Volume 629 Week 6 - Thursday 16 February 2006 
Volume 629 Week 6 - Thursday 16 February 2006 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Thursday 16 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Privilege 
Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from John Key and Shane Jones raising as a matter of privilege the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is suggested that this action could amount to a contempt of the House in that the chief executive may have been punished on account of that evidence. 
From the material sent to me it is apparent that Television New Zealand has acknowledged that its actions could be interpreted as a contempt and has apologised for not considering this aspect of its action. I am also aware that the chief executive has reiterated his intention to pursue a personal grievance against the company notwithstanding its apology. However that is a private matter between the chief executive and the company with which I am not concerned here. 
Often when a contempt has been acknowledged and an apology for it tendered the Speaker will exercise a discretion not to take the matter further. However in this case despite Television New Zealand’s acknowledgment of error I think that a general question of the status of select committee witnesses does arise that warrants the attention of the House. I am therefore not inclined to exercise that discretion in this case. 
Consequently I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to completing the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first reading of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the second readings of the Securities Legislation Bill and the Education Amendment Bill. On Thursday the first item of business will be the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the financial review debate to be held on Tuesday 4 April notwithstanding Standing Order 338(5). This was a subject of agreement at the Business Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—Policy Development 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she received any recent reports regarding the development of policy around the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. Three iwi are currently in negotiations with the Crown pursuant to the Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the leaked discussion document “National’s Relationship with Maori” where it reads in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Act the following: “We need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.”; and does the Government intend to follow this flip-flop or this idea of putting one’s hand into the wind to see which way the public feeling might prevail? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I have seen this quite extraordinary— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That behaviour is simply intolerable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with the member. It is known that in fact people do not make any comment when a member is asking a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I repeat the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you may. Would you mind please starting from the top. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you. Has the Prime Minister seen the leaked discussion document entitled “National’s Relationship with Maori” where it reads in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Act and I quote from it: “We need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.” and does the Government intend to follow this flip-flop or this policy prescription where one puts one’s finger into the air and sees what the public thinks? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like you to consider whether the Prime Minister or any Minister for that matter is able to give an opinion on a document that does not belong to them and is being grossly misrepresented by the Government’s new “poodle protector” the Hon Winston Peters. I am quite certain that the Prime Minister will have a lot to say. Prime Ministers under pressure normally look for any excuse to take the spotlight off them. The fact is that her Government has been engaged in corrupt practice and some comment about a leaked document which is of no concern to us adds nothing today and I think you need to consider whether the Prime Minister should be allowed to get on her feet and gratuitously attempt to protect herself. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If you ruled that people could not ask questions about a document that they had not originated which they have got from somebody else that would lead to 12 patsies a day and no questions from anybody other than Labour or Progressive members. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all I did not seek an opinion. I asked whether the Government intended to follow such a policy prescription. The second thing is that during the time the member spoke in his inimitable unqualified fashion he started using all sorts of epithets that had no relation whatsoever to the point of order. I know he is struggling to keep his job but this is not the way he should do it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is right. Mr Brownlee would have been right if an opinion only had been sought but a Government intention was sought; therefore the question is in order. I would also just like to remind members that points of order are not an opportunity to make speeches. It does help the Speaker if the essence of the point of order is in fact the subject of that point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have two things. First I withdraw my comments referring to Mr Peters as being the Government poodle and security watchdog. Secondly I seek leave of the House to table the so-called leaked document in order that there can be no misrepresentation of its content at all. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the course of the member Winston Peters asking his question there were one or two interjections from the side on which you very firmly ruled and reminded the House that it does not tolerate interjections during questions. I must say that the same rule also applies during points of order and at the time that Gerry Brownlee was taking his points of order there were a good number of interjections from across that side of the House. I just ask that we be consistent in applying the rules. If it is pertinent for this side to sit and listen to questions that are jokes and not be able to object then similarly the same rule should apply during points of order for the other side. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I assume he is not suggesting that the Chair is partial on this matter or the Speaker is partial is on these matters. Of course the rule applies to everyone and everyone is on their last warning. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen this extraordinary document and I have compared it with the National Party’s policy which says: “Return the seabed and foreshore to Crown ownership.” I am therefore absolutely staggered that the National Party is open to the possibility of repealing the law that puts the foreshore and seabed beyond doubt in Crown ownership and that would leave us open to private exclusive title being issued over those very areas. That is my definition of a flip-flop. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the coastline of New Zealand is so protected as she claims why is her Government in negotiation with Ngati Porou Te Whanau-a-Apanui Ngati Porou ki Hauraki and Ngati Porou themselves when we all know that the only reason for that negotiation is that those tribes claim a proprietary interest in that 600 kilometres of coastline? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The legislation which the National Party opposed always gave the ability for Maori to have their customary territorial rights recognised. The National Party said that that was a terrible thing and there should be only Crown ownership. But now for political reasons National members want to flip-flop and open up the possibility for private exclusive freehold title to be issued. That is a flip-flop again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister is misleading the House and taking a position that can be described only as dishonest in suggesting that we are looking for private ownership of the foreshore and seabed. It is her Government that is about to give away 600 kilometres of coastline because a bunch of its friends have stuck their hands up and demanded it. This is a matter that perhaps should have been dealt with in different ways. It is bad legislation and I do not think it should be compounded in the public’s view by the Prime Minister being able to tell lies to the House. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker firstly I ask that those comments be withdrawn. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The comments relating to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Accusations of lies and dishonesty. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw those comments. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Secondly I put it to you Madam Speaker that there is no misrepresentation when we have the National Party prepared to consider supporting outright repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act knowing that that would leave us with the situation we had before the Act was passed where it was possible for Maori to move through to fee simple title. Those are the facts. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: These are debating points they are not points of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen a leaked discussion document titled “National’s Relationship with Maori” where it reads: “We have made it clear that we want to help New Zealanders on the basis of need not race but any look at some of those statistics will show that the need does lie substantially with Maori.”; and does the Government intend to follow National’s key election policy plank which it knew to be completely untrue and that its credibility was on the line? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: From January 2004 the National Party through its leader set out to convey an utterly false picture of New Zealand whereby Maori were somehow privileged. Mr Brownlee’s memo makes it clear that he recognises that actually the neediest people in New Zealand are to be found in Maoridom and that needs something done about it. 
Metiria Turei 
: When the Prime Minister’s Government used the Foreshore and Seabed Act to confiscate the seabed apparently for the benefit of New Zealanders were New Zealanders told that the seabed was going to be leased to international seabed mining companies with prospecting licences issued covering a third of New Zealand’s coastline threatening our endangered dolphins and marine ecosystems and with no consultation with affected coastal New Zealand communities? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am told that it involves no change to mining legislation whatsoever. What the Act does is make clear the understanding that had been around for rather more than a century that these areas were in Crown ownership. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has she received a report from Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngati Tama-Te-Ra that strongly objects to what the chairman described as “the backdoor deals” being negotiated with Ngati Porou ki Hauraki through the former Labour Associate Minister of Maori Affairs John Tamihere and the whanau of the current Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia in relation to Ngati Tama-Te-Ra’s interests in Tokatea and Mataora and will she follow the advice of Ngati Tama-Te-Ra that the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Attorney-General step aside from the process; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not seen such a report but I would have been very surprised at any serious allegation that people who were seeking to exercise their rights under a statute are in some way acting in an underhand way. In fact to simply describe the chair of the runanga Ngati Porou Apirana Mahuika as somehow compromised because he might be vaguely related to a member of Parliament I think is simply ridiculous. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Mr D Baker the chairman of Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngati Tama-Te-Ra to the Hon Parekura Horomia dated 26 January 2006. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Prime Minister—Accountability 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did the Controller and Auditor-General seek a meeting with her to discuss his report into Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising; if so what was the outcome of that meeting? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Auditor-General wrote to me as I am sure he wrote to Dr Brash offering the parliamentary Labour Party as I am sure he offered the parliamentary National Party a briefing prior to releasing his report to other parties. The Labour Party unlike the National Party did not think that was an appropriate course of action. Indeed the Auditor-General had previously indicated in writing on 17 December that he would circulate a draft to all parties—which in the event is what he did. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that as the highest-elected official in the land she had an obligation to offer support to the Auditor-General as he sought to eliminate unethical or unlawful spending; and how can she therefore explain her refusal even to meet with him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: To use the member’s words as the highest-elected official in the land I also have a responsibility to ensure that small parties’ interests are properly looked after. 
Dr Don Brash 
: When did she or any of her Ministers know that the Chief Electoral Officer had ruled that the pledge card constituted election material and should therefore be included in Labour’s return of electoral expenses; and what specific actions did they take to ensure that their overall spending did not exceed the maximum allowed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those are matters for which the Labour Party determines the level of expenditure. They are not matters I deal in just as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to be held personally responsible for his party not being able to figure out GST. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister when did she or her Ministers know that the Chief Electoral Officer had ruled that the pledge card was an electoral expense item. She has totally failed to address that question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will have to put that down in writing because I am not the person who organises the budget for the campaign. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition knew a great deal more about the Exclusive Brethren advertising. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am asking you to rule because the Prime Minister’s first response to the question was that she actually had no responsibility for the question. Well actually she does because she is the Prime Minister 24 hours a day 7 days a week and she was specifically asked about when she knew. Subsequently she said that she did not know and that a question would need to be put to her in writing for an answer to be given. Madam Speaker I would like you to rule whether the question was in order so that a written question can in fact be put in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. The Prime Minister did address the question when it was re-put to her and she has obviously asked for that to be put to her in writing so she can answer it fully. So the question has been addressed. It was in order as was the answer. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Which other Ministers or other senior Labour Party officials were implicated with the Prime Minister in deciding to distribute the taxpayer-funded pledge card knowing that it would put them in breach of the Electoral Act cap; and will they now at least show some remorse and repay the money to taxpayers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Such material has never been considered attributable in the past and the Labour Party’s position is that it is still not attributable. But while we are on the subject of what is attributable expenditure I wonder who paid for the simultaneous delivery in the city of Gisborne of leaflets put out by the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren respectively. Both leaflets went out at the same time. Was that attributable? 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister seriously asking this House to believe that she is smart enough to be Prime Minister of this country yet not smart enough to recognise that a pledge card she used at the launch of Labour’s campaign and which was used throughout the campaign was not somehow a campaign item that should have been included in Labour’s electoral expense return? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Such material has never been considered attributable—just as I assume the National Party thought its material was not attributable when the party circulated it and just as I am sure Dr Brash thinks it is not attributable expenditure to have the Exclusive Brethren take lines straight out of National Party policy and put them in leaflets. Where is that in his party’s election return? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have had again a further demonstration of the National Party’s inability to have an answer given to them and to keep quiet so that the rest of us can hear it. That braying has reached a new tempo and so early in the year. Those members may not like the news they are receiving but they are bound surely to let the rest of us share in hearing it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. We have had equal braying from all sides of the House so perhaps we could keep the noise to a level where the rest of us can actually hear the answer to a question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister recall a few years back signing a painting that had been prepared for her and is she now prepared to sign this cheque which I have had my office prepare for her to sign so that she can repay New Zealand taxpayers the $446000 used by her office to fund an electoral expense? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will be very happy to bring down to the House a similar document asking the National Party to refund to the Exclusive Brethren half a million to a million dollars which National told the Chief Electoral Officer was not attributable because it did not know about it. But the Leader of the Opposition has confessed that he knew all about agreed with it and thought it was tremendous. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your advice as you clearly understand the rules of the House better than I do. Is there any protection for parties who bring innovative ideas to this House from parties who copy New Zealand First in bringing cheques to the House as Mr Brash did? Is there any protection for us against such plagiarism? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table this cheque for the Prime Minister’s signature. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note the objections and scorn that came from the National benches but can I tell those members through you that if they have anything original that is not a direct copy of New Zealand First’s strategies then maybe I would not object. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. The member is coming very close to unacceptable behaviour in this Chamber. 
Literacy—Children 
3.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the levels of literacy amongst New Zealand children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I will try to not have an “unsmart” answer as we learnt from the Leader of the Opposition before. I am advised that in international studies of performance in reading literacy our students were in the second-highest performing group of countries in the world. In reading we have the highest percentage of readers in the top category of any country. Last year the Government spent almost $46 million on literacy and numeracy initiatives. Next month I will announce results from the Literacy Professional Development Project which show improvements across all students with the biggest jump amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers. This is an endorsement of the hard work of teachers at all levels in our education system. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Is the Minister aware of any other comments made recently about the levels of literacy in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Last night I saw an outlandish claim from the National Party school spokesperson that said that 150000 children in New Zealand cannot read. This is a typical piece of misleading information from the National Party. New Zealand children achieve above average in international reading studies and our best readers as I have said are in the top category of any country. Currently 11058 students are involved in outstanding reading-recovery programmes. We have an outstanding world-class system. The National Party needs to stop sticking the knife into the backs of hard-working teachers in this country and to stop undermining our system as it seeks to privatise it. 
Judy Turner 
: Considering that our current vision screening detects only about 10 percent of vision difficulties does the Minister think that all children presenting with low literacy levels should be entitled to at least a free optometrist test; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree with the general principle and I would like to think that we would be working towards exactly that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just wonder whether we might be reminded again as a House that questions should start with a question word rather than with the sort of preface that we have started to see in a number of questions over the last 2 days. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Do you want me to enforce that rule rigidly Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well it worked very well for the National Party last time. It does not work so well for Labour members—they struggle. United Future has got absolutely no idea New Zealand First will have nothing to say and the Greens of course will continue giving their particular view of the world that no one can understand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Brownlee and note the Standing Order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Brownlee has taken to making supposed points of order and then spending the rest of the time slagging off other parties and other leaders. The fact of course is that he is the least qualified person in National’s whole caucus to be taking those points of order. It is obvious. But he should be stopped and asked to desist from that sort of behaviour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the point was taken. I would say that Mr Brownlee is not the only member in this House who occasionally strays from the point of the point of order. We shall leave it there and move on. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to delay proceedings unduly but I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 20/1 from 1891 I seem to recall which indicates that the constant raising of trifling points of order is of itself disorderly. I want to ask you what steps you are going to take to enforce that Speaker’s ruling because I think it would contribute to the good order of this House if it was enforced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for drawing my attention to that Speaker’s ruling which I am aware of. I think the House has to be on notice that the time should be devoted to question time not speeches through points of order. So I shall try to exercise discretion but members are on notice that perhaps they could make their points of order more like points of order than points of debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Firstly my point of order was a point of order. It raised very much a question about questions starting with a question. As for Mr Peters’ allegations I simply say that I have spent many an hour in this House studying at the feet of the master and although I could never be as good at irrelevant points of order as the right honourable irrelevant gentleman himself it is he who has set the pace in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member of course raised a valid point of order and that was acknowledged. It was the speech that followed that was the cause of subsequent comments. As I have already said if members are making a point of order they must make the point of order and not give a speech to the House. That is a debating matter. 
Taxation—Thresholds 
4.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Can he assure the public that income tax thresholds will be adjusted for inflation from 1 April 2008 as set out in the 2005 Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Not at this point although I welcome the member’s conversion to the idea given his long opposition to it. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury documents estimate the Government surplus to be running at between $3.4 billion and $5.9 billion in exactly the same period that he is arguing that this Government will not be able to afford a $360 million tax cut; and if this Government cannot afford a $360 million tax cut when it is running roughly a $6 billion surplus exactly how large would the surplus need to be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is Treasury’s projection. A surplus at that level of $3.4 billion is completely insufficient to cover the Government’s capital expenditure including the transfers into the Superannuation Fund. Mr Key believes in large-scale borrowing to fund tax cuts; he admitted so before the election. He is continuing to sing that irresponsible song when every independent commentator on the New Zealand economy is calling for the Government if anything to tighten fiscal policy rather than to loosen it. Unlike foreign exchange speculators this Government will not borrow for the sake of trying to make some money. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen other reports on the personal income tax situation in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a number of reports. I have seen a report recommending a tax-cut plan that would cost the Government $11 billion over 3 years. That is notwithstanding the comments from every independent commentator including the Governor of the Reserve Bank that cutting taxes at this stage of the cycle would only exacerbate imbalances and end up putting more pressure on interest rates and the dollar. Of course Mr Key may simply be trying to make more money for his former mates in foreign exchange speculation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment was unnecessary so would the Minister please withdraw it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister recall that in 1999 he assured the nation that only 5 percent of taxpayers would pay the 39 percent marginal tax rate—a number that turns out to be about 150000 people—and is he surprised to learn that that number has now risen to a third of a million people or 11 percent in which case why is he in reverse gear about doing something about that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and that just shows how much incomes have grown over the intervening 6 years. But I do remind the member that the indexation of tax thresholds was specifically rejected in the National Party’s policy before the election and opposed by the National Party. 
