect the New Zealand taxpayer to foot a $41000 legal aid bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I made the point before that any individual—and the same rule applies to every individual facing a serious criminal charge in this country—is looked at on the basis of his or her financial ability. The claim about a millionaire sits somewhat strangely alongside all the newspaper reports I have seen on this family because they suggest the family was of modest means. Perhaps the member would like to give me the information on which that allegation was based. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the Minister’s refusal to even consider a review of this case why has the overall eligibility review—promised in 1999 and referred to again as “due next year in 2000” —on legal aid never surfaced and could that be because the Minister promised to make legal aid more generous and now realises that New Zealanders actually want to see it be less liberal? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong on two counts. Firstly I have no power to review—in fact I am expressly forbidden from doing so—a decision on a case by the Legal Services Agency. Secondly far from the eligibility review never having surfaced if the member likes to look on the website he will find it there. It has been there for quite some time and the report back is due next month. 
Marc Alexander 
: How could it be possible that taxpayers have been handed a $176385 legal aid bill for four members of an extortion ring when one of them and his family was able to pay reparation of $64000 and pleaded guilty to 39 charges—particularly as the legal aid was given to offenders on student visas—and is that not just another example of New Zealand taxpayers subsiding non-resident offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I refer the member to article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which this House has ratified and every party in this House voted for he will see there is an obligation that any person facing serious criminal charges in this country who does not personally have sufficient means to have legal representation must be provided with it. I also point out that the actual amount paid in amends—not reparations ordered—was in excess of those legal costs. The family was under no obligation to pay that. The family did that itself. The individual must be judged as all other individuals are judged in terms of his eligibility for legal aid. That was done independently of me and of this House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given Mr Goff’s outraged reaction prior to the 1999 general election when there were allegations made about a Chinese millionaire apparently receiving legal aid which Mr Goff said was a major outrage and needed to be stopped what will he do to recoup the money from people who can obtain cash for shorter prison sentences but not to pay for their lawyers in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If any individual receiving legal aid in this country was a millionaire I would be outraged because that is expressly prohibited under the legislation that we have passed. The legislation sets out the criteria very clearly. The Legal Services Agency applies those criteria and to the best of my understanding it has done so accurately. 
District Health Boards—Nurses’ Pay 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What if any provision have district health boards been asked to make for pay increases for nursing staff in the next financial year and will they receive any extra funding from the Government to provide nursing staff with pay rises? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
Most boards have settled nurse pay negotiations through various multi-employer contracts. One contract has been settled to at least June 2005 and it has been done within the board’s 3-year funding package provided by the Government. It is the Government’s expectation that any wage increases the boards negotiate will be met from within the funding package they receive.  
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the statement made by the Associate Minister of Health to petitioners outside Parliament today that the Government is committed to progressing pay equity for nurses can the 9000 nurses from 21 district health boards around the country who signed that petition presented to Parliament today expect pay equity next year and if not next year when? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has established a pay and employment equity task force and the Nurses Organisation is represented on that task force. Decisions on pay equity including any possible funding for the 2004 Budget will be made in response to the task force report which will set out a 5-year action plan. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What nurse recruitment initiatives has the Government put in place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We do take the issue of recruiting and retaining nurses very seriously and two recent examples that have been put in place have been scholarships that will reduce the cost of training for nurses and also the reintroduction of training for enrolled nurses—something that was scrapped in 1991 but brought back by this Government. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How can New Zealand’s health service afford to increase pay for our valuable front-line nursing staff when in the last financial year the increased bureaucracy and duplication caused by having 21 district health boards led to a deficit of $184 million? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to tell that member that we managed not only to increase nurses’ salaries over the last 3 years but also to decrease the deficit. In fact the expected deficit for this financial year is $80 million. That will be a lot better than the previous Government ever achieved. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will she consider introducing compulsory nurse-patient ratios as a strategy to encourage nurses back into the profession and to improve patient outcomes in hospitals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No there is no work on actual patient-nurse ratios but we have introduced through Magnet New Zealand a programme whereby we look at all the conditions that nurses face within a working environment. The programme is now being put in place in the Hutt Valley and the organisation is looking to put it in place right across the district health boards. It has had wide support from nurses and it addresses not only ratios but also the entire environment in which a nurse works. 
Heather Roy 
: Is it Government policy to provide a pro-rata increase to district health boards to cover the extra costs that will result from 4 weeks’ leave for nurses; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because nurses in the district health boards have 20 days’ paid leave plus 2 days’ recreation leave already. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that fair pay for nurses would cost less than 10 percent of this year’s fiscal surplus how does she feel nurse petitioners will feel about her refusal to commit to pay equity for them particularly the nurse who said outside Parliament: “Nurses and midwives are tired and angry. We are understaffed overworked and many suffer burnouts. Our patient loads are frequently too high and we are tired of being told that there is no money in the kitty every time there is a pay round.” 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would say to nurses that they have finally got a Government that has committed itself to pay equity. That has not been done by any other Government—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell those members on the Opposition side of the House who are shouting that they reduced nurses’ salaries when they were previously in Government. They did not increase them. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware of comments by the head of Christchurch polytechnic school of nursing Cathy Andrew who said that some years she has watched 90 percent of her graduates leave the country in search of better pay and conditions and to pay off their student loans and what will this Government do to address that situation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member may not have heard but I did say in answer to Steve Chadwick that one of the things that this Government has introduced is scholarships in the health sector— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How many? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will be 500 scholarships next year. That is the beginning of decreasing the cost of training to nurses. There is more being done towards that by my colleague Steve Maharey in terms of student loans. But I think nurses recognise—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough. There are too many interjections. The Minister will now conclude her remarks in silence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know that nurses recognise that this Government has done a considerable amount in the time that we have been on the Treasury benches. 
Sue Bradford 
: What is the Minister’s response to staff nurse Carol McCord who on $38000 a year has been stuck at the top of her salary scale for over 20 years and will the Government budget for a nurses’ pay rise next year—yes or no? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I already replied in my first answer to Sue Kedgley that pay increases for nurses will be negotiated by nurses. Every year that we have been in Government they have negotiated pay rises. Nurses are looking to the future in terms of pay equity and work on that is being done through the establishment of a task force of which they are a part. It is prepared to work through those issues and ensure we address them fairly not only for nurses but for all those who work within the health sector. 
Immigration Minister—Confidence 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
:: In light of emerging evidence concerning the operation of the New Zealand Immigration Service does she still have confidence in the Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In view of recent bombing attacks against civilians overseas and now published threats in Australia how can the Prime Minister tolerate a Minister and a department that allow another Algerian this time found with explosive material into this country deny his existence and then grant him legal aid for court action while claiming to be a refugee? What on earth is he doing here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will be aware that last week the Immigration Service issued a press statement stating that it had not had referred to it any evidence that anyone was a terrorist. If people are found with such substances on them as the member suggests then that is a matter for referral to the police. 
Keith Locke 
: When will the Prime Minister respond to the public outcry and ask her Minister of Immigration to lift the security risk certificate on Ahmed Zaoui and release him from prison; or if her Government continues to detain Mr Zaoui when will she recommend that he be transferred to the most relaxed form of detention for asylum seekers—that is the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows Mr Zaoui is in the middle of a process. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is reviewing the issuing of the security risk certificate. A hearing is set down on that for mid-December. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who has allowed Salah Eddine Bouta into this country—someone found to have evidence of explosives on him—and why is it that the New Zealand people will again put up with paying for legal aid and all other sorts of costs like imprisonment in respect of a suspected terrorist? What on earth is this man doing in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not the practice of the Minister to discuss individual cases. There is a clear duty of confidentiality around a number of cases. If the member is putting names in the public arena and if he is doing that in defiance of court orders he should probably take legal advice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is Parliament. If the Prime Minister cared for the security of this country she would have referred to a name that was given in this House last week. It therefore does not carry any proscription at all in respect of what any court may say now. However more important looking at the carnage abroad we see that to have the Prime Minister fobbing off evidence in this House when every New Zealander is being asked to be part and parcel of our security arrangements is downright irresponsible. She should have been stopped in her tracks for purporting to answer the question when in fact she is saying that I am proscribed from even asking a question about this man the evidence on whom I gave last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say quite clearly to the member that I did not stop him from asking the question. He had a perfect right to do so. The Prime Minister has a perfect right to reply if she wishes; that is her right in this House also. Rulings on suppression of name orders are in Speakers’ rulings 44/4 45/1 and 45/2. Speaker’s ruling 45/2 reads: “Whilst the House jealously guards its freedom of speech it needs to be mindful of other jurisdictions particular the courts where if a suppression order is in force it ought not lightly to be circumvented in the House except in the most extraordinary circumstances.” That ruling was made in 1999 by my predecessor Mr Kidd. It is for members to act responsibly with regard to this matter. However I must point out that reports outside this House of proceedings in the House are not exempt from liability in respect of a contempt of court. I did not rule out the member’s question and he was perfectly entitled to say what he said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that this matter is a joke and a matter for giggling and sniggering in this House when a week ago she received evidence of someone who arrived in this country being a suspected terrorist who was found to have evidence of explosives on him and who was named in this House and therefore no proscription can apply in the way sought by the Prime Minister; when will she take this country’s security seriously? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that the Immigration Service last week issued a statement that it had not had advice that there was a suspected terrorist among us. I might say that if there were a case where traces of explosive material were picked up at the border I would regard that as a great success of our border security system. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is such a roaring success what the hell is he doing here being paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer and on legal aid? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am prepared to answer only questions in the abstract because I will not drag people’s names through this Parliament and the public arena. However in the abstract when people arrive and claim refugee status they are subject to treatment under international conventions. This country upholds the law in respect of those conventions just as the Government that the member was previously part of did. 
Working Holidays—Changes 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What changes are being proposed to the reciprocal working holiday schemes between New Zealand and other countries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
Demand for places on New Zealand’s very successful working holiday schemes has been such that this week Cabinet has made the decision to expand the number of places available from 25000 at present to 31000 next year with further increases after that possible. That will allow 1000 additional young people from the United Kingdom 700 from Ireland 1200 from Canada 1000 from Germany 500 from France and an additional 200 each from the Netherlands Chile and Sweden. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the advantages of expanding the working holiday schemes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first advantage is that it is reciprocal. It means that increased numbers of young New Zealanders can go to those countries to work and holiday for up to a year. Secondly the research that is being done on working holiday schemes specifically the Australian research shows that working holiday schemes have a positive net effect on the labour market—that is they create more jobs than they displace. Thirdly they expose New Zealand to talented young people from other countries a great number of whom apply to live here permanently and others come back as tourists when they are highly paid and spend a lot of money here. 
Ministers—Confidence 
8.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
Yes because they are all conscientious and hard-working. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does she stand by her Minister of Education’s school network reviews that could see up to 300 schools closed; if so what does she say to Blackball’s angry families who at a meeting with the Minister slammed Labour’s review of the West Coast as morally inept and socially naive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I would say is that it would be irresponsible for the Minister not to be looking at school networks given the advice he has from his ministry that over the next 15 years there will be a net fall of 63000 in the number of primary school pupils. It would be irresponsible for the Minister to let schools drift to unviability like little yellow ducks. 
Simon Power 
: What messages is the Prime Minister sending to rural New Zealand—which provides this Government with its surpluses—given that according to reports Auckland is to get 16 new schools while the fate of 163 mainly rural schools lies in the balance as part of those network reviews? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand from the Minister that 70 percent of the children are in urban areas and Auckland of course is experiencing quite rapid population growth which requires the building of new schools. What this Minister has done is to get out and front up to communities to talk with them and listen to them from one end of the country to the other about the issues—not something his predecessors in the National Government did. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Joking aside about schoolchildren how can the Prime Minister look Blackball mothers in the eye when they are forced by her Minister of Education to send their children to a new school and how can she tell them that the closing of their school is in the best interests of their families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I can say to the Blackball parents is that no decisions have been made about their school and that under ACT they would be lucky to get any free State education at all. 
New Zealand Film Commission—Government Support 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: How is the Government supporting the New Zealand Film Commission to help New Zealanders make more New Zealand films? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
Film has an important role in New Zealand’s cultural and economic development. Last week we were pleased to announce along with the Government’s response to the Screen Production Taskforce recommendations that the New Zealand Film Commission is to receive an annual $10 million baseline funding increase in the 2004 Budget. This nearly doubles the commission’s existing funding and will enable it to support more films like the multi-award winning film  
Whale Rider 
. 
Dianne Yates 
: How does the New Zealand Film Commission support the development of New Zealand film makers? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: As well as developing and funding films the Film Commission runs programmes to help upskill New Zealand screenwriters directors and producers. One of the commission’s initiatives involves bringing international film makers and funders to New Zealand such as the UK delegation last year from which New Zealand feature films including  
My Father’s Den 
 obtained financing. A similar Australian delegation is being brought to this weekend’s Screen Production and Development Association conference of which the Film Commission is the principal sponsor. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister support the Film Commission administering the Government’s big-budget film grant scheme; if so what are the superior skills that the commission has in the area of tax business and company structuring compared to those of the Inland Revenue Department or the Ministry of Economic Development? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The big-budget film fund will be administered through the Film Commission but it is paid for by the Ministry of Economic Development. The Film Commission has the best part of 30 years of experience in film projects of all sorts and will be consulting with and advised by the Inland Revenue Department in terms of this. I do not believe in setting up more bureaucracies to run New Zealand businesses and to support business and investment in New Zealand. The Film Commission has done a very good job in getting New Zealand big-budget films up and going and monitoring those recently made in New Zealand. 
Project Aqua—Statement of Minister for the Environment 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her statement that “When I say all bets are off [on the lower Waitaki] I am not saying I am against Project Aqua or I am for irrigation or I’m for the status quo on the river” and what exactly does that statement mean? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister for the Environment) 
: 
Yes. What it means is that applicants wanting to use the Waitaki River water will have to await the development of a water allocation framework by an independent statutory body under legislation to be considered by Parliament shortly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister’s statement that “all bets are off” came after her statements earlier in the year that the Resource Management Act was quite adequate as it was for dealing with Project Aqua. She later said that she would be calling in Project Aqua under the Resource Management Act and in September she stated that we would have special legislation that Parliament has not yet seen so how many more different positions will the Government take in respect of Project Aqua? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A water allocation plan is proposed by legislation because a regional water plan for Canterbury does not exist. As far as the issue of different positions is concerned I am happy to report that the person who is currently the deputy leader of the National Party said—when he was not the deputy leader—that he was in favour of Project Aqua. The person who was the leader of the National Party said—when he was the leader although he is not now—that he was cautious about Project Aqua whereas the person who was—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have interjections made in the second person because they refer to me. Although I am a little older than some I am still younger than many and I suggest that the member tells that to senior citizens’ groups. The member will interject properly but from now until the end of the answer to this question he will not interject at all. Before I call the Hon Pete Hodgson again I say that while he was attempting to answer the question I thought the interjections had reached an inane number.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last four sentences of the Minister’s answer have been about the positions of various National MPs. Under the Standing Orders it is not for him to talk about other parties’ positions but only those of the Government.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if that were in the Standing Orders then there would be very few questions or answers. A member can refer briefly to other people but he cannot go on at excessive length. I think he had just about finished his answer. [ 
Interruption 
] If I find that person’s telephone it will be confiscated. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In conclusion I point out that this Government has one position—unlike other parties in the House. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the completion of a water allocation plan necessary for the Waitaki catchment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In the absence of a water allocation plan resource consent applications were being considered in a policy vacuum. Applications need to be considered in a way that will look at the relative merits of the different uses of water. Under the current system there is no certainty that the national regional or local benefits of using Waitaki water will be considered. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Has the Minister consulted with her colleague the Minister of Energy with regard to Project Aqua and has the Minister of Energy conveyed his support for Project Aqua to the Minister for the Environment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister for the Environment consults with the Minister of Energy on a regular almost daily basis on many matters and the Minister of Energy is very supportive of the Government’s approach in respect of the Waitaki allocation wanting to be sure that the issues of Project Aqua are treated on a proper Resource Management Act – principled basis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Noting that Meridian Energy chief executive officer Dr Keith Turner Otago University physics professor Gerry Carrington and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority all agree that between 20 and 30 percent of electricity is currently wasted in inefficient use does the Minister agree that Project Aqua’s $1.2 billion investment in the destruction of the Waitaki River is driven more by the revenue aspirations of a State-owned enterprise than because it is the best route to electricity security? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I do not. Whichever way energy efficiency and good use of electricity is cut no one no model and no reasonable person has ever suggested to me that this country does not need more generation. It does. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Government reject National’s substantial 1999 Resource Management Act reform bill and resist any substantial amendment to the Act for 4 years but will now advance special legislation when its own company suddenly wants to advance a particular project and why does the Government not adopt National’s policy instead which is to fix the Resource Management Act for all projects and not just Government company projects? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Among the many things that the National Party’s 1999 propositions failed to achieve was a regional water plan for Canterbury. It is a pity that the National Party on the passage of the 1991 Resource Management Act then failed to resource the implementation of that Act right through the 1990s which means that whilst there are regional water plans in some parts of the country there are not in others—even after 12 years. That is an outrage. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As worthy as the cause might be I notice that Jeanette Fitzsimons and I think another Green member have logos on their fronts. Is it appropriate and acceptable to come to this House dressed like that? If it is can I come down here with the Arsenal Football Club logo on my clothing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As an Arsenal supporter myself over many years let me just say that I would prefer that the issue not be raised. As long as it is a fashion accessory it is OK but I will look at the matter. 
Overseas Investment Commission—Conditions on Transactions 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How many transactions since 1999 concerning the sale of property to overseas buyers had conditions imposed and how many of these conditions if any has the Overseas Investment Commission failed to ensure were fulfilled? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
All 892 transactions had conditions imposed. The answer to the second half of the member’s question is not available. However I can report that between 1996 when monitoring began and August this year the commission investigated an estimated 398 cases and currently has 19 investigations under way. Of the 398 cases 381 related to late reporting only rather than to any substantive issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain whether the American applicants Marc and Ivy Powell misled the Overseas Investment Commission when they told the commission that they intended to reside in New Zealand; if not why are they not currently resident 4 years after the application was approved and what will he do about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has been an independent investigation of the Powell case which concludes that by and large they are not in breach of their conditions. The main problem is the consequence of their failure to pay a rather large number of contractors. That unfortunately is not a condition of the sale. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister considering imposing a risk-free rate of return methodology for foreigners investing in projects approved by the Overseas Investment Commission; if not why is he proposing that New Zealanders should pay this crazy wealth tax when they invest abroad? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This is a long way from the original question; however I am prepared to answer it. I am not—it was imposed by the McLeod tax committee. It is strongly supported by a lot of people in the New Zealand financial sector whatever the overseas interest the member represented may have in this matter. To some extent it is supported also by views from the Investment Savings and Insurance Association and others. I have considerable reservations around the risk-free rate of return method as the member probably knows. 
Moana Mackey 
: How do land sales under this Government compare with those under the previous regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the current Government approved land sales have averaged 3646 hectares a month. From the period December 1996 to 14 August 1998 when Mr Peters was the Treasurer that rate was 10010 hectares a month. 
Rod Donald 
: Why has the Minister not implemented the 2001 recommendations from the Government and Green members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to “examine the feasibility of a code of corporate responsibility which investors would need to agree to and with which the Overseas Investment Commission would monitor compliance.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think that would be as useful as ensuring specific conditions that are effectively monitored. One of the key elements of the review currently being undertaken is the monitoring regimes in place and the capacity of the Overseas Investment Commission to carry out that monitoring regime. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister confirm that in the 7 years before I became the Treasurer not one application was declined. When I became the Treasurer all applications that had any sensitivity came to my office unlike now; and last of all where are Marc and Ivy Powell; if they are not here why has that deal not been revoked by him as Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know where they are but given the member’s earlier questions today I assume he is happy that foreigners are not in this country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a press statement by Dr Cullen saying how he approved of my way of handling Overseas Investment Commission matters and legislation that I drafted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
Breast Cancer—Access to Mammography Services 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How do women in rural areas and remote districts access mammography services to screen for breast cancer? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
When the programme was established in 1998 it was decided to provide the service through a mobile unit. The number of units has since been increased to six to correspond with each lead provider and the geographic area they cover. The mobile units generally visit on a 2-year cycle. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why does the mobile mammography screening unit on the West Coast of the South Island otherwise known as the “boob bus” accept only patients aged 50 to 64 who can receive free screening; and why will it not accept younger or older women who are quite willing to pay for a mammogram to protect themselves against dying from breast cancer? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the same reason that applied when it was established. It was established for those women within the screening programme. When it was decided that the unit would be mobile and go into the districts it was decided that the bus was for those women the programme was targeted at. That has not changed. 
Dave Hereora 
: What improvements have there been in the provision of rural health services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have all day but this Government is committed to improving access in rural health. For example we have had rural nurse training scholarships a boost to rural nurse training a new recruitment scheme for rural health-care a roster for rural doctors remote allowances for doctors—to name but a few. I have to tell the House they are working. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise we have had our allocation of supplementary questions. I am appealing to your discretion to allow me one more—this is an important issue—or I will seek leave of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not me who gives the discretion; it is the House. Is there any objection to a further question from Mr Brown? There is. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In light of the new evidence that shows that we will save lives if screening is extended to women 40 to 50 and above the cut-off age of 65 will West Coast women still have to travel across the Southern Alps to Christchurch to get a mammogram instead of being able to use the mobile clinic at Grey Hospital which is lying idle half the time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The issue of extension of the breast-screening programme is already being looked at. An announcement will be made about that in due course. However I need to tell the member that the West Coast is probably a little luckier than other areas—the mobile service goes there once a year. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an issue that causes us in New Zealand First quite some concern. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify that answer a little bit. Is the screening programme likely to be enlarged at both ends? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a good try but it is really seeking another supplementary. 
General Debates 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I want to thank so many of the Labour members. I thank their entire front bench for staying in the House this afternoon to hear this contribution from me. I want to be the first to tell them that their days are now numbered. They have less than 2 years to occupy those benches because this country has lost confidence in them. And I refer that nervous-looking Labour back bench to the great page in last Monday’s business section of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that contained numerous quotes from employer bodies in this country from business owners in this country and from business investors in this country who have said they believe that this Government is hopelessly led and is not doing anything to grow the economy at anywhere near the rate it needs to and that they have no confidence in the Government. 
Let me make it clear that it will not be business that tips this Government out. I tell those members that when the boss gets the wind up the workers get spooked. We have a workforce in this country that is not being paid at the levels that it should be paid at we have workers who are not earning the incomes they should be earning and we have a Government that can only say that its answer to the problem is to form another committee get another reference group together and see whether it can come up with some sort of a task force that might give it some recommendations about when and where it might do something.  
We have had years now of sustained economic growth. Michael Cullen will stand up in a few minutes and tell us what a marvellous Government it has been and how great it has been for this country. Whenever there have been long periods of sustained economic growth in this country the first people who get the hit-up in the living standards are the workers. It has not happened this time. This Government has not allowed New Zealanders’ incomes to rise to the levels that they should have over these past few good years. The Government will pay the price.  
Don Brash has made it very clear that the gap between a New Zealand worker and an Australian worker on a per capita wealth base spread over the entire population is over $200 per week. That is why Annette King cannot pay the nurses a reasonable salary; that is why Trevor Mallard is going around the countryside shutting down schools; and that is why almost every other social service in this country including the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is an utter mess. People are suffering as a result of this Government’s total neglect of the economy.  
We will hear Dr Cullen stand up in a couple of minutes and say that we have the lowest unemployment rate the country has ever had. Well I tell Dr Cullen that when we have over 300000 working-age New Zealanders on welfare benefits other than the unemployment benefit there is no way that the Minister can make a claim that unemployment is genuinely at that low level. Opportunity has deserted this country.  
