Volume 624 Week 85 - Tuesday 5 April 2005 
Volume 624 Week 85 - Tuesday 5 April 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19547] 
Tuesday 5 April 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Papua New Guinea—Committee on a Pacific Economic Community National Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Committee on a Pacific Economic Community from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcome. 
Resignations 
Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt NZ Labour 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt resigning his seat in the House with effect on 31 March 2005. 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Lesley Frances Soper has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Jonathan Lucas Hunt. I understand that Lesley Soper is present and wishes to be sworn. Would she please come forward to the Chair on my right. 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Lesley Soper who then took her seat in the House. 
Obituaries 
Pope John Paul II 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its deep sadness on the recent death of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and express its sincere condolences to the Holy See and to Roman Catholics in New Zealand and around the world who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time.  
On Sunday when the death of Pope John Paul II was announced people around the world stopped what they were doing to reflect on his passing and the meaning of his life—and what a remarkable life it was from his birth in Poland in 1920 to enduring the Nazi occupation of his country and the war as a young man and then seeing a communist regime rule his country for the next four and a half decades. Pope John Paul II became not only Poland’s first pope but also the world’s best-known and most travelled pope reaching out to every continent and across the faiths to communicate. His visit to New Zealand as Pope is recalled with great affection. The great causes of our time—peace and disarmament human rights and democracy and equality for all—were all causes for which he was a strong advocate. The world is a better place for his life; he made a difference. 
Last year I was privileged to meet the Pope personally at the Vatican. I found his body to be frail but his mind very sharp. He spoke of his hope for peace in the Middle East and he spoke about his respect for our country as a force for peace. That was a proud day for me. 
In recent weeks as we have watched the Pope’s worsening illness we have also admired his great courage during considerable suffering—even appearing at his window in the Vatican last Wednesday and in his final hours addressing a message to the world’s young people. 
 Messages have been sent by the Governor-General and by me to the Holy See and to the Catholic Church in New Zealand to express the condolences of this country. A condolence book is available in Parliament’s first floor reception area for members of Parliament parliamentary staff and members of the public to sign. Flags flew at half mast on public buildings on Sunday and Monday and will be at half mast again on the day of the funeral. I have announced today that the Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright will be representing the people of New Zealand at the Pope’s funeral in Rome on Friday. 
Once again I express the sincere condolences of the Government to the Holy See and to New Zealand’s Roman Catholic community. May Pope John Paul II rest in peace. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party strongly supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister. Pope John Paul II was one of the most remarkable men in the second half of the 20th century. He was a man of enormous personal courage. He was born into a Catholic family in Poland and at a time when many Polish Catholics were anti-Semitic he stood out as not being anti-Semitic. Indeed he volunteered to play for the Jewish side in the Catholic-Jewish soccer games of the time. He began classes in a seminary in 1942 at the age of 22 when the Nazis occupied Poland and were actively killing Catholic priests who opposed them. 
He was a man who had a profound effect on world history. He became the 264th Pope in 1978 the first non-Italian in almost five centuries and he was the Pope for 26½ years—the third longest-serving Pontificate in the history of the papacy. He travelled the world very extensively and met with a large number of political leaders. He influenced the international debate on a whole range of issues but he will probably be best remembered certainly by non-Catholics as the man who perhaps more than any other contributed to the fall of the Iron Curtain. Certainly Mikhail Gorbachev once said that the collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without Pope John Paul II. 
On behalf of the National Party I extend my condolences to New Zealand Catholics and to Catholics around the world. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is impossible to experience the passing of a person of the stature of Pope John Paul II without a feeling of great sadness and great loss. We particularly wish to extend our condolences to the Catholic community in New Zealand and abroad as well as to all New Zealanders and world citizens who feel this loss. 
The longevity of his papacy and the fact that he was the first non-Italian in the role for many centuries make the papal term of Karol Jozef Wojtyla special. But it was the nature of the man that raised him to the highest echelons. During a period when hedonism and materialism held sway he was guided by ethical and moral principles alone. Whilst we may not all have agreed with all his beliefs no one could doubt the steeliness and fortitude with which he held his beliefs and the profound effect he had upon the century in which he lived. 
Pope John Paul II internationalised the papacy though his many travels and it was very much a special moment for New Zealanders when he came to this country. However internationally the image of his meeting of forgiveness with his attempted assassin Ali Agca will probably have the greatest permanence in people’s minds. We therefore grieve the passage of a great spiritual leader. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I rise to support the motion. We have witnessed the passing of a truly great man. His Holiness John Paul II reached out right around the world to Catholics and to non-Catholics alike. He was the best-known pope and the most travelled pope. He was a man who knew hardship and the brutality that tyrannical regimes can inflict. He suffered as a forced labourer under the brutal Nazi occupation of Poland and then for 45 years under the tyranny of communist rule in Poland. On becoming Pope his moral leadership for Catholics and non-Catholics alike saw him stand firm against the tyrannical communist regimes. As Dr Don Brash pointed out Mikhail Gorbachev said that it was John Paul II who saw the Iron Curtain come down. He was a man too who worked hard and ceaselessly for the reconciliation of Christian people with the Jewish people. We have lost a great man and we should be sad about that loss but we should live and rejoice for a life truly well lived and for his huge contribution to the world. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Greens I join with other parties in expressing our condolences to all members of the Catholic Church on the death of their spiritual leader. Our thoughts are with the many many people who are grieving his untimely passing. It must however be noted that although much has been said about the many many achievements of Pope John Paul II he also took controversial positions on a number of issues that have caused concern both within his Church and within the wider community. We wish Cardinal Tom Williams well in his task of helping to choose the next pope and we hope whoever is selected will embrace the liberation theology that was the hallmark of previous popes. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am honoured to pay tribute today on behalf of United Future to Pope John Paul II whom I was privileged to meet here in Wellington in 1986. 
It is reported that the communist tyrant Joseph Stalin once asked in scorn how many divisions the Pope had yet in 1978 Karol Wojtyla the first pope from the so-called workers’ paradise of Communist Poland began to wield weapons that Stalin would not have comprehended. After the Pope’s first visit to Poland in 1979 the workers of the Gdansk shipyards buoyed by his example began to rise up against the Government—and Solidarity was born. 
So began a tide of change that captured the hearts and minds of millions until in 1989 the “evil empire” that had long dominated Eastern Europe was gone in a bloodless revolution. Love conquered hate peace conquered war and freedom and democracy banished oppression and dictatorship. Pope John Paul II ignited those flames not by the might of arms but through the power of his message which was based on the truth about humankind and its deepest yearnings. 
There was however more—much more—to his life. The cross the central symbol of Christianity has both a vertical and a horizontal axis. For Pope John Paul II the vertical was his love and total abandonment to God and the horizontal was his love and total service to the whole of humanity. He loved everyone—men and women—regardless of their race or religion but he especially loved the poor the sick and the disadvantaged. 
The media have said that at the hour of his death a bright light was extinguished but I hope rather that it has been diffused and will continue to shine in the lives of the hundreds of millions who heard his messages especially the young people who came in their millions to World Youth Days. It is a light that please God will never go out so that freedom from want and fear no less than from moral chains becomes a reality for all. 
This I believe will be the lasting legacy of the greatest leader of the second half of the 20th century: Pope John II Vicar of Christ a man for our times sent from God. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 As a Roman Catholic the values of the universal Church have guided me since being a Catholic youth movement worker in the 1960s to being a Cabinet Minister today. While many people in this country and in other nations will debate aspects of the Church’s approach to issues such as the role of women in society the overwhelming impression left in my mind and in the minds of many I am sure is the role that Pope John Paul II has played to promote and secure peace throughout the world. 
The second impression is the value that the late Pope placed on the recognition of different faiths and on the need to work to eliminate conflict between those faiths in the pursuit of peace. Finally New Zealanders will recall the role that Pope John Paul II played in achieving the peaceful transformation of Eastern Europe from totalitarian to democratic rule. May he rest in peace. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party mourns the passing of a world leader—an inspired and compassionate man and someone who was treasured for the spiritual guidance and moral strength he provided not only to millions of Catholics but also to communities all over the world. 
I want particularly to acknowledge the deep grief and sadness felt by the 70000 tangata whenua of the Catholic faith. Tangata whenua saw the reverence and respect with which Pope John Paul recognised his homeland. We all remember well his historic journey home to Poland and how moved we were to see him kiss Papatuanuku. We think of his unique contribution to Aotearoa now when we remember the visit of Pope John Paul II in November 1986 when 2 years later the consecration of the first-ever Maori Catholic bishop Takuira Mariu took place. 
We have all lost a genuine mentor a holy man. His messages will continue to inspire and challenge us all to create a better world. 
Na reira e te rangatira haere atu ra ki o tupuna. Hoki wairua mai ki a matou e whai atu ana i a koe. 
[ 
And so to you the chief depart to your ancestors. Return in spirit to us who in time will follow you 
.] 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tertiary Education—Funding 
1.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to shift tertiary education funding from areas of low-quality provision to areas of higher strategic relevance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 There are quite a few but particularly today a new statement of tertiary education priorities has been published. That focuses the education system on quality rather than quantity on relevance to national goals and on collaboration rather than competition. The statement makes it clear that low-quality courses and providers have no place in the publicly funded system. It clearly demonstrates our commitment to scrap the previous approach introduced by Nick Smith and supported by Bill English of funding anyone who comes through the door or in their case who turns on the radio. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are the key differences between the new statement of tertiary education priorities and the last one? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It sets out a definition of tertiary education provision that is strategically relevant and specifies the particular roles that particular types of tertiary education providers play in the system. I expect that as a result of this in the value-for-money reviews already under way there will be significant changes from 2006 onwards. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House that Labour has spent $210 million setting up the Tertiary Education Commission; and that that body in the last 2 years has overseen massive blowouts in low-value tertiary education courses and right now is investigating rumours that there were 30000 enrolments in diving courses in 2004? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What would the Minister suggest I say to the lady who sent me an advertisement from the  
Gulf News 
 of 24 March for enrolment in the Te Tohu Whakangungu Kaihoe waka course a 36-week course in Polynesian navigation with the question: “I thought this type of course was going to be discontinued. The country is desperate for trade training to produce skilled workers.”—that help is on the way? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That waka is going under. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister willing to increase the target number for Modern Apprenticeships to 10000 given a Department of Labour survey that shows a severe skills shortage in 15 trades all in Modern Apprenticeships areas; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are reviewing the Modern Apprenticeships targets in looking forward. It looks as if we will get to the current target of 8500 much earlier than was predicted. The one issue I have around increasing targets is the ability to get tradespeople to do the training. That is one of the problems at the moment. Too many such tradespeople are going out of the polytechs and private training establishments and back on to the tools because the money is so good. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is not the movement to shift tertiary education funding to areas of so-called highest strategic relevance just another way of closing down private training establishments and reducing wananga rolls; if not how will private training establishments and wananga benefit from that move? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. In fact the changes in the private training establishment area were promoted by the member when she was part of the social development committee and part of the Government. But there will be some changes. I have no doubt that wananga rolls will go down because some of the things that are being taught in wananga are not strategically relevant. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a document detailing the expenditure of $210.284 million on establishing the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Leave granted. 
John Tamihere— 
Investigate 
 Interview 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What basis did she have for stating that Ian Wishart’s interview with John Tamihere “seems to me like the product of a long liquid lunch” and does she stand by her statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 On the basis of reading the transcript; and yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s claim about excessive alcohol what is her response to John Tamihere’s claim in the interview that this Labour Government is run by anti-family homosexuals and trade unionists who do nothing but plot and plan and double-cross their coalition partners? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I suggest the member gets some new glasses and examines the quality of our front bench. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen Mr Tamihere’s reference to “ministerial klingons” and to the Hon Steve Maharey and others as “very smarmy very clever but no substance” and does she understand that many New Zealanders are very grateful to Mr Tamihere for providing those revealing insights into her ministerial colleagues which were gained from his privileged vantage point in her Cabinet in recent years? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I have seen the statements. I note that Mr Tamihere referred to a number of his colleagues as very clever unlike Brian Connell’s reference to the Leader of the Opposition as “stupid”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister please reconcile these two events: Lianne Dalziel being told to go home for allegedly not telling the truth and John Tamihere being told to go home for irrefutably telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In recent months I have been in the House when members of the Opposition have refused to believe that anything Mr Tamihere says is true. I find the change of attitude very remarkable. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that John Tamihere in his interview defamed Ministers and her Beehive staff and will she take this opportunity to point out exactly what statements made by Mr Tamihere in his frank and candid interview are false? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no doubt that the reference to my deputy as duplicitous and one who sets out to deceive is defamatory but we all have broader shoulders than to rush off to court unlike some people. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by John Tamihere that her chief of staff Heather Simpson wanted him “in the tent as damaged goods” and can she confirm that that has been the strategy pursued by her office with regard to Mr Tamihere and also with regard to the Hon George Hawkins? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot confirm any such thing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
] Members will leave the Chamber if they speak when a member is asking a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which of the allegations made by Mr Tamihere are untrue and which of the allegations are true but unbearable; and does she not agree that honesty is the best policy in politics so why is John Tamihere not being promoted back into Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not intend to seek an unlimited period of speaking time to answer that question. The article frankly is drivel. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I of course seek leave for the Prime Minister to have as long as she needs in order to go through the article and explain to us which bits are true and which bits are not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I am sorry was the member seeking leave or just making a comment? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I cannot seek leave. I am inviting the Prime Minister to seek unlimited time to explain which parts of the Tamihere article are untrue and which parts are true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order as the member knows. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the absence of the Prime Minister’s desire to articulate what the allegations were and are I seek leave now to articulate them for the benefit of the House and the country. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to articulate further on the questions he has been asking. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection so the member’s request for leave is declined. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s answers what part of the following statement made by Mr Tamihere is false: “… Helen has been brutalised by people who have called her lesbian no children and all the rest of it. Her key adviser Heather Simpson is a butch and a lot of her support systems are Maryann Street and so on and she’s very comfortable in that world and comfortable with it. I’m not.”? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. Both the questions and the comments were out of order. We will now get on with the answer to the question.  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Only last week Mr Hide to his credit defended a man against allegations that at that time appeared to be based on homophobia. I am surprised that he would ask the sort of question he has asked in the House today. I speak in this House as someone who has been happily married for 23½ years and who has never been brutalised by anybody. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is the second time that someone has made an allegation in respect of my raising the issue of Jim Peron in this House—today by the Prime Minister and prior to that by Mr Rodney Hide. I do not think that anyone who read the  
Sunday Star-Times  
on Sunday could have any view other than the one I have and I now ask the Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is most certainly a point of order. I have clearly taken offence as you should have Madam Speaker on my behalf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did not refer to the member in her answer to the question. She raised an issue that has been raised in the House but she did not make specific reference to the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member specifically take offence at the inference that was made? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I think that is rather obvious for I have proven my point to the satisfaction of you and those people up there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but what was the member saying? I did not quite understand his point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have proven my point about the rightness of my course of action in respect of that man called Jim Peron to the satisfaction now of everybody in the press gallery and of all my detractors including the Prime Minister on that matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said that Mr Hide had defended a person against an accusation that appeared at that time to be made on the grounds of homophobia. Of course the member subsequently produced more evidence on that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I rule that there was no direct personal reflection on the member in the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member addressing the point of order on which I have ruled? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am asking for clarification as to how you can distinguish between a clear reference allied to a person’s name which the Prime Minister raised and linked to Mr Hide’s allegation last week and the member not taking offence at what the Prime Minister just said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can of course raise the matter but the fact remains that there was no direct personal reference to the member. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister at no time addressed my question which asked what in John Tamihere’s allegation was wrong. We heard from the Prime Minister earlier that everything in the article was wrong but that she had no time to go through it point by point. I make the point that the allegation was not made by me; it was actually made by a former Minister in her Cabinet and a member of the Labour Party. I simply asked given that she had said that the article was wrong which parts of it were wrong. Instead I got a diatribe that was something about myself. I just want the question to be answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister in the second part of her answer did in fact address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This really follows on from what Mr Hide was just saying. During the course of the exchange between Mr Hide and the Prime Minister you seemed to let two interjections slide. One was from the Deputy Prime Minister Dr Cullen who shouted across the House: “If he gets in the gutter he gets kicked.” That raises the question of whether Mr Cullen was talking about Mr Hide or about Mr Tamihere who actually made the statement in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: At the time I said that both comments—all interjections that were made during that particular interchange—were out of order. 
Heather Roy 
: How can New Zealanders interpret this statement by Mr Tamihere: “They don’t have families. They’ve got nothing  
but 
 the ability to plot. I’ve gotta take my kid to soccer on Saturday they don’t.” except as indicating that this Labour Government has no understanding of and no empathy with New Zealand families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Every New Zealander has a family. People have parents. Most have siblings. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. [ 
Interruption 
] I have made that ruling because I cannot hear the answer to the question so I ask members to be quiet while we hear the answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you ruling now that whenever the Prime Minister gets up to answer a question we are not even allowed to make an interjection? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not ruling that. I have said before that the odd interjection is permissible. But when there is a barrage and we cannot hear the answer or the question then that is in fact out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: What I ask for is some consistency because during some trite answers from the Government we have heard forced canned laughter from the front bench and the second bench to show that Government members are not running scared on what John Tamihere said. I suggest that if you say that we have to be quiet then that should go for the Government as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Of course it goes for all parties. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just to be helpful it may be a good idea to have the technicians look at the audio system by the Speaker’s chair. I seemed to be able to hear the Prime Minister very clearly from here through all that barrage yet you are sitting as close as possible to her and you do not seem to be able to hear. It may be a technical problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said earlier every New Zealander has a family. Families take many forms in our society and I think we should respect those choices. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it wrong for a member of Parliament whether or not that member is in the Labour Party to point out the disturbing manipulative social engineering policies of her administration and the deep disquiet that certain people have even in the Labour Party about the social agenda of this administration led by her when so many of her colleagues clearly according to Mr Tamihere share that view—10 he says and 15 more on a good day—and why does that article automatically become drivel just because it embarrasses her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government’s record on families stands second to none. Members should look at the Working for Families package that is rolling out this week whereby every family currently receiving family support can look forward to getting more support from the Labour Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does Mr Hide have a supplementary question? 
Rodney Hide 
: Does Madam Speaker see my point? You could not hear me calling because of all the barrage coming across from the Government which never gets addressed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was across the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why would the public not believe what John Tamihere said in that interview when he has spent years in Cabinet and in the Labour caucus and when all she can say in response is that Mr Tamihere was drunk and stressed and the report is drivel and she cannot address specific aspects of what Mr Tamihere has claimed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no doubt that the member was stressed caused in no small way by the fact that the member who has just asked the question spent many months making allegations against Mr Tamihere not one of which was substantiated. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How could that possibly address the question other than to totally dodge it? I asked why we should not believe John Tamihere and now suddenly it is all my fault that he gave the interview where he has told the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed. 
Land Transport Management Act—Toll-funded Roads 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress is being made on toll-funded roads since the passage of the Land Transport Management Act 2003? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Act is the sort of Act one passes when one wants to build roads. Yesterday Cabinet approved the construction of the northern extension to State Highway 1 from Orewa to Puhoi as a toll road under that Act. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on plans to fund roads? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen one other report of a plan to strip $4 billion out of the Crown account that is already being used to offset roading-related costs with no mention of the service cuts or debt increases that would be necessary to fill in the black hole created. That is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and if my bank manager suggested it he would be gone by lunchtime. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that the recently released  
Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study 
 provided some evidence that general taxation was subsidising the road network and therefore gave considerable support to the policy of allowing some much-needed additions to our roading network through toll funding and does he agree with that; if he does is he grateful for United Future’s support for the Land Transport Management Bill which was passed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes and yes. 
Peter Brown 
: My noting those answers will the Minister explain why he believes as he stated to the Automobile Association conference that it is reasonable to borrow money to pay for a tolled road which can produce uncertain income but it is totally unacceptable to borrow against future income generated from road-user charges vehicle registration fees and fuel tax which produce certain income; will the Minister explain his philosophy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I did not say that. I said that if one is going to borrow to build a road one needs to be able to have a revenue stream to service the loan. That revenue stream cannot be something as ethereal as economic expansion. 
Schools—Earnings 
4.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the money earned from a tuck shop and uniform sales should not be added on to what a school is earning.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 No the quote is incomplete. Clearly revenue that schools derive from trading activities like uniform sales tuck-shop revenue or items such as charging for the use of a school building—once the cost of such activities are deducted—should count towards a school’s balance sheet. The point I have made on a number of occasions is that it is essential not to confuse school donations or extra-curricular activity fees with the revenue from trading sales. The Government funds the teaching of the curriculum but a Government is not required nor should it be required to pay for uniforms or for a student’s lunch. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister consider it acceptable that students of Otumoetai College who refused to take part in a money-earning work day for the school—work that included breaking up and carrying concrete—were assembled in a school hall of shame and does he agree that the income generated by that sort of bullying approach should also not be added to a school’s earnings? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I did hear that accusation made on the Linda Clark show this morning but I also heard it refuted by the principal. I certainly will be pleased to try to find out for the member more detailed information about what transpired. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister prefer to spend new education dollars on bureaucracy such as a doubling of the amount spent on policy advice in the Ministry of Education and a trebling of the amount spent on administering regulations leaving schools and parents to fight in court over fees that schools desperately need to keep running? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am afraid the facts do not substantiate the allegation made in the questioner’s statement. In fact the percentage of education funding allocated to the Ministry of Education has remained constant at 15 or 16 percent since 1999 as has the 84 percent of Vote Education dedicated to service providers. In terms of funding the member surely is aware as most members of the community are that in the schools’ area this Government has increased education funding for schools by $1 billion from $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion since Labour was in power. 
Helen Duncan 
: What do schools receive by way of donations? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: According to the latest information available based on what schools reported to the Ministry of Education schools received on average $126 per student in donations in 2003. However the levels of donations are highly variable. Fifty-one percent of schools recorded that they received no donation. I have reservations about the quality of that information especially after listening this morning to a school principal describe something that should have been a voluntary donation as an activity fee. That is why I have asked the ministry to investigate the quality of the information it receives from schools as part of its investigation into how much and by what method school donations and activity fees are collected. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he concerned that many schools are so cash strapped that they are forced to get extra funding from vending machine sales of unhealthy high-sugar drinks and advertisements for fast-food companies appearing in school dairies and on school playing grounds and playing fields; if so will he widen the inquiry into school charges to include all school funding earnings donations and corporate sponsorship; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I believe that the level of funding of schools is appropriate. New Zealand ranks third in the OECD on the percentage of GDP that goes to State schools compared with Australia at 15th the UK at 19th the US at 11th and Canada at 20th. As I said earlier this Government has increased school funding by $1 billion since 1999 from $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion and the operations grant has increased by 14.4 percent in real terms since 1999. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister then have no concern for the North Shore principal who has turned school caretaker in a desperate attempt to cut costs or Kaipara Flats School which can afford a caretaker for only 10 hours a week who then works the rest of the time on a voluntary basis and when will this Government significantly increase the public education funding to ensure our nation has a free public education system? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As the member is aware the operations grant is constantly being reviewed but I can inform the questioner that the percentage raised by way of parent contribution has remained almost completely static over the recent period. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment made by the New Zealand Trustees Association that if all parents chose not to pay the so-called optional donations there would not be enough money to run the education system; if not where does he think the $460 million raised by parents in 2003 would have come from? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Firstly let me correct the figure that the member has used. I am advised that the net amount of locally raised funds that schools received in 2003 was closer to $262 million once the costs of activities were deducted. Unfortunately she used the figure that includes trading revenue that was alluded to in the primary question. All I can say to the questioner is that the fact that 51 percent of our schools report to the ministry that they charge no such donations is a very powerful answer to the question. 