John Key 
: Does he remember horrible though I am sure it is for him to recall it now his Budget 2005 speech when he said: “The Labour-Progressive Government therefore has decided to adjust the thresholds every three years.” in which case why is he trying to shirk on the deal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I also recall that we were committed to a carbon tax for which we do not have the numbers in the House. Unlike the Opposition member I can count. He will need to learn to do so before he becomes a leader. 
John Key 
: Does he stand by his comment to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday that: “People who think there should be tax cuts on the back of big surpluses should be taken out and quietly drowned.”? If he does have two factors occurred to him: firstly that a majority of New Zealanders actually voted for political parties that favoured tax cuts and secondly on a more serious point that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of drowning in the Western World a rate twice the per capita rate of Australia; and how does he think that Water Safety New Zealand reflects on his comments beamed across the TV channels last night? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that normally there is just one supplementary question so the Minister has a choice out of the three or four that were asked. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was pointing out that it is utterly foolish to argue that because we have strong surpluses at the top end of an economic cycle one should then blow those and borrow one’s way—massive numbers of billions of dollars—to the bottom end and then wonder why at the end of all that debt keeps rising and we are leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pay it back. That is exactly what the National Government did from the 1970s through to the early 1980s. If Mr Key was a little bit older he might remember that previous period of National Government. 
John Key 
: Was the deep dark secret of Budget 2005 the fact that even though the Minister announced tax cuts on the day the poor old public are now finding out that they are never going to get them and is that the reason they were not on the pledge card that the taxpayer had funded for Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are tax cuts coming into force in 6 weeks and 1 day. In 6 weeks and 1 day hundreds of millions of dollars of tax cuts come into force for New Zealand business and the National Party voted against them. 
Overseas Posts—Operation 
5.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Is he satisfied that the taxpayer is getting value for money from the ministry’s overseas posts; if so why? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The answer is yes. The ministry’s planning and operations are subject to rigorous internal scrutiny and annual external audit. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You never said that in Opposition. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh he does not miss much does he? We can see why he did not last 5 seconds as deputy leader. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What a poodle! Come on poodle. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can tell the member who looks like a poodle. He should have a look in the mirror; he will see who looks like a poodle—a French one. Can I start again Madam Speaker? The answer is yes. The ministry’s planning and operations are subject to rigorous internal scrutiny and annual external audit. Audit New Zealand has assessed the ministry’s financial management control environment as being excellent. Our overseas posts are making commendable progress towards achieving the ministry’s stated objectives. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he believe that the taxpayer got value for money from the chef employed from New Zealand to cook full-time for the current deputy secretary Derek Leask at his residence when he was the ambassador in Brussels or is that just one of the many baubles of office that this Minister is now in favour of? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have to say that seeing that all this happened prior to my obtaining this office I have no knowledge of it. If the questioner puts down a written question I will find out whether it is true—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Annette King 
: Somebody’s been cooking for him. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —knowing fully that somebody has been cooking for him for a long time and it is obvious. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was unnecessary. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister regard the priority given by publicly funded broadcaster TVNZ to allegations of financial mismanagement at the ministry post in Taipei as justifiable given that these allegations have already been proven to be unfounded? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I made it very clear at the time to TVNZ as to what we believed the facts were that we had followed the same rigorous administrative standards in Taipei and that the New Zealand Government and public could expect that our representation overseas would carry on in that manner. The member can be assured that the matters raised have been fully investigated by the ministry as TVNZ was told. But as usual TVNZ is on a headhunting venture and is being helped by Rodney Hide. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the taxpayer have any confidence in Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spending when Taipei office administrator Rowan Tautari has blown the whistle on over-budget expenditure questionable purchases and a failure to adhere to foreign affairs guidelines—or has the Minister’s own niece got it wrong? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My niece got a job in Taipei 5 years ago I understand and the events about which the member speaks happened under my predecessor. Having said that the investigation in Taipei has demonstrated that nothing untoward did in fact happen. Notwithstanding that we do encourage anyone in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade wherever he or she might be around the world who has a concern to promptly raise it. This issue was raised and it was investigated. There is nothing to be further accountable for in respect of this issue. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given the Minister’s commitment to good spending of taxpayers’ dollars does he believe in principle that the taxpayer should be funding chefs to cook for foreign affairs officials at their residences each and every day in Brussels and Paris or does he think that is a waste of taxpayers’ money? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I would like to find out for myself the facts on that matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: You’re the Minister! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes but I do not know every event to do with dining unlike the member himself. I might add that if the member puts forward a written question I am happy to answer it. On the issue that was originally raised as to whether taxpayers are getting value for money let me say that they were getting no value for money at all when this document was put out by the ACT party last year during the campaign proper. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who paid for it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was paid for by the taxpayer—a parliamentary crest. A total disaster. 
Hon Annette King 
: When was it published? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This was published in 2005 in the election campaign period and was all paid for by the taxpayer. It states what ACT brings to Parliament—well apparently— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that on past occasions when Ministers have not been able to answer a simple question like this the right honourable gentleman himself would have required them to reflect on the fact that they had the salary they had the cars they had the offices and they should know the answer. I see that in this case there is a degree of confusion. I suspect it would be a good idea if one of the people from the Government who is responsible for him was to take him out the back and tell him what the question was and we could get him back later to give us the answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that was the kind of desolate arrogance that the National Party is becoming famous for. Apparently a Minister is meant to know the dining habits of everyone wherever he or she might be in the world. I have given the members opposite a chance to have an answer if they put the question down in writing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is all right; I do not need any further assistance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was a fair point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was a fair point of order. The Minister is responsible for matters relating to his foreign affairs vote. He is not responsible for the spending on publicity of other political parties. That part of the Minister’s answer was out of order. The other part was perfectly in order. He in fact as he said addressed that question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We get into a disorderly situation when a Minister comes into the House and is asked a straightforward question stands up reads the pre-prepared answer in which he says everything was above board there was no problem here and it was all fine then is confronted with a situation that on the face of it looks pretty shonky and says perhaps it was not all fine. So which part is right? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee; please be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is that the issue that was raised was whether the taxpayer was getting value for money and that is why I used the ACT example by way of analogy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that explanation but it was a long long bow and I do not think it was a valid one in this instance. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter and two memos that were prepared by Rowan Tautari on 10 November 2005. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table an advertisement from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 15 September 2005 which was under the name of the ACT party—and what a waste of time it was. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Prisoners—Risk to Society 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his statement that “people who are spending less than six months in jail that’s almost 30 percent of the inmates” are “people who are no risk to society”; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I stand by my statement that almost 30 percent of inmates received into prison are sentenced to less than 6 months and some inmates in jail are no risk to society. 
Simon Power 
: Who is right: is it Phil Goff and Paul Swain who during the election campaign heralded their “tough on crime” “tough on the causes of crime” campaign or is it the Minister who has decided that 30 percent of our prison population is of no risk to society and we should just let them all out? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am happy to say that both my colleagues are right and I believe I am too. The fact is that 30 percent of prisoners are sentenced to less than 6 months. The fact is that approximately 2500 prisoners are classified as “minimum security”. Many of the inmates may be in both of those categories. We are considering alternative options to deal with those people within the prison system. 
Simon Power 
: Who is right: is it the Minister’s colleague Phil Goff who thought he was tough on crime and was happy to take credit for the burgeoning prison population back in February 2004 when he said: “I said that this law would be tougher law … there will be a 20 percent increase in the number of people in prison because of the tougher sentencing laws enacted by this Government.” or is it the Minister who after 4 months in the job has decided to fling the prison doors open? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Thanks to the changes in legislation promoted by my colleague we have caught convicted and sentenced far more violent and dangerous offenders and we have kept this society safe from those people. I am focusing on the 2500 people in our prisons who are classified as low security. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister claim that 30 percent of the prison population is of no risk to society and can be rehabilitated when his confidence and supply partner New Zealand First has made it abundantly clear that it has no faith in the Department of Correction’s failing rehabilitation programmes? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have tried to clarify for the member the 30 percent relates to those who get sentences of less than 6 months. There are also 2500 inmates approximately who are deemed to be low-risk minimum security inmates. Some of those people may be the same. I acknowledge the facts exposed yesterday by New Zealand First that some rehabilitation programmes when evaluated are not delivering the results we would like. We will look at those programmes again and if necessary make changes. 
Ron Mark 
: If the aim really is to reduce the number of people in prison would it not be better to focus on the quality of the rehabilitation programmes being run by the Department of Corrections and in particular on the Straight Thinking programme which the department’s internal documents describe as follows: “… the Straight Thinking programme would appear to adhere least to the established principles of effective programming …” as espoused internationally. “… it does not focus on specific criminogenic needs has no after care or structured follow-up and gives minimal attention to relapse prevention … International research has demonstrated that cognitive skills programmes have at best a modest effective on recidivism and at worse may actually increase recidivism …”? That is an internal document; would the Minister like to comment? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister comments I would just like to remind members that questions should not also be speeches. They should be concise. Would the Minister now please answer the question. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. Yes rehabilitation and reintegration are key objectives of our corrections system. We run many rehabilitation programmes. Some are more successful than others. We are reviewing all of those programmes to ensure we are getting the best value for money from each and every one of them. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm the comments made by a former leader of the Labour Party the late Rt Hon David Lange when he said it costs so much to keep people in prison that for less money we could keep them in the Hilton Hotel and what is more they would not try to escape; and what did the Minister learn overseas about how to use that money more wisely especially with regard to non-violent offenders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I know that the former leader made a lot of very wise comments and I accept his views. That is exactly why we are taking a serious look at all rehabilitation programmes and ways of reducing the costs of running the prison system in New Zealand. 
Simon Power 
: With the Minister being so intent on letting out 30 percent of the prison population since his return from Finland has he taken the time to consider the signal that that sends to the victims of those 30 percent of offenders who in his view are supposedly no risk to society? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are no proposals to let people out of prisons. There are proposals and ideas to better manage their reintegration into society. 
Simon Power 
: What was the Minister thinking when his department is in such a shambles of budget blowouts escapes prisoners wandering into the control room at night at Ngawha Prison but not escaping and large numbers of contraband entering prisons when he proposed opening the prison doors with his new catch-and-release law and order policy? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I suggest that that member reads his local newspaper and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 both editorials of which say the proposals and ideas that are up for discussion are timely necessary and will hopefully be very very productive. 
Benefits—Transition to Work 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s progress at moving New Zealanders off benefits and into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest quarterly figures prepared by the Ministry of Social Development show that in the year ended December 2005 the number of working-age New Zealanders on benefits dropped by a further 17600 or 6 percent. There are now almost 100000 or 25 percent fewer New Zealanders receiving assistance than there were under National in 1999. This graphic representation may help members understand the magnitude of this achievement. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen specifically about the numbers of people receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Unemployment has dropped by 70 percent under Labour. In 1999 there were 161000 New Zealanders in receipt of the unemployment benefit; the latest quarterly figures show that that number is now just over 51000. 
Sue Bradford 
: When will the Government announce details of the planned new core benefit system and can the Minister assure the House that there will be no benefit cuts under the new regime he has planned? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Those decisions are to be coming to Cabinet in the next months and the member will know that I am on record as saying that we will not adopt a punitive approach to these matters. 
Judith Collins 
: How many of the 123000 sickness and invalids beneficiaries moved off benefits into work last year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the latest year ended December the growth rate of the sickness benefit had fallen to just 3 percent. It is important for that member to be aware of the fact that sickness and invalids benefits grew at a rate of 69 and 84 percent respectively under the National Government. Again I state that we are getting on top of a trend that was out of control under National. I stress that these are the headline figures. Which part of “good news” does the member not understand? 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member might like to reflect on that question. We do not want to have him trot down to the House in a few hours’ time to correct himself. He has in fact implied that the figures for sickness and invalids benefits went up under National when actually for 2 years they went down in the late 1990s—a point that he constantly ignores. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that information. [ 
Interruption 
] Silence please! Members will be leaving this Chamber if they are not silent during question time. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What advice will the Minister be giving to the 27 staff the majority of whom are Maori who have now been made redundant after fire destroyed an Otaki plastics-recycling factory and who were given public assurances by Work and Income New Zealand staff at two meetings that they would be available to help staff retain their jobs? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Work and Income is available for that purpose. I have already agreed to a meeting with the manager of the factory in Wellington next week and will certainly try to provide what assistance I can. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen that might explain why there are so many fewer people on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen one report from the Paul Holmes breakfast radio show on 2 February this year in which his guest explained that this drop was best explained by there having been jobs for Africa under Labour and I quote: “It would be very foolish to say that there haven’t been jobs for Africa in the last so many years and of course there have been.” That was of course National’s welfare spokesperson Judith Collins. 
Kyoto Protocol—Deforestation Liabilities 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the estimated cost of New Zealand’s Kyoto liabilities for the first commitment period taking into account the latest advice from officials that “forest owners intend to deforest about 47000 hectares during the first Kyoto commitment period (2008-2012). If this level of deforestation occurs it will add around 32 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to New Zealand’s deficit (in effect nearly doubling it).”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 On 19 December 2005 the Government was advised that under current policy settings projected deforestation during the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period is likely to total 47000 hectares. The effect of this is to bring the projected first commitment period liability to $562 million under present policy settings. These settings include a 21 million tonne carbon dioxide equivalent cap on deforestation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Government rely on a cap on deforestation for limiting the liability when the Minister of Forestry Jim Anderton has told the forestry industry that it will not happen and that there is no Government mechanism by which such a limit could be put in place? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I understand that what the Minister has said what I have said and what my spokespeople have said is that the cap on deforestation liabilities is not under consideration for removal without other policy. That is correct. What should happen to the cap or indeed forest-sink policy remains a live issue. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What steps is the Government taking to update climate change - related policy settings? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In December 2005 Cabinet made a number of decisions to progress the future of climate change policy to address the projected deficit. Officials will be reporting back with policy options across 15 subject areas which will be advanced by Cabinet in the coming months. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister tell the House that the Kyoto liability as a consequence of the doubling of the carbon deficit is now $562 million when his predecessor told a select committee on 16 June—when he admitted to a 36 million tonne deficit—that the liability would be about a billion dollars; even in elementary mathematics if the carbon limit has doubled then would we not expect the deficit to be about $2 billion? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The calculations as to the projected liability during the first commitment period are made by Treasury applying financial reporting standards based on projections. The reason for the change is that the projection changed and Treasury applying financial reporting standards accordingly made the adjustment to the Crown books. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that the fastest-growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has been from road transport; if so will he be talking to Nick Smith about speaking to his colleague Maurice Williamson in relation to his focus on building new motorways—reflected in question No. 10—rather than a focus on public transport which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister obviously has no responsibility for National Party communications. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I agree that one area of emissions that has been growing quickly is transport emissions which is in large part a reflection of the high rate of growth we have had in New Zealand and therefore the increase in people’s ability to travel. I also agree with the member that part of the way in which we need to address transport emissions is with a continuing focus on public transport. But I disagree with any proposition that says we should not spend more money on roads as well. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who is responsible for the policy mess over Kyoto that has seen this Government propose then abandon a “fart tax”; propose then abandon a carbon tax; set up an emissions reduction programme then abandon it; do two backward flips on the carbon balance for New Zealand; and now accept that its Kyoto policies are causing excessive deforestation—who is responsible for this extraordinary mess in an important area of public policy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: By far and away the largest cause of deforestation is the relative economics of forestry now compared with 10 years ago. It is not driven primarily by Kyoto policy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report of the Auditor-General and the transcript of the select committee in which it was revealed that the Government had breached the Public Finance Act in not disclosing last year the extent of its Kyoto liabilities. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: Has the Minister had any approaches from Dr Nick Smith seeking to develop a bipartisan policy on this matter; if so does he see any indication of that in his question line today? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have although in fairness I would note that they are at a very preliminary stage and may come to nought. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept the Auditor-General’s advice that the Government last year broke the law—notably the Public Finance Act—in respect of the declaration of liabilities from the Kyoto Protocol; and if it did break the law who was responsible for that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. 