I make a few comments about the Helen Clark Christmas present to the workers. Helen Clark’s Christmas present to the workers is 4 weeks’ annual leave in four Christmases’ time. They can just hold their hat wait four Christmases and they will get an extra week’s leave. Let me make it clear to all the blokes in the Council of Trade Unions who lined up to back Helen Clark in this miserable Christmas present that that will mean 3 years of low wage-growth in this country. It is a wage cap and once again the worker in this country will be required to forgo the benefits of this supposedly splendid economy in order that Michael Cullen can stuff up every now and then and say: “How magnificent we are what huge surpluses we have what a great Government we are.”  
That will not suffice for New Zealanders. I tell Labour members on the back bench to go back into their communities talk with their people and ask them how easy life is. If they are still talking to the people whom they claim to represent—and frankly I doubt that they are—then I think they will find out how much serious trouble they are in. I want to make a suggestion that the first person to go will be the member for Whanganui. 
Simon Power 
: Who? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is right: “Who?”—exactly! Most of the people of Whanganui say that: “Who is she?”.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
That was the fifth deputy leader of the National Party since it went into Opposition. Now we have two words for Gerry Brownlee—[ 
Interruption 
]— apart from “Watch what the expert might do with a broken glass!” which is “Next please!”. Who will be No. 6 in the deputy leader’s position?  
He went on about my surplus. I have to say that my surplus will never be as big as his. He is a man who has visibly grown into the role already since yesterday morning and cannot even do his jacket up on the second day as deputy leader of the National Party.  
He told us about the nurses—the bleeding-heart National Party! Do members remember what the first act of the National Government was in 1990? It repealed the pay equity legislation. That was the first statute passed in 1990—though of course in those days he was still a woodwork teacher. I have to tell Dr Brash to be worried about Mr Brownlee. He is the first deputy who can build his own scaffold in the office. Dr Brash has to worry; Gerry Brownlee is looking up the Internet now and he is trying to find out Don Brash’s weight. Put that knowledge together with a scaffold and members will know what the plan is for Don Brash at some point in the future.  
The honeymoon is over. Nick Smith has been thrown out of bed after 2½ weeks of failing to perform and Gerry Brownlee has jumped in. There is not much room in many beds for Gerry Brownlee plus somebody the size of Dr Brash.  
This all started with an accidental coup where the Bill English camp thought it had the numbers allowed some proxy votes to get cast and found out it had lost; Dr Brash found out to his surprise that he had won. Now clearly we have the party of Murphy’s Law. What a hopeless bunch: the front bench the duo at the lead—“Mogadon” and “Mastodon” leading the National Party! That is what we face on this side of the House.  
Nobody believes that this relationship is going to be a stable one. Dr Brash has worries that ACT has given up the fight for the right and become a populist party. Mr Brownlee does not want to get into bed with the ACT party at all.  
What about Dr Brash’s view of his colleagues? This is a wonderful quote: “It is a very different environment in politics. In the Reserve Bank I had a number of very bright staff who were very committed and worked very hard and were willing to debate issues very actively and aggressively.” What has he got now? He has got his National Party colleagues. They are clearly not very bright very committed working very hard or willing to debate issues very actively or aggressively. The shining light over there according to the newspapers over the last few days is Clem Simich. While the rest of the National members were out fighting Mr Simich was doing what any decent National Party MP would be doing he was rescuing an elderly couple who backed their car over the edge and whose lives were endangered. I look forward to the day when the House is to yield up a very fine Assistant Speaker and Mr Simich becomes the deputy leader or leader of the National Party because over there is a car that is halfway over the cliff with a couple of elderly people sitting inside and Mr Simich needs to rescue them and get them back on the road.  
Then we have got ACT. It is trying to chuck out Donna Awatere Huata; it is trying to ignore Deborah Coddington because of dodgy stuff around publishing; and now we have this wonderful Mr Roodt—an ACT candidate who walked out on his sewerage obligations. He went around promising to build septic tanks for people charged them money upfront and now there are all these people on Waiheke Island sitting there knowing they have got no septic tank at the other end.  
Is that not what the ACT party actually stands for? It stands for leaving the country sitting in a permanently anally retentive state in the knowledge that it has paid a lot of money and that whatever it produces is not going to go anywhere useful or go where it is supposed to go. If this is the kind of coalition that the National Party and the ACT party offer the country it is no wonder that the Labour Party is still in the lead. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
Today we saw another performance from the Minister of Justice—and performances they are. This was not one of the vein-popping shrieking attacks from the Minister of Justice on the people he calls “scumbags”. This was not one of the Minister of Justice’s attempts to tell the rest of us how staunch and how tough he is by beating his breast while he tells the Hon Margaret Wilson that her concern about human rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act did not matter. This was the Minister of Justice in his “I am a statesman” mode where he tells the rest of us what huge respect he has for procedure for the proper role of the Legal Services Agency and himself and for the role of the courts. This is the Minister of Justice faced with the outcome of his legislation of the last 3 years having to listen to the description from the Hon Tony Ryall and the other Opposition parties of a case that must outrage every New Zealander.  
Yiyu Zhang was sentenced for serious violent offences for the sort of conduct New Zealanders used to think never happened in New Zealand—kidnapping extortion and ransom demands. This offender we are told by the  
Waikato Times 
 and by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was let off 2½ years of the sentence he would have otherwise got because his family put up $64000 to properly make amends to some of the victims. Mr Goff could have explained as he failed to do last time such a matter was the cause of outrage that every offender should be making amends; that the courts should not be giving a discount to someone who makes amends they should be adding a premium—an extra 2½ years—to the sentence of everyone who does not make amends. If it had been explained like that New Zealanders would see that that is fair and proper because it is perfectly right that the courts should take account of the fact that someone makes amends and take account of the fact when someone does not.  
However that passed 3 weeks ago and today we find from the  
Waikato Times 
 that Yiyu Zhang was granted more than $40000 of legal aid to go through a 3-week trial before he decided that his defence was hopeless and changed his plea. All that money could have gone to helping victims to helping the police or to helping New Zealanders in the many things that this Government says it gives priority to. Mr Goff when asked whether he would review the law that results in this outcome said that he does not do reviews if Mr Franks wants them.  
He also failed to explain why the review of legal aid eligibility could not cover this. Legal aid eligibility has been a weeping sore in the justice system for the entire period of this Government. How do we know that? Because the Government said it was. When the Labour Government took over from National the Minister of Justice vowed that he would review eligibility terms. In fact we heard that it was on the work programme for the first year in office. Well it never appeared. The Labour Government was going to do some marvellous things. It was going to make sure that it was easier for Maori claimants to get help from the legal aid system. It was going to make sure that environmental groups could find easier access to block landowners from using their land in accordance with property rights guaranteed to them in any civilised country.  
Of course the Minister started to get cold feet. It may be what he believes in but it was not what the electorate wanted to see. The electorate is far more concerned about abuses of legal aid by the hundreds of people who make fruitless futile unjustified appeals against sentence. In our Court of Appeal which is so overworked more than half of its workload is related to appeals against sentence of which less than one-quarter get anywhere and 90 percent of which are on legal aid. The Minister could have reviewed legal aid. He now has a perfect reason to have a proper look at legal aid and to review his programme but he will not. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
Can I begin by congratulating my fellow Cantabrian Gerry Brownlee on his very well-deserved further rise up the ladder and wish him well in his continued future on his way to the leadership of the National Party. It has been an extraordinarily long wait for Gerry. He has been pretty open about his ambitions and remains pretty open about his future ambitions— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Brownlee; not Gerry. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Sorry. Cantabrians are more familiar with each other. I was not meaning any disrespect to Mr Brownlee.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I want to hear about it!  
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not that sort of familiarity thank you! What I cannot understand is why Mr Brownlee—in the end—accepted becoming deputy to someone to whom he has such a fundamental opposition. Mr Brownlee says of himself that he will always stand on principle; that he is not a populist politician. Clearly he is committed to the National Party and he is opposed to National moving in with ACT. That is exactly the opposite of where his leader wants to go. So how can this odd couple get anywhere in the future? How can they lead National out of total oblivion? How can those two present a credible policy face for the National Party? The answer is they cannot they will not they are a failure—as a couple.  
There is more to the problems of the National Party than the leadership. One can rearrange the deckchairs as often as one likes but in the end that ship will continue to go down. Even though I congratulate Mr Brownlee on his election I am sorry he made the mistake of moving in with someone whom he does not want to share that front-bench seat with. Because Don Brash has made it very clear that he wants to go with ACT—in fact Catherine Judd the current ACT president describes Don Brash as the ninth ACT MP.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Catherine Judd describes Don Brash as the ninth ACT MP. But Mr Brownlee has said of Mr Brash—his current leader—“If people in the National Party think we are going to increase the National vote by saying we are inextricably linked to ACT then they have got their heads that far into the sand all they can expect is their backside to be kicked in the next election.” How can one present a credible leadership team when that is the view of the deputy in relation to his leader’s wish to get close to ACT?  
Don Brash on the other hand said: “Many of us see National and ACT as natural coalition partners along with others who broadly agree on”—listen to the term and remember Ruth Richardson—“the fundamental issues facing our country and the need to address them.” Mr Brash said: “It is increasingly clear that if New Zealand is to have a Government that understands the peril our nation faces a constructive working relationship with National and ACT will need to be at its core.”  
Are Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee the answer to National’s problems? Well if they are the answer then I think the National Party has got the question wrong. Those two have been described by the Christchurch  
Press  
as “the least awful option in a caucus where genuine leadership potential appears as thin as the hair on Don Brash’s head.” Even in the  
Listener 
 that well-known columnist Jane Clifton described Don Brash as a “stalking horse until someone better comes along”. I am sure she is using very reliable sources and information in order to describe Don Brash as a stalking horse until someone better comes along; who has been described as the man who proves constantly in the House that he does not yet have the political toolset to do a job.  
I am also stunned at the way the National Party treated the most immediate former leader. Shane Ardern described it as a very decisive move from Don Brash; Shane Ardern the man who drives tractors said: “The controversy over the party’s deputy leadership”—and this is the most recent controversy over the party’s deputy leadership—“was dealt with in a very decisive and professional way.” Well if that was decisive and professional I would hate to see a shambles. 
 IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
It almost beggars belief that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is still conducting an aerial blanket spray programme to eradicate the Asian gypsy moth from Hamilton. Yes I agree that the Asian gypsy moth is a destructive pest and yes we do need to eradicate it but—as my colleague Mr Woolerton has said—I question whether drenching the residents of Hamilton is the best way to do it.  
I have some facts. Firstly only one male moth has ever been found—and that was very dead! Secondly Foray 48B which is the spray being used is effective only on the caterpillar phase and not on the moth itself. Thirdly the best way to identify the extent of an infestation is by setting pheromone traps—sexual attraction traps. They are only effective on the moth phase—and that comes after the caterpillar phase. Fourthly the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry uses those last two points to justify its decision to spray—in the absence of any evidence! I ask members to think about these next two points. Firstly male egg-masses hatch simultaneously with the first leaf-buds and that happened at the beginning of September. The ministry did not even start to spray until the beginning of October so it was already too late to get the caterpillars. Secondly if any caterpillars had hatched they would have been caught in the pheromone traps. Have a guess how many have been caught in the pheromone traps! The answer is a very nice round number—none. None has been found.  
Male Asian gypsy moths hatch a week before female Asian gypsy moths. All that the ministry needed to do was have a series of pheromone traps around the infestation. Then as soon as the ministry found any moths it could say: “Yes we’ve got an infestation here. Let’s spray it.” But the ministry did not do that. It missed that weeklong window of opportunity. Overseas research shows that it takes about 20 different egg-masses to get a sustainable body of population. A single egg-mass which is what we believe we have in the Waikato is not sufficient; it will die out. The fundamental question in all of this is that if the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry does not find any moths is it because the spray was successful or because there were no moths there in the first place? We do not know the answer to that.  
So what are the human costs? People who were exposed to the spray complain about rashes allergic reactions asthma and nausea and those effects are more pronounced in the young the old and the infirm. But residents are subjected to a catch-22 because the Government refuses to tell doctors what the contents of the spray are. They have told some doctors but when the residents go to those doctors—the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry doctors—they are told that their symptoms have nothing to do with the spray. They go to their general practitioners who say: “Yes the symptoms are a result of the spray but we do not know what is in the spray therefore we can’t help you get over it.” The Health Act states: “the ministry shall have the function of improving promoting and protecting public health.” Is that happening in Hamilton? I think the answer is “No”.  
I would like to quote briefly from Martin Elliot the principal of Fraser High School—the biggest high school in Hamilton. He said: “Of the 180 staff at Fraser we have six teachers and two support staff who have side effects and reactions due to the spray that I rank as very serious. As well we have another 15 staff who are experiencing symptoms like itchy eyes rashes to their skin and light-headedness on spray days.” He went on to say: “A senior MAF official told me that our eight serious cases were an aberration.” He quoted the ministry officials as saying: “It was like contagious paranoia where people feed off the psychology of the propaganda spread by the anti-spray brigade.” Mr Elliot went on to say: “It took a lot of my self-control not to reach across the table and yank his testicles out through his throat.” I get the impression that Mr Elliot was rather excited. He went on to say: “I have been so disappointed with the MAF medical team that I have made a formal complaint to OSH and requested that independent OSH doctors assess my staff.” 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making such a contribution to party membership and I mean Labour Party membership. I was in my electorate office and came out of a meeting with a constituent last Friday. I was pleased to see a woman I had not met before sitting at the front desk with the Labour Party membership book signing up. After welcoming her and having a chat to her about what she did and so on and the many new tasks that she was prepared to adopt for the party I asked her what had made her join Labour. She said to me that she had been thinking about it for some time but Don Brash for her was the final straw. I think there are many people around the country who like that woman are pleased to know what the National Party stands for. I am pleased that Dr Brash now makes no bones about National policy. He is certainly keen to give the party some bite! In fact I had a taxi driver the same day last week ask me why Dr Brash had not yet shown his teeth. Rather uncharitably he suggested that they might have been left in a glass beside the bed.  
But seriously I would like to wish Dr Brash well. It is an important day for him—his first meeting of the National Party board at age 63. I know he will make it clear to the board today that he wants further privatisation of whatever assets remain owned by this country: TVNZ the remaining power companies which he has mentioned since day one and Air New Zealand should we ever be unfortunate enough for him to get his hands on it. We know Dr Brash will make it clear to the board that he will limit health care that he will raise the age of eligibility for superannuation that he is clearly determined to give tax breaks to the rich—I guess that is most of the National Party board—and that he supports a capital gains tax. We all know that Dr Brash will not brook any objection; he has already shown himself to be er decisive! We know he communicates well with the media 24/7 as we say these days—except for last weekend of course when that wee glitch just turned into 0/72. And what a knack Dr Brash has for public relations. Dr Brash even turned the Chen and Palmer Christmas party into what John Campbell called a “National Party get-together”.  
I think Dr Brash is the perfect leader for the National Party. Who else would one want to lead an uninspiring and unimaginative lot like those members? National is a party with no solutions other than the policies already rejected by the electorate a party that in the words of Jane Clifton “could barely organise a coup plot so why would you trust them with a country—people who genuinely think they could save the National Party by destroying it?”. So that is what we have: a moribund leader for a moribund party. What could be more appropriate than that—someone to add a little intellectual rigor? Well it looks more like rigor mortis to me with a disintegrating National Party. We can combine that with National’s tainted friends from ACT: doubtful Donna Awatere Huata and her double-dipping friend Deborah Coddington Rodney Hide the star of stage and screen and Fiji and Richard Prebble himself the man who left the oh so embarrassing file on the plane.  
Now it is easy to understand why Mr Prebble would be preoccupied. He has a lot on his mind. Mainfreight obviously demands a lot of his time; otherwise it would not be paying him $35000 to be a director. There are a lot of important decisions to be made in the Australasian transport industry and Mr Prebble would want to be very sure that his interests were not in any way in conflict with ACT transport policy. And as ACT transport spokesperson where better to read a file and leave it than on a plane? Well I tell Mr Prebble that Mr McCardle has certainly got the cartoon character he wants! His problem now is that he has such a feast of humour available he will not be able to choose. Who will be the new cartoon face of ACT? Well “Super Simich” and “Winnie-the-Pooh” have already gone but there is no shortage of choice in ACT. What about “Daffy Duck” or “Betty Boop”? Some of those may not be appropriate but “Heckle and Jeckyl” certainly rings a chord—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps with an interjection from that person “Porky Pig” or “Fat Albert” may be more appropriate.  
But nothing matches the shambles opposite on the National benches. We have witnessed the ultimate sadism being demonstrated in this House this week. What did Dr Brash do with his trusted and respected deputy of 3 weeks ago—that intelligent and hard-working builder of bridges? He dumped him before he started and rewarded him with a seat between his successor Gerry Brownlee and David Carter the Brash numbers man. To sit Nick Smith between David Carter and Gerry Brownlee—what an act of political sadism that is. Let us just dwell for a moment on the actual scenario of last week. The honeymoon is well and truly over. The best thing that Dr Brash can do is to put on his hair shirt and drink a glass of lant. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel obliged to rise in the interests of decorum in the House. I was in fact expecting Mr Hide to take this point of order. A very serious allegation was made about a member receiving money—$35000—and the question of the influence of that in relation to transport policy. That member we all know is overseas and unable to defend himself. I would have thought it was appropriate for Mr Hide to take a point of order. But I think it is important for you to indicate whether those comments are in order. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
I am sorry to disappoint Trevor Mallard but I just could not stop myself. I fell asleep right through that 5 minutes because that speech was so terrible. I did not hear a thing. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
What a stunning contribution that was from David Benson-Pope! Members on the Opposition side of the House will be taking themselves off to hospital to have their sides re-stitched. That was an appalling attempt at a speech and it is a good reason why that member is the most unpopular member in this House—a good indication as to why the whips on the Opposition side of the House will not deal with him any more. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have had a gutsful of the senior Government whip. I want to say that the Government’s legislative programme is falling apart. It will stop early all because of the incompetence of that man sitting in the senior Government whip’s chair. We are all going home early for Christmas because that member has been unable to manage the legislative programme for this Government.  
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Gerry Brownlee and welcome him to the deputy leader’s seat in the National Party. I want to let the members of this House know that they will be dealing with a member with a fine level of debating skill a member of substance and a member who will bring good South Island representation to the No. 2 spot in the National Party and bring his 8 years of experience to the Opposition side of the House. I congratulate Gerry Brownlee and wish him well for the course of the next wee while in that job.  
Labour’s Christmas present to the electorate this year is 4 weeks’ annual leave—but not until 2007. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What? 
SIMON POWER 
: Not until 2007. Therefore 8-year-olds will be able to just lie there and say it is only 1200 more sleeps until they get 4 weeks’ annual leave. Young parents who have mortgages want to be able to work to repay those mortgages. They do not want to be told by those members on the Government side of the House when they have to take a holiday how they have to take a holiday where they can smoke or where they cannot smoke. Nor do they want their petrol tax to go up through the roof. That is exactly what we are seeing from Government members on the opposite side of the House.  
What an old tired effort we heard from Michael Cullen this afternoon—the dinosaur of New Zealand politics. I have news for Dr Cullen: the ice age is coming and Dr Brash and Mr Brownlee will be wiping out those old historic political dinosaurs from New Zealand. It was interesting that Dr Cullen spent only about 2 minutes talking about the National Party. He then moved on to the ACT party. He did not have much material on National. Why did Dr Cullen not spend any time talking about the talents of the members on the Government side? Well Jim Anderton is being reduced to the role of a travelling bank teller handing out cheques for $2000 all over New Zealand in front of alleged regional development tasks. Steve Maharey single-handedly completely wrecked the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Trevor Mallard is ripping into rural schools all over New Zealand Annette King is desperately waiting for the Speaker to head off to the UK so she can get out of the health portfolio as fast as her legs will carry her and get into the Speaker’s chair and Jim Sutton is clearly ready to retire. There does not seem to be any debate about that at all; Jim Sutton has had enough and is ready to go. There is no one else. That is the extent of the substance of the Labour Party benches. What a sad state of affairs that is.  
To be fair there is one member whom we quite like—the Hon John Tamihere. He is not scared to tell the Minister for Social Development and Employment what he thinks of the Government’s progress. To be fair there are a few members over here in the Opposition who want to agree with John Tamihere’s particular view of the Government’s social policy. But what about the rest of the Government members? It is all very well for Dr Cullen to stand up like the old tyrannosaurus rex of New Zealand politics and fire into people over on the Opposition side of the House but there is nobody else there on the Government benches. There is no depth over in those particular chairs. It is nice that Margaret Wilson even deems it appropriate to turn up in the House and put her newspaper down instead of holding it up in front of her face during question time as she does.  
Labour members are running out of time. We have got the ticket that will deliver the goods in 2005. 
Darren Hughes 
: Get your money back! 
SIMON POWER 
: I say to Darren Hughes that he should get used to the idea of spending a long time in Opposition because when the election in 2005 rolls round he will have to attend some of the functions in his electorate that he keeps missing. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
In the spirit of charitableness I want to congratulate Mr Brownlee on his elevation to the deputy leadership of the National Party. When he was a woodwork teacher at St Bede’s College he could not quite get his angles right when making a cutting board but I am told by his colleagues that he was very very useful with a Skilsaw. We saw that with regard to Nick Smith this week. There sit Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash—sort of bubble and squeak whim and wham or Gerry and the Pacemakers; and my word they need a few over there! Don Brash needs his batteries recharged.  
As I did last week I want to concentrate on the would-be coalition partner of a National Government—if one ever gets on to the Treasury benches—because it deserves some scrutiny. Once again I want to talk about the party with form—the ACT party! I refer again to Alister Taylor and the controversy surrounding Deborah Coddington. In my speech last week I outlined the labyrinth of companies that we are told by the Companies Office Mr Taylor has set up five of which Miss Coddington is still a director of—a labyrinth of publishing companies with similar names and against which there are a whole host of accusations about not supplying books to the good folk who paid for them on this side of the Tasman and in Australia. I hope the media are listening.  
Then there is the company that does not exist—the company listed in the documents I tabled last week called New Zealand Who’s Who Publications 2004 Ltd. I think that Miss Coddington owes this House some explanations about her conduct as a former director and also as a person who transferred her shares from the holding company that controls a number of those entities to Mr Taylor and another family member in January of this year. I say to Miss Coddington that she as ACT’s spokesperson on consumer affairs owes this House an explanation. It is no good her saying that she as a director of those companies—companies that have rorted people for years—suddenly has amnesia concerning the shares she transferred a few months ago. I ask her why all those companies have similar names. Why is there a company that does not exist—one that we will never find on the companies register? That company never existed yet its name is on a document that was sent to many members of this Parliament soliciting money and asking for biographical details for a publication published by a company that does not exist. Why all the name changes? I ask Miss Coddington whether all these companies had separate bank accounts. Did they all file proper and individual tax returns? Did they flick business from one entity to another or from one company to another in order to disguise debts that we now know are riddled around this nation?  
As Miss Coddington’s paedophile index books were published by Mr Taylor I ask her whether they were paid for out of funds that should have been returned to other Kiwis who bought other publications that were never supplied to them by Mr Taylor. Were they paid for off the back of those people who are now owed money by Mr Taylor for publications they never received? How many small businesses and small printers—we know some are owed $5000 here and $3000 there—did Miss Coddington and Mr Taylor put out of business because they did not pay their debts? Of course Miss Coddington is none other than ACT’s spokesperson on small business. 
