Volume 621 Week 72 - Tuesday 2 November 2004 
Volume 621 Week 72 - Tuesday 2 November 2004 
[Volume:621;Page:16433] 
Tuesday 2 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Confidence 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in Hon John Tamihere; if not why not? 
Opposition Members 
: She’s back! 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is nice to be welcomed back. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not one word has yet been uttered in answer. These interjections are out of order. I do not mind the odd interjection during an answer but if one word has not yet been said it is out of order and not very good for Parliament. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: An inquiry has been set up to look at allegations made about Mr Tamihere. I am suspending judgment on those matters and on confidence until that inquiry is completed. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that Mr Tamihere in stating that he would not accept a golden handshake and then accepting one misled the New Zealand public; if so why is he still a Minister in Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Prima facie I have a concern about that as the member does which is why I am making further inquiries. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would the Prime Minister take the word of Mr Tamihere when she knew as early as 28 July 1999 that this was a central allegation being made about Mr Tamihere and why do we have to wait 5 years for some action? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government is going through a very due process of consideration of this which is why we have an inquiry looking at the facts. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen John Tamihere’s statement that he received koha not a golden handshake and can we assume from the fact that he is still a Minister in Cabinet that she has accepted that explanation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No the member cannot assume that. As I told him in the answer to the primary question I have suspended judgment on the issue of confidence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it was alleged in July 1999 that there was an issue of a golden handshake and if Mr Tamihere has clearly misled the Prime Minister on that issue up until as recently as a few months ago why do we need an inquiry when he should have been sacked for that alone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in response to an earlier supplementary question prima facie I share that member’s concern. I am endeavouring to gather all relevant information before coming to a final judgment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If the Prime Minister has suspended judgment on Mr Tamihere why has he been advised not to speak to the media or to attend Parliament and is the reason for putting him into Coventry the  
Sunday Star-Times  
story of 17 October—which reporter Helen Bain is standing by as accurate—which states: “Tamihere told the  
Sunday Star-Times  
the day before the Waipareira allegations broke that he no longer supported the bill”—that is the Foreshore and Seabed Bill—“ ‘It doesn’t have my support …’ he said”; and does the Prime Minister not agree that it is constitutionally outrageous that a Maori member of Parliament has been prevented from coming to this House and speaking on an issue that is vital to his constituents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If I could disentangle at least a couple of the questions there. Firstly the member is not here because he has stood aside and there are acting Ministers in the portfolios. Secondly the member has issued a statement saying that there was no substance in that particular report. I can advise Mr Prebble that Mr Tamihere is participating fully in phone conferences with other members on that bill. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister asked John Tamihere for an explanation as to why he accepted a golden handshake from the Waipareira Trust having said he would not do so; if so what was that explanation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am having a number of conversations with Mr Tamihere and when a decision is made about his future I will be happy to enlighten the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister remember her very superior behaviour on the question of an $89 pair of underpants for Tuku Morgan compared with her behaviour now when the fingerprints DNA and blood are all over the floor and why is she looking around for some sort of guilty party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government is taking the allegations very seriously. That is why a Queen’s Counsel is doing an inquiry. 
United States—Privacy of Personal Information 
2.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have any concerns about New Zealand - based subsidiaries of United States companies conveying New Zealanders’ personal information to United States Government agencies without the consent of the New Zealanders involved? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Companies operating in New Zealand must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1993 and with any contractual obligations they have entered into with their clients with regard to confidentiality. If they fail to do so they would be liable under New Zealand law. 
Keith Locke 
: Was it then acceptable under the Privacy Act and other New Zealand legislation for Western Union when processing New Zealander Mohammad Abbas’s money transfer from New Zealand to India for a sick relative to vet him through the US Office of Foreign Assets Control—that is to apply US law to him in contradiction of New Zealand law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am very familiar with the case of Mohammad Abbas because he is my constituent and I have taken up his case with Western Union. Under the Financial Transactions Reporting Act in New Zealand which dates back to 1996 there is an obligation on financial institutions to report suspicious transactions. Unfortunately Mr Abbas shares his name with at least two other individuals who are designated as terrorists under the UN list. What I object to is not the fact that the company checked him out—that was valid—but the fact that it took so long over an urgent transaction when its own internal procedures state it should have taken only 3 days. 
Tim Barnett 
: Are there valid grounds upon which private information about an individual held by a company can be disclosed legitimately? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. Under the Privacy Act there are valid grounds for non-compliance with the Act. That is set out in particular under principle 11. It includes information that may help with the prevention detection investigation prosecution and punishment of offences or the use of any information that may be necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health safety or human life. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister saying in his response to my supplementary question that it is OK for someone like Mr Abbas to be checked against the US watch-list of 20000 or so names—that is to apply US law—rather than as he referred to under the financial transactions system to check that person against the New Zealand list which is basically the UN list; that is is it acceptable to apply US law to Mr Abbas and not New Zealand law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If people want to find out whether a transaction is suspicious I guess they go to whatever information they can find. There are designated lists of people who have been involved with terrorist financing. The UN has such a list. The US also has a list. Western Union like many financial institutions operates across a number of countries and it operates in compliance with the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendations with regard to terrorist financing. I think it acted in line with those recommendations. I do not object to what it did but rather to the time it spent to check Mr Abbas out. That should have been done much more quickly. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister take heed of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report of last Friday which proposes legislation that would impose heavy fines and terms of imprisonment on companies like EDS (New Zealand) to use a New Zealand parallel were they to disclose private information to US Government agencies under the Patriot Act; and why would he oppose such a measure? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has used EDS as an example so I will focus on that case. The member may be aware that EDS has a specific agreement with the Privacy Commissioner signed back in 2003 in which it has undertaken not to transfer any identified information out of New Zealand without appropriate approvals or safeguards. That is important. It is also bound by the confidentiality agreements it has for example with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development so I think the ground is well covered already. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister square that answer with the fact that under the US Patriot Act US companies operating in New Zealand like EDS are first obliged to provide personal information to the FBI when requested by the US Government and second are prohibited by that Act from telling the New Zealand Government they have provided the information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: EDS when it operates in other countries—for example in Australia and Canada—has given specific assurances that it is not transferring information out of those countries under the Patriot Act or any other Act. Regardless of what the United States may pass in its legislation if a New Zealand - based company breaches our laws it is liable under our laws here in New Zealand and it would be prosecuted accordingly. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister accept that there is here a conflict between the two jurisdictions and does he not think that it is important to follow the British Columbia privacy commissioner’s recommendation and pass specific legislation to make sure that any US company operating in New Zealand has to abide by New Zealand laws or otherwise suffer the consequences? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We do not need a New Zealand law to state that people have to abide by New Zealand law. New Zealand law is binding on everybody that operates out of this country. If people breach that law or if they breach their confidentiality agreements they will suffer accordingly. 
Communication Centres Police—111 System 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he received any reports in relation to published comments in the May 2004 issue of  
Police News 
 that state “the overall level of service provided to front-line staff by the centre (as a whole and NOT the individuals) is—solely because of inadequate staffing levels—poor.”; if so what action does he intend to take? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have read the article not in the May 2004 issue but in the June edition of the  
Police News 
 where Rob Neill a highway patrol officer wrote a letter to the editor. This Government has provided an additional 18 staff to police communication centres since that time. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just through you to the Minister because he seems to have missed it could I possibly have tabled now so that he can have copies the May 2004 report and the June one? He needs to read a bit more widely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member can seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Don’t be a smart alec! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any comments like that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said you did not need any comments like that. My colleague is seeking to table the evidence which you would have seen when the question was originally submitted to you. But nevertheless the Minister gets up and behaves like a smart alec by trying to say he is quoting from the wrong publication. Now that is a form of behaviour of which he is too frequently guilty and he needs to be brought to book in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did say he was quoting from the June issue and he is entitled to do that. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that this report identified very clearly that emergency calls have increased by 50 percent while staffing levels have decreased by 2.11 percent that in order to cover these staff reductions operators are being forced to “link channels” which has been identified as an operational risk and that ultimately it is the public who are being forced to pay the price for this Government’s failure to provide the level of resourcing our police force needs? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member must realise that since that report was published 18 new positions have been made available in the police communication centres and of course the service to the public has continued to improve. May I tell the Minister that 111 call answering has gone up from 76 percent up to 80 percent—up 4 percent in the first quarter of this year. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Could the Minister in terms of any surveys carried out outline what front-line police think about the service provided to them by the police communication centres to enable them to adequately assist the public? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In July 2004 a survey of 450 front-line staff regarding the service provided by the communication centres was conducted and 91 percent of them rated the daily interactions with police communication centres as excellent very good or good. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister in light of his comments on the Iraena Asher 111 call a fortnight ago have any concerns about the way that the call of Mrs Bentley was dealt with when she called the 111 service during a home invasion at her property near Te Puke; and if so what action will he take? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I must point out to the member that the Police Association president said—and I quote from today’s  
New Zealand Herald— 
that “the only people who had done anything wrong in this case were the two intruders” and I agree with him. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That in no way even addressed the question which was specifically about whether he had any concerns about the way Mrs Bentley’s call was dealt with and what action he would take. Quoting Mr O’Connor who has been less than flattering of the Minister on other occasions will not get him off the hook. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer by quoting any other comments and in his last phrase he did address the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course I have to take your word and Mr Ryall’s word that the Minister answered the question but where I am sitting I could not hear any of the answer given partly because the Minister did not speak into his microphone but also because of the level of catcalling. I think all members are entitled to hear answers and I would like the Minister to give his answer again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to thank the member for raising that point of order. It is a very appropriate time to raise it. I am now going to tighten up on the amount of interjection I permit during answers because I think all members of Parliament including the member who is at the back of the Chamber have a perfect right to hear answers. If he could not hear the answer that then means there was too much interjection. I would like to thank the member for his point of order and I will now administer this more strictly. Mr Hawkins can repeat his answer because Mr Prebble has asked him to. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
dated 2 November the president of the Police Association Greg O’Connor said “the only people who had done anything wrong in this case were the two intruders” and I agree with that statement. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is he concerned that his administration is doing enormous damage to public confidence in police 111 emergency services; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police are generally doing a very good job with 111 calls. However the commissioner has called for a review because we want to improve it. The elements that show up first of all are those human elements of people making mistakes and that is not good enough. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister aware that police officers view the transferral of front-line staff to traffic duties as such a misuse of resources that they commonly refer to these colleagues as “snakes”; if not would he then consider himself as some might uncharitably suggest to be out of touch? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have to tell that member that the road toll last October just a few days ago is the lowest it has ever been since records were kept. That shows the highway patrol speed cameras are doing the job and I support the police in that. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can see no way in which the Minister addressed the question which was whether he knew that some of the police were referring to other police as “snakes”. He did not address that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was part of the member’s question. If that had been all he said the Minister would have had to address that part. He addressed other parts of his question. If a question is going to have two or three legs to it the member cannot expect them all to be answered. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening very quietly to the answers of Mr Hawkins. I know that you ruled before that he addressed the last part of a question with two words at the end which were that he said he agreed with Greg O’Connor. But how can he answer a question about whether he knew the police were calling each other names which tends to show a pretty low morale within the police force by giving the House the latest road toll statistics? He did not do any more than that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that is all he was asked that would have been a perfectly valid point as I said before. It was not. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister still satisfied with the way that the Bentleys’ 111 phone call was dealt with in light of information that has been provided to the police that suggests that the 111 service did not amongst its number of errors inform the ambulance service that guns were involved in the home invasion? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am not satisfied that the police always get it right. That is why there is a review. It is plain and simple and in that case that will be looked at. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If Mr Smith stops yelling he will hear that the police will look at that aspect during the review. 
Ron Mark 
: What does he think the Police Association meant when it said: “We are faced with the same staffing crisis year in and year out and it all comes back to short staffing.” and does he not think the association is making a valid point and that he ought to for once listen and do something about it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am doing something about it. Police numbers have grown steadily and as far as communication centres go they have been increased by 18 this financial year. 
Stephen Franks 
: What does the Minister think of blocking a victim from calling willing neighbours for help and falsely claiming that the police were at the site when they were nearly an hour away and does he support a policy for 111 operators of giving reassurance whether or not it is justified? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The answer to the first part of the question is of course that it is not always wise to let people ring their neighbours when firearms are being used. As far as the rest of the question goes that will be part of the review. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not remember receiving this letter of 29 September 2002 from a southern communications centre officer addressed to him where the officer pointed out a further problem that being: “I have logged on seven highway patrols working from the Rangiora base and our instruction is that they are not to attend any events including traffic accidents.” and if he does remember receiving that letter and reading it can he tell us what he has done to ensure that strategic traffic units highway patrols excess blood/alcohol units are all available for general duties call-outs such as the two that we have heard of most disastrously in the papers of late? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: All staff who are on patrol are available to attend— 
Ron Mark 
: They are not. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They are and of course one letter from one disillusioned constable does not say what police policy is all about but Mr Mark might believe anyone. He probably believes in Santa Claus! 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the member is going to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order in respect of the ruling that you made regarding my colleague Marc Alexander’s supplementary question. You have long ruled that Ministers are required to address questions and that you are not responsible for the quality or content of the answer. I think you may have made as it is a rod for your own back in that regard. But leaving that aside in this instance your ruling was that my colleague’s specific question was one of a number of questions contained within the question that had been put to the Minister and that essentially the Minister was not obliged to address any of them in responding. Now I think that actually takes the ruling to an extent that makes it a somewhat pointless exercise if addressing a question means that in fact someone merely has to get up and utter some words. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member who usually always raises a point of order when it is valid has made a very interesting point. I want to give that some consideration and I will come back with an answer. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister particularly with reference to one of his early answers that he gave this House stand by the policing priorities that his Government has set which devotes more attention to quota ticketing and revenue gathering on the road which has seen a small reduction in the road toll alongside massive increases in violent crime in our homes and on our streets? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I can tell that member that crime is dropping. The crime rate is at a 20-odd year low. It continues to drop and the number of speed-camera tickets also continues to drop. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The United Future member asked about police referring to each other as “snakes”. I am quite happy to say that I have not heard police doing that. They are very supportive of one another. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the Minister knows that. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter addressed to the “Rt Hon Mr G Hawkins” Minister of Police dated 29 September which outlines the problems I have been trying to tell him about. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Working for Families Package—Implementation 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received about the implementation of the October Working for Families changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In October there were increases to accommodation supplement thresholds and abatement rates and childcare assistance rates and thresholds. These have been very positively received. In terms of take-up on comparing the first 3 weeks of October this year with the same period in 2003 one finds that two-and-a-half times as many accommodation supplements were granted and over four times as many childcare assistance subsidies were granted. Childcare assistance is particularly important to families moving from a benefit into work. I am delighted to see such strong take-up of that element of the Working for Families package. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does the Working for Families package assist people moving from benefits to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Through the Working for Families package the Government is making significant investments in childcare subsidies to address what is a major barrier to employment; it is providing an in-work payment which means that when people move into work work pays; and it is making significant increases to family income assistance which will assist in the end around 300000 families. Those changes sit alongside improvements in the minimum wage paid parental leave and workplace legislation and more active case management of people on benefits which will ensure that thousands of additional families have a family member in paid employment. Sadly Dr Brash and his colleagues have failed to vote for any of those changes despite their not having one single policy to help low and modest income families. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister confirm that while his glowing Working for Families promotional material shows a maximum gain of $170 per week for the fictitious couple Rod and Barbara the truth of the matter is that as per the answer to parliamentary written question No. 8943 only six families in the whole of New Zealand would have been eligible for that gain; and can he tell the House why he does not think that is misleading? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is why we put out case examples—so that people can work it through. But we have always been very clear— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is far too much noise. And while I am on my feet there will be no comment at all from anyone. There is far too much noise. I am happy to have the odd interjection but comment like that backs up the point Mr Prebble made earlier. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To begin the answer again we have published material that shows the full range of assistance that people will get through the Working for Families package with the average family on between $25000 and $40000 having an extra $100 coming into its house. I invite the National Party to tell New Zealanders that it does not support that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen any reports or proposals that persons eligible for the Working for Families assistance ought to be able to capitalise that assistance to assist them into homeownership or to reduce their mortgage liability; if he has seen such reports or proposals what is his reaction to those and what will he do about them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen speculation in the media about the concept of capitalising benefits. I imagine that many people in an older age bracket—not looking at that member in particular—would remember the capitalisation of the family benefit which is a nostalgic piece of policy for many people in that age bracket. It is a piece of speculation in the news media and it is something of course that is worth thinking about but we have no plans to move in that direction. 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Prime Minister 
5.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Can she confirm that the question of Hon John Tamihere’s conduct in stating that he would not accept a golden handshake from the Waipareira Trust and then accepting such a payment is a matter for “political decision” as asserted by the Acting Prime Minister; if so when will she make that decision? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I will determine Mr Tamihere’s future after consultation with senior colleagues and after Mr White QC has reported to me. Due process is being observed. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister make the simple political decision that John Tamihere has deliberately misled both her and the New Zealand public and should go; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have indicated in answer to a number of previous questions due process is under way. An inquiry is establishing the facts and then I will make a determination. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What is her comment on John Tamihere’s confession of having received a golden koha and does she concede that a golden koha is in fact worse than a golden handshake because a golden handshake is paid when a person is restructured out of a job whereas John Tamihere’s $319000-gross golden koha was payment for leaving a taxpayer-funded trust voluntarily to become a Labour MP in her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not going to get into the business of defining what a koha is and what it is not. I have set up an inquiry that will look at the facts report to me and I will make a decision. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the question of John Tamihere misleading the New Zealand public is not a matter for the White inquiry and indeed is a matter that the Deputy Prime Minister has described as a simple political decision; if so can she tell the House why she is waiting to deal with this issue until the White inquiry is concluded? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In fact the member does not represent the Deputy Prime Minister correctly. What the Deputy Prime Minister said was that after in effect the inquiry “considerations which flow from that may be more appropriately dealt with at a political level.” That is why I am saying that first we will have an inquiry establish facts and then we will make a decision. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister remember Mr Tamihere and Mr Clayton Cosgrove saying that if the Minister of Police were sacked they would resign; so why does she not do the country a favour by sacking Mr Hawkins and getting two free? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not been able to find any evidence that those statements were made either. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she condone Mr Tamihere’s actions in accepting a golden handshake from the trust when he publicly stated prior to the 1999 election that he would not do so; or is that the sort of thing one says when in Opposition but then ignores when in Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No it is not and that is why I answered the member’s previous question by saying that prima facie I share his concern and I am establishing the full facts about the matter. 