Economic Performance—Australia and New Zealand 
9.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on New Zealand’s GDP per capita performance in relation to Australia in recent years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For the last 5 years for which we have comparable data GDP per capita grew 13 percent in New Zealand and 9.5 percent in Australia. So New Zealand’s rate grew some 40 percent faster per person than Australia’s. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any other recent reports comparing Australia and New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen many but in particular a report this morning from the chief executive of Fletcher Building stating that the personal tax situation in New Zealand is far more friendly than Australia’s and that unlike Australians New Zealanders do not pay $100 a week in road tolls nor do they pay stamp duty when they buy houses nor do they pay general capital gains tax. I have also seen a report from the same business leader perhaps the most successful chief executive officer in recent years in New Zealand stating that those who were trying to talk up a recession were being irresponsible—a report that specifically mentioned the Leader of the Opposition Dr Brash. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the brief period during which New Zealand’s GDP per capita has risen slightly faster than Australia’s GDP per capita is explained by a very significant increase in hours worked and a very poor record of productivity growth in New Zealand and that unless our productivity growth improves markedly Australia’s per capita incomes will continue to rise relative to those in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is interesting that the claim is made that Australian wages have risen faster than New Zealand wages over recent years but doubtless there is always some difficulty with comparability because we have different kinds of indices. If that were true it would show that Australian workers have captured a larger share of the benefits of economic growth than New Zealand workers. Undoubtedly the major reason for that is a much more heavily regulated labour market and more powerful trade unions—policies that I am sure Dr Don Brash would not wish to support. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance in no way addressed the question I asked. I asked him whether it was not true that the faster GDP per capita growth in New Zealand in the last couple of years has been explained by a very large increase in hours worked plus a very poor rate of productivity growth in New Zealand and that unless New Zealand’s productivity growth improves markedly Australian incomes will continue to rise relative to those in New Zealand. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will elaborate further. One of the reasons why productivity growth is certainly stronger in Australia is that there is a higher cost of labour in Australia and therefore a greater incentive to invest in labour-saving machinery. The National Party favours further deregulation of the labour market which will lower the cost of labour as it did in the early 1990s thereby removing the incentive for productivity growth. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Minister of Finance answer a question that the Prime Minister could not answer yesterday: can he name a single economist who believes that on present productivity trends on both sides of the Tasman New Zealand incomes will overtake Australia’s within one decade two decades or even three decades; if so who is that economist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I were to believe what neo-liberal economists prescribe for this economy we would ensure that wages grew even more slowly in this country while Australia’s moved even further ahead. Unfortunately the prescription of deregulation in the labour market asset sales and tax cuts for the rich does not add up to an economic policy for this particular country. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I understand that answer to be no? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can take from the answer that it did generally address the question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I assume it was no. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ministers are not required to answer yes or no to questions; they are just required to address them. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Question time becomes a total mockery if Ministers are asked a question that has a yes or no answer. As Mr Peters used to say it is rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes and if the rabid dogs over there can keep quiet I will get it out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You would have to be down here to hear the kinds of insults from the people on our right purely because they have their noses pressed against the window for the next 3 years. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would both members please sit down. Would members please just ask their questions and stop prefacing them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr Peters should be asked to apologise for that. That was an unnecessary remark—an aspersion cast on the Opposition side of the House. I know how much he hates the new title “Sergeant of ‘Helengrad’s’ Republican Guard” but we are not going to use that for him. We just do not want him to go down that track. I think his apologising would be a good idea. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what he should apologise for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If I have to apologise for them having their noses against the window for the next 3 years I will but that is a fact. I am sorry for them but it is a fact. My question to the Minister of Finance is this: does he not recall a certain economist extolling the virtues of the Douglas regime and the Richardson regime the very prescription that Australia refused to follow; and is it not the case therefore that there was such an economist and that his name is Don Brash? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is absolutely correct to say that since the early 1980s New Zealand has followed much more closely the prescription of the neo-liberal economists of which Dr Brash is one and as a consequence our growth rate has been slower than Australia’s for most of that period. The only period of over 5 years in which our per capita GDP has exceeded Australia’s in that period is that under this Government. 
Transit New Zealand—State Highway Construction Programme 
10.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What action does he intend to take to ensure there is no “slowdown” in Transit New Zealand’s 10-year State highway construction programme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government has doubled the amount spent annually on State highway construction from $248 million in 1999 to $600 million in the coming year. The Government’s commitment to its ambitious roading programme continues. Record levels of investment will continue to ensure ongoing progress on State highway upgrades. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Will one of the actions the Minister takes be to follow the advice of a number of august bodies such as the Automobile Association Federated Farmers and others who all yesterday asked the Minister to move over more of the dedicated petrol tax that does not go to roading but to the Crown bank account—an action that I must say most of his front bench voted for in the mid-1990s? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I note that the proportion of excise duty— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Twice before I finished my question the previous member for Tauranga—he has lost Tauranga—called out: “Who stopped it?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was an unnecessary comment. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It was an unnecessary comment and I would like you to do something about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I must say that the member’s was too. The Minister did interject at the end. It was a marginal call but if I were to put everyone out of the House for marginal calls there would be nobody left. I ask the Minister to please respond to the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I note that the proportion of excise duty going into road transport funding has been growing significantly in the last 6 years under Labour. I further note that at the last election National was not promising to put it all in. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that by 2007-08 nearly the entire excise duty and road user charges will be going into the Land Transport Fund and that that will by no means cover the full cost of land transport in New Zealand—in other words there will be transfers from general taxation into land transport? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can and do. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s press release from the New Zealand Contractors Federation chief executive officer Richard Michael which stated: “The Prime Minister’s claims on Tuesday that ‘the pressure on construction capacity has been escalating costs’ is simply not true.”; and when will he take some action to appraise the Prime Minister of her errors? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is true that we have cost-price increases in road construction. It is not yet clear where those road construction cost increases are being driven from. Part of those increases relate to the high rate of increase in wages for low-paid workers as a consequence of our low unemployment rate and the ability of those workers to quite justly claim higher wages. 
Darien Fenton 
: What steps is the Minister taking to assess whether cost increases in road construction are justified? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As Minister of Transport I am responsible for ensuring taxpayers get value for money in terms of our roading projects. To that end I am establishing a working-group drawn from the private sector and local government to help examine where cost savings in road design and construction can be made. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is the Minister aware that in the press release from the Contractors Federation yesterday the chief executive also said: “There is considerable excess capacity in the sector at present including the Auckland region and this can be seen by the number of tenders that were at very competitive prices in the latest Transit project.”; and how does that square with the Minister of Finance going out and saying that tenders are being squeezed in price because of the lack of capacity that is out there? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am aware of that press release and the contents of it. I am also aware that approximately 10 times the amount is being spent on highway projects in the Auckland region compared with when that member left office as the relevant Minister. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is the Minister aware that even under the current Transit 10-year plan—and there are suggestions that that may need to be cut—State Highway 20 doubling of the Mangere Bridge State Highway 20 Avondale extension the Harbour Bridge to city link and the refurbishment of the Newmarket viaduct will all be approximately halfway through being built when the Rugby World Cup occurs; and is he happy for this nation to be showcased to the world as being nothing more than a parking lot that moves a few centimetres every hour? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am absolutely confident that the roading network in Auckland will be immeasurably better by the time of the Rugby World Cup compared with the parlous state in which it was left in 1999. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Given that the Prime Minister gave an absolute commitment to the Rugby World Cup organisers that this Government would ensure that the adequate infrastructure would be available how can it be that the major arteries that will be required for Auckland to function in 2011 will not be halfway through construction by the time of the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am confident that the Prime Minister’s statement will prove true. My confidence arises from the fact that this Government is committing $20 billion to Land Transport over the next 10 years $12 billion of which is being spent on State highways. 
Gender Survey—State Sector Boards and Statutory Committees 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: Is she satisfied with the results of the stocktake of membership of all State sector boards and statutory committees by gender recently completed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 Yes the stocktake identifies that at the end of 2004 women represented 41 percent of the total Government-appointed membership of those boards. That compared very favourably with the most recent data identifying that women represented only 16 percent of New Zealand Alternative Market companies’ board membership and a mere 5 percent of that of NZX-listed companies. 
Sue Moroney 
: What are the benefits of appointing women who have the relevant competencies to governance positions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Emerging trends in international research are indicating a positive correlation between diversity in board membership and strong company performance. That is because having a wide range of perspectives brought to the board table broadens the ability of a board to identify risks and opportunities. The more narrow the range of perspectives the greater the risk a board will not anticipate potential risks and opportunities. That is the danger in surrounding oneself with a group of yes-men. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister aware of any barriers to increasing the participation of women in governance positions in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: A risk would arise if the Ministry of Women’s Affairs were abolished. That would mean the disbanding of its nominations service which has been effective in deepening the pool of talent from which board members can be drawn. If anyone has to look for reasons why such a policy might make a party scary to women voters that would be a good place to start. 
Maternity Services—Review 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why has he ruled out a full review of maternity services as recommended by the Wellington Coroner and what time frames are associated with any action he plans to take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In answer to the first question because the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee did not support the coroner’s findings. As to the second question on time frames recommendations on how to further improve information gathering are due in the next few weeks. Discussions to improve linkages between midwives and primary health organisations—planned before the coroner reported—have begun and recommendations regarding midwifery and education have been in train courtesy of the Midwifery Council for over a year. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will he not use the data collected in hospitals and by midwives around the country to provide a platform to strengthen maternity services in this country so that we can protect mothers and newborns from the horror stories that prompted the coroner’s review? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We do. 
Maryan Street 
: Is there general agreement that the current lead maternity care system works? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes there most certainly is. At a meeting last week of general practitioners midwives obstetricians gynaecologists consumers and the Ministry of Health all participants publicly expressed support for the current lead maternity care system and all emphasised the ongoing role of midwives in providing the bulk of maternity care and delivery services. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Have there not been enough reports of botched births and tragic deaths for the Minister to realise that New Zealand needs to gather the evidence and find out what is going wrong with maternity services in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed perinatal mortality rates are dropping in this country. However a number of people think that a review of maternity services is an important idea; they include the Wellington Coroner and the member who asked the question but not a lot of other people. Among the long list of people who think it would be a waste of time and money is the National Party’s previous health spokesperson Dr Paul Hutchison as stated in a recent edition of  
North and South. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the Government ignored for 6 years the recommendation of the National Health Committee that unless more information was collected there could be no assurance of the quality or safety of maternity services in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member fails to realise that since the 1999 I think it was review of maternity services by the National Health Committee a very significant improvement in information around these matters has already been achieved. About 2 weeks ago I put out a 30-page—maybe longer—report that summarises all of that information gathering. However the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee suggested that further improvements are still needed. Decisions on that will come my way shortly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If one of the reasons why the Minister’s group has dismissed the need for a full review of maternity services in New Zealand is that there is simply not enough information to make a decision why then is the Minister trying to stand up in the House and say that we do have the information for a review? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am saying that we have much better information than we had in 1999 and that I am hopeful that we will have still better information. The Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee did not think that a review was worth the time and effort. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Minister expect to know what to do if he cannot be bothered to find out what has gone wrong? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is almost an unanswerable question and I intend to treat it as such. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he found out from his predecessor Annette King why she ignored numerous recommendations to improve the level of perinatal data collection in New Zealand over the last 6 years and what does he think Annette King’s agenda was that would cause her to ignore those recommendations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me advise the House for the second and I hope the last time today that since the 1999 I think it was National Health Committee report into maternity services there has been a very significant improvement in the quality and quantity of information gathered and that information was recently amalgamated and released by me. I suggest the member look at this improved information. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It is not going away. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: However although he continues to talk through my answer I would just remind him that still further improvements have been suggested by the recent report of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee and I expect to be responding to those further reports over the next few weeks. 
Questions to Members 
Finance and Expenditure Committee—Television New Zealand Inquiry 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What letters if any has he received in relation to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into Television New Zealand? 
SHANE JONES (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 I have received numerous letters and those that are relevant have been put before the committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the chairperson deny to the House that he told me and the media yesterday that he decided to rip up into a hundred pieces my letter of complaint to him as chairperson; what does he believe gives him the authority to rip up letters addressed to him as chairperson of the entire committee? 
SHANE JONES 
: I have responded to the so-called letter and invited the relevant member to bring his concerns to the committee which he chose not to do yesterday. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the chairperson confirm that a reply was sent to Rodney Hide on 7 February 2006 that the select committee meeting ended at precisely 1 p.m. that Mr Hide’s letter was not on the agenda and further that Mr Hide neither sought leave to extend the meeting nor put the matter on the agenda himself? 
SHANE JONES 
: The member’s recollection is reassuring and unnervingly accurate. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the chairperson confirm that he received my letter responded to it as a matter of the committee and then ended the meeting before considering it saying that he had ripped it up; did he rip it up or did he not? 
SHANE JONES 
: The meeting ended at the appointed time and the opportunity available for the ACT member on the committee—2 percent of the time—is very limited. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Rodney Hide’s question to the chair of the committee was quite explicit: did he rip up the letter that was received from a member of the committee? I think when a member writes to a chair of a committee and the chair chooses not to address the question it is a pretty important issue. I think it is proper for you Madam Speaker as you are in charge of the overall select committee system and how we operate as parliamentarians to agree that it is a fair requirement that Mr Jones should answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. 
SHANE JONES 
: The letter has been received by me. There are copies one of which was certainly ripped up by me. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this because the Minister Chris Carter called out [ 
Interruption 
]—the member can interrupt if he likes—that it was the most appropriate thing for the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to do. I raised this matter with you yesterday Madam Speaker and I consider it very serious indeed. We have just had the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee confirm that a letter from a member which should automatically be an item of business was ripped up by him. We have had a Minister call out that that is the appropriate thing to do. I ask you to consider the issue. How can we have any order or accountability if letters to select committees from MPs and members of the public are to be treated in this cavalier fashion? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any more assistance on this if the member does not mind. I do regard it as serious and that is why I asked the member to answer the question directly which I think is appropriate. Also the way in which committee chairs conduct themselves in terms of committee business is an item I have put on the agenda for the meeting I am having with all the select committee chairs. So the matter will be addressed in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member took a substantial time in the House yesterday to raise his objection. He has taken a substantial time today. The plain fact is that it was explained to him in chronological and logical order what happened. There is a copy of his so-called precious letter which was able to be raised by him at the committee all the way to 1 o’clock yesterday but he did not avail himself of the opportunity. In short what we have here is someone who is headline hunting in Parliament every day on issues that he could have raised at the select committee in the whole 3 hours that committee met yesterday morning. My point of order also includes this. As I was raising this point of order members commenced again to misbehave in this House. About five of them should be thrown out and should have been thrown out some considerable time ago. The fact is that the member has had explained to him today that he had yesterday’s opportunity to use and he did not use it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. The fact of the matter is however that it is not unknown for members at times to raise spurious points of orders to get headlines from time to time. I do not approve of that practice and I take it that members would like me in future to be much stricter in my rulings and interventions on points of order that lead in that direction. That will apply to all members of the House. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Government order of the day No. 1 the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement be postponed until after Government order of the day No. 2 the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Land Transport Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its consideration and that the committee report back by 10 March 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet outside normal sitting hours except during oral questions. 
In the recent changes to the Land Transport Act passed unanimously by the House last year passenger service drivers such as bus drivers and taxi-drivers with specified criminal convictions were prohibited from continuing to hold a passenger endorsement. Some of those drivers had been convicted decades ago of offences that most people would today consider do not merit the loss of their employment as in some cases they had had minimal penalty at the time. This bill will allow those drivers to apply to have their passenger endorsements reinstated. 