Rod Donald 
: And consumer affairs. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes she is also ACT’s spokesperson on consumer affairs. As ACT’s spokesperson on consumer affairs and on small business Miss Coddington has a conflict of interest because she is riddled with these allegations. At the very least she should resign those portfolios. Why did she volunteer to take them up? I say to Miss Coddington that the ACT party should publish an atonement index listing all the people that were rorted scammed intimidated and bullied by the ACT party. Maybe we should have an atonement index and maybe Mr Taylor should publish it; but this time maybe we should ensure he sends it out to the people who actually pay for it. The ACT party is the party of rorts. I ask Mr Hide—I pose this question knowing that other members have posed it in the past but we have never had an answer—whether he is being paid by third parties to be in this House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Clayton Cosgrove raised a question about whether I was being paid. Yes indeed like all MPs I am being paid by the taxpayer. I think Clayton Cosgrove should start to give some explanations about some plane tickets he took when working for Mike Moore pretending he was someone else. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
Is it not interesting to listen to the Government members rabbiting on about strong leadership strong direction strong Ministers and strong this and strong that when the very foundation of leadership in their Government is built on spin deceit double standards and total untruths? When I think about the various debates we have listened to today and the chorus of criticism on the new leadership of the National Party I note that the “Business Herald” states that New National leader Don Brash is head and shoulders above anybody else when it comes to understanding business in New Zealand. Is that not interesting? Five-hundred senior business people surveyed in Auckland said that was the case about Don Brash. I congratulate Gerry Brownlee—somebody from the South Island who actually knows what it is like out there on the street in New Zealand at the moment—on his recent elevation to the position of deputy leader of the National Party.  
The Labour Party has a Christmas present for the working-class people of New Zealand. It is called a wage freeze. There is no other way to describe it. The Government is going to introduce 4 weeks’ leave—in 1200 sleeps as my honourable colleague in the front bench mentioned earlier on—and that will mean that wages will be frozen in this country until that legislation is introduced and Government members do not understand that. I am reminded of the comments of Colin Meads a famous constituent of mine about the recent All Blacks’ loss: “No passion no pride no brains no leadership wrong tactics wrong options. I’m”—beep because I cannot use the word—“gutted.” He could have been talking about the Government of New Zealand and I am sure that he probably was because that is exactly the same problem we have with the Government of New Zealand at the moment. It has no brains no leadership wrong tactics wrong options—and we are gutted. That is exactly where we are at with this Government at this point in time.  
On the one hand the Minister of Education has for some time gone up and down the country and has talked about the need for a good education but on the other hand he is closing 300 schools across rural New Zealand—right in the place that the economy driving the figures that Dr Cullen talks about so passionately comes from. That is the reason why the National Party has placed so much emphasis back on rural New Zealand and on agriculture and it is to be congratulated on doing that. I wonder whether the Government will ever wake up and realise that rural New Zealand is the engine room and the wherewithal that drives this economy. I suspect that the answer is: “Absolutely not!” and rural New Zealand as all recent polls are saying now knows that and rural people will demonstrate that at the next election. Some of those members opposite who are sitting in marginal rural seats or marginal provincial seats should really start to worry because their number is up. I am looking around the Chamber and thinking: “That member is gone she is gone he has gone and he has definitely gone.” A few Government members over there have very limited time left in this Parliament and they are about to experience that at the next election. The member who is interjecting is certainly on shaky ground; he is gone.  
The Government has run out of options and it is demonstrating that over and over again. The Government is now placing $20 million of extra costs on exporters—agricultural exporters primarily but not entirely—for security. That is the latest tax in a long list. There have been 18 new taxes and this is No. 19. A $20 million security cost has been imposed on exporters because a foreign nation has said we need to beef up our security. A foreign nation has said to New Zealand: “Try this on for size; you need to beef up your security in this area.” and the Government has said: “We agree. We’ll just get the industries of New Zealand and the exporters of New Zealand to pay for it.”—security costs that have always been paid by the taxpayer. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
: 
 First I congratulate Gerry Brownlee on his ascension to the deputy leadership of the National Party. I know that my father the reverend of Bishopdale would certainly like me to pass on his regards too. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is he praying for him? 
MARK PECK 
: My father prays for lots of people. However as the member can see sometimes it does no good. But I say to Mr Brownlee that it is pleasing to see I wish him well and he should not give up the ambition. I also say to Katherine Rich—[ 
Interruption 
] That was a message from Bob. Katherine Rich must be absolutely gutted. In the reshuffle she stayed at No. 4 and Mr Power was moved from No. 6 to No. 3. I tell Shane Ardern who was overlooked for the agriculture portfolio on the front bench not to worry—Katherine Rich’s star is on the wane already. That inane question she asked at question time today certainly shows that. Shane Ardern is on the way up like any good lad from Manaia should be. I am looking forward to him taking his rightful place at the top as well. I say to Simon Power who is a little bit bemused and befuddled that we did not spend too much time on the National Party— 
Rodney Hide 
: He knows all about being promoted. 
MARK PECK 
: Well I say to the member that I have not been promoted enough to be demoted. If I keep progressing at this rate I will be here until I am 100. I say to Simon Power that the reason we do not spend too much time on the National Party is as Dr Cullen says an ongoing matter and we will certainly watch with interest.  
I have a couple of things to say about the potential coalition partner ACT. I say to Rodney Hide that if it had not been for Fiji he would have been looking like the top seat. When we look at the rest of his colleagues we see that things are looking a little bit sort of dodgy. In fact I would have thought that Rodney Hide would be delighted with the way things are going with ACT at the moment. Deborah Coddington came into this House as the bright new thing who would eventually replace the leader. 
Rodney Hide 
: I heard that about you Mark. 
MARK PECK 
: They did say that about me once but they do not say it any more so I am not terribly worried about that. However the bright new thing who was going to go to the front of the Chamber when Mr Prebble retires has got herself into a little bit of trouble. She has been in cahoots with a guy called Alister Taylor whom Richard Prebble calls a bit of a hard case—knew he was a bankrupt but said he did not want somebody who was a hard case stopping somebody getting into Parliament and the somebody that he thought would make a good MP was Deborah Coddington. A bunch of companies that have been outlined in the House in the last couple of weeks— 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s old Clayton Cosgrove’s sidekick. 
MARK PECK 
: I do not take Clayton Cosgrove’s line on this. The line I take on this goes this way: Deborah Coddington has been responsible for ripping off quite a bunch of senior citizens in Australia. She has ripped off Trish Clutterbuck aged 61 and Sid Hansen 64—both senior citizens. She and her partner ripped off those people. Those people thought that something good would be done to honour their lives at a time in their lives when they were getting on in age. They thought that they were going to be honoured and they were ripped off. Trish Clutterbuck cannot believe that she got away with it so they cannot imagine her lasting very long and Sid Hansen said that he hoped she would be called to account. Deborah Coddington wants to promote a little book about a rubber ducky. I remember reading about the rubber ducky when my kids were growing up. I used to sing them the song about the rubber ducky; joy of joys and that sort of thing. 
Rod Donald 
: Sing it for us. 
MARK PECK 
: No I cannot sing. My voice is nearly gone. She certainly wants to write a book about integrity honesty and independence yet she has not once stood up in this House and disavowed any knowledge of those connections with her former partner. I do wonder why it is that all the issues with which Deborah Coddington is associated in a formal sense with her partner—that those bills have been paid. Was that to save her neck as a member of Parliament while others who have lost money along the way have to find their own way out of the problem? I do not think that is good enough. But there is nothing unusual about this. There is one little bit in here and I actually agree with Donna Awatere Huata—people like Owen Jennings were treated a little bit differently and others in the ACT party who got into trouble were treated differently from the way she was treated and that speaks volumes about the ACT party. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
I want to talk about something that is increasingly of concern to me and it is increasingly of concern to my fellow New Zealanders because they talk about it all the time. I want to talk about the erosion of the Kiwi lifestyle. What this Government has done to the Kiwi lifestyle is try to annihilate it. This PC Labour Government that we have at present has done nasty things to good working-class New Zealanders. It has done things that people could never have contemplated in their wildest dreams. This is a PC Government that is interested as far as I can see only in minorities.  
I must say that if that was all it was doing that would be bad enough. But even worse than that we have a National Party Opposition that is even worse. The National Party Opposition we know from history—the new leader has said so and the new deputy will back it up—believes in more immigrants coming into this country and believes in selling more of our land. I come from the land. I am a farmer and I am very proud to be a farmer. The National Party does not support farmers and has not done so for many many years. New Zealand First on the other hand does. New Zealand First says that we want to protect this country for the people who inhabit it—be they people who have originated from other countries or be they born in this country—for they are New Zealanders and New Zealand First is here to do things in New Zealanders’ interests.  
It was not so long ago—it is certainly well within memory for me and I am not that old—that average New Zealanders or as we now call them middle-class New Zealanders in the South Island would have had as one of their ambitions—an achievable ambition I might say—a crib by a lake or a beach or something of that nature. In the North Island we call a crib a bach. My family was not fortunate enough to own one but many of my friends’ families owned a bach at the beach. They had achieved the dream of the average New Zealander.  
That dream is no longer available to middle-class New Zealanders. It is not even available to wealthy New Zealanders. It certainly is available to wealthy Americans and it certainly is available to wealthy Europeans—but we do not get elected to this House to look after Americans or Europeans. I wish the Labour Party and the National Party would understand that. We are elected to this House to look after New Zealanders and New Zealanders’ lifestyle is disappearing. It is well understood and it has been mentioned several times in this debate alone that inhabitants of countries like Australia countries in Europe and the Americas earn more salary that we do in New Zealand and that is accepted. I wish it were not so. I wish we had a real plan for growth in this country but we do not. Having accepted the fact that New Zealanders have less money and have on average less wages and less income than other people around the world it is surely necessary—even more necessary than before—to protect the one thing we have left and that is our lifestyle. If we do not protect our lifestyle we will see people going from our shores like we have never seen before.  
In fact that is happening and the National Party and the Labour Government are forced to bring people into this country by means of immigration. They are not our sons. They are not our daughters. They are people from other cultures whom we are bringing into this country. They can afford the lifestyle that we cannot. Any Government that is participating in that action is not working in the best interests of New Zealanders. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
I thank the member for his contribution about the leisure time of ordinary Kiwis. I look forward to New Zealand First supporting the Labour-Progressive Government on 4 weeks’ annual leave for ordinary Kiwis so that they can enjoy more time with their families and in their communities.  
It was a great pleasure to pick up the newspaper today—and I will be spending most of my time today talking about the National Party—go to page 2 and see this obituary. There is a photo of four very young men in 1993: Mr English Mr Sowry Dr Smith and Mr Ryall sitting in the Lambton Quay McDonald’s eating a Happy Meal. The only thing that has gone up since those days is the Happy Meal; everything went down for that lot including their opinion-poll rating. I notice that they have not even bothered changing ties. These were the four young men who were going to take the National Party to great heights. When they inherited the party they had 47 percent of the vote. Those four geniuses got together and ate those cholesterol-busting Big Macs and a Fillet of Fish and they drove the National Party down to 20 percent in the polls. Today we saw an obituary for those four and not a moment too soon.  
But what did the National Party do once it had finished killing them off? First it sent Dr Brash off to the National Party board to try to resurrect Mr Williamson—a very good idea I would have thought but that was the only shot in the gun. Then they had to decide who they wanted to put on the front bench so they decided to put Dr Brash there—well he has been here for 1 year. They decided to put Gerry Brownlee there—he has been here for 7 years—and then to put Mr Power who has been here for 4 years in at No. 3. Those three National Party members bring a collective experience of just 12 years in Parliament.  
Then I looked across to the Government which is polling very very highly and I thought: “Well what is the secret to their success?”. Then I saw that Helen Clark Michael Cullen and Jim Anderton between them—the top three in the Government—have 63 years of Parliament and political experience. The only thing the National Party has in common with that figure is that 63 is the same age as its leader. So our three top people have been in Parliament for the same length of time that Don Brash has been alive but the top three people who make up the Opposition in New Zealand have been in Parliament for a total of 12 years—which is about Form 1 so we are going to see intermediate school - style politics from the Opposition.  
In respect of the ACT party I want to just say very briefly that it was nice to hear from Mr Maharey yesterday that the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme is being used effectively when it comes to writing books and that the birth of the  
Little Yellow Duck of Freedom 
 has been used to pay for these books to be written and the taxpayer of course has been very faithful about paying that $110000 subsidy every second Wednesday to Deborah Coddington. The only problem it seems is that even though taxpayers have been keeping up their share of the bargain in terms of writing the book they are having a lot of trouble finding a reliable publisher to take the  
Little Yellow Duck of Freedom 
 out to ordinary homes across the country.  
I actually thought that Gerry Brownlee was a bit rich today in Parliament and a bit mean to Nick Smith. After Mr Brownlee had given us his huffed-up speech Dr Smith rushed in with great theatrics to shake Gerry Brownlee’s hand and as he extended his mitt across the Leader of the Opposition’s bench what did he do? He knocked over a glass of water and the glass splattered and splintered all over the bench. I thought it was a bit mean of Gerry Brownlee to draw blood from Nick Smith twice in a week. I thought that was a terrible way to treat somebody who has been treated pretty appallingly anyway. Nick Smith never got a chance. It is true that Nick Smith is not the most popular member on that side but they elected him deputy 3 weeks ago. What did they do? They did not even give him the chance to put his feet under the table before they got rid of him. Mr Brownlee used the same rough style on him that he used to throw that poor man down the stairs all those years ago. So my only message to Don Brash is: “Keep your hand on the handrail because Gerry Brownlee is coming up to you right down the stairs!”.  
The other very interesting thing this week is that the National Party has announced that it will set up a candidate school to train people to be future National Party MPs. It must be a very serious thing because they have put such political heavyweights on it as Simon Power and Pansy Wong. Having Pansy Wong telling people how to run a political career and the highly marginal member for Rangitikei in charge of that as well is I think a very strange thing to do. But the National Party told us: “Don’t worry. It’s a great idea. The Tories in Britain have done this. The Tories in Britain have great candidate conferences.”  
So they have appointed a principal to this school and he will be Roger McClay. David Carter is going to run a course called “Running Coups That Destroy Our Party”. Gerry Brownlee is going to run a course entitled “Fitting Food into a Busy Schedule”. Phil Heatley is going to write a course entitled “Making the Transition from Intellectual Heavyweight to Opposition Back-bencher” and the brat pack are going to run a combined session called “Bowing out Disgracefully”. Simon Power’s session will be called “How to Get Other People to Talk You Up” and John Key’s will be “How to Cope on a Minimum Wage When You Are an MP”. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Third Readings 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That the Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill introduces a number of major tax reforms. By introducing bilateral legislation it brings into effect New Zealand’s part in a landmark agreement with Australia to remove a tax obstacle to trans-Tasman investment. The bill makes it possible for Australian companies to join New Zealand’s imputation credit rules for which corresponding legislation has been recently enacted in Australia. The legislation also introduces a better alignment of GST treatment of the financial services sector with that of other sectors. Banks credit unions life insurers and other financial institutions will be able to recover GST on purchases related to the supply of services to other businesses which will reduce possible overtaxation of that sector.  
The legislation introduces a GST reverse charge to tax certain imports of services to alleviate the distortion in favour of imported services which are not currently subject to GST. It introduces an anti-avoidance measure to combat aggressive tax arrangements that have resulted in investors receiving more in tax deductions than they put up in investment. It enables employer contributions to superannuation funds on behalf of lower-income employees to be taxed at lower rates and to remove a disincentive for them to save for their retirement. This omnibus bill also introduces an extensive number of amendments to current tax law ranging from measures to reduce compliance costs to measures to protect the revenue base and includes a range of remedial amendments intended to produce better more effective tax law. The Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill confirms the income tax rates that will apply for the 2003 and 2004 years.  
I am pleased that the bills have arrived at their third reading. May I take this opportunity to thank all of those who contributed to their passage—the many people and organisations who made submissions on the proposed legislation the officials who worked on the bills and supported their passage and the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its careful consideration and thorough report. I commend the bills to the House. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
On behalf of the National Party I will also be supporting the Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill because the legislation contains a number of important elements that National played a part in working hard to achieve while it was in Government between 1990 and 1999. In particular I refer to the triangular tax treatment arrangement of dividends earned by New Zealand investors in Australian companies. Up until this point they were unable to receive dividend cheques on an imputed basis and therefore had the unfortunate experience of being double-taxed—having the tax paid by the Australian company they invested in and then having to record the dividend cheque as income on their New Zealand tax statements and as such having to pay tax here. Important work was undertaken and National is happy to continue to support it in this bill although we note—as the Government itself would probably note—that this is the first step on quite a long road. We look forward to more work being undertaken in this area to harmonise and streamline tax treatment across both countries in due course.  
I also refer to the zero rating of GST in financial services which National thinks is an important move because it prevents the cascading effect and because up until this point financial services firms were treated on an exempt basis and had to pass on GST as a price. I agree also with the Minister’s comments about the reverse charge on imported services which will now be subject to GST but I note that the $40000 limit for individuals might pose some problems if they are unaware of it. I recommend that the department spend quite some time in making sure that individuals are aware of that provision otherwise they will become liable to penalties and suchlike should it fail to do so.  
I also want to mention the issue of specified superannuation contributions and withholding tax. This is an important part of New Zealand. We need to save for our retirement and we need to encourage New Zealanders to save along with employers on their behalf. We should do so because the New Zealand Superannuation Fund otherwise known as the “Cullen Fund” is a complete con— 
Rod Donald 
: A dog. 
JOHN KEY 
:—and a complete dog. It tries to tell the people of New Zealand that it will fund their retirement when even the Minister knows that it will not even reduce the liability to New Zealand by 1 percent. In a country that has currently one in eight people aged over 65—and by 2040 that figure will be one in four—more needs to be done in the area of superannuation planning than the con job the Government has put up in the form of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.  
I want to make reference to Part 1 which the National Party cannot support—no good party would support it. That is the part that sets the annual rate of taxation but despite this Government having an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes of $5.6 billion and the fact that the economy has been benefiting from some very high agricultural prices—and some great work done by the National Party in the 1990s—the Government simply does not know what to do. It is caught like a deer in headlights and simply wants to overtax the hard-working people of New Zealand.  
During the Committee stage yesterday the Minister gave what I am sure was one of his finest speeches—not. He tried to tell us that the entrepreneurs on Paritai Drive did not deserve any support whatsoever that his Government was not a pro-growth Government did not support the hardworking people of New Zealand and would not grow the cake for all New Zealanders to benefit from—rather that he was into redistribution and did not really care whether big business business people risk-takers and hard-working people were supported or not. All he cared about was redistribution to lower earners.  
If he thinks that will grow the economy and deliver bigger results for superannuitants who are caught by the average wage and if he thinks it will do anything to grow the wage rates of lower-income and middle-income New Zealanders then I strongly suggest that he start reading the many Treasury reports posted on its website. These are delivered by hand to the Minister and staff try to go through them with him line by line. Those reports tell us—as anyone who has read them can tell us—that such a policy of progressive taxation is the worst possible thing we can do if we want to develop a growth economy provide real opportunities for young New Zealanders and not force them overseas by giving them one option only. If the Government did not believe that and did not know it was correct then the Minister and the Associate Minister would stand in the House and proudly tell the people of New Zealand that the $5.6 billion operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes was not a cyclical result but a structural result and resulted from the work they had been doing.  
The Minister cannot come to the House and tell us that nor can the Associate Minister and nor can any Minister involved in commerce in this Government—whether it be the Associate Minister for Small Business John Tamihere or the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. They know it is a complete con they know they are doing nothing for the growth of this economy they know they inherited some wonderful policies from the National Government. They know that when their time is up in 2005 they—like the All Blacks on Saturday night—would have blown a wonderful opportunity and will have to step aside and let a real party like the National Party take New Zealand to the great heights we once enjoyed and will enjoy again. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
I am proud to stand in support of this legislation. This legislation brings into effect New Zealand’s part in a joint Australia – New Zealand agreement to remove a tax impediment to trans-Tasman investment. That is good for New Zealand.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
New Zealand is in the midst of a debt crisis. Total overseas debt is growing and household debt is equally out of control. The financial liabilities of New Zealanders have increased from 49 percent of their personal disposable income in 1978 to 130 percent in 2002. In 25 years New Zealanders have gone from owing half their annual personal disposable income to owing 1.3 times their income. In that time household financial liabilities have increased from $5 billion to $91 billion. Of course total household financial assets have also grown but here is the rub: household net financial wealth has actually shrunk—yes shrunk—in the last decade. Ten years ago we were collectively worth $55 billion but by 2002 our net financial wealth had dropped 33 percent to $37 billion. 
What has changed? Clearly our financial liabilities have increased; in fact they have increased by 146 percent in that 10-year period from $37 billion to $91 billion. Why? Because Kiwis are spending more than they are earning and they are saving less as a result. According to the Reserve Bank household savings as a percentage of disposable income were minus 4.25 percent for the year ended March. If members think that is bad the Reserve Bank predicts that savings will be minus 7 percent this year minus 6 percent next year and minus 5.5 percent in the 2005-06 year. The Green Party’s concern for New Zealanders’ negative savings rates for New Zealand’s crippling dependence on foreign capital for the almost certain failure of Dr Cullen’s Superannuation Fund and that New Zealanders will therefore need to save for their own retirement sum up our reasons for supporting today’s tax legislation. 
While this legislation contains a number of measures the ones we are most pleased with are the small positive steps the Government has taken to help working people in employer-subsidised superannuation schemes to save for their retirement and the encouragement that this should give employers who do not currently provide subsidised superannuation to reward their loyal staff by offering them the chance to put some money aside for their retirement. What the Government has done is remove the tax penalty that has been in place for a very long time on employer-subsidised superannuation. Until now employees receiving subsidised superannuation have been watching the contributions of their employers be taxed at 33 percent when if the employees’ income is between $9500 and $38000 their own marginal rate of tax is only 21 percent and if their income is below $9500 their marginal tax rate is only 15 percent. So they have been watching the Government clip the ticket and take money that really belongs to them because there has not been a flexible specified superannuation contribution withholding tax regime in place. 
The problem was exacerbated when the Labour Government increased the top tax rate on those earning more than $60000 and at the same time left the superannuation withholding rate at 33 percent. In other words what happened a couple of years ago was that the Labour Government introduced a 6 percent tax incentive for well-off salary and wage earners in this country while maintaining a tax penalty for those low and middle income earners who have been struggling to save for their retirement—the very people whom the Labour Government relies on to get elected. 
So today’s legislation takes us one step in the right direction. One could say the cup is now half full because the penalty has been removed but it is an indictment on this Labour Government that it is not prepared to fill that cup especially in the lead-up to Christmas and provide all New Zealand workers with a tax incentive to save for their retirement. I would challenge members on the other side of the House to reflect on the Scrooge mentality of this Government—especially as it is running a massive Budget surplus—when it comes to giving good hard-working New Zealanders an incentive to save for their retirement and to giving their employers a decent incentive to offer subsidised superannuation. I would however concede that there are other measures on the way that will help employers to do the right thing and that some of the measures in the Business Law Reform Bill will reduce compliance costs for employers. 
I would also congratulate the Government on bringing in a public service superannuation scheme. It is a shadow of the former Government Superannuation Fund which was closed off by the National Government in 1992 but at least it is another small step in the right direction. That is the real problem with this Labour Government; it makes small steps in the right direction but it never goes as far as it should from either a financial or a moral point of view. That public service scheme will offer a mere 1.5 percent subsidy in its first year 3 percent in its second and there is talk of it getting up to 6 percent. Well I do not see why it cannot start at 6 percent because this Government—a Government that claims it cares for the workers that says it is committed to pay equity and that wants to encourage people to save for their retirement—should be taking a lead by offering public servants a decent subsidy for their superannuation savings. Until that happens it is not in a position to put pressure on the private sector to match that which means the private sector can get away with a very low expectation and I think that is unfortunate. If the Government moved straight to a 6 percent subsidy for public servants and introduced a 6 percent tax concession for all employer-subsidised superannuation it would send the right signals to employers in this country to value their staff by offering them a financial incentive to save for their retirement. 
Having said that the other big problem that many people face which was highlighted in the negative savings figures I referred to earlier is that far too many New Zealanders are not in a position to save for their retirement even though they desperately want to simply because their income is inadequate. That is why we moved amendments to the annual rates to bring in a tax break for all income earners in this country by making the first $5000 of income tax-free. 