Schools—Best Practice 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What action is the Government taking to identify and share best practice in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 From 2006 the Extending High Standards in Schools initiative will invest an extra $5.3 million annually to promote excellence in schools. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How many schools are likely to benefit from this initiative? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Between 250 and 270. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a review of teacher training done by the Teachers Council that shows very serious problems in a number of teacher training courses and why did he instruct the Teachers Council to keep that report secret? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not recall seeing it. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: By what means can he identify best practice and excellence in schools when there is no uniform test before year 11 to discern students’ abilities? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite willing to get the member briefed on the multitude of tests that are available to discern student ability. They start with the school entry assessment test. A lot of progress is being made in good testing but of course good teaching practice is something quite different and the member can have a briefing on that too if he wants. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that references to harm minimisation as the goal of drug education have been removed from the Government’s best practice handbook for schools released recently including the statement that harm minimisation might “stigmatise experimentation with drugs as deviant behaviour”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Waipareira Trust 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she question Hon John Tamihere about rumours of tax issues involving the Waipareira Trust and what questions did she ask him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I advised Mr Tamihere that there were rumours emanating from the Waipareira Trust that he owed tax. He advised me he did not believe he had outstanding tax liabilities. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did she press the Hon John Tamihere about any tax that might be outstanding and did she press him about what payment that tax was owed on or did she prefer to turn a blind eye? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issue was whether he owed tax. He advised me that he did not consider he had any tax liabilities. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement made by Mr John Tamihere in his book that he gave her written authorisation to access his financial records and can she tell the House why she did not use that authorisation to make further inquiries when she heard rumours several months ago of a tax problem “oozing out of the Waipareira Trust”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Back in the year 2000 there were a range of allegations around about contractual arrangements between different Government agencies and the Waipareira Trust arrangements which had been in place for some time including under the previous Government. An inquiry was set up to look at those arrangements. It may well be that Mr Tamihere gave me such an undertaking at that time—I cannot recall. I would be happy to go back and search the record to see whether that was so. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the inquiry—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Please start again. That is the one warning today—not to Mr Hide but to that member who well knows who he is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am on my best behaviour today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You have done well. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you. In the light of the inquiry now under way into John Tamihere’s payments and tax issues around that is it the Prime Minister’s expectation that John Tamihere will stay away from Parliament until that inquiry is completed and therefore will not be able to participate in such matters as the Maori legislation that will come before the House today and indeed the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for further discussion with Mr Tamihere but as I have indicated earlier he is participating fully in discussions within the Government on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she stand by her statement to this House on 26 July 2000: “John Tamihere discloses absolutely and I commend him for that.” and would she not have expected John Tamihere to disclose at least to her his golden handshake and the lack of any tax being paid on it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said in reply to earlier questions prima facie this matter raises concerns. I am going through due process and establishing what the facts are. 
Telecommunications Act—Competition 
8.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What recent evidence has he received showing that the Telecommunications Act 2001 is working to deliver competition to New Zealand consumers? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Communications) 
: 
TelstraClear has recently launched a new nationwide home phone service. This means that all New Zealanders will now be able— 
John Key 
: And John’s on it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: And you did nothing about it—well not you Mr Speaker—that National Party did nothing about it for 9 years— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the problem we get when Ministers interject in that way and in the second person. Will the Minister just answer the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: This means that all New Zealanders will now be able to choose their residential phone provider. That would not have been possible without their Government’s regulatory framework provided by the Telecommunications Act. In addition I note that Telecom has recently lowered the cost of some services to its residential customers which is further evidence that competition promoted by the new framework is working. 
Mark Peck 
: What changes if any is the Government considering to the Telecommunications Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Telecommunications Act is by and large working very well. However there is potential to make improvements in areas such as timeliness monitoring and enforcement. I plan to release a discussion paper on these issues and other matters shortly. 
Powerco—Sale 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: With respect to his comments in relation to the approved sale of a majority stake in Powerco to Australian company Prime Infrastructure Networks “It is however with great reluctance that I am letting the deal proceed as there were aspects of the process that concerned me.” what were the aspects that concerned him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Apart from the fact that the national interest tests were in my view barely met I had two principal concerns—firstly that the New Plymouth District Council did not consult ratepayers on the sale and secondly that the shambles that ensues from the granting of a waiver by the Takeovers Panel to allow Prime to restructure itself are different for New Zealand versus overseas shareholders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the Minister has more concern for the possibility of foreign overseas investors threatening us with a judicial review than for adhering to New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Act which lists eight reasons why his approval of the sale of Powerco is not in the national interest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member makes one reasonable point—that is my own views were leaning towards declining the sale. I was strongly advised—not just by the Overseas Investment Commission—that a negative decision from me was unlikely to succeed under judicial review. 
Meningococcal B Vaccine—Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee 
10.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she confident that the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee had sufficient time and information to properly assess the safety and efficacy of the meningococcal B vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes but the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee was not the only checkpoint. The vaccine was passed by both the vaccine subcommittee which evaluates data interdependently of Medsafe and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency which is the UK equivalent of Medsafe. Advice was also received on the meningococcal vaccine from the World Health Organization. Since the roll-out began the safety of the vaccine has had the thumbs up from the Independent Safety Monitoring Board. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why was approval for the vaccine given at a teleconference that was so hastily convened that four out of the 11 members of the expert committee could not attend due to the short notice and of the seven members who were actually present the minutes show that an unknown number of them had not even seen the clinical data due to the short notice of the teleconference? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The vaccine was assessed by clinicians from the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee and its expert vaccine subcommittee independently of Medsafe. In each case the recommendations were made by a quorum of the committee. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the actions of the anti-immunisation group; if so what did they state? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. I note that the anti-immunisation lobby group was forced to unreservedly apologise to Pfizer for comments that it made that paracetamol medications cause meningococcal disease. I have also been advised that at a recent anti-immunisation meeting there was discussion regarding the lobby’s lack of success in getting traction in the mainstream media. The anti-immunisation lobby has decided to use Sue Kedgley to ask a lot more questions as a way to ensure that it gets more of a profile and more coverage in the media. 
Hon Member 
: It’s all right! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not all right. There was far too much interjection on that question from the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not fact that provisional consent is normally only asked for when a vaccine is targeted at a small audience and 90 percent of 1.1 million people could hardly be considered small secondly how is it that a priority application as it was in this case nevertheless took 13 months and thirdly why on earth is the Minister making public comments that this vaccine is safe when no pharmaceutical company in this country is ever allowed to claim that its products are safe? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I base the comments I make not on my assessment but on the assessment of experts. It is not for the Minister to decide whether something is safe but to rely on the advice of those who are competent to comment on the issue. The reason it took 13 months or more is that we wanted to make sure as far as possible that it is a safe vaccination. In fact if members were to ask drug companies about how long it takes to get approval for medicines they would find that it takes a lot of time indeed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why was the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee made in such a hasty fashion especially when the committee noted that there were outstanding queries about the manufacturing data from Chiron Corporation that still needed to be answered? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The decision was not made in a hasty manner. I wonder whether that is one of the questions that the member has been asked to ask by the anti-immunisation lobby. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Following on from the earlier question asked by Winston Peters can the Minister confirm that the vaccine has been given only provisional approval which means “on a restricted basis for the treatment of a limited number of patients”; if so why has a provisionally approved vaccine already been administered to several hundred New Zealanders and why is it intended to be administered three times to more than 1.15 million children and young people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is done under a section of the Medicines Act. It is a section that allows for an application to be given provisional consent when it is to be used in a limited way. It will be used for people under 20 and it is being used only for the meningococcal B immunisation programme. However I believe that I would probably also use that section of the Act to approve the medicinal use of cannabis because there have been no clinical trials in New Zealand on that although the Green Party has been asking me to approve the medicinal use of cannabis. 
Communication Centres Police—111 System 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he take any responsibility for the operation of the New Zealand Police 111 system; if so how much? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I take responsibility for policy issues and the Commissioner of Police has responsibility for operational issues. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So does this Minister take any responsibility whatsoever for the situation this country now finds itself in whereby the rural communities in particular are rapidly losing faith in the ability of the 111 system to respond to their particular concerns; and if it is not his responsibility why is he drawing the salary that he is? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the public should not be mesmerised by those who seek to jump on the bandwagon of several high-profile cases. For those living away from centres of population service does take more time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Considering that people dial 111 when they are in life-threatening situations does the Minister consider it appropriate that the police consider it satisfactory that they are responding to those life-threatening situations 91 percent of the time? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Both the commissioner and I want to improve the response time and part of that is to have the review so that any areas that can be improved will be improved. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table minutes of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee which show that a lot of members have not read the clinical data due to the short notice. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table an article pointing out that the Chiron Corporation’s manufacturing licence has been suspended in the UK for violations of good manufacturing practice and in America. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Taxation—Rates 
12.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the current levels of taxation in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 In general terms yes. New Zealand is lightly taxed by developed world standards being ranked 12th lowest of 30 OECD countries in terms of tax revenue to GDP. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister seen the latest  
OECD Revenue Statistics 
 report which shows New Zealand at 20.6 percent—not only second-highest but also way above the OECD average of just 12.9 percent—for tax on individuals and companies as a percentage of GDP; and does he acknowledge therefore that New Zealanders are highly taxed in that regard? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all because the vast majority of OECD countries—in particular European countries—have other large taxes on personal income by means of social security contributions which in New Zealand do not exist as separate taxes. We would have to add European-style social security contributions from both employers and employees to the figures to arrive at comparable numbers. 
John Key 
: If the Minister does not think it is necessary to adjust tax thresholds for the impact of inflation why did he recently slip through legislation that allows him as Minister of Revenue to index annual increases for petrol taxes and how does he see that as being fair? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think I have slipped that through yet and clearly I have not got away without it being noticed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that in the same OECD report the latest figures show that at 14.8 percent New Zealand has the third-highest tax on personal income as a percentage of GDP and again that that is way above the average of just 9.8 percent for the OECD as a whole; and is that not further evidence that taxes are too high in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I repeat that one has to look at the social security taxes that are levied separately in nearly all other OECD countries. I think that in Germany the figure for superannuation alone is a 19 percent tax rate on personal income. 
John Key 
: If the Minister does not think that there is room for tax cuts when the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes is running at around 4 percent of GDP—in fact above 4 percent of GDP—how large would the surplus have to be before the Minister thought tax cuts were appropriate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suspect it would have to be extremely large before that member would benefit from any tax cuts that I would introduce. But other people are looking forward to significant gains under this Government and in next year’s Budget package there will certainly be moves in the business area. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister concede given that New Zealand gets an unusually high proportion of its tax revenue from personal and corporate incomes that consideration should be given to a re-evaluation of the levels at which these taxes are set? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Let me give an example. If in New Zealand we had a 9 percent payroll tax which is about the average paid in Australia at the combination of state and Commonwealth levels the corporate tax rate could be lowered to about 15 percent on a revenue neutral basis. But in terms of tax design a payroll tax is not superior to having a higher corporate tax rate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table three documents from the OECD—“Total Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP” “Taxes on Income and Profits as a Percentage of GDP” and “Tax on Personal Income as a Percentage of GDP”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those three documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister taken careful note of United Future’s passionate plea for a reduction in taxation and can he tell the House whether it has made any representation to halt the proposed petrol tax in the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill—or are they just making hollow noises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: United Future has made a lot of suggestions around the taxation area and received a lot of information from the Government in that respect. United Future supports an increased funding flow going into roading and public transport in the future and therefore are prepared to pay for their dreams in that regard whereas some parties just have the dreams without paying for them. 
Questions to Members 
Finance and Expenditure Committee—Inquiry into Fraudulent  Investment Schemes 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: On what date did the committee commence its “Inquiry into the revenue effects of fraudulent investment schemes” and when is it expected to report to the House? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The previous committee commenced its inquiry on 8 May 2002; the current committee reinstated the inquiry on 4 September 2002 following the election. It is for the committee to determine when it will report to the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the committee be considering the lack of tax paid on John Tamihere’s golden koha payment or is this inquiry a failed attempt to discredit Opposition MPs based on a false affidavit that was signed by Sid Taare because John Tamihere had promised him that if he signed the affidavit he might get his money back rather than investigate an actual tax dodge on a six-figure payment to a Government Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is responsible for process issues only. He may respond on that area only. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No but that would be a decision and a determination for the committee. I would suggest that if Mr Hide is interested in transparency and openness in respect of tax he will open his tax and banking records so that we can determine whether he received monetary compensation at an investment scam conference— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —that he attended in Fiji— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —with many New Zealanders losing millions of dollars. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that when I stand up he sits down. He will stand withdraw and apologise to me. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I refer to oral question No. 3 today where authentication was supplied by reference to the May 2004 issue of  
Police News 
. My staff and I have spent considerable time looking through the May 2004 issue and the matter was not mentioned in it. It was mentioned in the June issue. I think authentication needs to be accurate in order for people to answer questions properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well so what! That is not a point of order. 
Tabling of Documents 
Electoral Matters Bill Supplementary Order Paper 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document known as PCO5571a/4—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could you please repeat that. I did not hear it because there was noise made. I am about to send some people out for the afternoon. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table a document known as PCO5571a/4. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Does the member want to give any further details about it? Leave has been declined. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will try again. I seek leave to table a Supplementary Order Paper on the Electoral Matters Bill known as PCO5571a/4. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the light of the comments made earlier in question time can I inquire whether Mr Tamihere will communicate with us all by phone on this matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move at the appropriate time that this bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee. I will include an instruction that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions that it can meet during the evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 March 2005. 
This bill brings to an end longstanding historical grievances of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are from the Kawerau and Matata area and number approximately 3000 members. Their eponymous ancestor Tuwharetoa had 17 children some of whom led migrations to Taupo. The people of Tuwharetoa are most closely associated with this district. The descendants of those who remained in the Kawerau area now comprise NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty also known as Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. 
The bill settles all the historical treaty claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and gives effect to the deed of settlement signed with NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in June 2003. The historical claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty relate mainly to the confiscation of land the compensation process and the operation and impact of the native land laws. This bill contains a formal apology given by the Crown to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty their ancestors and their descendants for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. The bill also records an acknowledgment by the Crown that NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty’s loss of control of and access to the Kawerau geothermal system has caused a sense of grievance that is still held today. 
The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill. It can of course not be possible to fully compensate NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty for all the prejudice and loss they have suffered. Settlements must take into account the other developments and commitments that exist in New Zealand society today. I wish to congratulate NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty on negotiating on this basis and with regard to the interests of New Zealand society as a whole. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for what they had lost there could be no settlements and therefore no resolution of the historical grievances affecting claimant communities. 
The negotiators for NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty have agreed to a package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles financial redress of $2.5 million the vesting of four commercial properties the vesting of five cultural redress properties a statutory acknowledgment of the special association of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty with five statutory areas and a geothermal statutory acknowledgment over geothermal water and energy located in the Kawerau geothermal system; also the granting of renewable camping entitlements over one nohoanga site and at the granting of an owhakatihi or overlay classification known as taupuni in the NgaiTahu settlement. That acknowledges the traditional cultural spiritual and historical values and associations of NgatiTuwharetoa with the Parimahana scenic reserve. 
