Volume 638 Week 42 - Tuesday 1 May 2007 
Volume 638 Week 42 - Tuesday 1 May 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8735] 
Tuesday 1 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Obituaries 
Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 26 April 2007 of the Hon Henry Robert (Harry) Lapwood OBE who represented the electorate of Rotorua from 1960 to 1978. He was a senior whip from 1970 to 1974 and Minister of Tourism and Minister in charge of Publicity and of the Government Printing Office from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—OECD Ratings 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement last year with respect to the economy that “Our job in government has been to stop New Zealand running the race to the bottom and to aim for the top.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Why then after 8 years of a Labour Government has New Zealand fallen from being the 20th ranked economy out of 30 in the OECD to the 22nd—that is right New Zealand has fallen two places in 8 years under Labour—and if that is a race for the top is she a little bit confused about what is the top and what is the bottom? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The OECD report points out that New Zealand for quite some years has been around 16 percent below the GDP per capita median for the OECD. I understand there is a little volatility around those ratings not least because a country like Greece recalculated the size of its informal economy. 
Tim Barnett 
: How do New Zealand’s employment growth rates compare with those elsewhere in the OECD and how has that comparison changed over time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I appreciate that this is an answer the Opposition may not like but the OECD does set out the figures for employment growth for New Zealand in relation to the OECD average. From 1991 to 1995 the figures show that our employment growth rate was below that of the OECD average as it was from 1996 to 2000. Between 2001 and 2005 we grew over four times as fast as the OECD average in respect of employment growth. 
John Key 
: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the 350 workers at Fisher and Paykel who lost their jobs because of business conditions in New Zealand other than what she said on breakfast TV on Monday which amounted to: “Tough luck. That’s the way of the world. It’s a shame you made only washing machines rather than being a high-value niche innovative manufacturer.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course one of the key factors cited by Fisher and Paykel was that when its competitor—based in Australia—ceased manufacture the company lost its preference in that market and that was a critical point. Of course 2 weeks ago the New Zealand dollar reached a quarter-century high against the US dollar but so did the Australian dollar and so did the pound sterling. That causes manufacturers across those countries—and I suggest across a great deal of the Western World—to be looking at lower-cost processing. Our future in manufacturing is at the higher end.  
Darren Hughes 
: How do New Zealand’s growth rates compare with those in the OECD and how has that comparison changed over time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Again the OECD produces figures that the Opposition may not wish to hear but those figures show that between 1991 and 1995 GDP growth per capita in the OECD outstripped New Zealand’s as it did between 1996 and 2000. From 2001 to 2005 our growth rate was significantly above the OECD average. That means that if we could on average keep growing above the OECD growth rate we would of course improve relative rankings.  
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Andrew Little the Secretary of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union that manipulation of the cash rate is a “blunt tool” that is making it only harder for average New Zealanders to afford to house themselves and their families while at the same time increasing our current account deficit and making it harder for manufacturers to export—and that means thousands of decent jobs are at risk; if she does agree with Mr Little what other tools does she think may be useful to support New Zealand manufacturing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a “blunt tool” but finding other tools that are useful has not proved easy. That is why the Government suggests that a select committee inquiry focused on monetary policy might have a role to play.  
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister anticipate more job losses in the months ahead along the lines announced last week by Fisher and Paykel? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Businesses will make their own choices but I would put this issue in the context of the fact that over the past 6 years jobs in the manufacturing sector have risen by 14 percent. This is a dynamic sector.  
Sue Bradford 
: Did the Prime Minister agree with the Real Estate Institute when it said last year that foreign investment in New Zealand real estate was on the rise; and would it not assist in the battle against inflation and take the heat out of the housing market if the Government acted to limit the sale of land and houses to New Zealand citizens and residents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has with reasonably broad support in the House and the community put some more restraints on the kind of land that can be sold without permission through the Overseas Investment Commission and the relevant Ministers. But to put a stop on foreign investment in real estate would be going rather a lot of steps too far. 
John Key 
: If the figures the Prime Minister quotes are all so good and New Zealand relatively speaking is doing so well can she just explain one more time why New Zealand has fallen in its average per capita income from 20th place to 22nd place in the OECD and does she still hold her goal of getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD; if so how long will it take to do so given that it has taken her 8 years to take us down two places let alone move up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I stress again that the OECD report points out that we have been about 16 percent below the median GDP per capita rates for quite a number of years. We are not falling significantly further at all but in order to climb we need to keep growing above OECD averages consistently over time. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that Auckland’s public transport system won the race to the bottom when compared with other First World cities; and how will she respond to the nearly 4000 Aucklanders who signed a petition presented to me in Parliament this morning calling for an urgent Government agreement on a passenger rail electrification timetable and for funding to enable trains to be ordered? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is right. That is an extraordinarily long bow given the primary question that was asked. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question is on the economy and the race to the bottom. The passenger rail system in Auckland is very important to the Auckland economy—even the Prime Minister would recognise that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just ask the member to try to narrow the questions in future. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not disagree in substance with the general comment made by the member about the state of Auckland’s public transport system in the past. The Government has hugely increased spending on it. In respect of rail and electrification I believe that it is a matter of not if but when and we envisage continuing to invest to improve Auckland’s public transport system. 
John Key 
: If one of the solutions in making the economy more competitive is to cut the company tax rate which we believe will be provided for in the Budget in a few weeks’ time why has it taken the Government 8 years to suggest cutting the company tax rate when there has been more than ample opportunity through large surpluses to do so in the past? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It will not have gone without notice that the Government has run quite a conservative fiscal policy and that it likes to see where money is coming from before putting it into tax cuts and other spending. The Government will be delivering on a significant business tax package this year. I note that this was not something the National Party even bothered offering voters during the last election campaign. 
GST and New Zealand Superannuation—Rates and Eligibility 
2.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports advocating an increase in both the GST rate and the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the OECD that amongst a number of unhelpful suggestions suggests that we should increase the rate of GST and cut New Zealand superannuation either by raising the age of eligibility or lowering the level of indexation. Mr English subsequently endorsed that report. I can assure the House I have no plans to increase the rate of GST or to change the age of eligibility or indeed the indexation requirements for New Zealand superannuation. I call on all members of the House other than Mr English to endorse that. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he seen any reports on when proposals such as those in the OECD report were last implemented? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As Mr English has just said that that was a stupid idea I should note that in 1998-99 the New Zealand Government of the day of which he was a member cut national superannuation from 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple to 60 percent of the average wage for a married couple. One of the first things the incoming Labour Government did was to restore the level of New Zealand superannuation to 65 percent.  
Economy—OECD Assessment 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the OECD’s assessment of his fiscal policy that “exercising greater restraint now could avoid a longer and possibly more painful macroeconomic adjustment process.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It would in fact be helpful to give the full quotation: “Greater fiscal neutrality is likely to be unpopular given public pressure for tax cuts and/or additional public spending that would reduce the projected budget surplus. Nonetheless exercising greater restraint now could avoid a longer and possibly more painful macroeconomic adjustment process.” As Mr Key last year said that there was room for $11 billion a year of tax cuts perhaps Mr English if he is so keen on the OECD report could give a copy to Mr Key. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has he seen the statement made by Dr Bollard Reserve Bank governor that the official cash rate review on 26 April this year stated: “As we noted in March demand is being fuelled by a buoyant housing market increases in government expenditure a rising terms of trade ongoing net immigration and a robust labour market”; and does the Minister agree or disagree with the reference to Government expenditure in that statement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have slightly more up to date information. When that is released very soon it will show that Government spending is running at below the forecast level. The Government is running a substantial cash surplus in the current year. In other words the Government is taking more demand out of the economy than it is putting into the economy. Last year I was attacked almost daily by the members opposite—Mr Key nods his head in agreement—for doing precisely that.  
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Minister’s position that his plans for significant new spending in the next two Budgets are having no impact on inflation and thereby on interest rates; and does that mean he disagrees with a further statement made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank: “Strengthening domestic demand is being supported by a resurgence in the housing market and an expansionary fiscal policy.”; and why does the Minister believe that his spending makes no difference when everyone else knows it does make a difference? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What is crucial is the balance between spending and revenue; and this Government will continue to run a tighter fiscal policy than the National Party which the member belongs to promised at the last election and continues to promise day by day as every spokesperson opposite issues press statements calling for increases in Government spending in his or her area—like Mr Power only in the last few days. 
Hon Bill English 
: When is the Minister going to stop fighting the 2005 election and actually account to the country for his economic management under which surges in Government spending are contributing to higher inflation higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will get over the 2005 election much sooner than that member will get over the bitterness of losing in 2002 which affects his attitude to any sensible suggestions about running this economy. That is the man who sabotaged the talks around monetary policy because he is so bitter about 2002. 
Hon Bill English 
: How is it that someone who is supposed to be the Minister of Finance blames the Opposition spokesman on finance for current economic conditions and has also decided to flick off the central issue of the day—which is the way the Reserve Bank is managing inflation—to an inquiry by parliamentary backbenchers; and what is it that Doug Woolerton and Hone Harawira know that Treasury and the Reserve Bank do not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am fascinated that the member describes monetary policy as the central issue of the day when only yesterday he said there was nothing wrong with the framework for monetary policy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the emphasis by the Governor of the Reserve Bank on the impact of Government spending plans on inflation and therefore on interest rates paid by New Zealand families will the Minister support an inquiry by the Finance and Expenditure Committee into the effect of the Government’s spending plans on inflation and interest rates and into the difficulty that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has in managing that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have already written to the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee suggesting that an inquiry would be a good idea but the member of course keeps citing potential cuts in the corporate tax rate as being a large part of the increase in Government spending. If there are any such cuts in the Budget I look forward to Mr English leading his troops into voting “No” for tax rate cuts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should New Zealand families and businesses listen to Dr Alan Bollard’s message to tighten their belts or else he will raise interest rates and to the Minister’s own message to them telling them to save more and consume less when the Minister has no plans to tighten the Government’s belt; and why should the Government not carry its share of the burden in the fight against inflation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government for the last 3 years has been running very very large surpluses. I have lost count of the number of press statements from members opposite attacking that Government fiscal policy. The Government will continue to run a fiscal policy that meets our long-term fiscal objectives of reducing Government debt to no more than about 20 percent of GDP. This is one of the tightest fiscal policies in the world. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he is just telling Parliament and New Zealand that he has no intention whatsoever of adapting the Government’s plans to the reality of the current economic circumstances which are putting people out of jobs in the export sector and pushing families into 15 percent and 20 percent increases in their interest rate outgoings because he has decided that what he does makes no difference to the economy and that he is right and everyone else is wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member seems not to read his own press statements. Mr English over the last 2 or 3 weeks has said that the only thing wrong with monetary policy was that Dr Bollard did not increase interest rates earlier and higher than he has done. That is what Mr English said and that is why he just confirmed in the House a minute ago that if there are tax rate cuts in the Budget he will vote against them. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister take the responsibility that goes with his job exercise some judgment about the current economic circumstances and pull those levers that he can including a cut in Government spending and stop trying to play games over monetary policy—over which he has no influence at all? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When the member sees the Budget he will realise that I have pulled a number of levers. One of them will open up a trapdoor down which he will fall. 
Pensions and Retirement Savings—Reports 
4.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports regarding New Zealand’s public pension system and retirement savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I mentioned earlier I have received a report from the OECD calling for an increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. I have ruled this out but the report was endorsed by Mr English the Opposition spokesperson on finance. I have also received reports showing that in 1998-99 the floor for New Zealand superannuation was cut from 65 percent of the average wage to 60 percent by the then National Government of which Mr English and Mr Ryall and others were a part and restored to 65 percent in 2000 by the incoming Labour Government. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has he seen any reports suggesting New Zealand should completely cede its economic sovereignty to Australia and unnecessarily expose our exporting and agriculture sectors to fluctuations in world mineral prices among other things beyond our control? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I have. I have seen a suggestion from Mr Key that we should adopt a common currency with Australia. Actually that has never been on offer. What is on offer is adopting the Australian currency. This would mean that we would be highly influenced by the very much larger increase in minerals prices than has occurred in New Zealand’s agricultural prices over recent times. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can he tell the House what successive Labour-led Governments have done to protect New Zealand superannuation into the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2000 we restored the level of New Zealand superannuation. We also established a superannuation fund that along with our prudent fiscal strategy has made us one of the best-placed nations in the world to tackle the challenges of an ageing population. On 1 July this year the KiwiSaver scheme comes into force which will make it easier for New Zealanders to save to supplement their retirement income. 
Health Services—Ratings 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his earlier statement rating the health system 5½ out of 10; if not what mark would he give the health system now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I mark the health system as “continually improving and expanding” because this Labour-led Government has always made health investment a high priority and will continue to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will he assure the people of New Zealand that if they are admitted to hospital today they will not face the series of systemic mistakes that cost an 82-year-old man his life in Auckland; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Of course I can offer no such assurance but I do note that the Auckland District Health Board has improved its systems remarkably in the 2½ years since that unfortunate and tragic mistake occurred. I would say to the member that errors occur in all hospitals throughout all the health systems in the world. This Government is intent on reducing those errors. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: On what basis does the Minister claim that the health system is continually improving and expanding and would he like to give some examples? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are many such examples so I will need to be brief. Immunisation rates are up infant mortality is down smoking is down breast screening is up mental health services are way better there are more nurses there are more doctors there is more transparency there is better primary health care there are lower doctors’ fees more elective surgery and longer life expectancy. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Have the ongoing disruptive and costly strikes in the health workforce and the recent deaths at Christchurch Wellington and Auckland hospitals resulting from deficient care affected the Minister’s rating of his system; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do recognise there has been a recent spate of reports into deaths—some of them recent and some of them not. As some of the deaths and misadventures within the New Zealand health system including the one reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning occurred 2½ years ago I think assuming some link between that and industrial activity is drawing a pretty long bow indeed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would he tell the wife of a 25-year-old man who turned up at the Christchurch Hospital emergency department in agony only to be sent home to die 12 hours later that the New Zealand health system is improving all the time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That was the tragic incident of a 25-year-old man from Coalgate in Canterbury. However the member will be aware that the circumstances surrounding that incident are themselves the subject of an inquiry by the Canterbury District Health Board. That inquiry I hope will be forthcoming with ways to try to prevent a situation such as that from arising in the future. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the health system could benefit from contracting out more elective operations to private hospitals; if so is he prepared to encourage district health boards to do so? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards are already utterly free to do so—and many do. The fact is that most of the capacity for elective surgical services in New Zealand resides within our public health system. To the extent that the private health system can assist it does so—as long as the price is right. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that if district health boards negotiated operations with private hospitals for the mid to long term the cost to the public purse would be dramatically lower than it is at present when district health boards demand surgery for the following week and must then pay the high spot cost; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The fact of the matter is that district health boards contract with the private sector across a variety of terms. If they have a short-term need there is a short-term contract. Some of the contracts are sufficiently long that there will be a price advantage to be secured. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain how the Government is spending an extra $4 billion a year on health yet the quality of our public health services is under continual question with report after report showing that patients are dying because they cannot get even a basic standard of care under his Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member chooses to abandon perspective. The Health and Disability Commissioner—the person who reliably brings these errors and tragedies to public notice in this more and more transparent health system—has certainly not lost his perspective. Let me quote the Health and Disability Commissioner from last week: “Many many thousands of people every week who are involved in health care will in the end base their confidence by their personal experience. And so if that personal experience is positive—and it probably is in the overwhelming majority of cases—I guess that is the crux of public confidence.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why should New Zealanders listen to the Minister’s message that New Zealand’s health system is improving all the time when he and his Government are spending an extra $4 billion a year on the public health system and there is hardly any improvement at all in the quality of standards of service for patients in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Immunisation rates are up infant mortality is down smoking is down breast screening is up mental health services are way better there are 5000 more nurses there are 1000 more doctors there is a lot more transparency there is better primary health there are lower doctors’ fees there are lower prescription fees there is more elective surgery and there is longer life expectancy. That is what the member gets for his $4 billion investment. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What would the Minister say to the family of the Wanganui woman who died after being referred by her general practitioner to the hospital three times and after being discharged three times in 11 days—each time without the hospital informing her general practitioner—and how after spending an extra $4 billion a year on health can the system not manage basic communication between a hospital and a general practitioner? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I acknowledge that there has been a particular spate of instances at the Whanganui District Health Board. As a result there are a bunch of ministerial appointees helping the Whanganui District Health Board to look at its system. That work continues and there will be continual improvements in that district health board because I am demanding it. 
Pacific Island Families—Living Standards 
6.  
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has she received any recent reports relating to the living standards of Pacific Island families?  
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I receive a range of reports on a number of topics relating to Pacific Island people in New Zealand. I often hear from Pacific people themselves on how this Labour-led Government’s Working for Families package is making a real difference to their families and communities. I also receive reports on how many more Pacific people are in paid work; for example as at the end of March this year there are now 2568 Pacific people on an unemployment benefit in the whole of New Zealand. That is an outstanding 78 percent reduction from 12300 in 1999 when National was in Government. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: How does she reconcile her claims that living standards have improved given that the  
Social Report 2006 
 indicates that the proportion of families with any Pacific members with low living standards increased from 49 percent to 54 percent? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: The figures the member refers to are from 2004 before the Working for Families package was introduced. The Working for Families package is increasing the incomes of hundreds of thousands and our Pacific Island families and is lifting tens of thousands of our children out of poverty. We have made big progress. We saw an issue and we dealt with it. Yes there is still more work to be done and we are getting on with it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How is this Labour-led Government raising the living standards of Pacific Island families? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Since the mid-1990s Pacific peoples have improved in nine out of the 10 outcomes that the  
Social Report 2006 
 measured. These outcomes are: more school-leavers with higher qualifications less cigarette smoking more attainment of tertiary education qualifications less unemployment more employment higher median hourly incomes fewer populations with low incomes greater housing affordability and less household crowding. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister provide some details on how the Working for Families policy has impacted on the living standards of Pasifika families? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Through our Working for Families policy we have invested heavily in families including many of our Pacific families. The package targets tax relief where it is needed most—families with young children. A Pacific family with two young children earning the median income—$58000 a year—will now be better off by $136 per week thanks to the Working for Families package. This improvement in household incomes lifts an estimated 70000 children over the income-poverty threshold. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: How does she reconcile claims that living standards have improved given that the analysis of a new Ministry of Health survey of children’s nutrition has found that an astonishing 40.8 percent of Pacific children 22.9 percent of Maori children and 7.7 percent of European children aged between 5 and 14 sometimes or always ate nothing before school; and given those reports of escalating proportions of Pacific school-age children going hungry to school each day what is the Government doing to alleviate this problem? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: As I said in my previous answers Working for Families has made an enormous difference and certainly the Fruit in Schools programme has made a terrific difference for Pacific families. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Participation 
7.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will “definitely get” 20 free hours of early childhood education on 1 July 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is good news. From 1 July this year up to 90000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres will be eligible for Labour’s 20 free hours policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: As it is clear from that answer that the Minister has no idea how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours early childhood education from 1 July what is his response to the Montessori Association of New Zealand calling the policy “morally wrong and something that will undermine the quality of early childhood education in this country.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Puzzlement because I met with the Montessori group just last week—along with 12 other parts of the early childhood sector—and members of the group at that time advised me that they have one particular issue with the policy: that unlike most centres they retain children who are aged 5. Most other centres pass them on to a primary school at that time. They said they want to come into the system but it would take them a little bit longer to work out how to handle it given that they retain those 5-year-olds. 
Sue Moroney 
: What evidence does the Minister have that 20 hours free early childhood education is well supported? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a great deal of support from parents and from the sector. For example the New Zealand Childcare Association said last week that “free 20 hours’ gives parents more choices” and that they are confident that “the quality of the service will not be compromised”. Over 160000 parent attestation forms have been ordered by early childhood centres up till now. That goes alongside the enthusiasm of parent John Key who said: “We want our young kids to have the 20 hours’ free.” but of course the policy is not supported by people like Paula Bennett who has asked for it to be scrapped because she wants to make room for tax cuts. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister explain to the House whether having gained approval from parents of all current students that they will pay for additional provisions over and above 20-hours-free provisions a centre will be able to refuse enrolment of a child whose parent at a later date refuses to pay such additional costs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The way the rules work—as the member will know and is wanting to confirm—is that 20 hours’ free is free; that a centre can establish an optional charge with a parent and that once that charge has been established and agreed to by the parent it is enforceable. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister concede that it looks bad for his policy when the Early Childhood Council says it is dangerous that it is “the biggest threat to quality of early childhood education in a generation” and that “if this policy goes ahead as it is the quality of early childhood education in New Zealand is set to fall. Teachers will be laid off. Educational programmes will be cut.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Once again I have to say I am curious given that I met last week with members of the early childhood sector including the Early Childhood Council. I also know that 70 percent of its members have already decided that they are in or that they intend to come in. So I assume that what the member is reading is a memo about an internal debate going on within the Early Childhood Council. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister accept that even if he does not think 20 hours free was an election promise parents obviously do when they now have to start a group called 20hoursfree.please and a petition asking Labour to deliver on that promise? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the parents who are involved—the eight to 10 of them who are currently running the petition—are parents who do not currently have children involved in early childhood education. The 92000 who currently do are the ones who are currently being talked about. As the 10-year strategy unfolds for early childhood education—we are 5 years through it—we have more registered teachers and we open more centres. All parents who are eligible will be able to get their children in. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why when a number of early childhood associations and councils keep telling the Minister this policy is flawed and when parents have to start a petition to explain to the Minister that this policy is flawed does he not just admit that parents will not get 20 hours free for their 3 and 4-year-olds as promised by this Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am determined to implement this policy because I want to prevent the National Party members from ever having a chance to scrap it. 
Defence—Policy Assessment and Capability 
8.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received assessing New Zealand’s defence policy and the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday the Australian Strategic Policy Institute released a report on New Zealand’s defence capabilities and relationships. The report was overwhelmingly positive about what had been achieved under the Labour-led Government’s building up of our defence forces after the massive rundown of armed forces under National during the 1990s. The report concludes—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. It is becoming very difficult to hear the Minister who is in fact addressing the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report concludes that the armed forces are “becoming modern [fully] capable operational forces” that are “adopting appropriate levels of modern technology”. On key relationships with Australia and the United States the report states that New Zealand’s defence relationships with both countries are “strong and getting stronger”. 
Dianne Yates 
: What does the report say about investment in the New Zealand Defence Force and its current capability? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report acknowledges the impact of the $3.5 billion investment in capital equipment in the long-term development plan and the additional $4.6 billion through the Defence Sustainability Initiative. The report states that the current Government’s policies if they continue mean that the armed forces are fiscally sustainable compared with the previous situation in the 1990s. The report concludes that as a result of this Government’s policies and strategy overall the New Zealand Defence Force is “as capable today as it has been in the past thirty years and as capable as it needs to be.” That is a ringing endorsement of this Labour-led Government’s defence policy. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the Government guarantee that the frigate that is to be deployed to the Gulf next year will be able to protect its crew given that the ministry itself says that one of the frigate’s major self-defence capabilities the torpedoes will be unsupportable in 2008 and are not scheduled to be replaced until 2015 and the ministry has actually said there will be very serious risks in the Gulf if they are not replaced? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member will find that by the time the capability of those torpedoes expires the Navy will have replaced them. Not only that; if the member cares to look at the 2006 long-term development programme he will see a range of other things that are being done to enhance the self-protection of the Navy. While I am commenting on the Navy can I say I am sure the member will be very proud of the fact that this Government is commissioning seven new ships under Project Protector over the next year—more than National did in the entire 9 years of its failed Government. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not accept that the best evidence one can rely on for making an assessment as to defence capabilities is the actual performance of Defence Force personnel on the ground and could he share with the House some of his observations and my observations from our recent visit to Afghanistan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I agree entirely with what the member has said. I had the privilege last week along with Mr Mark of visiting the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team in Bamian and talking to the local people and to the local governor about the team’s performance. Every member in this House ought to be proud of the capability of the team’s members and of the professionalism of what they do and the way that they do it in building up a strong partnership with the local people. The team is much admired with a great deal of gratitude being expressed by the local governor by Hamid Karzai the President of Afghanistan who mentioned it specifically and by the local people whom those New Zealand troops serve. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has any progress been made in respect of the question of attrition in the armed forces which is raised in the report? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The figures that Professor Rolfe the author of this report quotes in the report in fact are from 2004. Since then attrition in the Army has dropped from 18 percent to 14.83 percent and in the Air Force from 11.9 to 8.22 percent while the Navy figures have held steady at 13.6. Overall in the last year the strength of the New Zealand Defence Force has been increased by over 420 men and women. That is an increase of 3.7 percent in our Defence Force numbers in just the last year. 
Ron Mark 
: Madam Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How many photos are you in Ron? 
Ron Mark 
: If you shut up Gerry you will hear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. I would also say that members who chip across the House provoke a response. I did not hear the comment that provoked that response; the response however was inappropriate. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It seems it is becoming a pattern in this House that certain members of the National Party can chip in on a member’s question. I asked a question of the Minister before and you allowed Mr Brownlee continually to bellow. You did not censure him at all. I barely had had an opportunity to start my next question before he started again. In return I responded and I am the one who ends up—again—being rebuked by you while Mr Brownlee gets away scot-free every time. I just want to know where the fairness is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated! As I pointed out the member—and I did not hear whether it was Mr Brownlee who made the interjection that prompted your response—was not bellowing. A member had obviously made a comment. I did not hear what it specifically was. As far as I am concerned the matter has been dealt with. Would the member please ask his supplementary question. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister noted the comment made in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute report that the Army is stretched by deployments and cannot meet its requirement to produce a battalion group without significant risk; and when will he and the Government approve an increase in baseline funding for the Army to allow it to bring both its infantry battalions up to full strength with four rifle companies—one of those companies being a ranger company—as recommended by the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party in the  
Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 
 report back in 2000? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is fair to say that with the high operational tempo of the New Zealand Defence Force at times our infantry regiments have been stretched. We have had on average at least 400 people deployed overseas through most of the last 7 years. Sometimes the number has been as high as 800. In the 1990s or the 1980s before that the numbers were much smaller. That is precisely why we introduced the Defence Sustainability Initiative which will add $4.6 billion in expenditure to personnel and other areas. That is why we have increased—as the member will have learnt from my answer to the previous question—our Defence Force personnel by over 420 in just the last year alone. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
9.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Why has another inmate been beaten in a prison van when the Minister told this House last year that he did not offer to resign after Liam Ashley’s death because “I have a clear responsibility to oversee changes to the corrections system to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again in the future.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Thankfully such a tragedy has not occurred again. I instructed that changes be made at that time; they were made. I am currently awaiting the outcome of an independent ombudsman’s report into prisoner transportation and we are looking at other ways of improving the situation including the use of restraints. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm his response to written questions that the project team he set up to review prisoner transport after Liam Ashley’s death has yet to report back after 8 months and has yet to meet with the Corrections Association to seek its input; and how can the Ashley family to use his own words “be reassured that we are doing everything we can to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I expected that project team to look thoroughly at this very important area. I expect that its report will be before me within the next week. I will take a look at the recommendations. We will discuss those with the union and with senior management and make the changes as necessary. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s view that it is “odd” that prisoners who ask to be segregated are grouped together when being transported or do he and his department have a different understanding of the word “segregation” from the rest of the country—including the Prime Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The prisoners were separated according to policy. It was odd that we had a mix of prisoners in that one compartment. That is why we are making changes—to ensure that such a situation does not occur again.  