Technology—School Programmes 
5.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the teaching and learning of technology in schools? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday I was very pleased to launch a new $6 million initiative to help support develop and promote outstanding examples of technology education in secondary schools. This is part of the Government’s growth and innovation technology strategy in which projects and practice identified as valuable and innovative will be helped to develop still further and then that best-practice knowledge will be shared with every school in the country. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister provide more detail about the key focus of this programme? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. The key focus of the new programme is enhanced professional development for technology teachers. Contributing to the professional development of staff across the education sector is a most important focus for this Government. We will spend over $67 million this year alone helping teachers and principals to further advance their skills and knowledge—a 125 percent increase in funding since 1999. We believe that is a very worthwhile investment. 
John Tamihere— 
Investigate 
 Interview 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her statement in December last year that: “I’ve always expressed my confidence that John Tamihere would return to the Cabinet at some point”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In the past I have expressed my confidence that Mr Tamihere would return to Cabinet at some point. I am unable to say that today. To return in the future he would have to rebuild the confidence of his colleagues and clearly he has a lot of work to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Could she confirm that much of her reticence about Mr Tamihere’s returning to Cabinet is due to his reported statement that when it comes to the leadership of the Labour Party out of 51 in the current caucus 10 would back him to the hilt and 15 say they would; and if that is not the reason what is her reason? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I assure the member that I am not quaking in my boots. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We went through Rodney Hide’s question earlier question No. 2 and got no answers from the Prime Minister about the allegations made in Mr Tamihere’s article. The only thing she was able to say for sure was that Dr Cullen is not the duplicitous character he was portrayed as by Mr Tamihere. I asked the Prime Minister whether Mr Tamihere’s claim to have the numbers is one of the reasons he is not coming back into Cabinet and if it is not the reason then what were the reasons. Surely at some point that should be outlined to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can an answer that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are you challenging my ruling? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I would not be on my feet if I were not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have already ruled on the point of order. The member may not like the answer but given the question he got an answer that addressed the question. Can we now please move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you tell us how the Prime Minister’s answer was consistent with the requirements of Standing Order 370 in all its parts? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer was consistent with that Standing Order. It does not have to satisfy the member; it merely has to address the question. Can we now please move on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that John Tamihere has to be duplicitous a liar a tosser a weirdo a smarmer or be without substance before he is allowed back into the Labour Party Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: He does not have to be any of those things. He does have to be a team player. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it true or does she agree with Mr Tamihere’s comments about the Government: “In this outfit it’s all ‘rosy’ on the outside not the inside.” and is it also true that when Mr Tamihere used to make a contribution in Cabinet on Cabinet papers and say: “Hang on.” she would say: “You want to be difficult again do you?”; and is that the reason why she relishes this opportunity to keep him out of Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The statements quoted by the member are not true and I can say to the House that one Labour back-bencher under stress means that Labour is far more united than the National caucus any day of the week. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will she indicate to the House whether she thinks it would be difficult regardless of any apology Mr Tamihere might like to make for him to sit in a Cabinet with Mr Maharey whom he described as “smarmy” but with “no substance” or with Mr Carter whom he described as a “tosser”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: For a member of the Labour caucus to be in Cabinet he or she must have the confidence of colleagues because they elect the person to that position. If that were the case in the National Party there is no way Mr Brownlee would be in because one of his colleagues described him as “useless as tits on a bull”. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table the latest copy of  
Investigate 
 magazine with these words on the cover: “TAMIHERE comes clean”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is. It will not be tabled. 
Pharmac—Treatment Access and Expenditure 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she agree with the recent comment by Pharmac Chief Executive Wayne McNee with regard to providing access to drug treatments and managing growth in pharmaceutical expenditure that “We are confident that we have the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In general yes although there is always a need to constantly examine operating practices to ensure that the best interests of New Zealanders are protected and maintained. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does “having the balance right” in general in the interests of New Zealanders include ensuring that we have New Zealanders who seek access to medications to address bone density HIV/AIDS the early stages of breast cancer chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Alzheimer’s disease osteoporosis diabetes motor neuron disease some forms of cancer rheumatoid arthritis and many others being denied access to those drugs by Pharmac thus creating a position where New Zealanders are the least likely people in any country in the world to be able to access proper medications? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealanders do have access to very good pharmaceuticals and in fact increased funding has ensured that we provided new or expanded access in 2004 to 15 medicines including new treatments for depression childhood arthritis hepatitis C glaucoma breast cancer and alcohol addiction. During the current financial year new treatments have been added for diabetes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severe pain schizophrenia raised cholesterol and HIV/AIDS. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the Government doing to improve access to drug treatment for everyday New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: From 1July 2005 we estimate that approximately 2 million New Zealanders will pay no more that $3 for most of their medicines. Lowering the cost of subsidised pharmaceuticals is an important means of removing financial barriers to primary health care services for people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister believe that Pharmac has got it right with sole-supply tendering for the flu vaccine where hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders were put at risk by relying on one source of supply; and what will the Minister do to ensure that New Zealand is less vulnerable in the future from a flu vaccine batch failure than it was this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Sole supply for the flu vaccine in New Zealand has been the case for the past 7 years. Pharmac is however prepared to look at whether it will have sole supply next year and I support it in looking at that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the Minister. Does she believe that Pharmac has got it right with regard to the flu vaccine and what will she do to ensure that New Zealand is less vulnerable to a batch failure in the future? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member but given the question the answer did address the content of that question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have almost like a mantra repeated Standing Order 370 in respect of addressing the question. But I also draw your attention to the full wording of that Standing Order. It states: “… the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” In respect of Mr Hutchison’s question I think it is in the public interest. You completely ignored that latter part of Standing Order 370(1) and I suggest that you need to take the complete Standing Order in judging whether indeed a Minister has addressed a question in the public interest. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point is of course that under certain circumstances the Minister may decline to address the question at all because it is not consistent with the public interest to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek an opinion. If the member does seek an opinion then invariably the Minister responding will give an opinion to the question and that is less likely on occasion to satisfy the member asking the question. So in this instance yes the question was addressed. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister share Pharmac’s confidence that “we have the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders.” to the extent of allowing Pharmac to control drug spending for cancer treatments even though this has been described as “potential dynamite” that could change the treatment of cancer in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With the use of Pharmac we have been able to ensure that we can widen the use of cancer drugs in New Zealand. From 2002 we put in place what is called a basket of cancer drugs that is now uniform across New Zealand and Pharmac believes that it will be able to provide even more drugs to put into that basket. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How can the Minister continue to stand by Pharmac’s sole-supply agreements when they have resulted not only in last month’s flu vaccine crisis but also over the last few years in shortages of medications for gout of sedatives of essential iron supplements for women and infants of certain antibiotics and of medications for hay fever kidney dialysis heart failure epilepsy thrush rashes and many more? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has been operating a sole supply for many drugs since 1997 and the ability to be able to do that has ensured that taxpayers have something around an extra $200 million to spend on drugs. Whether or not there is a sole supplier there will be at times problems with a particular drug. I think Pharmac does a very good job in ensuring that we have high-quality drugs in New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the contract to purchase further supplies of antiviral drugs that could protect us against a bird flu outbreak a sole-supply contract; if so can the Minister assure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay in receiving supplies of these vital drugs as there was with this winter’s flu vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I provided an answer to the member regarding the supply of antivirals and the timetable for it. As she knows they are being purchased over a number of months which will ensure that we have a total supply of over 800000 doses by November this year. The tender for that has been done in the usual way. I believe that it is sole supply and it is being provided by a company that is contracted to do it for us. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister whether she can assure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay in receiving supplies of these drugs. She referred to the fact that there was a timetable. She did not answer my question which was intended to reassure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay as there was with the flu vaccine. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think I can give an assurance in that the flu vaccine had to be specially made because each year the World Health Organization decides what should be in the flu vaccine then we have to go to a manufacturer to make the vaccine. The antivirals are not in the same category. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister still consider that Pharmac has the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders when at a time when Treasury projects that the average weekly wage is $554 adult sufferers of aggressive rheumatoid arthritis are paying in excess of $500 a week for medication that in Australia in Britain anywhere in the European Union in the United States and in Canada would be provided free of charge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac does recognise that drugs can make a significant difference in the lives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In fact in 2004 it approved funding for etanercept one of the TNF inhibitor drugs for children under 18. It is now actively working with suppliers to reach an agreement to enable funding for adult patients and access criteria for adults will be essentially the same as in Australia. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that she did not take the answer provided to her by officials to Dr Cullen to change a single word in the answer which meant that the effect of the answer was melted down so that Mr Dunne thought he was receiving the answer that he wanted to his question but he was not? If she can give that assurance why should Mr Dunne believe anything that she says or that this Government tells her—in light of Mr Tamihere’s article—and how does he know that he is not being made a fool of again? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that the Hon Peter Dunne has dealt with this Government and this Minister long enough to know that he will get a straight answer to a straight question. 
Police Minister—Confidence 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister of Police is a hard-working and conscientious Minister and after all the attention that has been paid to 111 calls in relation to the incident where 100 patrons were present at the Lone Star Cafe in Newmarket at 8.40 p.m. on Easter Monday at the time that the establishment was being held up by three gangsters one with a sawn-off shotgun how long did it take the police to come the less than 1 kilometre from the Newmarket Police Station to the Lone Star Cafe in Newmarket? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no information about the Lone Star Cafe in Newmarket. The member will have to put down a question on notice. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that a 111 call on Saturday night alerting the police to a dangerous confrontation in the suburb of Mount Roskill in Auckland was not acted on and that if another member of the public had not called 111 no patrol car would have been sent to that incident which has left two young men hospitalised one in a critical condition whereas if the first call had been properly responded to neither young man would be in hospital; if so given Mr Hawkins’ repeated assurances that the 111 system failures have been fixed could she remind the House exactly why she has confidence in the Minister of Police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My attention has been drawn to the  
Dominion Post  
report of the same incident. The police advise that an inquiry into this incident is taking place as well as of course the general inquiry going on into the 111 system. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who has overseen a staffing crisis in police communication centres to such a degree that for the first time since 2000-01 the number of staff leaving last year for example exceeded the number who had been recruited by 71 to 51? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Under the current Minister the number of people working in the police is up 1080 and the budget is up 19.7 percent. That is a very major contribution to ensuring that policing is effective. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to Mr Tamihere’s comments about the Prime Minister’s emotional make-up could she explain why it is fair to leave a Minister of Police without the resources to do the job—and that has been demonstrated on countless occasions—so that we have the tragic case in Auckland as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today 
where a person may die; and why would we not advise the public that rather than call 111 they should just call this number? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Because part of that question was visual some people in this House have no idea what the question was. We would like also to see the number. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member who asked the question like to complete the question for the listeners at home if for no one else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member declines. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect just because United Future gets up and says it wants an answer—I do not know why; it is probably for the first time in its history—is no reason for me to do that. I have no accountability in terms of parliamentary responsibility as a Minister; it is the Prime Minister whom I am talking to and she will know full well whose number that is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the member does not have to explain his question any further. We accept that. I merely invited him to do so for the information not only of members in this House but also of those listening. Would the right honourable Prime Minister now address the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in an earlier answer the police budget over five Budgets is up 19.7 percent. To address the member’s question I say that that is not leaving a Minister under-resourced. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by Mr Hawkins’ advice to this House on the number of unallocated cases at the various police districts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the Minister came to the House last week and made a correction to those answers. 
Legislation—Party Support 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “we work very carefully with parties who are supporting our legislation.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With regard to the John Tamihere article can the Prime Minister confirm whether one of the pieces of legislation that the Government’s support partners were duped on was the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill of 2004; and does she agree with Mr Tamihere’s assessment of that legislation: “I think we f…ed up with our 2004 amendments to the Employment Relations Act. I think it’s very silly a number of things that we did then merely to give unions greater organizational capabilities.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No and no. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Prime Minister think Mr Tamihere made all these allegations in the article if none of them are true? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said I consider that he has been under considerable stress. 
Stephen Franks 
: What will the Prime Minister’s Government do for United Future in relation to February’s new law that lets film censors ban Christian videos that might make young homosexuals feel low self-esteem; or have United Future members not yet complained because her Ministers are so clever that “they still think they got their clause in” when in fact they voted for a bill that “melts down everything they wanted”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over what must be now more than 970 days of dealing with United Future I have found it to be very conscientious as a parliamentary party—and actually to take a more informed interest in what goes through this House than many. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With regard to Mr Brownlee’s earlier example of the employment relations law reform legislation last year does the Prime Minister recall that United Future actually voted against that legislation; if she does recall that could she explain to the House and to Mr Brownlee how one could be “duped” about the wording of legislation that one votes against? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is very important to note that I was not at all specifying that United Future was the party concerned in that instance and I think that that question is quite out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would have to look at the record. I recall that there was a reference but I am happy to check it. Would the Prime Minister now please address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the question is wrong how can the Prime Minister be asked to answer it? This is the sort of behaviour that Mr Tamihere is on about. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raised the question in a way that it would be in order: taking the example of the employment relations amendment legislation— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is it that now without seeking leave Mr Peter Dunne is re-asking his question? Either his question is in order and is put or it is ruled out of order. He cannot suddenly just stand up because he is the Government poodle and ask another question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly in order for the Speaker to ask the member to redo the question. Would he please do it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Speaker the point was that you had not asked him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did ask him. 
Rodney Hide 
: When? He was halfway through— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. When the member asked whether he could re-ask the question I said yes please do the question again. So would the Hon Peter Dunne please ask the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Taking the hypothetical example of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill passed in 2004—which I observe United Future opposed—could the Prime Minister explain to the House how the act of opposing legislation means that members were duped by its proponents? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The whole intent of that question is to suggest that United Future was somehow accused of voting for the legislation and therefore were duped in the process. At no point in the question did I mention United Future. It is evident to everybody that a minority Government goes to various parties at different times in order to gather support for legislation. We know that United Future did not vote for that legislation and I do not know why United Future is so upset about it. But for the Prime Minister then to be asked to answer a hypothetical question when we all know that that situation did not happen is quite ridiculous. 
Rodney Hide 
: There is a more fundamental problem with that question. There can be no ministerial responsibility for whether Peter Dunne was duped unless John Tamihere is telling the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask a hypothetical question and this would not be the first one that has been asked in this House. So would the question now please be completed and the answer given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You are significantly right in respect of Mr Dunne’s question but despite our desire to see him get some points on the rack one of these days the problem is that there is no prime ministerial responsibility for the question. That is the problem with it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: The question sought confirmation from the Prime Minister that the act of opposing legislation could hardly imply one was duped into supporting it. The allegation behind the original question was that support parties had been duped into supporting legislation. I was rising with an example where that was not the case and asking for the Prime Minister to explain to the House how others could possibly interpret it to be so. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I hesitate to disagree with my friend Mr Dunne but I think Mr Peters is right on this one. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for the consequences of the way another party voted. For example the National Party frequently votes against legislation it secretly supports. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I want to speak in support of Mr Dunne. He can ask the question providing he can authenticate the various statements. The first statement he needs to authenticate is his voting record which I am sure he can do. The second is whether he has been duped. I have the John Tamihere article and I am happy to table it so that he can ask the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for all their contributions. As I said the member can ask a theoretical question. The question of whether there is ministerial responsibility has also been raised. I guess that could have been raised right from the outset of the many questions that have been asked in relation to this matter. I ask the Prime Minister to address the question briefly. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that point of order. Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. To clarify for the House it is the basis of the ruling that makes the Prime Minister responsible for Peter Dunne whether or not he is duped. It seems to me that you are accepting Richard Prebble’s request to table the document and therefore we have to accept that the Prime Minister is responsible for whether the coalition partner is duped. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Can we please move on. Would the right honourable Prime Minister please address the question briefly. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm for the record that this particular Government bill was not supported by United Future and that therefore that party could not have been duped because it did not vote for the legislation. I am unable to explain that to Mr Brownlee because as the ACT president said he is “not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment was unnecessary and should be withdrawn. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am happy to withdraw that last comment which I passed on from the president of ACT. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has to be an unqualified withdrawal. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am happy to make an unqualified withdrawal. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think that in the example outlined by Mr Franks with regard to the censorship legislation that becomes effective later this year there is an example of Mr Tamihere’s allegation against Dr Cullen in action; in case she does not remember Mr Tamihere said that Mr Cullen “can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those”—he uses a word that I will not use—“[coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” when clearly in the case of this legislation the outcome is not what United Future would have wanted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. I have known the Deputy Prime Minister for something close to 34 years and I know him as an exceptionally honest and straightforward member. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the Minister with prime responsibility for New Zealand’s appointment to the World Bank is the Minister of Finance. Therefore this question should be addressed to the Minister of Finance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows the Minister is entitled to allocate the question to whoever is appropriate in the Government. The question has gone to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the subject matter would generally be considered to be within that portfolio. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 When the question came through from the Clerk’s Office it was addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Government did not seek to transfer the question at all. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I submitted the question to the responsible Minister fully expecting it to go to the Minister of Finance. I seek leave for this question to go to the Minister of Finance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was addressed by the member to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and signed by a member of his party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now proceed to the question. 
World Bank—Presidency 
10.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Will he reconsider New Zealand’s support of Paul Wolfowitz for the presidency of the World Bank following statements by the bank’s former chief economist Joseph Stiglitz that “The World Bank will once again become a hate figure. This could bring street protests and violence across the developing world.”; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 No. The member’s question has been overtaken by events. Last week Mr Wolfowitz was elected president of the World Bank unanimously by the board of the bank. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree with Joseph Stiglitz that this appointment will lead to the bank becoming “an explicit instrument of US foreign policy” and why did New Zealand support this appointment when Mr Wolfowitz’s role as chief architect of the Iraq invasion his attacks on New Zealand’s antinuclear stance and his support of Indonesia’s undemocratic former President Suharto clearly show that he has a habit of deliberately opposing or undermining New Zealand’s foreign policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I do not agree with the statement by Joseph Stiglitz. I will explain to the member exactly how the election takes place and then he will understand New Zealand’s vote. New Zealand is currently an executive director of the World Bank. As such it represents a constituency of 13 different countries. Our requirement is to consult with each of those countries and find the consensus. The consensus was very clearly to support Mr Wolfowitz. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is it the tradition that the United States nominates the president of the World Bank and was its nomination in this case supported by the major contributing donor countries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes it is the tradition that as the major donor the United States nominates the president of the World Bank. Its nomination was supported by all the major contributing countries to the World Bank—the United Kingdom France Germany and Japan—and supported unanimously by all the executive directors. There were of course no other contending candidates. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister concerned that Paul Wolfowitz’s official biography on the US Department of Defense website fails to refer to development poverty AIDS debt or economic policy and is he confident that a man whose major development project to date is the invasion of Iraq—a man who has absolutely no banking experience outside of using an automatic teller machine—has the right skills experience and vision to lead the World Bank? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is fair to say that Paul Wolfowitz has academic public service and management experience that he can bring to this position that should be very helpful. I also point out that one of the most acclaimed authors on the World Bank—in fact under Mr Wolfensohn—has endorsed the Wolfowitz nomination saying that Mr Wolfowitz is pragmatic on economics and passionate about democratisation in developing countries. I think it would be fair for the member to judge Mr Wolfowitz on his performance rather than on what he believes Mr Wolfowitz may or may not do. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister therefore believe that Paul Wolfowitz will be a good leader for the World Bank because of his deep concern for those living in poverty or is it Mr Wolfowitz’s experience in helping US companies to grab Iraq’s oil profits that has left him well qualified to dole out lucrative World Bank contracts to those US businesses? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The policy of the World Bank which is a vitally important organisation in terms of addressing the problems of poverty in the world is not determined by one individual; it is determined by a board of governors. The World Bank has a board of directors it has a mission statement and it has a tradition. That bank has performed extraordinarily well in recent years and I have no reason to believe that it will cease to do so now. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that Germany with a Green Foreign Minister voted for Mr Wolfowitz? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is yes. The Green Minister in Germany supported that nomination as did every other country in the European Union which of course represents the countries often most like-minded to New Zealand in international affairs. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that countries like France and Germany expressed concerns about that appointment up until they got a call from George Bush and can he also enlighten the House as to whether the New Zealand Government took any account of the concerns of the World Bank Staff Association which declared in no uncertain terms that it thought Paul Wolfowitz was an unsuitable appointment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It would be deeply insulting to the major countries of the European Union to say that their minds were made up for them by another country. Those countries have established a track record in recent years of making up their own minds on various issues often in contradiction to the United States. 
Police Minister—Confidence 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did the Prime Minister have discussions with Mr Hawkins over the past few days on his future role or did she fear that she was not good with emotion and might go to pieces and not turn up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No and no. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any difficulties or tensions between police headquarters and the Minister of Police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why considering that Mr Hawkins was kept in the police portfolio reportedly because Mr Tamihere among others threatened to resign does she now regret not sacking Mr Hawkins last year and killing two birds with one stone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The assumption in the member’s question is quite incorrect. I had no intention of sacking Mr Hawkins. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister of Police who was asked a simple written question: “What is the authorised staffing level at the Auckland Communications Centre and what is the actual staffing level at today’s date?” and who replied to such a simple question: “I have been advised that Police set target levels for the National Communications Service Centre not for individual Communications Centres.”?; and does that sound like a believable answer from a competent Minister or the load of codswallop that everybody else thinks it is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Ministers rely on staff liaising with the principal department to provide information for answers and I imagine that that was the best that was received. 
Zimbabwe—Election 
12 
.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What reports if any has he received on the Zimbabwe election held last week? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have received reports from a number of different countries that had representatives in Zimbabwe for the election. Most reports suggest that although election day proceeded peacefully the election itself can be considered neither free nor fair. The announced outcome of the election consequently is not accepted by New Zealand as reflecting a democratic mandate for the ZANU-PF Government of Robert Mugabe. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: On what basis does the New Zealand Government believe that the election was neither free nor fair? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a large number of factors. If I can touch on them briefly firstly the election took place in an environment of fear and intimidation that was fuelled by widespread human rights violations and misuse of the security forces which deterred many citizens from exercising their democratic rights. Secondly Opposition politicians experienced serious harassment. There was unequal access to State media and many independent media outlets have been suppressed. Finally there have also been post-election allegations of widespread electoral irregularities including inaccurate voter lists and reports that many voters were turned away at the poll.  
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.  
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 1964 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 In looking at the title of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill I thought what a smarmy title it is for a bill that will in fact introduce a $6 per week reduction in benefits for mothers or fathers who refuse to name the other parent of their child. [ 
Interruption 
] People are asking how there can possibly be fathers who cannot name the mother of their children. One of the awful things in this country at the moment is that over 250 fathers who receive the domestic purposes benefit say that they cannot name the mother of their child. 
Jill Pettis 
: Mother? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes the mother of the child—and the chief Government whip should know that. That is because those fathers do not have to fill in the liable-parent contribution form so that the taxpayers of this country might receive a bit of help from the parent who should be liable. Apart from those 250—which might not seem many except when we think that 250 men supposedly do not know who the mother of their children is—more than 19000 mothers do not name the father of their children. 