I know that some of my colleagues on the right of this House are surprised that we wanted to do that because they have said to me they are already very well off thank you very much. May I say to those people listening that I have assured the likes of John Key that it is not through generosity on our part that we would bring in a policy that the first $5000 of income be tax-free because we would also be looking forward to clawing that back through a capital gains tax and through a suite of eco-taxes on the likes of carbon diesel resource rentals waste and pollution. So at the very least our tax measures would be revenue neutral but what they would do is shift taxation away from penalising work and enterprise and on to making sure that people and businesses are paying their fair share of the costs when it comes to looking after the environment and looking after society because too often in this country the business sector has been able to externalise its costs on to the rest of the community while making massive profits along the way. Right at the moment there is far too much capital going into speculative investment instead of productive investment and a capital gains tax would tackle that particular problem. 
I am disappointed that the Minister of Revenue vetoed both the amendments we put up—the 6 percent concession for savings and the income tax amendment—because I was looking forward to seeing which parties in this House would support such family-friendly moves. I know for example that at the Finance and Expenditure Committee the National Party supported our amendment to the superannuation savings rate and I am grateful for that but I am equally ungrateful to the ACT party New Zealand First and United Future for not helping New Zealanders to save for their retirement. I think it is an indictment on those parties. But it is an even bigger indictment on the Labour Government which is running a $5.6 billion surplus that it is not offering working people in this country some genuine serious direct encouragement to save for their retirement. 
Finally I would like to thank the Inland Revenue Department again for helping me prepare my tax amendments. If nothing else they were at least acknowledged by the Minister as being robust. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
I note that the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 26 June this year. I recall hearing about 20 submissions from people from different companies. Once again I thank the officials from the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury for their advice and I also thank Terese Turner the specialist tax adviser. 
New Zealand First wants to confirm and applaud different sections of this legislation that we agree with. We have voted against only one part. We agree with and want to applaud the section allowing zero rating of business-to-business supplies for financial services. Under the Goods and Services Tax Act business-to-business supplies of financial services are exempt from GST meaning that GST is not charged on the supply and the financial service providers are therefore unable to claim import tax credits. This treatment has resulted in distortions due to the potential for overtaxation of the supply of financial services to businesses. The legislation introduces new provisions allowing the supply of financial services from providers to business customers to be zero-rated if the customer is GST-registered and makes taxable supplies that equal or exceed 75 percent of total supplies in a 12-month period. The proposal is optional of course and financial services may be treated as exempt if the provider does not wish to incur the compliance cost associated with zero rating. 
We also applaud this legislation for introducing a reverse-charge mechanism to impose GST on certain imports and services and for reforming the imputation laws to reduce double-taxation of trans-Tasman investments as part of an agreement with Australia. The legislation changes the imputation laws to address the problem of triangular tax which involves the double-taxation of certain trans-Tasman investments. That is all I briefly want to say on trans-Tasman imputation. 
We also like the sections of this legislation introducing a deferred deduction rule to combat aggressive tax arrangements and introducing progressive rates of specified superannuation contribution withholding tax on an employer’s contribution to match the employee’s marginal tax rate. We applaud measures in clauses 5 and 17 that provide community trusts established under the Trustee Banks Restructuring Act with an income tax exemption. 
I want to close on a note that is not quite as positive but I want to reiterate New Zealand First’s position. I want to convey New Zealand First’s disappointment in this Government for not taking more initiative with this area of taxation. We feel that the No. 1 priority for this Government should be reprioritising social spending to place a greater focus on the real needs of New Zealanders. We believe that the real solution lies not just in keeping annual tax rates as they are in the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill but in providing tax incentives for research and development for exporters and so on. 
Once again I thank the select committee and the advisers for putting the legislation through. We support most parts of this legislation. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
The ACT party will be opposing the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill. We will be doing so because taxes in this country are too high. I know that Mr Craig McNair will appreciate this point of history but I am old enough to remember—and I think John Key is old enough to remember—when the Labour Party stood for the working person in New Zealand. When Norm Kirk came to power he stood for working families. 
Craig McNair 
: I read that in the history books. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Craig McNair has read that Norman Kirk and the Labour Party stood for the working person and for everyday New Zealanders. Norman Kirk would be shocked at this Government. When was the last time we heard someone from this Government get up in the House and ask: “What about the worker?” No one on the Government side can say that. Why? They would be embarrassed to ask “What about the worker?”. I do not think anyone on the front bench has met or talked to a worker in this country. The situation is that New Zealanders are now working harder than ever before they are paying more money to their Government than ever before and they are getting less service from that Government than ever before. We have forgotten in this Parliament—and this Government has forgotten—who provides the wealth. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s the workers. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: To hear Dr Cullen speak one would get the sense that he provided the wealth of this country. He stands up in this House pats himself on the back and says: “Oh look at my surplus.” That surplus has been bought and paid for by taxpayers. I hear David Cunliffe call out it is produced by the workers. Yes it is produced by the workers and we say: “Shame on you! Shame on this Government! Shame on Dr Cullen!”. Is it not about time that the working families in this country were given a pay increase and were allowed to have more in their budget by being provided with some tax relief? This is the history of New Zealand: taxes up taxes up taxes up. Who is paying for it? Mr Cunliffe is quite right—I just wish he would act on it. It is the working people of New Zealand. 
And Mr Copeland is quite right because it is the top rate of tax that determines the cost of capital in New Zealand in part and it is a policy variable that we can change. If we want to prosper we have to get taxes down. We have to make it more worthwhile to work invest and be entrepreneurial in New Zealand. It does not matter too much what the rate in Australia is. The lower we can get our tax rate the better and the more competitive New Zealand will be. Henry Ford was successful in the car-making business not because he made a car that was the same as everyone else’s but because he made a car that was much better than everyone else’s. That is what we should be doing with our tax rate—not having an argument like Mr Cunliffe and Mr Tamihere like to have about how we are about the same as Australia. No no no; we want to be so much better than Australia and therefore to grow our economy. 
Mr Cunliffe stood up in this House—I know people listening will be interested in this because I think people listening actually will understand this—and said that it does not matter if we tax people hard and it does not matter whether we tax them more because they will still work the same. He has only ever seen one study; he said it was not conclusive—it sounded like a sociological study. He said that if we tax people hard they will still work just as hard and they will still invest here. Does that make sense? Do we not put tax on cigarettes and alcohol so that people will smoke and drink less? Is it not the case that if we tax people for working they will be discouraged from working? Why? Because they will get to keep less of what they produce. Does it not make sense that if we tax the returns of people who save and invest in New Zealand they will save and invest less? 
Who confronts the largest effective tax rate in New Zealand? It is a young woman on the domestic purposes benefit who is working to try to improve her life. A young woman in New Zealand today who is on the domestic purposes benefit who is working and who is earning $181 a week is taxed effectively at 91c in the dollar. She works hard she earns $1 and she gets to keep 9c of that money. If people on the domestic purposes benefit earn $100 from working hard this Government lets them keep $9. And we wonder why people in New Zealand feel like just giving up. 
This Government is saying “Here is a handout.” This person over here is a criminal: “Here have a handout.” This person over here cannot cope: “Here have a handout.” Here is a big business thinking of investing in New Zealand: “Let’s give it a handout.” Who is paying for it? It is that young woman on the domestic purposes benefit who is being taxed; it is the family person who is working 60 hours a week and being taxed; it is the small-business person working until midnight to fulfil orders to pay the GST. They are the ones paying tax. Do we hear Dr Cullen mention them? No siree. Do we hear this Government saying: “Thank you New Zealanders for the hard work for paying the taxes.”? No we do not. 
In fact we get the sense that the Government has become so arrogant that it looks down its long nose—like Pinocchio—at people who work and earn a living. Yet people who work and pay taxes created everything we have and enjoy. The people who work and pay taxes pay our wages through the tax system. We should remember that each and every time—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that Mr Cunliffe thinks it is funny that people have to work and pay taxes. I know he thinks it somehow amusing that by sitting in that chair he gets his hands on loot to hand out to every little enterprise. Mr Anderton on the road says: “Here is $2000.”; “Here is $5000.” to every little group. I know that Mr John Tamihere thinks it is great to be going around handing out money. But let us understand where that money comes from. 
So we say we should get taxes down. What would be the best tax of all? It would be a low tax and it would be one rate of tax on income. That would mean that if people earned twice as much as someone else they would pay twice as much tax. That is fair is it not? Hands up those who think that is not fair? See even Labour Party members go along with that. Actually they are still trying to do the sums. But why should someone who works hard and earns twice as much pay three times as much tax? That is wrong. There should be one low flat tax. We are against the annual tax rates bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER(United Future) 
: 
I rise to contribute on behalf of United Future and I will take but a few moments. We will be supporting the bill. However I will make a few observations. 
One of them is simply that we often hear from the people of this country the claim that they need higher wages that the cost of living is too high and that they need more money to look after their families and kids. The simplest way that we can guarantee people across this country a higher living wage is simply to give them an equitable tax cut. No inflationary pressure is brought to bear in doing so. In most cases where a monetary increase has been given much of it has ended up in the pockets of—guess who—the Government. It seems to me—a very good idea in fact—that what we are talking about is raising the consumption power of the New Zealand worker and the best possible mechanism to do that is a tax cut. We can afford it with over $5 billion—if Rodney Hide can help me here—in surplus. 
Rodney Hide 
: Cut out the dopey spending and you can have $10 billion. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The member is probably right. That money belongs rightfully to the people who earned it. It seems to me that while we sit around here and debate how the cake should be sliced up how the money should be redistributed amongst the people of this country we are forgetting the main thing: that those people who drive the economy those people who provide the jobs those people who are creating that cake in the first place ought to have first dibs on the largest slice. The rest should be left over for this Government to use. In the past we have seen greedy Governments—not just this one but many down the track of the last 20 to 30 years—take a larger proportion of the gross national product from the workers of this country and use it to dangle baubles prior to an election. In the process we have created ever-increasing levels of dependency and we have marginalised families—one generation after another—to the point where we now have an intergenerational problem of families that are simply unable to be economically capable of looking after themselves and of being resilient. Unfortunately this seems to show no signs of abating. 
While we do support this bill and we will vote in favour of it I would just like to reiterate some of the previous comments in saying that down the track what this country really needs and deserves is the ability for families to be independent and economically viable and to look after themselves. The best means of doing that is to cut out the outrageous rates of taxation that this country is inhibited by and to give back to the very people who create the wealth of this country that portion of the wealth that they deserve. 
Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
Because this is a bill on which I think all parties agree I wonder whether the House might give a direction to the Committee that it take one wide-ranging debate in Committee. I seek leave for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
In Committee 
Preamble  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
I intend to take only this call in the Committee stage but I would like to make some comments none the less that will probably range over a number of issues. I am pleased that the bill has now reached Committee stage. National supports the settlement and the swift passage of this bill. But I do express disappointment that it has taken 4 years to get to this point given that the heads of agreement was signed in September 1999. None the less it is good to see the bill here today and no doubt we will see its passage into law tomorrow.  
During the select committee stage National had a comment in the report back about those provisions that provide for preferential rights for the claimants to coastal space. I flag again the concern of the National caucus about the measures providing for preferential rights on coastal space proceeding at a time when major public policy decisions relating to aquaculture and the ownership of foreshore and seabed have yet to be made.  
As we said in our comment a specific settlement of a historic grievance should not of itself be seen as setting a general precedent. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and address that matter even by way of giving some reassurance that we are not creating for ourselves something difficult in the absence of any final decisions on the foreshore and seabed issues. Other than that as this Committee knows when settlement bills come before a select committee they are the subject of a deed of settlement between claimants and the Government. The select committee’s ability to make alterations is limited in the regard that if some major amendment were proposed then it would have to go back to the parties involved—both the Crown and claimants. On balance by the time it gets there it is always thought that after as long as this in negotiation the hope is that the best has been done by any particular group of claimants—in this case Ngati Tama—so in a sense the select committee’s job is to ensure that the provisions in the actual deed of settlement are properly accommodated in this legislation.  
In any event I take this opportunity to make one or two comments about why it is important that we all support a swift passage. I am repeating myself here but I think it is worth repeating that these settlements are about historic injustices. It behoves the leaders of this nation which we are when we come into this place to use the very best efforts we can to try to make the best reparation we can for those who have suffered this injustice. In the case of the Taranaki iwi—the eight iwi of Taranaki which obviously includes Ngati Tama—the background to their claims and the injustices that have occurred in their case have represented a blight on our past history.  
This always gives us the opportunity not only to make proper redress to those people but in a sense to restore the honour of the Crown because these injustices for as long as they exist call into question the honour of the Crown. As I say we parliamentarians are given the opportunity to restore the honour of the Crown in making sure that due reparation is made and that settlements are concluded.  
I am not certain but I think that the ACT party is opposing this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] It is opposing it. I express disappointment at that because I have heard members of that party say it is important that injustices be addressed. It is a most difficult thing that this Parliament does when it tries to repair the damage that has been done through the injustices that have occurred. We can only do the best we can. We can never make full reparation to claimants but we can do the best we possibly can.  
It is easy to pick a settlement to bits and flag all sorts of reasons why certain provisions may not be the best in the end. I think it is a lot harder first of all for a tribe to make a decision to settle and then for the Government whichever party is in power to try to piece together a settlement package that hopefully gives the particular tribe a basis on which to go forward.  
ACT I think agrees with the principle of setting right past injustices. If ACT does not agree then that says something about ACT. It shows that it is willing to let injustice lie. I ask ACT to give some further thought to this matter and maybe not in this stage but at a future stage to see fit to support these settlements. They are difficult and complex. New Zealanders are keen to see this all put behind us. Maori especially deserve proper recompense for injustices they have suffered. The settlement package represented in this bill is the best we can find. Perhaps ACT might reconsider its view and for once support a settlement package. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
I would like to bring to the notice of this House New Zealand First’s wholehearted support for the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill. This inquiry has come about only because of the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. Issues going back to the 1800s had to come to the fore whereby there were complaints mainly about land that was confiscated during that period. In the Crown’s response to the Taranaki claims it acknowledged to the Waitangi Tribunal that the confiscation of land in Taranaki was an injustice and was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi that the confiscation had a severe impact on the economy and development of Taranaki iwi and that the delays contributed to the adverse effect of the confiscation.  
I am reminded that at that time the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 was enacted and provided for the confiscation by the Crown of Maori land belonging to those it judged to be guilty of an act of rebellion. I suppose if I had been living at that time I would have been asking myself as an owner of that land what was meant by an act of rebellion. No land was sold they walked over their land they nurtured their land and then next minute the New Zealand Settlements Act was put into place. Of course the people of Parihaka at the time did not raise an arm yet still the land was confiscated.  
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: Who? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: The people of Parihaka. A compensation court was set up in 1863 to compensate some of those whose land was confiscated by the Crown. Those people considered to be rebels were not compensated and of the 74000 acres confiscated only 3450 acres were awarded to individuals. It has been a long long time for this legislation to come about and I am reminded of kinsfolk of my own Mokena Kohere translated as the “gatherer of lands” and Sir Apirana Ngata’s grandfather when the Hauhau movement was moving around the East Coast and they had to deal with it in their own way. What happened is that the Crown tried to use that as an excuse to confiscate the land. Mokena Kohere and Ropata Wahawaha in unmeasured terms told the Crown to keep its nose out of it—it was an internal settlement that had to be settled. Otherwise what would have happened? They probably would have been in the same situation as Ngati Tama have been in the past few years.  
So New Zealand First accepts without any doubt the research that has taken place. Unfortunately there will never be compensation for everything that was taken but at least the Government and the Crown have endeavoured to please and satisfy the people of this nation.  
When I look at the title “Ngati Tama” I ask myself why that has come about. “Ngati” means “people” of Tama or “descendants” of Tama. It has been a long road for them and different committees have been set up to be heard. Today the majority of this House has accepted the claim and supports Ngati Tama. But one challenge I have and I mentioned it yesterday concerns the mandating process. Too many discrepancies have arisen because of this and that and different people making claims to this and that. It has caused confusion and even contention amongst the people of Ngati Tama. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
The ACT party has signalled that it feels obliged to vote against this bill not because it has any particular opposition to the way in which the claim has been negotiated or any particular concern that Ngati Tama’s claim is in any way less meritorious than any other or that Ngati Tama did not suffer grievous injustice in the last century. But we believe that this House should not be a rubber stamp that there is no point in going through this legislative process if we do not address ourselves to what the Crown has done. The Parliament is not the Crown. Parliament is supposed to look after the interests—if we go right back into the mists of time Parliament was the assembly of taxpayers looking to make sure that when the Crown spent their money it did so in accordance with sound law and sound objectives.  
The title of this bill says that it is a settlement but when we look at this bill which is in a form that the Government has brought to the House before and undoubtedly expects to bring to the House again there are elements that do not settle the claims. There are elements of these bills that deliberately leave open scope for future grievance. There are statements in them that we believe it is wrong for the Crown to be making.  
For example there is a long recital in the preamble to the record that is part of the deed of settlement. If the House does not take the opportunity when it is discussing the detail as we are now to say: “Please don’t bring back future deeds of settlement in that form to us because we’re very uncomfortable about them.” then it never will. I believe that the ACT party as so often is actually raising concerns that all or many New Zealanders feel about the treaty claim process but most parties have been too politically correct to touch. Indeed I think that until the last 18 months this House has not been performing its duty. It has treated most of these issues as if they were beyond debate. There has been a tacit consensus between—it may even have been explicit for all I know—the two dominant parties National and Labour that these matters would go through as if they were not contentious; they were to go through in a hush without anyone questioning them.  
We believe that New Zealand First and the other parties that have found their tongue recently should be very concerned about a bill whose preamble recites I think seven times the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The right honourable leader of New Zealand First has made a great play in the House of the non-answers he has had from the Minister—the Hon Margaret Wilson—and from the Prime Minister and from all other Ministers when he has asked what the principles are. I have asked what those principles are. I have asked the Parliamentary Library what those principles are and have been given 13 different versions of documents produced at various times and for various purposes. They are largely consistent but they are largely also statements of pious aspiration. They are not suitable for putting in as legal obligations. 
This Committee should not be recording a deed of settlement without reflecting when it becomes legislation that pious aspiration can be very dangerous. Because this bill which claims to be a settlement bill may well in future be the evidence that the next generation uses to enable it to come along and say as this generation is saying “The last crowd didn’t do it right.”  
The Sim Commission went through these processes. Peter Fraser supported that 60 years ago to try to do justice for Maori in what everyone has acknowledged was grave injustice. But that settlement turned out to be not as worthwhile as everyone thought. Properties went up and money value went down. The wrong beneficiaries were found. These are all elements we can see in this current settlement.  
New Zealanders believe that these settlements are intended to be permanent. Indeed we were told this morning in an open session in the Maori Affairs Committee that the Office of Treaty Settlements does intend to sign up to only durable settlements. Unfortunately the Ngati Tama claim settlement as with others of this pattern is highly unlikely to be durable when it has elements in it that we cannot understand and neither side knows what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I wish to address two or three points raised by previous speakers. I want to assure the previous speaker that yes the settlements are intended to be full final and durable. But it is also true that the only thing in life that is full final and durable is death. So we do the best that we can with goodwill from all parties and that is the way in which we have approached this legislation as have the claimants.  
I also address the point made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who sought assurances in reference to the National Party’s view in the report back. I want to assure her that the provision she was referring to relating to the provision for coastal space and preferential rights thereto to Ngati Tama are similar to those provided in previous settlements of Ngai Tahu and Ngati Ruanui. So there is a consistency there and there is nothing new about that.  
Finally on the comment that was made by my colleague from New Zealand First relating to the mandating process: we would agree with that and I think we have improved the processes enormously since that was undertaken. I do not want to be party political about it but it was undertaken under a previous Government that was also gaining experience at the time. We have learnt from that experience and I think at the moment certainly the mandating processes do take a lot longer. They are more rigorous and I would expect in future we would not have similar problems but I would be very surprised if there were ever a settlement that someone was not slightly unhappy with. We addressed that as I have said before by ensuring that everyone has a place at the table and will benefit. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
I am pleased to rise to support this part of the bill. I was a member of the ACT board of trustees in 1996 when we signed off on a treaty policy that said we would support any settlement that was fair full and final. By anyone’s reading of this bill this is as fair as full and as final as I believe any Parliament can achieve in these difficult times of trying to negotiate with competing interests trying to get mandate and trying to be as fair to everyone as possible.  
I believe that it is in full accordance with ACT policy that every settlement be as fair as possible. It is a very modest settlement given the recital that I read of the events that these people have endured over the years. It is very modest. It is as full as one can expect given that of course future generations will want to relitigate these matters in the light of the sheer modesty of the settlement. It is really a koha—an acknowledgment—that wrongs have been done but it is certainly not a full financial repayment. So of course one could expect that in future other generations will want to relitigate it. But it is as full and final as I believe any Parliament can achieve.  
I was part of the ACT list that went into the 1999 election and into the 2002 election arguing again that any settlement be fair full and final. So I am happy to support a part in a bill that is in my view fully in accordance with the policies of the ACT party. As ACT is a party that prides itself on supporting the sanctity of property rights I believe that too compels me to support this bill so I will be voting in favour of it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Clause 1Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions and acknowledgements and apology by the Crown to Ngati Tama  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
Part 1 contains the recital of purposes and the acknowledgments by the Crown of the wrongs done at Parihaka and elsewhere in the rohe of Ngati Tama so many years ago. The ACT party does not wish to be seen to treat lightly the wrongs that were done and we do not wish to be seen as arguing that there is no case for a settlement along the lines of the settlement signed in the deed of settlement and recorded in the acknowledgements in clause 6.  
But the effect of the settlement and the effect of clause 6 appear to us to be quite significant in a way that nearly all New Zealanders now want this Committee to address. We believe that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as a phrase in legislation are thoroughly discredited. They have been used as talisman words—sacred words—that are supposed to shut down all debate. They are supposed to prevent further questioning. They are words that are used to show good intention in a way that has covered up all sorts of foolishness. They have in the opinion of the ACT party produced bad outcomes for Maori. They have led Maori into a preoccupation with the past and with redress for wrongs that can never be satisfied.  
The acknowledgement in clause 6(1) states: “The Crown acknowledges that the wars in Taranaki constituted an injustice and were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi” which we agree with “and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” which we challenge anyone to be able to establish. The treaty was a simple document that did not have principles; it had provisions and they were sound provisions. Article 2 stated that property rights should be assured and that the Crown could not and should not take land without paying for it.  
What happened in Taranaki was a very clear breach of article 2. That was all that was needed but instead this document goes on to talk about the principles. As far as we know they can mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. They have been made to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean in political debate. Accordingly we think it is time for the Crown to know that it will not be acceptable for these kinds of things to appear in future documents. The only way to tell the Crown—because this Government does not care if it misuses legislation to put in slogan words—is to vote against the bill. To make it plain we will keep voting against it until we pass legislation that can stand the sniff test. The first sniff test for legislation is: “Do you know what it means?”. We do not know what it means.  
We also see other acknowledgments in subclause (4) and subclause (5). In each case our position is the same. Accordingly we have moved an amendment to insert a clause 6A. They would record that although the deed of settlement and the recitals refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi for statutory purposes this Parliament is not attempting to require anyone to pay attention to them. That is something this Parliament can do even if the Crown cannot. If the Crown signed the deed and wants to stick with the deed it can. My amendment tries to say that the deed is amended. I have been advised that that could be challenged by the Chairman. Accordingly my colleague Heather Roy has submitted a fresh proposal so that it simply records that for statutory purposes those words can be treated as if they were not there because no one knows what they are.  
This may well mean that our approach is misdescribed. Four years ago we were described as racist for suggesting that there should be an end date to treaty claims. When Derek Quigley’s bill went into that purpose every party in this House screamed “racist” including New Zealand First. Now it is settled wisdom. The National Party adopted for the end date the year 2008 which we had seen as an end date for claims. In its election policy last year New Zealand First talked of an end date as did the Progressive party.  