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister know that “segregated” means to be kept apart? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Segregation does not mean isolation. Prisoners are managed within the prison system according to policies related to segregation. Those policies are consistent both in the prisons and in the transportation system. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister have confidence in his department when it spends $100000 a month transferring prisoners around the country—including spending almost a half a million dollars a year on chartered air flights—and paid $190 a night to keep inmates in police cells 57000 times in the last year at a total cost of just under $11 million; and how much time do these inmates actually spend in their own cells? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No one would deny that running the corrections system in this country is a very expensive exercise. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the community and as we transport prisoners around this country we will spend the money necessary to ensure that safety. 
Water—HydroTrader 
10.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he stand by his repeated statements to the House that “The Government regards the water resource as a resource that local authorities … will continue to manage on behalf of all New Zealanders.” given that a private company HydroTrader has been set up to make the trading of water permits easy anywhere in the country? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has been very clear on its position and approach to water management—that is that water is a public resource that the Government and local authorities will continue to manage on behalf of all New Zealanders.  
Tariana Turia 
: What protection will be given to Maori and other river users to ensure that companies are not seeking more water than they can use which they can then sell on as a tradable resource? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Although there may be mechanisms such as HydroTrader—and I will come back to that issue in a moment and to the correspondence that has gone to the regional council on that matter which in that company’s words is aimed at facilitating the transfer of permits—I tell the House that the important thing is to recognise that the HydroTrader website or any other similar website or mechanism cannot guarantee a water permit. It may put parties in contact with each other but transfers of water permits are controlled under the Resource Management Act and everyone has proper access to that process.  
Steve Chadwick 
: How has the idea of water markets been received? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can advise the House that the National Party appears to have endorsed the concept of water markets. I am advised that both Nicky Wagner and Jo Goodhew’s Aoraki electorate chair Mark Oldfield are elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council and appear to be pushing for the privatisation of water. I can advise that the Government has no intention of establishing markets for the trading of water. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Is the Government supportive of the trading of water as suggested on the HydroTrader website; if so whose water is being traded by HydroTrader and are companies specifically set up to buy sell or lease water ? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. From the beginning of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action as is evidenced in the discussion documents for that process that the member is in possession of the Government has made it quite clear that the process will facilitate the transfer of permits but not trading or market development. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why does the Government not introduce a resource rental for the commercial use of water in order to recognise that it is a part of our common wealth and to fund environmental management and co-management rather than allowing private commercial operators as at present a rent-free pre-emptive and exclusive right to use and pollute water usually expecting ratepayers and taxpayers to pick up the tab for the clean-up? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: If the member or the party he belongs to would like to advocate policy change in that direction they have the capacity to do so as part of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. 
Tariana Turia 
: What action then will the Minister take over statements made on the HydroTrader website that the Government is supportive of the trading of water as being consistent with the Sustainable Water Programme of Action? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: On this whole matter my colleagues the Ministers of Agriculture and of Forestry and I will shortly be reporting to Cabinet on the progress that has been made on the Sustainable Water Programme of Action to date. That progress includes the proposed national environmental standard on water measuring devices and the development of a national environmental standard on environmental flows—the work on that is progressing well. Cabinet decisions have not yet been made however on the national policy statement on freshwater management. That will take place once initial consultation on the proposed national policy has been undertaken with stakeholders and Maori. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was on what action the Minister will then take over statements made on the HydroTrader website that the Government is supportive of trading water. He has not answered my question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have not seen those statements. When I have done so I will consider them. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was originally set down to the Prime Minister. Although National members appreciate that the Government can transfer questions the reality in this case is that it deals very directly with a statement made by the Prime Minister. It is very difficult for any other Minister to say whether the Prime Minister stands by her statements. We realise there is a degree of sensitivity from the Government around the issue of copyright in artworks but notwithstanding that we seek leave for this question to be held over until such time as the Prime Minister may be able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Royalties—Artists 
11.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government “is honouring another election promise to examine international developments relating to resale royalties for artists and their possible application to New Zealand”? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 As the joint issuer of that statement and on behalf of the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage yes in 2005 the Labour Party as part of its arts culture and heritage election manifesto stated that it would examine developments internationally relating to resale royalties for visual artists and their possible application to New Zealand. Two weeks ago on 16 April the Government released a discussion paper inviting feedback on options for a resale royalty right. Submissions on this discussion paper close on 22 June and those submissions will assist the Government’s consideration of a possible resale royalty right scheme for visual artists. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether royalties will be paid to the person who painted the artwork or the person who signed the artwork? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I suggest to all members interested in this issue that they look at the discussion paper and have a submission in by 22 June when the Government will consider the matter. 
Peter Brown 
: On a little bit more serious note is the Minister aware that many New Zealanders are of the belief that when a homeowner sells a painting to another homeowner a royalty will have to be paid; and if this is the case will the Minister explain how it will be policed and by whom? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I suggest to all members that they read the discussion paper. The issue about whether private sales are dealt with is covered there. The issue remains that when a painting is sold commercially the dealer gallery gets a cut the auctioneer gets a cut and there is a practice in over 50 countries around the world that the artist’s copyright is also recognised. It is more a royalty and intellectual property right than a commission. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Has the Minister received any advice from Crown Law on what criminal offence would be committed by someone obtaining monetary reward from resale royalties in circumstances where that person had signed an artwork she did not create? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that is fairly broad of the general question but I call the Minister. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No and particularly when no money was sought by anyone signing a particular work of course no royalty would apply. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: If it transpires that an artist’s works are devoid of any artistic merit so that they end up being resold for a pittance—or indeed are valueless—would the artist be required to pay compensation under a resale royalty scheme? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am very concerned that a speaker who claims to be interested in the arts is trivialising an important intellectual property debate. All I would say is that I would rather trust the Prime Minister’s artistic taste than that of most members of the National Party. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: If the Minister is so very concerned about payments to artists why does she not do something about the appalling royalties paid to writers by Radio New Zealand and Learning Media Ltd and the shambolic administration of the Authors’ Fund by Creative New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I disagree with the last assertion and representations have been passed on to the Minister of Broadcasting and the head of Radio New Zealand. I will continue to assert the rights of all creative workers in New Zealand to be properly paid for what they do.  
Working For Families—Tax Credit Review 
12.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has he received any reports on proposed changes to Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a surprising report in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 which proposes that the Working for Families tax credits which currently go to middle and low income families should be redistributed to the wealthy. Under the proposed roll-back an estimated 160000 families would lose about $50 per week and an estimated 60000 families would lose tax credits. For a Kiwi family with three kids and a mortgage and earning around $52000 a year and currently receiving $246 per week under the Working for Families package the proposals would see that family lose some $80 per week. That proposal of course comes from the leader of the National Party John Key whose main interest appears to be putting as much money as he can into the pockets of his wealthy mates.  
Russell Fairbrother 
: What would be the effect of taking tax credits away from middle and low income families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can advise the member that Working for Families tax credits have among other things lifted an estimated 70000 children over the income poverty threshold. New Zealand is expected to move from 18th place on the Unicef Innocenti report card into the top half and possibly into the top quartile in terms of the reduction in child poverty. The effect of Mr Key’s proposals announced today would be to reverse that trend. I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled  
It Works Just Fine 
 which refers to the effect of the Working for Families package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 April. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to continue the debate on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I would like to assure the House that National supports the idea of concessions and a discount card for senior citizens. We all appreciate the contribution that our older people have made for us but I want to make sure that senior citizens understand clearly the very limited scope of this bill.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the bill. Courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders.  
NICKY WAGNER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is only a technical amendment and does not guarantee the delivery of any services at all. It reminds me of the fairy tale  
The Emperor’s New Clothes 
. Members will remember the story. It is about an emperor a gorgeous peacock of a man who loved clothes and all that was glittery and gaudy. He loved and he wore shiny fashions jewels and baubles. Members will remember the story; the emperor bought a wonderful new “supergold” suit of which he was enormously proud but that suit proved to be a mere illusion. Alas when the poor emperor was out parading in front of his people a little boy pointed the finger at the sham and the emperor discovered that he was stark naked.  
Today I am really concerned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs might just find himself equally as naked and exposed. This Minister has made lots of lovely promises when talking to this bill. He says that it will create a card that will carry a range of concessions and discounts available from central government local authorities and businesses. National supports rewarding elderly people but the problem is that this bill does none of those things. All it does is set the rules to allow an entitlement card—any card—to be issued by the Government. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 so that the Government can issue a card with a photo and microchip; although in line with the dog microchipping legislation I am pleased that the select committee has voted against microchipping grannies!  
The bill also amends the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so that information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages can be used to verify entitlement to this card. That is very ironic considering that the Government on the one hand is passing legislation so it can use that information and on the other hand is also trying to pass legislation that will not allow you me or anyone else who wants to study the history of his or her family the same access. How equitable is that?  
But what this bill does not do is provide business discounts. It does not make any concessions at all. It does not provide anything that is real or tangible to make life better for seniors. Yes I know that the Minister has promised these things and I know that he has promised them by August 2007 which is only 3 months away. That is why I am so concerned that he may be caught out stark naked. Nobody seems to know anything about the details of these business discounts or concessions. I have not heard anything in the media and I have not heard any advertising from companies that would like to be involved. So I called the 0800 number Ruth Dyson was promoting which was set up to give information about the card. Firstly I spoke to the consumers’ hot line and guess what? No the hot line did not know what concessions there would be and no it did not know of any companies that were interested in the card although it was sure—it was very sure—there would be some.  
Then I spoke to the hot line for companies that were interested in being involved and guess what? No it did not know what concessions would be available and no it did not know what companies were interested. In fact it did not even know what a company had to do to apply to be involved but it was very sure that there would be some companies and it was sure that they would all be set up by August. What faith!  
So I would tell the Minister that after all that I was even more concerned. National members know that senior citizens are looking forward to the card and we support that but only if the card actually delivers something. Otherwise we have an expensive piece of puffery—just like the emperor’s new clothes.  
This bill creates only a card; a blank cheque so to speak that someone has to provide the credit for in order to underpin the promises. With 3 months to go before the card’s issue the public has no idea of the value of the card it has no idea what companies will be involved and it has no idea what discounts and services may be available and I fear that it will become just a costly way to access those benefits that are already available. There is a real danger that there will be nothing new and nothing of value offered by this card—and then there is a very real danger that a little boy might just point this out to the Minister and he will be left out there in the cold with nothing on but his birthday suit. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. This is legislation that the Labour-Progressive Government was very pleased about and we were excited to be able to work with New Zealand First on it as part of the confidence and supply agreement that we have. We have a lot of hope and optimism that the SuperGold card will be something that older New Zealanders will be able to use and get benefit from in their thousands in the years ahead. 
It is time for us to have one central card for older New Zealanders that makes clear not only the range of Government services that are available to them but also through negotiation some of the commercial benefits that may be available. It is time to have those things on one card: the SuperGold card. 
Obviously the age demographic of New Zealanders over 65 is about half a million—about 540000 New Zealanders are in that age bracket—so they are quite a significant purchasing group if we choose to think about it in that way. They want to buy things in a number of areas that are conducive to their being able to have in effect a discount card—a SuperGold card—that reflects the contribution they have made to New Zealand over many many years. Of course it is also very handy when the Government is so busy doing so many things to try to make life a little easier for our superannuitants that a card can exist in a form that makes it very clear which services and benefits are available. This is one of the things that central government does to try to help older New Zealanders out after their long working lives after long lives spent raising families and after their having served New Zealand in times of conflict. 
Anzac Day provided us with another reminder that every year there are fewer and fewer of the World War II generation still with us but they are still a very important part of our country’s history. That is one of the reasons I understand that the SuperGold card has been pushed for—to be able to give tangible recognition to those 540000 people who are over the age of 65 and receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Hear hear! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear the Minister of Maori Affairs call out: “Hear hear!” but I think he has quite a few years to go before he will be in receipt of this SuperGold card. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: 15. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: By then we will really have it in place so I say to the Minister that it will be really cranking by then. There will be businesses lined right up by then and quite a lot of people will be able to benefit from it. 
The thing about this SuperGold card that we are bringing in is that it is another reminder of the coordinated effort we are trying to make for our older New Zealanders. Just a month ago today on 1 April New Zealand superannuation—an entitlement under the parent legislation that we are debating the amendment to this afternoon—was increased by $40 per fortnight for a couple. We pay our pension out every fortnight so per payment it is $40 extra for a married couple and $26 a fortnight—or $26 per payment—for a single superannuitant. That is a significant increase. Members have to recall that just last year New Zealand superannuation went up as well—by $20 a payment. That reflected the confidence and supply agreement that the Labour-Progressive coalition Government has with New Zealand First. We raised the minimum base of New Zealand superannuation for married couples to 66 percent of the average wage. 
I am sad to say that this commitment we have has not always been shared by all parties in the House. We all remember the terrible time when Bill English was the Minister of Finance in this country and New Zealand superannuation was cut. We heard that member say today in question time that he thinks the Government spends too much money. That is news to my constituents because they want extra Government money spent on electrifying railway lines building the Western Link Road and getting Transmission Gully up and running. We want Government spending in these areas yet the National finance spokesperson—the same man who cut New Zealand superannuation in the 1990s—used question time today to say that the Government spends too much money. I am very disappointed that that is his view because putting a $40 per payment increase for married couples into New Zealand superannuation makes life a little easier for our pensioners. That is a real Labour-Progressive Government achievement. 
We are working with New Zealand First as part of our agreement to ensure that that kind of increase which comes along from the general money we get together through our taxation makes a big difference for those New Zealanders for whom it is a bit of a struggle to make ends meet when they are on a low fixed income. To hear that increase being criticised and opposed by the Opposition is a shame because that is an entitlement under the Social Security Act. 
This card is a reflection of a lot of the services that are available to older people. I think particularly of the rates rebate scheme which had a massive increase last year—up to a $500 maximum rebate for our senior citizens and the level at which it starts to abate out or reduce increased massively by up to $20000. A lot of senior citizens think that if they earn over $20000 they cannot get a rates rebate but that is not right. They can still apply for one. The amount of the rebate is reduced according to how many extra dollars they earn over $20000. That has been a great policy that a lot of superannuitants have been able to take up to try to help pay their rates bill. Obviously our councils are spending a lot of money on infrastructure and generational assets such as that. If superannuitants can get some assistance from central government by way of a rates rebate then that will be important. 
The Government made important changes for drivers over the age of 80 which came in last year. That is another service for older people that is available from the Government. We got rid of the previous National Government’s—and Maurice Williamson’s—really savage compulsory test for all drivers over the age of 80. It was not a fair test to have. We now have a medical “fitness to drive” test that has been welcomed by organisations like Grey Power. Such organisations have also welcomed the SuperGold card that we are debating at the moment. 
Of course the Government provides all sorts of services that might be able to be worked in conjunction with this card which provides people with the ability to use Government services and businesses as well. One of the areas that I think of immediately is the phase-out of asset testing that the Labour-led Government has commenced over the last few years. On 1 July this year funding in that area will increase by another $10000—and up to $170000. 
The other thing the Labour-Progressive Government has been busy doing is rolling out the primary health organisation strategy to reduce the cost of going to the doctor and paying for pharmaceuticals. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: A very busy Government. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a very very busy Government as the Hon Jim Anderton says. We are flat out around here. We are trying to do as many things as we can for old people. We are trying to get this card to be the best that it can be and trying to make a real effort in that regard to give a tangible benefit to our older New Zealanders which is such a crucial thing. For older New Zealanders the cost of picking up a pharmaceutical has now fallen to $3 for subsidised medicines. In a number of areas the cost of going to the doctor has about halved. Every year we used to see doctors’ fees going up. We know that older people go to the doctor in large numbers and they access health services so that policy has been important as well. 
The Government is making a great contribution by putting aside a slice of the surpluses we are running today—from the economic prosperity we have today—into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund so that this country can afford to pay for an ageing population as the baby-boom generation comes into retirement. Those people deserve to have dignity in their old age as well. So one of the big drivers from the Government service point of view which we are debating in respect of the card has not been to talk about just the 540000 people in our country who are retired and will be eligible for this card when it comes in in August but also about the New Zealanders who are yet to retire. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is a very important part of that because that is a case of the Government saving for its own future. Now we have to try to encourage ordinary workers to be able to save out of their wages and salaries as well. I know that is hard because a lot of families are struggling to get by—they are just keeping their heads above water. Despite the fact that there has been an increase in the minimum wage and the introduction of Working for Families tax credits it is still hard to put aside money for savings. 
It is my real hope that from 1 July this year when KiwiSaver comes in we will get a real focus in our country again on savings so that it is about the Government saving for the future with the Superannuation Fund not being irresponsible with the surplus and frittering it all away. That is what the National Party wanted to do at the last election when it proposed $11 billion of tax cuts. To fund those tax cuts it was going to borrow half of that figure from offshore. We will not go down that path. Instead we are using the surpluses from today to be responsible and to build up the Superannuation Fund so that our country can afford to pay that guaranteed rate to those aged 65—to pay at least 65 percent of the average wage to married couples. 
So we can begin to see how important this bill is in respect of the SuperGold card because it involves the real bringing together of the two areas. The Government is doing its bit to try to help out older New Zealanders and to make life a little easier for them and to help working families that are coming into retirement. Also the business and private sector can offer their goods services and products at a lower cost to our pensioners thereby recognising the fact that there are 540000 of them and they are a significant buying group. 
I welcome this card. The Labour-Progressive Government is very pleased to be supporting it this afternoon. We know how important it could be in the future for people going forward. I welcome the second reading of this bill and I thank the Social Services Committee for the work its members have done. I also thank the Minister in charge of the bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a short call on the second reading of this bill. At the first reading I raised a number of issues that the Green Party had with the SuperGold card. One of those issues was that this is effectively just a loyalty card and very similar to the type of loyalty card that businesses all around the country provide for their members in various forms and in various ways.  
We continue to question whether it is necessary to have legislation that establishes just another loyalty card that will incorporate existing schemes and perhaps might drive some new ones but which really has limited benefit in that respect. But at the same time it was an issue that was part of the deal between New Zealand First and the Government so I can understand why it is now in legislation. But really we could be doing more important things for superannuitants in terms of protecting their interests. One of the key areas where we could do that and one that the Greens and New Zealand First agree on and have both worked on in the past is the elimination of the exemption that allows for some superannuitants to have their superannuation means tested against income they receive from some overseas pensions. There has been a petition to the House on that issue. There continues to be a great deal of lobbying and involvement on that issue from Grey Power and from other organisations that represent older people’s issues.  
If we are to have a truly non - means-tested superannuation there is no justification for these few people to have their income means tested for a superannuation scheme that they are involved with have worked for and have been part of when they lived overseas. There has never been any good reason for it and it could be dealt with very simply by a rather small amendment to the legislation to make sure that the superannuation really is non - means tested as it is said to be. That would be a better use of legislation and a better use of this House’s time rather than this loyalty card.  
I hope that between New Zealand First and the Greens we can progress this further with the Labour Government. It really is unnecessary to have such an exemption. It is unfair for those older people who have worked very hard for those pensions overseas. They are entitled to them and deserve to have access to that money and to their entitlement in New Zealand to New Zealand superannuation.  
The other issue we raised was microchips and whether it was justifiable that this legislation should include microchipping. At the time it was rather amusing given the other microchipping issues that were going on but there is real concern still within the Green caucus as to whether a provision allowing for the future use of microchips for this particular card is the appropriate way to deal with that issue. I know from my colleague Sue Bradford who was on the select committee that heard the discussion and dealt with the issues in the bill—on my behalf because I could not attend—that there was intense discussion at select committee level about this. 
 The issues were canvassed widely and for some time. But at the end of the day if we are to enact legislation there is still a question of making sure that it is useful that it is the right thing to do and that all of the issues around the legislation have been dealt with properly. We would much prefer to see a review of or an inquiry into the use of microchips. A number of our caucus members are very keen to see such a thing so that where these bits of technology are in use it is in a context of considered principles around their use. A great deal of consideration should be given to the privacy implications of microchips and real protections should be put in place for people for whom this technology might be used.  
I am aware that the bill has clear protections against which microchip information could be used. For example the bill states that a microchip would include only the information already included on the card—that is the cardholder’s name the identifying number assigned by the department the commencement and expiry dates of the card and the kind of information that is very specific to the use of the card itself. The issue with microchips is that other information can be placed on them quite easily in the future. The legislation might confine that information now but later legislation may expand it and provide for greater use of microchips in these contexts. That is not necessarily what was intended with this particular card.  
A number of our caucus members still have real concerns about the bill and at the Committee stage we will be looking to see whether we want to support the calls by some other parties to take out that clause or whether an amendment might be more appropriate. Or perhaps we may consider that it might be OK to leave the bill as it is but with some kind of intention from other parties in the House to hold some inquiry into or to debate the use of that technology to find ways of confining its use to only those absolutely necessary requirements and principles. We look forward to that debate in the Committee stage and to the bill’s later debate. It is certainly not a clear issue for us at this stage and we offer no guarantees for future votes. We will be looking very carefully at what happens in the next few weeks. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I te meakuatakiwhakatatatouingarakuahipaakenei me mihi ra ki o tatou mate kuahingaingawiki e torukuahipaake. Ko Don Selwyn tera ko Bob Rawiritera ko te tini ko te manokuahingairungai o tatou marae. Ko takunoaake ko te poroporoaki i a ratou haere haere haere koutou.  
Huri mai ki a tatou katoa e te Whare tatoukua hoki mai ki roto ingapakitara o te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of us in the House. Because we have rested well during the days in the 3 weeks past it is fitting that we acknowledge those of us who passed away in that period—Don Selwyn Bob Rawiri and a host of others who fell on our courtyards. I want to farewell them by simply saying: depart depart depart. 
I turn to all of us in the House those of us who have returned within the confines of the Chamber: greetings to you greetings to you greetings 
.] 
It would appear from the outset that the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill has not exactly taken the nation by storm. I understand that three submissions have been received and one heard. But none the less there are two important issues that the Maori Party wants to raise in this debate.  
The first is that of the intention of the bill to improve the living standards of our senior citizens. We believe that a commitment to our elders is a worthy goal that we the Maori Party wholeheartedly accept. We all know the stats about the increasing poverty levels of elderly people in Aotearoa. The Maori Party places particular priority on valuing the contribution and continued participation of our elder people. We believe that the SuperGold card will help our pakeke to have easier access to services and facilities—as outlined by Mr Hughes—and to be able to benefit from concessions which can only be good. Such a proposal targeting the aged and elderly will ensure that we protect the special place they have in our society as repositories of experience and knowledge. In that respect this bill has our full support.  
We are happy to put forward our support also in recognition that older Maori people experience a worse health status than their non-Maori counterparts in a range of indicators. In February of this year a report produced by Public Health Intelligence the ministry’s epidemiology group revealed the grim fact that at the age of 50 years both Maori males and females had a shorter life expectancy than non-Maori. The data also revealed that Maori suffer from higher hospitalisation and mortality rates for almost all types of cardiovascular disease cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  
The weird thing is that the data also reveals that Maori males aged 50 to 64 were significantly more likely than their non-Maori counterparts to report doing physical activity—as is borne out right here I suspect in the parliamentary complex we currently sit in. For proof of this assertion all one needs to do is go down to the gym on any day and one is bound to find Mr Tau Henare—even with a push and a shove—Hone Harawira Mr Clem Simich our trusted Kaiwhakamarama Reo WiremuHaunui our loyal security guards and many other mighty Maori men working up a sweat on the treadmill. In fact I have also been known to lift a few weights sprint a couple of hundred thousand miles on the treadmill and play the odd game of rugby for the greater good of the parliamentary rugby team in my time. I have a photo to prove it by the way. But despite this we suffer shorter life expectancy. The rates for renal failure and lower limb amputation are significantly higher for Maori and the prevalence of doctor-diagnosed diabetes is over two and a half times higher in Maori males aged 50 to 64.  
We support the proposal to give effect to the SuperGold card to enable Maori seniors to be eligible for Government entitlements such as New Zealand superannuation the veterans pensions and community services card entitlements. But there is one snag and it is a biggie—namely clause 5(2). The clause amends section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act 1964 in creating a new regulation-making power. In its effect this allows the entitlement cards to contain the information as set out in the subsection on either a magnetic strip or an embedded microchip—as was spoken about by MetiriaTurei.  
Every time we access the Internet draw a salary dial the phone join a club enter a hospital hook up to Sky television or zip zap our credit cards for the weekly groceries we are giving up our rights to privacy—whether or not we know it. So we might ask: “What’s another smart card amongst many?”. The Government insists that it has no plans to implement smart-card technology in relation to the SuperGold card or indeed entitlement cards generally at this time. That is no problem. We say to the Government that it should delete the clause.  
The key issue as the New Zealand Law Society pointed out in its submission is that this will be the first time in which legislation has been introduced to authorise the use of microchips on cards on such a large scale. It has massive implications. We are talking about around 340000 seniors who already have community services cards. Why would we venture down the track of an embedded microchip that the Privacy Commissioner herself has expressed serious concerns and reservations about?  
Marie Shroff our Privacy Commissioner has asked a series of questions that take us to the very heart of the concern around privacy and personal freedom. How do individuals have any real control or choice? How will the information be kept up to date and accurate? Who will be able to access it? How could it be misused? What protections are there? Will its advantages outweigh its disadvantages? Those are all important issues that this House should consider if it wants to proceed any further along the microchip line. Indeed Miss Shroff has recommended that the proposal not proceed until a comprehensive assessment of the potential privacy impacts has been undertaken. We in the Maori Party absolutely agree with her. We have consistently raised our concerns about the snooping culture and the environment of surveillance where Big Brother is the holder of all power. We support the call from the Social Services Committee that a more general inquiry into the use of microchips particularly around issues of privacy must be undertaken before any legislation allowing microchips is enacted. We are assured by the Ministry of Social Development that if clause 5(2) were deleted from this bill there would be no immediate impacts to prevent the launching of the SuperGold card.  