I have spoken in the Chamber before about this particular provision in this bill. I have said—and I will say it again—that this bill does nothing other than to send a teeny-weeny message that dads may be important to their children and that maybe the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect the parents of a child to have the primary duty towards that child. Our parliamentary colleague John Tamihere showed in an interview reported by the excellent  
Investigate 
 magazine dated April 2005 in which he talked about fathers having to take their kids to sport on Saturdays that he understands that even though some families do split up and mum and dad do not always live together fathers are still important to their children—in fact desperately important. 
Of course the Minister does not understand this issue. The Minister thinks that if we take away $6 a week and on the same day give back more than $6 a week—about $19 a week back—then that will do. That is in fact just a token slap in the face for the taxpayers of New Zealand so that this Government can say that it is doing something. Well it is not doing enough. 
Mr Tamihere says—and I have to agree with him—that he would promote Mr Maharey immediately to “make him wear” all the things—I will not use the term he uses—that have come out because he deserves it—“him and his mob”. That is exactly right. Mr Tamihere is talking straight and he is right. This bill does nothing for the kids of this country. It does nothing for the parents who cannot get access to their children. It does nothing for mothers who are subjected to stand-over tactics from former partners who say that if they are named they will beat the mother up or do something else to her or that they will no longer give her the cash under the table that she is currently getting—because we know that that is happening in this country. 
This Government smarms all over the place with its little rules and regulations and the spin that it keeps putting on people. As Mr Tamihere says it is all about status and spin; there is no substance. With this bill the Government just attempts a little flick saying to taxpayers that it will get them $6 a week back. We know that that is rubbish. The only reason why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this bill is that it is the very first recognition this Government and this Minister have ever made that maybe dads are important to kids and that maybe kids have rights. Children have the right to know who they are where they come from and where their parents are and the right to be supported primarily by those parents unless there is some real reason why the parents cannot help them. 
It is a real shame that the Government has lost the opportunity to say to those dads who do not bother looking after their kids who do not take their kids to sport and who are not there for their children because they choose not to be that that is not OK. It has also lost an opportunity to say to those mothers who basically in many ways act like children themselves because they do not take responsibility that that is not good enough for our kids. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill with the provisos that I read out from our minority report in an earlier debate. At present section 70A of the principal Act provides that in certain circumstances the rate of the benefit payable to sole parents may be reduced in respect of each dependent child. The amendments in this bill provide for an additional reduction of the benefit by $6 for beneficiaries’ continued non-compliance. In certain circumstances currently specified in section 70A(3) of the principal Act a beneficiary who would otherwise be liable under section 70A to have his or her benefit reduced is not liable. 
The amendments create two further exemptions from liability. Firstly the benefit is not reduced if the director-general is satisfied that the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary’s children would be at risk of violence if he or she complied with any of the relevant requirements. Secondly the benefit is not reduced if the director-general is satisfied that there is a compelling circumstance for the beneficiary’s failure to carry out any of the relevant requirements and that even if he or she did carry out the action there would be no real likelihood of child support being collected. 
It is of great concern to New Zealand First that a number equivalent to the attendance at Wellington’s rugby stadium have been born into this situation—35000. What is this Labour Government’s solution to this fact? Would a continuing decrease in beneficiaries’ allowances solve this problem? What would this Government’s response be if all of the 19000 mothers pleaded that their safety was being jeopardised? Is there an alternative or will there be another select committee hearing at a cost to the taxpayers? New Zealand First considers it important that both parents are the only option in relation to all responsibilities for their children’s upbringing and this includes finance. Hopefully the financial reduction under section 70 signals the importance of paternity and hopefully the additional reduction proposed in this bill will reinforce that message. 
Let us face the fact that this legislation will only scratch the surface because the deterioration of the family unit is the reason for many of the social outcomes we are experiencing today—35000 children and 19000 mothers. Not all the blame is on the mothers. There are fathers who are evading their responsibilities of taking care of these children and there are mothers who are in the same situation. Why has it got like this? That is the question I want to ask. Why is it that we in Parliament have to create legislation to support people in this situation? Why is an education programme not in place to teach people about their responsibilities and what they should be doing? 
New Zealand First supports this bill because of the need to support people in this situation. But as I have said before if we give a person a fish he or she will eat for a day; if we teach people how to fish they will eat for the rest of their lives. So it comes back to education again. I am sure there is a solution which New Zealand First would support to reduce those numbers and to place the responsibility where it should be—with fathers and mothers in their homes. Our reason for supporting this bill is the need to get people stable on their feet and carrying out the responsibilities that all parents should be meeting. New Zealand First is hopeful that that will take place and that the financial reduction will have the effect of getting people thinking in the right direction. But I can see that this will never happen because of the irresponsible people out there who are in this situation. 
So what is our responsibility as parliamentarians? It is to teach to change and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is put into areas where it is really needed. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I want to say at the outset that the ACT party will be opposing the bill because it will not fix the problem of welfare abuse. This bill is just another piece of law being passed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey to try to pull the wool over people’s eyes and make them think the Labour Party is addressing the problem. But really the bill will do nothing. 
This Government and Minister are soft on welfare. Rather than tackle the problem head-on the Minister has put forward a bill that simply hides the reality of what is happening in this area. I understand why he is embarrassed by the numbers of women who will not name the father of their children. At the time the Minister took office some 2000 women had not named the father of their children. As we heard that number has grown to 19000 and is heading upwards as more and more parents realise this is a great way to abuse the welfare system. Even the Minister is on the public record as saying that most people who do not name the father of their children are not doing so because they do not know who he is; they are colluding with each other to avoid the child support system. No one believes that 19000 women cannot name the father of their children; maybe 1000 cannot—who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near 19000. This bill endorses the abuse and fraud that is going on. 
If a father can persuade the mother of his child not to name him on the birth certificate he can avoid paying child support for 18 years. That is an enormous amount of money. That practice has been growing and is more widespread. But rather than address the growing fraud and abuse of the welfare system the Minister has sought to hide the figures. If a parent wants to avoid paying child support the bill provides two new ways to do it. Firstly a woman might say she cannot put the father’s name on the birth certificate because he is violent and she is afraid. So there will be a growth in domestic violence numbers. We will not know until further down the track whether the claims of violence are real or imagined. Secondly a father could say that it is no good putting his name on the certificate because he is not going to pay. He can claim to be a deadbeat dad and the mother does not even have to put his name on the birth certificate. 
I recall an interview on Radio New Zealand where Sean Plunket asked the Minister: “What if the mother claims the father is dead and she won’t name him?”. I have to say the Minister was a bit stumped. If a mother claims the father of her child is dead and she will not name him how on earth can anybody check up on that? There is no way around that. So it appears this bill will do nothing to address the abuse of the welfare system whereby women are not naming the father of their children. 
Those women are denying their children the right to know who their father is. In some cases they are denying that dad the right to take part in his child’s life. Meanwhile those who want to abuse the system are getting away scot-free with not having to pay child support for 18 years and no Government is doing anything about it. I find the whole thing completely irresponsible and this bill is just a token measure. It will not address those deep and difficult issues. We need a Government tough on welfare fraud in order to do that. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future members who will be supporting this bill but I particularly want to speak to an amendment that I have proposed to clause 7. This bill enables the rate of benefit paid to solo parents to be reduced if they fail or refuse to identify the other parent of the child make an application for assessment of child support or give all information required under the Child Support Act. It is often forgotten in this debate however that penalties under section 70A of that Act are not all about refusing to name the father. Even if everyone knows who the liable parent is the custodial parent may still face a penalty if he or she fails or refuses to make an application for assessment of child support. This amendment allows the State to file for child support if the identity of the other parent is known but the sole parent refuses to apply for child support. It draws on powers available under section 61C of the principal Act which allows officers of the department to act on behalf of the beneficiary in any proceedings under the Child Support Act. In these situations the issue is not who is liable; it is about whether that person should be made liable. 
Absent parents not only deny their children their presence in their home but also their associated financial contribution. Research by the Ministry of Social Development indicates that there are three common reasons why solo parent beneficiaries do not apply for child support even though the identity of the liable parent is not in question. One reason is that if the liable parent is in a position to pay and is willing to pay more than the penalty in support of his or her child it can be in the solo parent’s beneficial financial interest to have a direct payment from the liable parent rather than to make an application for child support. 
Apparently both Work and Income and Inland Revenue Department staff often point out this loophole to solo parent beneficiaries when they are making a decision about whether to apply for child support. In some cases this private financial arrangement is a specific trade-off for not applying for child support. Another reason relates to benefit fraud. If a solo parent beneficiary is living with the liable parent he or she may be reluctant to initiate a process that might lead officials to match their addresses. It is also not in their interests for child support to be deducted from the household income even if they can avoid being found out. If the liable parent is also on a benefit then it is much more likely that the nature of their relationship would be discovered through an application for child support. The final reason is a reluctance amongst some people especially beneficiaries to deal with State agencies—something that an application for child support would inevitably involve. 
Clearly none of these are particularly compelling reasons not to seek some form of child support from the liable parent. Secret arrangements may mean that in reality the child is being supported by the liable parent but the system of child support is there to ensure that liable parents are held financially responsible for their children. This is after all a social security bill and this amendment proposes that the State should be able to step in to secure the child’s interests. United Future will be looking towards the other parties to support this amendment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Part 1 covers a wide range of issues but it appears from the debate so far that the issue that is attracting most of the attention is one that has had a fair amount of media coverage over the years—that is section 70A of the Social Security Act. That section provides for the reduction in the benefit of a person who will not provide the name of the father of a child and therefore people avoid paying their child liability payments. 
I thank New Zealand First for its usual very insightful contribution to the debate. I also thank United Future for its contribution and advise its spokesperson on social services Judy Turner through Mr Adams that although its proposal today to see a change in the bill came in so late—it will be out of order I think—the issue is one that we will make sure we work on together probably in the Child Support Amendment Bill later in the piece. 
I return to the contributions from National and ACT. Perhaps I will leave aside ACT’s contribution because that party will probably not be in Parliament after the election and just come back to Mrs Collins who for someone who is supposed to be National’s spokesperson demonstrates once again a staggering inability to know what is going on in these portfolios. The National Party apart from once again offering no obvious answer to any of the issues appears to have no policy on the issues whatsoever. Its contributions just become a long-running diatribe about people who should be responsible for their children. We heard nothing else from Mrs Collins and thankfully she stopped. I do not know about the rest of the Committee but I usually enjoy it when she is quiet. 
I tell Mrs Collins for her own edification that section 70A of the principal Act is being changed to the extent that the penalty imposed on parents by this bill essentially inflation-protects the Crown’s interest. Children are involved here and the reason that the domestic purposes benefit is paid into a household is so that they can eat be well supported have the lights on stay warm and go to school—all of those kinds of things. Penalties therefore have to be provided for in a way that takes account of the fact that we still want children to be well supported financially in those households. We do not want to punish them. That is what makes these kinds of issues so difficult. Yes it would be very easy simply to adopt an approach whereby we remove the money from the households of people who do not agree to name the father of their children but the impact on the children would be that they simply would not be supported. A penalty is therefore being put in place and we asked that it be at a level that not only allows the children to continue to be fed properly but also gives a clear signal to a person who does not provide the name of the father that things are not the way they should be. 
It is my view and the Government’s view that fathers must and should be responsible financially and emotionally for their children throughout their lives. One of the issues we inherited from the National Government was that nothing had been done about this issue through the 1990s. The numbers continued to grow and they maxed out at around 20000 fathers. The entire Chamber knows that some fathers will never be involved in the emotional and financial support of their children and they should not be. We are talking about exemptions in the Act for things like incest. We do not want to see those fathers involved and if anybody in the Chamber thinks that such fathers are the kinds of fathers who should be in touch with their children then that is up to them. But that is not the Government’s view. Our view is that the bulk of the people currently who are not naming themselves as the father of a child do not have that excuse. They simply are not carrying out their financial obligations to their children. 
So what is the answer? Well Mrs Collins and the National Party do not have one. However when the Government undertook a long programme of research on a large sample of people within this group it found that one of the major problems was that people simply did not understand the fact that they were being penalised financially and they did not understand how they could go about the process of naming the father once they had settled in to being a mother and getting on with their life—after they had gotten through all that part of settling in to being the parent of the child. We have run a very successful process that—as of 1 April I am told by officials—now sees the number of people in that situation as being 16130. In other words since we started introducing the real change the number has dropped—and the penalty as Mrs Newman points out is not the real change but is simply to remind people that there is a financial penalty. It is no wonder that Mrs Newman and the ACT party are polling 1.7 percent. 
Every answer that ACT gives to these kinds of issues is usually blunt and unthinking. The real answer is what we are doing. We are now talking to people before they go on to the domestic purposes benefit. We then go back to them 3 months after they have been on it if they have not named the father of the child. We are finding with those two kinds of interviews a substantial change in the behaviour of people who understand. Mrs Newman pointed out that people may say that their partner is dead but she offered no solution as to what to do about it. I do not know the answer as to whether a person is lying to us either other than to try to find out through the means we are using. But we have found that many of the people who are interviewed who are re-interviewed and who are informed of the obligation people have to provide support for their children do tell us the name of the father. 
So it would be useful I guess if Mrs Collins and the National Party—and I see Mrs Pansy Wong is about to rise on behalf of the National Party—were to stay in touch with the policy because it would find that it is working and that we are now seeing a steady and continuous drop in the number of people who are not naming themselves as father of the child and those people are now paying their child liability payments. That is why those who have thought this issue through such as Mr Gudgeon from New Zealand First and Mr Adams and Judy Turner from United Future are supporting this bill. They recognise that this amendment is simply one part of a comprehensive answer that is finally after many years of failure by the National Party beginning to get men to front up to their obligations and pay their child liability payments. 
That is the bottom line for me. Men must support their children financially and emotionally throughout their lives. They must not walk away from those obligations. For the first time we have now found a successful way of turning back the numbers. We are seeing major progress and I want to see that progress continue. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I was wondering whether I should quote the honourable John Tamihere from  
Investigate 
 but the Minister who has just sat down reminded me how accurate was the picture painted by the honourable John Tamihere. He said that after one met with the Hon Steve Maharey for half an hour although he sounded smarmy and intelligent he made absolutely no sense. There was no substance or solution in his contribution. I was totally confused after the Minister’s 10-minute contribution but I do encourage him to take more calls to explain himself. 
Firstly he explained to the public that the legislation he brought in was meant to fix the problem of mothers not naming the fathers of their children then in the same breath he said that it would not. He also believed that the legislation would not achieve that aim. I would like the Minister to take another call to say that you have just explained to the Committee that you never intended this legislation to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. Please refer to him as the Minister. 
PANSY WONG 
: The Minister has just said to the Committee that in his mind clause 7 does not achieve the aim of getting mothers to name the fathers of their children. Is he trying to dupe the public into believing that bringing in this legislation would indeed solve the problem? I am very confused by the Minister who has just made the statement that clause 7 would not address what the bill sets out to do. 
The Minister claims that the real solution lies outside the scope of this legislation. If the policy or action of the department is so effective why are political parties being asked to debate this legislation? 
It simply does not make sense. For the Minister’s information the National Party or his so-called “Mrs Judith Collins’ National Party” has an effective policy. 
I also suggest to the Committee that the only reason why the Minister even attempted to address the serious issue that fathers should be made responsible for looking after their children is due to the National Party leader Dr Don Brash raising the issue in Orewa this year. He wants to make sure that children have the best care and that both parents are made to be emotionally responsible or at least financially responsible for their children. I assure members of the public that they need have no worries as the incoming National Government we will bring in comprehensive social welfare reform and as part of that we will make sure that fathers will definitely get the message and will be made to be partly responsible for the upbringing of their children in New Zealand. We got the impression from the contribution from the Minister the Hon Steve Maharey that he will never do that. 
However National supports this bill for the very simple reason that at least it is an acknowledgment that fathers should be made responsible. It is a very small step and it needs an incoming National Government to make sure that the rest of the comprehensive social welfare policy is put in place to ensure the substance of what we are trying to address here will be addressed. I welcome the Minister taking more calls to give the public and people like myself a very clear statement that indeed clause 7 will be implemented by his department. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a bit rich that the Minister can stand here and talk about a comprehensive answer to this growing problem which he blames on the National Party even though he has been the Minister for 5 long years. When we look at the answer we say to ourselves: “Is it comprehensive?” and the response has to be: “No”. The response has to be “No” because there is no attempt by this Government to get underneath the problem and to address what is causing this escalation in the number of women who are not naming the fathers of their children. The answer comes back to two things. The first is the very unfair child support system which the Labour Party has refused to fix. As I understand it Michael Cullen drafted the original child support legislation and in the early 1990s the National Government introduced that legislation. The Child Support Act has been fraught with problems from the word go. A review was done in 1994 by Judge Trapski and he recommended some very significant changes to the way the Act worked but no Government has actually addressed those problems including the Labour Party. But if Labour wanted to get to the bottom of the problem of mothers refusing to name the fathers of their children it would have to agree that a punitive Child Support Act which is really very unfair on many fathers—not all fathers but on many—is one of the reasons why some fathers are unwilling to have their name put on a birth certificate. 
But rather than trying to address the Child Support Act and make it fair which I believe should be the responsibility of a Government the Minister has introduced this Clayton’s bill which is destined to hide those numbers. He stands here and tells us the numbers have come down but I would like to know how many exemptions are being granted because the bill does provide for women to produce reasons for not having to name the father. It would be interesting to know whether the fall in numbers is because many exemptions are being granted or as the Minister claimed because women now realise their obligation to name the father and are doing so. I would like to have more details because that does not appear to have been provided for in the bill. 
Many fathers are being excluded from their children’s lives because of the way the custody laws work in New Zealand. This Parliament will be aware that I have put forward two member’s bills to try to introduce shared parenting into our New Zealand family law. All of the research that I have done tells me that when mums and dads are equally responsible for their children after a relationship breaks down the fathers are more than willing to pay child support and do everything they can to support their children. Where we have laws that exclude fathers very definitely like our custodial laws do at the present time many fathers say: “Well I’m not going to be involved with those children.” It is the kids who miss out. If the Minister is honest when he says he wants to see fathers involved in their children’s lives why has he not helped to introduce shared parenting or some form of law change to allow fathers to play a very big part in the lives of their children when a couple separate? 
If the Minister has read any of the research he will know that New Zealand is facing the biggest crisis of fatherlessness of any generation and that the problems are showing up in the Youth Courts and in the schools because some of these kids are not learning or engaging properly. That is a problem that this Minister should be fixing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 7 in the name of the honourable member Paul Adams is out of order. Twenty-four hours’ notice was not given of an amendment that may have had an impact on Government fiscal aggregates. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments and savings provision 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When I look at this part I cannot help but think of the news this morning about the 20-year-old prostitute struck down by a bullet at Hunter’s Corner Manurewa who was described as a mother of three. I cannot help but think how this part of this bill or indeed any other part will affect her children. 
 I cannot for the life of me believe that that mother has named the father of her three children and she is only 20. I cannot for the life of me believe who is looking after those children while she is out working as a prostitute on Hunters Corner Manurewa in the electorate of the Hon George Hawkins the Minister of Police. I cannot for the life of me understand what she would be making of these particular consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act. 
I understand that the Hon Steve Maharey is known as being someone with whom one can spend 2 hours and come out with screeds of paper as described by John Tamihere and still come out none the wiser because one would wonder what has been said. I do understand that. What we have here is in fact an amendment bill that is nothing more than a reminder; the first acknowledgment ever from this Government that fathers are important. This afternoon I have heard the Hon Steve Maharey in the chair speak as though fathers are important. Yet just before Christmas this year I heard the same Minister stand up and say that there were no reports that he knew of that said that children who are brought up in single-parent homes may have worse outcomes than children brought up with both their biological parents. Yet we in this House know that his statement is simply not able to be backed up by any evidence at all. We know absolutely that children who do not know their fathers or do not have anything to do with their fathers will in fact suffer. And it is not just those children who suffer; it is their children their grandchildren and their great grandchildren—it is generations to come. 
I heard Muriel Newman speak about the unfair liable parent contribution laws. She is right. But the worst thing about the liable parent contribution laws and the most unfair thing is that only 10 percent of the domestic purposes benefit is paid for by liable parents. That is the worst and most unfair thing about those laws. They do not do anything for the taxpayer. They do not do anything for the self-esteem of the really good mums who look after their kids and do a good job and it does nothing for the really good dads who try their very best and give whatever they can to their families even if they are split up. It does nothing for them. It in fact treats those good fathers as though they are fools—mugs. 
This Minister has the gall to stand up in this House and give speeches about how the numbers have come down. Well frankly it does not wash. The amount spent on the domestic purposes benefit under his watch has gone to $1.77 billion. It is a huge increase. Yet we have no excuse at all for people not to have to work in this country. There are jobs. Employers are trying to get people to stand in their shops and sell things to do anything yet there are still people—over 300000 of adult age—who will not work. I do not say they do not work—they simply will not work for a paid income. All the time in this House members will know that they get approached by mothers and fathers on the domestic purposes benefit who will work only 8 or 10 hours a week at a particular job. When we ask them why they will not work more they say they will not work more not because they want to spend more time with their children—after all their children are at school—but because they say it affects their benefit. They would rather take money from the taxpayers than they would earn it. 
That is not good enough and the Minister has stood up in Parliament and said he does not know what our policy is. Well he knows what the policy is in the National Party. It was articulated by Dr Don Brash at Orewa this year. The Minister knows it so well that the next day he came out and said: “What we’re going to do is have a single benefit.” That is what he said and that is all rubbish. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Just for the sake of the Committee I point out that Part 2 deals with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts. Clause 16 amends section OB 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1994 and the Income Tax Act of 2004 by removing references to the transitional retirement benefit which no longer exists. There are consequential amendments because of the transitional benefit being changed to the Health Entitlement Cards Regulations the Social Security (Period of Income Assessment) Regulations and the taxation regulations. Clause 17 “Savings in respect of tax on benefits” validates the practice of paying tax direct to the Inland Revenue Department at a grossed-up rate of income-tested benefit. 
I just mention that because one of the things I have noticed ever since Mrs Collins has been the National spokesperson on welfare is that she never quite seems to know what she is taking about. 
Darren Hughes 
: She’s like that in every portfolio. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that but she has just given us another 5 minutes on Part 1 and I thought it may be helpful for the rest of the Committee to know that this part is not the part that has just been debated by the member. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill which deals with the consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts. Of course whenever we have any bill that changes the way the benefit system is being dealt with then of course it does have profound implications for the tax laws. While we are thinking about those issues it does occur to me to say that the statistics report that the Minister released I think this morning about the way benefits have changed over the last while shows that the domestic purposes benefit is now costing more than ever before in New Zealand’s whole history. If we think about the cost of benefits to taxpayers and the tax implications of that we realise that is one reason of course why this country is taxed so highly. It is why the Labour Government put the top tax rate up from 33c in the dollar to 39c in the dollar and it is why increasing numbers of New Zealanders find that they are now paying the top rate of tax in spite of the Prime Minister’s assurances that it would hit only a small number of New Zealanders. 
Of course I suppose that in a roundabout way one could say that that is why Labour has introduced the Working for Families package—it has been taking so much money off working families that it feels it has to give something back to them in election year. The interesting thing is that that package which the Labour Government proclaimed with such great fanfare as being probably the best thing since the introduction of the welfare State by Michael Joseph Savage turns out to be little more than an inflation adjustment. When the Labour Party came into power it inherited a certain raft of benefits that were paid to families with children and instead of adjusting those benefits as inflation crept up over the last 5 years it left them unchanged. So families were slipping further and further behind. This great package that has had all the fanfare—including $17 million being spent on television advertising with great family-type photographs—simply puts the levels of support to families with children back to what they were in 1999 when Labour took over. I think that is just about the biggest scandal in the Labour Government given all the fanfare and all the money that has been wasted on trying to advertise a package that does not even have to be applied for. 