New Zealand First adopted a policy that treaty claims must end that they should be full and final and that there should be a stipulated date for them to end. We know that in this Chamber there are people who think that this should be a permanent process that the treaty will always speak that it will always divide New Zealanders on the basis of their ethnic inheritance and that there will always be privilege conferred by the treaty on people who can trace the colour of their skin back to the earliest immigrants or to the near-earliest immigrants.  
We think it is time for this Parliament to say that cannot be the basis of any durable settlement and that this part and the other parts must be consistent with the view that this is it. Thereafter the members of the iwi benefiting from the settlements will see themselves as New Zealanders who have had a wrongful property claim settled. They must not approach their local councils or any of their neighbours from then on saying: “We have the rights that you don’t have and we can influence the Resource Management Act in ways that you can’t. We can fish in a way that you’ll never be able to.” Those are race privileges and ACT stands against race privilege.  
This bill sets out to entrench privileges. I have to be fair. It is not right to say that in this case they are race privileges because they are privileges to the governance entity for Ngati Tama. It is Ngati Tama that will decide who gets the benefit. Effectively it is equivalent to a family incorporation getting a set of privileges. However they will be perceived in the community as a form of race privilege. They will be perceived in the community in essence as special rights that transcend the powers and rights of the democratically elected bodies. Accordingly even though our amendment at this point is to Part 1 which sets out the purposes and the acknowledgments we want that amendment to infuse the approach to the whole bill so it is recognised that this bill marks the stage when New Zealand decided to stop using empty slogans and to turn instead to using the plain and fine words of the treaty. The treaty itself is something we can all welcome and be proud of. The so-called principles have been used as weapons in the hands of the politically correct to beat everyone else into submission and to prevent proper scrutiny of legislation.  
Accordingly I do not accept that this House cannot act as I have proposed in my amendment and simply say that when the agreement is ratified it will be on the terms that this House provides. I understand that there is an argument that the House and the select committee simply are not competent to change these agreements. If that is the case then we should not be going through any of this process. We should not be having a Committee stage. I urge that the amendment in the form in which I have moved it be adopted. However if that is not possible then the next form to achieve a similar purpose is the amendment in the name of Heather Roy which is the same as the amendment in my name but with the omission of the two references to the deed of settlement.  
When the Committee votes on these matters I understand fully the desire for Ngati Tama to believe that it is New Zealand acknowledging the injustice that occurred to them. That is done but it does not mean that we perpetuate it or that we all fall into a pattern of rewriting history. Dishonesty in public affairs is what creates the room for this kind of injustice. The dishonesty of language that has been used in relation to treaty claims has got us into the sort of strife we are in now on the seabed and foreshore. This bill perpetuates it.  
Part 5 refers to the preferential rights to shellfish quota the preferential rights to the paua fishery in protocol areas and the cultural redress properties. They all perpetuate the idea that there are some forms of relationship between Ngati Tama and their land that are passed down by a genetic inheritance that others cannot share. It is time we put that behind us too. Those of us who are here as New Zealand citizens should all be equal before the law and this bill should not be recording some special status. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Mr Franks whether I am to understand that he has withdrawn his amendment. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
No I have not but I was anticipating the possibility that you might rule that it was not valid. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have two amendments. The first one in the name of Stephen Franks is an amendment to insert new clause 6A. I rule it out of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder if you could explain this. As I understand it it is pursuant to advice given to the Maori Affairs Committee on the way in which it should approach the review of Acts to ratify agreements. I am not sure of the status of that—whether that can bind this Committee in the way that it appears you may have been asked to rule. 
If your ruling is pursuant to advice given to that committee it does not seem to me that it has been made or given in a form that tells the Committee why a sovereign Parliament can then be constrained by an instrument that the Crown has signed unless this is in relation to or compared to a foreign treaty.  
I would say that the use of the foreign treaty analogy is incorrect. With foreign treaties we can assume that the Crown has no conflict of interests. The Crown will act only in the interests of New Zealand. It is proper then for the Committee to approach it as an all-or-nothing ratification. With an agreement with some of the citizens of New Zealand the Committee should not regard itself as bound by what the Crown does. It is for the Committee to decide whether this agreement is in the interests of New Zealanders. It is not appropriate that we simply adopt without explanation or debate a ruling given to a committee so long ago. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I should just give a brief explanation of that point. I understand what the member is saying. The point is that the member’s amendment is out of order in my view because it purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties. That is the sole reason it is being ruled out of order. The advice given to the select committee is generic advice to the effect that it is for Parliament to give effect or not give effect to the settlement and to decide how it gives effect to the settlement. In the case of a bill to give effect to an agreement between the Crown and another party Parliament should not insert conditions in the implementing legislation that are not acceptable to the two parties except in exceptional circumstances.  
It is my view that the member’s amendment worded as it is is out of order in that form because a deed of settlement that is an agreement entered into between the Crown and another party cannot be amended—as I mentioned before—in a bill intended to give effect to it. I rule the member’s amendment out of order and we will move to the second amendment in the name of Heather Roy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The first amendment I proposed was an amendment to the preceding clause to clause 5. I have subsequent amendments that would omit the protocols that purport to influence the Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes there is indeed another amendment that is part of the member’s original amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 5(6) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (f). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6A 
Notwithstanding the acknowledgements referred to in section 6 the Crown now records that the references in those acknowledgements to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” were incorrect in that there were no such principles in the Treaty and the words have no settled meaning capable of proper implementation by statute and accordingly this Act shall be read as if all references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Preamble were omitted and where necessary the words instead referred simply to “the Treaty of Waitangi”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2Interpretation  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit all definitions of  
protocol. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
The Greens have outlined our concerns about the treaty settlement process. We consider that it is fundamentally flawed and that it creates further injustices. We are putting forward two amendments on this part that we believe will help to alleviate some of that injustice and we urge this Committee to support those amendments.  
The two amendments are the deletion of clause 12 which renders the settlement as final and the deletion of clause 13 which removes the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal. If those clauses remain in the bill they will remove for ever all opportunity for the reconsideration of the appropriateness of the restitution and—most important—the process by which that restitution has come about.  
We recognise the Crown’s admission that such processes and restitution are what is appropriate in this particular time and in this particular circumstance. We cannot see why iwi and hapu should be required to sign away all opportunity they may have for reconsideration of that process in the future. That is not the means by which the Crown should be developing a long-term ongoing relationship with iwi that has durability and mutual respect. That is not the means by which that relationship and te tiriti should be given effect to.  
The Greens do support the resolution of and restitution for all outstanding historical and current breaches of te tiriti. We are simply not convinced that the treaty settlement process does this and that concern is held by a significant proportion of our population both Maori and non-Maori. We believe that by deleting clauses 12 and 13 we will be able to remedy some of those injustices.  
In the debate on the second reading we raised the very serious concerns and issues of a significant portion of Ngati Tama represented by the whanau whanui who had consistently raised over a number of years concerns about the governance entity. We clearly identified the failure of the settlement process and the failure of the funding process within the Office of Treaty Settlements which put that office in a very serious conflicted position and rendered it entirely unable to deal effectively with the issues.  
We also talked about the fact that those concerns have not been dealt with subsequent to the select committee’s consideration of the matter and that those issues remain at this late stage in the process major points of contention. We are very concerned to allow the passage of the bill without those concerns being sorted out and without there being any future means by which the parties can resolve the issues in an independent forum. Therefore we believe that by deleting clauses 12 and 13 the parties will be able to have the provisions in the bill reconsidered.  
The primary concern is that should this bill be passed the iwi as a whole will be able to have the structural and legislative space to develop the processes that will lead to confidence in the governance entity in whatever form and with whatever membership it determines to manage its own assets. It is crucial that the iwi has real confidence in the body that manages those hard-fought and hard-won resources—resources for its future economic maintenance—because although the redress is minimal compared with what was lost it is none the less a significant resource for an iwi that has been bereft of its capacity for economic independence for generations. We urge the Committee to support those amendments. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I had expected not to speak on Part 3. It was the machinery for settlement and as far as it went it appeared to be innocuous. But I am prompted to rise by the hostility of the Green Party to this clause and I am sure that the member who has just spoken Metiria Turei— 
Metiria Turei 
: I’m not surprised. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
—is not surprised as she tells me. The idea that clause 12—the clause that says that this settlement is final—should go should really be the confirmation of what we have feared about the whole process. If that provision were removed the rest of the bill would probably achieve the purpose of the Greens. That purpose is to have New Zealand defined in terms of ethnic inheritance and status groups—not of individuals all equal before a law that treated them alike but as members of little politicised groupings that do not owe their allegiances and loyalty to the country as a whole or to their fellow citizens without discrimination but instead have their primary identification by way of race or inheritance.  
That a party could seriously urge the omission of clause 12 the provision that purports to make these settlements final should not be allowed to pass in this debate. We have our doubts as to whether those settlements are final but at least clause 12 says they are and discharges the Crown entirely from future liability. The idea that that speech could be made and not be answered meant that we have to rise on this part and we do. That clause should be strengthened. Our concern is that although it states there is a final discharge the overall structure of these agreements leaves avenues open for people to come back later and say: “We was robbed.”  
The structure here purports to offer privileges—or does it? We cannot tell because the language is so vague in respect of shellfish fisheries paua fisheries and certain rights over cultural-redress land. Even the words should strike fear into the hearts of most New Zealanders. What is “cultural redress”? Is it something like “cultural safety”—that thing that has turned our nursing education into a joke because 20 percent of nurses’ time is spent worrying about how to approach people who really only want to be approached with kindness and courtesy? The Green Party seems to be endorsing a view that we should be in a state of perpetual cultural redress that finality is an illusion that should never appear in our legislation.  
Part 3 is the normal machinery—the mechanics part of the bill that says what the agreement is intended to do—at least on its face. Settlement is intended to be full and final—despite the defects in it which we think mean that it might not be. I did not fully understand—but I have to confess probably not because the member who just spoke was obscure but because I got distracted—why the Greens were opposed to clause 13 which ousts the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal. Sorry I do understand it! It is consistent with the Greens’ effort to see clause 12 removed that they also want to leave the Waitangi Tribunal able to come back and reopen claims on Ngati Tama. It is consistently weird to be able to say: “We have a settlement that hands over many millions of dollars worth of property and potential nuisance rights that could in future be converted to money if someone was so minded.” The Greens want to say as well that: “You’ve got all your options to go back and say that it was not enough and that you want more.” That might well happen but there is no point in changing this bill to encourage that. ACT will not vote against Part 3 as long as the approach urged by the Greens is not adopted. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I rise to say that the Government does not support the amendment. The whole purpose of the treaty settlement process is to enable both parties to move on in a new relationship by reaching a mutual agreement on the issues that become the subject of the settlement deed. That is in fact the whole purpose of the exercise. The amendment would undermine that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5Cultural redress   
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
As a matter of courtesy to Ngati Tama I should explain why ACT sought the removal of the provisions that set up protocols. This part of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill records that a series of documents will be entered into that provide for cultural redress. The Minister of a number of departments must issue a protocol which is set out in the Cultural Redress Schedule and it consists of an acknowledgment that appears to record grievance and injustice and is primarily about particular interests of Ngati Tama in special areas including former historical areas pa fighting places and areas where food was gathered. Then it appears to indicate that the Government has to be particularly sensitive to Ngati Tama’s interest in those areas. I say “appears to indicate” because it is entirely unclear as to just what effect a protocol really must have.  
Part 5 is divided into a series of subparts. The Minister has to issue the protocol and may amend or cancel it either on his or her own initiative or on the initiative of the counterparty—that is Ngati Tama’s governance entity as it is called. The legislation then states that a protocol does not restrict the Crown—including the Crown’s ability to introduce legislation—and does not restrict the legal rights of Ngati Tama or a representative entity. It states that the Crown must comply with a protocol and the governance entity may enforce the protocol but there are no damages or any form of monetary compensation available as a remedy. ACT is concerned that this sets up the appearance of rights then makes them hollow.  
It may be objected that this is face-saving on both sides and is a good-faith attempt to recognise that Ngati Tama’s interest was not simply in money and I applaud that. I applaud the fact that the Crown is trying to avoid wrongly imputing two claimants as having purely venal interests in these claims and that it is acknowledging that there is a sense of justified grievance about the Pakeha community’s complete overriding of historical interests that were cultural in these land areas. But I do not believe that as a country we should be compounding that by appearing to recognise them without actually giving them a legal form that can be understood in accordance with the rule of law. The rule of law is that behaviour can be ordered by rules known in advance and enforced by courts that would treat the Crown and the other right-holders equally. The king or the lord in his castle and the ploughman in his field should be able to access the law equally.  
What those protocols are saying is that someone may have some kind of special right or interest but it is not properly enforceable no one knows quite what it is and it can be changed at any time by a Minister. ACT asks what kind of right that is. We believe that property rights really matter in a community. If we do these kinds of settlements we should set them up on a basis on which this country can go forward not on a basis of political fudge—a basis that is essentially political slogans written into law and apologies that are not worth the paper they are written on. These rights ought to be worth something. If they are not then the young of future Ngati Tama generations will come back and say: “What was this about? You acknowledged a wrong. You acknowledged we were owed something but then you gave us the mere shadow of some rights.” It will not avail the Crown then to say: “No you agreed to it even if you didn’t really know what it meant. Nor did we—we were equally ignorant.” and therefore go ahead with it. ACT will vote against these protocols.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 20 to 26 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 53(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 54 to 56 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 71 to 74 be agreed to. 
to omit these clauses. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Schedules  agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 November. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
I was disappointed that the Minister the Hon Rick Barker misled the public and the House to believe that this bill the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) is in substance the same as the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) which was discharged. The reason that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) was discharged was that one of the main provisions was to remove the monopoly trading right of licensing trusts and that reason was very simple. That bill contained a recommendation from the Liquor Licensing Authority which confirmed in 1997 that this monopoly trading right did not do anything to curtail drinking habits. In fact it recommended that the monopoly trading right be discarded. But instead of doing that the Commerce Committee at the time of hearing the submissions on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) understandably found it was controversial and the committee could not reach a decision. So instead of giving the House the opportunity to take a conscience vote or whatever to resolve this issue the minority Labour Government chose to discharge that bill and brought in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) which not only retained the monopoly trading right of the licensing trusts but went ahead and stated that not only are they protected but they can also compete in other areas. The Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) was going to create a level playing field where supermarkets and licensing trusts can all sell in each other’s area but in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) if there is a licensing trust nobody can sell in its area but it can go and sell outside it. So I am not too sure that the Minister has explained to the public why the Government wants to continue and create a very uneven playing field.  
The other provision as the Hon Rick Barker was saying is about allowing wineries to trade on Easter Sunday. So wineries are allowed to sell drinks and trade on Easter Sunday but we do not allow any other shops to open on that day—I find myself almost totally speechless! What is the logic of people being allowed to drink on an Easter Sunday at wineries when they are not allowed to engage in any other trading activity on that day? It defies logic. Only a minority Labour Government can work in such an illogical manner. Another provision which is even funnier is that 18-year-olds would not be allowed to enter licensed premises or purchase wine unless they were requested by the police to do so. I presume that this is to trick the winery operators and to check they are not selling wine to individuals under 18 years of age. I find that quite appalling. But apart from that anyone under 18 years old who entered licensed premises I presume would be prosecuted under this bill. People under 18 may not drink so they are not allowed to accompany their parents or their friends who might be 18 or older; they are simply not allowed to enter those premises. Well I think it is a very laughable provision.  
I also want to bring up an issue about Chinese or Asian cooking wine. Last Christmas we had a very ridiculous situation where I was approached by Chinese supermarket operators who were told they were not allowed to sell Chinese cooking wine because of the way the sale of liquor legislation operates. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister but here today we have not heard a satisfactory explanation or a solution for it. So I am extremely disappointed that this bill the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) managed to bring in other provisions but failed to resolve a very silly situation—everybody knows that Chinese or Asian cooking wine would not actually give a pleasant sensation should an individual choose to consume it. So I want the Minister to explain why he would not take the opportunity to amend that situation.  
When we think of it we can see that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) is another very clear example of the minority Labour Government continuing to dictate to ordinary New Zealanders how they should live and what they are allowed to do on Easter Sunday. People are allowed to get drunk at a winery but they are not allowed to go shopping anywhere else. Once again this legislation demonstrates so well that the minority Labour Government simply does not trust or respect New Zealanders to be able to make up their own minds and make sensible decisions so National Party members certainly cannot bring ourselves to support this bill. I think this bill should be voted down and the Minister should be told to get his act together and look at the trading legislation. The Commerce Committee is examining a trading bill and I do not see why we should rush this. I think if we are talking about cultural appropriateness that this minority Labour Government should explain to me why Chinese cooking wine needs some sort of inspector or licence to supervise it before people are allowed to buy such an essential ingredient for their cooking. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
This is alarming legislation at first glance because as I look at say the new section 219L to be inserted into the Sale of Liquor Act by clause 8 of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) it seems to me that with the reconstitution of licensing trusts they could cease to sell liquor. Instead they could carry on with any other object that comes within section 219L “Object of community trust” because this bill will allow a licensing trust to be reconstituted as a community trust. One then asks what the power of a community trust is. What is its object? Section 219L(1) provides: “All property vested in or belonging to a community trust is held on trust to be applied to charitable cultural philanthropic recreational and other purposes beneficial exclusively or principally to the community in the region of the community trust.” Section 219L(2) provides: “A community trust is authorised but not required to hold 1 or more licences under this Act and to carry on the business of selling or supplying liquor.” So a community trust does not have to have a liquor licence and it does not have to sell liquor. 
Well what a dreadful piece of drafting. Does this mean that the good old Waitakere Licensing Trust can give up selling liquor and just stick to making money out of gaming? That is where licensing trusts get their main money from these days. They can continue to do gaming or do virtually anything if they use the money for charitable cultural or philanthropic purposes. I wonder whether the Government has had a close look at this legislation because on the face of it the Waitakere Licensing Trust in West Auckland the Portage Licensing Trust the good old Oamaru Licensing Trust the Masterton Licensing Trust and the Invercargill Licensing Trust do not have to sell liquor any more under the terms of this legislation. They do not even have to have a liquor licence and they do not have to get involved with liquor. I am sure that all the people in Invercargill Masterton and Oamaru will be staggered that this Labour Government is allowing their licensing trusts not to sell liquor. All those licensing trusts have done a great job for their areas over the years and while I am not really strictly in support of a State-owned type of enterprise I cannot deny that in Invercargill Oamaru and such like they have done a great job. The Government must have a closer look at section 219L which seems to be ambiguous at the very least and shows that this Labour Government has tried to rush this legislation through without looking at it at all closely. 
The second aspect I am concerned about in this legislation—speaking on behalf of New Zealand First—is that a licensing trust will now be permitted to carry out business outside its area without the need to hold an expansion poll. This means that all those businesses that are not allowed to carry on a liquor business within the licensing area will however now be faced with the licensing trust carrying out business in the other areas. To give an example from the area with which I am familiar although other breweries cannot set up an outlet in New Lynn or Henderson there will be nothing to stop the Waitakere or Portage licensing trusts from setting up a business in Queen Street. They could set up a bar in Queen Street Commerce Street or anywhere. I am not sure whether there is still a Porirua Licensing Trust here in Wellington—there used to be one once upon a time. This bill now allows the Porirua Licensing Trust to set up a bar in Lambton Quay but breweries that own bars in Lambton Quay will not be able to set up a bar in Porirua. Surely that is grossly unfair. Clearly that is another reason why New Zealand First will not be supporting this legislation. 
This one is extraordinary: this bill contains amendments that permit wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. There are probably only 3 days in the year that have any degree of sacredness today. Good Friday and Easter Sunday must be the two most important days in any Christian calendar and Christmas Day is possibly the third although it is so commercialised these days. But to have businesses open on Easter Sunday selling whatever it might be—especially selling liquor—goes totally against the grain. That is another area for opposition to this legislation. I am just guessing at this stage but if there is enough support for this legislation we might hear from the small wineries in the future. I am sure that small wineries in particular would find it very difficult to have to open up on Easter Sunday—just because everyone else is opening up—and sell their wine. I would expect many small wineries would probably close regardless of the provision in this legislation. 
It shows the way in which this minority Labour Government regards some of the basic principles of New Zealand society. I know that the Prime Minister regards this as a secular society although just which secular type of viewpoint she supports is hard to say. Most people value a holiday and I would have thought that a Labour Party that seems to look for the support of trade union officials and the support of workers would not want workers to work on Easter Sunday. I would have thought a Labour Party would like at least 1 day of the year to be a day when workers do not have to turn up for work at the wine shop and sell wine. Once we allow wine shops to start selling wine on Easter Sunday clearly all the other shops that cannot open then such as garden centres will ask why they cannot open on a Sunday. We will have everybody opening up on a Sunday and all the workers in New Zealand will be made to work on Easter Sunday. Surely there are some days when they could have a break. We hear the Labour Party talking about people having 4 weeks’ holiday so let us have Easter Sunday as a holiday. It is such a simple proposition. It is an established proposition that has been around probably since the beginning of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I know that Clayton Cosgrove wants people to work every day of the year. He may want them to guzzle away get drunk on Easter Sunday and get drunk every day of the week. There are people in this society—although clearly not those in Waimakariri who support Clayton Cosgrove—who would like to see some sort of day of rest on Easter Sunday to recognise what many billions of people in this world regard as the ultimate conception of the Christian faith—the resurrection. That is the basic concept if one happens to have any regard for Christianity and separates real Christians from anybody else. Selling wine on Easter Sunday is totally objectionable. 
The next point is the provision of an exception in relation to offences by minors to allow entrapment of wineries. That really is a breach of the rule of law. We want the basis on which someone is prosecuted to be fair. We do not want people to be entrapped. That is a constitutional viewpoint. It is called the rule of law. We do not want Parliament to make this sort of arbitrary decision that traps people into committing offences. A winery might be in a hurry. The police might set up someone who is 17 but who looks 25 if he or she gets all tarted up to go into a winery or any other liquor premises and buy alcohol and the manager then has to pay a fine. As I recall it would not be any of the workers as such who would have to pay out; it would be the business proprietor—usually a small-business proprietor. That is another way for Labour to have a go at small business. It is knocking the small-business proprietor running licensed premises. The proprietor will lose his or her licence or have it suspended for a considerable period of time. 
This provision is one of entrapment whereby the police set up a storekeeper. It should not be permitted. It is one of those areas where the law constantly holds to the principle that one has to commit an actual offence not have the police set it up for one. I can imagine the Greens opposing this one just on the grounds of entrapment. It is so contrary to every constitutional principle there is and I expect the Greens would vote against this bill entirely on that ground alone. It would be so easy to set up people in any particular type of offence. I understand that this has been done for the cigarette-smoking bill as well and if we do it once we start to do it a second time and a third time and before we know it the doors are wide open and the principle of the rule of law that we do not have this type of entrapment provision goes out the window. 
So we oppose the bill on the grounds that it would seem on the face of it to allow licensing trusts not to sell liquor and to allow licensing trusts to compete in areas other than their own licensing trust area but with no vice versa arrangement. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
I seek leave to change my advice on the report-back date for this bill. I originally advised the House that I was wanting the bill to be reported back on 12 February 2004. I want to change that advice to 26 February 2004. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. Leave is so granted. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
Contrary to the good advice offered by my colleague Dail Jones the Greens will be supporting the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not intend to take up a great deal of the House’s time this evening because I think the bill is a fairly inoffensive bill but I just want to address quickly some of the issues that have been raised. 
The first thing is the option for a licensing trust to reconstitute itself as a community trust. The Greens support that provision. We think it allows more of a focus on charitable and philanthropic aims and we think that is a good thing. We are aware of the concerns raised by Dail Jones but let this House remember that such a change will be made by a democratic decision. The bill clearly states that the reconstitution can be initiated in two ways: by resolution of the licensing trust members followed by public notice with the opportunity for electors to call for a poll on the issue; or by 15 percent or more of a licensing trust’s electors requesting the trust to hold a binding poll. So it will actually be a democratic decision and a decision made by the community and we think that gives some safeguard. 