Therefore we are happy to support the bill as a useful way of recognising the contribution that pakeke continue to make to Aotearoa. We most strongly object to the proposal in clause 5 relating to the microchipping function. Kia ora tatou. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to follow the speech made by my good friend Te Ururoa Flavell in which he raised his concerns fear and suspicions. I have to tell him as a recent past president of Grey Power that members of Grey Power do not share the paranoia expressed in that speech. Grey Power represents the older generation who carry with them the years of experience the maturity and the wisdom that bundles up to make one heck of a good bundle of common sense. As Mr Flavell will find out if he ever gets the chance it is no easy ride to speak to a Grey Power meeting. It is no easy ride and that is not because they do not understand and not because they will be taken advantage of. It is no easy ride because they know the answers to most of the questions they will ask. They can assess the response and judge whether the person speaking is talking fact or fiction.  
I invite Mr Flavell to repeat his speech to Grey Power and tell them just why the diversity of options available to our older members of society should not be reduced to a SuperGold card to make it easy for people to access the benefits that this Government is unfolding one step at a time. What the member’s speech was really about was suspicion and a lack of belief in the integrity of the older generation and those who try to help provide for them.  
That is what this bill is all about. This bill is in fact the reflection of a Government that keeps its word. The SuperGold card recognises the contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand and it fulfils a commitment made as a part of the confidence and supply agreement that this Labour-led Government has with New Zealand First. It is this carrying-through of promises—which is the hallmark of this Labour-led administration—that ensures stable coalition Governments in this era of MMP. It is this carrying-through of promises this basis of good faith this belief that people in this country will do their best and that the people who endeavour to rip others off are few and far between and this underpinning belief in the goodness of humanity that will ensure that a Labour-led Government will be returned to power after the next election. People know they can trust a Helen Clark - led Government.  
I think it is important that I go back to the basis of this bill because a lot has been said already this afternoon and perhaps those listening to the debate might lose sight of what the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is all about. I speak as one who is part of a long line of those who have delivered this bill to the House. As I said the bill is the fruition of the negotiated working agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party at the time of the formation of the last Government. The proposals quickly came to the floor of the House and were sent off to the Social Services Committee of which my good friend Georgina Beyer was the chair. Georgina saw the referral of this bill to the select committee the advertising of calling for submissions and in fact the hearing of submissions. When Georgina retired from this House to go to greener pastures I took over the chairmanship of the committee and saw through the sign-off of the ultimate report.  
The purpose of this bill is to create a SuperGold card which will be available from August 2007. That is just 3 months away. The SuperGold card will recognise the contribution senior citizens have made and currently make to New Zealand. It is important to remember that. In fact on Anzac Day last Wednesday most of us in this House probably took time out to celebrate. What was Anzac Day if it was not a celebration of the value of the senior citizens in our community? Those who attended Anzac Day memorials from dawn until dusk as I did in Napier would have seen a large number of senior citizens and their supporting younger families. What was significant at the dawn service in Taradale this Anzac Day was the number of younger people. It was probably the largest turn-out at a dawn service in Taradale in living memory and of course the turn-out was that of the younger generation supporting the senior citizens and honouring the contribution they made to the New Zealand we have today.  
This card carries on that vein of support and celebration of our senior citizens. This card will enable senior citizens to access discounts and concessions from participating businesses. My friend Mr Flavell was postulating about the dangers of microchipping but it is not compulsory to have a gold card. It is not a mandatory requirement; it is an opt-in requirement. So those opting in will carefully consider the benefits and the disadvantages and the evidence before the Social Services Committee suggested that there were very few disadvantages. The committee recommended that there be an inquiry into microchipping only as a matter of caution and it could be an inquiry that may be worth undertaking by the committee later this term.  
It is an opt-in card so that our senior citizens can access discounts and concessions from participating businesses the Government or local authority services. It will indicate the eligibility of senior citizens to Government entitlements such as New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension and for seniors it will replace the community services card and the New Zealand superannuation card. Both of these cards have shown that cards are useful to senior citizens as they go about their business and take advantage of that which is offered to them because of their age and past contribution to New Zealand society.  
Just recently I was speaking to a Grey Power meeting in Napier—in fact to the very chapter I was president of several years ago. I proposed to speak for 20 minutes and the question time that followed lasted for over an hour. I had to call an end to the vigorous question time from a large turn-out of members whose questions were all engaged in and encouraging of what this Government is doing. They were of course interested in the rates rebate scheme. They celebrate the fact that the Government recognises that pensioners on lower incomes are getting assistance with rates. As values of properties rise there is a downside for those who are not real estate agents—that is those who pay the rates. As the values of properties rise so too does the value of the rates rebate. It is now sitting at $500 for those who are entitled to the maximum benefit. Of course the gold card will assist our senior citizens to access benefits such as the rates rebate.  
The SuperGold card will offer the option—I say option; it is not mandatory—of including a photograph of the cardholder. So if a senior citizen wishes to have his or her photograph on the card—and I have to say that it seems to me to be a very good idea indeed—he or she can indeed have a photograph. In future there will be the possibility of embedding a microchip in the card. If we extend that step of microchipping it will make even more available the many benefits that this Government is underscoring and developing.  
It has been a pleasure to represent the senior citizens of this country in this House. It is a matter on which I often reflect. As we rush toward the folly of youth looking for young blood leadership we sometimes turn our backs on those of advanced years who have the vigour of youth. Some such as me can both be a Grey Power president and have children at primary school. That is a combination I recommend to most of our senior citizens if they can get the right marital combination. However I do urge those who are married to stay married rather than seek alternate partners.  
I endorse this gold card to the House. I am delighted to take part in the second reading debate on this bill and I listened with some interest to the carping criticisms of the previous speaker for the National Party my friend Nicky Wagner who once again raised her shibboleth—the emperor with no clothes. She seems devoted to mentioning it—she mentions it in every speech she makes. I suggest she turn one day to a better metaphor or maybe lift her horizons above the clothing of her leaders.  
I commend this bill to the House. It is my absolute pleasure to speak in support of it. Although it is easy to minimise the benefit of this bill it is very risky to overlook the convenience it offers to senior citizens as they go about their business. It brings into one card the access to the many benefits that this Government has delivered upon. I think one of the most outstanding benefits is the assurance of a base level to the superannuation benefit. I remember too well watching a television programme that led to the birth of the Jim Bolger Government where he gave an assurance that there would be no cut. The next day or so that promise was gone back upon. That is not the history of this Government. This Government is revealing a history of making promises and keeping them and the delivery of this rather simple concept speaks loudly and poetically of what this Government is doing for our senior citizens. I commend this bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. It is fairly straightforward legislation. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is the fact that it contains some future-proofing provisions that allow for regulations to be made should we have the need in the future to tighten up the ID aspect of the SuperGold card around things like photos and microchips. Submitters queried us on that issue particularly in respect of the amount of information allowed to be contained on these cards. 
The member from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell alluded to some concerns on the part of the Social Services Committee that we were progressing this idea of the Government use of microchips for purposes of identification and holding information in a whole range of areas. Microchips are in passports now and we have certainly made provisions in this bill for them. We talked about the fact that possibly this House had failed to have the wider discussion that could have been helpful around this matter—particularly around Government use of this technology and the type of information that it is ideal to have covered. It was not a fear-based concern; it was more of a generalised discussion about where this technology would go and whether we should at some stage stop and have an important discussion about what we think is appropriate. 
Some submitters were concerned that the SuperGold card would be available only to New Zealand citizens. They were reassured that everybody over 65 would be entitled to apply. Actually there are some provisions for those under 65 who may come under the category of a non-qualified spouse to also be entitled to have one of these cards. 
One of the other questions was around the issue of identity cards. I think the National Council of Women queried whether people who currently hold a community services card would no longer need it as the information that that card provided would be contained on the gold card—and yes the council was reassured that that card would no longer be needed. Something like 68 percent of over 65-year-olds currently hold a community services card and this new SuperGold card will be able to act in that regard for them. 
I agree with some concerns that there is an unclear area around exactly what Government concessions this card will ultimately entitle people to. But perhaps the greatest value of this card from United Future’s point of view is the opportunity it offers the entire community to honour senior citizens. As I was taking part in Anzac Day which we have all just enjoyed—and I concur with Mr Fairbrother who talked about how exciting it was to see the large number of young people who participated in Anzac Day celebrations—I was reminded that over in Australia the Australian veterans have for years and years had a gold card which provides in a similar way to the intention of this card. It gives the opportunity for the wider community to offer concessions and discounts to veterans. I know for a fact that many New Zealand veterans have felt for years a little bit short-changed by the lack of that particular mechanism within the New Zealand approach to caring for veterans. Obviously veterans over 65 will be included in this opportunity and I think that will be a way to facilitate a national outpouring of gratitude to a generation that has done us well and that we are proud of in this country—for all sorts of reasons not just for its military endeavours. 
As I said before this card targets all senior citizens and provides access to a potential range of discounts and concessions. I am keen to find out when this card is rolled out what sort of publicity money and public relations spin the Government will need to put into notifying not just ordinary people about how they can apply for and get a card but also—I think more importantly—all sorts of businesses and community groups so that they understand that they have a real chance to become included in the benefits of this card system for senior citizens and to make available opportunities for senior citizens to bring their cards out of their handbags and say: “I’m here and I’m entitled to this discount.” 
A question I had when we first started into this legislation was why we needed legislation; surely we could have just printed up some gold cards made them available to people over 65 and let them be used. But concerns were raised that people who were not entitled to the cards could make copies of them and try to take advantage of their opportunities. So there was a real need for identification and a need to quantify what level of information we wanted to have contained on the cards under what circumstances the information should be gathered and where it could be stored and contained. It became apparent that legislation was probably the appropriate way to go about this. 
We are very happy to support this second reading. I was a little surprised initially at the low number of submitters—I thought we might have been inundated with people submitting on this—but the ones we did hear from really reflected the fact that people were genuinely positively disposed towards this idea. So we are very glad to support the second reading. 
Bill read a second time. 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 April. 
Part 2Conseqential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000   
(continued) 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 2006. I was pleased to speak at an earlier stage of the debate in support of the legislation when it had the form of a member’s bill and now that it is a Government bill I am equally delighted to rise to speak in support.  
I note that the purpose of Part 2 is to amend the Employment Relations Act. It is a new part added unanimously by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 provide that section 104 of that Act dealing with discrimination in employment is to be read subject to certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 in relation to employment matters. One of the provisions of that Act is section 33 which allows discrimination in the armed forces. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has recommended that this exception be removed from the Employment Relations Act 2000 and that is what the operative part will achieve.  
The laws of this country relating to service in the armed forces have always sought to make a distinction between the strict nature of employment as understood in the private sector and service under the Crown as occurs by sworn members for example in the armed forces. The employment relations legislation adopts a broad definition of employment so using the expression “employment” in amending employment legislation does not do violence to the traditional distinction that has been maintained in armed forces and in the general law. The use of the expression “employment” to refer to service under the Crown in the armed forces as well as civilian employment therein is as I say a broad usage of the term and refers on a blanket basis to the service of all those in the armed forces and in the civilian parts of the service that support it.  
Part 2 is clearly a key part of the legislation given that it is effectively the operative part of the legislation and it accomplishes an important amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000. It is a pleasure to rise in support of it as it is the most important operative part of the bill which as has been said on previous occasions achieves a very important milestone in the laws of New Zealand. It puts in place and enacts the practice that has occurred now for some years— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I don’t believe there’s anything exciting about it at all! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —I tell Mr Woolerton that I am very excited about it—which is to permit women to serve in the front line which has been operational practice for some time. It is appropriate from a human rights and an operational perspective and as I say it accomplishes the purpose of the bill which is very good legislation and which I am delighted to support. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One should not debate this bill today without of course reflecting on Anzac Day. I am sure every member in this Chamber would have had duties to perform on Anzac Day and they are very very important duties. It is a time when we pay respect to those people men and women who have served our country; it is not a time to politicise. I do note the Minister in the chair today the Hon Judith Tizard and I remind her of that fact as certainly from what I have been told by my colleagues and from everything I have read she perhaps took an unduly political approach to that day— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No I was objecting to a political— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: She is in fact nodding to that. Minister Tizard for the benefit of listeners took an excessively political approach. Because in truth all members of this Parliament irrespective of whether they are constituent or list members represent the people of New Zealand. In representing the people of New Zealand we pay respect to their service.  
When we are considering this bill which is a forward-looking bill dealing with amendments to the Employment Relations Act as it affects women in the armed services we have to acknowledge that the issue is not just a matter of looking forward. Men and women have served our country over a very very long period indeed and have shown great sacrifice. In fact my colleague Judith Collins referred to the example of Nancy Wake and her service to our country. My colleague was extremely disappointed that this Government out of the hundreds of awards that it makes every year does not have the bigness of heart to recognise Nancy Wake’s service. That is one of the reasons one uses the awards system and the Government is failing to do that.  
I remind the Minister in the chair that some years ago the Prime Minister did in fact recognise the service of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 2 is very narrow. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I just want to complete the point that the Prime Minister did recognise the service of Lieutenant Colonel Curly Blyth. I am sure the Minister knows whom I am talking about. It was recognition of service given over a very very long period of time. So I say that if it is good enough for Lieutenant Colonel Curly Blyth it is certainly good enough for Nancy Wake.  
The Chairperson has reminded me about Part 2 “Consequential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000” and clearly those do need to be changed because our law has to conform across the board. We do have one law for all citizens and indeed the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is all about one law for all citizens—that all citizens are treated equally before the law. I might add for the Minister in the chair that that applies also to all members of Parliament list or constituency. They all have their role to play in representing citizens in New Zealand.  
Clause 6(3) which refers to section 106(2)(a) of the Employment Relations Act is specifically about the exclusions that existed in the Employment Relations Act that would have exempted this Act from applying to women in the armed forces. They obviously have to be excluded because now those provisions are no longer appropriate. It is appropriate that the legislation—the Employment Relations Act—applies to men and women equally.  
So it is important even in the context of a narrow debate to understand why we are here today; to understand that we are recognising the role of women in our contemporary armed forces and the full role that they play. Any of us who read the various service journals and follow and talk to our service people know the incredibly important jobs they are performing for our country literally across the world. I think everyone in this Committee would applaud the service that they give to our country. Not many people when they take employment serve our country by putting their lives at risk. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to support this Government bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is important that we recognise the right of every New Zealand citizen to serve and the role that those people then take on. 
I note that the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp referred to the transfer of the excellent member’s bill which Lynne Pillay introduced. His colleague Paula Bennett called on the bill to be transferred into a Government bill. We took that advice thought about it and did it. But of course Wayne Mapp has called the transfer “desperation” which is an insult to the women members of his party. 
Just as a matter of clarification in respect of the issues raised by Wayne Mapp I point out that on Anzac Day I found myself at the 11 o’clock service at the Auckland cenotaph. I was astonished having been a regular attender for the last 15 years at the dawn service—I normally go to the Point Chevalier RSA in my electorate—to find that the Auckland RSA now allows and calls upon representatives of the ACT party electorate of Epsom to lay a wreath. It also calls upon representatives of New Zealand First and the National Party representatives of Auckland Central to lay a wreath. I gently made the point to the chair of the RSA that I had never seen political parties represented on Anzac Day. Indeed I take off my Labour Party badge on Anzac Day because I believe that Anzac Day is one day of the year that we should make no party political points whatever. I also note that Keith Locke was at that service and had not been asked to lay a wreath. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will speak to Part 2 please. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I just say that I have had overwhelming support from a huge number of Aucklanders who agree absolutely with me on that matter. I hope the Auckland RSA will take that on board just as we here in Parliament are taking on board the responsibility of all citizens when they are called and when they volunteer for international service on behalf of New Zealand to be able to serve in combat positions whether they are male or female. 
I hope that we here in Parliament will see this legislation taken forward because I know the proud role played by women who at present serve in our armed forces. Also I know having had the honour of representing the Government and the people of New Zealand at the Gallipoli celebration that the contingent from the Sinai was indeed commanded by a New Zealand servicewoman from our Navy. I just say that we are all proud of the service undertaken by those New Zealanders whether in Afghanistan the Sinai Lebanon East Timor or all around the Pacific—particularly right now in the Solomons. 
I think this is legislation whose time has come. Other forces with which we cooperate have women in combat roles. Although of course none of us ever wants to see New Zealanders sent in the way of danger the fact is that that is what our armed forces do and women as well as men can play that full role. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In rising to speak to Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill I just say to the Minister in reference to the comments she made about Anzac Day and political parties recognising and paying tribute to veterans of the past by laying a wreath from their political party—[ 
Interruption 
] This is in reply Mr Chairperson to comments already made and allowed to be made in this Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are debating Part 2. 
RON MARK 
: I would say that the Government has consistently ever since 1999 when it came into office had Labour Party Ministers and members of Parliament fronting up at the cenotaph in Christchurch and laying wreaths on behalf of the Labour Government so— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 2 Mr Mark. 
RON MARK 
: Part 2 is fine Mr Chairperson but we allowed those comments to be made by the Minister and they require a response.  
New Zealand First is supporting this bill—and Part 2 of it—because it recognises the reality of the defence forces today. There are a number of realities that people must take on board. Firstly in my visit to Afghanistan over the adjournment with the Minister of Defence and my opportunity to meet with and talk to servicemen and women employed in the provincial reconstruction team the fact was obvious: there are men and women deployed into that provincial reconstruction team. One of the patrols that accompanied us out as we patrolled in the Bamiyan province led by Major Paul King had in its midst a number of female soldiers who were there carrying Steyr rifles. They were fully tooled to do the job they were trained to do. So the reality is that women are engaged in our defence forces at all levels including the rather nebulous term “front line”. They are there today. They are working there today. They are doing the job today.  
One could argue in fact that this legislation is pointless because women are doing the job that it will formally and legally entitle them to do. I guess that what we in New Zealand First would ask is whether it is about time we started to recognise that work. Maybe we could start by going back and recognising Nancy Wake who is our first front-line woman to serve with distinction at that level. It is ironic sad and very disappointing to the point of being hypocritical not to recognise Nancy Wake’s front-line service. We would argue that to continue not to recognise her is a breach of her human rights is it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that I know I have probably been a bit too tolerant towards members from all sides when it comes to debating Part 2 but the reality is that Part 2 is a very narrow part. It is not an opportunity to explore the reasons behind the repeal of section 33. That is covered in Part 1. The debate should be confined to the removal of the references from the Employment Relations Act. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept—and I do not contest—your ruling. However I ask for some guidance here. You have unfortunately allowed the Labour Party and the National Party to defer and to detour. Now you seek in a New Zealand First speech to curtail New Zealand First’s right to respond in the same way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I respond to that by saying that the Minister was replying to an accusation made across the Chamber. I allowed her to do that. I accept that she went too far. The member though has only 1¾ minutes left and if he wants to address the bill then I think it would be better that he did that for his own political party. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You did not answer in the slightest iota my question which was about the fairness of the way you treat New Zealand First as opposed to the two old-hat parties. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. I do not have to answer questions. I am actually here to ensure that the Committee runs smoothly. The issue is that we are debating Part 2. I am bringing the debate on that part—which is quite narrow—back to order. 
RON MARK 
: This is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—on any aspect of the Committee stage I point out. We are supporting this part—all one clause of it. I want to make it clear that the reasons New Zealand First is supporting Part 2—clause 6(1) (2) (3)—is that we generally agree with the supporting thrust of the measure it contains which supports the entirety of Part 1 about which I was trying to speak. It is frustrating sometimes being a member of the third-largest party in Parliament to be treated differently from other people. I lament that and I await further discussion on the title of the bill when that clause comes up for debate. It will be a wide-ranging one and that will allow New Zealand First—which has the only returned serviceman in its ranks in the Chamber—to have a wider say. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in the debate on Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker Ron Mark this debate is also my first opportunity to take a call on the bill and I am happy to support it of course. 
Part 2 amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. The point has been made time and time again that perhaps this bill is not only one whose time has come but one whose time has in many ways passed. But it is important that the law of this country reflects the practice in the armed forces and also endorses the very good work that the many women in the armed forces of New Zealand currently do overseas on behalf of this country. It is important to recognise the work that those women do because in many of the countries in which they work there is perhaps a view of what women should be able to do and what they can do that is quite different from what we experience here in New Zealand. 
All the feedback that we as parliamentarians get about the work that our women in the armed forces do in those countries is very very positive. I think it is a compliment to all people in our armed forces both men and women that they are able to go into any situation—in any culture and in any country—to operate in a dignified and tolerant manner and to do so in a way that works towards reconciliation within that country without adding to any of its turmoil. For women that can be particularly difficult. Although it is very important that we make these consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act in Part 2 it is also important to acknowledge and recognise the very difficult circumstances that some of our women in the armed forces can find themselves in when they are in countries where the values towards women are slightly different and where that impacts on the way in which they must conduct themselves within those communities in working towards reconciliation without adding to any of the turmoil going on in the area. 
When we go through these amendments to the Employment Relations Act—and they are an important part of this bill—we see they will in no way diminish the work that women in the armed forces in New Zealand have done over the last centuries. Many of us in our own families know this from the military history. I had a great-grandfather George Craig who was a medic at Gallipoli. My grandfather was a soldier in Africa and in Italy in World War II and he spent time in an Italian prisoner of war camp. My other grandfather was in the Navy in the Pacific. Much is known about those members of the family. Perhaps less is known about the contribution to the war effort made by many of the women in my family who had to hold the family together and continue to be the breadwinners. My grandmother plotted the course of many of the ships that were coming into the Pacific and that was how she found out that her first husband had died. She plotted the attack on his ship as it came into the Pacific. 
This amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000 in no way diminishes the work that has been done by many of our women over generations in this country even if that work has not been done in a combat role in the armed forces. But of course times move on and women in New Zealand now play a very very important role in our armed forces. They are up there alongside the men in the armed forces. They are doing fantastic work in peacekeeping and in various roles around the world and in this new age we want to recognise that. 
I congratulate Lynne Pillay on bringing the bill to the House and I congratulate the Government on now picking up this legislation. We now want to recognise a new reality for many women in New Zealand—that they no longer want an exemption from combat roles in the armed forces. Part 2 provides that because it ensures that the Employment Relations Act does not in any way give an exemption to say that we expect everyone to be treated fairly in the workplace that we expect total equality for all people in workplaces in New Zealand but that there is an exemption when it comes to the role women play in the armed forces—that they are able to exempt themselves from combat roles. Well I think that women in the armed forces no longer want this exemption. It may be only a symbolic gesture but it is a very important symbolic gesture to make. 
Along with many aspects of equality and along with many of its rights come responsibilities and this is a responsibility. Our women currently do fantastic work all around the world especially here in the Pacific where their role really is appreciated but I want to reiterate that they are not exempt in any way through the Employment Relations Act 2000. This may be a very small part but it is in fact at the very crux of this bill—that our women in the armed forces will now stand once this bill is passed on an equal footing to everyone else in that area. I again acknowledge the fine work that many women over the generations have done in New Zealand in this area and the fine work that our men and women in the armed forces do today.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this very important part Part 2 “Consequential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000” in this very important bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The amendments to the Employment Relations Act are very important ones but I want to clarify for people who are listening and who may not have the bill in front of them that they should not be worried we are amending the parts of the Employment Relations Act that ensure we have fair bargaining happening in our workplaces. And we are definitely not amending the parts of the Employment Relations Act that ensure we have access to multi-employer collective agreements for groups like nurses etc. No section 106(1)(j) of the Employment Relations Act is being repealed and section 106(2)(a) is being amended which will ensure there is no employment discrimination on the basis of gender in any part of our employment legislation here in New Zealand.  
While reflecting on this bill over the adjournment I think that some of the activities I was involved in really brought home to me just how important this amendment bill is. As other speakers have said it clarifies a situation that already exists but it is important that our legislation reflects current practice and that is what we are ensuring here.  
During the recent adjournment many of us will have attended Anzac Day ceremonies and I was certainly no different in that regard. I attended Anzac Day ceremonies in Cambridge where I was at the dawn ceremony and also in Morrinsville. I did not have any of the issues that some members have raised in speaking to this part of being crowded out by other members of Parliament wishing to lay wreaths. I was the only member of Parliament present at both of those ceremonies and I was very pleased to represent Parliament there. But when the veterans were lining up parading and being applauded by people at those ceremonies I did reflect on just how many women were involved in taking their part in the veterans’ parade. Partly we must make sure that we honour not only the combat role that women will now legally be able to partake in once this bill has gone through its stages but also the very important work that women have always been deployed in when it comes to the defence forces in New Zealand.  
During the adjournment I also spoke with and met many women’s groups throughout the country and I have to say that this is not the issue that has been on the agenda of many women’s groups. There have been many other issues that they have wanted to talk with the Labour women’s caucus about but this has not been one that has been at the forefront of their thinking. When we have raised it with these groups it has been the case that they have believed—probably quite wrongly—that the legislation was already in place that allowed women to take part and fully participate in the defence forces of New Zealand. It has been a matter of some surprise even to many women’s organisations that in fact the legislative course was not in place for that to happen.  
So as well as ensuring that we repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act we must also attend to the issue that the select committee raised in its report back to the House. I thank the select committee members; they have done a very good job. This seems like a small piece of legislation in terms of the number of pages it involves but none the less committee members did the very detailed work they are required to do. They picked up on these two other amendments that needed to be made to the Employment Relations Act 2000 so that we can ensure that all legislation backs up the policy that the New Zealand Defence Force now has whereby the force allows women to serve in combat roles. That has been in place since 2000 and now the legislation is coming up to speed. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I welcome this opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I do so as someone who has spent most of his professional life advocating for a narrow aspect of human rights issues. It is a pleasure to speak at the Committee stage of this particular bill just as it was in the second reading debate because in my view this amendment is long overdue. 
Part 2 is important because it addresses section 106(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That Act is an inspired piece of legislation that has been under constant attack by the National Party—but unsuccessfully to date. As time goes on we are seeing in our labour force the fruits of this Act which is taking us back to fairly based employment laws. Section 106(1) of the Employment Relations Act provides that section 104 must be read subject to certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 in relation to employment matters. That is the difficulty that is overcome by Part 2 because section 33 of the Human Rights Act allows for discrimination in the armed forces. There must have been many people back in 1993 when this Act went through who winced at the prospect of discriminating against women in the armed forces. But as the climate has changed in just 15 years and the age of enlightenment is upon us we can move to tidy up some of the idiosyncrasies that exist even in the Human Rights Act. 