While we are talking about the tax implications of this bill I think taxpayers out there should be aware that the domestic purposes benefit now costs more than ever before in our history and that this bill in front of Parliament right now is meant to bring in—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member sitting on your right the Minister over there is yelling so loudly that I think it is the Minister who is actually preventing you from hearing the debate clearly. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The point of order is that the Minister should pipe down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order is to be heard in silence. Members have been here in this Chamber long enough to know that. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 56/1 which states that interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: When we consider the consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts we have to remember that the whole reason for this bill is to increase the level of child support that is collected in New Zealand from fathers who should be paying their financial dues so that the cost of the domestic purposes benefit can come down. But the reality is that under this Labour Government that cost has continued to rise so Labour is doing something wrong. It is soft on welfare policies which results in more women going on the domestic purposes benefit at a time when New Zealand is crying out for workers. Most of those women would be far better off – provided they have children of school age – if they were back out in the workforce. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call with slight apprehension in case there is a barrage of interjections. The lack of courtesy shown by the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey was quite scary. Dr Muriel Newman was trying to make some very valid points which we could all benefit from hearing. Instead I was struggling to hear the reasonable arguments put forward by that ACT party member. Labour members have shown that as usual they have no time for anybody whose opinions differ from theirs and show no courtesy to fellow members of parliament. 
I have just learnt from the Minister’s 10-minute call on Part 1 that what he proposes in terms of the penalty for a mother not 
naming the father of a child will not work. Now in Part 2 we are being asked to look at amendments—additional changes—that have to be made to the income tax legislation. Well the House had a painful job just last year passing the Income Tax Act which is over a thousand pages long and which for the first time consolidates all the various income tax amendments into one single statute. All the tax practitioners out there were just about to breathe a sigh of relief and the poor staff at the Inland Revenue Department were saying that at long last there was one statute of a thousand pages and they could get on with the job but what has the Government done? It has introduced legislation that not only will not do what the Government wants it to do—as we were told by the Minister—but also will complicate the Inland Revenue Department’s work. 
Actually it is quite interesting because on the one hand Part 1 introduces a penalty of a reduction in the benefit of $6—which actually is not going to punish anybody—but on the other hand the Inland Revenue Department has been told to administer the Working for Families package brought in by the Labour Government which actually increases the benefit. Not only will the penalty not make people behave in the way that is intended; in effect the bill is doubling the workload of the Inland Revenue Department. The benefit introduced through the Working for Families package probably more than compensates for the $6 penalty. 
The Government continues to tell the public that it is serious about reducing compliance costs throughout the private sector and the public sector but this legislation is actually increasing those costs. We all know that when the Inland Revenue Department has more work the Government introduces more staff the public sector grows bigger and eventually guess who has to pay for all of it? So I really think the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey should think carefully about why he has introduced this legislation in the first place which will not do what he intends it to do and will actually introduce more complications into the income tax legislation. 
The other thing we learnt is that in promoting the Working for Families package the Inland Revenue Department by itself has to design a policy about alerting people to those benefits. I want the Minister to take a call and say whether he would devote attention to publicising the intention of this legislation to ensure that a mother names the father of her child in the same dedicated manner as the Government is allocating over $20 million to promote the Working for Families package. Why is there uneven treatment in terms of promoting the policy? Would the Minister take a call and say how much he has allocated to promote the intention of this legislation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour— 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. From where I was sitting it looked as though Muriel Newman was seeking the call. She was standing. You were not looking around. I am sure the member wished to take a call on this part and I ask that she be given the opportunity to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am happy to do that but I did not hear the member call. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I did call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am happy to do that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and I thank Mr Tisch for his help as well. I did want to take a further call because given that we are talking about tax in Part 2 of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill I want to alert the Committee to the fact that the statistical report the Minister released this morning identified exactly how much tax it costs New Zealanders to pay for benefits. It costs $23 million a day to pay for welfare benefits in New Zealand. That is almost $1 million an hour under a Labour Government that is meant to have done something about welfare. We know that beneficiary numbers have risen dramatically. We find that although in fact the number of unemployed people is down the numbers of people going on to the sickness and invalids benefits have increased dramatically by almost 40 percent since Labour has been in power and the number of people who have been on a benefit for more than 4 years has gone from 95000 to 108000 so we are in a situation whereby taxpayers have to pay $23 million a day in welfare. When the economy turns down which we all know it will—because those things are cyclical—then the number of unemployed people will grow and welfare will become an enormous problem for New Zealand. 
The Minister in the chair Steve Maharey has had an opportunity to fix the welfare system. He has had 5 years to put in place some proper welfare reform policies which would have brought all the numbers down not just the unemployment figure—and the unemployment number tends to go down because people want to better themselves find jobs and get off welfare and into work. To help people on the sickness invalids and domestic purposes benefits takes a bit of initiative gumption and leadership from a Minister. I say to the Minister that he has been a complete disappointment to New Zealand because those tough areas have really been left. This bill is a Clayton’s bill. Sure beneficiary numbers will come down but the Minister knows that he is not actually fixing the problem. He knows that in his heart. 
 I would have liked to see Labour instead of being soft on welfare actually sort out the problems in the system that allow far too much abuse and fraud to go on and ensure that the people who are on welfare are genuinely in need. That is what every New Zealander wants to see—instead of seeing people who could be working and should be working receive welfare day after day. That costs taxpayers money makes families struggle and does nothing at all for those people themselves or for their children and their future. It is no life to be on a benefit—it is a dead end—and this Minister condones more and more people going on to welfare. Twenty-three million dollars per day is being spent on welfare. That is $1 million per hour. By the time that this debate on this bill finishes the taxpayers of New Zealand will have spent $1 million on paying for people on welfare. In terms of the genuine people who will never be able to work nobody has a problem at all. But in terms of the people who could be working why are they not? New Zealand is crying out for workers; the labour shortage is holding the country back. On the one hand there are all those able-bodied people sitting on welfare whom the Minister is happy to pay for and on the other hand small businesses are crying out for people to come and work for them. 
There is an enormous mismatch and imbalance created by the Labour Government. Any other Government would have had the welfare numbers down and ensured that anybody who could work was working. The cost to the taxpayer would then have been at an all-time low which is logically what it should be and the country would have been in great shape. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill is an absolute example of the deep factions that are breaking out in the Labour Government. Looking at the members opposite I see there are 10 mods—and I think about the “She’s a Mod” type of thing. We have to ask whether Mr Duynhoven is a mod. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I was always a mod. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We would say yes he is a mod. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Or is he a rocker? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: “Or is he a rocker?” asks Mr Catchpole. There are the 10 people who would support Mr Tamihere in his leadership bid. Then there are the 15 who say they are staunch but he does not really know just how staunch they are. Then there are the others whom I guess would be the tossers Mr Tamihere talks about. 
This bill is one of those examples that show the classic rifts within the Labour Government. On the one hand the bill purports to do something about the absolute trauma for the 33000 children who do not have a named father on their birth certificates yet whose mothers are claiming the domestic purposes benefit—33000 children to 19000 mothers. This bill states it will do something about it but when we look at the detail of it we see that—just as with that other half of the Labour caucus whom Mr Tamihere terms “tossers”—what the Government wants is for nothing actually to change because the party of those members opposite depends on people being at the bottom of the social economic heap and those members know that. It is just one of those little things. 
I can imagine United Future members thinking this is a great bill because it actually acknowledges for the first time under this Government that maybe fathers are important. Yet—just as Mr Tamihere says—because of some clauses in the bill a few little words suddenly it does not mean much. The $6 per week that is to be the little bit being taken from beneficiaries’ total income—whether they have three four five six or 10 children by three four five six or 10 different fathers—is being replaced by a big lump of extra money provided under another bill. That is how this Government operates: it gives taxpayers’ money with one hand takes it away with the other and at the same time tries to keep all its various factions in hand. 
I can see the honourable member Georgina Beyer looking as though all her Christmases will stop now; suddenly she knows that she will not be back in Parliament after the next election. Poor young Darren Hughes has been sitting there all day looking like he has just found out that Santa Claus does not really exist and the poor little darling looks as though he has been crying all day. This is because we now have written confirmation of something we always knew which is that the factions in the Labour Government are what has rendered it utterly useless to bring about any change in welfare. Here comes Dr Cullen and we all know about his skill with those little words and how he is able to talk coalition partners like United Future and the Greens into supporting all sorts of things that they do not really want to support. They do not realise it until it is too late; by that time they have already signed up for them. 
One of the areas that has been talked about today is the exemption for mothers who claim to fear violence from the father. Most people would accept that a mother who is being beaten up might be under a fear of violence. But when we look into this bill—it is just like all the other rubbish that Mr Maharey keeps giving us—we find that all a mother has to say is that she fears violence; there do not have to be any threats of violence and there do not have to be any complaints made to the police. There does not have to be one complaint to the police—nothing. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What do you want black eyes? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No black eyes I say to Mr Fairbrother need to be shown and no broken bones—nothing! All she has to say is that she fears violence from the unnamed father. I am sure a lot of extra people will suddenly be saying they fear violence. When the refuge people came along to tell us all about this matter I asked them how many of these people who claim they fear violence ever take the matter to the police and the answer was none. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 In speaking in the debate on this part of the bill I would like to suggest that during the select committee process the part that received the most attention from submitters to the Social Services Committee was indeed clause 7 which allows the rate of benefit for sole parents to be further reduced should they fail or refuse to name the fathers of their children. Almost all submitters on that topic felt as the Green Party does that it is totally unacceptable to further penalise single parents—mostly mothers—who are in that situation. At the moment such beneficiaries already lose $22 a week per child from their benefits. Once this new bill becomes law that sum will go up by a further $6 a week. Although that may not sound like a lot of money to people on MPs’ salaries such as the members who are speaking here today to families that are surviving on the domestic purposes benefit every dollar counts. According to the Ministry of Social Development’s own research and according to every other study I have seen in recent years single-parent families are indeed the worst off proportionately of all family groupings in our country. So what is the Labour Government doing in deliberately increasing family poverty even by that small amount? 
The Green Party does not find it at all surprising that this bill is being supported as we have heard today by the National New Zealand First and United Future parties and is opposed only by ACT the Greens and the Maori Party—albeit for quite opposing reasons. I find it quite disturbing that a Labour Government that prides itself on its commitment to social equity seems to feel constrained to put forward clauses like this in what would otherwise be perfectly fine if rather limited reforming legislation. If clause 7 were taken out the bill would be fine and we would have no problem in supporting it. Even better would be to have a bill that did away altogether with the penalties on sole parents. 
The solutions to the issue of a woman not being able or willing to name the father of her child or children are numerous just as are the reasons for not naming the father. The Ministry of Social Development has done some research on that and reported to the select committee that as a result of interviews it carried out with over 4000 single-parent beneficiaries it found that such reasons include the other parent denying paternity or disappearing when advised of the pregnancy the beneficiary not actually knowing who the other parent was and the sole parent trying to avoid the other parent having contact with or rights over the child. Those three reasons were the main reasons for people not naming the fathers. From my point of view I believe that at a human level they are all completely understandable and a number of the social service - type groups that submitted to us made that same point over and over again. A further reason for a very small percentage of respondents in the ministry’s study not naming fathers was that the custodial parent and the liable parent had made private financial arrangements. I had thought that that figure would be a lot higher than it is but the answer to that problem again is not an increase in the penalties but a reform of the child support legislation. 
The Green Party really questions what on earth the Government thinks it is doing by lifting the penalties under section 70A of the Social Security Act. The Government is certainly not addressing the causes of people not naming the fathers of their children as can be seen by a quick glance at the ministry’s research that I have just outlined. Indeed one of the reports we were given actually states: “Harsher policy measures would not be effective for the majority of this group.” I believe that we should take quite a different approach to this kind of problem not the approach of making poor families even poorer. Solutions lie in a whole range of areas including things like providing far better and more realistic education for children and young people about what becoming a parent actually means. I think we should have that kind of education right from the time children start school and not leave it till they are about to leave school when in some cases that is far too late. We do need reforms to the Child Support Act and we do need to provide more support—not less—to all sorts of single-parent families. 
Labour is doing some good things for single parents. It has removed the compulsory work testing of people on the domestic purposes benefit and put more resources into case work in order to help domestic purposes beneficiaries look ahead at their future in terms of their education training and employment needs. That was good legislation which the Green Party supported and it is hard to comprehend in that context why on earth the Government also has to take this retrogressive step. It is high time that the Government stopped taking a kind of moral stand because that is all it is. Six dollars is just a token deduction. It is a totally unnecessary and uncalled for and it is a great pity that this Government has to stoop as low as this bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I take a call in the final part of this debate on the title and commencement clauses of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT party. I would like to make a few points about the bill. It is a scandal that it took 5 long years for this bill to come in front of the House. When this issue was first raised with the Minister not long after he became the Minister there were growing numbers of women who were refusing to name the fathers of their children. There are growing numbers of kids who do not know who their dads are. I think it is just a dreadful shame that 35000 children in New Zealand do not have a father named on their birth certificate. 
As we have said in this debate a lot of the causes of the problem come back to a very unfair child support law which means that people decide to collude with one another in order to avoid paying up. That is a huge problem for everybody not least for the taxpayers of New Zealand who as we have just heard are now paying $23 million a day in welfare payments. That is $1 million an hour. Rather than try to address one of the big problems—the Child Support Act which is very unfair—the Minister has come up with this bill which will hide the numbers. It will provide exemptions for women who refuse to name fathers because those women claim rightly or wrongly that they know the fathers are violent or else that they are deadbeat dads who will not be prepared to pay anyway. Therefore instead of addressing the fundamental causes of the problem so that we end up with a better society we have this Clayton’s bill that will come into force in May and July I see as I read the commencement dates. 
I also want to make a comment to the Minister who has claimed in his contributions to this debate that the welfare department now tells parents of their obligations and because of that more of them are naming fathers so that the problem is starting to reduce as they accept their responsibilities. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us whether when welfare staff tell single parents about their responsibilities they also tell them about the Government research that finds that long-term welfare dependency and sole parenthood damage kids. Does the Minister ask his department to discourage single parents from going on welfare till their youngest child is 18 and to encourage them to get out there get a life get a job and have a better future for themselves and their children—not on welfare? Does the Minister accept responsibility for realising that children do better if their parents are in the workforce—if children have a working role model in their family? Or does he sit back and say it does not matter whether we have more single parents going on a benefit—that it is OK and the Government does not mind about it because they will be Labour Party supporters? 
I say to the Minister that he has a moral obligation to make sure that anybody who goes on welfare in the long term and who is able-bodied realises that all the research the Social Policy Agency did which went back over years and years is absolutely conclusive that welfare in the long term is damaging to children. Any Minister of the Crown has a responsibility to make sure that families on welfare know that. I can tell the Minister that taxpayers out there know that. They know it is wrong for people who could work and who should be working to be stuck on welfare. What I would like to be seeing today is our debating a bill to bring in welfare reform that would support people to move off welfare and go into work a bill that would provide support for families children and so on. But that bill must be one whereby we actually help children to have working parents—not parents on welfare because no matter how well or how hard beneficiaries try it is not the same as being in work. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I do not really agree with Dr Newman on much in relation to welfare policy but there is no doubt that unlike the spokesperson for the National Party she does spend a great deal of time trying to work out her ideas which is something I always admire. When she gets up she usually has something to say. She asked a question that does not have much to do with Part 3 of this bill but I will reply to it anyway. She is concerned about the amount of money being spent on the domestic purposes benefit. 
The member will remember that when we came into power the National Government had had a system that meant in essence that Work and Income staff spoke to a person on the domestic purposes benefit when his or her child was 6 and again when the youngest child was 14. As far as I can tell National took that as great intervention. Looked at more closely there was a little flurry of activity perhaps—not always but perhaps—when children were around the ages of 6 and 14 but after that nothing ever happened. Nothing at all was done for people on the domestic purposes benefit. That was the system that the National Government used to run and that the ACT party thought was quite useful. 
We did not think that it was good enough. We had the view that people who are on the domestic purposes benefit move through it in about 3½ years on average. In the past they often came back to it because the wages they could get in the 1990s were too low to be able to support their children. The average person on the domestic purposes benefit is about 32 years of age and is a woman moving from being in a relationship to looking for some form of independence. In our view a much better thing to do was to start even before people came on to the benefit by asking them to begin writing for themselves a plan that would tell us how they would return to work or to prepare for the day that they could return to work. 
Ms Bradford who is in the House today had a big hand in helping us with the process of planning. So now I can inform Mrs Newman who seems not to have noticed of the reason that the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit is coming down in a sustained way. It should come down and that is a view that Ms Bradford and I share. It is something that is not right in this country—when we compare ourselves with other like jurisdictions we have too many people who are on a sole parent benefit. We have too many people who are in that category and we want to see the figure come down. 
We know that it is because they cannot get quality childcare and the kinds of wages that would allow them to support their children that they are often in situations where they simply do not get the training that allows them to lift their capacity to move into a job that will pay them a decent wage. So we have begun to pay attention to a whole range of policies that provide practical support to allow people on the domestic purposes benefit to plan for a rapid return to work and to stay there which is of course what we want. We do not want them to come back because they simply cannot afford to live on the wages that they are getting. 
So I can inform the House that Mrs Newman’s very good question and it is a question that she has persisted with over time was addressed last year. Ninety-three percent of people on the domestic purposes benefit now have a personal plan that leads towards them returning to employment. This is a vastly superior system to one that simply meant a little flurry of activity when the youngest child was 6 and then 14. We sincerely hope that this plan will see the rapid movement of people through the benefit and on to independence by giving them the support that they need. 
I return to Mrs Collins’ deep concern about section 70A of the principal Act and the speech she gave before. She has given speeches on that section all the way through the debate. I encourage her if she does take another call to tell us her policy. We have spent a wee while on this debate and have heard her talk about what the Government is doing. She says she does not agree with it even though the numbers are dropping—down to 16130 from a peak of over 20000. I think that is absolutely right. Men should be fronting up to their obligations. We are seeing a steady decline now. 
But it would be good if Mrs Collins could identify an idea. It does not have to be a big idea or something that is too rigorous—an idea would do. I notice that Mrs Wong once again is having to step into the breach as she often does to support her colleagues. She is a thoughtful intelligent and able member of Parliament. I look forward to her rising in a moment to give us an idea. Mr Gudgeon has done so from New Zealand First’s point of view and Mrs Newman from ACT has done so. Let us hear one from the National Party. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Before I start my speech I firstly seek leave of the House to table the National Party social welfare reform speech that was made by Dr Don Brash so that the Minister can get a full briefing. It can become his compulsory reading. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am glad that the Minister will now have some good substantial reading to help him reflect on why Dr Newman cannot bring herself to support this legislation. The Minister is in such a good mood for taking calls that I invite him to do it again because he has not answered two questions posed by Dr Muriel Newman which I shall try to put to him again. 
One question is why it took so long for the Minister to bring this token—according to our Green Party colleague—legislation to the House. I volunteer to answer that. A very big part of his decision was due to our leader Dr Don Brash making his speech on social welfare reform in January this year. Suddenly Labour realised that it was once again in trouble. It had not made the necessary changes to ensure that children were entitled to contributions from both parents to their well-being. 
The second question that Dr Muriel Newman posed to the Minister was whether Ministry of Social Development staff at the time that they informed mothers of their obligation to name the father also impressed upon those applicants that it is important for the long-term well-being of their children that they receive a contribution from the other party—the liable parent. My good colleague Judith Collins consistently sought that answer from the Minister. I am not too sure why the Minister did not quite get around to answering her question. Her question was simply put: did this bill particularly clause 7 do anything to make sure that both parents are held responsible for bringing up their children? 
I think Sue Bradford of the Green Party put her finger on the right spot when she said that the $6 penalty is a very token gesture. Why should Labour which is supposedly compassionate and does not penalise the individual bring it in? It is nothing but election year grandstanding. Labour is trying to send a token message. The Minister for the past 5½ years has done nothing to solve this problem. Every time he has answered questions he has reinforced the fact that this bill does nothing to achieve what he wants to achieve when it comes to tackling the issue of solo parents. He has tried to say that all those other plans—making people sit down to write mission statements objectives and performance targets—contribute to a reduction in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit. If that is the case why is the House dragged into debating this bill and why is the select committee called upon to examine this issue—when the substance of that problem in the Minister’s words is being tackled by the department not by the passage of this legislation? 
National still chooses to support the bill for one principal reason: because we believe that both parents should be held responsible for bringing up their children. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 My comments will be brief at this stage. Harking back to the comments I have heard today in this Chamber I would just like to re-emphasise to those listening and to members present today that family wealth increases only through a well-rounded education. Regarding wealth or poverty those situations come about only because of choices and decisions that people have made. 
I hark back to the 1999 election when I was invited to speak at the opening of an extension to an arm of Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay. The Chairperson probably remembers that. As a guest there I emphasised to the inmates that the key to any future development of them was for them to get a sound education. After that comments were made by Pacific Island representatives and Maori elder representatives because the majority of the people we were speaking to were Maori or Pacific Island—but mostly Maori. At the conclusion of that speech the inmates in that prison—not because I was a visitor; protocol dictates that they decide whether to support a speech that one has made—came and supported what I had said. They supported the notion and the suggestion that after their time was up in prison they needed to get a good sound education in order for them to get out of the situations they were in before they went inside. 
That is likewise for solo parents. As a former lecturer at a polytech I always emphasised to students in the lectures I gave—and I continue to do so today—that education was the key. Today I meet a number of those former students who are in good sound positions in work and who are contributing to society; previously they were on some form of benefit or in a solo mother situation. I say to members of Parliament that to solve the problems we have in our society today we have to get people out of that situation. We need to encourage people to get a good sound education and to develop the potential each one has whatever it may be. 
I notice—and I do not want to categorise people into ethnic groups—that the Maori Party is opposing this bill. When we look at the statistics we see that a large number of Maori are in that situation. Our people need to be assisted to get on their feet. Once they are on their feet we will not tell them to get a job but will say that this is the programme they need to follow and it is along the lines of their getting an education so that they can become skilled and qualified and can be in a situation in which they can achieve wealth. That is where New Zealand First is coming from. But looking at what is happening today. We can talk about the figures—19000 solo mothers with 35000 children. What are we going to do about it? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Vote for the bill. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: I have already made members aware that New Zealand First supports the bill with provisos. The key for people in that situation is not for us to be judgmental about the situation they are in but for us to look at the skills and the education they need so that they can become good citizens contributing to society. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a first time. 
 At the end of my presentation I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As the House will be aware Statutes Amendment bills are useful for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved because those minor amendments have the support of all parties. 
This bill introduces amendments to 24 Acts administered by nine different departments. Included in the proposals are amendments to the Continental Shelf Act that make technical changes to the definition of a continental shelf and add a related definition of a shelf’s seaward-side boundaries. The bill also amends the Defence Act by abolishing the Nelson Rifle Prize Fund and providing for the transfer of the fund monies to the cadet forces for specified use in the Nelson region. It amends the Forests Act by repealing sections 4 and 4A of that Act to align the delegations of Ministers and chief executives with those under other Acts administered by the ministry. My final example is an amendment to the Personal Property Securities Act that inserts a definition of “court” as meaning the High Court of New Zealand for the purposes of the Act. 