The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Treaty settlement negotiations can be difficult and occasionally contentious processes. These negotiations require the Crown to balance a range of interests. Challenges to settlements are not entirely surprising given the overlapping nature of the interests that are potentially at stake. In the course of negotiations with NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty challenges were raised by some overlapping claimant groups who were concerned to protect their existing rights. The Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty worked to ensure that the concerns raised by these overlapping claimants were adequately addressed. 
I wish to acknowledge those NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty people who have suffered as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the treaty and those who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. The bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty into the future. I acknowledge the work done by former treaty negotiations Ministers and Ministers of Maori Affairs who contributed to this settlement. I wish to thank other Ministers and departments involved and in particular the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Conservation who have supported the process throughout. I also wish to thank the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that the real and significant grievances have been recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. 
The people of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty have waited a long time and worked so hard to realise the settlement of their historical treaty claims. I consider that the bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 1 March 2005. This will allow for the timely transfer of the settlement redress to NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Finally I acknowledge the kaumatua the members and the negotiators of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty who have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with and whose commitment on behalf of their people their ancestors and their descendants has led to this historic event and the restoration of the integrity of the Crown. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the passage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill to the Maori Affairs Committee for further consideration. 
There are a number of aspects in the bill that we have concerns about. Firstly we are concerned about the fact that this is a relatively small group of people and for a long period of time they came under the auspices of Ngati Awa. What is of concern is that much of the rohe in question in this settlement bill is also that of Ngati Awa. The question is: where are the overlaps? How many people who claim their heritage from Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are also Ngati Awa? Therefore how many times are the same issues being compensated for? [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member opposite that she may well screw up her face and say that is outrageous but it is not. It is perfectly simple perfectly reasonable and quite appropriate that these issues should be raised during the select committee process. After all that is why we have Parliament. But of course the Labour Party has never ever respected Parliament to any great degree. 
It is upsetting for us on this side of the House that the Hon John Tamihere is not here today able to speak in favour of this bill. It is quite amazing that on the one hand Labour Party members say that John Tamihere is the great hope for the future of this country and therefore must be treated with kid gloves when he is caught with his hands in the till and on the other hand keep him out of Parliament so that he cannot speak on an occasion such as this. 
This is an important bill. The Minister has just told us so. I would have thought it appropriate that an Associate Minister of Maori Affairs might make some contribution to the bill before the House. Instead the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs is off on some sort of paid holiday in the far north still collecting $4000 a week to avoid the House’s scrutiny of his activities. He is trundling around the nation’s roads in one of his two self-drive ministerial cars. He is not coming to this House to make a contribution on what we are told is a significant and important bill. I offer apologies to Ngati Tuwharetoa the people of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau for bringing up these matters at this stage but it is simply a fact that the Labour Party is defending the indefensible in hiding Mr Tamihere from the scrutiny of this House. 
My colleague Mr Ryall will talk about some of our very specific concerns about this bill. For a long time we have said it is important that there be enduring settlements when it comes to the final agreement over settlement of treaty issues. Therefore there cannot be any of these concerns left hanging out in the wind. It is quite wrong for members opposite to sit there po-faced and dare us to question the agreements that the Minister has reached with this group of people. Unless these issues are sorted out satisfactorily I say to Mr Hughes these people will come back in this House before we know where we are. We have seen too much of this in recent months. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs knows what a mess he has allowed his Government to make of the Maori Fisheries Act. It will be a short period of time before disadvantaged Maori come back to this House saying: “Fix it.” I think that if there are boundary issues that we can spot in a bill like this then we have to be absolutely certain that no one is being disadvantaged and that no one will be coming back to this House in years to come having another go at it. 
I repeat we support the referral of this bill to the select committee. We look forward to engaging in that process to ensure that our concerns are met. Labour Party members seem very offended that I have raised some reasonable concerns that ordinary New Zealanders might have. In a minute we will see Labour members one after the other stand and say: “That fellow knows nothing. That fellow is ignorant. That fellow is not in touch with New Zealanders.” I just say to those Labour members that they should get out of this place sometimes and talk to New Zealanders and then they will start to understand that if these things are not done right they will cause problems in the future. The questions I have raised are perfectly reasonable in that context. I do wish that John Tamihere was here to make some offering on this bill. 
Edwin Perry 
: Koha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member down the back asks whether that would be an offering of koha. I would hate to think what it might have cost various organisations in koha to have Mr Tamihere speak on their behalf. Might I just say that if he is supposed to be the man who can shine a light to show the way forward in this country he should be here. The fact is that no one is going to have a fellow like that running this country. The Labour Party knows it and that is why he is not in the House this afternoon. Frankly if he is ever back in the House he will not have a ministerial warrant slung around his belt. 
A relatively small amount of money is being offered in compensation in this bill but it involves a small number of people. We worry about the relativities between this settlement and others that have preceded it. It is important that we get these matters sorted and I have made that very clear. As I said we support the referral of the bill. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 That believe it or not was the National Party spokesperson on treaty negotiations. If he is expecting criticism from me I am not going to waste my time. It is obvious to me that he has not read the bill and if he wants to continue to be the Opposition spokesperson I suggest he read every bill that has been passed in this House in relation to treaty settlements including the ones passed by the previous National Government. 
 I stand to support this bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge the presence in the House today of the negotiators or the representatives of the NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau. To BevAdlam Bob Schuster and the party that has come down here today to witness this very very important occasion I say tena koutou nau mai haere mai kia ora. 
The NgatiTuwharetoa people located around Kawerau in the Bay of Plenty are of the Arawa waka and descendants of Tuwharetoa ki Te Aupouri. As mentioned by the Hon Margaret Wilson their tupuna had 17 children including Tutanekai. It is important to acknowledge the distinction of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau from their whanaunga in Taupo. While many of the early descendants of the ancestor Tuwharetoa migrated to the Taupo area others settled around Kawerau and Matata. According to local tradition various parts of the Kawerau district were named for them in recognition of their mana. They have longstanding claims against the Crown. This bill acknowledges their outstanding grievances and will end those claims. It will also provide a platform upon which NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown can build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation. 
The history of NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty is filled with regrettable actions by the Crown. In the 19th century the Crown’s interaction with NgatiTuwharetoa resulted in the confiscation of NgatiTuwharetoa tribal land the loss of life of some NgatiTuwharetoa people and the erosion of the traditional social structures mana and rangatiratanga of NgatiTuwharetoa. In 1866 NgatiTuwharetoa had approximately 87000 acres of land confiscated after Governor George Grey deemed the Eastern Bay of Plenty tribes to have been in rebellion. I repeat for the benefit of Mr Stephen Franks “in rebellion”. 
While the compensation process in the years immediately following the raupatu saw approximately 20000 acres returned to NgatiTuwharetoa this land did not reflect customary forms of land tenure and was returned to individuals rather than iwi or hapu. It therefore became more susceptible to partition and alienation. Some NgatiTuwharetoa land was awarded to other iwi and as a result NgatiTuwharetoa tangata were dislocated from the lands that they had traditionally occupied and cultivated. NgatiTuwharetoa iwi have lost traditional lands through Crown confiscation Crown purchases and other alienations under the native land laws. This loss has impacted on the access of NgatiTuwharetoa to resources such as the coast and the wetlands that traditionally provided food medicine and shelter. 
They also lost control over some of their urupa and significant sites. For NgatiTuwharetoa this has had an ongoing impact on their spiritual and physical relationship with their lands. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries a number of NgatiTuwharetoa tangata petitioned and met Crown officials to seek redress for their grievances. The failure of the Crown to redress these wrongs has also become a significant grievance for NgatiTuwharetoa. 
This bill acknowledges that the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles by failing to ensure that NgatiTuwharetoa were left with sufficient land for their present and for their future. The ancestral lands and resources alienated from NgatiTuwharetoa made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of this nation. NgatiTuwharetoa’s loss of control over those lands has hindered their economic social and cultural development and impeded their ability to exercise control over their taonga and wahi tapu. 
The acknowledgment of the injustices suffered by NgatiTuwharetoa is long overdue. I therefore commend this Government for introducing a bill to the House that contains a formal Crown apology to NgatiTuwharetoa to their ancestors and to their descendants for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. The bill recognises that NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty have endured an arduous struggle in pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown. I join my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson in commending the individual kaumatua members and negotiators of NgatiTuwharetoa whose commitment and passion have enabled us to reach this stage of their settlement process. Their commitment provides us all with an appreciation that real and significant grievances are being recognised. 
This final and comprehensive settlement is an important milestone for NgatiTuwharetoa and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide NgatiTuwharetoa with the resources to assist them to develop their economic and social well-being now and into the future. This settlement will also enable the Crown to restore its honour and will aid both parties to move forward together as treaty partners. 
I wish NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty all the best in moving forward with their development. I support my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson in commending this bill to the House. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Speaker. A tena hoki nga mema o tena taha koutou nga mema Maorii roto i te Kawanatanga. Engari he tuwahipototenei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o NgatiTuwharetoa e kara ma e Bob koutou ngatuahine ngawhaea hoki a tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker. Greetings indeed to members on that side and in particular the Maori members in Government. I take this short call to extend greetings to you NgatiTuwharetoa especially to you sirs Bob and sisters and aunties as well. Greetings to you all 
.] 
On behalf of New Zealand First—the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. It is the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into between the Crown and NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. I acknowledge the presence of a number of members of NgatiTuwharetoa together with members of the claims negotiating team. They have arrived at this point after a journey that has taken them almost 16 years. In New Zealand First’s view that is clearly unacceptable. 
I want to note that when speaking of NgatiTuwharetoa in terms of this bill we are referring to those also known as NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau who are from the Kawerau-Matata area in the Bay of Plenty. 
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 following: first the confiscation of most of the land within this iwi’s rohe; second inadequacies of the compensation court process; and third subsequent alienation of the remaining lands which were subject to native land laws and Crown purchasing. In 1988 NgatiTuwharetoa registered their claim with the Waitangi Tribunal which held hearings during 1994 and 1995 and released its findings in 1999. Negotiations commenced in 1998. All of that culminated in the signing of the deed of settlement last year. 
It is unfair to claimants and it is detrimental to our moving on as a nation when such claims 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 taken to complete claims. By those proposals we would hasten the settlement process from the pre-negotiating stage through to the passage of settlement legislation. The saving of time could be made at several stages of the process by more adequate funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements to assist claimant groups with mandating issues and dispute resolution and by adequate resourcing to aid claimant groups to establish appropriate governance entities to manage settlement redress and provide investment plans. However given the lack of support from the other parties in this House for advancing those proposals other claimants under this process will unfortunately have to endure similar waiting times. 
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. 
The settlement under this bill provides financial and commercial redress of $10.5 million aimed at assisting Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty with their economic and social development. Regardless of whether that amount could ever be considered fair compensation the key elements of the bill include acknowledgments that firstly it is difficult to assess redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Tuwharetoa and secondly it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Tuwharetoa for all the loss and prejudice suffered by them. However we do note that in keeping with the true NgatiTuwharetoa tradition of giving to the nation what is their birthright the true meaning of the word “koha” is being repeated with NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty foregoing full compensation and such koha being recognised by the Crown as a contribution to the development of our country New Zealand. 
Na reira ka nui rawa atu nga mihi ki a koutou NgatiTuwharetoamotenawhakaaro.Ehara he whakaaroma koutou nahe engarimo te iwi whanuii roto i a tatou o Aotearoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Therefore I fully admire that thought of yours NgatiTuwharetoa. It is one not just for you alone to consider but one indeed that all of New Zealand should think about 
.] 
In conclusion we in New Zealand First note with a great deal of interest that within the explanatory note of the bill comment is made that the historical claims of NgatiTuwharetoa “include all claims that are or are founded on a right arising—from the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi);”. It is a well-known fact that of all the political parties in this House New Zealand First has constantly sought an explanation of what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are referred to in almost 30 different pieces of legislation are. In supporting this bill being referred to a select committee New Zealand First will want to know which claims or which parts of claims are actually being met as a consequence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I give notice that we will seek vigorously as part of the select committee process that clarification in order that we and the people of New Zealand know exactly what is meant by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Kia ora mai. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: New Zealand First will split its speech. There are 3 minutes 30 seconds remaining. In future New Zealand First members need to advise me of that. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill going to a select committee. NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are also known as NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau. 
As the word “principle” seems to find its way into legislation can anyone please explain what principle this claim comes under? I understand that I have a very brief moment to speak on this bill but let me remind members of what a historical figure said: “Ko te waka hei hoehoengamo koutou imuriiahau ko te ture. Ma te ture ano te ture e aki.” which means “The canoe that you must paddle when I am gone is that of the law. Only the law can be pitched against the law.” 
I also add that I disagree with the spokesperson from National when he quoted that NgatiTuwharetoa is under the auspices of Ngati Awa. Let us really be clear at this moment that Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau is just as it is and Ngati Awa is Ngati Awa; otherwise NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau would never have been able to make the claim they have made in respect of the numbers of people— 
Stephen Franks 
: What do you think Georgina? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Georgina te HeuHeu agrees because she is NgatiTuwharetoa. I say to members that we of New Zealand First acknowledge Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and we also remind those who may have a different view in terms of the tribal areas that if it was not for the understanding of the tribal areas the people who are now sitting in the gallery would not be here today. They have been mandated by their people to speak on behalf of this bill. New Zealand First is of the thought that we need to get it through as quickly as possible so that Ngati Tuwharetoa can get on with what it should be doing and so that its people can benefit from hopefully the right and good decisions that those people who administer the claim will make. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E te manuhiri tuarangi ngakaumatua nga rangatira o NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau kua tae tautoko mai iteneiahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the elders and chiefs of NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau who have arrived here in support this afternoon welcome welcome welcome 
.] 
The Greens will support this legislation to the select committee as we have with previous settlement bills. We recognise the hard work and cost that Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau has put into its Waitangi Tribunal claim and in particular the direct negotiation process in order to gain recognition of and restitution for the dishonourable acts of the Crown. We want to ensure that the iwi has an opportunity to bring any issues to the select committee and for any of those who disagree with the settlement to bring their concerns forward. The treaty settlement process is complex costly and undermining and not everyone agrees with it. Whanau and hapu need to be able to come and tell politicians what the experience of direct negotiating is really like. 
The range of the dishonourable acts recognised in the bill for which restitution will be made are very broad. About 450000 acres of land in the Eastern Bay of Plenty were confiscated by the Crown under the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. About 87000 acres were traditional Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau land. That land was taken as punishment imposed on a whole iwi for alleged rebellion. The use of the settlements Act as a punitive measure against whanau and hapu is a clear example of the abuse of the absolute power of the Crown enabled by legislation and enforced by the use of violence. The apology in the bill for those acts recognises the wrongfulness of that abusive power. 
Later the Compensation Court—also established in 1863—worked through what appears to be a very dodgy process in considering whether and how to allocate that confiscated land. 
That court unilaterally decided the process by which allocation would be made. It made value judgments as to whom it would deal with and whom it considered to be acceptable recipients of the land. It made decisions as to the ownership structure by which those people would receive the land. In this process the Compensation Court stripped Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau of its customary rights traditional lands and resources. The court enabled easier alienation and partition of this valued collective resource pauperising the iwi as a result. 
The same attitude of paternalism and dominance flavoured the Crown’s continued relationship with Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau during the last century. Destruction of sensitive wetlands which are wahi tapu and of significant food-gathering areas occurred because the Government chose its interests over the rights of the hapu and iwi. The Government’s acquisition of the sole rights to the geothermal energy resource for its use again resulted in a loss of control over access to those areas by the customary owners. 
Finally and critically the establishment of the pulp and paper mill at Kawerau in the 1950s led to one of New Zealand’s worst environmental disasters. The bill acknowledges that the pollution and poisoning of the Tarawera River along with the poisoning of the people who lived and worked in the area were enabled by legislation. Despite this bill and the apology in it there is still no real effort by this Government or by any previous Government to address the continued poisoning of that community. Legislation in the form of consents under the Resource Management Act continues to allow poisoning and polluting by mills. That practice has not stopped. 
Toxic dump sites remain open to the public with no notification of the potential toxicity of the area. Soil caps which are used to try to remedy the situation are of no use. These areas are flood prone and after a big flood the toxic sites are left open and exposed. The Government continues to fail to clean up the toxic sites and make sure they are fit for habitation. The environment continues to suffer. People continue to suffer the effects of poisoning from the mill. The children and the grandchildren of these people continue to suffer. 