This process is a constant reminder to us to be ever vigilant that human rights advocacy and legislation must be at the forefront of all the work that this Parliament does. At the end of the day questions of justice fairness equality and democracy depend upon a strong human rights basis. We have an economy that is booming and in strong times but a strong economy is only as good as the human rights ethic that underscores the fabric of the society that the economy is supposed to work for. That is why this change to the Human Rights Act through the Employment Relations Act as amended by the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is welcomed. Once more it is a small correction sending out larger signals on the greater horizon. So I adopt the iceberg principle whereby although only one-tenth is above the surface of the sea nine-tenths is under water as we see in this bill. The ramifications of this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill will in fact be deep and serious as we correct the Human Rights Act by amending the Employment Relations Act 2000. 
It is my privilege and pleasure to speak at this Committee stage. I would also like to have the opportunity to speak at the third reading debate on some of the wider principles involved in this legislation. One of the niceties of standing in the House working in Parliament and working in select committees is to see the intricate web that exists between various pieces of legislation. One of the hallmarks of our Parliamentary Counsel Office is that it recognises and is alert to the consequential amendments that occur. One could say of course that if Part 2 was not in this bill nothing much would be lost because the provisions in the Employment Relations Act 2000 would be redundant. But what this signals is the care taken to make sure that our legislation remains tidy and user-friendly. Every Act that is not amended by removal when it is made redundant leaves untidy ends so some litigator or more important a lay person researching the law will have to spend unnecessary hours trying to understand why an Act exists seemingly in a vacuum. 
Part 2 of this bill is not only a celebration of the role that women play in our society but an acknowledgment to the Parliamentary Counsel Office in this establishment—to those many highly qualified lawyers who put together the legislation that we debate and who address the consequential issues that arise. It is an act of diligence on their part an act of careful scrutiny and the results are reflected in Part 2. I support the passing of this bill. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a call in this part of the debate. I am certainly supportive of most of the comments that have been made on both sides of the Chamber. National clearly supports this bill.  
In an earlier debate I asked why if this has been the policy in the armed forces for nearly 7 years—and indeed it has—it has taken so long for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill to come to the House. In respect of some of the comments made by the previous speaker Russell Fairbrother who talked about democracy and equality and all those things I say that yes those are all fine sentiments and we certainly support them in terms of human rights. But again I note that it took 7 years for this bill to come to the House.  
The bill is here now and we support it. All the speakers so far I think have made reference to what we all did on Anzac Day. That is good. It is great that we have a day like Anzac Day where we can in all solemnity and in celebration really come together all around the country to pay tribute to those New Zealanders who served in theatres of war overseas in the past. Of course increasingly women are part of that experience. We applaud that and we salute it. We can only hope that as time goes on the population mix in our country—which consists of more women than men—is reflected in our armed forces.  
The purpose of the bill as we have heard is to remove the last vestiges of discrimination against women in the armed forces and to allow them to serve in combat roles. My colleague Wayne Mapp—or was it Ron Mark; I think it was Wayne Mapp—was asking what the front line is and what a combat role is in the type of warfare and the type of security and defence that we see today. Sometimes it is difficult to discern but none the less women want to be considered on merit. There is no need for any discrimination of any kind in our armed forces these days when we have had women Prime Ministers a female Chief Justice and females running some of the biggest companies. We want to see that in the armed forces as well. It is a particularly important part of our employment sector and it is absolutely right that this House is supportive of this bill.  
In an earlier debate I made some comments about the numbers of females in the Defence Force. It is slowly rising. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand Defence Force was 14.9. It was 15.8 percent in 2003 16.4 percent in 2004 16.2 percent in 2005 and 16.5 percent in 2006. That is all good too but I would query—given the numbers of females in the New Zealand population—whether the Defence Force has some long-term strategies to lift the numbers of women in the military. I hope it does. Perhaps someone might be able to enlighten us on that because I do think it is important given the way our population is going. Even in terms of the ethnic mix of our population I think it is important that the military has some strategies in place to make sure that its recruitment strategies match the ongoing change in New Zealand’s demographics.  
This bill is a worthwhile bill. In terms of the title and the purpose it is proper and it is overdue. It is right that we acknowledge the valuable role of women in the military. I attended a service in Taupo which is my home town along with Minister Mark Burton. We were both enabled to lay a wreath. As far as I was able to tell I was laying a wreath as a member of the National Party and Mark Burton was laying one as a member of the Labour Party. That is the way the way the RSA and the civic authorities wanted it in our town and that is the way we did it. It was very good to be able to be part of that. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 We are speaking to the title of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill; I will just continue on from what I was saying. I note that when one reads the bill one finds it indicates clearly that it seeks to give women the right to take up any appointment that they choose within the defence forces—which is quite right and proper. Clause 4 the purpose clause originally talked about the front line and the bill recognises the desire and the right to serve in armed combat operations in a combat role.  
The reality that we have had to struggle with as a nation is that most people particularly those of the older generation have not particularly liked the thought of women participating in combat roles. Part of that was because they felt women would be unfairly disadvantaged through their inability to fight hand-to-hand with males. One could understand their reluctance. I would not like to allow the likes of my cousin MetiriaTurei to go head-to-head with someone like RanaWaitai in a physical confrontation. The outcome one would predict would be pretty clear and obvious. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right; RanaWaitai would go down quite quickly to my cousin from Ngati Kahungunu. But that has been one of the issues that New Zealanders have struggled with. They have also struggled for years with the notion of whether it is right and proper to put women deliberately in the front line situation where they might be disembowelled dismembered ripped apart and tortured if captured by their enemy. I guess New Zealand women have put their hands up and said they want to have that right and have asked how anyone can deny someone his or her right to pick up a firearm put on a uniform and go to fight for his or her country.  
What concerns me is that in this debate there is an inadvertent—I do not think it is deliberate—demeaning of the combat support roles played by women. Traditionally in this nation men and women have taken up roles in signals intelligence transport and engineering. In fact I recall a lady by the name of Corporal Paula Jepson from the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. I think she was the first female fitter-welder in the New Zealand Army. She was an exceptionally competent tradesperson.  
New Zealand First applauds the fact that the bill allows women to participate legally as of right at all levels of the armed forces. I take my hat off to the staff I saw in the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian last week. A large number of women are deployed at all levels and in all roles in that contingent whether on the front lineor patrolling and providing security services under the command of Major Paul King. When I arrived back thankfully I was pleased to see the large number of women who were working in the mess preparing food for all the troops as they came in from a hard day’s work. Likewise I saw women working in communications and medical services as women always have done. They are working exceptionally well and are a credit to themselves their families and their nation.  
This bill is simply part of New Zealand’s coming of age and is an acceptance of the reality that men and women demand and have the right to defend our nation and to join the defence forces in any role. Anyone who wants to hang on to a last vestige of concern about the role of women in killing needs to understand the reality of modern war. Today it is possible for a person to sit in an office somewhere in Tampa in Florida and manipulate a joystick to send a Hellfire missile through the back window of a Toyota Land Cruiser and kill an al-Qaeda leader—in the Yemen! That can be done without the person setting foot on the front line so to speak. That task can equally be done by any human being whether male or female. We should also remember that a lot of the dirty work that has to be done—which some parties in the Chamber do not want to talk about—concerns intelligence work and that work is sometimes best done by a woman. That is the reality of life and the reality of security. Again I remind members about Nancy Wake and how effective she was. When the bill receives the Royal assent and becomes law I would love to hear that finally the Government will recognise the good work done by Nancy Wake in a combat role. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in speaking to the title of this bill—that is the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge all the women and men who have served in our armed forces and it seems very apt—having just had Anzac Day—that we are debating this bill tonight. Indeed I acknowledge the Hon Harry Lapwood who died; I attended his funeral yesterday and he was acknowledged in the House today. He was a top bloke. He was an Army returned serviceman and will never be forgotten.  
The title is very apt; the bill amends the Human Rights Act which is outdated in this respect and fixes up an anomaly so the legislation can come up to speed with modern practice. It also allows for consistency with international conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. At the time of the enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1993 it was the policy that women did not take part in active combat or duty. For the last 7 years I understand it has no longer been policy in the armed forces to discriminate against women. So we have to ask the question why it has taken 7 years to have this legislation before the House to correct the anomaly. Never mind; it is better late than never as they say.  
I also acknowledge Nancy Wake as a New Zealander who served in the armed forces. She left New Zealand when she was 12 and is now 94 and has been acknowledged by virtually every other country apart from New Zealand. The RSA has commended her with its highest honour—but not New Zealand. She is 94; time is ticking. It is not too late and I hope the Government will honour her in the Queen’s Birthday honours in June.  
I also acknowledge another wonderful New Zealander Colonel Louisa Parkinson who is the highest-ranked women serving in the Territorial Force. I know Louisa personally. She is an amazing woman—inspirational and a huge role model. With people like Louisa at the helm I am sure the numbers of women in the armed forces can only increase with time. This bill will set the stage for this to occur although a lot of work has to be done.  
I was also in the Territorial Force during my time as a medical student—in the university medical unit. We trained the same as men we took on the same duties we had the same challenges and we competed at every level. Certainly my time in the Army though it was short made me acknowledge and respect people who work in the armed forces who serve our country. They are courageous and brave and we have to honour them.  
I would like to conclude that we support this bill. We are pleased to see it before Parliament. We are just concerned that it has taken so long to get here and we certainly hope the Government acknowledges Nancy Wake. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill which the National Party supports. The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 so as to allow women in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. This bill removes the last endorsement of gender discrimination that exists in employment matters relating to the armed forces. It can be safely said that women have unlimited choice when it comes to selecting a career. Repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act will only reinforce the perception that there is nothing a woman cannot do if given the opportunity. Given that 17 percent of all New Zealand defence force personnel are female and this number is growing year by year and given that there are now more women than men in New Zealand’s population I personally look forward to the day when the commander of defence forces is addressed by her subordinates as “madam” rather than sir.  
However if we look back for a moment to 1993 when the Human Rights Act was originally enacted we see that New Zealand Defence Force policy prohibited women from serving in what are termed the teeth arms: in the infantry battalions the armed regiment the artillery batteries or in the engineers as anything other than clerks in the quartermaster’s store or in the unit’s orderly room. Let us now fast-forward 7 years to 2000 when the Defence Force revised its rules regarding the prohibition on females serving in front-line services. In light of that policy shift this legislative change is well overdue. This bill started as a member’s bill but has been adopted as a Government bill. Although the bill is an attempt to keep abreast of modern times and ratifies a current situation it has in effect been outdated by Defence Force policy for 7 years. By any yardstick that we care to use the Defence Force has been far more progressive than this self-proclaimed progressive Government in ensuring that women have equal opportunities in a military career.  
Although the National Party is supportive of this Government bill and its intentions questions still need to be asked. For instance if it took this Labour-led Government 7 years to address this human rights anomaly and subsequent employment anomalies would we have to wait another 7 years under a Labour Government for New Zealand’s most foreign-decorated female combat veteran Nancy Wake to be given the honours she so richly deserves for her World War II service or to use this bill’s parlance “active combat service”? Given that Ms Wake is 94 years old I sincerely hope not. For that matter would contemporary female combat veterans have to wait 7 years for recognition of the combat service that this legislation will allow them to undertake?  
It almost goes without saying that women in all manner of employment add value to all of their respective places of work and that service with a combat-oriented unit or service in a combat zone will be no different in that regard. I mention that I would like to see the first female commander of defence forces or the first female Chief of Army a success that I am confident will eventually follow this law change although it must not be at the expense of existing or future standards. Standards should be based on competency not on race gender religious belief or any other factor.  
I would like to finish this call on a cautionary note. In this bill’s first reading we were told that New Zealand has a reservation relating to women serving in armed combat. Although the word “reservation” has been used in a more legal context it also has an implicit social context. We have only to look at the recent diplomatic tensions between the UK and Iran concerning British naval personnel who included a female naval rating to see some of the social and diplomatic problems that removal of the social reservation can generate. This is my caution to this Committee. Members should not think that this legislation merely adds to the raft of rights that we currently enjoy or that it merely corrects existing employment legislation. This bill has much wider implications than that and this Government and any future Government should be aware of that. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2006/07 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2007/08 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament. 
The need for this motion arises from the special arrangements that Parliament has for dealing with the budgets of Officers of Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. The officers concerned are the Auditor-General the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. In terms of the Act the Speaker is the responsible Minister for those officers who have a special relationship with this House and carry out independent watching roles concerning the executive’s activities. Section 26E of the Public Finance Act 1989 provides that before an appropriation in a vote administered by an Office of Parliament may be included in an appropriation bill for a financial year information must be submitted to the House on estimates of expenses capital expenditure and other matters.  
The Officers of Parliament Committee on behalf of the House has considered and made recommendations concerning proposed alterations to the 2006-07 appropriations and also the 2007-08 draft budgets for the Officers of Parliament. The committee’s report was presented to the House on 2 April 2007.  
The House is now being asked to commend to the Governor-General by way of an Address the estimates concerned for each Officer of Parliament with the request that those estimates be included as a vote in an appropriation bill. This procedure for the presentation of an Address to the Governor-General reflects the relationship of Officers of Parliament as statutory persons separate from the executive to the legislature. The Address anticipates the forthcoming Budget. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 In speaking to Government motion No. 1 I think this is an opportune time for me to acknowledge very briefly the Bolger conference held here on the weekend. The reason I do so is that Mr Dick Denton a resident and very long-standing citizen from the Horowhenua was down here on Saturday and he had a major heart complication. He was resuscitated by the security staff at Parliament and is now recovering well in Wellington Hospital. Mr Denton is a well-known JP who does a lot of court work in Levin. We were recently speaking about the senior citizens card and Mr Denton may qualify. I just wanted to put it on the record that Parliament wishes him all the best in his recovery. I also thank the security staff in Parliament for the very good work they did.  
This motion is all about the budgets of the Controller and Auditor-General the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Office of the Ombudsmen. Parliament has been seeking candidates for the new position of the third ombudsman and applications closed on 27 April. It is a very very important position in Parliament and we hope we have attracted some very good candidates who will be shortlisted by the Officers of Parliament Committee very soon.  
The Office of the Ombudsmen has come under a huge workload and it has taken a while for it to churn through a lot of its work. I think everyone out there listening would agree that ombudsmen play a very very important role in New Zealand and we need to ensure that we get the right candidate for the job in that office.  
With the whole debate that is raging at the moment about the environment and climate change the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is doing a very very good job as well. This position sits under the Officers of Parliament Committee. The central focus of this position is all around environmental sustainability. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does not report to a Government Minister but reports to Parliament through the Speaker and also through the Officers of Parliament Committee. So these officers are separate from any political interference. The job of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is to hold the Government to account over its environmental policies and actions. This position was set up in 1986. The commissioner Dr Jan Wright has been appointed for a 5-year term and she is doing a very good job.  
The other important role we are speaking about today under debate on this motion is that of the Controller and Auditor-General. This position is also independent of the executive branch of the Government and it has very important roles around its statutory office. People who are listening would be all too aware that Mr Kevin Brady did a great job around some of the spending by the Labour Party through the last election and Labour has just repaid that $800000-odd of taxpayers’ money which was not well spent. The job of the Auditor-General is very important because once again he sits away from political interference. He does a whole lot of work around audits—the annual audits through the Public Audit Act 2001—and gives very good advice to MPs and to Parliament. He has a very good strong liaison role and he is seeking some more money to get the Audit Office up and running. National supports this motion. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker I know that you have already put the motion which puts us in a bit of a difficult technical position so I seek leave for Hone Harawira to be able to make a contribution to the debate on this motion and for the vote to be put immediately after he has concluded his contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you Mr Hughes. Kia ora tatou katoa. The Maori Party is very interested in the Officers of Parliament Committee. This is not just because it is a committee meeting that we have not been invited to attend. We have looked over the operations of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to see whether they can carry out their duties independently of political interests. Of course they have wide-ranging powers of investigation independent of the Government of the day and report to Parliament through the Speaker of the House rather than through a Minister of the Government.  
Indeed this is the model we have been looking at for the role of Treaty Commissioner—someone independent of Government charged with protecting and promoting the rights of the Treaty as the very foundation of our nation to honour the vision of those who signed the Treaty to promote the Treaty’s commitment to partnership to raise awareness and understanding of the Treaty to review any decision made in respect of the Treaty by the Government to consider new ideas and new responsibilities in the proper application of the Treaty in legislation and to give value to the Treaty as our nation’s most important constitutional manuscript independently of the meanderings of fickle Governments.  
It was with those thoughts uppermost in mind that we noted some interesting points in the Budget report before the House. In Vote Audit the biggie of course was a massive increase of $18 million for audit and assurance services—an increase that even the committee called a “significant variance”. Apparently the money is so that the Audit Office “can forecast audit fees more accurately”. Not being on the committee makes it a bit hard to understand what that means but if the Audit Office is planning on working with Treasury to “develop an appropriate level of disclosure” then might I suggest that some basic disclosure of what exactly it wants another $18 million for might be a pretty good place to start.  
The amount of $18 million is a heck of a lot of money particularly given that the Maori Party has just been told that $1.5 million is too much to spend on Treaty education and cultural competency lessons for immigration advisers. In terms of both Ombudsmen when the proposal to appoint an additional Ombudsman came before the House last year the Maori Party supported it because the Ombudsmen’s office gets up to 6000 complaints a year and Maori see the independence of this office as helpful in holding boards of trustees social service agencies prisons the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and heaps of other Government agencies to account as well.  
In fact Ngati Kahungunu academic Moana Jackson has even suggested that the Ombudsmen might also be a good start for Maori dealings with the police. I note that in the wake of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct both Ron Mark and Nandor Tanczos also spoke in favour of an independent Police Complaints Authority—a position well overdue.  
In respect of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the Maori Party is keen to see the office building on the development of educators of progress towards sustainable development factoring in the social and environmental costs and benefits of growth—an area we have long supported to help provide a measure of comprehensive sustainable and inclusive advancement.  
One recent example of course is the landfill at Hokio Beach. On the one hand the Horowhenua District Council says that it is happy to take waste from other regions as a means of generating revenue and on the other hand we have a long process of dissatisfaction about the landfill site from both Muaupoko and NgatiPareraukawa because of its proximity to the Ngatokowaru Marae and other wahi tapu in the area the impact caused by building a landfill on a highly porous base such as sand the refusal to recognise the iwi kaitiakitanga and the pollution already being caused by sewage discharge into local streams affecting the marine environment and killing off local tuna stocks. The Resource Management Act requirements were undermined consultation was flawed alternative sites were never investigated and there is major dissatisfaction from local iwi local residents environmentalists and conservationists.  
Another current example is in Cable Bay in the far north where a developer wants to build an overbridge down on to a public beach rather than use a footpath like everybody else. The developer already has a very poor public record in other areas in Tai Tokerau yet the council seems happy to continue to deal with him. As in Horowhenua major concerns have also been raised about the lack of consultation and non-notifiable consent procedures being used in the face of petitions from locals opposing the development. Opposition to the overbridge is huge from local residents conservationists and local hapu and iwi as well. In fact local support for the overbridge is almost zero yet still the council continues to support the proposal.  
These are exactly the kinds of issues we would want the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to give priority to but given that the office received only a one-off payment of $50000 for sustainable development projects we doubt that it can do much to help. Because of that we wonder whether the Government is serious about supporting the concept of genuine progress and helping Parliament to understand how to achieve environmental sustainability if it will not back the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to do her job effectively.  
Finally we support the independent roles of these three offices of Parliament to be guardians advocates auditors educators and advisers to Parliament and the people. In that light we support the motion. Kia ora. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to. 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill be now read a third time 
. A careful and robust process has brought us to this point today: the passing of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. It was back in May 2004 that Cabinet agreed in principle to the statutory regulation of immigration agents in New Zealand. The then Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain announced that the days of shonky immigration advisers were numbered and today we see that come to pass.  
The call for the regulation of immigration advisers came first from migrants themselves—migrants who had been ripped off who had been told lies who had been misled who had had money and documents stolen and who had put their trust in an agent and had then been let down often when their application or appeal was not lodged or when important information from the Immigration Service was not passed on to them. Some shonky agents were providing false and fraudulent documentation to the Immigration Service often knowingly. Like many MPs in this House I have constituents who have had such experiences with immigration advisers. The financial and emotional cost to them is huge. Many families have lost significant amounts of money and more important they have been caused a great deal of stress.  
Worst of all though is that until now there has been little redress for those migrants. Something had to be done to ensure ongoing confidence in this industry. The liars the crooks and the thieves had to be weeded out and face the consequences of preying on innocent migrants. A large majority of immigration advisers are of course ethical and competent. A handful of crooks have been pulling down the entire reputation of the industry putting it at risk and undermining our immigration programme. Immigration advisers are valuable because they facilitate the entry of skilled migrants and others to New Zealand. Many of them supported the passing of this bill because they too want to ensure the integrity of this growing and vital industry.  
The passing of this bill means that anyone who provides immigration advice—with some exceptions both onshore and offshore—will have to hold a licence and that those who do so without holding a licence will be prosecuted. Immigration officials will not accept applications from unlicensed people; it is as simple as that. The legislation will establish the Immigration Advisers Authority within the Department of Labour. A registrar who will create a robust licensing system for immigration advisers will head the authority. He or she will be charged with developing strict competency standards and a robust code of conduct that sets out the ethical standards required of immigration advisers. The legislation will also establish the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal independent of the authority and administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice. The tribunal will consider all complaints about immigration advisers filed with it by the registrar and will have the disciplinary power to impose sanctions on immigration advisers. It has been estimated that some 1000 people will need to be licensed under the new regulatory regime. That estimate is based on surveys of people who currently provide advice excluding lawyers and other exempt persons and on examining the number of adviser interactions with my department. 
 The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee took a thorough and determined look at this bill and suggested a number of changes which the Government supported. Those have led I believe to a stronger and broader bill being agreed to by the House today.  
Several additional issues arose from the Committee of the whole House stage—the first being one regarding fees and levies. In general Government regulation-making powers require that fees can be collected only for a service that is directly supplied. Funding for all other indirect services must be collected through a levy. When the bill was introduced there was going to be an authority only. The nature of a tribunal in terms of its functions and technical funding arrangements had not been fully considered before the select committee proposed the split. My officials brought the fee/levy distinction to my attention after the select committee had considered the functions of the authority and the tribunal and reported back on the bill.  
The bill clarifies that fees will apply to the application-processing service and to the services of being licensed such as consideration of an application or renewal of an application to be licensed and to the licensing functions of the authority. A levy is required for the authority to be able to provide other previously agreed functions such as continuing professional development and to cover the complaints and disciplinary processes which are now to be handled by a separate independent tribunal. The introduction of a levy as well as fees does not foresee any increase in the total amount to be paid by people seeking to be licensed; it merely better distinguishes between funding the cost of the services that they will receive directly that is by fees and those that they may not receive directly but will benefit from that is by levies.  
The importance of the Treaty of Waitangi was also discussed during the Committee stage. A member proposed the establishment of a Maori Immigration Education Council to advise on matters of cultural education and to make recommendations binding on the Crown on all immigration education matters. Of course the Government is sympathetic to the need for migrants to be informed and advised about Treaty of Waitangi issues and we consult closely with the Government’s Maori caucus on those matters. We recognise it is important that migrants to New Zealand are aware of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. It is equally important that people advising and assisting new and potential migrants are conversant with the Treaty and aspects of tikanga. Indeed the Department of Labour already provides migrants and its staff with information on the Treaty for example. The bill will ensure that immigration advisers are as well informed as departmental staff on the Treaty and tikanga through the knowledge element of the competency standards. As Minister I will ensure that Treaty and tikanga matters are explicitly covered in those standards.  
In conclusion I take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge some of the key people and groups who have assisted in the passage of this legislation. Firstly I acknowledge the two previous Ministers of Immigration: the Hon Lianne Dalziel whose work pioneered the bill and the Hon Paul Swain who brought it through the Cabinet process. Secondly I acknowledge the very hard work of the select committee. The committee conducted a robust and careful process of considering the submissions. It made a number of recommendations which the Government supported. I want to give due recognition to the chair the Hon Mark Gosche who led that fine process. The process has meant there is support for the bill from all sides of the House and that support is welcomed. Finally I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on the bill particularly the submitters from the immigration advisers industry. It was very important for us to design the legislation with the input and support of the industry and we have appreciated the opportunity to do so.  
I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National supports the passage of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill but with reservations. I will highlight some of those outstanding issues that will need to be addressed in the future. First of all I acknowledge the chairmanship of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by the Hon Mark Gosche who took the line of allowing a free flow of exchanges and was receptive to opposing views which I believe has led to major improvements to this bill. The bill is now much better than when it was introduced to the House. I also acknowledge the work and support of the advisers and committee clerks who helped to improve on the original bill. The select committee members have contributed across the party line which once again has made possible the improvements to the bill. That is the satisfying part of the select committee process.  
There remain some concerns that I would like to raise. First of all after the bill was reported back to the House a late Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the Minister to introduce the term “levy” to the bill on top of the fees that are contained in the original bill. The anxiety of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment—which by the way fully supports the regulation of immigration advisers—is understandable. The immigration officials have always insisted that around 1000 immigration advisers are practising in New Zealand. The way the officials look at it is that the annual operating costs are around $1 million for 1000 immigration advisers so the registration fee will be around $1000. But the association has always been adamant that the number of full-time advisers out there at best is half that. Lawyers are also exempt from this bill so as you can imagine the association is quite concerned about the registration fee that has to be paid towards the running costs of the scheme.  
This late introduction of the term “levy” has rung alarm bells. I introduced an amendment during the Committee stage because the Minister was adamant that the total fees or levy—whatever we call it—would not exceed $1000 to $2000. He rejected that amendment but instead in the Committee stage made the declaration that the levy and fees will be drastically less than the indication of the maximum level of $2000. National will hold him to his word. After all the Labour Government promised this bill in the year 2000. It is now some 7 years after that initial promise was made. In response to some of the gung-ho statements made by the Minister about cleaning up the industry one could say that some of the horses have already bolted.  