It also expands the criteria that the Director of Land Transport is required to consider when deciding whether to reinstate a passenger endorsement so that those criteria include the sentence imposed for the applicant’s last conviction for a specified serious offence; the general safety criteria set out in the Land Transport Act; any other matters that the director considers relevant including but not limited to submissions by any affected party; the length of time since the person’s last conviction for a specified serious offence; any other convictions the person has; and the likelihood that the person would if granted a passenger endorsement be a threat to public safety or security. This will allow drivers with convictions for offences at the minor end of the scale to re-enter the passenger service industry where this is not against the public interest. The bill will also allow the possibility of new applications for passenger endorsements from individuals with such convictions. 
The Land Transport Amendment Act of 2005 was passed without dissent in this House last June and it disqualified a small number of passenger endorsement holders with certain criminal convictions from holding a passenger endorsement. The Government has since become aware that some of these individuals have convictions that despite being in the category of offences punishable by 7 or more years’ imprisonment are for acts that occurred in many cases several years or even decades ago. Often the offence at that time attracted a small non-custodial penalty or a very short custodial sentence and in some drivers’ cases a conviction and discharge with no sentence at all. By today’s standards society might not consider some of those offences to be of a serious nature; for example consensual sex with a 15-year-old when the offender was 16. While there is a reinstatement avenue in the 2005 amendments to the Act it precludes those with convictions for sex offences or with any convictions for imprisonable offences in the past 10 years no matter what the circumstances of those convictions were. 
The law in this case has a simple objective which it achieves: to improve public safety by making sure that potentially dangerous people are not driving in a passenger service. However it has become clear that the mechanism although dealing with most cases adequately is too blunt. Of the 38000-plus P endorsement holders in the country some individuals are adversely affected in terms of their employment for no appreciable safety gain. What has become evident in recent weeks is that some individuals although they have a qualifying conviction did not have a severe sentence imposed for their offence and are unlikely to pose any risk to their passengers. Indeed some have been active in the industry for decades in some cases up to 40 years without any reoffending of any sort whatsoever. The law as it stands is stopping those people from working as a bus driver or a taxi-driver. The bill will recognise this and provide the opportunity for these people to apply for consideration to be reissued with their passenger endorsements. 
I should point out that the bill does not automatically reissue passenger endorsements to the affected individuals. The reinstatement option in the bill is tightly prescribed. The legislation does not create a general grandparenting right but requires that the director consider whether reinstating someone’s P endorsement is in the public interest taking into account various criteria including the sentence imposed to the offending how long ago it occurred any other offences committed and whether reinstating would constitute a threat to public safety. It explicitly does not allow for all of the P endorsement holders to re-enter. This way those with convictions for serious sexual or violent offences can be excluded. This will allow the travelling public to have greater confidence and security when using passenger services. The director cannot grant the reinstatement application unless completely satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest and that the person will not pose a threat to public safety or security. 
In addition there will be other individuals with similar convictions to those I have described who may wish in the future to apply for a P endorsement but are now unable to do so under the Act. The bill will allow these people to ask that the director consider their cases also using the same criteria. However the presumption that they may not hold a passenger endorsement will remain until the director has examined their case. 
The intention of the 2005 amendments to improve the safety of the travelling public was correct. However there were consequences that affected the livelihoods of some drivers who most members of Parliament now see have been harshly treated in that the minor offences for which they often received only minimal penalties decades ago now prevent them from working. Many members of Parliament have asked how we can fix this situation and I would like to thank all the transport spokespeople from each party and the other members of Parliament who have indicated their support and their concern with their phone calls to me. I might add that there have been many phone calls over the Christmas period. They want to get this right. 
This bill fixes a specific problem with the land transport legislation. It is a straightforward amendment and I hope it will be able to be speedily dealt with by this House so that those affected can apply to the director and if appropriate return to work as soon as is possible. I invite the select committee to consider the above issues and consider any solutions. There may be other ways of achieving the same ends. I hope the select committee is able to quickly examine this issue and that agreement can be reached quickly on what measures are appropriate so that those who we believe have been harshly treated can return to their normal lives quickly. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I make it very clear to the House from the outset that the National Party will cooperate in trying to get this bill right. I also make it very clear to members of this House that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the original bill. The members of that committee worked very well together in trying to get the legislation right the first time and they were aware of why there were problems. The moment we ever draw a line in the sand there are always some people just on the other side of that line who can be affected and if we take them into account there is a person on the other side of them as well. I am sad to say that there may have to be a toughening up in terms of saying we are sorry that a handful of people may be caught by this but the legislation needs to remain reasonably strong in order to achieve its ultimate goal. 
What is the ultimate goal of the bill? The ultimate goal of the original legislation was to prevent unsuitable people from holding a passenger service licence. That is something I think every member of this House would want. We do not want young daughters sisters and so on going out at night and jumping in a cab in front of Bowen House or wherever knowing full well that the individual driving the cab has in the past been convicted of rape or murder. 
My first concern about this amendment today is that it starts from the position of going too far in that it allows anybody to apply for consideration. I hope the committee will tighten that up straight away to exclude those who are convicted of murder or rape. Then we get to the tough situations. This House knows full well that hard cases make bad law. If a young boy of 16 had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend 40 years ago and went on to marry and live a life of blameless excellence like Steve Maharey has done one might find it hard within oneself—as I do—to say that that man should be excluded from driving taxis. But if the offence he was charged with and convicted of was the same offence as that of a dirty old man of 48 who had sex with a young under-age girl behind the school bike sheds—because the offence does not take account of the age of the perpetrator when the charge sheet is done—one might say that the guy in the second case should not get through the gate. 
The select committee had problems to tackle and I swear to members of this House that when this bill is before the committee those same blurry delineations will still exist. I reckon there will be 120 different views—actually with the overhang it will be 121 views—of exactly where the line should be drawn. The National Party thinks that maybe we should be reasonably conservative and quite strong on where we draw the line at least for any new entrants who have any sexual convictions. Let us remember to whom the Act applies. I remind members of the House that the Act that came into effect on 16 January prohibits people who have been convicted of murder or sexual offences punishable by imprisonment for 7 years or more from holding a P endorsement. No offence punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more is trivial. I promise members there is not one. Again I think that specified serious violent offences should be included. 
I am happy to talk right now to this House about the case I heard raised—I think it was Chester Borrows from Wanganui who raised it with me first—about a 16-year-old boy who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend who was only 3 weeks away from turning 16. Her father found out and in order to punish them he involved the police. They charged the boy and he received a conviction but the couple went on to marry and live a happy life ever after. He has been driving a cab. I do not want that person excluded. However I am very very nervous about creating a regime that also gives discretion to the director of what used to be the Land Transport Safety Authority. I can tell members that when I was a Minister the one thing I would never have done was to give discretion on any of this stuff to the people who were running that outfit. 
I am also worried about the ability to appeal to a court. This amendment allows a court appeal—a provision that the select committee had taken out of the bill. The select committee did not just make mistakes. I have heard a number of people say that us guys really cocked it up. No I can tell members that Mark Gosche the chairperson did a fabulous job of trying to go over and over this issue. I know that Peter Brown thought we had probably gone too far but the problem was that if we went to the point that Peter Brown would have liked us to which a lot of people would advocate we would also have allowed in some people who I and I think most members of this House would say were undesirable. Do we want Graham Capill to be able to drive a taxi when he gets out of prison? I tell members right now that I do not. So we have to be very very clear about granting discretion in very limited ways. 
I think the Minister should be a bit embarrassed about some of the poor writing of this bill. The second bullet point of the explanatory note states that this bill will: “expand the criteria that the Director is required to consider” but the paragraph before the clause by clause analysis states that the bill tightens the criteria the director should take into account. If new members of Parliament think they can have a quick read of the explanatory note to see whether the amendment bill tightens or expands the criteria they will be absolutely flummoxed. What are the criteria? The explanatory note states: “The Bill also tightens the criteria that the Director is required to consider when deciding whether to reinstate or issue a P endorsement to someone with a specified conviction to include—the period of time elapsed …”. But is there any difference between say a 16-year-old boy having sex a year ago with his 15-year-old girlfriend who 3 weeks later turned 16 and a boy who did it 40 years ago? I do not think there is much difference. I do not think many people think that that is the biggest offence that can occur. On the other hand if a person murdered somebody then I do not care that it happened 50 years ago. If that person has been convicted of murder then he or she should be ruled out. Let me say to all the murderers out there: “I’m sorry but go and drive a truck go and drive a bulldozer but don’t want to keep driving a passenger vehicle where you may have one female passenger late at night and have the access to something where you’ve already proved you’ve gone beyond standards of behaviour that this Parliament accepts.” 
I finish as I began by saying the National Party will cooperate in a fairly truncated select committee process but I warn every member of the House who thinks that this process is easy. It is not. I received calls as did Harry Duynhoven asking why we did not just fix it. So I asked the question back: “So you would be happy to do this?” and the callers said they would. But when I told them that that meant more serious offenders would also be able to get a P endorsement they replied: “Oh no not them.” So I said: “OK tell me how you word this in order to stop one offender but not the other both of whom were charged and convicted of the same offence despite the fact that most of us can live comfortably with one of the offences while most of us would think the other was a pretty heinous crime.” 
The moment the courts are allowed in I worry because one of the reasons the first bill was passed was that the court had let this Parliament down; the discretion had been given to the director who had declined a particularly grubby individual. That individual made an appeal to the District Court. The court overrode the director and instated this guy with a P endorsement. Again I would be very happy if time permitted to give members the facts and details of that individual. I would like to see any members of the House put their hand up and say that they would be OK with that guy driving a taxi because I can tell them that they would not. It was the courts that overrode the will. 
So if Parliament is going to have some control on this I want to know that the bill when it is reported back from the select committee will be as tight as it can be—that it may be different for those who are already in the industry and have a livelihood compared with those who may want to enter the industry in the future so that we keep at least future entrants clean and tidy. I want to know that the powers and discretionary ability of the director are kept very very tight—as tight as a drum. Also to some of those offenders such as those who commit murder we must just say no. 
I am happy to draw up a black a white and a grey list—it can be like the foreign withholding tax. The black list is murder rape and a number of those offences and those criminals must not get a P endorsement. The white list includes a number of other offences that are quite minor in which case those people most certainly will get a P endorsement. I want the grey list to be as tight as narrow and as carefully defined as possible so that most members of the House know that when their wives or daughters or themselves—such as female members of the House who leave at night—take a taxi it will be with somebody who is safe. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 We know that the proposed amendment in the bill is not simple. It is not a black and white issue at all. But it does remedy an anomaly that became very apparent to many constituent MPs over the Christmas period when some of those who had been driving buses or taxis—some for 40 years as in a case in my electorate—lost their ability to work. I found this particularly difficult when those people had to come to see me as a woman MP to admit to a minor indiscretion they committed in their youth. Also sweating profoundly they had to admit this to their wives whom they had not told. They then had to be prepared to stand up and go through a process that was very embarrassing for them. 
I entreated the Minister to intervene in a couple of cases in my electorate but he had no powers in the current Act to do so. Then we found through the legal advisers in the town who saw those people that they had no appeal process. So they had to face the consequences of having to live with their wives after admitting to an indiscretion—and we have all had them—from their youth. Then what is worse they lost the right to drive and at 60 they found that they could no longer earn an income. One constituent from my electorate committed an offence in 1974. He undertook a period of 6 months’ periodic detention. He sought legal advice for clarity but when the lawyer phoned Land Transport to find out whether he was in the grey zone the black zone or the white zone he did not get clarity. I hope that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee can get this right now. 
One further constituent who admitted a minor sexual offence did contact Land Transport and was told that there was no record of his offending at all. So his lawyer then advised him that perhaps he should not go for a P endorsement because he had admitted—hand across heart—that he had committed one of those offences of a minor sexual nature. So he also had to write to his bosses and to admit the offence to his wife and he lost his job. 
It is simply the lack of an appeal process or a lack of clarity around the reinstatement option that is of concern to us. That is especially so for those breaches of a minor sexual nature. None of us in the House would argue or take issue with the workings of a very good select committee and the fact that it got it wrong. But it is wrong in terms of the law when there is no appeal process or no right to get reinstatement considered. This bill remedies that. I think it is great for Parliament to say that it got one aspect wrong. It has had some unintended consequences but this Government will have a look at it will try to clarify it and will get it fixed up. It is fantastic for the voices to be heard of those brave people who made entreaties to their MPs who admitted a breach of a minor nature many years ago and who were quite prepared to go through an appeal process in order to get their licences reinstated. They were quite prepared to go to the courts over this issue because they themselves said that it was in the public interest and as Mr Williamson said the interests of public safety are paramount. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But the courts have let some bad people through. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right. I know that the select committee has problems ahead in sorting it out. 
Children and women must be safe and I am the first to say that for women in the country—[ 
Interruption 
] And men. The industry itself agrees that its reputation cannot be tarnished and it needs to know that those whom it employs are safe too. It will be the responsibility of the select committee to consider the offences on a relative scale of harm. Lawyers struggled with the lack of an appeal process in the current Act and I wish the select committee all the best. We have heard about the criteria; I am sure they will be an issue of some concern to the committee. 
I am very pleased that this Government is prepared to take another look at this and try to get it right. I support this bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 In my call I want to address a couple of key points: why we are here today and how the select committee got it wrong and what the motivation initially of the select committee actually was. This part of the transport legislation had its origins with Deborah Coddington. There had been a whole swath of offences particularly in Wellington where taxi-drivers who had previous serious convictions who held a P endorsement had assaulted women passengers. That was the origin of the legislation. A whole bunch of people who should not have had P endorsements nevertheless got them; and that had occurred because of lax procedures in the Land Transport Safety Authority and in the courts. So the motivation of the select committee was to narrow down the discretion or in the words of my colleague Maurice Williamson to have a definitive blacklist. If someone was convicted of murder no way could that person get a P endorsement or an appeal and everyone in this House would logically agree with that. 
The second category which was hugely troubling was the whole range of sexual offences. We know as a general proposition that once someone is convicted there is likely to be a prospect of similar conduct in the future. We did not want people who had been convicted of serious sexual offences to ever hold a P endorsement—that is to drive a taxi or a bus ever again. There was to be no appeal for that group. 
Then there was a third category of violent offences under the Crimes Act. What happened was this. Land Transport advisers came along and gave us a list of sections. They just gave us a whole bunch of numbers such as section 153 section 177 and so forth and said that none of those people should be included. We said: “Let us describe those offences.” So we duly did that which is why in the legislation there are offences described such as attempts to murder conspiracy to murder and wounding with intent—all of those. All people convicted of those offences can also apply to have their P endorsements reconsidered if they have been convicted in the past. 
However the problem occurred with the middle band where the legislation states that in the situation of any sexual crime punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment or more there is a complete ban and no right of appeal. We asked the Land Transport officials whether they were sure that that was OK and they said that obviously everything with a penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment is a bad offence. That seemed a reasonable proposition. Surely anyone convicted of a sexual offence punishable with 7 years of imprisonment or more should not hold a taxi licence. But the trouble was that one or two offences were included in that category that probably should not have been or at least there should have been a review procedure. 
One is section 134 “Sexual intercourse or indecency with girl between 12 and 16”. Now we have all heard the facts—the 17-year-old and the 15-year-old 40 years ago where there would have been a small fine or even a discharge without conviction. In one situation the couple subsequently got married although I do not know whether they are still married. But clearly we would wonder whether that is really a situation where that offender should never be able to be a taxi-driver. I think everyone in this House would say that if that is how the law worked then clearly something has gone wrong in the lawmaking process and that the person in that situation should be able to hold a P licence. 
However the same section would also cover someone convicted in the last few years where the offender is 45 and the victim is 13. Would we want that person to hold a taxi licence? Surely the answer would be no. The problem with the bill presented by the Minister is that it allows everyone who has been convicted and has lost a P endorsement to be able to apply to the director for reinstatement. Why would we do that? Why would we allow a murderer to reapply for a P endorsement? That is ridiculous. Why would we allow a rapist to reapply for a P endorsement? That is also ridiculous. Frankly this legislation which has had a number of weeks’ worth of work done on it as it has been presented to the House is actually a pretty poor job. 