I note that the department administering the Radiocommunications Act has asked for the amendments to that Act to be withdrawn. Accordingly Part 18 will be struck out in due course. 
It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee as I said before. I commend the bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will be supporting the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). It is an omnibus bill that as the Minister said has 24 parts. We have been through the parts and are satisfied that we are comfortable with them. I want to draw the House’s attention to a very important part of this bill Part 7 which amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act of 2001. I bring that to the House’s attention because that Act has proved to be very successful legislation. We have seen the ability of private companies to start up. In my own area we have the Open Country Cheese factory which is doing extremely well. I have talked about that in previous debates. The amendment under Part 7 of the bill safeguards a company like Fonterra from having a run on its cash if farmers exit the industry. 
At the moment if a dairy farmer wants to exit the industry perhaps because of a change of farming practice or in order to supply another company—that is what the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act has allowed for and I mentioned Open Country Cheese as an example of that—then the company that is being supplied and Fonterra is the big one would need to pay out in cash for the milk supply shares of that farmer. That is how the situation stands currently. But if more than 5 percent of the milk supply from the whole of New Zealand were to disappear from Fonterra then there could be a huge run on the capital of that company. The amendment envisages that Fonterra would be able to issue redeemable preference shares in place of paying out cash. That would give the company some flexibility. It may well be that Fonterra could pay out in full the cash value of the milk supply shares but if more than 5 percent of the milk supply was affected and the company was unable to do that then instead it could issue redeemable preference shares. At some stage in the future Fonterra would need to pay out those shares to the farmers concerned but in the meantime it would pay a dividend on them. So this amendment—and the industry is fully supportive of it—gives companies like Fonterra an opportunity to have flexibility in the way they run their business. That is a sensible move and we support the amendment. 
I want to look at one other area in particular: Part 6 which concerns the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act of 1995. We note that clause 19 of the bill amends the definition of “suitably qualified person” in that Act by removing the word “registered” from the term “registered nurse”. Some of the questions we will want to have answered during the select committee process concern the implications of that. Who will actually be able to take samples when the word “registered” is removed from the term “registered nurse”? Who is a person suitably qualified to take bodily samples? We will want answers to those questions during the select committee process. I am on the Government Administration Committee and I am flagging now that we will be interested in that area. 
I think clause 21 is an important clause as well. It states the position that persons who are of or above the rank of sergeant can apply for an arrest warrant to detain a person for the taking of a bodily sample. At the moment the legislation states that only those who are above the rank of sergeant can apply for a warrant. So there is a distinction here. The legislation will now allow sergeants to apply for a warrant whereas as the position currently stands only those who are above the rank of sergeant can do so. A lot of stations do not have people of above the rank of sergeant which is a very high position in the police force. Certainly in rural areas like the area I come from the rank of sergeant is the controlling rank in a particular station. So that amendment is a sensible move and it is another one that we support. 
I just make the point however that the Government is using Statutes Amendment bills more than I have ever before seen as a means to correct legislation that it did not get right the first time. When we move on to the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) I will make some strong points as to the process the Government follows. Although we are comfortable with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) if at any stage the Government tries to bring in late amendments and Supplementary Order Papers without consultation then we will come down hard on it. It is an abuse of the process and it is something we do not agree with. When we move on to debate the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) I will make those points. 
We will support the referral of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) through to the select committee. The amendments it makes are sensible ones. Our spokespeople have looked at them and confirmed that they are in order so we will support the bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill. I want to speak on two of the proposed amendments. The first is the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act that extends the time for laying information from 12 months to 2 years. The second—which strangely enough I consider has tenuous links to the first—is an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. 
On the issue of the Animal Welfare Act it is quite appropriate that we increase the time for laying information for two reasons. Firstly it is not always readily apparent that the way an animal has been treated has resulted in an overt sign of injury. Secondly an increasing body of literature now suggests that those who mistreat animals for other than reasoned purposes indicate a deeper problem that reflects itself in the way those people relate to other human beings. So there is a synergy between this issue and the safety of people in our community and I therefore urge greater freedom for the laying of information once the potential offences under the Act have been discovered. 
As we are talking about potential offences and offenders thereof I turn now to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It does not really matter whether a sample is taken by a nurse or a registered nurse or whether a warrant is authorised by a sergeant or a senior sergeant because by the time these processes are in place the checks and balances have already commenced. These amendments are merely procedural. The threshold to require the taking of a bodily sample is the essential issue and that threshold is gradually being lowered as we gain more confidence in the DNA process. 
The DNA process is as important to our criminal prosecutions as the discovery of fingerprints was over 100 years ago. The point we often forget however is that DNA does not prove a connection; DNA merely establishes on the balance of probabilities whether the blood of the suspect who provides a DNA sample matches the blood left at a crime scene or that any bodily samples from the suspect match those on the victim. So it is not a question of definitive proof but a question of reducing probabilities of difference and that is the key issue in prosecutions relying on DNA. It is not the method by which the bodily sample is extracted or even the level of the threshold requiring that. 
The focus of concentration in ensuring that DNA remains an effective and major investigative tool is the way we compare the samples and the use of the formula to make that comparison to remove other possibilities or probabilities relating to the match of the two samples. So once the threshold is established the fact that the sample is taken in an ordered environment is about all that is needed. We are not for example talking about a great invasion of a person’s body. The sample is either from the mouth—a buccal sample—or a prick of blood from the thumb any of which is an injury that one would suffer in the normal event of living and would cause minimal interference or discomfort. What is important for an accurate sample is that the chain of evidence can be relied upon rather than the degree of invasion of the person from whom the sample is taken. So if we put in too many hurdles in relation to who can take the samples we diminish the effectiveness of this major investigative tool. 
If we minimise those hurdles we concentrate on the process by which the sample is recorded forwarded for processing and processed so that ultimately we can all be satisfied that the results obtained by the comparing of a sample from a suspect with a sample from a crime scene is most likely to be accurate and so that any jury acting upon it can do so with safety. So for those reasons I support this bill. 
There are many other aspects in the bill. I do not want to get into the continental shelf debate. Clearly it is important that we define the continental shelf correctly. I do not want to get into the cadastral survey aspect because again that is an area where we need some accuracy and these amendments merely tidy it up. But strangely enough there is a link between the Animal Welfare Act and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It is not a direct link but it is a link to improve our investigation of those of a criminal mindset who cause ultimate disruption to the way we live as a community. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Statutes Amendment bills are interesting in their nature because they are omnibus bills and they amend a large number of Acts—in this case 24 Acts. Under our Standing Orders an omnibus bill is actually out of order. One cannot introduce a bill to amend a number of bills but there is just one exception which is the Statutes Amendment Bill. A Statutes Amendment bill does allow technical-type amendments to be made providing all MPs agree on them. The public ought to know that this happens by the Government circulating the amendments. The amendments normally come up from departments which give members background material and suggest that they ought to make an amendment. If we look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) one classic example is the amendment to the Commerce Act 1986 which must have been passed when I was a Minister. So this must have been a muck-up made— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Is it your fault? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I was not actually the Minister in charge of the bill but I cannot have been reading the drafting carefully enough because apparently the word “not” was left out. When one reads the legislation whether one puts in the word “not” does seem to make a difference. 
From the ACT party’s point of view we have been reading the background material provided by the Ministers to make it in this case a single word amendment and we had been proposing to say yes. But I want to give the House notice that ACT party members are reviewing whether they ought to say yes. The reason is that we have been reading a rather interesting article that sets out how this Government deals with its coalition partners. If Labour deals with the parties that are in coalition with it in that way we were wondering how would it deal with a party such as ACT which is totally opposed to most of what the Government is saying. 
What I am referring to are the statements made in the article by Mr Tamihere. He stated: “It’s too clever. You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other”—and then he uses a swear word that is unparliamentary—“[coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” Members can see the problem that I have which I would put to the Government now that it is asking the whole of Parliament to agree with it. It is that if this is what Labour does to its coalition partners is it dealing with members in a straightforward fashion or is it having a “single word” here or there taken out of a bill? If we are to understand what the Government is really doing does it actually melt everything down so that it would not be what we would have agreed to? 
I could say I guess that I am much smarter than Peter Dunne and that I am much smarter than Rod Donald and those Greens. 
Paul Adams 
: That’s a debating point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member helps me out but I might not be smarter than Peter Dunne. Maybe I have been made a fool of as well. When I ask Peter Dunne: “Look if that’s how the Government treats you why do you agree to anything?” the question I would then ask the whole House is why any member of Parliament should agree to any amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). I guess members would say: “Because we say it’s OK.” Well Mr Tamihere says that we basically cannot trust this Government. It is too clever. That is what he told us. He told us that Government members can make a single amendment without us noticing it and it has the exact opposite effect of what we think it has. 
So I most certainly say to the people on the Government Administration Committee that I think we will have to examine every single one of these clauses very very carefully. But I also say that I would personally find it very helpful if Mr Tamihere could take a call in this debate. He could get up and tell us when Government members make those sorts of “smarmy”—that is the word he used—and “too clever” deals while double-crossing their own coalition colleagues how far that double-dealing goes. Does it extend to bills such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)? Now it would be a great shame if it did because the reality is that if the sorts of mistakes such as the one in the Commerce Act which occurred in 1986 were made—and I am one of the few MPs around who was a Minister in 1986—one would think that it ought to be fixed up. But when we think about it we can make those sorts of changes only if we can rely upon the word of the Government. 
I tell members that prior to reading Mr Tamihere’s article it had not occurred to me that Ministers might be writing legislation about this sort of matter and that what they were saying was—how can I put it in a way that is parliamentary—unable to be relied upon. If one treats one’s friends in the way that Mr Tamihere says that they are being treated how does one treat those who are not one’s friends? I understand that Mr Tamihere has not retracted a single word of what he said. He may regret having said it he may regret that it was recorded he may regret that it has been printed he may regret what it has done to his career but I understand that he does not say that anything he said was not true. Well if that is how the Government treats the United Party and the Green Party who support the Government how does it treat the ACT party and the National Party who do not support it? How can we possibly be asked this afternoon to support a bill that actually relies upon the integrity and the word of Ministers? 
The more I think about it the more worried I am about agreeing to this bill and the more I wonder whether there are not “single words” in here. As Mr Tamihere’s article states: “… we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation”—and that is what we are dealing with here—he can change a single word in a piece of legislation—well I gave an example of that—without those other “[b’s]” [coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause …”. Well if we cannot find Mr Tamihere to explain it I would ask the next member to ask why we as a Parliament should accept that this is a bill we can accept Labour’s word upon. 
If Labour members cannot give us a reason to do so then it seems to be a very hard problem for them to get out of is it not? Once somebody says that one cannot be relied upon how does one demonstrate that one can be relied upon? Credibility is a very slippery thing. Once it is lost it is very hard to get it back. 
It may well be true that the person who was interviewed for this article was stressed but it does not follow that what he said was not true. If it is true then how can we as a House rely on anything this Labour Government says? How can we possibly agree to this bill? How will the public treat us? They will say: “Look you’ve read this article. You knew you couldn’t trust them.” then when on the day after the article appears the Government introduces a bill that requires every single MP to consent the public will ask how on earth Parliament did that. That is the dilemma the ACT party has. 
Hon Member 
: It’s difficult. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very difficult and we will ask that the select committee look at the bill very carefully. 
I give notice to the Government that we want it to give us some way that we can rely on its word. But how are we to do that when a former Cabinet Minister—a caucus member who sits among Government members and who must know them better than any of us—has actually stated in this article: “[Dr Cullen] can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other … [coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.”? If that is how the Labour Party treats the United Party and the Green Party I want to know how it is treating the rest of the country. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call on behalf of United Future which will be supporting this bill. Contrary to what Mr Prebble has just said in addressing the House United Future does take the time to study amendments and sort out whether they are altering the legislation in any respect. We will support the legislation only if we are satisfied that it is doing what it is said it will do. I have learnt in life that everything is not perfect. I am glad this is not the only dilemma the ACT party is currently facing. I imagine that it has other dilemmas it will be working through as we approach election year as well which may well be more serious than the dilemma it has about whether it will support this particular legislation. 
But United Future is happy with this. We do take the time to study our legislation and I can assure Mr Prebble that we have been happy with all the legislation we have supported. We have checked it and are 100 percent happy with it. 
This sort of bill is a very practical type of legislation. Often when laws are made—and I am one who would like fewer laws rather than more laws—when it is actually out there in the market and we find things that have been missed or we have got a little bit wrong at least we can be big enough to amend laws in this type of legislation. United Future will be supporting this bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 4 December 2003 and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was reported back to the House on 10 August last year. This bill proposes amendments to 26 different Acts and includes six new parts for which the Committee gave leave to be included in the bill. New parts to the bill include amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act the Constitution Act the Government Superannuation Fund Act the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act of 2004. 
The select committee has recommended amendments to three existing parts of the bill relating to the Fire Service Act the Maritime Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. I thank the select committee for its work on the bill particularly given the pressure it faced in responding to a number of late inclusions. I am pleased to inform members that the Cabinet Office recently issued a circular containing new initiatives that will address the challenges posed by such late inclusions and enhance the process of gaining cross-party support. 
Earlier I mentioned that the bill included amendments to the Constitution Act. I want the House to note that there may well be a further Supplementary Order Paper to come into the House during the Committee stage. I understand that that matter has been subject to intense discussion between Dr Cullen and the Clerk of the House and was considered at the Business Committee today. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Standing Orders Committee. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that an agreement has been reached that will see fruition in the Committee stage. As a reassurance to the House I shall repeat the point made earlier by Richard Prebble that one of the beauties of a Statutes Amendment bill is that it has to be agreed to by every member of Parliament. Should any member raise an objection to any part of the bill then that part does not proceed. That is a very good guarantee. 
Lastly I take the opportunity to convey the Government’s appreciation of the parties’ patience and support for the amendments that have come through and are proposed in this bill. I recommend the bill to the House and that it be read a second time. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National supported the Statutes Amendment Bill (No. 4). We were concerned about one part that relates to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. We managed to get that changed at the Government Administration Committee and we were happy to support that. But yesterday at 5 minutes past 12 the Clerk’s Office released two Supplementary Order Papers—Supplementary Order Paper 342 and Supplementary Order Paper 343 dated 16 March. The first I saw of those Supplementary Order Papers was today. 
The Minister has just said that he wants cross-party support. He has just mentioned that at the Standing Orders Committee a debate is going on on as to whether there will be another Supplementary Order Paper. I am flagging to the Minister and to the Government that National is not happy that the Minister lodged those two Supplementary Order Papers just yesterday and is considering lodging another one for the Committee stage on Thursday. If the Minister wants cross-party support—and this is the point Mr Prebble has talked about—for this legislation which contains amendments to 26 Acts then the Government needs the goodwill of the whole House. 
I refer to page 9 of the commentary on the bill—and I have brought up this issue before—and to the heading “Committee process” under which is stated: “In particular we expect departments to have gained cross-party support for all proposed ‘late’ amendments. All inclusions in a Statutes Amendment bill are made with the unanimous agreement of the committee and should have been subjected to prior consultation with all parties in the House. No provision should be included until it has received support from all parties. We consider that if departments adhere to this particular convention then the ‘good will’ shown by all parties in the House to the annual Statutes Amendment bill will not be undermined. … Officials are obliged to make legislative deadlines and the status of inter-party agreement explicit in their advice to Ministers and to work within the legislative timetable set out for the bill.” 
 This bill was introduced on 4 December 2003. It had its first reading on 19 February 2004 the select committee completed its report and it was reported back on 10 August last year. But what we see now are these late amendments in the two Supplementary Order Papers and there is likely to be another one coming shortly. Mr Prebble made the point about how the Minister of Finance Mr Cullen can cut a deal that no one knows about. Well this is exactly the case. We have two Supplementary Order Papers at this stage and another one is likely without the scrutiny of the select committee. No one has seen these. I saw them for the first time today. Our people have not had a chance to look through them. The Government is asking us to move through the second reading today and more important the Committee stage on Thursday. 
I am giving notice to the Government that it will have to have pretty good reasons in order for National to want to support these Supplementary Order Papers. The Government can withdraw them—and we will be happy then to support the bill in its original form with the amendments we made at the select committee—or it can take the risk that we will not support the Supplementary Order Papers and then each part will be voted out. That is the choice the Government has. I draw the attention of the Government to Standing Order 298(2) which states: “If any member objects to a clause standing part of a Statutes Amendment Bill (or of a bill that was formerly part of a Statutes Amendment Bill) the clause is struck out of the bill.” I say to the Minister that that is the point we are coming to. There has not been any consultation on the two Supplementary Order Papers standing in the Minister’s name. We will look very closely at what the impact of that is because at this stage— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the member on the select committee? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am on the select committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And this wasn’t raised at the select committee? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: These Supplementary Order Papers were tabled yesterday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There was no notice of them in the select committee? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s outrageous! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is the point Mr Prebble made during his speech. I flagged it a moment ago during the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). 
The Supplementary Order Papers were released at 5 minutes past 12 yesterday from the Clerk’s Office. We are expected to have a say on these and to be informed about what they are all about. The Minister said in his speech a few minutes ago that the Standing Orders Committee at this time is looking to come forward with another Supplementary Order Paper. That is completely outrageous. 
If the Government wants support—as the commentary on the bill states—then where is the goodwill? There is no goodwill. This bill is a complete abuse of the system and National will not support it. The Government has a choice. It can withdraw these Supplementary Order Papers and we continue with the bill the select committee has looked at or it can take the risk that they will be voted down. Why can these Supplementary Order Papers not be included in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) which we have just agreed not 10 minutes ago should go to the select committee? That is the point I am making. If the Government wants support for these non-contentious technical issues—and that is what they are because the Minister said so and we have agreed with that—then where is the goodwill? 
This situation is an abuse of the system and I give notice to the Government that we will look very closely at it. The Government has two choices: it can withdraw the Supplementary Order Papers on Thursday during the Committee stage if that is when we are to debate them and we will go ahead with the bill as reported back; or if it insists on having the Supplementary Order Papers there it takes the risk that they will be voted down. That is National’s position. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 What a sad sad lonely speech that was. The member said nothing about the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers. His speech was all about stamping his foot over procedure. There was no objection at all to what is sought to be achieved by this bill. It was just a rant that possible objection could be taken because the procedure is not as envisaged by Mr Lindsay Tisch. That is a sad commentary on a bill that is essentially non-controversial and gets on with the business of this country. One would have thought that at this time of the day Mr Tisch would have cast his mind to the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers but maybe given his threat of violence to the process we will live another day and have to think of another way of going about it. 
I want to move to the amendments proposed in this bill to the Evidence Act 1908. That Act had been amended by the Evidence Amendment Act 1994. That was a remarkable change because it heralded the working more closely together of the legal systems in New Zealand and Australia and recognised the increasing community of citizens between Australia and New Zealand. The 1994 Act extended the right to subpoena within Australia and New Zealand a citizen of the other country for civil proceedings. That has proven to be remarkably successful. It has sped up the process it has reduced the costs and it has taken the objections to procedure—which we have heard from the last speaker—out of the picture so that courts can get on with their business. 
The next step is to move further to where that principle can apply. This amendment bill which will be supported by all parties is to extend that to the Family Court. It does not extend it to the area of the Family Court that intrudes on rights issues such as conventions under The Hague convention—that is the child abduction clauses—or affecting the status or property of persons with disabilities. It relates to family proceedings that want to get to the heart of what is causing a family to malfunction and what can help that family to function more effectively. 
This bill recognises the breadth of community we have between Australia and New Zealand and the fact that many families now span the Tasman Sea—the “ditch” as it is commonly called. It enables both courts in both jurisdictions to operate more efficiently by issuing a subpoena without the need for a separate application to be made in the trans-Tasman court. This is a sensible amendment and I cannot see it being objected to by any party in this House. 
But I get back to the previous speaker’s complaint—that he really picked up from Mr Prebble’s rant—about the procedure not being correct rather than his studying the substance. The amendment bill looks at the substance it faces reality and it makes the changes accordingly. If Mr Tisch and Mr Prebble have concerns about the procedure perhaps they should weigh those concerns against the substance of what is to be achieved and then make a value judgment rather than an outright threat of disruption and inconvenience. 
It is my pleasure to support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am not often shocked but I am shocked at what the Government is doing today. The Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper but he did not refer to it in his speech. It did not go to a select committee. It was also clear that the next Government speaker knew nothing about it because he did not speak to it; he talked about the need to talk about substance. It appears that this is a very good example of what Mr Tamihere is warning us about—that this Government tries to slip through legislation. 
There is an absolute obligation on the Government to be upfront on Statutes Amendment bills and to explain everything to every member. To put in a last-minute amendment and then not even mention the amendments in the two Government speeches is inviting the Opposition to say no. I have looked at the amendments. The first ones are actually procedural as Mr Fairbrother would have seen had he looked at them. But the next amendment is substantive. It makes changes to what judges are able to do. 
We ought not make a law change that has not been to the select committee. We have just been told by Mr Tisch that the select committee members had no knowledge of this. The Minister who moved it did not even mention it nor did his associate. I think that Mr Fairbrother did not know it was there and I suspect that Mr Barker did not know what is in that amendment. That is exactly what Mr Tamihere talked about. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Before the dinner break we were debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which has been explained as a special procedure whereby the House can amend a large number of Acts at the same time—in this case 26 Acts. This can be done only providing that every member agrees and that requires the Government to be very upfront and to explain every amendment fully and carefully. 
I was extremely disturbed to hear from the National Party member Mr Lindsay Tisch that there were two Supplementary Order Papers on the bill—which I point out for the benefit of listeners are amendments placed on the Table of the House—because the Minister did not mention it during his speech. I discovered that yes there are two. The first Supplementary Order Paper divides the bill into 26 separate bills which is what we would expect but the second makes some substantive amendments regarding fiscal matters. Then there are amendments to the Judicature Act and when we look at the explanatory note we see that those amendments give extra powers to judges. So first I say in my new position today as the longest-serving MP that it is unsatisfactory— 
Jill Pettis 
: Interrupted service though wasn’t it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am the longest-serving MP who has also had a sabbatical but I am still the longest-serving member of Parliament. I came in in 1975. It is completely—[ 
Interruption 
] The senior Government whip is interjecting on me and I say to her—because I suspect she actually agrees with me—that it is extremely unhelpful to the Government whips the Opposition whips or anyone interested in the business of the House for the Minister to table a new Supplementary Order Paper but not explain it. That is extremely sneaky. It is something that Labour Governments have done. 
I can remember Stan Rodger putting in a Supplementary Order Paper and telling the House that it contained just some technical amendments. I could not believe it when I heard that over the radio because it actually turned the railways into a State-owned enterprise. It turned a department into a State-owned enterprise and nobody in the Opposition realised it because he had not done it properly. 