The other issue that I want to raise is that of the scope of the bill. By and large the select committee members have all expressed some reservations that immigration advisers who handle only student visas and permits are to be exempted from this bill. Recent research was conducted by Waikato University researcher Dr Elsie Ho. She came to the same conclusion as the Ministry of Education in 2004 which suggested that Chinese students face a large gap between their expectations of New Zealand and the reality. The ministry also indicated that currently one-third of international students come from China. Dr Ho pointed out that those students are the ones who are more likely to want to stay permanently. Therefore one-third of our international students who come here are probably likely to progress to become a permanent resident in New Zealand at some time in the future. But they tend to be more unhappy because they came with unrealistic expectations. Dr Elsie Ho has urged immigration advisers in China to give better advice and perhaps better prepare those prospective students before they arrive in New Zealand. 
 That is exactly why some select committee members expressed concern. Consultants who deal only with student visas and permits might fall through the gaps. We will continue to face this problem of students not being adequately supported by advisers or consultants who are not familiar with and fully informed of New Zealand qualifications and other requirements.  
There are two other issues I want to raise. One is enforcement. I hear the Minister continue to say that there will be a robust complaint procedure and enforcement. But the experience we all have in this Parliament is that it is all too easy to pass legislation and that the enforcement of legislation is yet to be tested. Once again I hope that the Immigration Service will take on board the fact that Parliament will continue to monitor its enforcement commitment. In my office alone I have dealt with a lot of complainants who have raised issues with the Immigration Service which tends to say that its hands are tied and it needs to refer them to the police which in turn would advise them that there is nothing much they can do because it is a commercial transaction. We can understand the anxiety of people who seek advice from immigration advisers and consultants who are in general not that familiar with the legislation requirements etc. So we will continue to monitor to make sure that Immigration New Zealand under this new legislation will tackle those enforcement issues.  
The last issue I want to raise is that I think it is a tragedy that a trade restraint clause was introduced into this legislation. The Minister has shown no confidence in existing Immigration Service staff because in future people handling visa applications etc. will not be allowed to practise as immigration advisers for 12 months after they leave the Immigration Service. I think that is an insult to the existing employees of the department. It suggests either that their technical competence may not be up to scratch or that somehow the Minister is casting doubts on their integrity in that they may use their relationships with their ex-departmental staff for their own benefit. I think Ministers need to show more confidence in their staff. Of course the restraint of trade clause is also targeted at the former Minister of Immigration but I hasten to point out that John Delamere who is a former immigration Minister had an immigration practice for 2 years after he left Parliament. So what gaps is this legislation trying to plug? I remain puzzled by that. Although National supports this bill we still have some reservations. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be finally debating the third reading of this bill as it has had a long gestation period. It is very much needed by many in our community as a protection against the things the Minister mentioned in his speech which have happened to many migrants to New Zealand and have led to much discussion with the industry over a period of time by previous Ministers as to whether this should be dealt with by a voluntary regime or through legislation. It is clear—it has the total support of Parliament as I understand it—that everybody in this place agrees that a law is required. That follows a similar pattern in other countries such as Australia and Britain. It brings us largely into line with the regimes in other countries although there are some differences around issues like how lawyers are treated. But I think it is important that we do look to other jurisdictions as we make our own legislation and that has been helpful.  
I thank Pansy Wong and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relation Committee. I thank Pansy for her kind comments. I think the work that was undertaken by the committee was very productive. Most of us deal with immigration matters as electorate or list MPs on a fairly regular basis and sadly we and our staff spend far too much of our time in our electorate offices dealing with the bad outcomes of shonky operators. That is not to say that all the people out there are like that but there are too many to leave it to chance.  
Certainly a great many people have missed out on being able to stay in New Zealand legitimately because of poor advice from both lawyers and immigration consultants and many have gone to great expense and through great personal agony trying to get their immigration status established largely because of the unregulated nature of the business. In fact virtually anybody could and did set up as an immigration consultant up and down the country so the ethical and competent services were brought down by those less ethical and less competent services. Thus the need for this legislation.  
I think that the good thing about the bill we are now voting on is that it has been improved and that again is down to the officials who serviced the committee the people who sat on the committee and the members of the public with their various interests who came before the committee and made submissions. I want to make a comment about some of the changes that were made. Certainly we all agreed that the time frame was too long and we have brought that down. That is useful because it coincides with the actions going on under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act which will regulate lawyers who provide immigration advice. Again in this speech before the House I want to send a signal to the legal profession that we are looking to it to pick up the challenge and to do that job properly. It is important that we can rely on the legal profession having proper standards competencies and disciplinary procedures because it is not just the immigration consultants who are not lawyers who were causing strife out there. Many who were lawyers came to my attention. I suppose a future Parliament will look at this law in several years’ time and look at what the lawyers have done to deserve their exemption from the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and it may have to look at it again if that challenge is not met properly.  
The law obviously describes who can be an immigration adviser and it does that by I suppose saying who cannot be because there are certain criteria that one has to meet. I think that is important because we do not want to make it too tight but we do not want people with serious convictions and other things in their lives doing this work. As I said we have exempted practising lawyers. We have also looked at the not-for-profit sector which made considerable submissions on this bill. Again I want to pay tribute to the people from the citizens advice bureaus who made a very good case as to why they should be exempted. They are unique in that they do train all their volunteers and they usually have legal people to seek advice from. If in fact we had not exempted them I think that a great service provided to the community by citizens advice bureaus could have gone missing altogether and that could have created significant difficulties for other people particularly MPs and their electorate offices.  
It was also important to exempt MPs and their staff because we do a great deal of work of this nature. It is expected of us by our constituents and in some parts of the country it probably accounts for 60 to 70 percent of electorate work. It is a service that the public should be able to expect from their MPs and their offices without fear or favour. So all of us on the select committee agreed that MPs’ offices citizens advice bureaus and community law centres should be exempt. Obviously we have made that provision for lawyers as well with a watching brief on that one for the future.  
We toyed with the idea of the student visas. I think we all felt some discomfort with that but we do have a very competitive world out there in terms of offshore education and it probably would have severely affected that industry if we had moved on this. Again I think it is one of those things that future Parliaments will have to keep an eye on as this law gets put into place and settles down and we are able to look at whether that exemption is wrongly used—in a way that we hope it will not be—by having people who are exempt then moving into territory they should not be in.  
The select committee looked at the Government administration if you like of this and made sensible changes so that there is definitely a clear distinction about where the various roles are played out. That took care of the fears that the part of the Department of Labour that deals with immigration would be I suppose the watchdog over the industry. I think all of us on the select committee felt that that change about the location of the Government part of it was very necessary.  
I think the standards the code and the behaviour—all of those things yet to be worked out—are things that we all look forward to in the future. We all look forward to a greater standard of behaviour competency and honesty in an industry that has had a chequered history to date—that has I suppose had such a chequered history that this Parliament feels unanimously that it needs to pass a law of this nature.  
I am very pleased as chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and as somebody who has a great deal to do with immigration at a local electorate level that we are finally moving to put into place proper standards. I think all members of Parliament would support that sentiment because of their own personal experiences. We all have tales to tell about the bad cases but I suppose it is like everything: we forget to also focus on some of the positives that happen out there. There are a great many people who work in the field of immigration whom we place faith in in terms of heading those organisations. They will make sure that the standards are kept. Some of them wanted us to be even harder if you like than we perhaps have been in this law. Certainly those lawyers who do not operate as lawyers but as immigration consultants and who also have law degrees did want the coverage—as the Australians have—of lawyers under this regime. It is the one question mark that still hangs over it from my perspective. But it is a question that will be answered over time and it is an opportunity for the legal profession to actually do its own housekeeping and put its own standards in place. We look forward to that happening.  
There are a number of things in the bill around enforcement and the ability to look at records and all of those things will have to be tested over the next few years to see that we have got it right but I am pretty sure that we have this bill in very good shape. I reiterate the thanks of those of us who sat on the select committee to the officials who advised us my thanks to the other members of the committee and thanks to the members of the public who made very good and sound submissions.  
Finally to answer Pansy Wong’s point about the restraint of trade I say that this was something that the ethnic community representatives particularly noted. They were worried about former immigration staff advertising the fact that they were former immigration staff in order to give the impression that they had an advantage. That is one of the main reasons why we listened to that public submission and put that restraint of trade in. Again it is up to a future Parliament to see whether that is a law that stays there forever or whether there might be a minor amendment at some time. I commend this bill to the House. It is long overdue for many people but we got there in the end and that is a good thing. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In moving the third reading motion of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe argued that the bill was needed because there are a whole lot of crooks and cheats out there who will do people for their dollar if they are not regulated. To be fair about this I must ask where the greatest scam has been in the last couple of years in the immigration area. Where has the greatest abuse of vulnerable potential migrants been in the last couple of years? Has it been from an immigration adviser out there in the public? If members of this Parliament reflect back on the last couple of years I think most would have to acknowledge that the greatest scam and the greatest abuse of vulnerable potential migrants has been carried out by a member of this very Parliament—someone whom this bill is exempting from any regulation. Of course I refer to none other than the former Labour Minister the honourable Taito Phillip Field.  
It is fascinating—it is a paradox—that in moving this third reading motion the Minister David Cunliffe with such an innocent voice spoke of crooks and cheats out there not seeming to realise the paradox in relation to one of his own former ministerial colleagues—I do not want to be unfair; it has not been proven that he was crooked but certainly there is no question he abused vulnerable potential migrants. There is no question about that. One only has to read the Ingram report to see that. When we look at that particular case it is interesting to see the way the honourable Taito Phillip Field exploited potential migrants.  
A complainant claimed to me that in order to get the assistance of Taito Phillip Field as a Labour member of Parliament they had to pay serious cash. When I say “serious cash” I mean that this particular person claimed to have paid $2000 in order to get the assistance of Taito Phillip Field. What is interesting about that is also what on balance I think makes us accept that there probably is a need for this legislation.  
I talked to the person who complained to me who had paid the cash—and there is no question that the cash was paid. The complainant told me of having to front up with $2000 in cash in order to have Taito Phillip Field’s help with an immigration matter concerning a Thai overstayer—and it was not the Thai tiler; it was another one. What is interesting about that is that the cash was not paid to Taito Phillip Field directly. The complainant when asked to whom it was paid claimed it was a family friend. I said: “Well hang on could this person have been a crooked immigration adviser?”. I have to say that the person complaining laughed and said: “No no it’s common knowledge this person is not an immigration adviser. They are a go-between.”. Now I do not know—the police will sort that matter out I trust. But it is possible that the person to whom the cash was paid was in fact a shonky operator abusing potential migrants collecting a couple of thousand dollars in cash along the way simply to pass people on to a member of Parliament who maybe if we put the most generous complexion on it was a bit naïve about certain things going on around him.  
It is that—the risk that that person was simply a shonky immigration adviser—that on balance makes us accept the need for this legislation. It means more regulation and right at the moment there is no question that in the last 7 years under this Labour-led Government there has been significant regulatory creep. Right now there is no question that productivity in our economy is declining significantly. The latest figures show productivity down to 0.4 percent growth a year which is disastrous for New Zealand’s future and analysts— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Positive or negative? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Well it is still positive slightly but it is down from 2 percent through the decade of the 1990s when Labour claimed that failed policies were in place. Productivity was growing very well in those days. Since Labour has been in office the average productivity growth has gone down by two-thirds to 0.7 on average and it is now down to almost zero. Analysts are suggesting that one of the reasons for this among a range of reasons is excessive regulation. In fact there was a lecture on this very issue at Treasury this very day—which this Government’s own department Treasury sponsored. I did not see any Labour members of Parliament there but they would have learnt a bit if they had been there.  
Analysts are starting to say that regulatory creep is a major problem and this legislation is more regulation. What we did not see was a decent cost-benefit analysis. As the Government moves to regulate this sector of the economy where was the cost-benefit analysis? I think we should insist in the future that greater focus goes on cost-benefit analysis as we bring in greater regulation through this Parliament. The amount of legislation and regulation has grown exponentially in recent years.  
So National has reservations about this bill. We have supported it because as I say on balance National believes that it makes sense to have some framework to register immigration advisers and certainly the industry itself was supportive although notably the industry when making submissions on the bill did not know that this Labour Government intended by Order in Council to impose a levy which is just another name for a tax on the industry. That is typical of this Labour Government. It puts legislation in front of the select committee and then at the last minute when people no longer have a chance to make submissions it changes it. Undoubtedly there would have been further submissions had the industry known that the Government retained to itself the power to impose a levy the Government sees fit. I am sure that will make the industry fairly concerned.  
Finally I want to make this point. My good colleague Pansy Wong has already raised the issue of the constraint on trade on those who worked in the ministry or had been Ministers in the past. What to us is crazy about that is if a person has worked in the ministry he or she clearly has a knowledge and to prevent people from being able to use their expertise skills and training because they might be more effective as immigration advisers than someone else is just plain dopey. People should be able to use their skills and knowledge and there is nothing wrong with that.  
I think it is most unfortunate that the Labour Government did not listen to my good colleagues on the select committee Pansy Wong and David Bennett and remove from the legislation that constraint on trade. It is an unnecessary regulation that again will limit productivity. People with greater skills and knowledge can be more productive and that is an example of regulation that reduces productivity. I hear the Minister interjecting. Let me in my last moment say this to the Minister. OK he wants more transparency with immigration consultants. Let us get some transparency out of his department. How many scams were there in the last 12 months in his department?  
Last year there were 116 investigations of people in his department. How many of them found crooked operators? Let us have that Minister tell Parliament. He should take another call. He should advise one of his colleagues who is taking a call to tell us how come a whole bunch of Chinese immigrants had their applications approved within 1 day when the average time for Chinese business applicants was 10 months. How come the investigation has been going on for 7 months and this Minister claims he has had no report yet? For 7 months there has been an investigation going on into that. How come? Why does that Minister not apply the same transparency to the internal workings of the Immigration Service that he expects from external immigration advisers?  
I think it is time for greater transparency within the department instead of this Minister trying to hide everything that is going on in his department. He tries to block official information requests. He is very evasive of questions in this Parliament. We want to see a bit more transparency out of his department. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou te Whare. It is a rare occurrence when one can look through a Government website and find policy that reflects and honours our nation’s constitutional document the Treaty of Waitangi. It is hard to believe but in preparing for the third reading debate on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill I happened upon the Immigration New Zealand website where I found the following information: “The Treaty is recognised as the first immigration agreement between Maori and Pakeha (European settlers). … The Treaty was important firstly to control the thousands of future emigrants to Aotearoa New Zealand and secondly to protect the rights of Maori people. The benefits to both parties were clear—settlement rights for Pakeha and the natural right of the tangata whenua (the people of the land) would be respected and affirmed. … Immigration New Zealand recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi is the `founding document of our nation’. This means that Immigration New Zealand will consult with Maori on immigration matters.”—not the Maori inside Government but real Maori.  
I doubt that members of the Maori Party could have said it better themselves. I recap. The Treaty is recognised as the first immigration agreement. The Treaty is the founding document of our nation. The Treaty is important to control the thousands of future immigrants to Aotearoa and to protect the rights of Maori and Immigration New Zealand will consult with Maori on immigration matters. I put it to the House that if we are truly to enhance this country’s reputation as a migrant destination then it is the Treaty of Waitangi that will help to get us there.  
During the first reading debate on this bill in December 2005 Dr Sharples called the Treaty the first charter for migrants emigrating to Aotearoa. He described the Treaty as a way to unite people a concept that Maori fully endorsed in 1840 but which has since been overlooked neglected downgraded and marginalised by successive Governments including this current Labour Government. I need to point out here without any malice whatsoever that even Labour’s own Maori MPs Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mita Ririnui Mahara Okeroa Dover Samuels Shane Jones Jill Pettis and Moana Mackey have supported the deletion of the Treaty principles from legislation the removal of the Treaty from the school curriculum the cancellation of manaaki tauira and the instructions to the district health boards to tread softly as far as the Treaty clauses go.  
During the second reading debate last year my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell quoted Dr Ranginui Walker who described the preamble to the Treaty as the original charter for immigration—a charter that allowed immigration to Aotearoa from Australia and the UK but requires consultation with Maori as Treaty partner for any variation. Dr Walker said the Government had ignored the notion of partnership by unilaterally deciding who can enter Aotearoa without consultation with Maori. On the Immigration New Zealand website there is specific guidance to help all visitors to our shores and I quote: “to realise the significance of the Treaty within every aspect of life in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Such fine words.  
The Maori Party endorsed those statements from Immigration New Zealand and introduced Supplementary Order Papers to give weight to those statements. We proposed a way for Maori to be involved in formulating policy in order in fact to fulfil the agency’s own intentions to “consult with Maori on immigration matters.” We even proposed a cultural education programme which included Te Tiriti o Waitangi tikanga and te reo Maori for immigration advisers. This bill is supposed to determine what constitutes immigration advice the licensing process and who can and cannot be licensed. It was our considered view that the cultural education programme we were proposing would have helped immigration advisers ensure that migrants and visitors could indeed realise the significance of the Treaty within every aspect of life here in Aotearoa New Zealand.  
At another level it occurs to me that if we are to honour the spirit of partnership in the Treaty then the Government must also recognise the need to involve Maori in immigration policy and practice—and not just through meaningless words on a website. For a relationship to work both parties must be heard yet since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi Maori have had no input into developing immigration policy.  
We also suggested setting up a Maori immigration education council to help guide the Crown in immigration matters as a way of acknowledging Maori as partners in the Treaty—our nation’s original immigration document. The council would enable Maorito work with the Crown in setting immigration policy and advice and strategic directions through membership on the Immigration Advisers Authority and the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal as proposed under this bill. The council would also examine all issues related to the impact of immigration on Maori and report back on these to iwi the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Immigration.  
Those are all good ideas one would think but—hello; what was the Government’s response? Rational debate? Thoughtful consideration? Reasoned argument? Hell no! The Government pulled the old Standing Order 319 trick putting a financial veto on our proposals. It said: “No money honey! No debate no argument no consideration. Just no way Maori boy! We may have an $11 billion surplus and you might have a good idea but we ain’t going to spend any of our money on it.” I hear the Hon David Cunliffe talking about a Maori immigration council and that would be a good idea. It is something the Maori Party proposed quite early on even though the Government chose not to support the Supplementary Order Paper. If the intention is to go through with that we would be supportive of that notion.  
The key part to the changes introduced through this bill is setting quality standards for all immigration advisers which raises the question of course about what exactly defines quality and how one measures it because of course the Maori Party’s proposals were designed specifically to increase the quality of immigration advisers’ knowledge and understanding of the Treaty tikanga Maori and te reo Maori—qualities that should be paramount in those who would guide and advise migrants refugees and visitors to our fair shores.  
We were not surprised that submitters also held very strong views about quality standards. The National Council of Women said that competency standards were crucial to improving the quality of advice and that a robust external consultation process was important to help develop such standards. We also agreed with the submission from TuarikiDelamere calling for a system to determine lawyers’ competency to act as immigration advisers. In fact this whole area of guidance on standards and cultural competency was something we felt that a Treaty commissioner could provide guidance on helping to define and measure the capability of immigration advisers to carry out their duties consistent with the guidelines on their website.  
We agree with the need for quality standards but we call for that quality to be determined by Treaty principles in partnership and not just by affordability. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to raise the debate around the Treaty of Waitangi and immigration in the 21st century. The Treaty of Waitangi is indeed the founding document of our nation and for the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill to have any meaning it must recognise in every aspect the significance of the Treaty and all facets of its development and implementation. Kia ora tatou.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I would like to congratulate members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee especially our chair Mark Gosche on the leadership he provided on the bill. I thank the officials who helped us with this legislation and also all those who submitted on it. This legislation has arisen from a genuine need in the community. Anybody who made a submission on the bill was in favour of something happening. Everyone saw that there are some major holes in the way we deal with immigration in New Zealand and especially in the way we deal with the advisory aspects of the regulation of those who are involved in promoting immigration to New Zealand.  
It is unfortunate that the industry could not regulate itself. This is a case where self-regulation was not possible. In many other areas such as in the legal and accounting professions or even in the motor vehicle dealers industry we have seen instances of self-regulation. We see formulae of industry regulation that are much more pronounced in the sense that they are being done by industries in their own vein. But in this case the Government had to stand up and take the lead. It needed to do that in the sense that there was no other body that could engage in the necessary regulation to provide the comfort that people need as they come to New Zealand as migrants.  
Looking at this legislation we see some deficiencies that have come about especially during the Committee stage. The biggest of those deficiencies was the introduction of a levy by this Government at the last minute—a levy that was never discussed at the select committee; a levy that this Government introduced only because it knew that the structure being promoted might not work in the final form it was looking for. We discussed the idea of fees based on a maximum fee of about $2000 which was considered to be at the high end of what the market could afford to regulate the advice in the industry. That fee maximum was something that Pansy Wong one of our members on the select committee tried to seek during the debate in the Committee of the whole House. This Government denied that amendment to the bill and therefore showed its true intention of having the fee plus a levy exceed the $2000 that the officials had indicated was the maximum the industry could handle.  
Why else would one include a levy when there was a fee in the system that had been promoted by the officials? There can be only one reason: the Government decided it wanted to raise more money. It is another tax. It is another way the Government can bring money into its coffers. It is another way it can store up money for an election that it knows it will lose. The only way it knows it can go into the election is by spending people’s money that it does not actually have. That is what this Labour Government is about. It is just another tax. It is just another opportunity to put the hard boot into those New Zealanders who have their own businesses and who go out there to try to provide advice.  
No this Government would not let small businesses carry on. It thought it would put another levy on them and that is what we are seeing in this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Now we hear the hollers from the Labour Party members as they react to the possibility of another levy being put on. Why are they so defensive? They know they were wrong in doing this. If they were right then they should have done it all the way through the select committee process letting people submit on it and understand what the Government is trying to do. But no the Government brought it in at the last minute trying to put it under the cover of the Committee of the whole House. That is typical of a Labour Government— 
Darren Hughes 
: The cover of a democracy. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is the failure of democracy that we have seen from this Parliament and this Government—from this Labour Party. I think our spokesperson on immigration Lockwood Smith summed it up pretty well when he said that there has been only one case in the public eye where this bill would have applied. That case is the case of a Labour member of Parliament a case that has been debated in this House day after day. It is the case of one individual who has been let down by his own party as well so he has gone out to form his own party—a party that will take South Auckland and that will consign the Labour Party to being the third biggest party in this House after the next election. That is the reality of what is happening and those members opposite do not have anything they can do about it apart from putting on another levy. A levy is all they can do. Another levy is their way of dealing with issues such as this one. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Just before the break we were talking about the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and one of the big things there was the introduction of a levy that had not been anticipated at any stage during the select committee deliberation. The Government put it in at the last minute during the Committee stage of the discussion of this bill.  
We also talked about how there is no situation in which self-regulation is available in this case as the industry is not organised to the extent that we could have self-regulation as an option. So the Government has had to come forward with the regulatory body it has provided in this case. A few exemptions have been given notably to lawyers citizens advice bureaus and community law centres but we believe that another couple of groups should also have been given exemptions. One of them would have been for example the migrant resource centres. In Hamilton we have a large migrant resource centre that does a lot of work on immigration inquiries. Those centres are not exempt; they have to go through that process of seeking an exemption. That was something we brought up with the Labour members of the select committee because we felt that the process was unfair for organisations like that. They generally carry out the role of citizens advice bureaus yet they were given a different regime to operate under. We felt that it was unfair to put organisations like that through a more formal process. They could easily have been made exempt.  
We also see that some specific community groups are not exempt. We had a submission from the Indian community in Auckland. It was from a group that gives a lot of immigration advice to members of its community who want to settle in New Zealand. That group too could have been given an exemption in this legislation. The legislation does have a few problems in the sense that it could have covered a lot more situations where people do provide immigration advice and a genuine level of service that does not require any profit or income-generating motive—the advice is given simply on the basis of its community involvement and as a community organisation. In those cases there could have been the ability to have far greater exemptions.  
Overall though this legislation was well received by members of the committee. We were very disappointed in the way that this Government has brought about a levy at the last minute when it did not need to do so and it also is part of the indication of this Government’s failure to debate the immigration issue as a total issue. We hear there is talk of immigration reforms and they seem to be quite procedural. I think that members will see them coming up in further reforms of immigration legislation when we get to the real heart of what we need to sort out—that is why and how and how many people we let into New Zealand.  
Those questions have not been addressed by this Government. It has stayed away from the hard questions. It has not had a vision of New Zealand being open and inclusive and letting in as many people as is physically possible—which would actually contribute to New Zealand through skills energy and the passion to build a stronger country. The Government has not taken up a vision of New Zealand in the future; it has looked just at procedural matters. That is something where New Zealand has missed the boat in comparison with our competitors in the Western World. It has been a great disappointment to see that this Government has concentrated only on procedural matters in immigration and not on the wider picture when it had the opportunity to canvass fully through this bill and other legislation that will be coming up this year in relation to immigration. Overall this bill is necessary but it is also disappointing to see the way in which this Government has approached the issue and its failure to really grasp the bigger issues that need to be addressed in the immigration field.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make a reasonably short call on this legislation. The Green Party is supporting this Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and we have done so from the very beginning when my colleague Keith Locke gave a first reading speech about it. We have followed the bill reasonably closely through the select committee process. We have always been very keen to see greater transparency for and control over those who provide advice to immigrants. We get a lot of those kinds of cases coming to the Green Party—to me when I was the immigration spokesperson in my first term of Parliament and to Keith Locke now and during his first term of Parliament as well.  
People come to the Green Party because they see us as being the only people interested in the human rights aspect of their issues. We are seen as being the only people who will take seriously the fact that they have been treated so badly—largely by the Immigration Service itself but increasingly by those who are providing them with advice and charging them considerable amounts of money to do so. Some of the cases are very well-known cases to do with refugees and asylum seekers but heaps of people who come to us have enormous difficulty in dealing with the Immigration Service and with understanding the process.  
Part of the reason that we need immigration advisers is that they can give immigrants the kind of advice and process advice that they simply do not get from the Immigration Service because it tends to be very closed about the information it gives out and the kinds of criteria it makes assessments on. Because in some ways the Immigration Service acts as the enforcement agency for immigration issues as well people are frightened to get information from it. So it is really important that people have an independent person they can go to for advice.  
But when those advisers are then making a profit out of those immigrants’ real needs and very insecure situations they need also to be severely controlled in order to make sure that good advice is given and that they do not misuse the process. There have been cases where people have made serious claims against immigration advisers because those advisers have seriously misused the process and have ripped people off.  