The select committee will once again have to work to get it right and to narrow it down to the particular area that I think the House is broadly agreed on. We want as minimal a level of discretion as possible. I guess we cannot remove it completely but we can certainly narrow it down—maybe for instance to an offence under section 134 where there was a discharge or a small fine because that would cover the class we are interested in. That is the group of people—and I have certainly had phone calls on it—with some of them having been convicted 40 years ago where for instance one party was aged 17 and the other was aged 15 and the offender was discharged without conviction. That sort of person should be able to hold a P endorsement. Unfortunately the bill presented to the House is too wide. It will have to be restructured by the select committee in order to narrow its focus to deal with genuine cases of injustice as opposed to murderers or rapists being able to reapply for their P endorsements. 
 So the National Party is put into the position of saying that we have a bad bill which fixes up what was actually a relatively narrow error by the select committee but this is the only opportunity we have to fix the problem. So we have to support a bill that is frankly poorly drafted—because it is the only way that we can look at the issue. I say to the Minister and to the House that National members will look at this very carefully indeed. We want it a lot narrower than in the bill as presented. We want it to be narrowed precisely to a few cases—and there are not actually very many given that there are only one or two offences in the Crimes Act that are relevant—and we want it to be targeted. We do not want the director to have some kind of sweeping discretion as the bill currently provides for to allow people to hold a P endorsement whom none of us would think it reasonable that they should do so. 
I say to my colleagues on the select committee that we have a pretty serious job of work ahead of us and we have a limited period of time to get it right. I suggest the bill will have to be significantly redrafted to achieve that outcome. We in this Parliament are pretty clear as to what the problem is. Unfortunately the way this bill is drafted at the moment is too broad. I believe that it can be fixed and then the group of people we are concerned about will be allowed to reapply for the P endorsement and in the right circumstances get it. The select committee made a particular error around section 134. That narrowly focused point can be fixed but this bill unfortunately has not got it right. The select committee will have the opportunity to get it right. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Sometimes one has to be big enough ugly enough and strong enough to say that one has stuffed up. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on that particular issue stuffed up—and stuffed up big time absolutely big time. Genuine people out there are hurting hugely as a result of what that select committee did or did not do. 
People might be wondering how the bill got through. I have to say that if we had been dealing with just this issue in the last bill New Zealand First would not have supported the bill at all. But it was just a small part of a clause of a major and important bill that had to get overall support so New Zealand First supported the bill overall and as a consequence it went through. 
I listened intently to Dr Wayne Mapp. I think he suffers a little bit from amnesia. He should check his facts. I have the bill as it was reported back from the select committee right here in my little hot hand and there is no appeal process in it no recommendation nothing. Let me say that New Zealand First—and I recognise the Greens particularly Mike Ward—said that that clause would cause problems. I will read the paragraph that was put in the commentary by myself on behalf of New Zealand First: “New Zealand First is concerned there is no appeal provision whatsoever for current drivers including those who might have been driving for many years and have subsequently led a responsible life and their crime is known to the public.” That was a huge concern that we tried to get the select committee members to pick up. I will give Wayne Mapp a little bit of credit because towards the end—I suppose I am out of order making reference to what goes on in select committee—Wayne said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Dr Wayne Mapp said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is a good friend of mine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sure he is. 
PETER BROWN 
: He said: “I can hear Peter standing on the election platform saying: ‘Those two tired old parties … da dee da dee da …’ about this issue.” So he did come onside to a degree and said that we had to look at it. There is a little sentence in there that says: “All members of the committee recommend that further consideration be given to this matter.” Wayne Mapp backed up New Zealand First and Mike Ward of the Greens on that to that end and that meant the appeal process was put into the Act by a Supplementary Order Paper as I recall. It did not do the job as we now know. 
I understand from the Minister that something like 200 people are affected by that provision. They are not all employed; 160-plus are employed and I ask the Minister whether that is correct. Nevertheless I know personally of a man and wife who are hurting. I shall outline his circumstances as he told me to feel free to tell the House what had happened to him but I will not use his name for good reasons. At 19 years of age he had a girlfriend who was 15¾ years old and they had a sexual relationship. Somebody potted them—I think a rival or someone—and he was taken to court and dealt with but not very harshly to be honest from what he told me. Twenty years later he wanted to be a bus driver a taxi-driver or some such driver and he went and got his P endorsement. That was 20 years after the offence. Ten years after that we took it away. Would Dr Mapp tell me that we did a good job? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No that has to be fixed. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know another case that my colleague in Christchurch has acquainted me with in quite some detail. If we were fair if we wanted to treat New Zealanders like genuine people we should recognise that some of those 200 people are law-abiding citizens. They might have committed some of those serious crimes in the past but by and large most of them will now be law-abiding citizens. What we should have done was acquaint them personally—as we have now—with a letter stating what we would do. They were entitled to know the legislation we were going to pass in a retrospective manner but we did not let them know. I think we should have made more of an effort along those lines. We have to start treating people like people. 
I understand that among those 200 people there were two murderers. I do not know whom they murdered and I do not know exactly the circumstances. But it might well be that one of those murders—I am not going to say it is acceptable—is understandable. It might well be that one of those people came home and for example found somebody in bed with his wife. Those could well be the circumstances and that person could now have a passenger licence and be driving a cab. In my view that person should be treated as an individual. From now on sure no murderers and nobody who has committed those serious crimes will be eligible for a licence but people who have a passenger licence and have driven for some time and who have been law abiding are entitled to have consideration. It is very very tough to have the rights of an appeal process removed retrospectively. That is something fundamentally wrong. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s not right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes I know my colleague is interested in that. The Minister of Corrections has been talking about rehabilitation but in this instance we are saying that people might well have been rehabilitated but we are still going to rob them of their livelihood without giving them any right to state their case whatsoever. Let me appeal to members’ inner feelings: is that fair? Does that reflect positively on our justice system? Never mind the crime—is it fair simply to wipe away people’s livelihoods when they might have been behaving in a law-abiding manner for years? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Murderers and rapists? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have given members an example of a murderer who would do no more harm to a passenger than I would. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: But the great irony is that if they had not actually quite killed him they would have got the right of appeal. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister makes a very good point. That is why I am saying we should treat those 200 people fairly. The number will not increase. We will not get more people than we have now in terms of retrospectivity. We should treat them as individuals and get the legislation right from now on. 
I should comment briefly on the bill itself. We are only too glad to see the issue go back to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because it is really hurting some people and it is making Parliament in some ways look quite ridiculous. But I do not think that the Minister has got it right. I recommend that we look at sentence-based assessment. In other words we want to restrict the P licence so that an older guy who has had a relationship with a 15-year-old has a different punishment from a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old who have had a relationship. There is quite a difference in those categories. We have to look at how seriously judges take the crime and we have to word the legislation so that we stop the real baddies and leave the moderates. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Are you then suggesting that something like a custodial sentence might be the requirement? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think a custodial sentence should be a starting point for working out where the dividing line is. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are delighted that this legislation will be reassessed. I say to my colleagues on the select committee that I know they will apply themselves with a good deal more conscientiousness than we perhaps did last time—do it once and do it right. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill and we do not want it to be watered down at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the way that other parties have proposed. The mistake that was made at the select committee was not an accident; it was the result of what happens too often with legislation in this House: that is a competition between parties—not the Greens—to see who can bash the criminals the hardest to see who can impose the longest sentences etc. and reason goes out the window as it did in the select committee consideration of this matter. However we heard from the previous speaker Peter Brown that New Zealand First had some qualms about the land transport legislation that it wrote into the report back. 
Our member on the select committee Mike Ward wrote some minority comments that indicate that we saw exactly what was coming. He said: “The Green Party strongly supports improving safety for taxi passengers and preventing unsuitable people from holding passenger endorsements. However the Green Party is concerned at the permanent and retrospective exclusions created by the new clause 29A. Under this clause someone who committed a serious offence in their teens served their time and has then led a blameless life for 20 or 30 years will lose their taxi licence with no possibility of reinstatement. The Green Party is uncomfortable with the potential for injustice especially when there is no evidence that such a blanket prohibition delivers a significant improvement in safety compared with alternatives. … The Green Party would prefer that clause 29A was qualified to allow such a person to hold a passenger endorsement where the Director is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future from the person concerned. This is a very high test and places heavy onus on the Director who would err on the side of caution. Failure to include even such a restrictive exemption provision means that we are elevating taxi-driving to a status well above such sensitive areas as early childhood education in terms of the standards we impose on those involved. In the Green Party’s view the main result will be to penalise a small number of individuals who have long since been rehabilitated while doing little to improve the safety of taxi passengers overall.” 
So the select committee would have known exactly if it had thought about it that what Mike Ward and the Green Party were saying was true and it has come to pass as we all know. We have all received letters from taxi-drivers and bus drivers who have been affected. I have received several. One letter that I received last night was from Dale McGhee who wanted it read out in Parliament. I will read part of it to give members an idea. “In 1965 I was 16 years old and had just left college and the girl I was with was 2 days away from her 15-year-old birthday. Consensual sex had taken place over a period of 6 months while we were together. On 27 January 1966 I was convicted at the District Court in Gisborne of having sex with a minor under 15.” 
 He went on to say that he has had no court convictions since then. “I have been happily married for 38 years with three children and two grandchildren. I am self-reliant on the income I was receiving from being an owner taxi-driver and have just purchased a new car and have pressing financial commitments to maintain. However as of 16 January 2006 I have no income coming in and have financial commitments to maintain like any other person owning their own business. I am sorely pressed financially and the stress is taking its toll on myself as well as on my marriage and family. I am in remission for cancer and have just had my clearance for the last 6 months. It has taken me 4 years to find the confidence to believe that I can beat this. I have the right to make a decent living for myself where I’m not dependent on the Government and a benefit to take care of me until I retire or otherwise.” He asked for prompt attention to address this matter for people such as him who paid their dues to the justice system back then and are now expected to pay again 40 years later for a misdemeanour that took place when fresh out of college. 
I think we have to look at that and apply what Mike Ward proposed which is in this amendment that discretion in the public interest and in the interests of public safety should be allowed by the Director of Land Transport. I think that this should apply to all offences. Of course the offence has to be taken into account which is what the bill proposes and also the time that has elapsed has to be taken into account which is in essence the other aspect of the Act that this bill is amending. For instance if it had a 10-year time period and 10 years have elapsed that should be taken into account. We do have to look at the overall situation. 
Of course we are not going to get a situation like Maurice Williamson referred to of Graham Capill coming out of jail and jumping into a taxi-driving job straight off. That is not what is envisaged by giving discretion to the director. The director can take all things into consideration. The offence could be murder; it could be anything. We have to look at it. That is the problem with the whole law and order criminal-bashing approach that goes on in this House. People can be rehabilitated. People who are guilty of any offence can be fully rehabilitated. Many are not rehabilitated of course. We have a high reoffending rate. As Mike Ward said discretion has to be exercised very conservatively and cautiously but we should not write off people. We have heard that 200 people have been affected by this. Many of those people might be good citizens. At least this bill is going some way to address the problem. 
I think the reason we made this mistake and similar mistakes in Parliament is that we have this law and order competition in the House which runs contrary to some of the things that have been said in the last few days in terms of our prison population such as how we have to focus on rehabilitation and that just having them all in jail might not be the best answer. We have to take into account things like the clean slate legislation that was passed by this Parliament which cleared the records of people who had committed minor offences more than 7 years ago. That was the good part of what this Parliament has done—trying to help people rehabilitate themselves and not penalise them for it. If we take as gospel particularly what some of the National members have said and what they will attempt to do no doubt in the select committee we are just balancing everything one way and one way only. 
Sure it may be that if it is applied to all offences now and again the Director of Land Transport in using that discretion will make a mistake and some crime might be committed by a bus driver or taxi-driver. We cannot guarantee perfection. It is the same with judges who decide on a sentence or a District Court judge who decides whether to convict. Mistakes are sometimes made; that is inherent in the justice system. We have to allow for mistakes to be made. But to penalise hundreds of people in case one mistake is made somewhere down the track as a result of exercising discretion is wrong. 
The way that MPs have responded to the publicity from many bus drivers and taxi-drivers around the country is very good and I really praise those people who have spoken out. It is often difficult if one had a court conviction many years ago. Many of one’s friends do not know about it and it is very brave of those people to come out at this stage and say they did have a conviction for carnal knowledge or whatever many years ago. 
The Green Party is very much on the side of using discretion and giving that power and authority to the Director of Land Transport. Of course Maurice Williamson cast aspersions on people in a similar job some years ago and he thought they could not be trusted to exercise discretion. But I think we do have to trust people in cases like this whether it be the Minister of Immigration exercising discretion in immigration matters ministerial discretion across a range of things or in this case the Director of Land Transport exercising discretion. We can even look at our own jobs as MPs. I am sure if we went back through the list of MPs who have sat in this House—I have not bothered to do so—we would find that many of them committed offences often serious offences but did rehabilitate themselves. 
Peter Brown 
: Make it confession time. Tell us what you have done. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I do not have any criminal convictions and I can state that quite honestly but some of my colleagues have criminal convictions. 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us about them. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Some have admitted them in the House. We have to look at our own role. We are in a very responsible position in making up the Parliament of this country. We do not ever have any restrictions on us in that way so I think we have to give discretion to public office holders to make those decisions. 
The Green Party will be supporting this bill in the select committee. We hope that the amendment goes through pretty much in its present form and that it is not made more restrictive. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I am going to ask you through this point of order may take a little time but I hope you noted that I actually waited until the honourable member had concluded his speech rather than interrupt him. 
My point of order is a matter on which I seek your guidance. I know that the Standing Orders demand that interjections should be rare reasonable and as our former colleague the Hon Geoff Braybrooke used to say hopefully witty. I also understand and accept the ruling that makes it impossible or difficult if not outlawed for members of the House who are in close proximity to the member on his or her feet to interject whilst he or she is speaking. You in fact brought me to order during the previous speech. Herein is my dilemma. Interjections themselves are not outlawed and it is possible through interjection to challenge members who are speaking on the points they are making or indeed to pose questions to them so that they may if they wish address those questions during their speech. If one is lucky enough not to be seated in as close proximity to the speaker as I am to the member who has just resumed his seat one can do that. However the ruling of the House is such that members who are in close proximity to a member on his or her feet are denied the opportunity to get their questions across through interjection. Had I not been required to sit where I am I could have done that but because I am sitting here I could not interject and therefore get my question across. 
So my point of order is that through you Mr Assistant Speaker I seek leave to have Mr Locke answer this simple question: if his party was so affixed to and so supportive of the clean slate legislation and the points he has just made right now why did his party through its clean slate legislation specifically stop offenders—people convicted of minor convictions such as carnal knowledge—from being clean-slated? They took charge of the minor misdemeanours like smoking marijuana—and we know why that is—but they did not address carnal knowledge which is the very problem we now face in the House and which they whitewash themselves of. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand the member’s dilemma when it comes to being able to interject but the member well knows that he cannot interject from where he sits because of the effect on the microphones and I accept that. But the issue he is raising now is really a debatable matter and of course that issue can be taken up during the course of the debate. The member can seek leave— 
Ron Mark 
: I can seek leave for the member to answer that question? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the member can certainly seek leave for him to answer that question. Is he so seeking leave? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes I am. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I understand it members cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. That is well-established in the House. One cannot seek leave for another member to do something; one can seek leave only for oneself. That is well-established. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 That is true and I understand that. I am seeking the leave of the House to ask Mr Locke and for the House to allow Mr Locke to answer this question: why if he is so concerned— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is asking leave for himself to ask a question. Whether Mr Locke answers is another matter. The member has sought leave from the House to ask Mr Locke a question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe ki a tatou e noho nei te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. My grateful appreciation to you and those of us as well seated about this House. 
] 
I stand on behalf of my Maori Party colleagues to commend Minister Harry Duynhoven for having the courage to identify an error in lawmaking and the commitment to follow through and address that error. It is an act of courage that we hope all members of the Government will learn from and we look forward to supporting them in addressing other errors of lawmaking that have occurred in this Parliament. In fact the Foreshore and Seabed Act which is another example of a legal catastrophe comes very easily to mind and this bill is a fantastic precedent. Like other errors of lawmaking made by this Parliament we know that that legislation has had a huge impact on human lives throughout Aotearoa. 