The bill does make other reforms to licensing trusts and we think these are useful. It requires trusts to disclose remuneration paid to trustees and senior managers and that is essential for transparency and accountability. It also requires trusts to hold annual meetings to account to electors for the effectiveness of their performance and we think that is a sensible and much-needed change. 
There are a couple of other things I would like to quickly touch on. The bill permits wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday and both Pansy Wong and Dail Jones have made quite a lot of reference to that. Dail Jones suggested it was part of a drive to form a more secular society. I do not accept that argument. Prior to the 1999 amendments wineries were able to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. There does not seem to have been a policy intention to change that; it seems to have been an omission in those amendments. So we think it is sensible and is just putting back in place the previous arrangement. 
There is provision for the staggered introduction of the requirement that general managers of licensed premises hold a prescribed qualification. We understand that that is in response to submissions on the previous Supplementary Order Paper. It is good to see legislation being responsive to the concerns of those directly affected by those decisions. 
The last thing I will touch on before I finish is the exemption to the offence of minors purchasing liquor. Persons who are under 18 years may purchase liquor at licensed premises at the request of a member of the police acting in the course of his or her duty. As Dail Jones correctly said that provision clearly is to allow sting operations to take place. There are already such provisions in tobacco legislation. There are concerns about entrapment and I think we need to look at those carefully. The select committee should pay attention to that. 
But at the same time New Zealand First is one party in this House that makes a point of talking about the problems of under-age drinking youth drunkenness and such things. Clearly if we are going to address the question of under-age drinking there has to be an ability to police the age-limit. In fact since the lowering of the age-limit on alcohol consumption we have seen an increase both in the age at which people start drinking—more people are starting young—and in how much young people drink in a session. I think we are all concerned about those things. The question is what we do we do about it. We have heard the typical knee-jerk reaction that we must put the age-limit back up. Well to Green Party members it seems that before we amend the legislation again the first thing we should do is actually properly police the age-limit we have. We believe that if we properly policed the age-limit of 18 years we could begin actually to address those problems. 
If we are going to police the age-limit there has to be some way for the police to test whether places are selling to under-age people. We do not see any way other than this provision that we can come at this problem. So we support this provision but we are interested to see what the select committee makes of it and what kinds of concerns are expressed in the public submissions. 
I welcomed the point of order from Hon Rick Barker earlier to say that the report-back date was extended somewhat to make sure there is provision to allow the select committee to hear oral submissions if there is such a call from submitters. We welcome that because the select committee is an important part of the democratic process and we think we should go out of our way to make sure it is able to fulfil its job. 
The Green Party is supporting this Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). We look forward to seeing where it goes from here. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill and inform members in the House that the ACT party will definitely not be supporting it any further. With any sort of luck the rest of the members will come to their senses and throw this bit of nonsense out. 
This bill is totally different from what it was when I sat on the Commerce Committee a few years ago along with Pansy Wong. The fundamental plank of that committee was to open up competition to allow trusts to compete outside their designated areas and to allow those outside designated areas to come in and compete with trusts. That was regarded as an entirely sensible situation. The trusts would still be there—they would not be dissolved or got rid off—but they would have to sharpen up their act in order to survive. 
It is worth reflecting on the explanatory note. It states: “In a recent Auditor-General report 7 of the existing 23 licensing trusts were identified as having liability to asset ratios indicating ‘ongoing solvency issues’”—in other words they were virtually broke. Only five of those trusts were identified as having what we would call sound financial positions—only five of the 23 notwithstanding the fact that those were monopolies. They had a licence to print money and only five of the 23 managed to break even or be in some sound situation. 
I want to pick up on another point that Mr Jones made—well I am not sure he made it totally. Those trusts are no longer making money out of the sale of liquor; it is the pokies they are making money out of. Of course they are distributing what profits they do make into the community which is fair and reasonable but I just want to bring members back to the original purpose of those trusts. 
They were of course a throwback to the days of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. I think the movement is still around but I am not sure whether that is the case. I understand that there are still one or two people in that particular organisation. Those trusts were set up in order to ensure that communities actually got some payback if one likes from what they saw as the beer barons—the Speights and Kelleher— 
Hon Phil Goff 
:Henry. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Sir Henry Kelleher and those sorts of folks who wanted to get a little bit out of their pockets and put it back into the community. That was probably I suspect to fight the so-called evils of alcohol. I cannot find one instance where any trust now provides one red cent to any temperance group or union so the entire purpose of a trust is now gone. They are obsolete and they are an anachronism in this day and age. 
I refer to the Invercargill Licensing Trust and give some examples that I think the Minister and the Government should be interested in showing how well those trusts in the south served people in their region. The trusts in the south all owned shares in the Washdyke Brewery owned by Dominion Breweries. One could not buy a bottle of Speights in the south. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why would you? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I do not expect Mr Clayton Cosgrove to; he has no taste whatsoever. I would expect him to drink West Coast beer or Christchurch stuff. 
In fact the trust was not providing a service for the people of its region. It said: “We have a monopoly we will exercise that monopoly to the nth degree.” One virtually could not buy Lion Breweries’ or Speights’ products in those areas. 
That is totally contrary to what the trust really should be about. It is about the ability of a patron to walk into a bar or hotel and buy a beer or whatever of his or her choice without the barman or the general manager of the trust saying: “You will drink DB when you are at the Invercargill Licensing Trust—take it or leave it.” Well one could not; one had to stay there. 
It is not that long ago since I stayed in a small motel just across the road from the Ascot Park Hotel complex. That unit—and there are a number of them down there—is struggling to compete. These private individuals who are providing a fantastic service are struggling to compete against the loss-making enterprise across the road; that huge complex called Ascot Park. It should never have been built because it has been built on the back of a monopoly situation—almost extortion one might say of the people of Invercargill who probably still want to keep the trust but do not fully understand the benefits and costs there have been. So I ask members of this House: “Please don’t ever believe that trusts are there to provide for their patrons.” This is a monopoly situation and they are going to cling to it.  
There is also provision in this bill for community trusts. What licensing trust in its right mind would break its monopoly by becoming a community trust so that some outsider—an independent merchant or bottle store owner or whatever—could come into its region and compete on quality and on price? Trusts will not do it. Some might but they will not do it—they are not financially strong enough as I said earlier. It is not the sale of liquor that is now keeping these institutions afloat; it is in fact the pokie machines.  
I think many people in this House will be well aware of the appalling influence of pokie machines right throughout this country. One can no longer go to a hotel sit down and have a nice drink of beer or wine because those damn pokie machines are everywhere. I cannot stand them and I guess I am showing a little bit of prejudice against them. Nevertheless that is the reality. They are the money-making machines within these organisations today and there is absolutely no justification for the licensing trusts to continue on.  
There is one aspect that I am pleased to see in the bill—that is wineries will be allowed to sell their own product on Easter Sunday. Well is that not an outrageous event? People will be able to drive into the countryside down into Central Otago the home of the greatest Pinot Noir Chardonnay and Riesling go into a winery there on a Sunday afternoon—perhaps they have been to church in the morning—and enjoy a glass of wine with a meal in our region and indeed in every region in this country. That is important and proper.  
But I would lament one aspect. I would have thought the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) might also include in it somewhere the requirement for younger people to take responsibility for their actions. When we get the huge amount of drunkenness the related car accidents and the rest of it it is society that gets the blame or the wine seller or the winery—it is never the kids. I believe that is wrong. The kids should be to blame instead of the poor old staff member who sells the bottle of wine or whatever it might be being whacked with the blame. That responsibility is now gone. The younger people do not understand and do not fully relate to the fact that they are being mollycoddled by a Government that does not seem to understand that it is personal responsibility that ensures good outcomes not being cosseted and blaming everybody else all the time. I do not see that in this bill either. It would have been a great opportunity to include something entirely responsible in the bill but it is not there and that is a cause for some real disdain and lament. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would the member do? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: If it were me and I caught a person selling alcohol— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Shame! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well Mr Cosgrove can come and talk to me and I will tell him. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 26 February 2004. 
Motion agreed to. 
Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week when there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 196(1)(b) and (c).  
Part 1 contains the major policy initiative. It creates an active management regime for child sex offenders in the community aimed at managing the long-term risks posed by those offenders. Part 2 contains a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Some amendments clarify the legislation to ensure that the original policy intent underlying particular provisions is implemented. There are also technical amendments to deal with drafting errors.  
The active management regime for child sex offenders will allow extended supervision orders to be imposed on child sex offenders who are likely to continue to sexually victimise children once their sentence is finished. There is currently no provision for that to occur. This bill allows monitoring for up to 10 years of child sex offenders who have received a finite sentence of imprisonment for a relevant offence and who the court determines are likely to reoffend following the expiry of their sentence. Offenders covered by that provision are those who have committed child sex offences under the Crimes Act or sexual violation or attempted sexual violation where a child victim is involved.  
The Department of Corrections will assess all offenders serving a finite sentence of imprisonment for a relevant offence to determine whether an application should be made before the end of the sentence for an extended supervision order. Where an assessment indicates that the offender has a high or a medium-high risk of offending again the department will apply to the sentencing court for an order. The court can impose an order of up to 10 years if satisfied that the offender is likely to commit further child sex offences once the offender’s sentence has ended. The offender will be given notice of the application and will have the opportunity to appear personally or be represented by counsel to defend the matter.  
The bill provides also for a right of appeal for both the department and the offender against any decision to grant or decline an application. If an offender is made subject to an order standard parole-type conditions will apply automatically throughout the term of the order. In addition the Parole Board can impose special conditions that can include home detention – type conditions and conditions prohibiting the offender from going to specified places or areas. Home-detention conditions can apply for up to the first 12 months. Other special conditions can apply for the full term of the order. 
The board can also require the offender to be subject to electronic monitoring to check compliance with these conditions. The more rigorous conditions will apply to the highest risk offenders who justify a more intensive management regime. Transitional provisions will ensure that orders can be sought for those currently serving a sentence or under parole or release supervision conditions as at the date of introduction of this bill. This ensures that those worst offenders sentenced before the Sentencing Act of 2002 made preventive detention more widely available do not simply “fall through the cracks”.  
Part 2 makes a number of amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act to deal with minor issues. They include technical amendments that deal with drafting matters such as incorrect cross-references drafting omissions and anomalies. This part also clarifies several provisions to ensure that original policy intentions underlying particular provisions are implemented. Amendments include changes to provisions relating to home detention deferral of sentences and minimum terms of imprisonment.  
Front-end home detention is potentially available to those sentenced to a term of less than 2 years’ imprisonment. The bill amends the Act to make it clear that the law does not require that leave to apply for home detention be granted in the normal course of events. The amendments in the bill emphasise that the court has the primary role in determining whether wider sentencing considerations—such as denunciation deterrence safety of the community the offender’s background and information in the victim’s impact statement—make home detention inappropriate. This will reduce the number of offenders being referred to the Parole Board—which is currently declining 40 percent of those given leave to apply for home detention by the courts.  
A related issue is the deferral of sentences to allow offenders granted leave to apply for home detention to make that application to the Parole Board. Again that is being granted more frequently than intended. The bill requires that where a sentence is deferred the court must impose bail conditions. It also tightens the use of deferral by requiring the court to first be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.  
The bill amends section 86 of the Sentencing Act which relates to minimum terms of imprisonment where the Court of Appeal has identified language taken from previous legislation as being problematic. The new wording makes it absolutely clear that minimal non-parole periods above one-third of the sentence should be imposed in cases where the statutory minimum would be insufficient to deter denounce and punish a serious crime. A similar amendment is made to section 103 relating to setting the minimum periods of parole in murder sentences. A further substantive change is to allow anyone on parole to be placed under electronic monitoring where necessary to reduce the risk of reoffending. This has been determined as being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.  
Finally I believe it would be useful for the select committee to consider Deborah Coddington’s Sex Offenders Registry Bill regarding the registration of sex offenders alongside this bill. The committee could examine whether a register might strengthen inter-agency information sharing and assist in the safety of the management of sex offenders in the community.  
In conclusion the main change that this bill introduces is the power to place recidivist child sex offenders under extended supervision for up to 10 years. This will apply to offenders currently in prison or on parole as well as of course those convicted after this bill becomes law. In the highest risk cases such offenders will be under a strict monitoring and control regime. Crown Law has indicated that this may constitute a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However I believe that the right of children to be protected in these instances must come before the right to total freedom of a child sex offender released from prison who is deemed likely to offend again. Children are the most vulnerable group in our community and they warrant special protection. In these circumstances I believe that a breach can be justified. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
This bill is nothing but a political gimmick by a Minister of Justice who is under pressure for his complete and utter failure in the leadership of the justice system in New Zealand. The fact is that this bill will do absolutely nothing to protect any child from a paedophile. Not one child will be protected from a paedophile because of this bill promoted by Mr Goff. All that this bill is about is trying to appear to be tough whereas this Government’s record on this sort of stuff is appallingly bad. If it were not for the National Party in Opposition raising the appalling cases of Barry Allan Ryder and Lloyd Alexander McIntosh this failed Minister of Justice would not have done anything.  
Let me tell the House about Mr Goff. Mr Goff made his reputation on the back of Barry Allan Ryder saying he would never let Barry Allan Ryder be released from jail. Mr Goff railed against Mrs Shipley and railed against Sir Douglas Graham and said if he were Minister of Justice those people would never be released from prison. Then we discovered that Barry Allan Ryder a paedophile who repeatedly sexually abused young children had been released under Mr Goff’s watch. What did Mr Goff say? He said he did not know that. Yet Mr Goff is the man who made his reputation on the back of that paedophile. He said that Barry Allan Ryder would never be released; he said he would not allow that to happen.  
But Mr Goff did allow Barry Allan Ryder to be released and Mr Goff never ever asked what the parole conditions were. When the National Party revealed to the public that Barry Allan Ryder was being released and had been released Mr Goff said that he was not going to ask what the parole conditions were. He said he could not ask that. It was not until the National Party New Zealand First ACT and the media put pressure on the New Zealand Parole Board and this weak Minister of Justice that the parole conditions were released. Those conditions showed that this Government could not guarantee the safety of children in Christchurch with Barry Allan Ryder in the community. What happened is that Barry Allan Ryder under the watch of this Government’s bureaucracy was allowed to sexually abuse two young boys in Christchurch and this Minister said he could do nothing. But he made his reputation on the case of that paedophile.  
Then we discovered the case of Lloyd Alexander McIntosh—another offender whom Mr Goff said he would never allow out of jail. But we discovered that Lloyd Alexander McIntosh was being paroled—released into Palmerston North—and this Minister and Mr Maharey only after pressure from the Opposition parties decided they would say to the public of New Zealand that they would do everything possible to eliminate the risk his behaviour posed to children in Palmerston North. Lloyd Alexander McIntosh is a vile individual who was sent to jail for raping a 6-year-old child and who then within months of being released from prison raped a 23-month-old child. That individual should never be allowed out of jail. Mr Goff said he would stop that sort of person from being released but he did not do so. Only when we raised the case did Mr Goff even look into the circumstances. What happened in that case was that those Ministers said they had 24-hour 7-day-a-week supervision in place and that would protect the people of Palmerston North. Well what happened? Lloyd Alexander McIntosh assaulted a young woman in his home while a security guard employed by this Government was outside the door. That man Lloyd Alexander McIntosh told somebody that he had almost raped the girl while a Government-employed person was outside the door. He was allowed to do that. Why did the security guard not go and stop him? It was because the security guard was worried about McIntosh’s privacy.  
So the Government is rapidly given the embarrassment of those two cases bringing forward this bill. “Mr Get-tough Goff” says that this legislation means that paedophiles can be supervised 24-hours-a-day 7-days-a-week for 10 years. Do members know what the National Party was able to reveal to the people of New Zealand? The only supervision that this bill provides for after 1 year is the attachment of an electronic bracelet. Apparently attaching an electronic bracelet will prevent a paedophile from reoffending! Mr Goff who pretended to know all about the subject in the House was embarrassed when he had to front up to the fact that all that a bracelet would tell the monitoring agency is where the person is not whom he or she is with. That means that someone monitoring the electronic bracelet will be able to say where a paedophile is but not whom the paedophile is with. That is the problem.  
What we had in this Parliament was the Department of Corrections being completely confused about this bill and finally admitting that the 24-hour 7-day-a-week supervision that Mr Goff had promised New Zealanders could be delivered only in the first 12 months only if the person was under home detention conditions and only if there was a full-time supervisor living in the home detention area. That means that not only does the person have to be under home detention—and as Mr Mark knows what about the many New Zealanders on home detention who leave their bracelets on the bench and wander around the pubs anyway— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Oh yeah! Where’s the evidence for that or are you making it up? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It has happened in Mount Maunganui and that Minister knows it. So what about all those people? They have their bracelets and apparently they are on home detention; but there would not be one person on home detention who has been sent to a place where there is 24-hour supervision. There would not be one.  
This legislation is a gimmick. It will not work. This Minister is only responding to the Opposition’s pressure. This bill is hopeless. I tell Mr Goff that he misled this House. I will tell members what the Department of Corrections told the Law and Order Committee: no paedophile will be monitored for 10 years. That is what the Government’s advisers told the select committee. Do members want to know what the extensive supervision of paedophiles will be? The head of the Community Probation Service told us that in the first few months extended supervision will include two visits with a parole officer a week and after 2 years it will go down to one visit with the parole officer every 3 months. Well how will an electronic bracelet and a quarterly visit with a parole officer stop the likes of Barry Allan Ryder abusing young children? I ask Mr Goff how an electronic bracelet and a quarterly visit from a parole officer will stop a paedophile from abusing a child. It will not do so.  
This bill is a sham. It will not save one child from the abuse of a paedophile. This Government is perpetrating a fraud on the people of New Zealand. There is no way that an electronic bracelet can stop a paedophile from reoffending. This Government should be passing a law that allows a judge to be convinced that some of those people should never be released from jail and that extends preventive detention for those sorts of individuals. Mr Goff promised he would do something like that and he has not. He talks tough and votes soft. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
I rise to speak in support of this bill that is being introduced by the Hon Phil Goff. I support the bill despite that irrational and very unhelpful contribution from a former Minister of Justice who actually had an opportunity when he had a warrant in that portfolio area to try to do something about the issues he raised in Parliament tonight. Mr Goff has introduced legislation that will bring about an active management regime for child sex offenders in the community which will be aimed at managing the long-term risks posed by those offenders. It is a proactive and practical way of doing something about that rather than sitting on the Opposition benches and crying crocodile tears over these very important issues. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
That member over there on the Government benches certainly did not earn anything of the huge magnificent salary that he is paid with that speech. That is the sort of speech that I will make sure New Zealand First members tout around his electorate to show his constituents how much work he does in this House. It was an absolutely pathetic contribution no doubt written by a senior Cabinet Minister and handed to him the minute before he spoke with an instruction from the whip to get up and read it out and then to sit down and shut up. The party that member belongs to does not want to hear him speak in this House. That is why they gave him 1 minute to speak on a very important bill such as this which we will support being referred through to the select committee. 
Darren Hughes 
: Get on and talk about it. 
RON MARK 
: That member is now making a longer contribution by interjection than he has made in this House in 3 months. What a useless pathetic example he is of a young man to have in this House. I have to say that that reflects this bill.  
This bill is a sham and a scam. What the Minister did not tell the House about this bill is that it contains technical amendments to address drafting matters such as incorrect cross-references anomalies omissions and greater clarification of expressions in the much-vaunted sentencing and parole legislation that he brought to the House. It contains amendments to clarify that much-vaunted legislation hailed as Norm Withers’ answer to all his prayers. Here we are now correcting and amending the wonderful sentencing and parole legislation because as we said in the Committee stage—where I did not hear one contribution from that young man who spoke before me—it was flawed from the outset. We said it would not contain— 
Darren Hughes 
: I was not in Parliament then you fool! 
RON MARK 
: Well it was a good decision not to have that member in Parliament then. Someone got it wrong thereafter. I would have thought that that young man would stand up and refer to that but he did not. That was an absolutely pathetic contribution. My comments about that obviously hurt him and that is why he is interjecting a lot. He does not want us to publish that speech throughout his electorate.  
I turn to the provisions on home detention in section 97 of the Sentencing Act and section 35 of the much-vaunted Parole Act. Excuse me! We were told there was nothing wrong with that legislation. All the Opposition cries were ignored—no problems. Yet here we are using up valuable taxpayers’ time to correct and amend that legislation. Government members hate that. 
Jill Pettis 
: Sit down then. 
RON MARK 
: There goes the parrot—the fishmonger’s wife must be back screeching across the Chamber. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no— 
RON MARK 
: I thought that came from the gallery. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
:: The member knows that he must address members properly. 
RON MARK 
: I was not talking to her. I just heard a squawk. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. 
RON MARK 
: Well I withdraw and apologise for not recognising that the squawk came from that honourable member. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. Please be seated. The member will withdraw and apologise without making reference to what he is withdrawing and apologising for. He knows that is outside the Standing Orders. 
RON MARK 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness a lack of prejudice and good and proper order I say I do not mind solid interjections that have a point. But screeching across the Chamber in that manner is surely unacceptable.  
I return to home detention and section 97 of the Sentencing Act. Who raised the issue about the problems contained in that section? It certainly was not Jill Pettis. It certainly was not that young man whose name I cannot remember. It certainly was not Mr Goff or Clayton Cosgrove and it certainly was not my honourable rugby-playing mate Damien O’Connor. That issue was raised as a result of a constituent in the Canterbury region telling me about a horrendous case where a person who had embezzled his company of $140000— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A constituent? 
RON MARK 
: It is a constituent that one of that member’s fellow MPs was not looking after. That is why he came to me. I will not say he came from the Christchurch central area but he did not want to go to a Government member of Parliament so he came to me. It was something to do with orientation or something; I do not know what the issue was. That man saw his employee sentenced to jail and a week later he saw her on the street. The employee had got into trouble by gambling at the casino getting herself hugely into debt and she then embezzled the company she worked for of $140000. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Sounds like Tuku. 
RON MARK 
: I thank Mr Cosgrove for that; I will remind Dover Samuels of that comment. That employee was sentenced to jail and a week later she was found out on the street.  
But worse than that that employee was spotted in the Hoon Hay Working Men’s Club gambling on the pokie machines again. How did she get there? The much-vaunted sentencing and parole legislation allowed the judges to give her the right to apply for home detention and to give her that leave and that leave was given at large in the community. It is called a deferred sentence. She is now out at large for another 3 4 or 6 weeks and is back into the same activity that got her into trouble to start with. And the businessman who is out of pocket by $140000 has to swallow that and accept it. I think not! We raised that case in this House and finally the Government is doing something about it. But what was the Government’s first reaction? It was to say it would cover it over by putting through a Statutes Amendment Bill. Like heck it will! We said the Government should come back and address all the problems contained in that legislation including that of child sex offenders which Mr Goff is now attempting to deal with.  
There is a fundamental issue with regard to child sex offenders that I believe this Government will not face up to because the rot started during the time when Helen Clark was the Minister of Health. It relates to deinstitutionalisation and to whether child sex offenders and paedophiles are mad or bad. Hello! There is no answer from Labour on that. Are child sex offenders and paedophiles mad or bad? Are the people who prey on our children doing so because they are bad nasty horrible people of sane mind or because they are mentally impaired and intellectually disabled—mad as opposed as to bad? If they are mad they should not be in jail and we should not be passing laws like this to catch them. We should have institutions and asylums where we can put those people and care for them and where they are protected from society and society is protected from them. But this Government fundamentally and ideologically will not stand for tolerate or allow institutions to exist because it has carefully constructed its arguments to stigmatise institutions.  