We are talking about people who come to this country because they want to be part of the New Zealand community. They have looked at going to other countries but they have decided that New Zealand is the place for them. They love it here their children are here and their schooling is here. They feel that there are huge opportunities for them here. They have made enormous sacrifices to come all the way around the globe to New Zealand. They deserve respectful treatment by New Zealanders.  
Sometimes migrants do not get that respectful treatment; that is really obvious. They do not get it either socially—with the level of abuse that is often directed at immigrants and with the inability of New Zealanders sometimes to deal with language barriers and to be respectful of the fact that not everyone speaks English as perfectly as some New Zealanders might like to think they do—or from State agencies and private companies that are involved in giving them advice as well. These people deserve respect from us for their commitment to our country and for just being human beings they deserve to be treated justly and with human rights. So we are very pleased to see at least some attempt is being made in this legislation to protect new immigrants who are looking for that advice.  
Some really sad stories have come to me. I had one case where a family was here that had had some issues with its visas and family members had overstayed. The main applicant was the husband of the family and there were two children at high school doing very well. Instead of the Immigration Service and enforcement agencies dealing with the husband who was the main applicant they went to the house just before school finished one day and arrested the wife. They held her in custody. She was held in the women’s prison here in Wellington.  
The purpose for holding the wife even though she was not the applicant was that the Immigration Service and enforcement agencies believed that if they held the wife then the rest of the family would not go underground but rather they would try to get her out because she was so vulnerable. Her language skills were OK but only just. She had religious issues around the food she ate that were not respected by the prison service. She was stripped and treated very badly while she was in prison and she was in prison for a week before the authorities finally decided and arranged to deport her and her family.  
The treatment of this family at the hands of the State and some of the people who were giving them advice was extremely poor. The family had to rely on a very good lawyer who worked very very hard with us and with others to try to remedy their situation. It was extremely difficult for the family and they were deported. Thankfully in the end they were given an opportunity to return to New Zealand after they had paid their deportation fees and their air tickets and they have been here ever since. The children are again at school. One has gone to Otago University and is doing very well there.  
This family are committed to this country and their treatment at the hands of the State agencies and some others involved in their case has been terrible. It is only due to the lawyer who worked for them and the community that supported them that they have been able to make some gains.  
That is just one example of how vulnerable immigrants are when they come to this country and how difficult it is for them to get good advice and to manage the bureaucracy. When they are then subject to immigration advisers who are setting out to be exploitative and to reap the profits without providing the service really we have a whole sector of the New Zealand community—and I believe it is the New Zealand community—that is being abused and exploited. That abuse should stop; it needs to stop.  
So I am pleased about the bill. The Greens will be voting for it. No doubt there are some issues and some things will be missed in it—not all legislation is perfect—but none the less it provides some level of protection to what is becoming one of the most vulnerable sectors of the New Zealand community and we are pleased to see that. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a real honour to be able to rise to speak in support of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill for its third reading. I would also like to thank the member who has just resumed her seat MetiriaTurei for giving such a clear indication of the Green Party’s support for this bill as well by giving real-life examples of some of the issues that she has dealt with in her role as a member of Parliament and by really informing the debate in this third reading on this particular issue. In contrast I have to say to the National Party speakers on this bill that it has been really quite difficult to work out from the contents of their debate here at this third reading whether they support the bill or whether they are in fact opposing the bill.  
In his speech before the dinner break Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith talked about regulatory creep. Now he may well be a regulatory creep but I am not. I think his speech displayed just how uncomfortable the National Party is in dealing with introducing standards into our legislation. What this bill does is introduce standards for those people who are among some of the most vulnerable in our society—those people immigrating from their own countries and who wish to have appropriate professional advice. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is feeling uncomfortable about licensing immigration advisers because he sees that as being regulatory creep. I think that tells us all that the National Party still believes that the market fixes everything. That fundamentally remains its belief. Its members demonstrated that in their debate on this bill.  
In the select committee process they had to come face to face with the fact that the market does not fix issues such as this. They should have learnt that during the 1990s. All of the failed “let’s just be a lazy Government sit on our hands and leave it to the market” approaches absolutely failed. If members talk to any employer in this country they will find out about the skills shortage that they now face because of that “sit on the hands” approach of the National Government in the 1990s. No the market does not fix these issues. This bill is another clear example of exactly why there must be a hands-on Government approach taken to these issues. 
We are dealing with very vulnerable people. I want to remind the House here at this third reading that the people who rely on immigration advisers for their advice come from countries where they cannot possibly understand how we do things here in this country when it comes to our immigration laws. They are absolutely at the mercy of those from whom they seek their immigration advice. That fact is absolutely important as they make that life-changing decision to immigrate to New Zealand. It is a life-changing decision because they are uprooting family they are leaving family behind and they are going from a situation or a country where they understand the systems well and coming to join our society here in New Zealand which they may not understand so well. They are very vulnerable when they are making this life-changing decision. Often the advice they get from immigration advisers is the first contact for new immigrants to New Zealand. This bill ensures that there will be some professionalism taken with regard to that advice. It is important for the reputation of this country because as I said often the first contact that these new citizens—these immigrants—will have is through the immigration adviser. They should expect a professional service and competency and they should expect that it will reflect the type of country that they are choosing to immigrate to.  
I think this bill is very significant because it is about enhancing New Zealand’s reputation overseas and it is about—yes—creating standards. I know that some in this House find the idea that it is government’s role to create standards a little daunting. This Labour Government does not find that at all daunting. We take up that challenge because we know just how important it is.  
Because some debates in the third reading of this legislation have been less than clear about what the bill is about I want to remind those who are listening what this bill is seeking to do and what it will deliver. The bill creates a new regulatory framework. Yes it is regulation—the regulation of individuals providing immigration advice both onshore and offshore. It was important that we covered both of those aspects because people pending their decision to immigrate to New Zealand seek advice both from onshore and from offshore consultants in this area.  
This bill is critical to managing the growing immigration advisers industry. While many immigration advisers do provide good services there have been insufficient regulatory constraints or market incentives to prevent some advisers from providing unethical or incompetent services. This legislation will bring New Zealand into line with countries such as Australia and Britain. So we are actually upholding our international obligations in this regard as well by introducing the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill.  
Further by raising the standard of immigration advice this bill will promote and protect the interests of migrants and potential migrants who receive immigration advice and it will enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination because we want to keep that reputation up as high as possible. People who are fortunate enough to travel overseas will know that New Zealand’s reputation is extremely high on the world stage. That is because of the very principled approach it has taken on many foreign affairs issues. Continuing to improve our professionalism on immigration advice will enhance it even further.  
This Labour-led Government understands that a sustainable well-managed balanced immigration programme is one of the keys to New Zealand’s economic transformation and this bill is part of that understanding. We know that for the people whom we as members of Parliament see in our electorate offices and in our constituency offices this bill is coming not a moment too soon. I have certainly had contact personally myself as a member of Parliament with people who have had the wrong advice on their chances of gaining residency and citizenship in this country. They have come to this country in good faith. They have found out many thousands of dollars later and many months—or many years in fact—later that the advice they were originally given was incorrect advice and that they did not have the qualifications or meet the criteria that would enable them to spend a long period of time in New Zealand. They have therefore made some very critical decisions in their lives about coming away from their country of origin and investing here in New Zealand—perhaps buying property becoming owners of businesses or starting up new companies—only to find that the original advice was not in fact correct and they now need to make some different decisions and return to their country of origin.  
I remind the House how important the sorts of decisions are that people are making and why therefore we need a professional system in place to ensure the competency of the advice that people are given. Certainly I can recall about 2 months ago a woman from the Cambridge area who told me exactly that story of having been given the wrong advice from an immigration adviser who assured her that if she did certain things she would absolutely become resident in New Zealand when that was quite incorrect information. She came here in good faith. She put her money into setting up her own catering business only to find that the advice she was given was incorrect. She now has to fold up that business opportunity that she started up. When I informed her of this bill’s passage she said to me: “I wish this had been in place when I first made my inquiries about New Zealand. I have spent $10000 trying to make my New Zealand dream come true. I hope this won’t happen to others in the future. Good on you.”  
Good on the Labour-led Government for bringing this bill into place. That woman knows that other people are coming along in the same situation and that they will be much better placed.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. The previous speaker has just pointed out that this bill is in response to a perceived and a very real need for people who are going to be immigration advisers to have some standards and this bill sets the standards.  
It is very important for people who are coming to this country that they are not ripped off or disillusioned by their experience of dealing with immigration advisers as they have been in the past. We have just heard the story of one person who was giving wrong advice. Many of us as MPs have heard from many people who have been given bad advice and who have had very very bad experiences. I know of a case where someone was getting advice and the adviser was holding the person’s passport. I ended up by saying to the person that the adviser was not allowed to do that and the person should go back and demand the passport. I am sure many MPs in the past have come across many instances where people have been dealt with badly.  
It used to be that an immigration adviser was a failed MP or a failed lawyer or a deregistered lawyer. All sorts of people decided that anyone could be an immigration adviser—it was a good thing to do one just gave advice and one did not need any standards or need to know about the law and so on. This bill is very very important. It means that immigration advisers must be licensed they must know what they are talking about they must be able to give advice and they must work within the law. This bill is really really overdue. We do feel very very sorry for those people who have come to this country and had bad experiences. As the previous speaker said many still have a nasty taste in their mouth about what happened to them through the process of getting here.  
We note there are exemptions from the licensing. Members of Parliament and members of their staff are exempt and that is necessary because as members of Parliament we get a great number of people coming to our offices asking about their immigration status and what they should do where they should go and what action they should follow. We note that foreign diplomats and consular staff are exempt. We note that employees of the public service who provide immigration advice are exempt obviously. Lawyers who are registered are exempt. Persons employed by or working as volunteers for community law centres are exempt. They give advice to people who come to them and really want to know where to go. People who provide immigration advice offshore for student permits are exempt.  
So there are exemptions for people who are able to give advice but generally we do not want any Tom Dick or Harry or Jane or Joan or whoever setting themselves up as immigration advisers and as we have seen in the past giving wrong advice or to put it crudely ripping off people who want to come to this country by demanding large amounts of money delivering wrong advice or no advice at all and holding on to people’s documents and making them wait and wait without receiving any satisfaction. I see the Minister nodding in agreement that this legislation is in response to corrupt practices that were going on. We thank the Minister for coming up with this legislation. We thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we thank those who made submissions because they informed the process and have been extremely important in this whole area.  
We note that the bill deals with codes of conduct as to what is expected of an immigration adviser such as what they are expected to know how they are expected to behave how they are expected to deal with their clients what documentation they deal with their fees being reasonable and so on. The job of the registrar will be to develop a code of conduct that advisers will have to comply with. It is very very good that there is a complaints process and a disciplinary tribunal so people will have a form of redress will be able to take complaints and will be able to have some form of redress should they be dealt with erroneously or not get the proper information advice and treatment they should expect.  
We note that those who are licensed should have a certificate and that people who are seeking advice will be able to check that they are going to a legitimate adviser and not to someone who has set him or herself up. As I said as constituent MPs many of us know people who have been to advisers been given wrong advice and ended up in tears in our offices wondering what to do next and where to go. We have felt extremely sorry for those people and are very grateful for this bill because it will ensure that there will be some standards that those standards will be carried out and that those people will have an ability to make complaints and to deal with the process.  
Once again I thank everyone who has been involved and I express an apology to those people who in the past were dealt with by people who were not up to scratch and did not give the advice they should have given. We express a big apology to those New Zealand immigrants who as Sue Moroney said still have a nasty taste in their mouths from their first experiences of this country—from people who did not treat them in the way we would think was typical of good New Zealanders or in a way that we ourselves or our families have experienced.  
Just last weekend I heard someone say that when they came to New Zealand they were not dealt with properly and that feeling does not go away. People still hold that grudge for a long time when they have been as we have said ripped off by people who have not had the integrity that will be demanded with this licensing process. So once again I say thank you to all those who have been involved and we look forward to the implementation of this law and greater justice and fairness for those who exercise it. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill. I think it is extremely important for the fabric of New Zealand society. As a Government we have always stressed since we came into office that we need a very well-managed and balanced immigration programme and that that sort of programme was one of the keys to New Zealand’s economic transformation. We are very aware that the Opposition has carped on somewhat about net migration loss and we knew that this net migration loss had to be offset by attracting to New Zealand the right sorts of people who are given the right advice from the very beginning of the process. That is core to the fabric of the New Zealand identity.  
We have always trusted people in New Zealand. We have gone on good faith goodwill and trust. It is amazing how haphazard the immigration advice industry—and it is an industry—has become. It takes a constituent MP in a very busy office to see the number of cases that come to us as a default process after a person has tried to use the Immigration Service out of need and has to talk to someone he or she trusts about the process that has belittled what we want in an open and transparent Immigration Service. That is why I am very pleased to see in this bill the complaints and disciplinary tribunal. I think it puts this profession on a parallel and makes it relative to other professions. We are saying that immigration advisers must be professional in the way they go about their business. Along with that goes accountability as it does for any other professionals about the sort of advice given and also about the costing and the transparency of the process for these more vulnerable people when they want to come to New Zealand.  
What a ghastly thing it is for any people from offshore who decide that New Zealand is the country of their choice—not the country of default—to meet an immigration adviser who gives them the wrong steer from the start. Members all know how we have to then make appeals to the Minister of Immigration and we all know about the huge amount of resources that go into any appeal process because the wrong advice has been given in the first instance. So these people were put crook to begin with either about what category they should be using or about what sort of visa they should be applying under and from then on it is very difficult to unpick and undo a process that was faulty from the initial application.  
I am also pleased that this tribunal is independent of the ministry. I think that is very very important. In many cases I have had nowhere to go to other than the Minister’s office and I do not see that as being the right place because then yet another official is asked to go and review the file and make sure that the right advice was given. Migrants ask to see members often—but not in the members’ offices because they feel they are hiding under the threat of being sent back to their country of origin. As a constituent MP I have been to some very peculiar places to meet some thoroughly decent people who have applied with the best intent of coming into New Zealand and contributing to our economic fabric and who are in hiding and have nowhere to go. They have been led by some very good people through their ethnic association or their particular migrant community who have bothered to make the effort to put together a case to bring to a constituent MP.  
I have been appalled at what I have seen in terms of costs along the transaction pathway for applications. I have seen cases where costs have run to thousands and thousands of dollars and the associates of the migrant community have put in together to fund it in terms of getting the record straight. So I am really pleased that there is an independent tribunal for complaints. I think that tribunal will have to be thoroughly well resourced because as soon as we have a complaints tribunal along the lines of any other tribunal that we are aware of we will need to resource it. We have had the recent case of the Police Complaints Authority saying that if the Government is to set up the authority to answer the issues that come before it we should resource it well. So I am pleased to see that complaints tribunal in the bill.  
Really good immigration advisers in my community have absolutely no problem at all about being licensed about being subject to rigorous scrutiny over their professionalism and about their need for ongoing professional development because goodness knows we change the Immigration Act very frequently. Often the wrong advice is given unsuspectingly because immigration advisers are not even aware of the amendments that have happened to either the regulations or the Immigration Act. Immigration advisers are saying that they need to keep up with the play and that they need to go and attend some seminars to know what is going on so that they do give the right advice.  
I think that this is a thoroughly good bill. It even goes back to before Paul Swain’s time when members had to give names to the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She asked for members to come forward with specific names in order to cite immigration advisers either onshore or offshore who had been absolutely unscrupulous in their dealings. That information was hard enough to get out of constituents because they did not want to dob in the person who put them wrong and took their money under false pretences. So members gave a huge list to the Minister. Then she to her credit then Paul Swain and now David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove put their minds to creating a thoroughly professional bill.  
I think it is a great thing that we are having this reading today and I congratulate those on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who took this bill so seriously. I do believe that this bill will bring us into line with other countries. It will show that we are a thoroughly decent country and that we do not just go on trust and a bit of a wink and a nod. The professionalism around immigration now has raised the bar. This bill shows the standard we expect to see in our country and we expect to abide by it so we know we are getting the people here welcoming them and making them feel that they are part of our society. We are proud to have them here and we are dissociating ourselves with the illegal and shonky practices of the past.  
I think that this is a fantastic bill. I know that the migrant community out there is very pleased about it. I went to the Indian association AGM. That association has been going in this country for 83 years. The Minister for Ethnic Affairs came and those people were delighted with the steps this Government has undertaken from when we got into office in 1999 in order to purge our processes and to put in place very very strong and sustainable frameworks for immigration that cannot be unpicked by future Governments. I believe that we have met that commitment. The community that we discussed this bill with was delighted and I am sure that we will go forward in a very positive manner with this bill behind us.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise with I guess three hats on to welcome the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Firstly I am myself an immigrant to New Zealand. Secondly I am an electorate member of Parliament in a central city area that is often the first port of call for refugees and migrants coming to live in the beautiful city of Christchurch. Often the local MP’s office is the place they head off to to get advice and help. Thirdly I am a Labour member of Parliament who believes in fair and balanced law.  
I would like to just briefly talk from those three perspectives. I was fortunate enough to come to New Zealand right back in 1991 when probably the pressure on immigration was somewhat less.  
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You wouldn’t get in now Tim. 
TIM BARNETT 
: The member has started to heckle already.  
The points system had just come in I speak English as a first language—after a fashion as the Minister of Immigration has just commented—and I was in a position where I did not have to seek paid work immediately. So I was one of the fortunate people. I did not need to go to a member of Parliament in my local area to get help. I conflicted against other parts of the immigration system particularly living in a same-sex relationship but that is another story for my autobiography one day. But anyway I was the fortunate one in that respect.  
Secondly I now find myself in the position as an electorate member of Parliament where my office is heavily burdened by immigration casework. We reckon out of the 75 hours of paid staff time in my electorate office that about 30 of those hours is spent doing immigration casework. Fortunately we are one block away from the local immigration office and we also have very strong links with the ethnic and refugee communities from which a lot of the issues are generated.  
I often wonder why people come to a member of Parliament rather than always going to a lawyer. Obviously there is an issue of money and together with money comes the issue of specialism of lawyers because back in the early 1990s very few lawyers had a real expertise in this area. Now a whole group of immigration advisers has grown up and that is why we need this legislation today. Their expertise is variable and until this legislation goes through the consumer guarantees really are not as great as they should be. So one reason people tend to come to members of Parliament for help in this area is entirely because they do not have a great trust in the advisers and the wider legal profession in this particular area.  
The second issue is that a good member of Parliament—from whatever party—will create strong links with the various ethnic communities and through that those communities will often be host to people who are coming to New Zealand who have immigration problems and who want to go to a friendly face for help.  
Then the third issue is that the availability of free independent advice agencies is limited. My electorate office is fortunate enough to be a couple of blocks from a community law centre. I used to be its coordinator so I know the place well. It also has resources that are quite strained by the amount of immigration casework that it has had to take on and it is unable to deal with the caseload that every one of the electorate offices in the city—four Labour one Progressive and one National—take on in terms of immigration.  
The work we do is not to replace the role of an adviser or a lawyer. The role of a member of Parliament in this area is to be a translator of the system and an advocate back into the Immigration Service. I have to give great credit to the local immigration office because I think nowadays it has developed a real expertise in dealing with members of Parliament to pick up these issues without the issues having to go any further. Just because one is a member of Parliament in an area generating lots of immigration cases does not necessarily mean to say that there will be lots and lots of letters through to Ministers to ask them to use their discretion. There is a whole range of issues that cause people to come to members of Parliament as a friendly face in order to get advocacy for their immigration issues.  
One thing I have noticed when reviewing those cases is that it is not one size fits all. Often we get cases coming to us as politicians that really resist any easy description. The matters are quite complex and any law and any rule is going to struggle to be relevant and to be applied to that particular situation. For all those reasons I think it is really important that we recognise the role of members of Parliament in this area. I am glad to see the protection for MPs in this legislation so we can continue to do our work which is to give a bit of advice and a bit of information.  
The third point just briefly is that this law is necessary. This law is about protecting people in New Zealand including New Zealand residents to ensure that they get a fair service. We have heard from my Labour colleagues examples of shonky operators in this area. I will be pleased to report back tomorrow to those groups in my electorate and my city that we now have protections in place and we now have fair law in this area.  
I commend our new immigration advisers licensing regime to the House and I am very pleased to be the last speaker in this debate. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Bill read a third time. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee for the debate on the performance in 2005-06 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2005-06 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A total of 3 hours is allowed for the debate. At the conclusion of the 3 hours the Chairperson will report to the House. Only the financial reviews that have been reported are available for debate. A list of these is appended to the Order Paper.  
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises that they wish to debate. The first entity I understand that members wish to debate is the Government Superannuation Fund Authority. 
Government Superannuation Fund Authority  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 The Government Superannuation Fund Authority and the guardians to the fund have in our view had a remarkably good year. The fund has in excess of $12 billion within it and it has returned after fees something in the region of 19.2 percent. So I think the guardians are to be congratulated and I think the Government is to be congratulated on setting up this fund.  
We in New Zealand First of course had advocated such a fund many many years ago—in fact in the days when we were in coalition with the National Government—and a referendum on that proposal was held and lost. I think that people now understand the value of what was being proposed at that time. I think that it is sad because there have been times even before then when opportunities for a fund like this had been proposed but were always turned down. Sometimes that was because of the personalities involved which I believe was the position in our case and sometimes because of pure politics because it was the wrong side of the Chamber proposing such a fund. But now we have a fund and it is succeeding.  
I cannot discuss the superannuation fund without mentioning the power of the Australian fund and the role it is playing in the Australian economy. We in New Zealand First would like to see that sort of fund happen here and it is sad that we do not have it. But we are still hoping that compulsory superannuation contributions will become the norm and we hope that the proposed KiwiSaver will turn into a compulsory scheme. We proposed that the superannuation fund be in named accounts and we still hope that that will come to pass one day.  
New Zealand First makes no bones about the fact that we believe the senior citizens of this country have had a raw deal over the years and we have made it our mission to go out— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Self-interest. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Thank you very much—getting there fast! We have made no bones about the fact that we want to go out there and improve conditions for the senior citizens of this country. They have put in the hard yards they have put in the work and they have served our country well and we believe that it is time for us to look after them when perhaps they cannot do that for themselves as well as they might.  
In speaking to that point we have been very proud to oversee in the agreement with the Labour Government a lift in superannuation of $20 per week for a married couple and we are very proud of that. We will also oversee—and it was debated earlier this afternoon—the SuperGold card coming to fruition in August of this year. We think that those things are positive and more especially positive not just for the people whom they relate to as in the senior citizens but they are extremely valuable for the whole of the economy. The Australian model proves that and the New Zealand model once it has a few more years under its belt will prove that also.  
Personally I do not think that these things would have happened without New Zealand First. I still hope that we will get the named accounts in the superannuation fund and we will still keep working towards that with all of our considerable efforts in the years ahead—the next election and beyond. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I thank Mr Woolerton for his contribution to the debate. I think it is fair to say that his contribution stepped slightly wide of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority and did give the Government a lot of praise and support for the work it has done and the work it is about to do—I feel like I am saying grace. But it is good to bring the focus back to the subject of the debate which is the Government Superannuation Fund Authority and to say that overall it has made very good progress in the current financial year. The total after-tax surplus of the fund was $462 million for the last year ended 30 June. The total net assets increased by $271.7 million. The total assets of the fund were $3.8 billion.  
Unfortunately for the long-term future of the country the total liabilities of the fund are about $15 billion and clearly that is something that is being worked on. The level of the required Government contribution projected over 5 years from 30 June before the offset from employers is $577 million this year rising to $618 million by 2010-11. So there is quite a large liability sitting there in that fund.  
As far as the investment returns are concerned the performance of the fund has been very strong over the past 3 years. In the last year the fund achieved a 13.5 percent return on average net assets. The best-performing asset classes were property and international equities. I know that it is strictly outside the realm of the debate but I think the Chair will be liberal and let me say that in the first two quarters of this financial year the fund has achieved a return of 6.3 percent.  
In the last financial year the authority decided to allocate up to 15 percent of the fund’s assets to alternative asset classes in addition to the 7.5 percent allocation to property. The first step in implementing that was to shift 3 percent of the fund’s assets from New Zealand bonds taking them down from 8 percent to 5 percent to commodities futures. I am sure my colleague Maryan Street will be pleased to know that the authority has committed itself to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand as reported— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Does the member wish to speak on the Government Superannuation Fund Authority? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well then you are in the wrong debate. 
Report noted. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s Groundhog Day. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: It is Groundhog Day indeed. We are back here after a 3-week adjournment. I rise to speak about the Reserve Bank report. It is very timely that we are discussing the Reserve Bank report tonight given that there has been much publicity and discussion over recent weeks about monetary policy and about the Reserve Bank. In fact if we cast our minds back over the last year or two we will recall that there has been much discussion and conjecture about the role of the Reserve Bank and the results that fiscal policy have on monetary policy.  
The Reserve Bank is charged with many roles—amongst them looking after our banknotes and money in circulation etc. But it also looks after the management of monetary policy. As the report from the Reserve Bank to the Finance and Expenditure Committee states the Reserve Bank has had a pretty tough time. Dr Bollard is not the bad guy here. Dr Bollard the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not the bad guy. The buck—the inflationary buck rising interest buck and overpriced exchange rate buck—stops with the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen. The inflationary chickens have most certainly come home to roost. That process started probably about 6 or 7 years ago.  
Monetary policy does not operate in isolation. If one had read some reports over the last year one would think that perhaps it does but in fact it does not. Fiscal policy virtually totally drives the forces that drive the decisions on monetary policy within New Zealand. That is what the Reserve Bank is charged with doing. Most New Zealanders may think of the Reserve Bank as just raising interest rates and the exchange rate and as managing our banknotes etc. But the Reserve Bank in the last year has been very very busy. For example in the middle of the year it took a trip to Japan. Members may recall that at about that time the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar was about 64c or 65c to the US dollar. At that time the Reserve Bank was trying to discourage the Japanese from investing in New Zealand to help perhaps to hold our exchange rate at the level of that time. It is worth noting that at the moment the exchange rate is about 74c to the US dollar I believe. It has gone up by another 9c—about 17 percent—over the past year.  
In New Zealand the Reserve Bank prides itself on its independence and on the transparency of monetary policy. So what has changed? What has changed over the past year? What has changed over the year of the Reserve Bank report that we are talking about? Why suddenly tomorrow—as Dr Cullen alluded to today in the Chamber—will the Finance and Expenditure Committee be asked for solutions around monetary policy? What an amazing admission of failure that is! Why has the Finance and Expenditure Committee suddenly been asked for solutions around monetary policy? What is going on there? There are many conflicting reports. Just last week we heard Dr Cullen say one thing Mr Mallard say another thing and the Prime Minister say another thing again. Who is in charge? Is it Dr Cullen Mr Mallard the Prime Minister or Dr Bollard? Who is actually in charge?  