In the case of the Land Transport Act the evidence is undeniable that whanau have suffered because of the removal of the P endorsement from drivers of passenger service vehicles. In fact over the last 2 months we have also heard some fairly sad stories about the traumatic impact families have experienced as a result of the retrospective provisions of that Act. Like others who have spoken today we have heard of families being devastated by the impact of their fathers’ adolescent sexual exploits some 35 years earlier limiting their ability to put bread and butter on the table in 2006. 
We have heard of drivers who were convicted 40 years ago of having carnal knowledge being doubly discriminated against. They are now having to pay the price again by losing their livelihoods. We have heard of an owner-operator in Christchurch who has been happily married for 31 years and who lost his licence for 6 months back in 1973 after he and a group of young boys he was with at the time were arrested on charges of sexual assault. He is being penalised again 33 years after the original charge. 
To that end the Maori Party is looking for some action. For our part we have taken up each and every one of our constituents’ concerns with the Minister for Transport Safety asking him to revisit the legislation in order to prevent any further distress for workers and families. Although my earlier remarks might have commended the Minister for bringing this case to the House the tragedy is that it has taken this Government so long to act. 
Yesterday the member for Te Tai Hauauru brought to the attention of this House the repeated and unjustifiable delays that have characterised the inefficiency of the Crown Law Office. We talked about that yesterday. Later this afternoon if I get a chance I will talk about the incompetence and reckless inaction of other Crown agencies in relation to the business of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. 
With this bill we are considering the inexcusable delays that families have suffered from and the nature of the Government’s response to the error of its lawmaking. When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee presented its report on 18 April 2005 there was unanimous agreement for goodness’ sake by all members of the committee that further consideration should be given to the matters in this bill. Why did it take 10 months to listen and to act? What part of “unanimous” has created uncertainty? 
It reminds me of a song and at this hour of the day we might need to listen to me sing. It goes something like this: 
Cab driver once more ‘round the block 
Never mind the tickin’ of the clock. 
I will stop there just in case members want me to carry on. The ticking of the clock I am sure has been on the minds of the children the dependants and the family members who stand to lose their livelihoods. All of that has been compromised by the way that this bill has arrived at this point in time. 
Now the key concern for the Maori Party is something like this. Who will compensate those who have been affected through jobs being lost and licences being revoked? We support this legislation to provide an opportunity for the people affected by this bill to seek approval for a P endorsement in the future despite their convictions. We do so in the interests of families and whanau who have the most to lose but in doing so we strike a note of caution. 
The Maori Party in supporting this bill nevertheless retains its position that people convicted of specified serious offences such as murder or sexual and violent offences should be prohibited from carrying passengers. We have a whakatauki that guides us in this matter: ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi engari he toa takitini. 
[ 
my bravery is not that of the individual but rather of the multitude. 
] 
The strength of the collective is the main concern. The best interests of the widest group must prevail. Any question about previous offending of an individual that threatens the well-being of the group must therefore be given careful consideration. 
We are also very conscious of the silent voices over the course of the last 10 months—the victims of the original crimes. Whether it be 10 20 or 30 years ago they will have a perspective that we think needs to be heard. 
There are complex issues associated with this legislation that we hope will be raised in the discussion during the select committee process. What is the nature of compensation that can be given to families who have been compromised by the effects of the provisions of this Act? Will the individuals who have been affected by this unjust law be entitled to a formal apology? How will victims of the so-called lower-level sexual offences which feature at the core of this new bill have an input into the discussion around measuring the scale of the offence? This bill is all about responding to the consequences of earlier actions and the resulting effect it may have on whanau. 
Finally we think of the philosophy behind the korero: he moana ke ta matawhanui he moana ke ta matawhaiti. 
[ 
the saying: the sea of the prudent and that of a rash one. 
] 
We must always think of the big picture. One accepts that some might say that those crimes were committed way back and we should move on. But do not forget that the crime was committed. The overriding factor influencing us in the Maori Party in supporting this bill is that public safety and security must not be compromised whilst at the same time we must protect the life chances of those family members who were placed at risk. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In passing the Land Transport Act in June 2005 Parliament as is now clear passed an unjust law. Dr Wayne Mapp made the comment that only a small group of people have been penalised as a result of that law. But I want to say that when it comes to measuring an unjust law even if the result is a serious injustice for one person it is one person too many. On behalf of United Future I want to extend our thanks to the Hon Harry Duynhoven who came back from his summer recess to put this matter right for the prompt action he has taken in bringing this matter back to Parliament. We do need to face up as promptly as we can to the consequence of our actions and to put it right. As Alan Martin of L V Martin and Son was fond of saying on television: “It’s the putting right that counts.” 
Other speakers have already set out in graphic terms why the law we passed last year was unjust. We seem to have forgotten a few basic things about the justice system—for example that the punishment should fit the crime. Obviously if a man who was convicted as a teenager for carnal knowledge - type offences and who at that time took his punishment whatever it was like a man is unable 30 years later to continue his means of livelihood for himself and his family then we really have done something seriously wrong and unjust to those people. It is not just the loss of a licence of course that is a serious matter for these people but also there is the sheer embarrassment of having to own up after so many years to what we would regard in many cases as a fairly minor indiscretion and one about which probably the majority of New Zealanders would say: “The only difference between him and me is that I wasn’t caught.” But of course it is also having to break that news to a wife to children to friends and to neighbours. All of that I think has caused those people a lot of grief and a lot of sorrow. I was not a member of the select committee that considered this bill and I was not personally aware of this issue for that reason but I was a member of the Parliament and I would like to say at this stage that I am sorry for the difficulty we have placed these people in; I think we should say that. 
Of course when Parliament makes a mistake I have a philosophy in life that the only mistake we make is one we do not learn from. 
 We as a Parliament need to look at this exercise to see where the mistake was made. For example I think that this law breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act talks about double jeopardy and justice for New Zealand and for its citizens. There are people whose full-time job is to advise this Parliament whether it is about to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In the aftermath of this event we should ask what happened and where the safeguards broke down. I do not remember for example getting a note from the Attorney-General on this matter. There are some real questions to be asked about the process and about whether we should look at it. I specifically said the other day at the Business Committee that I would like the select committee to look at that issue because it seems to me that we need to be careful that we do not continue down that track and make the same mistake again. That truly would be tragic. There comes a point when it becomes almost unforgivable. We must learn to do better. 
I will also mention the distinction that others have drawn between people who as teenagers committed what in the old days—when I was a young person—were called crimes of carnal knowledge and the people involved in crimes between say a 45-year-old and a 13-year-old. In all the cases that have been mentioned it was surmised that the 45-year-old was a male and the 13-year-old was a female. There are two points that I will make. First here we are talking about paedophilia which is very different from carnal knowledge. Some of the speakers have made the point that one of the review criteria that should be in the Act—it is in the bill—is the sentence imposed by the court when that person was convicted of the original crime. The distinction between carnal knowledge for example and paedophilia will be reflected quite clearly in the kind of sentence that the court imposed in that situation. 
The member Steve Chadwick said that we need to protect the women and girls of this country who might be in taxis and in other situations where they could be vulnerable to people who have committed those sorts of crimes. She is right to make that point and I agree with her entirely. But I am also concerned about boys in that situation. When I look at the figures on paedophilia very often the victim is a boy. As far as I am concerned we need to protect all of our citizens regardless of whether they are male or female against people of that kind. 
With those remarks I think it is good that we as a Parliament are putting right the grave error we made. As I have said—and I would just like to summarise—let us also take the opportunity to learn from the experience and try to get it right next time. United Future will be supporting the first reading of this bill. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 2006. ACT as will I think every other party in this House will support the passage of the bill to a select committee and hopefully further on. 
It is always unfortunate when people who have committed minor offences often decades ago receive extraordinarily harsh treatment further down the track. The Minister for Transport Safety I am sure will correct me if I am wrong but I think that about 200 people have been affected and 160 of those people who were in employment have subsequently lost their jobs. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: 160 who have a licence. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you. Those people’s lives have been affected. Those people’s families’ lives have been affected. We have all received the letters and we have all seen the people interviewed on television on radio and in the newspapers. I spoke to a Rotary club in January and one man at question time asked me how 121 MPs could have got this so badly wrong. He was not familiar with the select committee process and the passage of law. But we all have to take some responsibility. We all get the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of a bill and we all get the opportunity at select committees—maybe not voting rights but the opportunity—to take part in the legislative process. Although blame has been apportioned to this particular select committee we also need to remember that select committees and MPs must look at the quality of the advice they are given at the time. 
 So we have heard any number of examples of people affected by the unintended consequences of the legislation. Although we have had a lot of discussion about the specifics relating to this bill we should spend some time looking at the wider issue of unintended consequences of legislation. Of the two that spring to my mind one is a bill that was introduced to the House yesterday and is a second amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000. The current amendment affects independent contractors’ rights to re-employment when the main contract changes. The other one which probably had the most publicity was the Holidays Act 2003 which had to be quickly amended in 2004 to fix a number of issues with employers paying holiday pay. So this is not an isolated case. There frequently are unintended consequences not only of our lawmaking but also of proposed legislation. As MPs we need to think very carefully about what those unintended consequences might be. It is important particularly when we are looking at rushing legislation quickly through this House as we frequently do under urgency. 
We have had a lot of discussion too about what might happen when this legislation moves through to a select committee. Just about every speaker has referred to the fact that the amendment bill is not tidy enough yet and that there is a lot of discussion yet to go on. We have heard a lot of talk too about the grey areas and that of course is where the difficulties will arise. As for the explanatory note I too like Mr Williamson was going to highlight the point that the director will be required to consider expanded criteria but also will be required to look at tightened criteria. I hope that once the bill gets to a select committee all of those issues will be explored very carefully and that the advice given will be pertinent advice that has been given a lot of thought. 
We have heard from various speakers. ACT does not have a representative on the committee so we will be reliant on other members to look at the issues carefully and to consider them carefully. The issues of compensation of course must be addressed. I would have thought there would be some discussion about whether compensation should be issued. An appeal process which does not currently exist under the Act in place will be looked at and there has been some very sensible discussion I thought on sentence-based assessments which was talked about by firstly Mr Peter Brown and also discussed by the United Future leader. The discretion of the director will also be explored in some detail I should have thought. I am not sure whether the Minister really does want to expand the criteria or whether he wants to tighten them. But the role of the director will be vital in determining for the future who can and cannot hold P licences. 
So I look forward to seeing this bill tidied up. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: If you actually read the words you will see that both “expand” and “tighten” are correct. Read them in the context they are in. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am reading them directly as they are printed— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It’s a cheap shot. Read it properly. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is not a cheap shot. It is actually my point if I might be allowed to express it. There is still some tidying up to do and the Minister himself in fact agreed and I think every party has agreed that some tidying up of this legislation is necessary. It is very easy to sit in a select committee or in this House and forget that people’s lives are impacted directly by our actions. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Only if you are out of touch like you are. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Cosgrove seems to think he is immune from that. That is very very revealing and that of course is why he sits on the other side of the House. Those of us on this side take very carefully our responsibility to consider the implications of our lawmaking. I look forward to this bill moving speedily through the select committee process and the House so that those 160 people whose licences have been removed from them are able to move on with their lives and back into paid employment. They certainly were managing very well before this law came in. They are now dependent on welfare for their livelihood. For their families and themselves that is very distressing. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: The goodwill of their businesses may have been destroyed. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Exactly and some of the emails and letters I have received point that out very specifically. It is always very difficult to get right the balance between safety of our citizens and fairness and again I think all parties have acknowledged that. It is a fine line but one that I am sure can be achieved if the proper process is gone through if the advice that the select committee gets is good and if the select committee considers carefully as I have said all the options available. 
ACT is pleased that this amendment bill has come before the House. We have assured the Minister of our support. We have written to him to say that. In fact we have written to each of the people who have written to us about their concerns regarding the injustices—usually to themselves but some of them have written on behalf of other people—to assure them also that we as a party will be very supportive of legislation to correct this unintended consequence. ACT is very pleased to support this bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 With the exception of those who are new to Parliament this term every single member of this House voted for the legislation. It is interesting; being part of this debate is like going to a confessional: “I didn’t know what I was doing and how stupid was that select committee and how stupid was the Committee of the whole House.” 
Let me just read out the list of crimes that we are talking about that the previous Parliament decided should prevent someone from getting a taxi or bus licence. They include the following offences: sexual violation; assault with intent to commit sexual violation; inducing sexual connection by coercion; incest; sexual connection or attempted sexual connection with a dependent family member under 18; meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming; sexual connection or attempted sexual connection or indecent act with a child under 12; sexual connection or attempted sexual connection or indecent act with a young person under 16; indecent assault on another person; exploitative sexual connection; compelling another person to commit an indecent act with an animal; bestiality; sexual conduct with children outside New Zealand; organising or promoting child sex tours. That is the list of offences. They have been described by most members today as minor. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not all of them. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Not all of them they say. Well when the House and the select committee were confronted with that list—and given that we knew that the length of sentence for those convictions was something like 7-plus years potentially—nobody in this House said they were minor sexual offences. It is great to be wise after the event but if we look at the offence that people are talking about—sexual connection or attempted sexual connection or indecent act with a person under 16—we see that it does not have two categories within it. One was either convicted of that or one was not. I presume it is what Graham Capill was convicted and imprisoned for and I have not seen anybody jumping up in this House and saying he should be able to drive kids in a taxi or a bus when he gets out of jail. 
So let us just think about this in its correct context. The public were very upset and rightfully so that people who had committed very serious offences were getting taxi licences and bus licences in this country. Some of them had got those licences even though the Director of Land Transport had said they should not. They had challenged in the courts his decision not to give them a P endorsement and the courts had seen fit to allow them to drive. The public said they did not accept that. There were some well-publicised cases of taxi and bus drivers who had committed some very serious offences against their passengers. So Parliament decided unanimously to do something about it. 
The question that the select committee grappled with was where to draw the line. Do we do it retrospectively or do we do it just for people who want to come into the industry afresh? Parliament and the select committee decided to make it retrospective—unanimously. The problem the select committee had was that we felt it might be unfair to some people who had had a blameless life but for one conviction 30 years ago for one of those crimes. The select committee after grappling with that week after week and attempting to get a proper appeal procedure did not get it in the time that the committee had to deal with this bill so in its report it asked Parliament and the Minister to consider putting in an appeal procedure by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
That happened. The entire House had a chance to debate it and understand it. It is clear from today’s debate that a lot of members did not bother. I did and I understood what it meant. I understood that that is what the public wanted and that is what Parliament wanted—and that is why we voted for it unanimously. 
However we do not always get it right. Some people have popped up and spoken about their being caught in the net for what they did 30 years ago and they think that is unfair. It is only right that Parliament recognises that the line was drawn for those people in the wrong place. That is what this bill is about. 
But let us not get all self-righteous about it and say that the select committee mucked up and did not know what it was doing. Gordon Copeland raised the issue of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The select committee asked for a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act clearance and we were told by the officials that the bill was within the Act. We thought of that. We thought of other issues relating to crimes committed in the past that if they were committed today would not be against the law because the law has changed over time. 
We now have a bill that attempts to fix the problem for a very small number of people. The question is whether we as a Parliament believe as the last Parliament did that it should be extended. That is what the bill raises questions about and that is what the select committee will have to grapple with in the short space of time it has to deal with this matter. I say to the House that in the short space of time the committee does have we may not be able to sort out the matter absolutely perfectly. So the Committee stage of this bill will be very very important. Members will have to make a decision whether people with convictions for the crimes I have read out should be driving kids in a school bus. If members decide that it should be up to the system to decide well that is what the bill outlines. The bill states that if people want to appeal against their licence being taken off them or if having one of those convictions they want to apply for a licence they will have to put their case to the director under a very strict set of guidelines. If the director still says that those people should not have a licence they will have to convince a High Court judge that they should have a licence. That is what the bill states now. It is something that the select committee attempted to get as an appeal procedure when we grappled with the bill for weeks and weeks last year. 