The point I am now making is this: are we seeing another example of it? We have been told by Mr Tamihere a Cabinet Minister in this Government until very recently and still a member of the Government caucus that this is the Government’s style. Mr Tamihere said: “It’s too clever. You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other”—unparliamentary word—“[coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” We have heard from the Government’s coalition colleagues today that they still think they got everything they wanted in the various clauses. What I am now saying to the Government is— 
Jill Pettis 
: We thought you were going to save rail and look how we were sucked in. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is still there. If the member goes and looks she will find that all the rail is still there. We did not lose a bit of it. In fact more things have actually happened under this Government than happened under me but there we are. Leaving that aside the question I put to the Government whip who is now interjecting is this: why did the Government not mention to the House that it had a Supplementary Order Paper? As Mr Tisch points out this Government has just introduced another Statutes Amendment bill today. What a Statutes Amendment bill does largely is fix mistakes. Well this Government makes so many mistakes. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Two running together. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes. There are two running together between them covering over 50 bills. I suspect that that is some sort of record. But leaving that aside and leaving aside the criticism that that might mean of the Government what I want to know from the members opposite— 
Jill Pettis 
: There are no votes in these bills. It’s like swallowing dead rats. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Government whip says there are no votes in it. I think that probably sums up this Government. It is interested only in votes. It is driven only by popularity. It is never worried about principle or about whether what it is doing is good lawmaking. It does not worry about whether it is double-crossing its coalition colleagues and it is not prepared to give me an assurance or an explanation as to why the Government has introduced amendments without telling anyone about them. 
If we go back and look at the Minister’s speech we see there is not a word about it. Then we heard from Mr Fairbrother and there was not a word in his speech either. I suspect that that is because he knew nothing about these Supplementary Order Papers either. So where does it come from? Does it come from the Leader of the House Dr Cullen and if it— 
Jill Pettis 
: Forty-seven percent against 2 percent. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well could it come from Dr Cullen? I suspect that it does. The member starts quoting her public opinion poll rating as if to say that providing the Government has a high public opinion poll rating it is allowed to pull any trick it likes—it can go on misleading its coalition colleagues it can mislead this House and it can treat Parliament with contempt. 
I would still like to hear what the nature of this Supplementary Order Paper is from the next Government member who speaks. Why should this law be amended? Is the country not entitled to know? Does any Government member actually know? I suspect not. Could we hear from Mr Tamihere? Could he explain to us? Is this the sort of trickery he was referring to in the now infamous article? 
I watched television in the break and I saw Mr Willie Jackson speaking on behalf of Mr Tamihere. Willie Jackson said that Mr Tamihere stands by everything he said. So what we are arguing about is not the truth of what Mr Tamihere said—that is apparently accepted. What we are arguing about is whether it is correct under this Government to tell the truth. I say to the Government that in this House Ministers have an absolute obligation to tell us what is in the nature of the legislation and why we should make this change to the law. 
I find this situation thoroughly unsatisfactory and unless we get a decent explanation before the Committee stage begins the ACT party for one will not agree to this Supplementary Order Paper. We are not going to be like the United Future party—change one word it all melts down and we turn over and put our legs in the air. We will not do that. We will hold this Government to account. Part of the ACT party’s job is to keep the Government honest. It is a full-time job. It is hard work. Tonight the Government has made it even more difficult by following what I have to say is a very slippery way of introducing amendments to the law. We are entitled to better than that. Can the next Government member—hopefully Mr Tamihere but a Minister will do—actually explain to the House what this Supplementary Order Paper is and why it should be passed? 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). We believe that it has value for us the entire Parliament and the entire nation. This amendment bill is worthwhile putting through— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What’s in the Supplementary Order Paper? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: —and when we get to the next stage we will look at the Supplementary Order Paper. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. It is my understanding that all parties have to agree on Statutes Amendment bills. Now we have one party—New Zealand First—that is voting against the bill. My understanding is that we are all in agreement that if there are changes to be made they will be made at the select committee. I am asking for your ruling as to whether it is in order to conduct a party vote first and whether it is in order for a party to actually vote against a Statutes Amendment bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing to stop that happening. It is unusual. However there is nothing that stops it. The Committee of the whole House then considers the bill. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To resolve this issue I say that it appears that a typo was made in our speaking list giving instructions and our whip has just asked me whether I will change the New Zealand First vote to 13 votes in favour. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will just clarify it. We now have everybody voting in favour so we do not have to have a vote. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Does he need to seek leave to change the New Zealand First vote? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No he does not because we now do not have a vote. I have not announced the result. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 It is a very interesting point. I was intrigued that we were having a vote as that had to mean someone was voting against the bill. As New Zealand First had not spoken it struck me as unlikely that it was voting against it. But in fact New Zealand First did call for a vote. When one calls for a vote there are other Standing Orders that say that a vote is supposed to follow a call for a vote. So I think that the member actually does need to ask for leave because he needs to withdraw the fact that he called for the vote. I saw that the Clerk was giving you contrary advice but I actually think the appropriate course of action once a member calls for a vote is for a vote to be held. The saying used to be that a vote in the lobby had to follow a voice vote. The member voted against it by voice and then called for a vote and then a lobby vote—which is this—has to follow it. It seems to me that the appropriate action is for Mr Donnelly to ask for leave which I am sure we will give him. That is my suggestion to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am advised that that is the rule for a personal vote but not for a party vote. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I concur with what Mr Prebble is saying. It may very well be that that is the rule when it comes to a personal vote because that is certainly the understanding that I have. If it would make it easier New Zealand First is quite happy to go through the leave provision. If it is unnecessary all we ask for is that our vote be changed in accordance with our will. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary. The question is as I said that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. If we are to have this ruling it has to be new because we did not have party votes before. It does not follow what was the convention—which was quite clear; the lobby vote had to follow the voice vote. The so-called personal vote I assure you is a new contrivance. All votes were personal until we started having party votes so I say to you that that rule still applies. But it strikes me as bizarre. The whole House knows that we went through a vote. That ought to be recorded in  
Hansard 
. It does not appear to me to be correct that someone can now get up and argue that what his party did did not happen. I think it wrong for you to direct Mr Donnelly not to ask for leave to withdraw his party’s vote. That is the action that should happen. I realise you are being advised by the Clerk but with the greatest respect to him I think he is wrong. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The advice is to the contrary Mr Prebble. 
Bill read a second time. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Acting Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are based around Kawerau and Matata. Ngati Tuwharetoa are of the Te Arawa waka and are descended from the ancestor or tupuna Tuwharetoa who lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Ngati Tuwharetoa located in the Bay of Plenty are distinct from their whanaunga based in Taupo and although many of the descendants of Tuwharetoa migrated south and settled around Taupo others stayed in Kawerau and Matata and have their separate and distinct identity. Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty are closely interlinked and have a shared history with their neighbours or whanaunga of Ngati Awa. 
The historical treaty claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa relate mainly to the confiscation of land in the Bay of Plenty in the 1860s and the damaging effect the confiscation had on their welfare economy and development. The claims also relate to the loss of control of and access to geothermal energy and the pollution of the Tarawera River. This settlement addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. Prior to the 1860s Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty were prosperous and economically successful. However the loss of Ngati Tuwharetoa land and resources through confiscation and other means has hindered their development throughout the past 150 years. 
In this bill the Crown acknowledges that its actions had a prejudicial impact on Ngati Tuwharetoa and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown acknowledges the strong sense of grievance felt by Ngati Tuwharetoa at the loss of control of and access to the Kawerau geothermal system. The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for its unjust confiscation of Ngati Tuwharetoa lands in the Bay of Plenty and for the cumulative effect of its actions over the generations which have had a damaging effect on the welfare economy and development of Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
As well as a formal apology to Ngati Tuwharetoa and their ancestors and descendants for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown this settlement provides for firstly financial redress of $10.5 million including the transfer of Crown-owned forest land in the Rotoehu West Forest; secondly geothermal redress which aims to recognise the importance of the geothermal resource as a taonga of Ngati Tuwharetoa; and thirdly a variety of types of cultural redress which aim to recognise and protect the interests of Ngati Tuwharetoa in sites that are particularly significant to them and to enhance their relationship with the Crown. 
This bill makes it clear that this is a comprehensive and final settlement of all the historical claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. This bill is a hugely significant milestone for Ngati Tuwharetoa and the Crown. The bill addresses the longstanding and significant grievances suffered by Ngati Tuwharetoa. It will enable both parties to move forward and renew their relationship as treaty partners. 
I was a member of the Maori Affairs Committee that considered the bill. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with the proposed amendments. I would like to thank the other members of the committee for their thorough and timely consideration of the bill. 
In conclusion the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty are reaching the end of a long journey. They registered their raupatu claim with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1988. It was in March 1998 that the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngati Tuwharetoa negotiators. A deed of settlement was finalised and signed in June 2003. It is important that we now finalise the settlement to enable Ngati Tuwharetoa to receive redress and begin the next phase of their history. 
 I would like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the Ngati Tuwharetoa negotiators the Ministers and the officials whose efforts have led us to this point today. Finally I wish to acknowledge those of Ngati Tuwharetoa who are no longer with us whose passion and devotion are greatly missed by their descendants as they begin their new journey. 
No reira kei te poroporoaki ki a ratau kua wheturangihia ahakoa kaore ratau e tae a-tinana mai kua tae a-wairua mai ki te whakatutuki i tenei kaupapa hirahira. Mihi ake ana ahau ki a Ngati Tuwharetoa ratau kua tae mai ki te kawe mai i tenei kaupapa. No reira tena koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
And so I pay a farewell tribute to those who have passed on and even though they are not present physically they are here in spirit for the completion of this important matter. I acknowledge Ngati Tuwharetoa and in particular those of you who came to bring this matter here. Greetings to you greetings. 
] 
I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the passage of this bill through the Committee stage and the third reading and we do so wishing Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the goodwill we can as they go about the process of taking life forward post-settlement. I cannot help but reflect on some of the words that were discussed in the House today those words being the words of the honourable John Tamihere who was very influential in the House today. Certainly he was a centrepiece of the business. 
In a recent article John Tamihere spoke about a number of things the Labour Government has said were trifling nonsense that the Prime Minister has said were all rubbish and that the Prime Minister has said New Zealanders should not believe. In that article John Tamihere spoke about the need for Maori to move on. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s this got to do with Ngati Tuwharetoa? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There we have the outgoing member for Whanganui—the soon-to-be-retired-by-her-voters member for Whanganui the senior Government whip formerly known as the wallpaper stripper—striking out across the House in a most unparliamentary manner trying to interrupt my contribution. Well I will tell that member exactly what John Tamihere’s article in  
Investigate 
 magazine where he described many of his colleagues in the most derogatory terms has to do with this bill. It has lots to do with this bill because he did not talk only about some of the undue influences that come to bear on the Prime Minister and make her remote from the rest of New Zealand he did not only call the Minister of Finance devious and deceitful he did not only call the Minister of Conservation a tosser and he did not only say that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is an empty vessel—he also said a lot of other things. Among those things were comments he made— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should speak to the second reading of the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was making a speech and I was getting to the point when I was rudely heckled by the senior Government whip. I needed to clarify to the House what my position was and I will now come to the point of the speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. The member knows that he was taking a long time to come to the point of the speech and I ask him to come to the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I know that members of the Labour Government do not like being told what John Tamihere had to say in  
Investigate 
 magazine—today the Prime Minister said that no one should believe anything that was in it. But one of the most important and relevant things in that article was John Tamihere’s view that it was time for Maori to move on and to take control of their destiny. In fact he went further and said that through the settlement process Maori won or were winning—and we agree with him. It is sad that the Prime Minister does not and it is sad that the senior whip from the Labour Government does not and that the Deputy Prime Minister does not. They did not read the important things in that article about ordinary New Zealanders who want to make their lives better. They read the things that offended them—the truths about their inability to connect properly with ordinary New Zealanders. 
We agree with John Tamihere on this one point: if we are to have a country where all people can say that they are participating that they are looking forward and that they are part of moving this country to a better future then settling long-held grievances such as this one is important. No matter what anybody may have heard about the National Party’s views on the Treaty of Waitangi and on the grievance industry that has grown up around it we do support proper settlements being concluded with appropriately mandated iwi authorities. I am interested in making a point about some of the material that has been removed from this bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: He wouldn’t know a principle if it hit him in the face. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want you running the House just for the sake of the Labour Government. I ask you to look at some of the discussion that is going on while I am trying to make my contribution. The Chair is always very quick to give me a hard time but tonight I think that a little bit of fairness would be in order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There have been interjections and certainly I ask the member to restrain herself in terms of the interjections. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That sort of banter with the volume put up about 10 times from the Opposition was the reason the Prime Minister had to ask to be heard in silence in the House today. I ask those who are engaging in some banter to do so on a reasonable basis. 
The settlement bill originally carried a number of clauses that essentially put into law some of the stories I suppose one would say that are particularly important to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty—stories about their connection to their ancestors and the way in which their ancestors went about establishing them as an iwi. Although that may be fine for Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in the wider context it is not appropriate to put that sort of thing into law because the stories the add-ons I suppose one would say to whakapapa that give particular credence to the story of any particular iwi are sacred to that iwi and it would not be appropriate to put into this bill things that may offend some other group who may seek a settlement at another time. 
I thank the negotiators from Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty for their willingness to understand the dilemma that Parliament was in and for their willingness to accept that their story would always be theirs that no one could take that from them and that there was no need to enshrine it in the law of this land—because it was always there before this sort of law was ever in place. 
I conclude my remarks by saying that this is also a bill where there is a significant Maori commentary and indeed a parallel recital of the bill in Maori throughout. The process that was established just a few months ago has been repeated in this bill so there can be no doubt that the two versions of the bill mean the same thing. I hope that my friend Mr Pita Paraone who has been instrumental in having this approach taken will agree with those comments. I also reserve my last few comments for the issue of the mandate that any group has to negotiate a settlement. Although we accept that this settlement is a genuine settlement and that Parliament will pass it and it will become part of the settlement process it does alarm me that some of the claimants coming to this Parliament asking to have their grievances settled do so with a very low number of their local iwi participants voting for them to have that role. As well as that there is a is a very low turn-out in some of the polls that are conducted when it comes to ratifications of settlements. 
We are not happy that the Office of Treaty Settlements continues to tell the Government that very low turn-outs in ratification ballots are acceptable and OK to progress with. I do want to put it on the parliamentary record that from the National Party’s perspective this is a full and final settlement because Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty have come to Parliament to ask for it. It has not been pushed upon them; it is the result of negotiations. Although the acceptance of the position may well be generous from Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty—and I acknowledge that it is—it is nonetheless full and final. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 A maruru tena tatau. Ko tenei mihi tuatahi ki a koutou i haere maomao mai ki konei koutou mai i Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau e noho mai nei ki te wakarongo ki nga korero e wakaputa mai i etehi o nga mema Paremata e tautoko mai i te pira. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Keep cool and salutations to us. In the first instance I make this acknowledgment to those of you of Tuwharetoa at Kawerau who travelled far and are seated here listening to what some of the members of Parliament supporting the bill are saying. 
]  
I was somewhat bemused by the anthropological sociologist and economist and shadow Minister of Maori Affairs and his totally irrelevant in the main presentation with regard to the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau bill. I fail to understand how in any way the debate on the John Tamihere articulation to the media has anything to do with the mana of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. It has absolutely no relationship whatsoever. It breeds the suspicion that maybe that member has overindulged somewhere because I thought that he might have been struggling to have any context to his korero. I would be embarrassed if it were me because I would be saying to myself: “Beam me up Scotty.” 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: It would be heavy. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I know it is heavy but I would say: “Beam me up Scotty.” in terms of the embarrassment that that would occasion on the Government side of the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’re just worried they have been duped by the change of just one word. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: That member has never been known for saying just one word! 
The Maori members on the Government side of the House have a principle that has been agreed to and is often stated—that no Maori member on this side of the House would ever vote against claims legislation that is put forward by another iwi. So I hope that my colleague opposite from New Zealand First does not repeat the embarrassment of not voting for this bill at its third reading. 
Pita Paraone 
: Who was embarrassed? 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: We were not embarrassed but I think that that member was. No Maori member has the right to takahia te mana a tipuna of another tribe because— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Ha ha ha! 
MAHARA OKEROA 
:—that member is making more noise than he did when making a speech—it is not acceptable. No iwi that comes before this House and that goes through a whole process of not less than 9 years of jumping through hoops seeking a mandate seeking ratification and joining its people together and taking a very difficult path in its interfacing with the Crown should ever be denied the full support of every Maori member of this House—irrespective of whatever political party the members belong to. I felt that I needed to say that because the member opposite— 
Pita Paraone 
: Do you feel good? 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Mr Paraone understands that because he was brought up under the old rules. It is not that I feel good about it. That is not the question I should be asking myself; it is actually the question he should ask himself. We just make the assumption that a person who has been brought up in a traditional way with due respect for every other iwi would support it. It is no less the reason why the Maori members and others members of the Maori Affairs Committee in debating the issues surrounding fishing allocation took it upon themselves to represent the case on behalf of Ngati Hine. It is because we understood the tikanga. 
Pita Paraone 
: Don’t use that argument brother. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: No no. We understood the tikanga that that implied. It implied that we should have equal rights. Any Maori member may I repeat who votes against this bill needs to ask himself or herself key questions. 
Having said that—and it is totally irrelevant—I want to commend Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as a relatively small group of people for managing to overcome with due regard and respect all those obstacles that could have served as an impediment to the claims process. It takes first a helluva lot of self-belief; second a helluva lot of self-commitment; and third a belief that eventually a goal can be reached from which people can move on to other challenges. The reason in my view why Maori have not moved on to a large extent was that we had not first really settled the issues that have a historical basis before moving on to address what we have now in a contemporary sense—before moving on to our future. 
So on behalf of the Maori Labour caucus on behalf of the Maori Affairs Committee that considered the bill and in spite of the constant communications made from issues that raised themselves within the select committee process via the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in order to progress this bill to where it is now I thank all its people for their ability to continue to make those adjustments that have helped this bill into its second reading. Of course in the future it will no doubt culminate—hopefully in May when the people will come back te hokitanga mai ki te whenua [ 
back to the land 
]—in their joining together with this House in rejoicing and celebrating what is without doubt a unique experience for those people who constitute a specific claimant group. 
No reira koutou ra Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau me te ope e hara mai nei na ki te tautoko i tenei wahanga tuarua 
[ 
And so to those of you indeed of Tuwharetoa at Kawerau and the group that came in support of this second part 
] 
I wish the group the best in the future and even though it has been difficult especially surrounding the issues dealing with geothermal power I say that we have been able to progress this bill to its present state. No reira tena tatau tena tatau a ka noho tenei ki raro. 
[ 
S 
o greetings to us greetings to us I resume my seat 
.] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koutou. Tena koutou o te Whare nei. Tena hoki koutou Ngati Tuwharetoa ahakoa i te wa i puta mai tenei pire ko te ingoa ko Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau engari kua rereke te ingoa iaianei na ko Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. 
[ 
Thank you and greetings to you of this House and also to you of Ngati Tuwharetoa despite the fact that when this bill came out it referred to  
“ 
Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau”. But the name of the bill has now been altered to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. 
] 
On behalf of New Zealand First—and can I reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I want to note that when speaking of Ngati Tuwharetoa in this bill we are referring to those of Tuwharetoa based in the Bay of Plenty. I mention that specifically so as to differentiate this iwi from that of its kith and kin Tuwharetoa ki Taupo. 
 It is the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Before I go any further I want to remind the member who spoke before me that it is Parliament that makes the laws and not iwi. I wanted to remind him of that even though he took some time to make reference to the decision made by New Zealand First regarding the last settlement bill that this House dealt with. 
I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty together with members of the claims negotiating team. They have arrived at this point after a journey that has taken them almost 16 years. I might add though that this journey had its genesis back in 1865 following the death of a Crown official at the hands of some local Maori. Unlike the response by present-day police the Crown at the time almost immediately mounted a 500-man expedition to apprehend those responsible. In September 1865 the Crown issued a proclamation of peace in spite of not being able to apprehend those sought. So the Crown felt that it was going to war. 
The point I make is that the journey taken to reach this stage has been long and arduous. In New Zealand First’s view this is clearly unacceptable. Like many other claims already made to the Waitangi Tribunal this claim relates to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and in particular to the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe inadequacies in the compensation court process and subsequent alienation of the remaining lands that were subject to the native land laws and Crown purchasing. 
In 1988 Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty registered their claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. The hearings were held during 1994 and 1995 followed by the release of the tribunal’s findings in 1999 and the commencement of negotiations in 1998. All this has culminated in the signing of the deed of settlement between the iwi and the Crown. 
It is unfair to claimants and detrimental to us moving on as a nation when such claims have to take such a long time to reach this stage. We in New Zealand First have already signalled our proposals for addressing the issue of the time it takes to complete claims. We would hasten the settlement process from the pre-negotiating stage through to the passage of settlement legislation. Time savings could be made at several stages by giving more adequate funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements and adequate resourcing to aid claimant groups. But given the lack of support from other parties in this House to advancing these proposals other claimants under this process will unfortunately have to endure similar waiting times. Having said that I note that the Prime Minister recently indicated that the Government will be proposing something similar. Like a certain other party on this side of the House we feel quite happy to share our policies with the Government. 
New Zealand First supports the settlement of genuine historical grievances. However the lack of progress in addressing such historical grievances has diverted attention from key areas where real social and economic progress for Maori could be made through sound education well-paid employment adequate health and improved housing. Under this bill the settlement provides financial and commercial redress of millions of dollars aimed at assisting Ngati Tuwharetoa with their economic and social development. Whether or not this amount can ever be considered fair compensation the key elements of the bill include acknowledgments that it is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
It is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Tuwharetoa for all the loss and prejudice suffered. However we note that in keeping with true Ngati Tuwharetoa tradition of giving to the nation what is their birthright the true meaning of the word “koha” is again being repeated with Ngati Tuwharetoa forgoing full compensation. Such koha is recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of our country New Zealand. 
Na reira he mihi tenei ki a koutou o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Na koutou i whakaarohia kia tukuna mai he koha ehara mo te karauna anahe engari mo tatou katoa e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
 [ 
And so this is an acknowledgment to you Ngati Tuwharetoa. You considered amongst yourselves to gift it not only for the Crown alone but for all of us New Zealanders living here as well 
.] 
New Zealand First will be supporting this bill but we support it because there is no mention or reference made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Firstly that would suggest to me and to all fair-minded people that the inclusion of such words is not necessary. Secondly it would suggest that perhaps the Government has perceived that to include such words without definition will not make this settlement as enduring as we would like to see it. We will certainly be supporting this bill. 
In conclusion I support the comments made by Mr Brownlee with regard to the use of the Maori language in this bill. I reassure him that the layout of the Maori text fits with the layout of the English text. I must point out that where the Maori translation identifies the members of the select committee reference is made to their political parties. Reference to political parties is absent in the English translation. Kia ora. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. As our Maori affairs spokesperson I am pleased to speak on this bill and to see it being progressed. 
I do not need to go over the circumstances again that gave rise to the need for a claims settlement because they have been well documented in the settlement deed as well as in this bill and they have been mentioned by other parties. I just say that it arises from the confiscation of land around 1865 and subsequently. I note that although 20000 acres of the land were returned that amount fell somewhat short of what had been taken. The impact on Maori of the confiscation of their land was profound as it would be for anybody. The inability to obtain food medicine and shelter particularly impacted on Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I note also that some efforts were made in the past to recognise the Crown’s wrongs and to right them but as was typical with a lot of approaches taken by the Crown 50 to 100 years ago there was a lack of recognition of tikanga Maori and in particular of the property rights of iwi as opposed to the property rights of individuals. I guess that one of the big differences in the settlement bills that have been put through this House in the last 10 15 or 20 years is now a recognition that iwi property rights which are foreign to the British justice system we have inherited are nevertheless valid property rights. There needs to be recognition of the ownership of property by iwi groups not just a recognition of the individualism we adopted from the British legal system that seems to recognise only individuals. I note the reference in the bill to the fact that land that had actually belonged to iwi was returned to individuals which reflects what at that time would have been to some extent a degree of ignorance on the part of my predecessors in this House in their recognition of property rights in a different culture. 