The monetary conditions we have at the moment have been 7 years in the making. There is massive resource pressure and there are massive constraints within the economy. One can trace the origins of our current problems back to about 2000-01 when the price target agreement was changed. We moved from having hard barriers to inflation—which were once 0 to 2 percent—that provided certainty to New Zealanders New Zealand business and of course the Government accounts. We moved from that to a point where we have soft targets of 1 to 3 percent over the medium term which is defined as being about 3 years. That has given rise to the absolutely absurd situation that if yesterday’s consumer price index had come out at 10 percent for example as long as the Reserve Bank governor was forecasting inflation to come back to between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term then he would be doing his job. He would be entirely within his rights doing his job and fulfilling the obligations between him the board and the Minister of Finance.  
At about the time of that change we saw consumer price index inflationary expectations start to rise. As those expectations started to rise interest rates started to rise and funnily enough the exchange rate started to rise. We now have inflation expectations based around 3 percent. I ask someone to show me a wage claim salary claim or price increase that is less than 3 percent. That is now the base and it is absolutely cancerous to our economy. Just as an aside though members should imagine where the consumers price index would be if our exchange rate was actually 20 or 30 percent lower than it is.  
What is broken? What is broken in our monetary policy framework? It is actually working. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I acknowledge and put it on the record that the previous speaker was Mr Craig Foss from Tukituki. I think that everyone who was listening to this debate should know who it was. I had to ask just in order to check that but it was Mr Craig Foss from Tukituki. People who were listening to him should know that because frankly although he actually has more experience than the Leader of the Opposition in the finance markets and has done better than him he should know a lot more than he showed he did.  
 Mr Craig Foss should know that one of the reasons the Finance and Expenditure Committee is I understand contemplating an inquiry is that we cannot trust Bill English on this matter.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On the question of monetary policy as the member was indicating going before the committee he asked the reason for that Mr Chairman so I think I am allowed to give a response. The response is that Mr Bill English when involved in confidential discussions— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Pulled the pin. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —pulled the pin made them public and undermined his own leader who was supportive of a particular mechanism. So this Government has decided that if the committee decides to do so it will be good to have something that is clear and transparent and to have open discussion about it.  
The member makes points about fiscal policy. He is one of the worst members in terms of demanding more Government spending. He wants tax cuts and more spending and then he complains about fiscal policy. 
Craig Foss 
: How’s your productivity? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well some productivity from that member would be good. Some productivity from that member would be a change. 
Craig Foss 
: You don’t even measure it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is very very hard to measure productivity like that—very hard to measure stuff that does not happen.  
The next point I want to make goes to the contrast between the parties on the fiscal approach. The National Party has announced today that it will strip money from working families and give it to National’s mates by way of tax cuts. 
Craig Foss 
: What did your tax rates do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is exactly the point. He wants to strip money from working families. He has indicated that he wants a tighter fiscal policy. At the same time he wants a looser fiscal policy. But on the way there he wants to have a transfer of money from people with kids to his rich mates. That is not on. That is the sort of election we want to have. We will have an election on that—on the National Party stripping money from working families and giving it to its rich mates. This Government will be keen to have that sort of debate albeit it will be one more about fiscal policy and the approaches to that than about monetary policy. But given that the member brought that into this discussion I thank him very much and ask him to bring it on. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am delighted as a colleague and as an Associate Minister of Finance along with my colleague the other Associate Minister to follow Trevor Mallard. I have to say that when we talk about monetary policy I recall when I was chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the Governor of the Reserve Bank coming to a meeting. He always provided us with excellent information. 
But we are debating monetary policy and Mr Foss talked about conflicts and contradictions. Well I have to say that before Bill English appeared on  
Close Up 
 with me a couple of weeks ago to debate the dollar he had just put out a statement that said it was all the Government’s fault and that we should cut expenditure. Then he went on  
Close Up 
 and was asked what he would cut. Would he cut the 1000 extra police? Would he cut the public service? Would he cut the number of teachers? He responded to Mark Sainsbury when challenged by saying: “You don’t need to cut expenditure.” So Mr English put out a press release saying we should cut it—we are talking about monetary policy here because the fiscal situation that National proposes has an effect on monetary policy as we know—then he said we do not need to cut it. Then when questioned again he said we are doing too well and we need to cut growth. So that member can talk about contradictions in fiscal policy!  
He is from a crew who criticises quality Government expenditure like the biggest roading programme we have seen in 30 years fairer wages for nurses a free 20 hours of early childhood education and 1000 extra police. And then that member has the audacity to go on about inadequacies and a lack of quality in expenditure. If he had got into Government he was going to drop on us a $7.4 billion tax cut half of it borrowed and inject it directly into the economy. I ask that financial genius over there to tell me what that would have done to the inflation rate and the Reserve Bank governor’s ability to control monetary policy. 
Mr English would have given his mates the then leader of National Dr Brash and himself a hundred bucks a week but most of my constituents and low and middle-income constituents around $20 or $30. And he goes on about the need to contract expenditure! This of course is after all his colleagues for months have called for more money in corrections youth justice roading and police. Mr English went on national television and thought he could hoodwink the public by saying we should cut expenditure then said that we did not need to and that the answer to our problems in respect of inflation and the dollar was to cut growth.  
Apparently according to Mr English we are all doing too well. The economy is doing just too well. It is over capacity—going gangbusters. We have the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and the longest stretch of economic growth since the war. So what is the National Party prescription to deal to it all? National members say: “Let’s cut economic growth.” Well I say to them that there is an easy way to achieve that task. If they were ever to win an election they would cut growth and the dollar and inflation overnight just through the lack of confidence they would engender in the financial community through speeches like the one that financial genius Mr Foss made tonight. I say to Mr Foss— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s one of their better members. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague is known for his judgment but on this one he may be out. 
I say to National members that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say to people at one end of the pub: “We should spend more on roads police and prisons.” and then say to the guys at the other end: “Isn’t the Government awful! We should be cutting expenditure.” Silly members like Mr Foss do not realise that the boys from both ends of the public house tend to get together have a wee chat and realise that that member speaks with a forked tongue out of both sides of his trap. 
I say that this is a debate about monetary policy. It is a serious debate. It is not a debate about political posturing and going on television to say that all we need to do is cut expenditure cut growth or whatever. This is a serious issue that most of the economies in the world are grappling with. Our problem which is sort of like trying to nail a jelly to a wall— 
Hon Member 
: Like the 21 above us you mean. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That member exhibits every facet of a jelly. He is all over the place. But when we have an economy going gangbusters when we have people in jobs when people have confidence in the economy because we no longer have boom-and-bust cycles and when people are investing in property and other assets because they feel confident then we do get pressures on the dollar and pressures on inflation. Consumption is up because people have money in their pockets. So I say to that member that he should go back to Economics 101 read a textbook and get it right. 
Report noted. 
Television New Zealand Ltd  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 There is more bad news. This 2005-06 financial review is more bad news for this beleaguered sorry Minister whose broadcasting policy is completely in tatters along with his career. On the second to last day of the last sitting Minister Maharey the self-styled future Labour Party leader and future Prime Minister of New Zealand made a career-ending blunder from the front bench over there. We are not hearing anything from his colleagues because quite frankly they were quite happy about that. The Labour right over there including Mr Cosgrove and the man who lost the seat of Tukituki were quite secretly delighted. Mr Mallard the Minister for State Owned Enterprises was taking a bit of relish in the situation as well because he knows that has moved him in his own mind one place further up the rankings. This is the end for Mr Maharey. It must have been absolutely devastating for him. If members think the language was blue here in the Chamber they can imagine what it was like when he went back to his office—the hair tearing; the head in the hands. The career was over; it was all gone.  
But that would have been nothing compared with the language coming down from the ninth floor as “H2” and “H1” got on the phone and told Maharey he had blown it— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the Minister’s— 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Minister Maharey— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must be seated while I am on my feet. The member will use the Minister’s correct name and his title not a nickname. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: “H1” and “H2”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will use the names. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am sorry. The Prime Minister Helen Clark and her sidekick Heather Simpson would have been ringing down from the ninth floor saying to Steven Maharey Minister of Broadcasting that he had blown his future in the Labour Party.  
I can imagine the emails pouring in by the thousands to Mr Maharey telling him exactly what the public thought of the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Education totally losing his rag in the House. It was absolutely disgraceful. We were hoping that maybe he might front up the next day to take his punishment to take his medicine but no. Where did he go? Well we do not know but he certainly was not here in the Chamber.  
We can talk about Mr Maharey and the end of his career all that we like but the reality is as the academics have said that Mr Maharey’s broadcasting policy is in tatters. The reality when we are talking about Television New Zealand (TVNZ) is that the executives there are playing with the cards that Mr Maharey has dealt them. They are doing the best they can do. It is the Government broadcasting policy that has got TVNZ into the situation it is in. Mr Maharey was very very keen on the TVNZ charter and he is very very keen to use TVNZ as a cash cow. So he is putting stringent demands on it at the top end and then he is pulling the cash out at the bottom. Last year TVNZ had to pay an extraordinary dividend of $70 million and it had to go into debt by $60 million in order to pay that. All the Minister can say when he is asked about that on Radio New Zealand is that that is the business model and it is good for businesses to carry debt. Well it needs a bit more of a sophisticated explanation than that.  
Frankly what is this Minister’s charter delivering? It is delivering the destruction of 160 jobs. It is delivering the end of current affairs analysis in New Zealand. I put it to the Minister—and maybe he will get up and explain this—that if he has deteriorating advertising revenues at TVNZ and if he has a charter that asks TVNZ to produce a certain type of content but he also has commercial impositions that he is placing on it something has to give. What will give is the quality of broadcasting. We went through that in 2001 with project regeneration under Marian Hobbs over there. That was meant to be the new dawn. Everything was meant to be great and charter television was going to deliver. Mr Maharey said he was looking forward to seeing an improved standard and a greater quality in broadcasting under the charter. And what has he delivered? One hundred and sixty job cuts.  
But it is even worse than that. The Government is trying to launch 24-hour television—a 24-hour news channel. I would be very interested if the Minister takes a call—which I hope he will do—to see whether he can get up and explain to me how when he has cut $10 million from the news budget and cut 160 jobs he will deliver on a 24-hour news channel. How will TVNZ be able to pull the Television One ratings back up? The reality is that the people at TVNZ are doing the best they can do but this Minister has got them by the proverbials and they have nowhere left to go. The Minister has totally lost his grasp on policy. If we look at digital television we see that he said it would cost $300 to get a set top box. It will cost double that. It is clear that the policy is in tatters and the Minister needs to explain that situation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe e te Heamana tenatatou katoa e te Whare.  
[ 
Greetings to you the Chairperson and to all of us in the House. 
] 
One of Television New Zealand (TVNZ)’s top 10 charter objectives was supposed to be to ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice. Well excuse me if I choke on that piece of garbage. Apart from  
Te Karere 
  
Waka Huia 
 and  
Marae 
 which are paid for out of ring-fenced funding the only new Maori programme on Television New Zealand seems to be a 5-minute drama slotted into that prime 4.30 in the afternoon time slot the one right next to  
Te Karere 
. I want to give no offence to my mate Willie Jackson but  
Eye to Eye 
 once a week hardly qualifies as the significant Maori voice. That is a pity because some outstanding talent out there is being hidden away in some really poor time slots—like that for a doco produced by Tere Harrison an independent radio television and film producer.  
Framing Maori 
 gave us an insider’s look into the analysis that tells us that the television coverage of Maori issues is unbalanced—as if we did not already know that. It exploded the myth of journalistic objectivity and called for more culturally informed news reporting. It was an excellent programme that nobody saw of course because it was on at 9.30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. In fact independent studies confirm that there is a lot more bad news than good news about Maori on television and that the so-called presence of a significant Maori voice tends to be on programmes like  
Coast Watch 
  
Crimewatch 
 or the 6 o’clock news. That view was backed up by the visit of the United Nations special rapporteur last year when he noted the “systematic negative description of Maori in media coverage” as being of special concern. When Television One is brave enough to put forward a significant Maori voice it is at the crack of dawn late at night or on mornings at the weekends when whanau have other responsibilities.  
It is timely to raise these points in this debate because just a month ago the national hui of Maori film and television broadcasters Nga Aho Whakaari again challenged TVNZ for not fulfilling its charter obligations to Maori citing an age-old joke about  
Te Karere 
 being a programme that one sees only in the winter because when the cricket is on  
Te Karere 
 gets shunted to midnight.  
The TVNZ programming that does have the presence of a significant Maori voice is impressive. It is professional high quality and reflects the integrity and talents of some of our finest broadcasters but it is just hidden away in all of the wrong places. Over the years we have seen the likes of Ernie Leonard Whai Ngata Derek Wooster KingiIhaka Hone KaJulian Wilcox Wena Harawira and heaps of others who have recorded our stories captured priceless memories and contributed to an immense archive of knowledge and an enviable resource that has a legacy well outside of its monetary value. In fact the presence of a significant Maori voice can even be something as simple as seeing Carol Hirschfeld and Mike McRoberts on TV3 which raises the obvious question of where the equivalent significant Maori faces are in TVNZ. 
Pita Paraone 
: On Maori Television. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: It is TVNZ that we are talking about here. Those faces are gone. The issue is not just about the charter; it is also about seeing the faces and hearing the voices in order to know it to be true.  
It is hard to stomach lies about the presence of a significant Maori voice when the flagship stories of the Maori world that feature on the State broadcaster receive inferior programming slots meagre resources and little screen time for top Maori broadcasters. We also note too that it is not just Maori programmes that are suffering from the constant haemorrhaging of viewers to the competition. TVNZ blew it big time when it decided to dump its stars: Paul Holmes Judy Bailey Susan Wood Mike Hosking Richard Long and the list goes on. When the stars went so did the audience. The ratings dropped the advertising revenue slumped and now TVNZ seems to be caught up in a vicious spiral of its own making. It now looks— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman— 
Hone Harawira 
: Thank you Mr Minister! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I was trying to be quiet because it was a good speech. I think Mr Harawira has raised issues that go to the heart of what we are trying to do with broadcasting and of course that is to make sure Television New Zealand the major public broadcaster in the country does represent audiences right across the whole of the country. I thank him for his speech and hope he carries on raising those kinds of points about Maori broadcasting because although we do have as Mr Paraone pointed out a Maori broadcaster 24/7 each week—and it is doing a fantastic job; it is publicly funded part of the public service organisations of this country—Television New Zealand is still responsible for ensuring that it represents the wide spectrum of viewers and we want to see that it does serve Maori interests. 
 Can I go back to Mr Coleman who made I think his first foray into broadcasting this evening. I have not heard him speak on broadcasting before and I thought for the first 2 minutes— 
Hon Member 
: Which one is Mr Coleman? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Coleman is the one who spoke before. I thought for the first 2 minutes of his speech that we were not going to hear about broadcasting because he talked largely about his incident with a cigar as far as I could tell and the fact that his career had come to an end after he blundered around the corporate boxes in Auckland. He made a huge mistake for a new member and of course ruined his career. I thought that was what he was going to talk about the whole time. 
One of the things we all know is that when people come into the House they do not necessarily come in with a background that fits the portfolio they get into. Mr Carter had no background in housing for example but he got the housing portfolio. People come in with different backgrounds and they have to go into portfolios they are not necessarily familiar with. Mr Coleman I understand is a medical doctor and therefore has no expertise in broadcasting at all apart from sitting watching it no doubt now and again. Unfortunately he did not follow the golden rule for people who are moving in from a background where they do not understand the portfolio and that is to spend some time finding out about it—spend a bit of time finding out about how the portfolio works. So half of his inaugural speech this evening was spent on his own blunders and his ruining his career and what followed on was a disjointed discussion that showed nothing but complete ignorance about the portfolio.  
I want to tell people who are listening this evening that this debate is an opportunity for Opposition members to get up and ask insightful questions about a portfolio following on from a review by a select committee. They do not have to be rocket scientists. They do not have to be geniuses. They do not have to have all the facts and figures at their fingertips. They have to simply listen to what has been said what select committees have done distil from that some questions and come to the Chamber and ask them.  
Mr Coleman began his series of discussions by talking about dividends. If he simply looked at the dividend for Television New Zealand he would find that right through the 1990s the National Government got 25 percent dividends from Television New Zealand on average every single year. That was commercial television. That was a publicly owned commercial television company providing for the Government 25 percent dividends every single year. That Government was also the genius Government that allowed Television New Zealand to sell its shares in Sky so it no longer had a foot in the digital world that we are now having to go into in 2007. Those members were the geniuses who drove the National Party policy in the 1990s. On top of that they gave the broadcaster money to pay for it and never got it back at all—never ever raised that money back again. 
So we have Mr Jonathan Coleman in his first time down in the Chamber asking what sort of dividend we get. It is on average around 6 percent. That includes the highest level of revenue that Television New Zealand has enjoyed in probably 30 years. During the period 2004-05 advertising went through the roof for all broadcasters. They made substantial money. Do we ask Television New Zealand for all of that? Do we say that we should have that dividend back? Or do we reinvest it in the broadcaster? Mr Jonathan Coleman would not know. Jonathan Coleman did not know what his own Government was gouging out of Television New Zealand. Would he know what is coming out of it now? No. He did not bother to read the report. He does not know anything about the dividend. He does not know why a dividend is asked for. This company earns over $400 million a year. Would taxpayers thank this Committee for saying: “Don’t act like a business on that money. Don’t try to make a return on that money. Just go soft. Don’t worry about it.”? Of course they would not. They would say: “No you cannot do that; what we want to see is a financially robust organisation.”  
It could be possible to go on and talk about why a company might carry some debt. This company carries no debt. We could go on and talk about what the charter actually does but I doubt whether it has been read. We could talk about how much a set top box costs which is run of course by a private company called FreeView which is being launched tomorrow. I doubt whether Mr Coleman has been invited because I am sure that company does not know who he is but if he did turn up he would find that the starting price is not $300 as he said but $249. It would be interesting in other words to get a spokesperson on the other side who knew something about the portfolio and therefore could have an intelligent debate but so far no good. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the next entities members wish to debate are the Crown research institutes. Is there any objection to taking these as one question? There is not. 
Industrial Research Ltd  
New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd  
AgResearch  
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd  
Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd  
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd  
New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research Ltd  
Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd  
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you for that accommodation but with the Crown research institutes there are lessons to be learnt from the reviews of each and every one of them and just to speak to one is in fact very limiting.  
But I rise in fact first and foremost to make a confession. Because last year in this debate when I— 
Hon David Carter 
: The Catholic coming out! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Mea culpa mea culpa. I actually made this brilliant speech about two Crown research institutes and their financial reviews from in fact the year before prior to the one we were supposed to be debating. To the credit of the Minister without the blink of an eyelid he just got up and responded to my speech as if I was making it in the right year. The only person in the Chamber who actually knew that I had made this blunder was Katherine Rich and bless her heart she never brought it to the attention of the Committee. But in this particular case I am going to be talking about the Crown research institute review from the particular year that we are supposed to be debating.  
First and foremost I want to range across a number of them and some of the lessons learnt from each of them. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is the first I want to touch upon noting that in fact the institute paid a dividend to the Government and this is something that we have to recognise with Crown research institutes. It paid a dividend of $13 million to the Crown so its work assisted all areas of New Zealand through that financial contribution.  
During the previous financial review of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research before the Education and Science Committee 3 or 4 years ago concern was expressed about the continued viability of the research vessel  
Tangaroa 
. The vessel had just completed a major oceanographic study of New Zealand’s continental shelf out as far as Lord Howe Island and expanded our knowledge extensively particularly with the finding of a considerable number of previously unknown species of flora and fauna. However at the time of that review the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research had no decent contracts for which it could employ the specialities of the  
Tangaroa 
 and hence concern was expressed that it may have to be sold. It is therefore to the credit of the institute that in the financial year under review contracts were gained that kept the  
Tangaroa 
 and in fact one other vessel at sea for a total of 562 days covering 1000399 nautical miles and I want that particular achievement to be noted.  
I also want noted the potential conflict between the Meteorological Service and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research but it is good in fact to hear that confidential mediation is going on to ensure that they stick to their knitting and that taxpayers’ money is not being used for duplication of roles.  
The next Crown research institute I want to refer to is the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand. That institute certainly has had a difficult and chequered past. In 2002 it lost $5 million of Government research investment which led to 40 redundancies the subsequent loss of scientific capability and financial losses for 2 years. The institute has had to work hard to get back on its feet. In particular it is noted that HortResearch won the HR Initiative of the Year award for its great leadership programme. Staff turnover is in fact relatively low at this particular time and that is necessary for the continued growth of this Crown research institute.  
However two critical points came out of that review. We were told that an alarming figure of 30 percent of key scientific time at HortResearch is taken up in bidding for funds. We have just had a lecture by Professor Peter Gluckman who once again said that we have not got the balance right between contestability and competitiveness and the ability to enable our scientists to focus upon the science that they need to develop. 
 The second issue concerns the cumbersome procedures dealing with post-entry requirements for research on organic material from outside New Zealand. Once again it is worthwhile noting that HortResearch the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are in fact working together to develop protocols that will simplify this complicated process. 
Industrial Research Ltd usually referred to as IRL is another Crown research institute that has had to face significant financial challenges largely through going it alone in selectively risky commercial ventures in areas where it was hard to attract investment partners particularly from within New Zealand. Realistically Industrial Research Ltd has only 100 to 150 potentially joint-venture partners that are commercially viable. The select committee has noted the strengthened financial performance of Industrial Research Ltd and improved internal financial discipline. It also noted that eight out of 12 of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology contracts that have been “on watch” as it is said have now been removed from that status. The lesson to be learnt from the experience of Industrial Research Ltd is that Crown research institutes need to be realistic in setting up their projected revenues. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 It is good to follow on from Brian Donnelly who chairs the Education and Science Committee and therefore would know a great deal about what is going on with Crown research institutes at the moment. Following on from his comments I want to highlight four general areas that will be of interest to the Committee.  
The first one is that in this financial year the total revenue from the Crown research institutes portfolio rose by 4.7 percent which is I think an interesting turn-round in where things have been with the Crown research institutes over the last little while. These are difficult businesses. Once again—a little like Television New Zealand—we are asking them to earn revenue because around the world these days science clearly earns large revenue. As well we are asking them to ensure that they match their public service goal of delivering on good science. They have to balance those goals so it was good this year to see a little bit of a turn-round in the amount of money they have been able to return with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd being yet again as the member pointed out the stand-out institute in relation to the dividend returned to the Government.  
The second general point I would like to raise is commercialisation. We are now putting very very systematic pressure if you like on Crown research institutes to commercialise—to build a culture of trying to create value that they move down the chain and out the door—to try to create some extra value for the country. This year Crown research institutes entered into at least 50 joint ventures and licensing agreements. Some very interesting work has happened around Industrial Research Ltd. We have not yet seen the money of course but this year Industrial Research Ltd entered into the sixth biggest biotechnology licensing agreement in the world. If that pays off we are talking in terms of about $600 million being generated and that will be captured in part by Industrial Research Ltd. Those kinds of developments are very good. AgResearch itself is the biggest of our Crown research institutes and it has had a large number of licensing deals this year. A lot of new activity is going on in relation to AgResearch with the appointment of Andrew West as its chief executive. We are seeing some very interesting things happen there.  
The third major point I would like to mention is collaborations. One of the things that is also encouraging is for universities firms and Crown research institutes to get much closer together and over the last little while this year I have been extremely pleased to see—taking AgResearch as an example—something like 80 agreements signed up around the country between AgResearch and the universities. The Hopkirk Research Institute at Palmerston North now one of the major research centres in New Zealand will be a good expression of that between Massey University and AgResearch. I am sure that collaborations are something the select committee would have been pleased to see as well.  
Lastly I really urge members to get alongside Crown research institutes in terms of the sheer quality of science that is going on within them. When it comes to science Crown research institutes quite often feel that although they are chugging away doing hard work it is the universities that people always seem to talk about when it comes to doing research. These are big research engines that the Crown research institutes represent. They are large in the shape of AgResearch and a lot smaller in the shape say of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd but they are all doing outstanding scientific work. Their people are publishing. For example last year there were 4500 publications from Crown research institutes 700 workshops and seminars and so on. This is the kind of work they are doing constantly and I certainly urge members if they are keen to get alongside the Crown research institutes particularly if they happen to be in a Dunedin seat a Christchurch seat or in Hamilton Wellington or Auckland to make sure the institutes understand they are recognised and to tell their stories. They are doing great science at the moment. They are publicly owned but they often feel a little left behind by the universities when people talk about these issues.  
I think it has been a good year and I commend the Crown research institutes. It is a tough environment. They are given the tough task of balancing science and commercial goals but I think that this year they have done us proud both in the financial sense and in the sense of producing good science. I thank the select committee for its excellent review of the Crown research institutes this year. 
Reports noted. 
Land Transport New Zealand  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to be able to speak on the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand. The Green Party under its agreement with Labour in the last Parliament helped to rearrange Land Transport New Zealand through the Land Transport Management Act and out of that came Land Transport New Zealand as a management and funding body.  
A land transport strategy was developed to guide Land Transport New Zealand involving such criteria as the contribution of the mode of transport—the particular project—to economic development to environmental protection and to the health of people their safety and their mobility. If we look at all those criteria we see that they apply more directly to public transport to walking and to cycling which are clearly healthier have fewer polluting fumes are safer etc. The better our public transport system is the greater the contribution will be to the economy of our cities and our country.  
On all of those grounds the direction of Land Transport New Zealand should have been twisting more away from road building to developing alternatives to individual car use through public transport walking and cycling. It is true that in Land Transport New Zealand’s annual report one will find that increased attention has been paid to such things as walking and cycling and to how that body will implement the major components of the report called  
Getting there—on foot by cycle 
. Some progress has been made as is indicated in the report. But we see from the figures that the total funding of $4.4 million for walking and cycling projects funded 36.7 kilometres of walkways and cycleways which is not all that much really for a country of the size of New Zealand. The report then goes on to talk about this involving cycle plans and things like that.  
Fifty-five school travel plans were funded which is of course a good start but there are a lot more schools than that in the country. Forty-one workplace travel plans were funded. So although some progress has been made there is a long way to go towards really developing alternatives to using cars to get to work school etc.  