I think it is important that we redress imbalances in the law if inadvertently we draw the line in the wrong place. The difficulty is that there is no line in section 138 of the Crimes Act 1961; it is quite straightforward. There is no line in section 134; it is quite straightforward. But people who were convicted of what was described as carnal knowledge would today be convicted of sexual connection or attempted sexual connection or indecent act with a young person under 16. There is a grey area between those whom we would say are genuine paedophiles and those who as 16-year-old boys slept with their 15-year-old girlfriends. But that is the difficulty that the select committee could not overcome when the bill was before us. Hopefully this House the Committee and the select committee which will have to grapple with this afresh will get it right this time. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I believe that we are in the House today—listening to some rather defensive speeches from the Government I have to say—as a result of some pretty poor lawmaking. It is poor because it was unjust retrospectively. I do not think we should get into the blame game in this House. 
In a press statement the Land Transport New Zealand spokesman a man named Andy Knackstedt said that the legislation had taken 3 years to put together and that any further change would not happen quickly. He said that Land Transport New Zealand sympathised with people like Mr Harrison whom the article was about but that: “we are simply administering the law on behalf of the Government”. I think that is an arrogant comment from one of the officials who is implementing the law and it shows no understanding of the difficulties that we have heard about in the House today. 
It took 3 years to put the legislation together. We have heard Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members talk about the difficulties they had in trying to find an equitable and just solution. Yet the Land Transport New Zealand spokesman said quite glibly that any changes would not happen quickly because it took so long to get it right—or wrong—in the first place. I understand absolutely the concerns for passenger safety and that the changes were sought to prevent undesirable people from holding licences. None of us wants murderers rapists and sexual predators driving taxis or school buses or driving the public at large but with 3 years’ work and the scrutiny of this Parliament how did we get it so wrong that on 16 January decent citizens were left with no job and no recourse in law? 
The problem for this House is that we are not talking about figures; we are talking about real people. I like other MPs have had visits from people in my electorate. I will not further embarrass them by mentioning names but I have a note here with details of a gentleman who was convicted in 1966. Since that date 40 years ago he has had no further conviction made against him. He has been happily married for 38 years and has two children and two grandchildren. He has been a taxi-driver for 20 years and every year he has renewed his P endorsement— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Every 5 years. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Every fifth year he has had to go through the process again. All of a sudden he received a piece of paper that told him he could not drive his taxi any more. He wrote: “I am sorely pressed financially and the stress is taking its toll. I have no income coming in and I have financial commitments to maintain like any other person owning their own business.” 
 What happened in the 3 years it took to put that legislation together? I understand that 300 people with P endorsements were applying on a regular basis to be relicensed. Who spoke up for them when that legislation was being put together? Who raised the problem and said: “We need to deal with this; it’s a difficult issue.”? The appeal provisions were revoked under the legislation. Did that not ring any bells for those highly paid bureaucrats? 
A second case that I have in my electorate concerns a gentleman who said that he had committed a crime more than 40 years ago. He is now 65. He cannot even remember what happened as a consequence. He remembers getting into trouble he remembers police and courts but it is so long ago and he has moved on. He wrote: “This has affected my main source of income my marriage my family security and stability within the home as there are accounts to pay and a family to feed.” He is 65 years of age and he has suddenly found himself without an income to support his family. Unfortunately he is still awaiting a response from his local MP whom he contacted in January and he came to me even though he is not on the general roll. Knowing I was coming to Parliament he sent me an email that said: “Remind them we are now in the second month that I have had no income coming into my house.” 
I also have correspondence from the New Zealand Taxi Federation which says the same thing: “In some cases the people affected have led blame-free and highly productive lives for many decades. They are devastated and disbelieving that the retrospective provisions of an Act of Parliament could do this to them.” People have been coming through my colleagues’ offices with similar stories. The Bus and Coach Association talked about 30 drivers losing their P endorsements for convictions relating to section 134 of the Crimes Act. Those are real people whose families are suffering. The Minister in his introductory speech talked about “a few individuals” but those few individuals rely on this Parliament to ensure they have the ability to live their lives having served their time in a productive way. 
I had to recommend to one of those gentlemen who came to see me that he go to Work and Income in order to see whether he could receive income support. This is what he said to me about having to do that: “I wish to inform the powers that be that make these decisions as representatives of the people that for the amount of money they are paid to make sure people like myself do not sponge off the system they sure make it easy to sit back down and become a statistical leech again.” He does not want to be a Work and Income beneficiary. He wants to work as he has done in the taxi industry when he supported himself and his family for 20 years. Those people asked for a very simple amendment to the Act. The New Zealand Taxi Federation asked that we have a look at the changes that were made last time and perhaps make a small clarification to section 29A(3)(b) which has been talked about and which describes a sexual crime and that maybe we differentiate between the two or that we look at section 29B(1)(a) where it talks about either section 29A(3)(a) or section 29A(3)(b) which is the problem one and instead get rid of only the murderers and perhaps have all the rest—listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 29A(3)­­­­—able to go back to the director. 
What did we get in response to the request from those people in the Taxi Federation and the Bus and Coach Association? We got the amendment that we are debating today which has gone way too far so that now we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and we will now allow murderers rapists and sexual predators to ask the director to reinstate their P licenses. That is way over the top. National wants what the Taxi Federation asked for which is a small adjustment to take account of people who committed what was essentially a minor crime. We want Parliament to look at how the courts dealt with those crimes 30 and 40 years ago which was by giving a discharge or a very minor sentence to those who have lived exemplary lives ever since. 
This bill has to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to be tidied up but I say to the Minister that this is taking place under his watch and he is responsible for ensuring that those people are able to get back to work. But I have to say that I am delighted to hear colleagues like Te Ururoa Flavell from the Bay of Plenty and ACT’s Heather Roy talking about recompense. In his press release about the legislation the Minister said: “We want to make sure the Act allows people to continue their employment as passenger service drivers.” Well I have news for the Minister. Some of those people have lost their jobs have had to sell their taxis and have had to move out of their business. It is too late for them and recompense should be considered for them and their families. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 that the committee finally report on the bill by 10 March 2006 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 to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 15 February. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is a resumption of debate in response to the statement that the Prime Minister made on Tuesday and a number of speakers from all sides of the House have preceded me in making comments on her statement. One of the clear themes that has emerged is that of improper spending by the Government in order to win the last election and almost half a million dollars is involved. Perhaps that is small beer by United States standards but New Zealand has never before seen the likes of such excesses. 
I do not wish to deal in any further detail with those issues which have been traversed by others but personally I was disappointed that the Prime Minister in her statement on Tuesday deliberately chose to say nothing about the important issue of access to justice. Perhaps the commitment that the Government earlier made has been abandoned. I certainly hope not because the present Government in the last session identified as one of the two justice sector outcomes: “A fairer more credible and more effective justice system” as “Being a system in which people’s interactions are underpinned by the rule of law and justice services are more equitable credible and accessible”. I would like in the short time that I have available to talk about the issue of access to justice. That is the Government’s laudable objective but in fact there has been a substantial shortfall in its fulfilment. The two illustrations of that—which are blatant—relate to first of all issues relating to court fees and access to justice and second issues relating to legal aid rates and access to justice. 
On the first issue it is not that the entities of Parliament have been reluctant to tackle the issue of court fees and I refer in particular to the work of the Regulations Review Committee. To put the issue in context it is really no more complicated than this. In 2001 under the present Government regulations set new fees for civil proceedings in the Court of Appeal in the High Court in the District Court and in the disputes tribunals. Most of the fees increased under the regulations and the increases ranged in magnitude up to an astonishing 650 percent. 
Anne Tolley 
: 650 percent? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Six hundred and fifty percent. For example in the High Court a fee for filing proceedings increased from $120 to $900. In the District Court a fee for filing proceedings increased from $50 to $120. That was in 2001. But the Government was determined to do worse so in 2004 a further set of regulations imposed further swingeing increases. 
The Government may dismiss those matters airily but I do not think that in constitutional terms they can be so readily dismissed. The issues directly relate to access to the courts which is a clear constitutional principle. I believe that the right of access to the courts ranks as one of the universally recognised fundamental principles and of course it is also a fundamental human right codified in New Zealand law by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is a right that underlies the promotion and protection of all other rights. In order to promote and protect the right of access to justice the Government has a duty to provide the necessary machinery for the realisation of that right and to make the machinery affordable. There cannot be if the rule of law is important anything other than equal access to the courts and access to the courts should not be determined by one’s financial means. 
There is a line “The courts are open to everyone—like the Ritz Hotel” and the sadness behind that line is that for those who are wealthy access to the courts in terms of cost is no barrier. Of course for those who are not rich legal aid should be freely available. For those in the middle there are often significant challenges. So although barriers to access to justice already exist for many people the Government has a duty to ensure those barriers remain minimal. The court system is founded on the principle that all people must be equal before the law and all must have access to the law. The contribution that makes to the maintenance of a stable and civil society lends weight to the case that the State has a responsibility to ensure access. 
A wealth of decided court authority and decided case law from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom New Zealand the European Court of Human Rights and Canada accepts that the right of access to justice is a fundamental principle. But that is not the case in New Zealand it would seem—or in any event not in New Zealand under this Government. So we now await a decision of this Government on the outcome of clear recommendations made by the Regulations Review Committee as to what should be done about the level of court fees. That is against the background that the Regulations Review Committee a non-partisan committee of this Parliament including Labour members and—as Dr Mapp has said—excellently chaired came to the unanimous view that a review of the regulations that set civil court fees should be undertaken. Why should it be undertaken? Because quite clearly the committee concluded that the fee increases the Government has embarked upon have a demonstrable effect on the use of the court and constitute a barrier to access to justice. That is one illustration— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The former Attorney-General grins about it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I am not sure whether that is so; it may in fact be a smirk of guilt rather than a grin of satisfaction. 
Let me take up a second illustration. It is more recent and in some ways one could argue more significant. It relates to the whole issue of legal aid. The issue of legal aid has been before the Justice and Electoral Committee in terms of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) which is shortly to be reported. In that legislation there is a substantial hole which is that the Government has refused to address the need to fairly remunerate lawyers who undertake legal aid work. So it is again an example of a barrier that the Government is not prepared to deal with—a barrier that exists to accessing justice. 
One of the things that the committee was told in its financial review of the Ministry of Justice on 2 February—just a few days ago—was that no consideration of legal aid rates would be considered until after the bill was passed. The Prime Minister said that well it was a Budget item. Of course it is a Budget item. It is an issue that touches the civil purse in that further funding is required. What was of concern to a number of members on the committee was that the work done by ministry officials to date indicated that because there was no shortage of legal aid lawyers ready to undertake legal aid work at the current rates there was simply no problem. Now I am not sure whether the naivety of the officials can be visited on this Government but clearly that view is stark in its naive and facile approach to a readily apparent injustice. 
There is a very compelling case for substantial increases in legal aid remuneration rates. The current rates are effectively as they were in 1996 and are well short of the rates paid by the State for other types of legal services. I would say it is scarcely satisfactory on any view of it that legal aid remuneration rates have remained unchanged since then. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 What a typical National Party speech that was! What did that speech call for? It called for more spending on courts and more spending on lawyers. The legal profession is the only profession in the country that can print all the customers it can make. It is the only profession I know that can create whatever supply it wants to meet its demand. Now National members say the Government should spend millions and millions of dollars more on subsidising civil litigation in the courts and on subsidising legal aid for the very crims they say when they give these speeches in the House they want to lock up before they have even had a trial by and large. 
Yet members opposite have been saying the Government is spending too much money. Speaker after speaker gets up from the Opposition bench and calls for more money. Last night Tau Henare called for more money to be spent on kindergartens. Today Dr Richard Worth called for more money to be spent on lawyers and on courts. As if the poor man did not earn enough before he came into this House! He wants more subsidies to come from low-income taxpayers. National wants less money spent on low-income New Zealanders—as in Working for Families—and more money for lawyers. That is the National Party approach to social equity. I am sure Mr Finlayson will unburden himself of similar precise and precisely expressed views at some point during this Parliament. 
On this side we have a Government with a clear vision. First is economic transformation which means building this country growing productivity working harder and doing more—not like the Leader of the Opposition who since December has put out a total of four press statements. Jacqui Dean has done 2½ times as many press statements as the Leader of the Opposition and most people think Jacqui Dean is something one finds under a bush somewhere in Christchurch. Second is security and opportunity for our families young and old. Third is national identity which does not mean crawling on one’s knees all the way to the Pentagon or the White House to find out what one is supposed to do next. We want proud New Zealanders living in a country of security and opportunity that is the best country in the world to live in. 
 And what is the alternative? A stale tired Opposition with stale tired old policies. If we look at National now in terms of policy we see it is Ruth Richardson without the charm and Roger Douglas without the eloquence. One has to go as far back as that in our politics to find the policies that National is supporting at the present time. Where are all those new young eager MPs opposite like Mr Auchinvole who were bursting with enthusiasm and adolescence as they came into this place but already are tired jaded and taking on the impression of their own leader at the present time? 
All that National members want to do is cut taxes. Why? Because they will be better off if they cut taxes. When we put the tax rate up did they work any less? Unfortunately I have destroyed my argument—yes they did. But did anybody else in New Zealand work any less hard? No they did not. When National cut taxes in the mid-1990s did a single one of them work harder? No they certainly did not. 
National wants to deregulate everything in sight especially the labour market. Of course the main reason why Australians workers are better off than Kiwi workers is that they have a more regulated labour market and therefore a stronger ability to extract a share of the economy. New Zealand profits have risen at an enormous rate in recent years as the economy has grown and Dr Brash says that is bad. Well that is not why he was paid money before the election by his big-business mates and the Exclusive Brethren—to come in here and start parading some form of top-down socialism and to say we should actually be destroying profits in the private sector. 
 Then of course National members want to flog off State assets. They want to flog off every possible State asset they can get their hands on. They are supposed in the House to be concentrating on the economy. They said: “It’s the economy stupid.” looking in the mirror yet when they get in here they follow every little byway and highway the can find about State spending in terms of political publicity. They themselves of course have had their noses deep in that trough over many many years. 
But of course what we also find out is that National members have no principles at all. This afternoon Mr Brownlee produced a paper called  
National’s Relationship with Maori 
. National had a fourth principle. Their fourth principle was to bash ethnic minorities particularly Maori. They said: “Don’t worry about the Maori vote because no self-respecting Maori votes National.” Some used to. This afternoon a National member—I cannot remember whether it was Dr Brash or which one it was—was so ignorant as to start referring to Ngati Porou as though somehow they were traditional Labour Party mates. Well I have news for members opposite: Ngati Porou used to be strong supporters of the National Party by and large but it managed to burn them off. The last iwi left in terms of supporting the National Party is now—[ 
Interruption 
] I have to tell members that Api Mahuika turns up to Labour Party functions. Indeed some senior members of Ngati Porou are pretty active in support of my good friends Parekura Horomia and Moana Mackey in terms of the East Coast and we are working hard with them on foreshore and seabed issues. 
But now Mr Brownlee fresh from his long experience in te reo—he was the Maori teacher at St Bede’s College— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No he wasn’t. He was the woodwork teacher. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He was the woodwork teacher but I understand that when they ran out of wood he used to teach a bit of Maori on the side as well. Is that right? I think that is what he claims these days in terms of his record. 
Mr Brownlee is not all that happy because although National used to go on and on about race-based funding and too much money going to Maori he has had a great road to Damascus experience. He has suddenly discovered that when one looks at the needy in New Zealand one finds they are disproportionately Maori. So if we are going to focus funding on the needy we end up focusing money disproportionately on Maori. This has been an epiphany—I think that is the technical word in this particular context. Of course we can see that that is stunning to members opposite. Mr Auchinvole thinks the needy are in fact business people and lawyers. He is a bit surprised to find out they are basically not Pakeha. This has come as a shock to him. He has acquired his accent after many years of practice having been born in Glasgow and now he finds out he has to speak with a slightly different accent because Mr Brownlee is telling him some different things about life. 
But also National members have been talking about the foreshore and seabed legislation. Do members remember what they said? They said it was to be opposed because it did not do enough to protect the Crown’s interest in the foreshore and seabed. But then after the election they started talking to the Maori Party and now they are saying some very interesting things. Mr Brownlee states: “The Maori party are talking about putting up a private members bill to repeal the act. I’m not convinced they will do it. However we need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.” So on the fundamental issue of New Zealand’s sovereignty the nature of New Zealand our identity and our right to access to the foreshore and seabed Mr Brownlee sticks a wet finger up in the air—hoping to miss some of his colleagues on the way—and tries to work out which way the wind is blowing and that will determine how National votes in this House. 