I notice with approval contrary to some of the comments National has made that the mandating of the settlement occurred with a 55 percent vote. Of those who voted 95 percent endorsed the bill. I can compare that only with the results of the local body election we had just a matter of months ago whereby a 55 percent vote was one of the better results that local bodies received. Therefore in this context a 55 percent vote is quite acceptable in my view. It is always nice to get a higher vote and to get participation by all of those who have an interest in the matter. But I note that even if we take the level of achieving 100 percent of the vote the fact that there was a 95 percent endorsement means that more than 50 percent of Ngati Tuwharetoa have approved the settlement in fact whether or not they voted. Therefore there has truly been a majority recognition of the settlement and an acceptance of it by Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I note that one of the primary changes the Maori Affairs Committee suggested was to clarify that we are not dealing in this legislation with all of Ngati Tuwharetoa but simply with the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngati Tuwharetoa. There have been some changes to the bill’s wording to reflect that and to avoid any possible ambiguity or confusion that this settlement involves more than simply the Bay of Plenty iwi of Ngati Tuwharetoa. I think that that is an important recognition so that it does not in any way fetter or have any potential to fetter claims that are yet to be resolved in relation to other parts of Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
One thing that is unique about this bill and that is new is the settlement of a right of first refusal to geothermal assets. That is something about which we have needed to proceed with some caution because of the value of the geothermal resource to New Zealand as a nation in terms of energy needs. I note that the settlement is reserved to Crown-owned assets only and then only to physical assets and not to subsurface water or streams. Obviously by the ratification that has taken place that is something that Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty have been happy to accept in terms of their settlement. I commend them for their approach and one could argue to some extent their generosity. They could have held out for a claim of somewhat more given the history of the land and the history of the geothermal activity that obviously existed in New Zealand over the time when they owned the land rights. 
I note there was some concern as there often is with these bills that the granting of certain rights to iwi might impact on the rights of other people. Once again there are provisions in the bill that make it very clear that this settlement does not impact on the rights of anyone who is not a party to the deed between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa and that existing property rights remain. I think that clause 61 makes that abundantly clear. It always seems to be a concern that individual property rights may be affected by such legislation but obviously that is not the case. 
If there is perhaps one thing that United Future has achieved in this area of treaty settlements over the last 3 years it is to have helped to speed up the process of settlements. United Future is very keen to reach a situation whereby all treaty grievances are settled so that we can move on as a nation. That would also have the spin-off effect of the setting up of governance entities over all iwi in New Zealand. As we gradually get to that position it is my hope that the voice of Maori can be more clearly stated because there are clear authorities that have the potential if their members so concur to speak on behalf of iwi on issues that are broader than simply the settlement issues. That is something I think would really help in terms of the development of the relationship between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. 
United Future succeeded in getting commitment from the then Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Margaret Wilson to endeavour to get resolution of all treaty grievances within 10 years. Our party also succeeded in getting additional funding through to the Office of Treaty Settlements in particular to enable a second claims development team to be implemented so that we can speed up the process. 
I think it is absolutely important that the Crown on its part does everything possible to resolve those grievances and bring them to fruition recognising that there are two parties to the process. The Crown cannot force iwi to come to the table negotiate and reach resolutions. I certainly encourage any iwi representatives who are yet to see their grievances resolved to avail themselves of the process so that we can get to a point of settlement of those grievances. Those iwi could then have assets and money in order to move on and improve the lot of their people. We could then get to a point in New Zealand whereby historical treaty grievances were all resolved and we could together look forward to a nation with very positive race relations and a working together of Maori and other New Zealanders for the good of the nation. 
United Future is very pleased to see the progress on this claim. We hope that more claims will come through. We will continue to apply pressure on the Government to try to get more and more settlement bills through and grievances resolved. We are pleased to support the second reading of this bill and look forward to its continuing stages. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill with a sense of weariness. Once again we have a bill that repeats the errors of the past. Members have gloated over the very techniques that got our forebears into trouble. We have had sanctimonious speeches—like the speech made by the previous speaker—full of unction with speakers claiming superiority over people on the spot 140 years ago and alleging that those people did not know what they were doing when there is no way now of deciding with any kind of certainty who was right and who was wrong. 
I am also concerned because I think I heard New Zealand First members who finally discovered enough integrity in relation to the last settlement bill that came before the House to refuse to support it because it contained references to spurious principles say that they would support this bill. That reverts to the pattern they have had for the last 2 or 3 years of loudly denouncing in this House the so-called principles while busily voting for bills that contain references to them. I draw the attention of New Zealand First members whom I assumed would have seen those references because those members were represented on the Maori Affairs Committee to clause 10(2) which refers to the Crown profoundly regretting and unreservedly apologising for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. So the Crown has not yet purged those nonsense words from the legislation. 
That is not the only instance. Again I draw New Zealand First members’ attention to clause 14. In the most important definition of the bill and in the only provisions that make this settlement worth proceeding with is the provision that states that the claims are settled. That is the definition of historical claims. Clause 14(a)(i)(A) refers to a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To be fair to New Zealand First in this connection it is probably sensible to put that definition in because people may still assert that they have rights arising from the principles even if we now find that the principles are so contentious and insubstantial that a definition should not be included in legislation. So I could understand leaving that reference in the bill for the sake of completeness but I think that New Zealand First has lost some of the mana I was prepared to concede to it last time for finally acting in accordance with its claimed principles and aligning with ACT’s view. 
In the time I have been in this House ACT has always voted against these bills because they contain words that are undefined are not capable of a proper definition and are not able to meet the standards that this House should insist on for legislation. That is it is legislation that sets people at each other’s throats with words that at the time we pass the legislation we know will have different meanings to different people. That will cause the parties to go back before judges and to spend money on lawyers because the words mean different things to each side of the deal. The function of this House should be to make sure that we do not do that. We should make sure that the law we pass has clear and accepted meanings and that disputes are being resolved. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The senior Government whip from Whanganui is interjecting as she always does in these debates. I will not use the pejorative descriptions that are often applied to her approach but I will draw this to her attention and ask whether she wants to participate in the debate to explain to me just what is meant by the protocols and the acknowledgments. This bill is offering to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty the legal equivalent of bangles and beads. This bill is offering shiny baubles to get an agreement with words that either have a substantial meaning in which case they will cause trouble in the future or that mean nothing in which case it is fraudulent to be offering them. 
I draw Ms Pettis’ attention to clause 41—it is just a sample; there are many clauses like this—where the Historic Places Trust and the Environment Court are directed to “… have regard to a statutory acknowledgement in forming an opinion under … the Historic Places Act …”. In clause 48 we find that relevant consent authorities must have regard to the “geothermal statutory acknowledgement” which is a novelty with this bill. We find in clause 52 that the statutory acknowledgments are not: “(2) … binding as deemed fact on—(a) the consent authorities: (b) the Environment Court: …”. In other words for legal purposes they have no evidential weight. In clause 60 we find a cute little instruction that states: “(b) no person in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under a statute regulation or bylaw may give greater or lesser weight to the association with or use by Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) of a statutory area or the geothermal energy or geothermal water … than that person would give … if no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition existed …”. In other words in this statute the Crown goes through the rigmarole of telling people that they are getting something of significance and then carefully states that it does not mean a damn thing. Nevertheless the court has to have regard to it. 
I would really appreciate a member of the select committee explaining now or during the Committee stage on this bill exactly what is meant by this duplicity. The rest of Parliament might be quite content to go along with these things saying that they are just matters of form and that everyone knows that Maori do not really care that they are getting a bauble. 
Members of this House stand up and make grand speeches in Maori about how proud they are to be part of settling these longstanding grievances when they well know that a future generation will look at this legislation and say that Parliament must have meant something by it and that it cannot be as empty as it appears. We cannot assume a new round of bad faith in what is supposed to be a settlement of old breaches of faith. Descendants of the people who sign this deal are sure to be back saying that no one could have expected after 150 years of grievance and solemn promises to put it all in the past that their people could have been offered utterly empty assurances and utterly useless deeds of acknowledgment. 
So what will the descendants do? They will assert and future historians—probably sounding as unctuously confident as the United Future member who has just spoken—will say: “Of course they didn’t know what they were really doing. Of course we’ve got to read some meaning into this. Yes we will convert this into the ownership rights that should have been created.” 
If this were a real settlement we would be creating real ownership of the kind promised in article 2 of the treaty. Article 2 of the treaty did not offer a shadow; it offered classical property rights—the kind of property rights this Government does not give a toss about despite its members being champion tossers. 
This bill may be the first—I am not certain—that the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson had brought in herself from the ground up. She could have broken with tradition. She could have broken with the National Party’s habit of making meaningless deals. She could have taken note of the select committee’s decision that the so-called rules that say it cannot recommend substantive changes are not worthy of this House and allowed the select committee to look at this bill and do something meaningful with it. Instead of course the Crown is here apologising for allowing someone’s culture to be changed. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support this bill. We acknowledge the incredibly hard work of those who have negotiated to obtain some degree of redress for the crimes that have been committed against them. We thank those who made submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee and we also thank the officials—who always get a hard time from the committee on these issues—for their hard work in bringing this bill to the committee. 
The Greens recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi the legitimacy of the Maori text that was signed by the hapu signatories. Te tiriti is an agreement between hapu and the Crown. It is in our view a solemn pact. The treaty settlement process is designed to provide some redress for the grievances that have arisen from the Crown’s failure to adhere to that pact. The Greens acknowledge that representatives of the Crown have breached and continue to breach te tiriti rights of Maori. We support the resolution and restitution of outstanding historical and current breaches but via a process by which those who have been aggrieved are the designers of the process for their own justice. 
We recognise that there are serious problems with the current model of treaty settlements and that those failings create further grievances and will continue to create further grievances until the Crown accepts that there are problems and moves towards a better process. One of the problems that continues to arise is that in the 21st century we continue to have confiscations. The rohe that is the subject of this bill includes coastal land and the mana whenua of that coastal land have recently had their legal rights and potential rights taken from them—in other words confiscated—in the 21st century. The Labour Government is a modern-day confiscator and New Zealand First is likewise a confiscator of land stripping Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau of their legal rights. 
How do we ensure that future grievances will not arise? We guarantee that we will not create any future grievances by undertaking these unconstitutional treaty-breaching activities in the future. It is relatively simple if we learn the lessons of our history which we should be doing given the number of settlement bills that are before us. We know what has happened in the past. We should know not to repeat it. As I am talking about considering our histories I want to mention that there was an issue in the select committee about statements of association. These caused some difficulties in the select committee because they were inadvertently left out of the bill so the committee could not test their legitimacy and test that they were not controversial with the submitters. This made it very difficult for the select committee to deal with the statement of association. 
I must say though that the Green Party has no problem in principle with the inclusion of statements of association in settlement bills. These statements are statements by the claimants of their views of their histories and their associations with their particular resources. In our view they are incredibly valuable to the claimants and to the whole country. One real gap in our nation’s education and a large part of the problem that leads us to keep making stupid mistakes when we should know better is that we do not have a clear understanding of the collective history of our own country.If we are to find ways to foster understanding and peace in our country we need to know our collective histories in detail. These settlements despite their flawed process and what we consider to be fundamental injustices can at least provide to local communities that precious information about the stories and histories of their local areas. 
These settlements the settlements bills and the deeds of settlement describe the local stories of what was a terrible civil war in our country. Many lives were lost in that war. Horrible crimes were committed in that war. These settlements outline some of the local stories that have been largely kept from us about our own histories—things that were done and stories that belong to our neighbours to our friends and to the people whom we deal with and meet with every day. These stories can give us incredibly valuable insights into how our country has developed why we are in the state we are in today and how we can ensure that we do foster peace in our country in the future. 
These settlements contain not only statements and descriptions of recent occurrences and historical occurrences in our country but also through things such as statements of association pre-colonisation histories that have remained intact—cultural traditional and spiritual stories that describe in the idiom of the indigenous people their pre-colonisation history. Statements of association in my view are gifts by the iwi to us; gifts of their precious histories that most of us would never otherwise know. These statements are no less valid than any preamble or historical description in settlement bills or in any other bill. 
Some have argued that these statements should not be in legislation but in my view that is stupid. They do not need to have legal effect to be incorporated into legislation and to be valuable in legislation. It is after all the iwi’s bill. It is their restitution and their grievance that has been dealt with and they are entitled to have their stories told—not the stories interpreted through the coloniser’s view but their own stories about their own pre-colonisation history—as they choose. It is absolutely critical that they have their views and their stories recognised just as the history of Pakeha and others in these bills are also recognised in the preambles of these settlement bills. These statements are as valid as any other preamble. It is just that they describe a pre-colonisation history that colonisers’ sympathisers continue to decry and devalue. There are lots of ways that we can describe that particular attitude. 
The Greens do not like the process of settlement bills. We think that they are unfair and wrong and that they require iwi to compromise too much. But we do see that they have enormous value as an educative tool as a way of recognising the history and the value of that iwi themselves on their own terms and not interpreted through English or through the coloniser’s perspective. We will continue to advocate for a fairer process for settlements and for the expansion and distribution of these settlement histories to the whole community so that perhaps we can undermine some of these bad attitudes from various parts of our community and actually have communities that truly understand our collective history so that we do not create further grievances in the future. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 Ka tu au ki te korero ki tenei purongo a te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Maori. I am rising to speak to the report back of the Maori Affairs Committee. Kua tirohia e te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Maori tenei pire ana Te Pire Whakataunga i nga Kereme a Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi. I am rising to speak to the report that the Maori Affairs Committee has examined with regard to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Ki o matou nei whakaaro me whakamanatia nga whakatikatika. It is our view that the amendments recommended in this report be agreed to. Kei roto i te pire nga pukenga korero ana te putake i timata ai tenei kereme. In this bill are most of the historical stories and evidence as to the origins of this claim. E tika ana nga korero ki a Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi o ratou nei korero tuturu. And it is right to say and reaffirm that the stories as set by Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are theirs and theirs alone. 
Tokorima nga tino wahanga ina i puta ai o matou nei whakaaro me nga whakawhitiwhiti korero i roto i te pire nei. Tuatahi ko te whakamaramatia mo Ngati Tuwharetoa. Tuarua ko te tikanga mo whangai o Ngati Tuwharetoa ana mo whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Tuatoru ko te whakinga o te ngawha i raro i te ture. Tuawha ko te whakaurunga o te tauaki whakaroputanga ngawha kei te motiningia. Tuarima te tika o te whakakorenga tuatahi ki nga hua ngawha a te Karauna.  
[ 
In our deliberations and considerations in respect of this bill five essential elements emerged—the first one in relation to the definition of Ngati Tuwharetoa the second concerning the meaning of whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa the third about geothermal statutory acknowledgment the fourth regarding the proposed inclusion of geothermal statutory acknowledgment and fifthly the right of first refusal over Crown geothermal assets. 
] 
Because it is a protocol of the Maori Affairs Committee to preface the report in te reo Maori we may as well refer to it. There are five issues that are summarised in the report back that I want to speak to and I will speak to each of them separately. Firstly I will deal with the definition of Ngati Tuwharetoa. The committee spent some time discussing overall how best to encapsulate the intention of this settlement. Now lots of comments have been raised in the House about this but I simply want to say that the committee resolved and thought that it was important to make clear that this settlement was specific to Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty. So we recommended that the report throughout its whole reference to Ngati Tuwharetoa be changed accordingly to make clear that that is who the settlement is for and notwithstanding other interests throughout Ngati Tuwharetoa they would not be affected by this particular bill. I think in terms of points of clarity that that was very helpful. 
The second point that I refer to is the meaning of “whangai of Ngati Tuwharetoa”. We had again a lot of discussion around this. We noticed a trend in a lot of legislation—there was some onus being put on claimant groups to actually specify or provide for whangai in a way that encountered issues to do with the Adoption Act. So we asked whether this was the case of the claimant group and whether it had been given the whole range of examples to which we received advice that it was something that the Office of Treaty Settlements had kind of suggested—it was an example or reference that had been suggested by the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
The committee was not very comfortable with that. In fact we said that surely on issues of whangai—on issues of adoption—the expressions in the bill should be closely aligned to what that iwi wanted. So after some discussion we basically came to what the intention of the deed was to try to align the definition of whangai in the bill as closely as possible to the intent of the claimant groups. I think that what we have suggested is more in line with their intention than that of the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
The other part of the report back the third part is on the issue of the geothermal statutory acknowledgment. I do acknowledge that this is the first time that a geothermal statutory acknowledgment has been made in any settlement legislation. We spent a good deal of our deliberations and considerations on this matter alone because a lot of members wondered what it meant. Now I am sure—and I am sure it is the intention of Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty that there will be a tangible benefit from this provision. However it was not evident in terms of the advice that we received from officials. In fact I think we probably spent far too much time on this issue. But the point here is that this geothermal statutory acknowledgment emanates from an association that Ngati Tuwharetoa has towards geothermal energy and that has been referred to by a number of members who have spoken before me. 
The statutory acknowledgment in particular—and we sought clarification on this—is around the bores. It is not about the water or the geothermal energy above the ground or under the ground; it is just the bores through which that energy passes. So to some extent we are still scratching our heads as to what the tangible benefit will be but we expect there must be some for it to be in here. And really it is not for us to say whether or not. I have heard some parochial comments in the House along the lines of: “Here’s a generation of people who are settling and they really do not know what they are getting.” I beg to differ about that. I think that every group of negotiators who has sat opposite the Crown to negotiate its claim certainly know what they are getting out of it. We might not be clear about it but it is an agreement that the Crown is upholding and one that I am sure even though there has been a lot of debate around this has tangible benefits that will go back to Ngati Tuwharetoa. As I said the committee all hopes and I am sure that the expectation is that they do realise a tangible benefit from this statutory acknowledgment. 
Again there was a great deal of discussion about the next part—and I regret that so much time was spent on this particular part—which is about whether to include the exact reasons why Tuwharetoa had such a close association to the geothermal resource. The reason quite simply was that when the bill was introduced it did not include the statutory acknowledgment. So when we were going through the submissions we could not actually ask the claimant group or people making submissions about their stories. That did present difficulties because the committee was then faced after the fact with having to consider stories and there was a level of discomfort as to whether we should be asking Parliament to uphold what many in this Parliament would probably attack as being purely myths and legends and we could not afford that. So with the ability to discuss this with Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and also their discussions with the Minister there was a change and the statutory acknowledgment was left in the deed unharmed and protected in the way in which it was introduced. 
The final part of the report back concerns the first right of refusal. Again many members may argue about that particular issue but I simply want to say that the way in which the first right of refusal has been treated is consistent with other settlements in that it is not provided for in the bill per se. It is actually in the deed and that is consistent with every other first right of refusal that has been provided for. 
My final comment is about the use of Maori within bills. We need to get better at it. Certainly in terms of the experience of the committee over the last two settlement bills I do want to say that we should urge the Office of Treaty Settlements to have a good look at its processes when it is working with claimant groups in te reo Maori in legislation because it is simply not good enough. However the recommendations of the committee are clearly here in the report back bilingually. We recommend them to the House and support them. Tena koutou. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to look at some of the things that are buried within the heart of this bill as I read it but that speak a great deal about the values of this current Government. I refer the House to schedules 5 and 6 which are buried deep in the bill. It is not surprising that those schedules are buried deep in the bill because in them we find statutory references to myth and legend. We are incorporating into the law of the land that these are a legally legitimised world view. It is an issue not of personal religious belief or iwi history but of incorporating into the law that kind of approach. For instance we find in schedule 5 a specific reference to Te Whakakau Ariki last being seen by elders in 1950 while they were setting an eel trap. We are incorporating the idea of a ghost—a spirit being—as part of the law of the land. We find the same again in schedule 6 which refers to Rakeimarama who with his incantations and powers through his karakia caused an island in the lake of Rotoma to disappear. That is in the law of the land. 
I say that that is political correctness taken to absurdity. It is the cancer at the very heart of this Government. The Labour Government has a fringe agenda driven by people in this Parliament and by their henchmen and henchwomen in the bureaucracy. That agenda is being forced on mainstream New Zealand through the law. The Government has to ask why there is such an incredible ferment about the article containing the interview with Mr John Tamihere. It is not only about the criticisms of particular individuals. It is not about whether certain people are tossers and others are smarmy and so forth. Those are the issues of excitable political headlines. Deeper within the core of that article is a question of values. It is that aspect of the interview that has struck such a chord with the New Zealand public. That is why the media has focused on it. What John Tamihere has revealed is the secret heart of the Labour leadership—the secret agenda that it wants to foist upon New Zealanders. One finds that agenda buried in legislation never near the beginning of the legislation. It is buried in the schedules but it is there nevertheless. 
Those kinds of recitations those references within our legislation to the spirit world and pagan religion did not exist in earlier settlements. There was no need for them because they are not actually what settlements are about. If a Government wants to change the way people think—if a Government wants to have an agenda that states that certain modes of thought are correct and other modes are incorrect—then it will start to insert those kinds of references into legislation and to stack various commissions and bodies with people who think only one way and demand that other New Zealanders think the same way. One has only to think about the reaction of Joris de Bres to Dr Brash’s speech in 2004. He said that New Zealanders were not permitted to raise those questions. He said that it was dangerous. That is the mark of the politically correct. They want to bury debate and to stifle the mainstream views of New Zealanders. 
So I ask myself why we even find references in our law to Maori myths and legends. I am one of those who take a certain amount of pride in those myths and legends. They are part of the history of our country. They are not part of the law of the land and they should not be. The law of the land is supposed to apply to all New Zealanders without fear or favour and without reference to religion. So why are those myths and legends included? Is it an example of guilt—is it guilt that causes those things to be represented? Is it as Winston Peters would say sickly white liberalism? Is it an example of extreme political correctness? Or is it a blend of all of those three things? I believe that this approach sets a dangerous pattern for our future. We are supposed to be a country moving forward into the 21st century. We are supposed to be a country that in the words of Shane Jones a Labour list candidate is putting the grievance and the consistent and constant reference to culture behind us. But in fact we are seeing those things ever more deeply inserted into our law. 
 I believe that that is precisely why Mr Tamihere’s speech has struck such a deep chord. He has revealed to the country what beats at the heart of the Labour Party. Members sitting in this Chamber know the truth of that. They know that there is a group of people in the Labour Party who do not represent the mainstream of this country. Their values are essentially those of the fringe and of the minority and they have no respect for the values that have been at the heart of this nation for more than a century. These references in schedules 5 and 6 will ultimately be the downfall of this Government. They will be the reason why New Zealanders ultimately reject this Government. New Zealanders will know as is revealed buried deep in this legislation that they have a Government whose values are alien to mainstream New Zealanders—values that distort and pervert our history values that have no place in a modern forward-looking New Zealand and values that do not unite people but only serve to remind people of difference not of unity. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a short call and acknowledge the second reading of this bill and the fact that it is at last making progress through the House. More important I want to acknowledge the tenacity of the people of Tuwharetoa in sticking with the job of progressing this legislation. I wanted to pay tribute to them very early in my short contribution. 