The Crown acknowledges the wrongfulness of the confiscation of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau lands; the inadequacy of the Compensation Court process; the loss of control of and access to the Kawerau geothermal system; the suffering and hardship resulting from the cumulative effect of the Crown actions; and the contribution made by Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty to New Zealand’s efforts in overseas wars. All these issues are recognised in the bill yet we must not miss the irony that history is simply repeating itself. The process by which this restitution is made is again paternalistic and domineering. The treaty settlement process was determined by the Crown not by Maori. The Crown decides the validity of those to whom it will talk and again establishes the criteria for the appropriate structures for how the collective assets of this iwi and others will be held. 
At the end of this week another piece of confiscatory legislation will return to this House for debate. That bill will take back from Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau lands to which the iwi may have legal entitlement because the Government thinks that it is in the Government’s interests to have it regardless of the rights of that iwi. 
The Greens want to see an honourable process for restitution for wrongs of the past. We want a process that is durable and acceptable; where the wronged have a direct say as to how the process is determined so that they are not further injured or impoverished by the process itself. Justice is the purpose not expediency. The Greens urge the Government at least to stop repeating the wrongs and mistakes of the past as its first real gesture of recognition and apology. 
Finally the Greens congratulate Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau on their determination and resilience in achieving a settlement for the crimes committed against them. Kia ora koutou. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in this NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Each time I have had an opportunity to speak in the House on claims settlement bills I have done so with sorrow. I think the first one I spoke on was within a few months of my coming to this House 4½ years ago. I did not really understand the structure of the bills although I had had occasion to read some of the settlement agreements and at that time I was groping trying to work out exactly what it was that Maori were being offered. Because of the difficulty of the language of the legislation it was obvious that what was being offered was deliberately intended to be obscure. The pattern has changed very little over time—that is still plainly part of these bills. 
The Government may justify this on the grounds that what is sought here is essentially face-saving and I understand Mita Ririnui’s reminder that the people settling the claims are often giving up a very long-held sense of entitlement which to them is of much greater value than what they are being offered in return. However when I see this House being asked to pass law that neither side knows exactly what is meant then I agree with the last speaker from the Greens: we are simply storing up for ourselves another round of grievance in the future. 
What else can the successors of Ngati Tuwharetoa who will be signing this agreement do when they read this without the same sense of history or occasion and when they see they have been offered protocols acknowledgments assurances rights of consultation and all the paraphernalia that the Government now provides in its relationship with Maori? They have been offered all of this as part of a grovelling apology yet in their hands in 15 to 30 years’ time it is simply smoke. It means next to nothing because the only concrete benefit from the rights that are being conferred here—the rights of consultation the rights to be given resource management notices the rights to be involved in setting management plans and doing consents—is the right to be a nuisance to one’s neighbours a right to block and a right to hold up things and to delay negotiations for concessions. Even if people can tell us they were grateful—and I am sure that we all as MPs have heard this—because: “I dealt with iwi this time and it wasn’t as bad as I feared. We got through it and in the end they were on our side.” In the end they are also seen simply as an obstacle—as a necessary phase to be got past as people who have to be talked to placated and patronised—not as people who are respected. They are respected no more than the traffic cop is respected as someone to get past before speeding up again. 
The problem with bills like this is that if the settlements are genuine then there should be tangible clear rights with both sides having exactly the same understanding of what they mean. If that cannot be done then the law should state that. We should not pretend with this kind of agreement that we are offering something more than we can. These agreements look as though they are important. They are justified by those who advance them on the grounds that they are symbolically important but in legal terms they are just an encouragement for another generation to feel ripped off. 
The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations sits there looking solemn—and well she might because she is not getting any support from the member who is being touted as Maoridom’s hope. Perhaps the Minister could call John Tamihere and tell him that my telephone extension is 6262 so he can communicate to this House just what he thinks of this bill. When Donna Awatere Huata was in trouble ACT did not demand that she stay away from the House. ACT did not try to block her. 
Hon Annette King 
: She was kicked out of the party. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: ACT wants to kick her out because she is not worthy of the honour. She is not worth the name. Who blocked a Privileges Committee inquiry? It was that member’s colleague in the chair. 
Donna Awatere should have gone a year ago and we will deal with it. This Prime Minister wants to keep the vote of Mr John Tamihere. She will keep that vote while she keeps him out of the House because he is an embarrassment to her as he is to every one in this House as long as he is here. It is a shame of course that in dealing with any bill from now on that has to do with Maori matters John Tamihere will be the same embarrassment. It is not Ngati Tuwharetoa’s problem that we raise this in this connection but when that member starts attacking ACT on a ground of integrity we can stand up and say that we dealt with that as soon as we could. As soon as we knew about it we dealt with it. We did not wait. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The member does raise the question of integrity. This bill the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill actually goes through history and without establishing why says that those who were on the spot at the time those who actually saw what was happening—and it was on both sides of the claim—were wrong and it is right. This bill does not have historical integrity. It has no more integrity than what we saw over the weekend when Major Ropata’s actions at Ngatapa Pa are suddenly characterised as some grotesque semi-holocaust event. Major Ropata was acting as a hero to most of the people in the Ngati Porou area. The Crown engaged his services and was proud of what he did and now the Waitangi Tribunal no doubt is angling to get another grovelling apology for what nearly everyone in that area was proud of at the time. 
I believe we have the same situation here. When Falloon was murdered and the troops came down to arrest those who had done it and were obstructed by some of the ancestors of the people here today there could never have been any expectation by anyone on either side that 150 years later a Labour Government would be here grovelling and trying to extract political advantage out of rewriting history. I am sick of being part of a process that blesses these fraudulent statements of history. It is time New Zealanders stopped dredging around in their entrails and apologising for a past that was not shameful at the time. It was sad but history was very different. 
History has moved on and there is no guarantee and there is no assurance even from the most recent statements even by the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal that these things will make bygones be bygones. The promise in the early section of this bill that the settlements are full and final is almost guaranteed not to be true when it is so patent that the politicians on the other side of the House will respond to any kind of emotional plea with “deeming” provisions that deem to be facts things that no one can know. No one can now know just who was to blame. No one can know how wrong it was that that land was taken. We can guess but for the Crown in this legislation to actually state categorically that it was wrong is wrong in itself. We should not be opening ourselves up to this. We should not be participating. It is time if we genuinely mean for bygones to be bygones that we said: “That was then this is now.” 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You have never voted for a single settlement. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I believe that ACT has voted for them but we have not since I have been here because these bills always refer to the so-called principles of the treaty. New Zealand First has joined in deriding what I am saying. Here are the politicians who have made a career out of demanding explanations of the so-called principles. Those members have been so hot in this House on the Prime Minister for her failure to define them yet every time they vote in favour of bills that have the so-called principles of the treaty in them. This bill still has references to the principles of the treaty. Why not the treaty itself? 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and I would like to begin by greeting iwi leaders and negotiators who are with us today. I thank them for being with us and honouring us with their presence. Today we witness the opening words in what is the concluding chapter of a settlement process that has taken about 6 years to date. During those 6 years iwi representatives and a range of Government officials have worked productively to reach an agreement that has been ratified by 55 percent of eligible iwi members who voted 95 percent in favour of the proposed settlement. 
An important part of the process has been the work done to clarify the real facts around the historical events that necessitate this settlement. The facts are clear and the House needs to be mindful of the overriding truth that today we seek to right breaches not of Ngati Tuwharetoa tribal law but of British law—law that postured itself at the time as being fair and able to protect the property and rights of all New Zealand citizens. The consequences of those breaches have been paid for economically and culturally by every generation of Ngati Tuwharetoa since they first occurred. The agreed-upon historical account and the Crown acknowledgements and apology begin the process by which much mana can be restored to an iwi that has for generations been bereft of both land and essential resources necessary to build a future for itself. The agreed-upon historical account leads naturally to an apology from the Crown for clear breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those breaches included the illegal confiscation of land and land transfers under the native land laws. The overall effect for Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty was that access to traditional food and medicinal resources was lost. Later on with the draining of the Rangitaiki swamplands environmental pollution and the loss of control of and access to geothermal resources and to Kawerau further opportunities were stripped away. 
Some of the lands lost through that process were culturally significant sites. There is a series of cultural redress provisions in this proposal that help to restore access to traditional foods and food-gathering areas and there is a statutory acknowledgement of places of special association. Deeds of recognition are established that require the Crown to consult with Ngati Tuwharetoa and five sites are to be returned to the iwi. The financial and commercial redress is geared towards recognising the economic loss that was suffered. The deed of settlement will come into effect only after a governance body is set in place and after that governance body has been ratified by iwi. There is an agreed-upon figure that can be paid in cash or in Crown properties to the amount set. There is also a right of refusal on the geothermal assets should they be offered up for sale at any time. The overlay provisions that acknowledge the significance of a site or area without overturning existing classifications and provisions are a sensible and a clear demonstration of the good faith that has undergirded the settlement process. 
United Future is supportive of the need to advance this bill through the select committee in a timely way and wishes well to all those who are working behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on the structures and systems needed to manage the settlement in this very important journey. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I rise in support of the bill and I pay my respects to all the people involved—the Hon Margaret Wilson and the negotiators from Ngati Tuwharetoa—for all the work they have put into this settlement bill. Settlement bills are one of the most important things I believe that we do in this House. It is those bills that really do allow us to move forward. While it is not very politically acceptable now to say that one supports this kind of claims bill and it is very politically hip to say that one does not like one part or another part of it I believe—I know—that a lot of work has gone into this settlement bill in good faith from those in Ngati Tuwharetoa and from the Government on behalf of the Crown. I believe that a lot of the fears that have been brought into this House about there being some kind of crossover between Ngati Awa and Ngati Tuwharetoa are largely baseless but that is what we have a select committee process for and I hope that the National Party members who do have concerns about the extent of these claims will take them to the Maori Affairs Committee where they will be heard in full. 
It is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Tuwharetoa for the prejudice and loss they have suffered but I do believe that this bill is a great step forward and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I too take a moment to acknowledge the people from Kawerau who are present. Many of them are known to me—in fact I went to school in Kawerau with Mrs Adlam’s children and one of Canon Schuster’s whanaunga was my teacher at intermediate school so is no doubt responsible in terms of my education for much of what everyone is about to hear. 
I think that National’s deputy leader Gerry Brownlee raised an important issue in terms of how this House deals with the matter of overlapping claims. Throughout the entire process of the treaty claims since it was started by Sir Douglas Graham in the 1990s we have had overlapping claims. In my own area we have the overlapping claims of Ngati Awa and the Tuhoe people on a particular track towards the Ohiwa harbour. Closer to Tauranga we have issues with Te Arawa and the Tauranga Maori about some of the beaches etc. near Maketu. So dealing with overlapping claims is something that is part and parcel of dealing with treaty claims. 
But what makes this legislation somewhat more challenging is the fact that the overlap is total. If one looks at a map of what Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau has been talking about one sees that it is within what Ngati Awa has been talking about—it is hand in glove. So the point that Mr Brownlee raised which was so quickly dismissed by the Government requires examination by the select committee because—and Mr Brownlee is right—Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau was represented on the Ngati Awa Trust Board for some years and left in the 1980s. I do not know the story behind its departure from that board in the 1980s and the setting up of the charitable trust at that time but I would have thought that it is valuable for the select committee to look into where that springs from. What about the issues being raised about the hand in glove nature of the overlapping claims and where does the previous association with Ngati Awa fit in? Those points are well worth being looked into by the select committee but they are not the responsibility of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau because the decision to negotiate is that of the Government. It is the Government’s decision to deal with Ngati Awa in one way and with Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in another way. It is up to the Government to come before the select committee and I hope that questions will be asked about how it is dealing with that issue. 
The whole overlapping situation is further complicated by the admission from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that none of the memorials will be removed from any of the titles. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s the whole point of the settlement. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well it may be the whole point of the settlement but it comes down to the points that Mr Brownlee talked about at the very beginning—that is the overlapping claims and how the issue of memorials will be dealt with by the Government in relation to both Ngati Awa and Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I am certain that once the Ngati Awa settlement goes through finally and that of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau those memorials must be wiped. So the two settlements run on parallel lines whether or not we like it and the points that Mr Brownlee raised are completely valid and should be looked at by the select committee. 
I also have some concerns about where the Government is going in this bill because I think it is political correctness gone mad. Are we serious? I do not believe for one minute that Tuwharetoa came to the Government and asked for an apology for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains. I could tell this House about the number of Maori and Pakeha people who have become incredibly successful and wealthy farmers as a result of the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains including many who would count themselves as Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I simply do not believe that the Government can seriously expect to stand up and apologise for the draining of those plains when we look at the wealth that has been created there. Sure maybe it can acknowledge some of the difficulties caused by that and the fact that some traditional fishing areas might have disappeared but does the Government seriously want to apologise for the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains? 
And what do members feel about this one? Does the Government seriously want to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. in Kawerau? I cannot believe that Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau would come and ask for an apology because the Government built that company. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where would they have worked otherwise? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well that is the very point. Many people in the Eastern Bay of Plenty both Pakeha and Maori have become very successful because of the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.—very successful. Mr Paraone talked about—and I wrote the words down—the advancement of Maori in terms of wealth jobs education and economic development. That paper mill along with the dairy industry has been the basis of prosperity in the Eastern Bay of Plenty for 50 years and I do not believe that the Government was ever asked to apologise for that. Sure there are some issues about the pollution of the river and its colouration that need to be discussed but does the Government really expect to apologise for building the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co.? Was it asked to do so? I do not think so. Yet here we are with a whole lot of hand-wringing in the Government’s preamble to this bill about the problems caused by the draining of the Rangitaiki Plains and by the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. 
Is it not time that the Government actually took a balanced approach with regard to these treaty settlements? Instead of the Government saying that everything the Crown does is wrong it could actually acknowledge that there are some significant benefits to the people of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the Eastern Bay of Plenty because of what happened in the past. We do not see any of that in this bill. We do not see anything about the jobs wealth and prosperity created because of some of the Government’s actions in that area. But the Government is very happy to wring its hands and to be full of apologies for stuff that has actually benefited the very people who will benefit from the passing of this bill. I think that that should have been acknowledged. The leadership of Sir William Sullivan in securing that paper mill in Kawerau is something that this Government should have acknowledged in this deal because it has been the basis of wealth and prosperity in that region and for many of the people of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau for 50 years. That should be recognised in this legislation. 
At the select committee I am also looking forward to discussion of the issues associated with geothermal energy and the fact that the Geothermal Energy Act of 1953 took geothermal rights from Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. Well the fact is that the Act took geothermal rights from everybody in 1953. 
Stephen Franks 
: Just like oil and gas. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Geothermal energy is just like oil and gas but the Prime Minister says that she is not going to entertain claims to rights in relation to oil and gas. So I will be interested to see what the thinking process was behind recognising the geothermal issue. I think that it is perfectly valid to say that it would be a fair form of commercial compensation or redress to give Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau or NgatiTuwharetoa the rights that are in this deal. That is fine but do we have to say necessarily that the passing of the Geothermal Energy Act was wrong? Was it wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights to the ownership of the geothermal resource? The Prime Minister said that it was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights over oil and gas so why are we saying—or even suggesting—that it is wrong in this case? It is fine to do the deal on the geothermal stuff but it does not need to be wrapped up in language that states it was wrong to pass the Act in 1953. It was not wrong for the Crown to exercise its rights with regard to oil and gas so why is it wrong in this case now? 
I think that a number of issues will be raised at the select committee. The National Party supports the progress of this bill but its deputy leader raised some legitimate issues about dealing with overlapping claims and about how this settlement inter-relates with the Ngati Awa settlement. When we consider that the memorials are not being removed—and I suspect that the only way they will be removed is with the passing of the other Eastern Bay of Plenty settlement—then that is a legitimate issue. That is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about. It is all too easy for the Government to dismiss what I think was a well-thought-out view on a number of issues that are important to resolve. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Mr Ryall managed to raise issues with more sense than the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Brownlee did. At least I understood what Mr Ryall was trying to say even if I did not agree with it. The summary of the settlement redress that is provided for in this bill includes a Crown apology financial redress of $10.5 million the vesting of various properties back to NgatiTuwharetoa a statutory acknowledgment of the association that it has with some statutory areas including the geothermal area and the granting of some renewable camping entitlements over one nohoanga site. As well as that various other provisions are detailed in the bill. I think it is a good bill. It makes it clear that it is a final settlement of all the historic claims and I support its progression to the select committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is disappointing I must say that in the House today the Minister of Maori Affairs has remained sitting in his seat for the entire time. It is quite remarkable that the members of Parliament who were voted in here on a separate roll to represent the interests of Maori people remained silent through the entire debate. Frankly I find that that amounts to a vote of no confidence by the Government in its own team. Labour believes in— 
Hon Annette King 
: Mita spoke. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is correct. Mita Ririnui did speak—that is a fair point. 
It is remarkable that the Minister chooses not to take the call when this is the very time that one would expect him to do so. Instead we get the member from Otago who will not be here for very much longer. That may explain why he took the call—it is one of the few opportunities that he will get to speak. 