Then there is the section on spending on public transport—$209 million in that financial year out of $1700 million altogether in terms of what was funded. So that is 12 percent going to public transport which is still a very small proportion particularly when public transport has fallen behind so much in New Zealand. That is particularly the case in Auckland where I am living at the present time. That is a small proportion—12 percent—of spending on public transport. We then had the problem that when the Budget came forth towards the end of that financial year it announced a $1.5 billion roading package which made that imbalance worse.  
Often when the Greens question the Government on this imbalance between public transport spending and road construction we are told that public transport spending has gone up percentage-wise a lot more than road expenditure has over the period of the Labour Government—which is true in percentage terms. But actually when we look at the figures we see that the gap between road spending and public transport spending in straight dollar amounts has widened. We look at the projections further out and see that the gap is widening all the time and that is not good enough.  
One of the problems is the guidelines that Land Transport New Zealand has been operating under in terms of how it either subsidises or pays for road construction and public transport infrastructure. There is what is called the financial assistance rate which means that State highways are fully funded— 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we look at the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand it is important also to look at a document that came out earlier this year the report of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Roading Costs. That gives us a fairly good indication of how Land Transport New Zealand is going and how this Minister is going in her portfolio. Let us have a look at some of the quotes from that document. It states: “Land Transport NZ should take an enhanced role in evaluating major projects and in monitoring scope and cost.” The report is pretty damning of this Minister and this Government. It states things like: “Papers presented to Land Transport NZ for the release of design funding do not appear to present the full evaluation of incremental costs and benefits for the various options. Therefore it is difficult for the Land Transport NZ Board to make a fully informed decision about the merits of [a decision]. … There does not seem to have been a systematic process to establish the scope of [projects]”. It carries on with comments such as: “… Land Transport NZ appear to have accelerated the funding consent … for [certain projects]. … Unfortunately this is often at the expense of a comprehensive review of the justification for additional scope and the related cost.” It states: “The Advisory Group considers that there is currently a strategic gap in the overall framework. There needs to be greater clarity of outcomes and monitoring against measurable objectives together with strong leadership and governance to achieve these.”  
These are pretty damning comments about a department and about the process it uses. It states: “There is a gap in the existing national strategy and planning framework for land transport.” It states: “Value for money was not identified as a key objective … The performance measures should also include indicators of value for money.” “Land Transport NZ needs to play a clearer role in the strategic process and in funding to achieve outcomes as well as to oversee project scope. … Land Transport NZ needs to be satisfied that projects are still delivering value for money.” But there is more: “The manner in which Land Transport NZ is involved in overall project decisions where major scope change and costs are involved should be reviewed. … The Advisory Group believes the current system used by Land Transport NZ can be improved.” It states: “it is considered appropriate that a review is undertaken of the competencies required of the respective boards” of Transit and Land Transport New Zealand “including the appropriateness of dual membership of the Land Transport NZ and Transit NZ Boards.”  
This has probably been the most damning report that has come out on a Minister this year and there have been other reports on other Ministers who have failed to succeed in their portfolios. Essentially when a ministerial advisory group on roading costs can come out and present a report that says there are fundamental problems in the way that this department is carrying on its business then we have a major problem—a major problem that this Minister has to follow up in the next-steps review that is coming out soon.  
The Minister will be well aware that this department is not performing at the level it should be. We are not getting the value for money that we are putting into Land Transport New Zealand simply because of the inadequacies of this department and also of the governance that this Government should hold over this department. It is up to the Minister and the Government to run this department in a way that delivers the outcomes that people expect from that money. It is fine for Government Ministers to go around the country saying the Government is putting more money into Land Transport New Zealand but we are not seeing the outcomes—we are not seeing the delivery of that money. We are seeing a system that is not working and a Minister who is sitting there knowing that it is not working and who is not making the changes to get value for money. How can this Government’s Ministers stand up in front of New Zealanders and say they are putting more money into land transport when they are not getting the outcomes because the system is not working. They need to get out there and devise a better way of doing this so that we do get the outcomes that are commensurate with the money being put in.  
Another example is one the Greens have just raised—that of public transport and electrification. Today we heard the Prime Minister say that it is a matter of not if but when. Well when is it going to be? When will the people of Auckland know that they can catch a train because it has not been stopped through signalling faults or people not having made decisions about whether trains will run on diesel or electricity? When will those decisions be made so that Auckland councils will have the ability to make decisions for funding in the future? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just point something out to the member. I was not aware until a minute ago that Transit’s report has not actually been reported back. So it should not— 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No we were not talking about Transit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes you were. The only thing is Land Transport New Zealand— 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes that is what I quoted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes—so it is Land Transport. I call Keith Locke but I remind members again that Transit New Zealand has not been reported.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was talking about the financial assistance rate whereby Land Transport New Zealand fully funds State highways but local bodies have to scratch up normally 50 percent of the cost of public transport infrastructure such as in Auckland in terms of rail developments.  
It was good to read more recently that there seems to have been some change in relation to Wellington where Land Transport New Zealand has agreed to fund rail improvements there to 90 percent. I hope that will be transferred to Auckland because today I received a petition from 3755 Aucklanders who want a timetable for the electrification of rail and funding from the Government to achieve that. That is the demand from Aucklanders for a decent rail backbone to the public transport system and for substantial expenditure from Land Transport New Zealand on infrastructural development. The public is on board—that is what the petitioners found. Everywhere they went people supported public transport and wanted to sign that rail petition. But it has taken a while to shift the Government and Land Transport New Zealand around in terms of where they direct their funding.  
There is all this talk about the Auckland western ring route and how important that is when even a few kilometres of that would take a billion dollars and that money would be better spent in the meantime on public transport. That is what Aucklanders are really about. An officials report on Auckland transport that came out a couple of weeks ago—from national officials such as from the Ministry of Transport and from local body officials etc—said that 40 percent of the benefit of new public transport spending goes to car users in reduced congestion. I think that all of our plans have to take in the two critical new developments—that is firstly the move towards peak oil where oil will get very expensive and people will not be able to use private cars nearly as much. They will be forced into public transport and we want that infrastructure there for them.  
The other thing of course is global warming where 40 percent of our emissions are coming out of transport and we have to reduce those. Obviously the best way to do that is to go for public transport particularly electrification if that electrification is provided by sustainable energy sources and not fossil fuels. I think the public is much more aware of that and the Government and Land Transport New Zealand need to get much more on board with the public.  
It is true that in the report things are happening like bus lanes but when we look at the figure for bus lanes we see that 16 kilometres of bus lanes have been provided over the year. In Auckland we need lots and lots of bus lanes because one of the things that makes public transport really attractive is if it is fast and faster then commuting by car. We do have some signs of that in Auckland down Dominion Road and Onewa Road where the buses actually get there quicker than the cars. We need lots more bus lanes and much more funding by Land Transport New Zealand for that.  
 I think there really needs to be a whole turn-round in the thinking in this Parliament—in the Government in particular—to say that instead of spending as this report shows $1700 million on land transport and only $209 million of that on public transport the spending has to be turned towards a much higher proportion for public transport so that we can really go forward as a nation in this era of global warming.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I thank both members who have spoken on the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand. Perhaps those who were listening would be interested to know that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee reported back to this Parliament that the committee had no matters to bring to the attention of the House. It is rather interesting tonight to note that when members of the select committee had an opportunity to bring matters to the attention of this House they did not take that opportunity; the select committee decided not to bring any matters to Parliament. 
But let us address some of the issues that were raised. Can I say first off to Keith Locke that I agree with him wholeheartedly when it comes to investment into passenger transport. But in my view and in the view of the Government there has to be a balance between roads and public transport. We have not had that. It is fair to say that over many years the balance was very much tipped towards roading in New Zealand and away from other modes of transport—passenger transport the use of coastal shipping rail and so on. The Government has set out first of all to address the deficit that existed not only in investment into roading but also in investment into passenger transport. I remind the member that right throughout the 1990s passenger transport funding for the whole of New Zealand was frozen at $40 million per year. 
That is the public transport legacy of a National Government. This Government has taken seriously the need to invest. In terms of the funding from Land Transport New Zealand we have seen a huge increase in the money going into public transport not only in percentage terms but in total terms—closer to $400 million than $40 million. In looking at passenger transport one has to include the funding that this Government has put into rail. This funding for rail does not come from Land Transport New Zealand; it is not included in the National Land Transport Programme. So the $600 million that this Government is investing into Auckland rail alone is not included in the National Land Transport Programme but is a very important part of the Government’s commitment to passenger transport. 
I agree with the member around particularly the issue of travel plans and around things like walking school buses cycleways and walkways. But I need to say that although this Government has moved so that any new roads including the inner city bypass in Wellington must include cycleways we are faced with the issue of including cycleways on existing roads. It is much harder to retrofit cycleways on existing roads as anyone who has been involved will know. But as the member pointed out there is an approach to increase cycleways and walkways. 
In terms of electrification which the member raised it has been made clear by the Government that electrification of rail in Auckland is very much on the Government’s agenda. However it is not part of Land Transport New Zealand. Any decision on funding of electrification of rail in Auckland will not come out of the National Land Transport Programme. It will come out of the vote related to the State-owned enterprise ONTRACK. So that is not part of this debate tonight. 
David Bennett spoke and he was a very confused member indeed. The only issue he could raise was the ministerial advisory group’s report to the Minister. Of course the previous Minister of Transport was the person who called for the report. Such is the openness of this Government that we said we wanted the advisory group to look at roading construction in New Zealand and what drives the costs. We wanted the group to tell us how it is working and to give us some advice. I accept as the new Minister of Transport that advice. But the group was talking about the actions of Transit New Zealand. In fact the examples it set out are examples from Transit not Land Transport New Zealand. So although the member said he was talking about Land Transport New Zealand which funds of course Transit—so I suppose one could say there was some link—the major part of the group’s report relates to the 10 projects that Transit funds.  
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like to table a copy of the ministerial advisory group’s report which clearly states Land Transport New Zealand was one of the ones that was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member knows that he should not interrupt anyone’s speech for that. He should table that at the end of the speech. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Absolutely. What he is trying to do is to cover up his confusion. His one line of attack was one report—a report that this Government has accepted in terms of its recommendations. The National Government never listened to advice. It did not invest in either passenger transport or roads and it deprived the transport sector year in year out. This Government is serious about building infrastructure in this country; whether it is roads passenger transport hospitals police stations whatever we are committed to it. That member needs to take a grip do a bit more reading and not stick on one report that he has read. 
There are many other reports including the Next Steps review. I have undertaken to follow up not only the ministerial advisory group’s report but the Cabinet committee on Government expenditure and administration reviews carried out by my very good colleague Trevor Mallard. The Government is serious about getting the best value for money we can out of taxpayers’ dollars and we will do that. We will continue to invest in passenger transport and I look forward to the support of the Greens for legislation that makes it much easier to contract for passenger transport. It will be in this House very soon. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The chirpy member is David Bennett who is from Hamilton East an area that benefited from this Government’s putting money into the Waikato which had been deprived for decades under the National Government. When he got the money he said it was not enough. What did “Bob the Builder” from Tauranga say? He said it was fantastic and that people there loved the amount of money the Government had put into the Bay of Plenty. I ask Mr Bennett to thank the Government for that money because he would not have got it from his colleagues. I ask him to have a look at what happened to the Waikato because his party would not invest into passenger transport or roads in his own region. 
I say to members that this Government is serious about transport. Land Transport New Zealand as a Crown entity can always do better and certainly in the Next Steps review we will look at how we can improve not only its performance but that of Transit the Ministry of Transport and other agencies that work with them. I say to members that they can be assured that the Government looks for value for money we look to invest and we look to get the best out of the money that taxpayers put in for all of New Zealand not just one part of New Zealand. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister of Transport made some comments there that were not the case. The Waikato— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. I say to the member that is a debating point which I am sure he knows very well. 
Report noted. 
AgriQuality Ltd  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to make some comments on the financial review of AgriQuality Ltd for this particular financial year. I will start by commenting on the proposed merger that the Hon Mr Mallard suddenly announced towards the end of the last parliamentary sitting concerning AgriQuality and Asure. That issue has been ongoing for a number of years. The possibility of merging AgriQuality and Asure has been raised at the Primary Production Committee for about the last 3 years and has been noted in its annual reports. What I find incredible about Mr Mallard’s announcement—and I look forward to his elaborating on this—is that the legislation does not enforce the merger of the two entities. The legislation that Mr Mallard is proposing will allow the merger to occur if subsequent to passing the legislation a cost-benefit analysis suggests that a merger is a good idea. It just seems to me to be a very strange thing particularly given the history associated with the proposed merger that any Government would rush through legislation under a very very tight time frame that does not ensure the merger but allows one to happen and then the Minister proceeds to do the cost-benefit analysis.  
I sat in on the Commerce Committee last week when it was hearing submissions on this issue and it became clear that consultation has been occurring with the unions over a long period of time about this proposed merger but that the meat industry itself has not been consulted. What is more concerning to me when I look at the financial review— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member is referring to a matter that is currently before the select committee and has not been reported on. It is not the subject of this debate. I request that you ask him to come back to the review and also that he not breach privilege by reporting matters to the Committee before the appropriate time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister may not realise it but this is a debate on the 2005-06 financial review of AgriQuality and on page 4 of that review is a heading “Merger of AgriQuality and Asure”. I think it would be a very strange situation if the Minister were to suggest that we are not allowed to refer to what the Primary Production Committee specifically commented on in the financial review. We need that to be clarified I agree. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member may do that. But the Minister was clear—and I certainly thought I heard this too—that you were speaking to the bill that is currently before the select committee.  
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member did not do that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. Please continue.  
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: What I am talking about with permission is the financial review for 2005-06. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes but you did not refer to the review. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have been talking to the financial review and the select committee report. The Primary Production Committee made specific mention of this issue in its report. It is now before Parliament and I have every right to discuss it. The issue may be embarrassing to the Minister but that does not stop me talking about it. It does not stop the fact that the select committee made special reference to it in its report.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Keep going! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to the financial review. As I was saying in the select committee over the past 2 or 3 years we have expressed concern about this merger. We went so far in this select committee report— 
Hon Annette King 
: How could you do that? It wasn’t on the agenda. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If we go back and look at the two previous financial reports we see it is interesting that the committee as a whole was concerned about the proposed merger. This time I do agree that we modified the report and used the words “Some of us are concerned”. In other words there has been a road to Damascus experience for Dr Choudhary who in previous years had been concerned about the proposal but who has been beaten about by Mr Mallard and suddenly had to change his position and appear less concerned than he had been in the past.  
The reason I raise this issue is that we have examined over a long period of time AgriQuality and its attitude towards the select committee and its cooperation with the committee is something that has taken a long time to develop. Asure however is an organisation that delivers with total efficiency. It has cooperated with the select committee process every year that we have examined it. I would hate to see the rushed merger proposed by the Hon Mr Mallard mean that suddenly we have a change in attitude by the newly merged entity towards the process before the select committee.  
We have a very important role at the select committee to examine the financial performance of these entities and when we examine the financial performance of AgriQuality particularly in the last financial year we find it has not lived up to expectations. Its revenue is down considerably in this particular year and I do wonder whether one of the reasons why Mr Mallard has rushed the idea of a merger into Parliament is that he is not prepared to see the financial performance of AgriQuality come under the scrutiny that it has.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh dear! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Mallard says: “Oh dear!”. He may be doing the merger for one other reason: to satisfy the Public Service Association (PSA)—his union mates. It is interesting that in the very week that he rushed the bill off to a select committee the Government suddenly fronted up with $850000 to pay back the money it had ripped off the taxpayer. So Mr Mallard may well say: “Oh dear!” and now do a bit of frowning when there is a connection made between this move to satisfy the PSA and the sudden appearance of $850000 to pay back the ripped-off taxpayer. 
Report noted. 
Landcorp Farming Ltd  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Just for the sake of the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard I assure him that I am talking about the financial review of Landcorp of 2005-06. I can say at the outset that this again was another very disappointing examination for the Primary Production Committee. It was disappointing because when we actually got through the financial performance of this particular entity it left us with a real sense of disappointment. We have an entity here with a value of somewhat over $1.2 billion and when we delved through the financial accounts of Landcorp we were surprised and disappointed to note that in fact the farming profit from this very large entity was only $18 million. When we looked further at that figure we noted that $12 million of that—two-thirds of the farming profit—actually came from the sell down of some Fonterra shares. In other words I guess the true attributable farm profit from an entity worth $1.2 billion is somewhere around $6 million. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Almost as good as the member’s farm. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No no. If I managed to farm like Landcorp I do not think I would be farming for much longer.  
The point that I do want to make is that although this performance is very very disappointing I would hope that Mr Mallard and Mr Darren Hughes take note that it is an indication of the financial pressure that most of rural New Zealand is under. Darren Hughes may not care to be sympathetic to the sheep farmers who are now facing financial returns of 25 percent less than they had a year ago but in a situation when one’s income is down by 25 percent and one now has massively increased costs—many of them brought about by Government legislation—the situation is not very pleasant indeed. 
Hon Annette King 
: What did the dairy farmers do? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well the dairy farmers have a little more to be happy about but not much. The payout has been consistently— 
Darren Hughes 
: Never happy. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well if the member invested his own money—if he ever happened to make any—into a situation it is not unfair to expect a reasonable return.  
But I want to make a couple of comments on the running of Landcorp and they are to assure the Committee tonight that it is a well-run organisation. But when we consider the advantage that it should have for the scale of its operation and its size it should be able to do substantially better. I will give two examples for the benefit of Darren Hughes because he is not well versed in these agricultural matters—but he will not be there as the member for Otaki for much longer; we are assured of that.  
One thing we have with an organisation the size of Landcorp is the advantage of purchasing tractors trucks etc. very judiciously and it has the advantage of selling very advantageously. In fact there has been quite a lot of angst down in areas like Te Anau where Landcorp has certainly been in the position of getting a higher return from PPCS the farming cooperative than other farmers do. So we would think that by amalgamating those benefits of better purchasing power and better selling power Landcorp would be able to manage a far better profit than it did.  
Landcorp is still New Zealand’s largest farming concern and another thing that the select committee noted with huge disappointment was that as New Zealand’s biggest farmer it has no plans at all around climate change. We asked Landcorp about that quite specifically and the answer came back from the new chair of Landcorp—the previous Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton—that those plans for climate change are still being developed. It is a little like the Government which rushed off and signed the Kyoto Protocol. When we ask the Government what its policy is the answer is that it is still being developed. It is also worth noting of course while we are talking about climate change that the biggest risk New Zealand faces is the huge amount of deforestation that is occurring at the moment. Who is the biggest deforester at the moment? It is one Landcorp Farming with 22000 or 23000 hectares of central North Island land being taken out of trees as we speak to be converted to dairy farming. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do they own it? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No Landcorp does not. It leases it on a long-term arrangement but who is actually doing the development? It is the Landcorp Farming operation. And for the Minister to sit in his chair and think that he is not responsible because the underlying title of the land is owned by Adrian Burr—well it just defies belief. Nobody else in this country believes that the Minister is not responsible because Landcorp does not own the land. The land has been leased under an agreement; I think it is a 40-year lease. Landcorp is the one that is chopping the trees down it is the one putting the pasture in and it is the one stocking it with cows. All of that means that our ability to meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments becomes harder and harder—and Landcorp is part of the problem.  
But I will conclude by saying that the financial performance of Landcorp was not satisfactory. It should be an indication to every member of the Labour Government that that is the pressure rural New Zealand is under. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 What an extraordinary contribution that was from somebody who was once a National Minister in a Government that did not even have a Minister of Agriculture. David Carter used to be at the height of his political career 7½ years ago. He was the Associate Minister of Food Fibre Biosecurity and Border Control. That was the flash name the previous National Government gave to the agriculture portfolio way back then. That is how much the National Party in Government cares about the rural sector.  
Hon David Carter 
: You haven’t got one either. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: We have as our Minister of Agriculture in this Government the man who sits at No. 3 in Cabinet and leads the party that the Labour Party is in coalition with. That is how seriously we take the portfolio. We call it “agriculture” because that is what it is. We do not come up with flash management-speak guru kinds of names as the National Government did. Whenever the Tories get close to power they get so subsumed by it that they go for all these crazy kinds of names. But that was the height of David Carter’s career—Associate Minister of Food Fibre Biosecurity and Border Control; a portfolio that his good mate Mrs Shipley put him in charge of after he had been the junior whip and had ratted on Jim Bolger. I am not sure whether he turned up at the conference over the weekend and mentioned that but that is exactly what he had to do.  
The other thing Mr Carter did not mention was the National Party policy on Landcorp farms. Here we are debating the financial review of that entity in the previous financial year and what he does not have the audacity to tell the Committee is that the National Party went to the polls wanting to sell all those farms that are owned by New Zealand. National had a privatisation policy in that regard but it did not bother saying any of that. Those farms were going to be gone by milking time under Don Brash and I want to know right now whether the National Party has changed its policy. But of course there was not a word on policy because those members tell people only what they want them to hear. Those members cannot come up with anything at all apart from criticise whinge and moan. 
 Mr Carter mentioned the plight that a number of sheep farmers are facing. Of course those are genuine and real concerns. But while he was slagging off Labour for that did he offer any solution at all to the way Landcorp’s financial operations could have taken place that might have made a difference in that regard? There was not a word—and Labour says it is the serious party for rural New Zealand. Rural New Zealand towns and rural New Zealand villages and areas are much better off under the Labour-led Government than they were previously. Good times are happening around the place which were not happening previously with regard to all of the indicators we look at—particularly unemployment which has fallen through the floorboards. That is why Landcorp plays a role in owning farms in rural communities and rural areas that are part of the local economy.  
I am proud that the Landcorp farms in the Otaki electorate are owned by the Government. They make a fantastic contribution to the local area. The National Party wants to sell them. It wants to hock them all off around Whirokino and all of that area and that goes with the National Party’s responsibility. We stood at the last election and told those members that they were doing the wrong thing. I am proud of that. I am proud of the way the Labour Party has made sure we have retained a commitment there. If the National Party wants to promise to sell off and privatise farms all around the place why is it going to do that? What is the great benefit from doing that? David Carter did not mention it at all. He had nothing to say about that. Having a Minister for Food Fibre Biosecurity and Border Control in a previous epoch of New Zealand politics is about as serious as National ever got about agriculture. Landcorp has done a great job it has a fantastic chairman and I am sure that with the active support of its Minister Landcorp will continue to make a contribution to rural New Zealand. 
Report noted. 
Meridian Energy Limited  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Meridian Energy is a great New Zealand company of world-class expertise in the electricity generation and retailing sector. It has an outstanding understanding of sustainability and I think it gives a lead not only to State-owned enterprises but also to private sector companies in the practical application of sustainability principles. It also has a world-class capability for renewable electricity generation especially hydro and wind.  
From the view of the Government and the taxpayers however the news gets even better. During the year under review the year ended 30 June 2006 Meridian paid a dividend to the Crown of no less than $879.4 million. I would imagine that that is an all-time record for any New Zealand company in history. If that was not enough it paid a further $300 million in October 2006. That is a total of $1179.4 million in a period of just 16 months. The people of Auckland should be very grateful for that because as we know about $650 million of that amount was put aside by the Government for roading in Auckland. So those are very considerable achievements by Meridian which all of us should celebrate.  
But it goes further. Meridian is to my knowledge the first electricity generator to become officially certified as carbon neutral. That has been done through a very robust process. So one of the largest companies in the country is now officially carbon neutral—a goal that the Prime Minister has for New Zealand and a goal that is achievable in my view if we get it right in about 25 to 30 years from now. Meridian is already there.  
Also of great interest particularly to the elderly—and I know that this is the No. 1 priority now for Grey Power—is that Meridian as a company limited its price increases in the year under review to about the rate of inflation or about 3.5 percent. I would like it to be less. The elderly would like it to be less. But nevertheless Meridian again stands out from the crowd in the way that it has been able to control its prices over that period.  
However we should not take the continuation of the success of Meridian for granted. Some serious issues confront the company at this stage in relation to the wind generation of electricity. Wind generation of electricity is great for sustainability because it is perpetually renewable it is totally free and New Zealand happens to be one of the windiest spots on the planet. It is also very very positive for climate change policy—something that we all want. However the Resource Management Act is providing some problems for Meridian in getting on with wind farm development.  
Meridian actually received consent for Project West Wind the wind farm in Makara in December 2005. We are now into May 2007 and that project is still stuck in the Environment Court. I would estimate that that delay has now cost Meridian about $100 million. At the time the Commerce Committee reported back to the House it was $80 million but since then the New Zealand dollar has gone up to an all-time record high which has increased the cost for the wind generator and the windmills themselves enormously. The economics of this very very worthwhile project has now jeopardised its actually going ahead.  
When I say “worthwhile” I would ask whether members can imagine anything more perfect than using a free perpetually renewable source of energy right on the doorstep of New Zealand’s capital city that will produce in and of itself enough electricity for all the homes of Wellington the Hutt Valley and Porirua City. It is right on our doorstep. Transmission losses are zero. It is possibly the most phenomenally well-placed energy source we could come up with and it has now been delayed for too long.  
I know that Meridian has expressed concern to the Government that the Resource Management Act 1991 does not contain clear national policy statements for specific outcomes and that therefore it needs to be looked at with a view to making sure these large wind projects are able to go ahead. I recently asked David Parker the Minister of Energy and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues whether the delay would jeopardise this project. His answer was in the negative but I have my doubts. 
Report noted. 
Canterbury District Health Board  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 One evening last month a 25-year-old man presented with his family members at the emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. He was in considerable agony and pain as a result of an injury he had sustained. He was turned away by the district health board employees at the emergency department in Christchurch Hospital only to die 12 hours later. Another young man presented at Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department last week in considerable groin pain. He was in agony—a 23-year-old man crying— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Screaming in pain. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: He was screaming. He waited for hours to be seen and was turned away only to be admitted by ambulance to that very same emergency department 2 days later. That is the reason why more and more stories are surfacing in the media about what is happening at Christchurch Hospital and about its inability to provide the sort of quality standard of care that we would expect in our hospitals for our people in New Zealand.  
The Government crows about the $4 billion a year extra it has put into the health budget but what about the quality of the service that that money is producing? The Minister Pete Hodgson stood up in the Chamber today and said that the service is improving all the time. He should tell that to the partner of the 25-year-old man who is now dead. He should tell that to the family of the 82-year-old man who was given the wrong medication at Auckland Hospital because of an administrative blunder. The Minister should tell that man’s family members that the health system is improving all the time.  
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.