I had to smile wryly at Stephen Franks who made the ACT party’s contribution. It was all fluff and mirrors. If ACT were ever in a position to be in power in this country and fortunately we are comfortable in the knowledge that it will not be but if it were it would—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the interests of assisting my colleague from Whanganui I must say we are finding it difficult to hear her. I am surprised at myself for saying it because that does not apply to Mrs Pettis very often but members from her side are barracking across the House and that is making her lucid words very difficult to comprehend. I ask that you allow Mrs Pettis to continue in a manner whereby we can hear the contribution she is making. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Power for raising that matter. Could members please quieten down a bit so that Mr Power and others can hear Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: It has taken 12 years for somebody to ask me to speak up but never mind. I thank the member for his assistance. 
Should the unimaginable occur and ACT be in a position to do something of importance in this country it would never pass any settlement or facilitate the passing of any settlement bill because that would heal the sore. ACT does not want to heal the sore; it wants to lift off the scab all the time. That is an ugly expression but ACT members have no desire for peace progress settlement or communities moving forward—not at all. I would have thought that after all this time they would be able to move on in a philosophical sense because it is important to move on. 
While we are in the process of talking about the future it is important to remember the past and acknowledge that this very significant part of New Zealand has maintained that significance because of the generosity and foresight of te Heuheu Tukino an early paramount chief who bequeathed to the nation some of the most significant geography in our country. It has remained in perpetuity to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people both New Zealanders and international travellers alike. It is a World Heritage Site and that is very significant. Whenever my relatively small whanau—my children and myself—travelled through that part of the country and we tramped there when they were younger I used to say to the children: “You know you can always come back here because we have Te Ati Haunui-a-Paparangi ancestry.” My hapu is Ngati Pamoana. 
We used to say to my husband—their father—that this was land where we knew we could tramp swim and camp because of our ancestral connection. So this is a very special part of the country to me. Although I am not from Tuwharetoa I have some connection through the upper reaches of the Whanganui River. 
This bill is back before the House partly because the National Government in drawing up and signing a trust deed with Tuwharetoa in 1992 giving the tribe property rights in Lake Taupo failed to be explicit about what it was signing away. Therefore we have had to enter into negotiations to resolve any uncertainties. One of the important parts of this bill is the resolution of uncertainties. The settlement package contains a formal Crown apology and redress which includes the return of significant sites and appropriate levels of funding as well. 
This is an important bill. It is not large in its significance overall but nevertheless it is important. I am pleased we have had a good and constructive debate this evening. I look forward to its progress through the House as quickly as is achievable. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora ki nga mema o te Paremata nei. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora ki a Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to members of this Parliament. I greatly acknowledge you. Greetings as well to Ngati Tuwharetoa of Kawerau. And so greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.]  
As an opening remark I say that I was surprised to hear a request for Jill Pettis to speak up. I have to remind the House that having been in the fortunate position of being on the other side there used to be a wall of noise that came from this side. The behaviour was terrible compared with how people carry on nowadays. It was so loud that we could not discriminate any voices but even through that the voice of Jill Pettis could still penetrate and therefore I am surprised that she was unable to penetrate the light barracking from across the other side of the House today. 
I rise to respond to the remarks made by Stephen Franks about New Zealand First and our consistency in voting with regard to the existence of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. 
 It is true that New Zealand First is opposed to the operational or functional use of such references in legislation. But it is quite mischievous to say that if there happens to be any reference whatsoever to the Treaty of Waitangi in a bill then New Zealand First must automatically vote against it. I invite the House to consider the logical conclusion of such an expectation. If Stephen Franks had his way we would not be able to champion a bill such as the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has referred to which will expunge all references—operational and functional references—to the principles of the treaty from legislation. We would not be able to do that. It just would not make any logical sense. So I want to point out to the House exactly what he is referring to in this piece of legislation and it is not a functional reference. 
The first is the text of the apology in English. The apology has been negotiated by the Crown and the iwi and has been put into the legislation. It makes reference to an apology for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. That is something that is not part of the functional elements of the legislation itself. 
The second part—and I think even Stephen Franks was a little bit concerned to be pointing this out—is that the reference is in the definition of “historical claims”. The bill states that a historical claim is founded on a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the treaty and then it lists a whole pile of other things. But when we refer to the clause it refers to it in fact says that this particular settlement makes sure that there is a finality to all those claims. So no one—not from this particular hapu or iwi—could ever come along in future and say they want to ask for certain things under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So it basically expunges any future usage of such an expression or reference. The member for Tainui across the House knows that at times we have sat together on legislation knowing that the “principles of the treaty” as an expression is very very vague and does not express precisely what the legislation or the Parliament or the Government wants to achieve. 
So I just make the point that New Zealand First is able to vote for this bill because we support the settlement process and because the bill makes no functional reference to future decision-making or to advising future decision-making around the expression or the concept of the principles of the treaty which we well know are so vague that no one can tell us what they are—not the Prime Minister or anybody else. The Government does not know what they are. In fact the Minister of Local Government said that the way the Government ensures that the principles of the treaty are effected by local government is to expect them all to abide by the principles of the treaty. But when the Minister was asked what the principles were he said it was not up to the Government to tell local government what the principles of the treaty are that they are supposed to abide by. So in this particular case New Zealand First is comfortable and is able to vote for this legislation. As I say we supported the Ngati Awa legislation. The problem was in terms of that functional reference within the legislation. 
I want to make just one more little comment and that is in response to the speech made by Mahara Okeroa. He made the statement that all Maori members in this House should support any legislation that has been designed by iwi. That raises some very important constitutional questions around our democracy. Why would people vote for Maori members in New Zealand First for example who say they support the policies the principles and the leadership of the party if those Maori members are then expected to purely and simply put all that to one side and just agree to what has been agreed to between the Crown and a particular iwi. It is Parliament that is passing this legislation. It is the Crown that has made the agreement but it is Parliament that passes the legislation and therefore it is Parliament that creates the precise wording of the legislation. If there is an expectation that members would come to the House and automatically give their vote to the legislation—not to the agreement but to the legislation—then that is in fact overriding the supremacy of Parliament and I ask Mahara Okeroa to think that through. He is a thinking man and I am sure he will think it through and come to a rightful conclusion once his error has been pointed out to him. 
But other than that New Zealand First is supportive of this bill. We are happy that in expressing the agreement within the legislation references to things like the principles of the treaty—which we well know are vague and lead us nowhere—have been left out. It enables parties such as ourselves to give our full endorsement and support to the legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call at the end of the debate on the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The bill was introduced into Parliament in October 2004 and gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in June 2003 as my colleagues the member for Tainui and the member for Waiariki have pointed out to the House. It aims to settle all the historical claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty covering the area from Kawerau to Matata. The iwi we are talking about has about 3000 members. The core treaty grievances relate to the Crown’s confiscation of land at a point in our past which covers about 87000 acres in the Bay of Plenty. So it is a reasonably large area of land for the 3000 New Zealanders of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty descent. 
The package includes a formal Crown apology free public right of access for recreational use of the lake and its waters the transfer of four commercial properties and five cultural redress properties and a financial redress of $10.5 million. There are a number of items in the package that I think will be welcomed. It is for those reasons that I support the second reading of this bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. 
The illicit trade in cultural objects is a significant international problem often associated with organised crime the looting of archaeological sites and the theft of objects from public and private sources. Interpol estimated in August last year that the illicit trade in art and artefacts worldwide each year is valued at somewhere between US$4 billion and US$10 billion. 
 Important New Zealand objects have been illegally exported in the past and continue to be vulnerable. The recovery of stolen or illegally exported objects is hindered by a range of legal and practical problems that are best addressed through international agreements. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Unesco has taken the lead in securing international agreement on measures to protect heritage objects. 
Two international conventions have been framed to address the problems. The 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property provides a framework for cooperative action between State parties. That is complemented by an International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) convention—UNIDROIT being the international institute established to provide for the harmonisation of private and commercial laws between States. The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects creates a specific judicial framework that aims to unify the private laws of member States in relation to the recovery of objects. In July 2004 the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Rt Hon Helen Clark announced that New Zealand is to sign up to those two international conventions. Some legislative change is required however before we can do so. 
The Protected Objects Amendment Bill introduces revised provisions for regulating the export of heritage objects. Those provisions update established practice and continue New Zealand’s longstanding commitment to protecting objects of heritage value within New Zealand. For more than 100 years New Zealand has had legislation that has been designed to prevent the loss of certain precious objects and that reflects the principle that the Crown has a legitimate interest in protecting objects of heritage value to New Zealand and in particular in regulating the export of such objects including those in private ownership. 
 The current legislation the Antiquities Act provides for a system of domestic control of the export of cultural heritage objects. The Act does not however provide the means to recover objects that have been illegally exported. It has other shortcomings that prevent optimum protection of our removable cultural heritage. As a good international citizen New Zealand also has an interest in respecting and protecting the cultural heritage of other countries. Participation in both conventions meets our responsibility to recover and return important cultural objects imported here from other countries as well. 
The purpose of the bill therefore is to address the shortcomings of the Antiquities Act and to strengthen the safeguards protecting valued New Zealand and international cultural heritage objects. The bill will do that by clarifying meanings and introducing more precise categories that describe the heritage objects for which permission to export is required. It will clarify the processes for applying to export heritage objects and will provide for systematic and accountable advice to be given by recognised experts on heritage objects in that process. The bill will thus ensure we retain those objects that are of such importance that their export would substantially diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage. 
Existing penalties for breaches of the Act are so low right now as to provide little effective deterrent. That is especially true in an age when very high prices can be obtained for rare heritage objects on the international market in stolen and illegally exported items as well as for those objects that are at present exported legally. That market has taken advantage of technological advances such as trading over the Internet. Under this bill monetary penalties will be increased to align with those in the Trade in Endangered Species Act in recognition that both endangered species and cultural objects are vulnerable and irreplaceable world resources. The Government intends those penalties to provide a genuine disincentive to illicitly export our precious heritage objects or to gratuitously destroy any object for which permission to export is not granted. 
The bill will also align the legislation with the Customs and Excise Act ensuring that the New Zealand Customs Service can effectively monitor border compliance in terms of the international conventions. The bill establishes a register of objects in which New Zealand has a national interest and which may be subject to claims for repatriation through these conventions if they have been illegally exported. 
The bill establishes new administrative processes to ensure that ownership can be established over found Maori cultural heritage objects. This will mean that those claiming ownership will not need to enter into costly legal proceedings. This legislation will assign to the chief executive of the administrative department responsibility for consulting appropriately when a Maori cultural heritage object is found. The processes will it is hoped dispel concerns that the Crown may be assigned ownership over such newly found objects. 
The bill changes the title of the principal Act. The words “antiquities” and “artefacts” as used in the current legislation are outdated and do not reflect the tenor of the bill or its contemporary purposes. The new title recognises that the bill is concerned with the cultural and heritage values of both New Zealand and other States. Although the legislation will continue to be an amendment to the Antiquities Act on its commencement the title of the principal Act will change from the Antiquities Act to the Protected Objects Amendment Act. 
The bill completes a series of reviews of the Act that began in the mid-1980s and addresses issues that have evolved significantly since that time. New Zealand will benefit because international demand for illicitly obtained objects will be reduced as deterrents come into effect. We will also benefit from a more transparent and enhanced environment for the legitimate international trade of cultural objects. 
I am very pleased to introduce this bill. It is long overdue and is the outcome of thoughtful consideration and review. It is now time to ensure that our legislation reflects both the realities of the present day and the value we place on heritage as part of our living culture as well as the past upon which it has been built. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Protected Objects Bill going to a select committee. Over the last couple of years we have looked at what has been happening in the illicit trading of objects of value and the two conventions the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects which the Minister mentioned are worthy of consideration. Not all countries are members. In fact I have a list here of those countries that have ratified and acceded to the UNIDROIT convention of 1995. The list is quite interesting. There are 23 countries on it. Countries that one might have thought might be on it like Canada the United States and Australia are missing. I will mention a couple of those later on because they do have in their own legislation provisions that protect their objects. 
First I will look at the Unesco convention of 1970 then at the UNIDROIT convention. Much information came to the Government Administration Committee about this time last year and we will be signing up to these conventions if we pass this legislation. The major point I make is that there is growth in trade of illicit items of significant cultural value and the Unesco convention provides specific structures for international cooperation between States and for cross-border recovery of items. I think that is significant. 
New Zealand has acknowledged the need to protect our cultural heritage since 1901 so it is not something new but we have not been party to the Unesco convention. The UNIDROIT convention complements the Unesco convention and allows for a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of stolen cultural objects. It also requires that stolen or illegally exported objects are returned regardless of whether the buyer purchased them in good faith. At present only 23 States are party to the UNIDROIT convention compared with 103 countries or States that have ratified the Unesco convention. 
So there is a significant difference between the Unesco and UNIDROIT conventions. Neither convention is retrospective in its application; nor will their provisions apply to objects stolen or illegally exported before the date of New Zealand’s accession. We will never be able to get back objects that have been stolen or illegally exported in the past but I think that from now on in these conventions are worthy of further consideration. 
What are the advantages for New Zealand of accession to the Unesco convention? Objects stolen from collections such as those in museums or from religious or secular public monuments or similar institutions in New Zealand would be required to be returned. Accession would support New Zealand’s participation in the legitimate international trade in cultural objects by increasing market certainty. But there are some disadvantages to being a member of this convention. It does not address the problems of New Zealand’s inability to invoke foreign laws for the return of New Zealand objects and for the protection given to good-faith purchases in foreign States. It requires only that objects stolen from collections in museums and similar institutions be returned and many developing countries do not have their collections listed. It does not provide for the return of objects stolen from private owners so that is a major handicap. 
 The advantage of accession to the UNIDROIT convention—which is where the possession of a cultural object by a good-faith purchaser would not extinguish a claim for recovery of a stolen cultural object—would allow New Zealand to recover stolen or illegally exported objects overseas where this action would not otherwise be available in countries whose laws favour good-faith purchases. Individuals would not have to rely on the New Zealand Government to seek the return of their objects on their behalf. This has two benefits. First it provides a choice of action for private citizens and secondly it lessens the burden on the New Zealand Government. 
The UNIDROIT convention does not require objects to be registered or designated by the State. Objects of which the State has no prior knowledge such as those illegally removed from archaeological sites or stolen from private collections can be recovered under the convention. However there are also disadvantages of accession to the UNIDROIT convention. It has a relatively low ratification rate. Only 23 countries have ratified it compared with the other convention which has 103 ratifications. This reduces the convention’s protections because New Zealand can invoke the convention only against other State parties. Under the UNIDROIT convention the purchaser of a cultural object even when it is purchased in good faith from a reputable seller runs a risk of losing his or her property should a claimant take steps to recover the cultural object and claimants are required to pay a sum in compensation to innocent purchasers for the loss of their property. 
So in summary there are advantages and disadvantages of both conventions but National is certainly happy to discuss these further as this bill goes into the select committee. As I am on the Government Administration Committee I will be looking more closely at the information that we have available. It is probably timely to look at some of the traffic of New Zealand cultural objects that have been taken out of New Zealand. In 1984 New Zealand unsuccessfully attempted to recover through the English courts a set of Maori pataka panels which had been recovered from a swamp in Taranaki illegally exported and sent for auction at Sotheby’s in London. The Motunui panels were withdrawn from sale but remained in the ownership of the purchaser overseas. They were described by the then director of the National Museum as “the single most exciting unit of now the extinct Taranaki carving style” and a “true masterpiece of Maori art”. 
There is also the Opito canoe case. This war canoe was found in the mid-1970s at Opito in the Coromandel. It was offered to the Auckland Museum for private sale from the Netherlands for US$10000. The sale did not proceed. The canoe was on sold to a dealer in Paris. It is not known how or when it left New Zealand. Inquiries here and in Europe by the Government and Interpol proved inconclusive. So there are many examples of where objects of importance to our economy culture and heritage have left the country and what this bill does is to give some credence and backing to a very important part of our heritage. For those reasons National will be supporting this first reading. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call at the first reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill because I believe that this bill is of vital importance to the many hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders who play a role in protecting New Zealand’s cultural heritage. I know of people—whom the Minister has had the grace to come and visit—in my own electorate who spend all their spare time ensuring that our cultural heritage is preserved so that our children and our children’s children can see that heritage in a real form. 
This bill will strengthen the Antiquities Act as the Minister has said. Although that Act now controls the export of cultural heritage through the system we have already heard about it does not really provide very well for the recovery of objects that have been illegally exported. As the previous speaker mentioned there are examples of many aspects of New Zealand’s cultural heritage being taken from our shores and of our being unable to recover them for future generations. 
This legislation will make a real difference and I think it is a tribute to all those hundreds of New Zealanders who are playing a role in preserving our cultural heritage for the future. They can feel very proud of what they do for our country and very proud of a Minister who really has made unstinting efforts on behalf of those people to ensure that the legislative framework can assist them in the work they do. This bill represents a major advance in protecting our cultural heritage. I congratulate the Minister and I commend the bill to the House. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I also rise to take a short call. I do so on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind the House again that it is the only non-aligned political party in this House—to speak to the first reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. 
The purpose of this bill—to New Zealand First anyway—appears to be laudable and appears to give protection to the itemised objects in the bill. We in New Zealand First believe that given the opportunity submissions from the public will identify concerns they have regarding this bill. 
The collection of artefacts taonga and other objects has gone on for decades and there are a number of prized public and private collections most of which have been available for public viewing at some stage. But although I talk about artefacts and taonga I do not believe that cultural heritage is or should be confined to movable or portable artefacts. In this regard I talk about the land in which we have the privilege of living. 
Collectors and other legitimate purchasers may feel constrained by this bill because it appears to limit their ability to trade freely both nationally and internationally. The bill has a further impact in that New Zealanders could become subject to the impact of laws made in other countries with regard to particular objects. The sovereignty enjoyed by New Zealanders becomes a matter of question and also a matter of the rights of property and title. 
One of the changes proposed in the bill concerns the amendments to sections 11 and 12 of the principal Act proposed in clauses 15 and 16 of the bill with regard to the substitution of the words “taonga tuturu” for the word “artifact” and of the words “nga taonga tuturu” for the word “artifacts”. It is interesting to note that in clause 6 “Interpretation” the words “taonga tuturu” are not defined although references are made to them in clauses 15 18 and 22 where those clauses substitute them for the word “artifact”. However the words “nga taonga tuturu” are defined to mean “two or more taonga tuturu” and I wonder whether the Minister might consider putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper to include the words “taonga tuturu” in the interpretation clause. 
I should point out that according to the Williams dictionary “tuturu” means “fixed or permanent” and “taonga” means “property or highly valued”. It can also mean “treasure”. While talking of taonga tuturu it is interesting to query whether this bill will be any more effective than the legislation that has seen the continued sale of land here in New Zealand to overseas interests. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee in order for submissions to be made by the people of New Zealand and in the hope that the bill will return to this House in a more robust state and with more substance than its present language seems to imply. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and to oppose the bill. I draw to the attention of the previous speaker who claims to be from the only unaligned party the fact he gave a speech that could have been given by either of the two old parties and I do not believe that he has examined the bill correctly. 
The reason the ACT party is opposed to the bill to put it simply is because all this bill does is reduce the price of New Zealand art. The Government thinks that by that measure we are somehow encouraging or protecting New Zealand art. Of course we are not. The idea that this bill somehow encourages New Zealanders to own art as one of the previous Government members has said or to spend their energies trying to protect our cultural heritage seems to me to be transparently nonsense. It is also based on the interesting notion that the best way for New Zealand to protect our unique art and culture is to put it on an island that is subject to earthquakes and volcanoes and that by making sure none of it can be taken to an alternative site we are somehow going to protect New Zealand’s culture. That of course is not so. 
The idea is also based I think on the notion that the State has a better record of protecting art so I just put this notion to members who think that: what private owner would have taken a significant portion of New Zealand’s best cultural artefacts and art to Wellington a city subject to earthquakes and then put it in a special museum built by the water—in fact built in the same place that in 1846 before a tidal wave would have been some metres under water? Only the State could have done that and here we are having State bureaucrats tell us yet again that they know better and that what we need to do in order to protect art is to go along with the latest UN convention. What a load of nonsense! 
I have looked at the record to see which countries have most actively pursued the Unesco convention and which ones have been the most active in claiming that the State ought to protect cultural heritage and that record in fact shows a list of nations with an appalling record of looking after their art. The nation that has refused point-blank to go along with this way is of course the United States which now has without any doubt at all the best art collections in the world. There is no doubt about it—if people want to go and look at art they do not go to Europe; they go to the United States. That is where they will find the best art galleries and a large number of them are privately owned. Do they protect their art work? They most certainly do. 
When we look at this bill we have to ask: “Where are the incentives for a person who owns a piece of art or Maori art that is 59 years old?”. Well actually the incentive is to export it immediately because once it is 60 years old that person is not allowed to do so. Then there is the question of foreign objects—for some reason or another this bill covers foreign objects in New Zealand. Somehow we are deciding that even though they came here we need to make sure that that never happens again. That provision covers objects once they are over the age of 100 years so if a person has something that is 99 years old it is not covered. 
I also make this point to the House. There are actually large numbers of private art collections in New Zealand and what is their incentive is under this bill? Is the incentive to show that art to lend it to museums and to be good public citizens? Of course not. The actual incentive of this bill for someone who owns art or a collection of Maori artefacts is to be secretive about it—certainly to refuse to allow art experts to ever examine it and not to display it. If owners do that they will escape the provisions of this bill because people will simply not know whether someone owns art. 
I can assure members that I have seen some private art collections in New Zealand that are superb and they are extremely well looked after. The owners who have in some cases spent millions of dollars have actually done a better job of restoring and keeping their art than most of our public museums. I am not making an attack on those museums. As MPs we have all seen museum staff turning up to Parliament to tell us that their institutions are underfunded and that they have collections they are not able to keep properly. They are not always able to keep collections under air conditioning. Many of us have seen art that is not being properly looked after yet we have this bill based on socialist arrogance and the belief that people who are private owners will not look after things of value. But apparently if we pass laws of this sort—telling owners they cannot export the art and have the international price for it—somehow we will protect our national heritage. 
I dispute the notion that the fact that we have some New Zealand art around the world is not of assistance to all New Zealanders. Of course it is. It is of assistance for all sorts of reasons. One reason is that it guarantees an artwork’s survival in the event of a cataclysmic event occurring. We are a nation whose history shows that such events have occurred and could occur again. 
Stephen Franks 
: Pluvial. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes we are pluvial. Also the largest volcanic eruption in human recorded history occurred in this country. Perhaps people do not care but I think it would be a good idea if some of our art and history were remembered. The next thing is that having others look at our art collect it study it and think about it adds to the knowledge of this nation. There have been many many incidents where overseas collectors and appreciators of art and culture have come back to New Zealand and have drawn to our attention the value of our collections. I can remember for example when a New Zealand Maori collection was taken to the United States. It was only the reaction of the American art collectors that drew to the attention of many New Zealanders the fact that we have more things of value here than we thought. The thinking behind this bill is that those works of art should never have left this country. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh nonsense! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is the thinking behind this bill. Of course it is. There is a notion that by putting in place an export ban somehow we are protecting this country’s culture. I have read the bill. I say that the bill is a socialist attack. All that it does is reduce the value of every private art collection in New Zealand. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh nonsense! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The ex-Minister knows that that is so. Even she is not that silly even though she has demonstrated frequently how stupid she is which is the reason she is sitting where she is. 
Darren Hughes 
: She never lost her electorate seat. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She did. She gave it up and became a list MP and then went back again. Her voting record does not compare with mine. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Get over it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think the member is having difficulty getting over her present position. 
The ACT party is opposed to this bill for the reasons I have stated. We do not believe that it will carry out any of its objectives. We think it is yet another example of the Government abusing State power. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.