I wish to acknowledge the people of NgatiTuwharetoa from the Bay of Plenty because National supports the settlement of historic grievances. I hardly need to recite to this House or to the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa the importance that National places on settling historic grievances. I note that it was endorsed by Dr Brash in his now-famous speech given at Orewa earlier this year. 
I guess that is one thing that does set us apart from the ACT party. The ACT party customarily comes along in these kinds of debates and finds every reason to oppose settlements. It may have perhaps supported one in a third reading. Perhaps the Te Uri o Hau settlement may have been one occasion but as a general proposition it is very clear on where it stands. I acknowledge that Mr Franks is always a superb debater and makes it very clear where ACT stands. But to advance this nation we have to acknowledge the past and that does not just mean saying that we cannot know about it now therefore we will ignore it—it means addressing legitimate grievances. 
I might note that this settlement has its origins and indeed its settlement in Sir Douglas Graham’s work in 1998. 
I will turn to the issue of overlapping claims. It has been raised by my colleague MrRyall and more particularly by the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Gerry Brownlee. There are a number of facets that relate to it. One of those of course is not something that anyone envisaged some 10 or 15 years ago. In 21st century New Zealand society people have many different origins—all of us—because we are a highly mobile nation. People move around the country. Whereas 100 years ago it was relatively unusual—not so common—for Maori people to have multiple ancestries today that would be the norm. It has never been an issue in the past but Ngai Tahu raised a very serious question earlier this year. It is the prospect that Ngai Tahu may due to the size of its settlement and its general success in relation to it pay a dividend to each and every one of its beneficiaries—just as if they were shareholders in a public company. That is the prospect that Ngai Tahu has raised. Other iwi have not done that yet but I suggest that in due course they will arrive at that point.  
The question is about what happens to the people—relatively few I suspect—who are largely Ngai Tahu by descent and whakapapa compared with the person or family with many different iwi genealogies within the family line. Does the family with essentially one descent in whakapapa terms just get one beneficiary benefit or dividend and those with multiple descents get multiple cheques over time? As I say that is not an issue that has ever had to be addressed before. Even when the whole settlement process was started off this issue was not considered because people were always talking about scholarships marae restoration grants economic development grants and so on. But in the case of Ngai Tahu for instance there is now a $500 million fund and 30000 beneficiaries. Under normal rates of return it works out at potentially $1000 per person over time. The same could occur with Ngati Tuwharetoa. How do we deal with that? Because issues that simply were not important in the past will suddenly assume some real significance.  
There will be real concern I suggest about a huge level of unequal division of the returns of the settlements. I know full well that in the north there is a certain level of resentment towards those who some in the north would say are the belted earls of the south because of the unequal division of wealth. It is an inevitable feature of owning property. Property is not owned equally. I know that in some of the origins of Maori society it is as if it were owned equally. But in reality that is not how it happens. Property is invariably not owned equally. I suggest that on this issue of overlapping claims and the diverse nature of descent there will be some very real issues that iwi will have to deal with.  
I will also turn to the geothermal issue and pick up on a point raised by Mr Franks. This nation has developed through the hard work of all its peoples resources that had no value whatsoever when they were not developed and were nascent in the ground. They suddenly assumed value because of the application of modern technology. The geothermal resources would have no value if the Tasman Pulp and Paper plant had not been developed. That caused the development of that particular resource. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Madam Deputy Speaker— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Sit down. I still have 2 minutes to go. That member has been here for 6 years now. 
Hon Annette King 
: Now you have to apologise Wayne. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am prepared to acknowledge that the Minister of Maori Affairs will be taking a call. I would like to think that it will be a full 10-minute call because this nation deserves that kind of focus. 
The development of resources like the geothermal resource depends on the application of modern technology which comes from the hard work of all New Zealanders—no matter what their descent. To have the implication that there should be an apology for that seems rather odd because the benefit exists only because of contemporary developments. 
 New Zealand is a different kind of country dare I say it from a number of other countries on the globe. It is the work ethic and dare I say it the benefits of British colonialism that have lifted the development of our country. I think that people when they think about that statement will fairly acknowledge that contemporary New Zealand with all its heritage and traditions benefits from that very fact. Sometimes we overlook that reality in that those deeds that have a gloss of apology on them mean we should be ashamed of our entire past. Although it is true that there are things we should be contrite for there are also huge benefits from our past and contemporary Maori benefit from those as much as anyone else. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Sometimes one is alarmed in this House at some of the perceptions of those people on the Opposition benches. I am alarmed because certainly this is about prejudice and loss. That member is trying to get me to talk for 10 minutes. I do not need to do that because this Government has worked very very hard with the local member to get this settlement to this stage. I am thankful that two other Maori from this side of the House have spoken—including myself that makes three of us—because that shows how much we care about this bill. Opposition members will not even let our fine friend Georgina te Heuheu stand up. 
Pita Paraone 
: Whanaunga. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There is no whanaungatanga there—none whatsoever. I am encouraged that our whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau has seen fit to stand up because part of this bill is about people up in Te Tai Tokerau. Certainly in each settlement which is not too different from the settlements that that member was involved in we have to make sure we get there. 
This is not just about the Crown telling people what to do. This is about the Crown and this fine Government making a very very serious effort to bring this to an end. That member from the Opposition—who has disappeared like his leader—was starting to pontificate about the work issues that were relevant to the sawmill there. I tell members that for over 50 years Maori have given loyal service generally as manual labourers. They have had no recognition in management and no recognition in the down flow of ownership and the profits out of it. That member has stretched it out. I am amazed that he does not care about the environmental disaster that happened up there in that creek. It has been as black as the ace of spades for years and years and nobody has done anything about it. That member says that is OK. Lo and behold if that is what we have in the sense of representation of all those constituents in that area! 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Shut it down then. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No we do not want to shut it down. With this great economy—with the way it is travelling and is sitting fourth among the OECD countries—I tell the member that he is lucky he has this Government to ensure the booming rural economy in the Bay of Plenty. It has been created by this Government’s efforts. He knows that. This is the best time farmers have had for about 36 years. Thank goodness for this Government! It has kept all that great energy going in the Bay of Plenty. Even the performance of the Bay of Plenty rugby team has been due to the support of this Government. That is dead right. Everything that is going well there has something to do with this Government. I tell Opposition members that we will see this settlement through and we look forward to their support all the way. We pay due respect to one of Tuwharetoa’s members Georgina te Heuheu. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 March 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that motion I have an amendment in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendment is to the Minister’s motion to commit the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and is to omit all the words after the words “Maori Affairs Committee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 85 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Care of Children Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 October. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 When the House last rose I was making a few comments in response to a speech made by United Future member Murray Smith who seemed to think that there were no gay parents in the community and that if any child in this country did not have a mother and a father he or she was somehow in a desperate situation compared with other New Zealand children. I made the point that it is really important that we keep the debate about this bill pretty responsible because we do not want to give children the idea that somehow the situation they find themselves in is not as good as that of others. Sure we would like as many children as possible to grow up in a loving caring environment but the issue is whether children have adults in their lives who will provide unconditional support and unconditional love to help them as they progress through their lives. 
I finished up by saying that parenting is a two-person job. I thought about that over the adjournment and realised that of course it is not; it is a job that needs to be done by very many adults within a community and by extended families within the community. It is not just up to individual parents although they tend to be the lead carers—the lead people involved in the care of that child. 
I ended up going to  
Bananas in Pyjamas 
 at the weekend and seeing the friends of mine whom I had mentioned as I finished speaking before the House rose for the adjournment. They thanked me for my comments and I was pleased to receive those thanks. I met their new son. I looked at them and asked myself who the hell any member of Parliament or any member of the community is to look at those parents and say that their arrangement is not as good as anybody else’s. That child is probably one of the most loved children in the community. I think it is important that we recognise the very different variations that we see within the community in this country. 
That said a lot of this bill is about changing the language. We saw the huge debate and furore that was created as a result of some policy analyst or legislative writer deciding that the female partner in a same-sex relationship could be described as being a father. It caused a huge uproar. It offended not just fathers in the community but also a lot of women involved in such relationships because they did not see themselves as taking on that role either. Although it was quickly batted away as being an exercise in legislative tidiness I think it was a mistake to put those terms into the bill. In fact it would have been better to try to write a bill that fairly reflected the situation that is presently found in our community. 
There were a lot of issues too about how children were described and how there was a change in the way of talking about custody issues. I did not buy into the argument that use of the word “custody” indicated ownership. I thought it was a pretty useful word that allowed New Zealanders to talk about how they would look after their kids in the event of a relationship split. Now the term is going to be “day-to-day care” which I think is a bit of PC nonsense that does not really reflect the nature of the relationship between the parent and the child. 
The other thing is that it is very difficult to codify the role of a parent and to put that down in a piece of legislation and that is what this bill attempts to do. Within the community we see a wide range of different situations. It will be very difficult for this bill to apply to all situations of New Zealand families. I think we will find that there are some legislative issues that require us to be back in the House making amendments pretty quick smart because there are some areas of confusion within this bill. 
There are some good things though. I think it is important to make sure that the focus is on the child and that the safety and the interests of the child are paramount. That is something that has been included in a lot of child-oriented legislation over the last 10 to 15 years. I think it is important to introduce the child’s sense of time into the debate because of course 1 month or 6 months might not seem a long time to an adult but in a child’s eyes or in a child’s experience it can sometimes be an eternity when he or she is waiting to see a parent—usually the dad—over that period of time. 
One of the issues I think we need to debate very responsibly is the openness of the Family Court. It is not as straightforward as just letting the media in there and giving them open slather. I think it is important to have accredited media representatives. Nick Smith often talks about allowing the “disinfectant of sunlight” within the Family Court—allowing some media to go in there to see some of the goings-on which will make sure that New Zealanders feel they have an open and transparent process but of course making sure that details relating to individual families are kept totally confidential. 
There is an issue to do with section 37. While I am usually pretty liberal on these sorts of issues I will support the amendment from Judith Collins because one of the things that I have failed to get any answer on is why as a parent I have the right to be told when my child is having his or her tonsils out or a knee operation but I am not allowed to know when a termination is being decided on. That is a pretty difficult one for any parent to comprehend. Although I can see both sides of the argument on balance I have decided to support this particular amendment. 
I did not like the way David Benson-Pope described 10-year-olds as young women. In my view they are children. I do not think that talking about 10 13 or 14-year-olds who are considering abortions as young women is a very positive way to view this situation. 
I understand that the first and paramount consideration has to be the— 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s not very positive having a baby at 14 either actually. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I ask the Minister who is shouting out why as a parent I am allowed to know when my daughter’s tonsils are coming out but not when she is having a termination. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The last contribution was one that I respect; I compliment the previous speaker. I say to listeners that they were not listening to a radical left-wing member of Parliament; they were listening to a National list member from Otago. 
I think her speech adequately summed up what the bill is all about. Parliamentarians irrespective of their political persuasions and contributions are doing their best to get their heads round legislation that was designed to protect the welfare of the children of this country. The last contribution along with others adequately highlighted that there is no quick glib fix to a number of these matters and that beneath some of the sensational headlines is the reality of our trying to get an adequate balance to ensure that the welfare of our kids our nation’s children is adequately protected. 
Over the weekend along with other members of Parliament it was my huge privilege and pleasure to be part of Children’s Day—in my case in Hamilton. Church groups volunteers and the city council were involved in that particular festival. I want to highlight the wonderful people out there who are doing their bit in the wider sense to make kids’ lives in this country better. 
In this brief contribution I take the opportunity first of all to compliment the Justice and Electoral Committee on its great work on the bill. I think we will be better off for this bill. I am one of those people in this country who do not look on the good old days with any sense of nostalgia at all. I tell members bluntly that from the experience of my own extended family and even of my own parents in terms of some broader parenting issues I have no nostalgia for those times. My parents were wonderful parents to me—make no bones about that—but I have no truck with the idea that in some sense society was better 40 or 50 years ago. I am sure if we went into some of those closets and examined the old skeletons there we would see adults who failed their children big time. Other wonderful adults—aunties uncles grandparents mothers sisters brothers fathers and whatever—did a wonderful job for their kids but let us have no nostalgia for the good old days whatsoever. 
In the brief contribution I want to make I pay particular tribute to one group of New Zealanders—in particular those in my electorate—among the many involved in this issue and that is the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. They are a fantastic group. If any group highlighted for me the limitations of the previous Act in recognising the role of the broader family in the care and protection of children it was that group. I hope this bill goes a distance towards recognising the role of the wider family in the care and protection of children. 
I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee—which is my regret actually—and I thank the select committee for the good work it did. I believe that this bill takes us further along the road to providing a better environment for the care and protection of our children. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I have a correction to the vote on Stephen Franks’ amendment to the Minister’s referral motion relating to the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The result should have been announced as Ayes 35 and Noes 84 not 74. 
Care of Children Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this hugely important Care of Children Bill which I note from the commentary on the bill “replaces the Guardianship Act 1968 and is intended to modernise the law on guardianship and care of children.” What is more important is that it states that “the child’s welfare and best interests are to be ‘the first and paramount consideration’ ”. 
Two weeks ago I was part of a debate in Rotorua at the annual conference of the New Zealand Paediatric Society on the question of whether we in New Zealand really care about our children. As members can imagine the evidence for the negative was quite overwhelming. I think it is worthwhile reading out part of the contribution from the Children’s Commissioner who said: “Our lack of care is self-evident when we consider New Zealand’s third placing in the OECD child homicide league table.”—third placing in terms of being the worst. Our children die at the hands of others commonly at the hands of those entrusted with their care at an alarming rate. In just 12 years from 1989 to 2000 111 children and young people aged 0 to 14 years died as a result of homicide and 1743 were admitted to hospital as a result of non-accidental injury inflicted by others. A recent review conducted by Mike Doolan of child homicides between 1991 and 2000 found that these tragic events occurred most commonly within families with fathers mothers de facto partners and other relatives caregivers or acquaintances accounting for all but 11 percent of those deaths. For the period between 1996 and 2000 only one in five of the children who died as a result of injuries inflicted by others was known to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. This is a huge indictment on our society. 
If we go even further we find that as we heard at that conference there is 3 percent child truancy. Every Monday in New Zealand 19000 of our children are absent from school without authority from that school and usually not with the knowledge of their parents. Child obesity is up 300 percent in the last 11 or 12 years. Non-completion of immunisations and Well Child checks are such that we in New Zealand have about the worst record in the South Pacific. Suicide rates are enormously high and of course so are our teen pregnancy rates which are amongst the world’s highest. 
We do indeed need a bill that will provide an appropriate legislative framework to address these very deep concerns that we have in New Zealand. Although like many other Western countries our child-infant mortality has come down steadily over the last 100 years all those other different situations have emerged such that in many aspects particularly child assaults and homicides there is indeed a crisis situation in New Zealand. 
It is interesting that when we read new clause 4A and see that a child’s parents and guardians should have primary responsibility and should be encouraged to agree to their own care arrangements we wonder about some of the events over the last year or so that we have heard about that indicate erosion of parental ability to have responsibility. For instance we heard earlier in the year that a school councillor and school authorities did not inform the parents of a young disabled woman that there had been an assault on her. It was 2 to 3 months later that they discovered it. She did not know how to take her medication and she had been acting inappropriately and finally they were told. She was not being treated for a sexually transmitted disease. It makes one wonder greatly whether the State is undermining parental responsibility. Time and time again in Port Waikato mothers have come to me extremely distressed that the school councillor has referred young women to the doctor for contraceptives without their parents’ knowledge. We must have an ethos in New Zealand whereby every effort is made to ensure that parents are included if at all possible. To my mind an overemphasis if anything should be placed on this area. 
This brings me to the controversial clause 37 and the question of whether young women under the age of 16 years should be required to inform their guardians that they are going to have an abortion. Naturally enough I have wrestled with this issue considerably having been an obstetrician-gynaecologist and having also been on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. One of the things that does concern me is that we have only anecdotal evidence of what the real situation in New Zealand is. I am very pleased that my colleague Judith Collins is putting a further amendment that recommends that the Abortion Supervisory Committee under its Act be required to collate data on matters relevant to informed consent in this very very sensitive area. Unless we have good data it is unlikely that we will be able to make wise legislation. 
I think it is also important to point out that one of the great difficulties that face any medico such as myself is that as I have said I would rather be grinning from behind bars than divulge secrets that patients had given me. On the other hand we heard earlier in the year that something in the order of 29 Government departments and agencies have the power to look at private medical records. Indeed that makes this particular clause a very difficult one. 