Not only does the Government stigmatise institutions but it also stigmatises every person who supported them and worked in them. I remember Ruth Richardson being one person and the Labour Party members being other people who went about and condemned anyone who worked at the Templeton Centre as being institutionalised himself of herself. They said those workers did not know what they were talking about and had nothing constructive to offer. The warnings of such workers that this sort of thing would happen fell on the deaf ears of Helen Clark who wears medals for closing 29 hospitals and getting rid of institutions. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A case with regard to the allegation that the member has just made has been in front of the courts. What the member has just said has been proven to be totally incorrect and I request that he withdraw and apologise. Helen Clark did not close 29 hospitals at all. 
RON MARK 
: It is a matter of debate. It was 32 actually. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
RON MARK 
: What else do we have in this bill? Home detention is an issue and it will be partially addressed in this bill. We would be a lot happier if this bill contained the repeal of all home detention law altogether. Part of the control on the paedophiles and sexual predators who attack children depends and relies on 24/7 supervision which we now know will not necessarily involve having a person standing beside the criminally convicted offender. It may instead rely on electronic monitoring. The honourable Dale Jones is a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and he will be sitting on it through the consideration of this bill. We will be looking at that issue closely. Everything that we have heard from members of the Department of Corrections in the Law and Order Committee is that an ankle bracelet will not stop a paedophile abusing or sexually molesting a child. The ankle bracelet does not leap to criminals’ necks and choke them to death does not handcuff them to the nearest power pole and does not physically restrain them. All that it does is to go off when they are outside their designated place. We now know that the designated place is subject to whatever conditions or impositions the Parole Board and probation officers impose which is just so open-ended as to be ridiculous.  
We have heard much about global positioning systems from the Minister himself. Let me tell the House that a global positioning system device will tell us where a person raped a child; it will not stop that person doing it. This bill is fundamentally flawed in those respects. If we are to have 24/7 supervision let us have it in a mental institution or a proper asylum where the staff can give the person good medical care and where the person will be out of circulation but will be looked after professionally not looked after by a Chubb Security guard who is paid $9 an hour and has had no professional training whatsoever on how to care for monitor and look after people like that.  
It is timely that this bill has come to the House and that we are finally to deal with some of the problems. But I suggest to this House that this Government has a lot more cleaning-up to do in its own backyard and much of what needs to be addressed dates from 1984-87. Is it not sad that such a number of casualties in the community have fallen by the wayside since then? 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
The Green Party supports this bill. The Green Party supported the sentencing and parole legislation when it came through this House and this bill contains a number of amendments to it. At the time we welcomed that legislation because we thought it made a number of significant advances in the area of sentencing and parole—in particular the legislative provision that it made for restorative justice and also the recognition that the safety of the community should be the primary consideration when considering parole. It removed an inflexible arrangement under the previous legislation that had provided for automatic release. So the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act allow for earlier release when that is warranted but also allow a person to be kept in prison until the end of his or her sentence if that is necessary. That legislation also amended the provisions around preventive detention and made that provision more available. It made it more likely that people convicted of particularly heinous offences will get preventive detention.  
This amendment bill has provisions to clarify the intention of some parts of the current legislation and to rectify some technical errors but in many ways the major thrust behind this bill is to address a specific problem that was outstanding from the previous legislation—legislation that was presided over and left unaddressed by the parties of the right that whenever we have justice and law and order debates come into the House and make much noise about how they are tough on crime. But of course what we hear from them is a lot of talk. As my colleague Darren Hughes mentioned when they had the opportunity to actually address the situation they did very little. 
Ron Mark 
: So did the member. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I say to Mr Mark that I was not here in Parliament then. One of the things that concerns me is hearing some members of this House stand up and describe with such relish some of the heinous acts that we are talking about. That really makes me wonder sometimes.  
Tony Ryall and Ron Mark both criticised the electronic monitoring provisions. I am not sure exactly what they suggest but it seems to me that the alternative is to suggest that we keep people locked up indefinitely after their sentence has expired regardless of that fact. The point is that this is a problem that arose under the old legislation. Under the current legislation such people would get preventive detention. The fact is that they were sentenced under the previous regime and this bill is an attempt to clear up that anomaly and deal with that issue which was so ignored by the parties of the right when they were in power.  
The bill provides for extended supervision for up to 10 years after the expiry of a sentence. The Green Party is concerned that those provisions do not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that there are issues around double jeopardy. Effectively people are being resentenced for something they have already received a sentence for and there are clear privacy implications around the electronic monitoring provisions. We believe that those things need to be looked at very carefully in the select committee—in particular at how warranted those provisions are and if they are warranted at how best to constrain those powers so that the abuse of them is minimised.  
However the Green Party does agree that we have to do something about the situation. We have to do something to address the very serious problem of convicted child sex offenders—who will almost certainly reoffend—being released into the community at the end of their sentence. It is not good enough for us simply to say that we will wait for them to reoffend or to attack again before we do something about that and to see another traumatised child. We have to do something about that so the Green Party supports the referral of this bill to a select committee. We acknowledge that the bill attempts to balance the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns with the concern for the safety of the community. We are not sure that the bill has fully achieved that but of course the job of the select committee is to work through those details.  
As has been said one of the provisions concerns the minimum non-parole period. It is clear that the Court of Appeal has asked Parliament to clarify the intention behind those provisions of the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. The bill does that and it is important that we are responsive to the courts when they ask for that clarification. The bill talks about using minimum non-parole terms where one-third of a sentence would represent insufficient punishment denunciation and deterrent and also to clarify that the safety of the community is relevant. The Green Party is of the opinion that the safety of the community should be the paramount concern and should be the core issue that informs that decision. Again that is something we need to look at further in the select committee.  
The Minister has already talked about the provisions around home detention and the deferral of the beginning of a sentence. With regard to home detention it is clear that the proper function of the court is to filter such applications to ensure that cases generally meet the eligibility criteria. Then it is up to the probation service to identify whether specific circumstances meet the criteria. The courts have been remiss in addressing that issue and have been too prepared to allow applications for home detention. The fact that over half of them are being knocked back shows that that is the case. Again the bill contains a sensible provision to tidy that up and to reinforce and clarify the policy intention behind the legislation. Similarly that is the case around the deferral of the starting date of a sentence.  
The Green Party supports the bill and believes that it is useful. It addresses a serious problem that continues from the previous legislation. It contains some provisions to tidy up and clarify the current Sentencing Act and Parole Act. The bill contains some challenges for the Justice and Electoral Committee and it will work through those things.  
I finish by mentioning that Ron Mark did raise some very serious concerns around the issue of mental health and inmates. He is quite correct that that is a serious problem. The estimated number of people in the prison system who have mental health issues tells us that this Parliament must address those problems. We cannot continue to lock up people who are mentally unwell because we do not provide proper supervised facilities for them in the community outside the prison system or within the prison system. We agree with Mr Mark that that issue does need to be addressed and that this Parliament needs to take it seriously. Apart from that I commend this bill to the House. 
MARC ALEXANDER(United Future) 
: 
I rise for United Future in support of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. The bill before us that provides for a regime of extended supervision for dangerous sex offenders is—at least in intent—timely. In the very near future a number of child sex offenders sentenced under the old sentencing regime will be coming up for parole and eventual release. Under the new Sentencing Act the worst type of sex offenders to which the new regime applies will have received preventive detention and the justice system maintains control over them potentially for the rest of their natural lives—if not in actuality through the imposition of that penalty. But as the Minister has already mentioned at present we face the situation where a number of offenders—there is not expected to be a huge number—will slip through the cracks and soon find themselves out in the community free to offend again which almost certainly they will.  
A bill of this sort is necessary and that is why we will support it through to a select committee. Further we recognise the time-sensitive nature of the bill. The longer we leave it the greater the opportunity there is for offenders to be left unsupervised in the community. That is why we will support the Minister’s motion to have the Justice and Electoral Committee sit during House hours.  
The bill provides for a regime of supervision for child sex offenders to take place for a maximum of 10 years although the exact supervision time is left to the discretion of the courts. Given my experience with the courts’ use of maximum penalties I fear that many offenders may not actually receive 10 years worth of supervision after they exit the prison system. In many cases they may need even more. How often have we seen examples of child sex offenders who will display a pattern of pathological offending for their entire lives? If we set 10 years as the maximum how long will they actually get? Probably 4 or 5 years. My view is that we ought to set a higher maximum given the expectation that the courts will generally apply only about two-thirds of the potential sentence or less. I will be interested to hear the views of experts at the select committee on the appropriate time that such offenders ought to be monitored for and how they should be monitored.  
Some have complained that the new regime breaches a number of provisions in the Bill of Rights—namely the double-jeopardy rule that an offender ought not to be punished twice for the same offence; the principle against retrospective law that offenders ought to know what penalty they are in for when they commit the offence and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Attorney-General found that the bill before us breached the Bill of Rights in those ways and that such breaches were not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.  
I beg to differ as does much of the public. In my view such limits on offenders are completely and utterly justifiable given the severity of the offences committed. They are justifiable because they must be weighed up against the rights of others to be free from the sick and perverse violence that those offenders carry out on our most vulnerable. They are justifiable because it is exactly that kind of narrow thinking about the absolute rights of those offenders that all too often produces the absurdities of our justice system that frustrate so many New Zealanders in their search for justice. They are justifiable for all victims of sexual violence who find that their rights as victims have been ignored in favour of the rights of those who have so grievously breached ours in the first place. They are justifiable because implicit in the social contract is an expectation of the State that when we as individuals give up our right to exact personal revenge on those who have wronged us the State will deliver that justice for us and against those who have harmed us.  
Just how are the parents of children who have been offended against supposed to feel knowing that their child’s rapist will soon be out and that there is nothing that can be done about that short of them taking up the shotgun themselves? We have only to look at Mark Middleton’s anger and rage to understand exactly what parents will feel. That is why I support this new amendment because it goes a very small way towards resetting that balance. It is a recognition that sometimes offenders no longer deserve all the protections and rights that all other innocent citizens have had simply because they have trampled all over ours. 
There are a number of other matters in the bill that I would also like to comment on briefly. Section 86 of the Sentencing Act is to be amended to clarify that in setting minimum non-parole periods the safety of the community is actually taken into account—a seemingly obvious factor to account for when determining any prison term—and United Future applauds that change.  
United Future also supports the use of this bill to plug a number of holes regarding home detention and deferrable sentences. Presently we see many cases in which offenders provided with leave to apply for home detention are also granted a deferral of sentence while they apply to the Parole Board. However they will often wait until the end of that deferral period before applying for home detention. Of those who do about 40 percent are finally turned down. This situation clearly casts significant doubt on the safety of allowing such convicted offenders deferred sentences in the first place.  
The bill addresses this issue in a number of ways. Firstly sentence deferrals are being granted far too easily. In large part this has been due to the courts’ interpretation of the phrase “special circumstances.” Section 101 will be amended to provide that deferrals are granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The effect of that is that sentence deferrals will be granted in considerably fewer cases. Secondly the bill clarifies the courts’ role in determining applications for leave to apply for home detention. Until now the courts have interpreted section 97 of the Sentencing Act as narrowing their discretion in deciding that leave to apply should be granted in the normal course of events. Clearly this ought not to be the case. One need only look at the recent case of Darren McDonald to be convinced of that. Thus we are pleased to see that the courts’ role has been clarified and widened to emphasise the fact that they have a sifting role to apply to home detention applicants.  
This bill is far from perfect but it is a step in the right direction. One of the main problems already discussed prior to this debate is the mental health aspect. We have taken away the ability to incarcerate people in institutions with the false promise of community care that simply cannot do the job. In return we have had police having to play psychologist and the court system having to play psychologist and psychiatric nanny in putting these people in prison—a place where some of them simply do not belong. We have to revisit how we actually protect our citizens from these individuals outside of a prison environment. I think we need to revisit the mental health aspect and the opportunity of putting in place institutions that can account for these individuals.  
I commend this bill to the House but I trust that the select committee will take a well-meaning but flawed bill and return to the House a bill worthy of the victims it seeks to protect in the first place. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. I would like to start by saying what a risk repeat child sex offenders are to society. They strike fear into the hearts of parents up and down the country. It would be one’s worst nightmare to know that a repeat child sex offender had moved into the neighbourhood and was being unsupervised. If repeat child sex offenders are released and are in our communities up and down the country we have to say that parents are justified in not wanting their children to walk home from school any more and in not wanting their teenagers to be out at night roaming the streets any more. At the moment we do not know where these offenders are but what we do know is that every so often they offend and when they offend it is a terrible tragedy.  
This bill would be welcomed by Parliament in general because it seems to signal that the Government is addressing a real problem in our communities. It sounds like a bill that actually will protect children. When we read the bill we see that when such offenders are released from prison they will be on home detention for 12 months and monitored for 10 years. So on the face of it it sounds good but I have to say that this is typical Labour Party spin. It is flimflam. If we look beneath the surface of this bill we find that there is no substance to it. It is simply fine words to make New Zealanders think the Government cares when there are no teeth in this bill that will keep those sex offenders off the streets and children safe. It is very disturbing to be an Opposition member of Parliament and see a bill that is simply a joke—and that is what it is. In spite of the fine words of the Minister this bill will not save children—not at all. If the Minister were actually serious about trying to do something in this area there is a multitude of things he could have done but it would not have been the words in this bill which are simply words without substance.  
Home detention is a joke—we already know that. There are so many instances already where offenders leave the bracelet at home so that Chubb thinks that they are in their houses; meanwhile they are out around the town with their mates. That goes on today. How does the Minister think it will be any different for child sex offenders? Well it will not be. There will be no extra monitoring—nothing. Again people will think it is a good idea but it will not work. There is nothing to stop those sex offenders using the Internet and doing all sorts of things that most of us would not even dream of. There is nothing to stop people from visiting their homes. The bracelet is meant to stop them going out but we know that people can get away with going out and as I said leaving the bracelet at home.  
The extended supervision is a joke. The Law and Order Committee has already heard that offenders cannot have that supervision—that no paedophile can be monitored for 10 years. The officials were quite clear on that. They said it would not work so those words in the bill are totally hollow. All they are designed to do is make New Zealanders who do not know the detail of this bill think that the Government cares. Well it simply does not.  
I understand that when somebody comes out of prison and goes on extended supervision they might get two visits a week from the parole officer in their own homes. Two visits a week! What about all the rest of the hours in the week? They will be up to their own tricks and nobody will be keeping an eye on them. After that it will diminish to one visit every 3 months. How can the Minister stand in this House and tell members of Parliament and the country that extended supervision is tough when it means one visit every 3 months? What a joke! That is disgraceful and pathetic from that Minister.  
The bill also brings in retrospective provisions and I have to say that the ACT party does not agree with that. If we had good policing we would not need retrospectivity—it is not a good way to bring in laws. Tough policing would do exactly what this Minister wants to do by way of retrospective clauses. If we look at the real issue—and it has been brought out in this debate—we see that there are some people who commit offences against children and who should not be out in the community ever. They should be on preventive detention. They should never be released.  
But I have to challenge that Minister whether an ordinary criminal prison is the right place for them to be. I think he would agree that the answer is no. They should be in special forensic mental health institutions. We have one or two in New Zealand and that is all. There are simply not enough of them to cope. We need more of them in this country so that those people who have a particular mental health problem that makes them into monsters—essentially those who cannot be trusted to be out in the community—are treated in an appropriate institution instead of being in a prison where the prison officers cannot even administer medication to them. We have an absolutely hopeless situation where probably 10 percent of prisoners in this country need proper medication and the prison officials cannot give it to them because the Acts do not allow it. 
These people should be locked away in proper institutions and given the correct care they need. They should not be allowed out onto the streets under this stupid regime of supervision that the Minister is trying to pretend is tough. It is a joke and it is also pathetic. The bill was written by a Labour Party that wants to pretend it is tough on crime when all of us in the Opposition know that it is soft on crime and just talks tough.  
This bill is a disgrace. It does not address the very serious problem of those repeat sex offenders who want to offend against anybody over the age of 16. The bill has all these tough provisions—as long as the victim is 16 years of age or younger. What about people like Taffy Hotene? I ask the Minister how he would feel if that dangerous recidivist violent rapist was released on parole in his neighbourhood? How would the Minister feel about his wife and daughters walking down the street at night on their own knowing that that monster would be out there? This bill does not deal with people like him. It deals with people who are child sex offenders but there is not much of a difference between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. We all know that. The Minister should at least have had the decency to extend the bill to all violent repeat sex offenders. The clear reality is that this bill looks at just a portion of the problem faced by society and not at the whole lot.  
My colleague Deborah Coddington drafted a Sex Offenders Registry Bill. It was modelled on legislation in the United Kingdom and Canada. It was drawn and supported by the House to a select committee. I believe that that this is why this bill is here today. It has nothing to do with the Labour Party’s decision that we should do something about the problem. It was forced and embarrassed into doing something because it could not bear to see an ACT bill become law. It is disgraceful that a better version of this bill was not brought into Parliament years ago.  
I suppose we have to say that at least we now have a bill that addresses the problem of repeat recidivist sex offenders. My passionate hope is that all of the submitters have the courage to say what should be done and that the select committee can gut and rebuild the bill in a way that will actually mean something and protect New Zealanders from the worst type of offender. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 196(1)(b) and 196(1)(c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Families Commission Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
I move  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill establishes a new Crown entity to be known as the Families Commission. The bill gives effect to the undertaking in the agreement for confidence and supply between the Government and United Future and acts on the Government’s commitment to support families and children. The aim of the Families Commission is to establish an entity to advocate for the interests of families in New Zealand. The commission will promote the interests of the full range of families. It will also promote better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and the wider community.  
The Social Services Committee received 58 submissions and the majority supported the bill. The submissions supported the commission’s roles of advocacy and increasing public awareness of matters relating to the interests of families. Submitters supported the inclusive approach taken towards New Zealand families and the recognition of the diversity of those families. They also supported the Families Commission’s strong research role. Only a small number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. The primary reason for the lack of support was the concern that the Families Commission would duplicate roles of other Government agencies. In developing the commission the Government has been very careful to ensure that it does not duplicate functions of existing departments or agencies. Overall four main areas were of concern to submitters and they are as follows: the definition of family and family groups the functions of the commission the ministerial direction of the commission and mechanisms for obtaining the views of specified groups.  
I will briefly discuss the issue of defining “family” and “family groups” in the bill. Submitters raised a broad range of issues and one of the key areas raised was the definition of “family”. The bill does not attempt to define the term “family”. It places an emphasis on the function of families rather than on the form that families take by requiring the commission to have regard for the kinds structures and diversity of families and family groups and I think that that will be one of the things debated most when the Families Commission comes into being next year. I think some people will advance the argument that the only thing that matters is the structure of the family. We will hear arguments that things have gone wrong in this country because we do not maintain a particular structure of family. As opposed to that this bill is saying that the outcomes from a variety of family forms matter most. Are young people nurtured loved supported and given boundaries for their behaviour by the grouping that they are in which is called a “family”? There are solo parent families extended families Asian families whanau Pacific Island families and nuclear families as we know them. There are many family forms but the question we should be asking is: “What comes out of those different family forms?” We should be insistent on saying that we must nurture and support young people and that we must set boundaries for the behaviour of young people as they grow up—so they understand what they can do—and we must have a loving environment for children. That is what we should be after. I think that the inclusive approach of the Families Commission will focus on what should be provided for young people and on what men and women should get out of these kinds of relationships. It is the outcomes that we are after and that is what should be championed next year by the Families Commission.  
As United Future often says young people should be able to grow up with the parents they were born with. That would be the ideal but when it does not happen—as increasingly it does not in our society—we should be asking whether the alternative form that young people find themselves in means that they are in a dependable environment for the kind of outcomes I have just talked about so that they can grow up to be dependable adults. That is the question we should be asking. This approach encompasses the very wide range of living arrangements that exists in New Zealand now. The select committee’s work has affirmed that wide range of families and I think that that is one of the most important things the committee has done. I think this is a very significant debate for this country. We will be clear that we accept this diversity and that we will place the onus of providing a good environment for young people on all these family forms. There are no excuses among the different kinds of family forms. Young people must get these outcomes.  
I will also talk about the functions of the commission which many submitters made points about. The commission’s main function will be to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally. The commission will not take on any individual family’s cases or issues. It will also have additional functions to assist it to effectively perform its advocacy functions. The commission will encourage and facilitate informed debate on matters related to the interests of families across sectors; increase public awareness and prompt better understanding of matters related to the interests of families including the importance of stable family relationships and the rights and responsibilities of parents; encourage and facilitate the development and provision of policies and services designed to promote or serve the interests of families; consider and report on any matters related to families referred to it by any Minister; stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to the interests of families for example by collecting and disseminating research about families and their interests by advising on research priorities or gaps and by contracting research on families; and undertaking any incidental functions related to its main function or additional functions. These functions enable the commission to develop a good knowledge of family issues. They will also allow the commission to identify new and emerging issues that have an impact on our families. These functions mean the commission will have input into policy development as a key stakeholder wherever it might be.  
If we reflect for 2 seconds on the role I have read out here we can see that it will be a challenge. It will be a big challenge as it ought to be. United Future members are fond of saying—and Labour agrees with them absolutely—that the family is the fundamental institution in our society. It is what we all pass through. There is no escape from some kind of family form because one has to be born and go somewhere. If this institution is not working then society is not working and we know at the moment that there are a lot of problems that stem from families not working. We have been shy as a society in the debate about the family when it comes to saying what should and should not happen. We should not be shy. We should expect some things from our families. We should expect mums and dads to do their jobs. We should expect men to look after their kids. Even if the family breaks up men are responsible financially and emotionally for those kids forever. There is no escape from being a father or mother or someone who cares for children. There is nothing wrong with saying that and it is time to say that. I think one of the things that the Families Commission with these responsibilities will do is say them. It will be hard. People will feel challenged and they damn well should be because that should be the nature of the debate about the importance of the family today. I applaud the fact that one of the things United Future has done over the last little while is ensure that that debate is well and truly back firmly on what we are doing.  
I did find one thing disturbing and that was the way the Opposition parties did not allow the views of people who came and submitted to come through to this House. We had to write a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in the bill. Instead of the other parties listening to submitters and saying: “We do not own the committee. These people come and submit to us and we communicate these views back.” we had to go through the facade of writing a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in here rather than the select committee doing its job. I think that was very disappointing and it should not be the way that select committees work. They are there to serve those submitters. They are not there to say: “Huh. We do not want to report this back. We are not going to do this.” Well they should have reported that back and we should have been able to do that job properly.  
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is misrepresenting the political process here—the way that select committees work and the Minister knows that. He knows that if he does not get the numbers on the committee the bill is discharged. He is misrepresenting that fact in his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debating matter not a point of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was typical of ACT party members. They parade in here about values and interrupt the speech now because it suits them to make what is not a point of order—just because they are so ignorant and stupid that they want to stand up and make that point. This is a debate and Muriel Newman will be able to get up and have her say at the right time when she can make that debating point. But demonstrating her stupidity of course is something she does fairly often. The way that the select committee did not report these things back was disappointing. But we do now have a Supplementary Order Paper. It does set out a whole range of things to do with the powers the independence and the role of the commission. It defines more clearly the word “family” so we no longer risk including gangs flatmates community groups and so on. There is now a much clearer definition and I am thankful for the debate between United Future and us which I think was quite productive in getting that better definition. I applaud the work that has been done by the select committee and I commend this work as it is shaped to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
It is nice that the Minister finished up with a big thank you to the select committee after that slanging he gave us during his speech. Once again we have seen that patronising smarmy sensitive new-age guy routine— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That sort of language is totally inappropriate in the Chamber and I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not think the member needs to withdraw and apologise. It was no different from the language used by the previous speaker at the tail end although provoked into it. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I think the use of the words “smarmy” and “patronising” is not appropriate in this Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that but if the member whom it was directed at objects to it that is a different matter. But the member has not. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It seems the boys are a bit sensitive tonight and so they should be. There is a reason that this bill was reported back to the House unchanged and the reason is that the select committee could not agree. When a select committee of 10 New Zealand MPs fails to agree what chance is there of getting full support for this bill from all New Zealanders throughout the country? There is a huge debate about this bill about what constitutes a family and about what needs to be done within our country to make sure that families are supported.  