It is no wonder that when National members go on in this House about supposed misuse of public funds one is reminded that the National Party rests upon the fidelity of Mr McCully the loyalty discretion and silence of Mr Williamson the intelligence of Mr Brownlee the eloquence and rhetoric of Dr Brash and of course Dr Mapp. Since Christmas Dr Mapp has managed to put out one press statement and so far has not hunted down a single example of political correctness. This afternoon his colleague was burbling on about something to do with drownings and Water Safety New Zealand and I suggest that he should have been taken outside and dealt with like a mislaid puppy at birth because of his views on taxation. This is the arrogant National Party which supposedly thinks it can sleepwalk and dream its way back to power in 3 years’ time in the meantime having kicked to death every possible coalition partner and support partner in the House. It is confident that come an election they will recognise the natural governors of society and will come forth and ensure that National can subtract and divide because the one thing it can never do in this country is multiply. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I think there must be something wrong with me because I keep feeling sorry for the Labour Party. I feel very sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister must be on the way out because the chief whip has given him such a crummy timeslot in which to speak. I feel very sorry for the Labour MPs on the back benches. In particular I feel very sorry for Maryan Street who is the best of the new MPs. She came into this House to do something for New Zealand. Instead throughout this debate Labour MPs have had to regurgitate the same third-rate uninspiring speeches. Even the Deputy Prime Minister had to. They were told that the key messages to emphasise were to talk about economic transformation celebrate national identity avoid doom and gloom and above all emphasise the leadership skills of “she who must be obeyed” the Prime Minister. 
Watching Labour MPs respond to the Prime Minister’s wooden address reminded me of the news broadcasts in the early 1980s showing the members of the Politburo mindlessly applauding their half-dead leaders like Leonid Brezhnev or Yuri Andropov. But what must have been most galling to Ms Street and other Labour MPs is that they were forced to laugh at the puerile contribution of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Let us face it Labour members loathe that person even more than his own party loathes him. 
Where is the Deputy Prime Minister going? He should sit down and take his medicine. In his “Walter Mitty” way Mr Peters probably sees himself as being like Ernest Bevin—Clement Attlee’s great Foreign Secretary. Labour members know however that he is really like Lord George-Brown—an embarrassment who will lurch from public relations disaster to public relations disaster and eventually end up in the gutter. 
Then Ms Street and her cohort had to pretend to be interested while the pontificating member for Ohariu-Belmont using his best archdeacon’s voice bored us all to tears with his usual lamentation about low standards of conduct. He conveniently overlooked the fact that the Prime Minister was able to give her address with minimal interruption whereas the Leader of the Opposition was yelled and screamed at by the Labour rabble on the other side the moment he got to his feet. They set the standard for this session and the chief Government whip should reflect on that. The member for Ohariu-Belmont has sold his soul for a Nissan Maxima self-drive car and minor ministerial office. Ohariu electors will not forget that they gave their party vote to National and their electorate vote to Mr Dunne in the expectation that he would support the National Party. In an eleventh-hour act of treachery he went back to his old Labour Party buddies and the Ohariu branch of the National Party will not let him forget it. 
In 1999 the Labour Party copied Tony Blair’s “New Labour” and mounted a campaign against sleaze. Seven years on this regime is being investigated by the police for misappropriating $400000 of public funds to advance its own political purposes. In fact to call this Government a regime is misleading. It is really a racket. New Zealand’s electoral law needs urgent review and I look forward to that review which will shortly be undertaken by the Justice and Electoral Committee. One major question will have to be how it is that Labour can misappropriate all this money for pledge cards and what sanctions there should be for this immoral behaviour. We send observers to monitor elections in Third World countries to ensure there is fairness yet the actions of this Labour Government are as disgraceful as anything done by Robert Mugabe. 
There is no point recounting the litany of double standards of this Government in the last 6 years; I have only a 10-minute speech. But there is one recent and particularly nauseating example of the Prime Minister’s double standards that I want to address. It concerns religious tolerance. Last week the Prime Minister criticised the  
Dominion Post  
for republishing Danish cartoons that ridiculed Mohammed. She expressed her concern that the publication did nothing to build understanding between communities. When it suits her the Prime Minister likes to come across as the very model of reason and tolerance. That was certainly the case last year when she went to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and it was certainly the case last week when she was communing with her socialist brothers and sisters overseas. 
In the aftermath of 9/11 the Prime Minister attended a mosque in an act of reconciliation and even wore a veil out of respect for Muslim sensibilities though that same respect was not shown to the late Pope John Paul II when she visited him. She goes to Ratana each year to pay homage to the prophet because the Ratana Church has for years supported the Labour Party. But where people from other religions have spoken out against her they have been subjected to abuse from her that is so extreme that the ayatollahs in Tehran would be proud of her efforts. The obvious example is her attack on the Exclusive Brethren whom she has described as the Taliban. The same thing can be said about her reactions to the Destiny Church and other religious groups that have criticised her. She even seems to have a problem with the Jewish faith. Last year her comments about Israel went far beyond diplomatic criticism and she was praised by Muslim radicals in the Middle East for her remarks. Her comments appear to have encouraged some depraved individuals to desecrate Jewish graves in the Makara Cemetery. 
So the Prime Minister is quite right to call for religious tolerance but she could show some herself. New Zealanders should be religiously tolerant because the right thing to do is to respect one’s neighbours’ beliefs or lack of them and not despise them simply because they hold beliefs that are contrary to one’s own. That is a principle to be applied consistently not just when it suits us. It is a principle that applies to the Ratana Church and to the way we deal with Islam the Exclusive Brethren and any other religious communities. 
Contrary to what the Prime Minister may think tolerance does not always mean silence. These are important times and we must as New Zealanders be able to discuss Islam in the modern world. It has been described as one of the world’s great religions. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has inspired great civilisations. But the sad reality of the matter is that it has also known periods when it has inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence and we have to confront that part of the Muslim world while it is going through that particular phase. New Zealanders have to be able to discuss these matters and not be bullied into silence by extremists and by thugs. 
It is also extremely important that religious tolerance should not be equated with being precious. People have the right to be irreverent and to poke fun. For example I saw nothing wrong with the film the 
 Life of Brian 
. Indeed I thought it was quite funny. But there is a line that has to be drawn. One can understand the offence taken at the Virgin in the condom display which many thought was offensive although our sensitive Prime Minister did not seem to think so—the double standard no doubt. 
Governments generally assume office with the best of intentions but the passage of time means that pragmatism becomes more important than principle. But never before has the double standard been so starkly on display as with this Government and the $400000 is a disgrace to New Zealand democracy. The other day I read the maiden speeches of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In between the usual smart alec comments the then MP for St Kilda talked about the struggle to find justice and to realise a moral purpose in politics. How is that to be reconciled with the $400000 theft? 
The Prime Minister concluded her maiden speech by saying that her greatest wish was that at the end of her time in the House she would have contributed to making New Zealand a better place. As late as last Tuesday she said she wanted to make a difference. As she comes to the end of her premiership beholds the scruffy administration she leads and thinks about “paintergate”“corngate” “Waitaki-gate” and now “pledge card - gate” she should reflect on the old saying that all political careers end in failure—and her failure is more spectacular than most. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 That was Chris Finlayson and I think he was referring with some lack of accuracy to the early points in the Prime Minister’s career. I suggest to him that it is good to consider the maiden speeches that are made in this House. The best advice I was given however was to regularly review one’s own maiden speech for the fine comments one makes. Mr Finlayson may recall the way in which only a few weeks ago he regaled this House with his views on the sad habit of so many members to get into personal attacks and abuse. I invite him to re-read his own maiden speech read the  
Hansard 
 of the contribution he has just made and perhaps have another think about his style in the House. 
Something that has been lacking from Opposition members in any of their contributions is the recognition of the great privilege it is for any of us to return to this House. I acknowledge what a privilege it is to have been re-elected as a Labour member of Parliament as part of a Labour-led Government and to be re-elected by my colleagues for a third term as a Cabinet Minister. This Government is making solid progress and will continue to do so. Yes it is good to know that Mr Finlayson has been taking some notice of that because some things do bear repeating. We are engaged in the economic transformation of this country because we want to have a strong enduring economy for our children and grandchildren. Yes we are indeed committed to our strong and unique national identity. Yes we do want to promote that to strengthen it and to celebrate it with New Zealanders. Why would we not want to? And yes families young and old are a strong focus of this country and this Government. We are committed to ensuring that more and more of our people young and old enjoy the security and the opportunities they deserve. 
So it is indeed a privilege to be back in my fifth term serving the good people of the south Waikato Taupo and Ruapehu districts as their local member of Parliament. It is great that despite the enormous trickery of the Opposition members—the members of the once-great National Party and of the never substantial ACT party—in their conning coercing and outright bribes New Zealanders were just too damn smart. In their wisdom they rejected the negativism divisiveness and shallowness that we have seen those members revisit day in and day out during this session. They said no to the National Party because New Zealanders as a people I think it is fair to say decided to support—as the Prime Minister said in her wide-ranging opening statement to Parliament—a Government that would continue to build on the solid progress that has been made grow the economy and drop the level of unemployment maintaining it at the lowest level in the Western World. That is something that the Opposition members are not interested in. We have not heard them comment on that. We have heard them call for more money for lawyers but they have said nothing about the celebration of more than a quarter of a million new jobs for New Zealanders—jobs that did not exist 6 years ago. 
We have invested in critical health services in education and in the police. We are proud to promote our rich culture and our unique identity which is a celebration of the diversity of New Zealand. We are proud of the work we are doing to protect our environment—which will continue—and to maintain our nation’s reputation as a principled independent and yes nuclear-free country. We have heard the latest gambit on that—the latest flip-flop. I do not believe a word of it. It would be nice to think that Murray McCully really meant it but we know that his mate Lockwood Smith certainly does not—he does not want a bar of it. We know that in my home town of Taupo there was a stoush over that one. Murray McCully said that National had to have a think about that issue because of where the votes are—a deeply principled National Party position just like Mr Brownlee’s paper tabled in the House today! Actually it was tabled because he did not want anyone to miss out given that it had been so widely leaked. There may have been a member who did not already have a copy. But boy have we seen the depth of principle of the National Party! I have never been a fan of Lockwood Smith but at least he stood up and said: “You do that and I’m gone.” Well I suppose that swung quite a few votes to Murray McCully. But I do not believe that although I would love it to be true. 
I think that what we saw during the election campaign was the same sort of puffery and self-righteous humbug we have seen over the last couple of days and it is what turns New Zealanders off National and ACT. It is nothing more than what we have seen over the nonsense about the use of parliamentary budgets on material to talk about policy. 
Shane Ardern 
: Tell us about your credit card. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member opposite is squeaking about credit cards. The member knows—he has put out newsletters as has his colleague Katherine Rich. They have put out large amounts of material stating what their party would do if they ever got back into Government. It is not likely to happen; it is pretty fictional to be true. But the member knows that that is typical of the sort of material that has been circulated. 
I am absolutely gobsmacked that the member and the member’s party have learnt nothing. That is not what New Zealanders want from the once-great National Party. They want to see a demonstration of a party that has some substance and frankly we have seen no evidence of that at all. The once-great National Party—and I say that with difficulty but it is true; National was once great—is now nothing more than a repository for the shallow and for the negative whingers and the knockers and that is simply not the sort of future New Zealanders want. Most of all if we go back to Mr Brownlee’s paper we see the evidence of a party that is devoid of any defining principles at all in terms of its direction as to where it is going. The truth of the matter is that the wheels are falling off the National Party machine. As for ACT I think it is fair to say there is not much left of it except perhaps a worn-out— 
Hon Member 
: Needs a retread! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: A bit of a spare tyre. 
But let us look at the wonderful public relations extravaganza the National members had at Wairakei. It was a great choice of location—the best place in the country. They went into the heart of the central North Island in the Taupo electorate. They spent 3 days at Wairakei and I do hear that it was very successful from the point of view of the local golf course and the pubs and bars—they did very well. So there was some gain from the National Party’s presence. On day one what dominated every single news report of that great public relations exercise? Well it was the leadership. It was about a certain gentleman—what do they call him; something “velvet”? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “National Velvet”! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: “National Velvet”; that is right. He arrived and it did not look as though he was going to be the centre of attention. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That was the name of a horse. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It was too. But the member started to talk about someone bagging him—one of his senior colleagues and he was not going to mention names. I thought through it. I thought of Mr Brownlee. No it is not his style. Obviously Bill English was a definite contender. But I actually think that Paul Swain got it right. My former ministerial colleague has taken the good sense to look after his daughter and to take a bit more time to reflect. I think he got it right: I think John Key leaked because the one thing John Key had to have was the headline that day at Don Brash’s expense. 
I certainly say this to Don Brash although I am running out of time and there is much more I could have said. “Bill English has my full support.” said Don Brash in April 2003. “There has been nothing which you would call a coherent or organised plot.” he said in April 2003. Do members know what John Key stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
in October last year? “There is no grand master plan behind the scenes like we go after him after six months.” In May 2003 Dr Brash said: “I was at no point aiming at leadership when I came into politics.” Interestingly Mr Key in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 last year stated: “I have no intention of challenging Don”. We all know how the story will end. I say to Don Brash that he was right in what he said before the election; he should have gone with dignity. He will not do so now. No party—and certainly no leader of any party—can survive an array of headlines like that at the beginning of an electoral term. Those headlines include: “Are Don Brash’s days numbered?” “Gloomy Brash at odds with analysts” “Brash on a hiding to nothing” and “Don’t believe Dr Doom”. 
That most of all is the message to National. “Dr Doom’s” gloomy negativism is a thing of the past. New Zealanders do not want a bar of it. This Government is building a future for and with New Zealanders and that is why Labour is on the Government side of the House and National is on the Opposition side. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Earlier this week during question time in this House the Minister of Education made glowing references to the apparently smooth running of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement examination. Today the same Minister proudly announced that in literacy rates New Zealand has ranked well on a worldwide scale. I would hate to think that these pluses—and I suspect they are genuine pluses—were taken as some sort of signal that all is well in the education sector because there are a number of concerning trends that Cabinet should focus on during this term. 
At the chalkface of education teachers are becoming increasingly concerned at the burgeoning staff numbers at the Ministry of Education at a time when they are desperate for essential tools such as more teacher-aide hours for special-needs students. I invite any member of this Parliament to spend an afternoon in a classroom with a special-needs child when the teacher-aide hours for that day have run out. They will then see what teachers are coping with and realise the urgent need for this funding to be increased. In July 1999 ministry staff numbers were 608. Staff numbers peaked in July 2004 at 3186 and settled down slightly at 3116 early last year. The reason offered for the increase to staffing levels was that Group Special Education staff were integrated into the ministry in 2002. However if one takes the time to deduct Group Special Education numbers from the total one will see that staffing numbers have still gone from 608 to 1092—which is an increase of nearly 44 percent. This third-term Government must start to take a very close look at these important issues. 
In classrooms and schools there are clear stress points that will not improve by being ignored. One has only to sit down for an afternoon with a school principal to come up to speed quickly with what those pressures are. 
At the secondary level in education we need to see further developments around an improved response to the very transitional nature of teenage years so that schools while continuing to focus on excellence in core subjects also take a more holistic look at the life skills needed by young people after compulsory education finishes. The current piecemeal approach which largely focuses on reducing risk behaviours falls well short of some of the exciting developments in those kinds of programmes overseas. With our household debt reportedly rising by 77 percent in the last 5 years maybe Tony Blair’s call for British secondary schools to include units of study on personal financial management has huge merit. 
At tertiary level the changes that are needed are clear and generally well acknowledged. Firstly there is a need for a complete overhaul of the funding system so that the New Zealand taxpayer gets value for money. Second-chance educational opportunities remain important but there is a desperate need for greater investment across other parts of the tertiary sector. United Future has secured as part of our confidence and supply agreement assurances that serious attention will be given to reducing the amount of debt that students incur and the criteria for qualifying for living allowances need to be in our opinion where one begins. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record let me remind the House that students are the only group in New Zealand who have to borrow to live. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.