 I have certainly heard the arguments on either side of the coin. On one side if the information is withheld and the woman goes on to have an abortion and her parents do not know there can be hugely severe repercussions if there was an incestuous relationship or if the woman returns to a situation of family violence. On the other side if disclosure of 
this information is to be forced on the woman it may well prevent her from seeking medical attention. I heard just recently of a case whereby a young woman decided to keep her baby but having delivered it smothered it a few days after birth. This is an extremely exquisitely sensitive and unpredictable area that requires wise legislation. That is why I would ask the House to support the second amendment that my colleague Judith Collins is presenting to the House on this issue. 
I note that a variety of other areas have been traversed in the commentary. One area concerns the sterilisation of young women with intellectual disabilities. CCS raised the concern that hysterectomies of young women with intellectual disabilities are being used for the purpose of non-therapeutic sterilisation. From my own experience having been involved in this sort of situation where people have gone to huge lengths to look at the possibilities I absolutely agree with the Ministry of Health that it should be done on a case by case basis. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Care of Children Bill to say that its replaces the Guardianship Act which is now 35 years old. Family patterns and practices in the Family Court have changed substantially in that time. This bill takes into account the need to open up the processes of the Family Court. 
I would like to say that I could never have supported Judith Collins’ first amendment that she proposed which involved mandatory reporting to and involvement of parents when young children come to a medical practitioner seeking advice on pregnancy and seeking support for a possible termination of pregnancy because it would not have worked. It would have been an appalling thing to do. It has been in legislation for 35 years and has been largely unchallenged for that time and I am very pleased that we will be voting as a majority not to support that amendment. 
I think that the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Care of Children Bill has been largely outstanding. It has certainly put the rights of the child at the forefront and that is where they ought to be. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Care of Children Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments that come into force on 1 December 2004 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this part in my role as National’s industrial relations spokesperson. The reason I take the call is that a bill like this goes to the very heart of the cost structure and the way that businesses organise themselves. Let us look briefly at an overview of this bill. I realise this is a Part 1 debate but the first speech needs to give an overview. This measure is essentially a welfare benefit. It is the use in short of some of the $7 billion surplus of the Minister who moved the motions. He is not going to give it to New Zealanders as a tax cut but will spend some of it by extending welfare. The question that has to be seriously asked is whether that is something that this country needs—the extension of even more and more welfare. 
I was intrigued to note that the Maori Party voted against certain procedural motions. I assume it did so because the one representative of the Maori Party does not actually believe in extending more and more welfare. I presume that is why she voted against the motions. 
There are two issues here. Firstly there is the extension of time—in the first instance from 1 December 2004—from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and in fact Part 2 will push that out to 14 weeks. The second issue is the fact that employees will now qualify for parental leave if they have been in employment for only 6 months. Let us think of the significance of the change from 12 months to 6 months. It actually means that a women—or in fact a man as well because the bill is neutral in that sense—can go to an employer and seek a job without telling the employer that he or she is eligible for parental leave 6 months down the track although the person actually knows that fact when he or she seeks employment. Then 6 months down the path of employment the employee will actually gain the leave. I know the employer does not pay for it; it is a welfare benefit. But there is the real issue of disruption. How do small employers cope with those kinds of issues? I note in particular that that was an issue raised by Telecom. Telecom I think would be regarded as a good employer and it did not really oppose the introduction of parental leave initially. But it does see the particular issue of the advancement from 12 months to 6 months as being very serious and it has opposed that change as have other major employers such as Carter Holt Harvey and also Business New Zealand. So those are two particular objections. 
A third objection is the one that was raised particularly by Federated Farmers in their submissions and also by many other small employers—specifically self-employed employers. They are not eligible for parental leave. So we have a discriminatory approach by the Government. It is actually an approach that I would expect from this Government because it is always going to promote employees over the interest of self-employed or small-business people. We saw that approach a couple of weeks ago when the Government passed into law its egregious compulsory union provisions which will do great harm to our country over time. We see the same pattern in this legislation as well. 
I just want to recap for the benefit of members and indeed of the Chair. The first objection is that this is a welfare benefit and the Government’s first intent is always to increase the scope and extent of welfare benefits. The second objection is to the extension of time. That is perhaps to be fair a lesser objection than the third objection which is to the change from 12 months to 6 months and to the way that employers can be taken to unreasonable levels of bureaucratic compliance. Again I guess an interest of the current Government is that it will always promote bureaucracy over the interests of employers. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on one of the three issues that my colleague Dr Mapp raised and that is the issue around the fact that a number of people have been left out of this bill. I think Dr Mapp made a good point when he said that it is typical that a Labour Government would look after those whom one terms as workers as against those who are self-employed. Of course that is the group of New Zealand taxpayers who quite clearly miss out on these provisions. One would have thought that the Government having introduced its paid parental leave provisions over 2 years—[ 
Interruption 
] This is Part 1 which covers quite a wide ambit and I am talking to Part 1. I would have thought that the Government would have endeavoured the second time around to make sure that any hint of discrimination was left out. 
I have said this before and I will say it again: if there is a principle that working people deserve to be supported by taxpayer funds upon the birth of children then that principle surely should stand good for everybody. Clearly if one looks at Part 1 it does not do that. As my colleague says— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member focus on what is in Part 1 please. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes I am focusing on this. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I have been listening very carefully to her speech and she has been focusing entirely on the purpose and the intent of this bill as contained in Part 1. I submit that you are unreasonably limiting the scope of her speech when she is dealing precisely with the issues contained in Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just for the benefit of members can I say that members must address the provisions of Part 1 and the bill does not provide for self-employed people; therefore if it is related to that then it is out of order. This means that although members may refer to such things in passing they must focus on the provisions of this part. Members cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they ought to be included in the bill. I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 43/4. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As usual your reference to Speakers’ rulings will be spot on but it does raise this question. That is that a specific policy decision has been made by the Government to exclude self-employed people from the provisions of this bill. On that basis it is perfectly within the purview of the purpose and intent clauses of this bill to refer to matters that have by way of policy fallen outside that purpose and intent of the bill. I would just urge a bit of caution around the tightening of that parameter and by way of comparison say this. Under the old rules members proposed alternative titles to bills in the Committee stage and if your ruling that you have just given was applied in that situation then no other potential title that members suggest in their speeches would be technically relevant. Yet that has always been a contention of this Parliament to allow those types of matters to be—[ 
Interruption 
] What we would ask for on this side of the Chamber is for you to allow some latitude around those provisions of the purpose and intent clauses which allow colleagues and other members in this Chamber to explore issues that have been deliberately excluded from the provisions of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber do not believe that to be an unrealistic expectation during the Committee stage. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 274 in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon puts the self-employed back in this legislation. Indeed in the name of my good self there is another that puts the definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and say to him that the amendments themselves are out of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the issue that has been raised by Mr Brown. I am sure that it will result in fresh points of order. However I draw your attention also to page 3 of the commentary by the select committee which specifically states that several submitters advocated concerns about the self-employed. I do not believe that members in this House can be debarred from speaking on the general issues when the select committee itself has brought to the attention of the House in its own report issues around matters of the self-employed. I am sure that Mr Brown will make further points about his own amendments that deal precisely with the issue that was covered by the select committee in its report. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear the member. Then I intend to make a ruling on this. 
Simon Power 
: I appreciate that. I was just speaking with my colleague Peter Brown who as you will know is the acting chief whip or acting leader of New Zealand First in the Chamber at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I am the senior whip. 
Simon Power 
: The senior whip for New Zealand First referred to Mr Gudgeon and his own amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to this bill. Mr Chairperson I seek your guidance in advising the Committee of a ruling on this issue. Is it correct that amendments or Supplementary Order Papers that are ruled out of order are ruled out of order at the time they are put in the vote or are you now telling this Chamber that those matters can be ruled out of order by you prior to the vote being put which is pretty much what you have just said to the Committee? Therefore you are effectively excluding any discussion on those Supplementary Order Papers or amendments by ruling them out prior to the vote being put. 
Admittedly I have been in this Parliament only—well nearly 5 years and I am coming up to my anniversary on 27 November which is more than the average; but I say this: are you now ruling that you are able to rule out of order amendments and Supplementary Order Papers prior to that vote being put? My understanding is that if that is your ruling that is a departure from the conventions I have been working under since my time here and I would appreciate a considered ruling on that point. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also ask for a ruling about why it is that not only are we not allowed to address the amendments proposed by other members but also the commentary itself which was a substantial matter dealt with in the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that this is not a debate on the commentary. I want to make a ruling. There are a number of issues here. First members can address wider policy issues in the second and third reading debates. This is the consideration of the detail of the bill. Members can refer to other things but it should not be the focus of their speech. That is the first point. 
Regarding the amendments an issue raised by the honourable members Peter Brown and Simon Power similar amendments were ruled out of order in the select committee. They are also out of order here. As for the third point amendments that are outside the scope of the bill do not widen the scope of debate on the bill. However as I mentioned previously members may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of this part. I have made a decision on that and I intend to move on. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your patience on this but it is an important point. My understanding is that the Committee is the master of its own destiny. Are you now saying that amendments that were ruled out in the select committee affect whether those amendments are accepted in a Committee of the whole House? That just cannot be right. This Committee is the master of its own destiny. Surely what occurred in respect of amendments in the committee cannot affect whether this Committee of the whole House makes a recommendation that those amendments or Supplementary Order Papers are now accepted in this forum. That is a very serious departure and will undermine the ability of this Committee to make decisions on those amendments with reference to decisions that were made at the select committee. I would appreciate your considered view on that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready. The reality is that I have made a decision on the issue and it is highly disorderly to persist in challenging the Chair when a decision has been made. 
Peter Brown 
: I do not in any way mean to challenge the Chair. However I point out that bills have gone through the House where the select committee has tossed something out and it has come back here and gone into law. I can think of a number of pieces of legislation—accident compensation for one and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is only if there is an instruction to the House. 
Peter Brown 
: With respect I suggest to you that the public is listening and they will be told through you that the concerns for the self-employed in this instance cannot even be spoken about. In my view that is less than democratic. 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think your first point was valid in that you have given a ruling and members are now challenging that. But then there comes a second point. Indeed Mr Power does have a point when he says that the Committee can pass amendments and in fact routinely does. But as will be known to all members in this Parliament where there is an impact on the Crown’s financial position the Minister of Finance is quite entitled to rule any amendment out of order. No matter what the numbers in the Chamber may be it can actually be ruled out of order. It is my understanding that even in doing so those matters can be debated in the Committee but they cannot be put to the vote. That I think will clear that up. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance on this. You mentioned in your ruling that the select committee had ruled out of order certain amendments members had tabled in the Committee stage. However under Standing Order 239 the proceedings of the select committee are confidential and a number of members sitting in the Chamber here are quite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The committee has reported on the bill. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: As I understand it the words that you used were not reported in the select committee’s report to the House. I seek clarification that you are not divulging confidential material from the select committee to the Committee of the whole House because that would be a breach of Standing Order 239. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no confidential material with regard to that matter. I say to members now that the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). Again I tell members that they may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of the bill. I now intend to move on. I have ruled on this issue. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just spoken to my colleague Bill Gudgeon and he tells me that those amendments were not raised at the select committee at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Similar amendments. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You referred to Standing Order 295(2) where the Committee can make amendments that are relevant and are consistent with the principles of the bill. I have no argument with that at all. The point I was making is that if indeed some amendments were removed during the select committee process that does not in itself prevent the Committee of the whole House considering further amendments. 
 What I asked you Mr Chairman was whether this Committee is prevented from having a discussion on those amendments because of activity that occurred at the select committee. I think your last ruling is absolutely technically correct and within the purview of Standing Order 295(2) but I submit to you that that was not my question. My question asked whether this Committee is prevented from discussing amendments that were thrown out in the select committee process. My understanding—and Maurice Williamson sitting on my right will correct me if I am wrong; he is a very senior member—is that the Committee of the whole House is the master of its own destiny and is able to consider any amendment or Supplementary Order Paper that is on the floor of the Committee regardless of what occurred at the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is wrong. I have already ruled on that. 
Simon Power 
:That is my point Mr Chairman. You have not ruled on the relationship between the select committee and the Committee of the whole House and that is the ruling I seek. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I repeat the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as that for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). I add for the member’s information that amendments subject to a financial veto are able to be debated under Standing Order 313(4). No similar exception applies here. I now intend to move on. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am grateful to my colleagues for that discussion. This is the House of Representatives. We are elected here to speak on behalf of the people of New Zealand and any steps that try to narrow us down are to be deplored. 
I come to the purpose of Part 1 set out in clause 3. I will not discuss paragraph (a) because that applies in particular to teachers in employment although I would quite like the Minister in the chair the Hon Taito Phillip Field to explain what the purpose of the paragraph is. Paragraph (b) applies to a narrow group of employees. Paragraph (c) also appears to apply to a very narrow group of employees as does paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) refers to the duration of parental leave payments for the period from 1 December 2004 to 30 November 2005 which will go from 12 to 13 weeks. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain to the Committee why clause 3 sets out a very narrow group of New Zealand parents and why they have been chosen over and above anybody else. They are of course part of the taxpaying public of New Zealand but they are only a small part. Another bigger group of taxpayers has for some reason not been included in clause 3. Clause 3 applies to a very narrow group and we want to know why. Until we know the reason it is very hard for us to support clauses 4 5 6 7 and so forth that make up the balance of the part. 
The Minister in the chair needs to be very much aware that the majority of submissions on this bill expressed concern for the very group of people about whom the points of order were made. The submissions were absolutely right on that point. Those who are self-employed make up 20 percent of the taxpaying public of New Zealand. If we read clause 3 carefully we will see that it is discriminatory. I invite the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain why only some parents are included and why others are excluded. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I understand your ruling on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper but I cannot say that I accept the ruling on my amendment. Basically it is a definition of a self-employed person which I am asking be inserted in the bill. The honourable member who has just resumed her seat made a very very good point in relation to clause 3 “Purpose of this Part”. The clause lists all the people it supposedly includes but it does not include everybody who pays taxes in New Zealand who gets pregnant and who in our view is entitled to paid parental leave. Indeed this bill favours people who have been in employment for a relatively short time. It favours people who are highly paid and it excludes people who might be self-employed. There cannot be a financial veto on the definition I propose should go in the bill. It is simply a definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member debating this issue? Is he debating Part 1? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am talking about my proposed amendment which is a definition of those who are self-employed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That amendment is out of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: It cannot be subject to a financial veto. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The problem is that the bill does not provide for self-employed people and the amendments that relate to self-employed people—which is what we have just been through—are out of order. That does not mean that members cannot refer to them in passing but we cannot have a whole speech based on them. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is only 5 minutes. I will take my next half— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is testing my patience. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made rulings on this matter. 
Judith Collins 
: The self-employed people are taxpayers who are paying for this provision. Why can we not include them in the discussion? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have just said that the bill does not provide for self-employed people. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am trying to establish that there should be a definition of a self-employed person in the bill and my amendment proposes one. The fact that those people will not be paid parental leave is a sad fact but it is almost by and by. My definition covers people who pay taxes who work very very hard and who could have been working for a lot longer than some of the people who will get entitlements under the bill. We want to endeavour to include self-employed people if for no other reason than to speed up the process that the Government is meant to be undertaking to consider the self-employed. That is what it states in the introduction to the commentary on the bill. If people are being considered then it is a good argument to have a definition in the bill of who is being considered. 
Many people pay taxes in this country and it is New Zealand First’s view that if paid parental leave is an entitlement then it should be an entitlement for all. It is a huge disappointment to us that this bill does not extend as far as that and also that a Government with a huge surplus is going to wipe self-employed people out of consideration in total without listening to a case to change things. 
I was told by a member of the Green Party that the problem with the self-employed being covered in this bill is simply a matter of definition. The Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson shakes her head but my understanding is that the Greens and the Government have had quite some discussion on this matter and that it was a stumbling block. 
New Zealand First is supportive of parental leave. We supported the last bill as I recall. However we find it somewhat unfair that entitlements will be increased for some people at the expense of self-employed people. There are many self-employed people who could do with this sort of legislation probably more so than some highly paid employed people. We think there is a good case to have the matter heard in this Committee stage and vetoed if one likes by the Minister at the end. However you have made the ruling Mr Chairman and I just say to you that the definition of self-employed people should be included. There is a place for those people in this sort of legislation. They should be included. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take the first call for the ACT party on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we have already heard in this debate this bill is all about what sort of assistance we want to give to people in the workplace who are having a child: whether we want to give them welfare assistance or whether we should as the ACT party has always advocated give them a taxation break. In other words if we lowered taxes we probably would not need to be here today to debate this bill. 
I would like to call on the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson to take a call in particular regarding clause 3 “Purpose of this Part”. I refer in particular to paragraph (a) which states that a teacher who is employed in more than one school or has more than one role—inother words a teacher who has more than one job—can be regarded as essentially being full-time and therefore as being entitled to the paid parental leave provisions in this bill. However as I understand it someone who is in part-time jobs that are not teaching jobs with different employers and whose hours add up to 40 hours a week—the full week is just made up of different component parts—is not entitled to paid parental leave. We have already heard members of the Committee express their concern over a bill like this that discriminates against the self-employed but it now appears to me that we have a bill that largely discriminates against part-time workers except when they are teachers. That just does not make sense. 