This bill is much ado about nothing. This is feel-good politics that will really do very little to assist the sorts of families who are in need. I must say that I did take offence at some of the material being distributed by United Future and I ask those members how they can say with straight faces that the members who are against this bill are anti-family. When we look around this House we see parents and we see people who are all parts of families and who very much cherish the family networks they have. It is smug fundamentalist rubbish to suggest that simply because people do not believe in this particular bill they are anti-family. One of the letters that was sent out by United Future accused the Opposition of a venal political stunt. Now the leader of United Future is usually a very articulate gentleman but I am beginning to wonder whether the other members of United Future know what venal means because the dictionary says “characterised by bribery and corruption”. I think that all members of Parliament should take offence at that sort of inference. Frankly I think it is over the top to suggest that those who do not support this bill are venal and should be accused of that. We do not support this bill because we do not think it will deliver on the expectations that have grown out there in New Zealand.  
The Minister is agnostic on the idea of family structure. Yes sure there is a wide range of different families in New Zealand but there are some successful family structures out there—and we know they work and we should be able to say so. The seven commissioners in being advocates for everything will actually be advocates for nothing. There is a good saying in  
Through the Looking Glass 
 and it is: “If you don’t know where you’re going any road will take you there.” It is the same with the Families Commission Bill. One of the things I think many people are hanging their hats on is that they think this bill is the answer for a lot of families who are having difficulty. I have just been reading the James Whakaruru report. There were some unfortunate similarities between the life of Te Rangi Whakaruru and the life of Charlene Aplin. Both women had their first babies when they were 15. I think we all know and we should be able to say that if a woman has her first baby at that age on her own the chances are that things will not turn out all that well for her children. Sure there are some amazing exceptions some marvellous exceptions where people can overcome all sorts of barriers that they face in their lives. But there are some structures that are successful for bringing up children. There are some structures that are successful in terms of supporting families in this country and the commission should be able to say that. We are talking about $20 million at a time when there are a whole lot of other Government— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: $28 million. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Sorry $28 million. We are talking about $28 million at a time when we have a number of community organisations crying out for funding. That $28 million could buy well over 2 million Plunket Society inquiries. It could buy 360000 booster seats for kids.  
It could fund 750000 free doctors’ visits for children. Governments have to make their minds up about a lot of things and it is all about priorities. I say that the priority is not for another Wellington bureaucracy that is just going to have a big talkfest about families but achieve very little. This commission lacks the power to do anything much. It must have regard to Government policy and the views of the Minister. When will it ever be able to speak out about things that are important to families when it is always watching its back to see what the Government of the day is going to be asking it to do?  
My next point is that we still have this wacky definition of what constitutes a family. Even up until the time that this bill was discharged neither the Government nor United Future had any inclination to change that definition. It includes people who have “significant psychological attachments to one another;”. As we know that can include the gangs. It can include a whole range of people that I do not see as being families. The Minister over there was obviously thinking warm fuzzy thoughts towards gangs the other day because he said he did not worry whether one was a member of a gang or Rotary—one still deserved a State house just the same. Really in terms of the Families Commission what is being proposed is not going to make a difference. It will not stop another Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson case or make a skerrick of difference to a “Lillybing” or even in my home town to someone like poor Iris Davidson whose death is currently being debated.  
It is not clear what groups the Families Commission will stand for. It is going to be standing for everything. A group of seven commissioners will be travelling the country chanting “Families are good families are good.” We all know that families are good. The connections we have with one another are important. Having some Government bureaucracy at a cost of $28 million is not really going to make one iota of difference to those families who are most in need. So the National Party will not be shamed into supporting this feel-good legislation. Supporting this bill is not about saying whether we think families are good. It is about putting in place policy that will actually make a difference.  
10 select committee members could not agree on this bill. That is why it was discharged without amendment. So I do not think seven commissioners will be able to agree about what constitutes a family either and I think we should be very honest about that. The groups that came before the select committee had huge concerns about the definition and about the objectives of this commission. Some submitters were not terribly well informed when it came to understanding what the commission is actually going to do. I am still convinced that there will be significant duplication. A huge amount of work has been done by the Ministry of Social Development. It has analysts for Africa and they are doing research every day. A huge amount is already being done and frankly we already have a lot of the most important answers because we have the results of research that has already been done in respect of families. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in New Zealand and pretend we are so special that research on family networks which has taken place all around the world will have terribly different results here. 
This bill will create a huge debate. We are going to make sure it does. We are not here in Parliament to support feel-good legislation that is nothing more than an election bribe. We all know this is just to gain the support of United Future but I say to United Future that it should have put the $28 million into something that will actually make a difference to New Zealand families not just another bureaucracy. If we know anything about this country it is that we need another committee and another commissioner like we need a hole in the head. Every single group now has supposedly its spokesperson. But with this bill there is a very unclear definition and this group will be advocating for absolutely everybody. If we are going to have a Families Commission the Government should be honest about it and say what it stands for. It should say it wants to promote certain sorts of family structures because it knows they are successful not skirt around the issue and try to develop a sensitive new-age approach. If we are going to put $28 million into something let us make it something that will make a difference to families. Let us put the money into things that may prevent the next Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson or the next “Lillybing”. We need things that will make a difference not some sort of election bribe. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
I am pleased to rise in support of this bill principally because it is an important bill. For too many years now in New Zealand we as a community have talked about the importance of families but I have to say sadly that in many instances we have really only paid lip service to the importance of this very significant and principal institution. This bill will go a long way towards helping us as a society to work out ways that we can be supportive of individuals and groups—all the groupings that make up what we know as “families” in New Zealand—and help them to work cohesively and supportively towards and for each other.  
This bill has been strongly supported by United Future. I am though surprised by some of the dynamics that I have learnt took place on the select committee. I think some of that is quite misguided in its intent. We have spent so long in New Zealand talking about the importance of families so it seems really strange that when it comes down to how one is going to vote on a select committee voting is done for party political reasons—that is quite quite absurd. I am surprised at the right-wing parties of National ACT and New Zealand First voting against a bill like this. 
Sue Bradford 
: Don’t forget the Greens. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I was not going to pick on the Greens. I am trying to express my concern about some of the party politics that got in the way of a bill that is working very strongly towards supporting and assisting families in our country. Sometimes we lose sight of some of the reasons that families have come under so much pressure in this country. Massive pressures were applied to families in the 1990s. Families were placed under huge economic stress because of appallingly thought-through policies. That is the reason that so many families in the low-income category are struggling so much today. It is not rocket science to work out that when a family is short of money it can no longer cope with the pressures it could normally cope with. There is an old saying that when money flies out the window love usually follows it. Sometimes that applies in broader instances to families not just to matrimonial relationships. I have to say that some of the sanctimonious comments coming from the National Party with regard to this bill make one realise what very little institutional memory there is around this place. Some of the policies that were implemented by that party during the 1990s have been forgotten by some of those members who have literally been here only 5 minutes. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Like market rents. 
JILL PETTIS 
: My colleague Mr Carter is absolutely right. Market rents were imposed almost within 5 minutes of the National Party being in Government and they had a huge negative impact on families in New Zealand. National cut benefits and cut superannuation rates. A whole range of policies was put into place and we as a society are paying for them now. This bill has the potential to be of considerable assistance to families in New Zealand. I look forward to listening to the debate and to the bill’s progress through the House. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said in his speech that there was a Supplementary Order Paper. I have checked on the Table and it is not there. I wonder when the Minister expects to be able to table it. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Tomorrow. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Thank you Mr Speaker— 
Paul Adams 
: Doesn’t matter when it arrives. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Oh it does not matter when it arrives—that is interesting. On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Families Commission Bill. At the outset I congratulate the chairperson of the Social Services Committee Georgina Beyer on her management of the select committee process. As usual she did a really excellent job. All the political parties contributed in a very positive way to that process. It was just a part of the democratic process that the changes were not included in the bill at this stage. But if they are to be on a Supplementary Order Paper that is where we will find them. They will definitely be there because we all worked on them.  
New Zealand First is a family orientated party and no party in this House has a monopoly on that label—not even United Future. We all believe in families. We all believe in that institution implicitly. All of us want the very best for families in New Zealand because we know that they have a very important role in the raising of children. When I read the press release issued by United Future’s spokesperson on the family I thought of the old saying: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The press release was totally erroneous; it was devoid of accuracy and common sense. In fact it was totally inane. I was totally disappointed in that member and in the party that prides itself on bringing common sense back into politics. I suppose United Future members thought they would not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The total bitterness that actually followed makes me really wonder about that party. Then to have United Future write to all the submitters stating that its views were totally ignored by the Opposition was nothing more than a cheap political stunt. I think it is called “pork-barrel politics”. Again the language used in that press release was no credit to United Future. I for one am totally disappointed in that party. Passion is in no way an excuse to prevent professionalism.  
All the submitters were listened to and questioned by members of the select committee. Some submitters were disappointed with the actions taken by United Future. I have been contacted by some of them. In fact they thought that United Future did not really have a future in politics at all. I would like to correct United Future members on a point they make as they try to ensure they have a monopoly claim on families in this Parliament. Family-friendly policies have been around for quite some time. They were around prior to their coming into Parliament and they will continue long after they leave. I am tired of United Future members putting out the erroneous statements that when they came to Parliament they were the only people to have a spokesperson on the family. They are wrong. I was appointed as New Zealand First’s spokesperson on the family when I came here in July 2002. I suppose that can be considered as quite recent but it is no more recent than the appointment of United Future’s spokesperson on the family. I ask them to please get it right.  
The family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and many of the current social problems we see are the result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The proposed commission fails to recognise this and it will only exacerbate the situation. This commission will be able to promote only a really broad generic message that families are good institutions. We all know that. The commission will never do anything more than that.  
When we look at the definition of “family”—it has been mentioned by many of the submitters and by the Minister—we see that it is so broad that basically it excludes no one. Although we know that legislation always needs to be exclusive this definition is so broad that it can include anyone and everyone. Families can be whatever anybody wants. So while being a strength it can also be a weakness and a number of submitters commented on that.  
Looking at the number of commissioners New Zealand First has very grave doubts about the viability of this new bureaucracy. Under clause 16 the commission consists of at least three but not more than seven commissioners. We are also told that a chief commissioner must be appointed and that a deputy chief commissioner may be appointed. That makes a total of ten executive positions. Then lo and behold a general manager must be appointed by the board. None of the commissioners or the general manager will ever be paid at the lower end of the scale. If we have seven commissioners a chief commissioner a deputy chief commissioner a general manager as pointed out in clause 29 and all the office staff and researchers we are told will be employed to carry out this research to support all these people then we are looking at a giant expensive bureaucracy. It is plainly foolish to test the water with both feet with a bureaucracy such as this. We really believe that.  
We are particularly mindful too of the fact that other agencies already carry out much of the work the new commission hopes to carry out. So we must ask the question: why do we have to pay Government agencies twice to get the job done once? The logic is totally astounding. This bureaucracy the Families Commission will not ensure that our families are any better off than they are now. Families need some practical help. This money could be far better spent so that New Zealand families can be healthier or can get the services they require or it could be spent on early intervention programmes to strengthen what is already in place—for example on agencies like Plunket and I was pleased to read that Plunket is going to receive some additional funding from the Government. But there are also other agencies like family support and those giving home-based support. There are also heaps of other organisations in the voluntary and charitable trust area.  
This commission will be established at considerable expense. Nothing comes cheaply these days particularly with this type of bureaucracy. New Zealand First believes that this money could be better spent on services that can make some real difference to New Zealand families. The $28 million that is to be used for this commission could be used for the work of other agencies that have already proven they are effective. They have a good track record so why sink money into this bureaucracy? Many of the submitters also raised concerns about the duplication of services.  
New Zealand First would have supported the appointment of a commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children plus some additional resources to carry out the research on whatever areas the Families Commissioner focuses on. After all as we have been told many times and we all know children are the basis of the family. We know that the Office of the Commissioner for Children has already proven its value and it is highly respected. Why not use what has already been set up? It is a simple solution. Why set up a bureaucracy on a monumental scale such as this? The bottom line is that we would be failing in our job as an Opposition party by approving an additional bureaucracy. New Zealand First does not support an additional bureaucracy.  
Many families in New Zealand hoped that the commission would be able to advocate on their behalf particularly when it came to dealing with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. The bottom line is that this commission cannot do that at all. It is not one of its functions. New Zealand families deserve far more than what the bill can offer. The opportunity to support strong families as the basis of our communities has been traded for political expediency. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
I rise tonight on behalf of the Green Party to assure Parliament and the interested public that our position on this bill has not changed despite accusations from United Future that we and other colleagues on this side of the House have somehow engaged in a venal political stunt by opposing this legislation. Since the Families Commission was first mooted the Green Party has been consistent in voicing its principled concerns. I took an active role on the Social Services Committee during the course of the bill and I have read and heard the submissions that came to us. The submissions did not change our party’s position and in fact a number of submitters raised exactly the same issues with the bill that we have.  
These are firstly that we believe there are already other organisations both governmental and non-governmental that are quite capable of carrying out the functions of the commission as outlined in this bill. Secondly the extra funding going into the commission would be much better spent on supporting the work of non-governmental organisations already doing research and advocacy work with families and providing hands-on assistance to families. I have spent many years of my life working in the community sector and seeing at first hand the work of groups like the Child Poverty Action Group in Auckland Charles Waldegrave’s Family Centre in Lower Hutt Barnardos New Zealand the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services in all its different arms and the Downtown Community Ministry (Wellington) Inc.  
These and a whole lot of other organisations spend a lot of time scrapping for funding and using much volunteer time and energy to carry out functions such as acting as an advocate for the interests of families generally encouraging and facilitating informed debate on matters relating to the interests of families considering and making recommendations on policy relating to families and promoting research into matters relating to the interests of families. All these functions are exactly those being replicated in the Families Commission Bill before us tonight. If the Government is happy to pour some $28 million into these purposes as proposed by the bill and the budget provision behind it I would much rather see a fair proportion of the money go to the groups I have mentioned with an excellent track record on the ground rather than to a new Government bureaucracy—no matter how well intentioned its proponents might be.  
On top of that we also have a huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent on policy analysts here in Wellington. Just looking at the Ministry of Social Development alone within whose ambit research on families surely lies I gather there are some 350 or so analysts paid at salaries way beyond the imagination of most community-based activists and researchers. These analysts regularly produce major pieces of research such as the social report and the New Zealand living standards report as well many other smaller studies. On top of that one of its key pieces of work for the year ahead is to provide advice on the development of the Government’s overall social strategy.  
All of this work includes analysis of the state of families and children in our country—hundreds and hundreds of pages of it each year. With this huge resource already at its disposal I fail to comprehend why the Government needs yet another body set up to carry out this research function from yet another pool of taxpayer money.  
Thirdly I think all of us are acutely aware at the moment of the need for a lot more resources to go into groups working with families out in our communities around New Zealand doing the kind of preventive work that helps parents and children before they end up in a Saliel Aplin Olympia Jetson or Coral Burrows type of situation. I am thinking here of groups such as Homebuilders Parent Centres Parentline Plunket a huge range of hapu iwi and pan-tribal organisations and a heap of other church and community groups that are doing their utmost often on very scarce resources to work with families to make their lives better in ways that mean something real. Each baby that is saved each mother or father who does not bash a child each parent who learns a little more about how to deal with the latest teenager in crisis is worth more than three to seven family commissioners. The Green Party would rather see a good portion of this $28 million going to provide more secure funding for some of the groups I am talking about here rather than spending it on setting up a new little arm of the State whose existence has come about only because of backroom post-election deals not because of widespread and heartfelt community demand.  
I would be the first person to be supporting this bill if I sensed any kind of build-up of community need for such a thing as a Families Commission. I had never heard of that demand before United Future’s election campaign last year. There has never been talk of this in the community sector that I come from. No one has ever seen the need for this strange beast called a Families Commission. It was not needed. There are plenty of people out in the New Zealand community who advocate for families. A Families Commission is not what they were wanting—then or now.  
In recent days Peter Dunne has made a public statement accusing those parties that oppose the bill of playing an “unprecedented and venal political stunt” and of “abusing the democratic process”. On behalf of the Green Party and indeed all the other parties that have been equally accused I would just like to say that I do not believe that playing our part in the democratic process of the select committee in Parliament is somehow abusing democracy or is in any way corrupt as the word “venal” implies. Voting against a bill for good reasons in a principled manner based on one’s party’s kaupapa and policies is not venal or corrupt. It is doing the job that the voters elected us to do. To have this sort of invective hurled at us for voting against a piece of legislation that we oppose on principled grounds is in itself an abuse of democracy.  
I find it deeply ironic that a party that got its votes on the back of so-called common sense and decency is now proving itself so lacking in integrity that it accuses some of the most hard-working and serious members in this House from all the parties on this side of venality. To those groups in the community—[ 
Interruption 
] In response to the member from United Future who has accused us of sitting on our hands I do not think that Katherine Rich Barbara Stewart Muriel Newman or myself are sitting on our hands when it comes to our work in the Social Services Committee or in this House on matters relating to families and children. I have been on the select committee for one and a half terms of Parliament and I am very well aware of the work of the fellow members of my committee. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members for United Future should not be interrupting and interjecting in the way they are on a member who is immediately next to them. Surely by now they know the rules of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I was about to interrupt and I ask members on that side— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling but there is always going to be a problem with members on this side of the House when a vigorous debate such as this one is turning out to be ensues. Members who are being criticised do have a right to respond. I accept there is a problem given the seating arrangement but I think that in moderating the proceedings you need to take into account that the two parties that are having a go at each other at the moment just happen to be two parties that are forced to sit side by side. I suspect that neither would prefer it that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. Interjections should be rare and reasonable; not continuous. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: To those groups in the community that did come to the select committee with their support for the bill I would just like to say that I did listen to them and I did take their opinions and experiences on board. However as with any piece of law it is up to each political party its MPs and party members to consider that law on the basis of our own beliefs and policies. In this case we have come to the conclusion that we should not support the Families Commission Bill. We do not do this lightly or just to make some cheap political point but rather for the whole range of reasons I have already outlined tonight. We believe that families do need research support advocacy and help but not in ways that simply duplicate work that is already being done and waste taxpayers’ money. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
I do not think anybody could disagree about the importance of families in New Zealand. They are the cornerstone of society and in fact the married family is the best child-rearing institution ever invented if we look back over history. Strong families in general raise successful and healthy children and happy children. That is not to say that children from other types of families also do not raise successful happy and healthy children. But on the balance of probability other forms of families have increased difficulties. Their children face more risk factors; and as we know only too well in this House some face violence fear and abuse on a daily basis.  
I ask the Government why not throw political correctness to the wind and promote the traditional nuclear married family? If that former family is the most successful in our society why not promote it? Why not say that it is something that is regarded as a good thing in society? What better place to do it but in a bill that is about the family? Many of the submitters to the select committee brought up this very issue. They could not understand why it was that in legislation about the family nowhere was the word “marriage” mentioned. They said: “Hang on a minute isn’t it a good thing that couples particularly if they want to have children get married and try to live a good life together and look after their children and all the rest of it? Is that not a good thing?  
I have to say that most New Zealanders would agree. I think that it is a real shame that this Labour Government supported by the United Future party I might add is so politically correct that we cannot even use that one word any more in our legislation—“marriage”.  
The Families Commission Bill promotes diversity. The Government says that we should not exclude other family types. All of us would agree with that because we do have diverse types of family arrangements in New Zealand. But it really has missed the point. Sure mention other family types but at least promote marriage. I would say to the Minister who is about to table a Supplementary Order Paper tomorrow that many of us live in hope that that Supplementary Order Paper might actually heed the voice of many of the submitters who brought up this point because it is a very very important one.  
Many New Zealanders are very concerned that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the Western World one of the highest rates of child abuse in the Western World and one of the highest rates of youth crime in the Western World. Many of those people have looked with some hope at the Families Commission as being a body that might be able to do something about it—that might be able to promote legislation or policy changes that could actually help to turn the tide on that disastrous trend that New Zealand now has.  
I have to say that the Families Commission with its politically appointed commissioners will be a puppet for the Labour Government. There is nothing surer. I know that right now I and I guess many other members of Parliament are being approached by really good people who have an interest in families and an interest in the role of commissioners who are basically saying: Would you write a letter of support if I put my name forward?”. I am saying to them: “Hang on a minute my letter of support won’t help.” The Labour Government will not want to pick somebody who the Opposition thinks is a good person to be a commissioner. It will put only its political mates in there—people who think the same way as it does.  
That is a shame on this Government. It is known to do it in all sorts of other ways but the family is the most important institution in New Zealand society and the Government should at least treat it with some respect. The whole appointment process should be cross-party like the appointment of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General where the Government puts up a list of people and asks Opposition members whether they think those people would be good people to take the position.  
If the Government had done that then maybe we would not be so negative about the Families Commission. But it is not doing that. We know that it will have political appointees and we know that it will not have the mandate to address some of the real tough issues that we absolutely have to address in New Zealand if we are going to turn the tide of the negative statistics that we see in our newspapers on a daily basis.  
It is interesting that in Britain the Prime Minister has set up a social exclusion unit. That unit is a policy group. Its job is to look at the problems faced by families and by society to expose where the problems lie to analyse the problems and then to propose some solutions. They get to heart of the problem. They look at the welfare system. They see that the welfare system incentivises family breakdown and they put forward recommendations for change. They look at child abuse and they know the sorts of families where child abuse is most common and they try to say: “This is what should be done.” In other words they tackle the tough issues. Here in New Zealand we do have one Government agency that does the same—that is the Ministry of Social Policy. But when it puts out reports that basically state that welfare is bad for children and that sole parenthood is bad for children—in other words why does the Government not try to change those things around in its policy area—this Government totally ignores any outcomes or recommendations that it makes.  
In fact it was bizarre because just after those two papers were released is when the Labour Government changed the rules on the domestic purposes benefit making it far easier for people to get on and far harder for them to leave which means there will be more family breakdown under Labour and more children will be damaged by the welfare system under Labour. That was at a time when the Government’s own social policy agency was telling it that it should be doing something differently.  
These issues were raised by submitters. They want an agency of Government—if there is to be one—to come up with some solutions because people out there are despairing at the moment. They see the headlines of yet another child who has been abused and died and they wonder where on earth it will all end. Under the current system without any changes to laws and without any changes of policy it will not end. It will simply get worse.  
If we are honest about it the Families Commission is a $28 million payback for support from United Future. That is essentially what it is. This is the Labour Government paying its lackey for its support over all sorts of legislation putting us into urgency denying us questions during the periods that we are in urgency and a whole lot of issues. The Government relies on the poodle party—United Future—to support it and this is that party’s payback. It is like blackmail except that that party entered into willingly. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will know the content of this point of order. Any reference to people blackmailing anyone in this House is completely out of order and that reference was totally offensive and deserves to be withdrawn immediately. 
Dail Jones 
: The member on her feet was just saying that it is like blackmail. She did not say that it was blackmail. I am sure she was not alluding to any political party in this House when she made that remark. She was just saying that it was like blackmail and expressing it as a simile not stating it as a fact. On that basis it is not out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I know what was said and it was exactly as Mr Jones has relayed it. In normal circumstances any suggestion that there has been blackmail is out of order. That was a reference to “like” blackmail. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: As a result of the payback to United Future we witnessed in the select committee what can only be described as a hissy fit because the select committee did not have a majority voting for the Families Commission. I have to say that the Minister misrepresented that process. United Future almost certainly will misrepresent the process when it gets to speak but the point is that if a committee does not have a majority on the changes that the committee has made to the bill then the bill is simply discharged back to the House and the Government will put all those changes through in a Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister promises will be tabled tomorrow. If that Minister were on the ball and United Future were on the ball it should be on the Table tonight. United Future members talk about the fact that our committee did not put a report back to Parliament. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? Why is it not here tonight? 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.