When we look at women in the workforce in New Zealand we see that they have a wide variety of roles. It does not make sense for the Government to favour one group of women in one type of occupation. That occupation happens to be teaching which as I understand it is represented by the biggest union in the country. I may have that wrong—if it is not the biggest union in the country then it is certainly one of the most powerful unions in the country. It does seem to me that we have a situation here whereby the Labour Party is favouring its union friends and to my mind that is unacceptable not only to our party and to the other Opposition parties but also to the large majority of New Zealanders who believe that if the Government is to pass laws at least they should be fair. 
I would like the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson to explain to us and remind the Committee why it is that a teacher who has part-time employment in a variety of different schools with more than one school board as his or her employer can add it all up make it come to 40 hours a week and be entitled to parental leave while other workers are not entitled to do that. What is the difference between a teacher in that situation and somebody else who has a different selection of employers making up his or her 40 hours of work a week? Why should that person be discriminated against by the Labour Government when it is treating a teacher in that position in a favourable manner? Could the Minister explain to us whether in fact the Government had meetings with the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute the teachers’ unions over this bill and whether the Government then decided to give favouritism to those two unions for their members. Why was it that the Government did not give that sort of an understanding to other people around New Zealand who are part-time workers? I think that is a very serious issue. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to take up the issue that has been so well put by the previous speaker as it is a point that needs to be looked at. What about nurses? What about the nurses for instance who work in the Auckland region and may be employed on a part-time basis by the Auckland District Health Board and on a part-time basis by the Counties Manukau District Health Board? Those people will not be included. There is an absolute lack of nurses in this country and here we are giving preferential treatment just to teachers. That has to be wrong. No reason has yet been given in this debate as to why teachers are singled out for special treatment while other employees—other professionals trades people people who happen to be cleaners and people who work in all sorts of other jobs—are not included. They are not included because this Government does not really care about them. It is using this legislation just for votes. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Mapp makes the very good point that maybe those people did not pay enough through to a particular party: the Labour Party. 
In addition to that there is the ridiculous situation whereby someone who has been working part-time for an average of 10 hours a week for 6 months will be able to get the benefit of this legislation. That person’s employer however—who may well be a sole employer a sole trader who is trying to build up a business—may take on another woman as a staff member and that staff member after a very short period of time will be able to get the benefit of this particular legislation while the self-employed woman who is trying to get her business going does not get the benefit if she decides to have a baby. Not only does the employer get to pay the taxes for that benefit but she gets no let-up because she will have to find someone else to fill that staff member’s place for 6 or 12 months or whatever period it is and she will not know how long she has to employ that person for. 
This sort of legislation has a place but it must be fair. When legislation is not fair as we have said time and time again then it is discriminatory and it needs to be revised. Unfortunately the Government is just not interested in listening to this debate. Government members tell us they cannot find a way to look at when people are self-employed and what they are earning. Yet the same Minister Ruth Dyson is able to tell us as the ACC Minister when people are self-employed and she is able to tell us how much they are earning because it suits the Government to do so—and that is because those self-employed people are paying accident compensation levies. That is what this legislation is about. It is about money; it is all about buying votes. Unfortunately this bill is a discriminatory measure that will have very little to do with the day-to-day lives of ordinary New Zealand women. Ordinary New Zealand women do not have the luxury of earning $200000 in a particular year and not paying tax on it because they are Labour Cabinet Ministers. Those women are the people who are paying for this legislation and they will be told that it will help them. 
The self-employed people of New Zealand know that they are being done over by this bill yet the Government has the opportunity with our support to change it and to include self-employed people. Will Government members vote for that? No they will not. The trouble is that we are not talking about great big companies here; we are talking about small businesses. The majority of businesses in this country are small and they are getting smaller. Those are the people who will pay the price not only in taxes but in terms of having to find more staff to fill the gaps and they cannot offer those staff any security. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. United Future members have taken a pragmatic look at this bill and asked ourselves whether it is an improvement. We have decided that yes it is. But does the bill go far enough? No it does not. Are we prepared to support it on the basis that it is an improvement on the current situation? Yes we are. 
My colleague Paul Adams who would normally be taking this call but is on leave has a favourite saying about the way one eats an elephant—one bite at a time. We feel that this elephant—this bill—does provide the opportunity for another bite to be taken. However let me be very clear that if we were to be given the opportunity to support New Zealand First’s proposed amendments we would be behind that party in supporting those amendments. I want to make it very clear that we see a huge amount of room for improvement. 
I refer now to some issues that came up before the Social Services Committee when it was considering this part. For instance the select committee was advised that apparently officials are considering a framework and looking at the design eligibility criteria and payment structure that could eventually apply to self-employed people. That is apparently on the agenda but it is not covered by this part at this point in time. I guess the point we would make about this part then is that maybe we should have tarried waited a little longer and allowed the work to be done so that the very important people who are yet to be included in the provisions— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who are they? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Self-employed people—are able to be included. The other thing that we need to remember when looking at this part is what was said on it by submitters. There were definitely some concerns about it regarding their inclusion if they were self-employed. 
I also want to refer to a report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
in February this year in which it was reported that Margaret Wilson was apparently recommending to Cabinet that the self-employed be covered by paid parental leave. Apparently Cabinet discussed the matter but was not happy with the proposal by the Minister. So it is obviously a moving feast with Cabinet and let us hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before we have a new amendment bill bringing in some sensible provisions so that this paid parental leave is extended to the huge number of women who at present are missing out. 
United Future is supporting this bill because it makes a step forward—it is a bite of the elephant—but we want to see more. We will be anxious in the future to cooperate with any Government that is prepared to re-look at this and include provisions to extend the legislation further than it is at present. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I want to speak on this bill because I represent a rural electorate and I have been a rural woman myself for many years. I feel that if this Government or any Government had decided it was going to have paid parental leave only for the self-employed or only for a group of women who perhaps had earned a high amount we would have heard shouted from the rooftops how discriminatory that was. But as it is despite the recommendations of the evaluation of the scheme that it should be extended to those who are self-employed this Government has chosen not to do that. 
The Government did set up the evaluation and Part 1 does include many of the things that that evaluation came back to the Government with. The evaluators said that they wanted to see paid parental leave extended to 14 weeks and in Part 1 it is extended to 13 weeks on 1 December 2004. They also said that they wanted to see other changes such as the provision being extended from including persons employed by just one employer to persons employed by more than one employer. I have had constituents come to me who missed out on their paid parental leave because of that provision. So that is fair. But the evaluators also discussed the fact that the most frequently mentioned suggestions to improve the scheme were the two points I have just made plus the extension of the scheme to the self-employed. One has to ask why this Government has chosen to take up two of those recommendations but not the third. The third is not included in Part 1; there are no provisions to extend the scheme to the self-employed and that is discriminatory and unfair—absolutely unfair. 
Rural women are out there listening. Those women who are milking are up at 4 or 5 a.m. in the morning—generally 4 a.m.—working extremely hard. They have to milk again in the evening. They are cooking and looking after their families—and then they may want to have a baby. Right OK they may get pregnant and there is no way they do not incur massive costs in having their children in exactly the same way as other women do. Someone else has to be employed to replace them and there are major costs. This Government is not considering those women and that provision has not been included in Part 1. 
Let us look at people who work in town. I know quite a few women who are hairdressers or who work as professional women in their own businesses. They will not be included either in this legislation. That is absolutely unfair. How much surplus does this Government have at the moment? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: $7 billion. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It has $7 billion but it is being so unfair that in Part 1 it cannot take up the third recommendation of its committee that evaluated the scheme and extend it to self-employed women. There were a lot of submissions on that to the select committee because everyone can see that that is unfair. Even teachers can see that that is unfair and other workers out there— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No teachers got a special deal for themselves. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes they got their own special little deal but they can see that it is unfair that those provisions do not apply to other women. It is because this Government does not value—absolutely does not value—the fact that this country is running on those small businesses with those self-employed people. If the Government valued them—and valued our rural women—at all it would have extended this scheme. But it has not and this is just another example to show how little it cares. 
The Government has the money it has had the review and the review has said that the scheme should be extended to the self-employed but this Government has made a very conscious decision to exclude the self-employed and rural women from this legislation. That is unfair. Employers who have small businesses in this country do have disruption in their workplaces when somebody leaves for a short time and has to be replaced. It is an increased cost to business because of that replacement. I totally agree with the provision of 12 months for— 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your clarification. In Appendix A of our Standing Orders under the heading: “Committee of the whole House” it is stated that members are allowed up to four speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. I know that in my particular case I spoke on the first clause of Part 1 and Part 1 contains 22 clauses. It concerns me that Government members are already seeking the closure when in fact there are members of the select committee that discussed this bill who have not even had an opportunity to speak. I seek your ruling Mr Chairperson that you will abide by the Standing Orders and allow members of the Committee to have up to four speeches on each part of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution and refer her to Speaker’s ruling 70/1 which talks about whether there is relevancy whether amendments are in order or whether there is tedious repetition. The Chairperson is the sole judge as to what number of speeches should be given. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I need to express openly that New Zealand First is very disappointed in the Government’s decision not to consider self-employed people in this legislation. When I spoke on this bill during the first reading debate there were people on the Government’s side of the House who were saying that they would look at our amendments. Now they are not present. Now that this decision has come to the fore my colleague Peter Brown and I are not even given the opportunity to have our submissions heard. 
I will just make a point here by referring to the Marquis de Condorcet in an essay that was written over 200 years ago the title of which translates as “The Future Progress of the Human Mind”. Condorcet foresaw the agricultural revolution gigantic steps in labour productivity a reduced working week the consumer society a dramatic rise in the average lifespan medical breakthroughs cures for common disease and an explosion in the world’s population. These things have occurred in this world in the last 200 years. Now we have people who are saying that women are not being treated fairly—especially those who are self-employed such as our farmers. We are not treating the citizens of this country fairly. 
Why is it that a section of the community in the population of New Zealand is not given the same opportunity as everybody else? Why has the Government turned against the self-employed? That question needs to be asked and we need an answer. If people think that this issue will come up later on I ask how many years later that will be. Self-employed people will still be struggling and the farmers’ wives will still be having children with no rewards at all for their efforts. Thank goodness that they are the backbone of the country and are able to do these things without even whimpering a word about it. 
The question I need to ask is: would the Government go back to whoever made this decision and really consider the submissions that we have put forward about self-employed people? If teachers can move around and still be given this benefit why is there a sector of the community that contributes to our tax in this country works very hard for long hours and pays by ACC levies if anything goes wrong but is denied the opportunity and privilege of paid parental leave? This is all I have to say but members should listen to what the Marquis de Condorcet had to say. 
In addition to that millions of Americans Europeans and Asians were emancipated from the drudgery of all-day work by miraculous technological advances in telecommunications agriculture transportation energy and medicine. The self-employed people have contributed to the state of the world that we live in today and are being denied the opportunity of having the same privileges that other people are getting today. The Government needs to think about that. Economists use a statistic to measure what national output could exist under conditions of full employment which is called the potential GDP. Do these people not contribute to the potential GDP of this country? I ask the Minister to answer the question. This needs to happen. Are the self-employed contributing to the GDP of this country? 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Take a call. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Yes the Minister needs to take a call. This needs to be really seriously taken into consideration. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: The Minister needs to listen. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: The Minister needs to listen to what I have just said. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As I have mentioned previously the honourable Bill Gudgeon’s amendments to clauses 8 9 11 and 12 which were set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 and the new clause 7A proposed by the honourable member Peter Brown were out of order as they were outside the scope of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the amendment to clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (4) from new section 2AB. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments that come into force on 1 December 2005 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. Part 2 includes clauses 23 to 31 and I remind members that it also includes debate on new schedule 2 as added by Supplementary Order Paper 279. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 2 is essentially a repeat of Part 1. 
Darren Hughes 
: Hah! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The junior whip on the other side may laugh about that. He simply does not understand the bill because if he were to read it he would understand why I said that. The point is that Part 1 is intended to expand maternity leave from 12 weeks to 13 weeks as from 1 December 2004. Part 2 is intended to push it out one further week to 14 weeks from 1 December 2005. That is why Part 2 is essentially a repeat of the other part. All the provisions of Part 1 are effectively echoed in Part 2. The same basic issues arise. 
I make the point that I had the opportunity to take only one call previously. I note that as National’s employment relations spokesperson having only one call on these issues is quite limiting. I want to make the following particular points. Probably the most egregious aspect of this bill is the way it changes the 12-month eligibility for leave rule to the 6-month rule. Business by and large has accepted the 12-month rule. The reason is that for employees who seek parental leave it is an accommodation if one will between the person’s or the family’s individual rights and the needs of the business. 
Obviously based on biological fact the reality is that employers will not employ someone who they know or may not know in advance is already entitled to maternity leave. That is the fundamental problem with shifting eligibility from 12 months to 6 months. We can now be in the position whereby someone can go to an employer and say: “I want a job.” and for a whole series of reasons get the job. No one would conceivably suggest that an employee be forced to disclose his or her personal conditions—I can understand that issue—but the reality is that at the get-go the employee knows something that the employer does not know; that within 6 months that employee will have a child and be entitled to take leave. The Government will say that it is not the employer who has to pay—that the leave is paid for by a benefit. That is not the point—it is the issue of disruption and the ability for employers to make reasonable plans going forward. That is why reasonable employers like Telecom—which does not have an objection to the shift from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and thence from 13 weeks to 14 weeks—are nevertheless very concerned about this more fundamental shift of the entitlement occurring after 6 months as opposed to after 12 months. They can see the difficulty for them to plan their own workplace. 
When we think about it this situation would be much more substantial for smaller employers than for larger employers. Obviously the breadth and depth of an organisation like Telecom is such that it could almost certainly make alternative plans. How does a small employer deal with those kinds of contingencies? As the Chair well knows 90 percent of New Zealand workplaces have less than 5 employees. It is not as if there is an exemption in this legislation for small workplaces. That is one of the features of all sorts of employment law in Australia where a distinction is drawn between large and small employers because there is an understanding of the differences between the two employment categories. 
In New Zealand we do not make that distinction. We impose exactly the same requirements on small employers as on large employers. This shift in the eligibility period from 12 months to 6 months will be quite serious. That is why the business voice which has accepted the legislation generally has said without exception that the shift from 12 months to 6 months will place particular burdens on New Zealand. 
We are different from other countries. We are not like those large European countries that have an immense history of large workforces. We are par excellence a country of small businesses more than any other country in the world. Because of that the solutions that might be acceptable in Europe pose unique and difficult costs in New Zealand and the Government simply fails to recognise that. The problems of small business are recognised in Australia—and will be strengthened in Australia I might add as a result of the recent election. We will essentially be handicapping ourselves relative to our most important trading partner—which is also in reality our competitor—so it will be more difficult for New Zealand’s small exporters to break into that Australian market and compete because of these additional bureaucratic costs. 
I turn to the final point. I know that the Chair made an injunction to deal with this relatively briefly but again the same issue arises here as in Part 1. 
This whole legislation is predicated on parental leave being a welfare benefit. That is what it is. In principle welfare benefits should be provided to people equally. The Social Services Committee recognised that in its own commentary. The Government has recognised that. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to these words by the select committee: “The committee is keen to see cover extended to the self-employed and was heartened to receive advice from the Minister that: … officials are considering the overall framework … that could apply to self-employed people.” Why is that not being done here now? We know as a matter of fact that we do not get multiple opportunities to deal with legislation. It comes along now and then—maybe once every 2 or 3 years at most. The self-employed are being told by this Government to wait for years and years— 
Judith Collins 
: And keep paying. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—and to keep paying but people on this side of the Chamber know that life does not hold back like that. People will have families. Self-employed people have to make that decision in their 20s and 30s and this Government is not helping them. Those bland assurances from the Minister actually count for nothing. For instance there was a Supplementary Order Paper that we could have voted on but that has been ruled out of order by the Chair yet the select committee has urged the Government to deal with these issues. One would think that when the select committee has done that this Committee—surely the master of its own destiny—should be able to vote on a Supplementary Order Paper that would do precisely that. What is the Government’s answer? So far Government members have not taken a single call. The Minister Ruth Dyson has said absolutely nothing. Would it not be marvellous—would it not be a service to the people of New Zealand—if the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs had the fortitude to take a call on behalf of the constituents— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Cared enough. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—and cared enough to explain why the Government is not putting its own Supplementary Order Paper forward that would deal with the select committee’s very reasonable recommendation. I say in conclusion that National stands for equality. The Orewa speech was all about equality and about treating all people equally under the law. This is an opportunity to treat people equally under the law—self-employed people and employed people. When we are talking about benefits there should not be a situation where some people are given preference and other people are rejected simply because of ideological prescriptions that the other side believes in. We find that hugely disappointing. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be opposing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Part of the reason for that is that this is another example of the Labour Government increasing welfare dependency in New Zealand. ACT is opposed to that when there are better ways of doing things. I ask the member what she has against giving taxes back to families so that couples are in a better position to make their own choices about whether both parents have to go out to work or whether they can afford for the mum to stay at home to look after her children. I would like the member to be aware of the fact that 46 percent of the average household income now ends up being paid out in taxes. If we add income tax GST and all the petrol taxes and sneaky taxes that Labour has put on we find 46 percent of the income of the average household in New Zealand now goes in tax. That is why so many families are struggling. 
What we should be doing in this Parliament is passing laws that give families more choice by letting them keep more of what they earn. That should be the right of working families in New Zealand. But of course this Labour Government does not intend to allow that. It has the belief that it cannot trust the people of New Zealand—that as a Government it has to tax them heavily take the money in and then give it back in election bribes in order to try to win another term of office. If the people who are listening to this debate do not understand that point all they have to do is to look at Part 2 which provides that the increased entitlement to parental leave comes into force on 1 December 2005. They will realise that this part which increases the entitlement from 13 weeks to 14 weeks will come into force after the election next year. So there it is in black and white: another election bribe from the Labour Government. I think that is appalling. What we should do is to give the surplus back. This is a greedy Government that is taking too much money from people—$6 billion to $7 billion too much. If that money was returned to families we could bring taxes down to a rate of about 20c in the dollar. 
I want to make a point about the fact that the entitlement is now being extended from people who have been in work for 12 months down to people who have been in work for 6 months. I say that that is the beginning of a series of discriminatory decisions that employers will make against women of childbearing age. They will not mean to make those decisions but they will do it anyway. If an employer is faced with a guy and with a woman who could be pregnant why would the employer take on a woman who could be pregnant and who under this Government’s laws could be off work for 13 to 14 weeks after she has had her baby and may then take the statutory period of time which would allow her to be off work for 1 year? The disruption to small businesses when one of the key employees is taking leave for an extended period—and it is not known whether it is for 3 months or whether it is for a year—is huge. The only reason this sort of law is being brought into Parliament is that the Labour Government does not understand business. This is another piece of anti-business legislation that makes it hard for small business in New Zealand to make a living. But it is also an anti-women piece of legislation because it will end up causing people to discriminate against women. The member over there can shake his head but let him wait watch and see. In fact if he were running a small business the same thing would cross his mind as to whether to hire a woman of childbearing age or somebody else who is not of that age. 
This is a bill of the worst sort. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to deal with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has put forward as well as with Part 2. I will start off with a somewhat controversial statement: this country needs more babies. I for one am very keen for other people to have more babies because frankly I am getting a bit old for it. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I’m not offering. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Minister is not offering either. It is really really tough having babies when one is in business. I have been there. This is something that we on this side of the House can share with fellow members on the other side who have no experience of it. It is really really tough having babies bringing them up going to work and doing all those things. It is so much tougher when people are self-employed and do not get any parental leave or help yet they see other people who will be getting it—people who happen to be their employees. 
I looked at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to see whether she was taking the opportunity to do the big thing. I thought she might have listened—possibly not to Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc. because unfortunately I do not think she holds them in quite the same regard as I do and as the National Party does. I thought she might take notice of the submission of the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women Inc. that this bill still does not address the needs of self-employed women in giving them access to any form of paid parental leave. There are lots of things I think about when it comes to business. One of them is that the people who pay the taxes are often the best people to make the decisions about how that money is spent. 
If we are to have a provision to entitle more and more people to have the extra 14 weeks’ leave—if we are to have a provision of that sort—then let us extend it. Let us be a generous House. The Government has had the opportunity to come and talk with us about it. It has had the opportunity to talk to New Zealand First has it not? And what has it done? Did the Government talk to the Greens about it? I do not think it did actually. I heard the member from United Future talk about how it is all a big elephant and that we eat it one bite at a time. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Of an elephant. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: One bite at a time of an elephant. I would absolutely agree with that if this bill did not impose a huge cost—an extra 14 weeks’ leave—on the self-employed mums and dads who are struggling to get through. We have to have more babies in this country. It is so much better when mums and dads are committed to their children—taking responsibility for them looking after them themselves paying for them making sure they get to school making sure they do their homework—I hope my boy has done his homework tonight—getting them to the doctor when necessary and doing all those sorts of things. That is why we have to encourage people to have children. But we should not be excluding the very people who are the backbone of the economy—the farmers and the self-employed business people—in favour of teachers so that it is the teachers who get the 14 weeks’ leave rather than the poor old taxpaying farmer who happens to get the pleasure of paying for it. 
My mother had her babies—including me—when she was a farmer and at no stage did she get 14 weeks’ paid leave to do so. She had to milk the cows and feed the calves. She did all that work and what good strong babies she got for it. But I can tell members that she would have loved to receive a little bit of help during that time. When we had big families as we did in the country in those days—and it was not a religious thing; we did not have television the opiate of the people—it was very very difficult. It is even more difficult now to encourage people to have babies particularly those whom we want to be working enjoying their lives and contributing. However we certainly are not going to help those very fine New Zealanders in this way. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I want to carry on from where Judith Collins left off when she talked about having babies. The sort of people who are self-employed who have the ability to be independent and stand on their own two feet who have got out there and worked for themselves and who have taken the risks are being penalised by the Government. Why should the Government do that? This tax-funded paid parental leave is not free; it is paid for by our taxes. We know that this Government has a $7 billion surplus which it is choosing how to hand back to people. The Government has grossly overtaxed people. Why does it not have that extra bit to follow its own evaluation of the scheme and to extend the scheme to the self-employed? 
I was brought up on a farm too and I come from very good stock. My grandmother drove the school bus worked taught and looked after a family. It is sad that those kinds of people miss out in this legislation. When an evaluation was done of the scheme and the Government looked at whom it should be extended to I wonder why it did not look at whether it made a difference. The importance of actually having paid parental leave is to see whether it makes a difference to the care of children. Is that not the whole point of it? Why have we introduced this if it is not to try to make it easier for mums to be able to have their children to bond with them to be able to breastfeed and for dads to be around. So has it made a difference? 
The Government spent a whole lot of money reviewing the scheme but not anywhere do I see whether this legislation made a difference whether it is working whether there are better rates of breastfeeding whether there are happier mums and dads and whether children are being better cared for. Quite frankly we have some appalling statistics in this country. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services shows us that things have got worse. Its report states that it is has not got better. Was that not the whole point of this legislation? The problem is that we do not have any data from the evaluation about whether the actual situation regarding the care of children has improved and Part 2 actually extends these payments from 13 to 14 weeks. 
Darren Hughes 
: So that’s a reason to oppose the bill? You’re clutching at straws. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The chatter from the Government benches— 
Judith Collins 
: A young boy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: He is a young boy who has yet to enter parenthood—or puberty actually. However he will get there and when he does his voice will deepen. At that point he will be able to have something to say about what it is like to be a parent. 
Simon Power 
: It’s not easy. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: At that time he will learn from Mr Power that it is not easy. This bill is all about making a difference to families yet we have seen nothing in the statistics to show that there has been a turn-round in some of the appalling statistics that we have in this country regarding child abuse the deaths of children the lack of immunisation and the outcomes from some of those health and social statistics. That is what this legislation should be all about. 
This Government is overtaxing New Zealanders specifically to have a bucket of money so that it can socially engineer what it hands back. We have to ask whether it makes a difference. It gives this money only to its preferred people. The Government does not give it to the farmers who happen to be women. It does not give it to the self-employed who work in the city and who take the chance. All this Government does is give it to the people whom it thinks will vote for it and that is pretty unfair. 
Part 2 extends the payments from 13 to 14 weeks. We would very much like to see that extended to the self-employed. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I want to address an issue that arises in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which not only extends the provisions of paid parental leave to 14 weeks from 1 December 2005 but also includes medical practitioners as a group of women who may work in one or more different jobs so that when one adds up all the different employers that she works for she is entitled to paid parental leave. 
In the previous call I took on Part 1 I raised the issue that teachers had been given that privilege and this Supplementary Order Paper extends it to doctors. I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs firstly to explain to the Committee why this provision did not include nurses because nurses are a huge and very important part of our workforce. It seems bizarre to me that if we look at the medical profession and give them privileges over women who work in other fields of endeavour who are not treated to the same assistance why it is that nurses have not been included. Maybe it is a slip-up maybe nurses are meant to be included but on my reading it does state medical practitioners and it does mention doctors in particular. I would like the Minister to clarify that. 
However the more important issue is why it is that teachers and women in the medical profession are included but not women who work in all the other types of jobs that are so important to New Zealand who would actually qualify if we aggregate their employment. The discrimination that the bill brings in for those women—and we have already heard a lot about the self-employed women who are being discriminated against by this bill—is one of the reasons why some of our parties in Parliament simply cannot agree to support this bill. 
I come back to a central point and that is that the bill is anti-business. Small businesses would find this sort of law extremely difficult and very damaging to their well-being and even survival in many cases. It really does worry me that Labour is bringing in laws that right now when the economy is going well we do not feel the effects of but when things start to tighten as they inevitably will—all of us know that—then these laws will actually in some instances be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. 
I would like to know from the Minister why it is that when all these other women of New Zealand who work in part-time jobs can have that aggregated up to constitute a full-time job self-employed women have not been included in this legislation. What is the reason for Labour giving out a welfare benefit to women in employment when on the one hand we have this bill that encourages women in the workforce not to stay at home to look after their babies and raise their children—probably they cannot afford it and secondly it is an incentive to keep them in work—but on the other hand Labour does not want solo mums whose kids are at school even to take on part-time work which is what our laws used to be before Labour took office. We have the Government saying on the one hand to women in the workforce not to stay home and look after their children—it is saying to them to go back to work and giving them some money to make sure they do—then on the other hand we have women who could work but there is no encouragement at all for them to go back into the workforce to provide some of the jobs that New Zealand so desperately needs at the moment. I think that this bill is a mixture of bizarre factors. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
The question was put that new schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that new schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like your confirmation as we head into this part of the Committee stage debate on a number of issues that were raised during the course of the debate on other parts of the bill surrounding the scope and extent to which members were able to debate amendments that were according to yourself excluded at the Social Services Committee but more particularly on matters relating to amendments that have been struck out during the Committee of the whole House—specifically the amendments proposed by my colleagues Bill Gudgeon and Peter Brown in relation to self-employed people. Leading into this part of the debate which is generally considered to be more wide ranging than the debates normally conducted through other parts of a bill—as you have rightly pointed out they are specific to the clauses contained in those parts—I seek from you an indication that you are prepared to widen the debate somewhat in the spirit in which these parts have been debated historically to include those matters that you have specifically limited or excluded by way of the select committee process or the proposed amendments that have been struck out during the debate in this Committee. I seek your ruling on that matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again thank the member for his contribution. The review of the Standing Orders was produced in December last year and it makes the point: “We consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill.” As I mentioned previously there is no reason why members cannot make a passing reference to the issues raised but that does not mean that the whole debate can be on them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the “Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2004”—that is so my colleague Maurice Williamson is aware of what we are debating. 
Darren Hughes 
: The “honourable” Maurice Williamson. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes the honourable Maurice Williamson. If ever there were a misnomer in the title of a bill this is it. I say that because on the face of it one would think that parental leave and employment protection sound like reasonable things to be passing laws on. One would think that there are a lot of people in New Zealand who choose during their working life or 6 months before they take up work to have children. I would say that all those parents would want to take a little bit of a break when they have their children in order to give the mums time to settle in with their babies and to get themselves established after the birth. On the face of it one would think that people in that situation would be entitled to have their employment protected while they took their 12 weeks’—soon to become 13 weeks” then 14 weeks’—paid parental leave. But when one looks at the detail of the bill one soon discovers that a whole lot of the working people who become parents are actually left out. 
We now have a different Minister in the chair from the one or two Ministers we had before the dinner break. I wonder whether this Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs would like to get up and explain to the Committee—but more important to the New Zealanders who are listening—why those groups of people are not included in the bill and why in the end its title is a misnomer—why it is misleading and false. Federated Farmers were kind enough to set out concisely for us a list of those who are excluded. I will take it directly from their submission because New Zealanders and New Zealand taxpayers should know that a lot of concerned people came to the Social Services Committee and expressed their concerns about those who were left out. They are: firstly all self-employed women; secondly women in part-time employment job sharing; thirdly women in casual employment part or full time; fourthly women who cannot find or choose not to engage in formal employment including women who choose to stop work to have a family—that is a laudable thing to do; in fact if we had the resources we would want every woman to be able to choose to stop work and stay at home to spend those precious first weeks or months with their baby; fifthly women who for many reasons have had a new employer within 6 months—and no doubt those reasons will be legitimate and many; sixthly woman who cannot or choose not to have children; and seventhly spouses of women who fit the above criteria and all spouses who do not fit the above criteria. Those are the groups set out in the submission. So of course those of us in the Opposition who are opposing this bill have for the last 2 hours laboured the point about the issue of self-employed women. However a whole lot of other groups of women are not included. 
I want the Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs to stand and explain to the public of New Zealand why it is that all taxpayers— 
Simon Power 
: Or say something. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That would be good. In fact have any of the Ministers said anything this afternoon? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: My gosh they have treated the public with contempt and disdain. They have treated taxpayers with contempt and disdain because although this legislation will be paid for by all taxpayers only some of them will benefit. What fairness is there in that? There is none whatsoever. In addition to being unfair it is discriminatory. It adds costs to business. If ever there was a Government that was anti small business this is it. Gosh I would love to hear the Minister for Small Business tell me why he would be supporting this legislation. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is great to be able to follow such a great contribution from my colleague Georgina te Heuheu on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill in particular. If only this was a provision we could support because we would support it if it was reasonable and if it did not discriminate against the people who are the backbone of this country’s economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The high-tech sector! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The farming and agricultural sectors in this country are the biggest contributors to our economy and they are being excluded. They get the joy of struggling to go out and milk the cows. They go and do that— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Queen Street farmers! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. That member is interjecting away from his own seat which I understand is over there. I think that breaches the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member on my right that members may change their seats provided they do not use the opportunity to interject. So I caution the member to desist. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I submit for your consideration that while fully in keeping with your ruling in terms of the Standing Orders I have not moved seats for the purpose of interjecting. I moved seats for the purpose of preparing my submission. The interjections were both rare and reasonable and I thought they were reasonably witty. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister may not originally have moved seats to interject but he is now in a position where he has an unfair advantage. If he wishes to interject then he needs to go back to his own seat. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: This bill is discriminatory against the most productive sector in New Zealand—the farming sector. The people in that sector are being excluded by this provision. They say as we say that people should be free to make their own arrangements. But if we are going to encourage working people to have children and by goodness we should then we should not discriminate against those who are in their own businesses. We should not give preferential treatment to certain sectors that happen mostly to support the Government such as some of the people in the teaching profession. Nurses are not included and that is very interesting. Some doctors and some teachers are included but nurses are not. That is what is so wrong. 
Opposition Member 
: Haven’t the nurses got it? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well they do not need to help the nurses now because of course they think they have the nurses fooled; but the nurses are going to be told otherwise. They are being excluded. 
I would like to be able to support this provision but until it is reasonable I cannot. While it is so discriminatory I will not accept it and neither will the National Party. When I was self-employed I was in the situation of looking after a baby and I wonder about the fact that I had to provide for a locum to come in and work in my business. What if after 6 months she then become pregnant and decided to take leave? What would happen in that situation? Would I as a self-employed person then have the joy of giving parental leave to a locum who was on a fixed-term contract? I would like to hear from the Minister about that. Are these in fact some of the people who will be protected by this legislation while the poor old employer has to try to find someone else to fill the gap for 3 4 5 or 6 months or for extended leave? That is the difficulty—finding people who are often key people in key roles. 
I am one of the people in this place who has actually had a prospective employer say to me when I was in my 20s—which I am certainly not in now—“Oh well you might go off and have babies.” I have had that happen to me. 
Darren Hughes 
: The 1950s was a different time. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That young man over there should sit back and listen to someone who has lived a bit of life. Having said that I know it happens. Employers do think like that. They feel they are being absolutely targeted by this Government and that they are being punished for having the get up and go to mortgage their homes and set up their own businesses. Why can we not help employers in that situation—self-employed people and business people? 
My colleague Wayne Mapp made the point that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Most of it is not Telecom or Carter Holt Harvey. Come to think of it Carter Holt Harvey is quite small now and it is getting smaller. Most businesses are not big brewery companies. Most are mum-and-dad businesses—people who are panel beaters people who run garages small law firms and doctors’ surgeries. They are small-business people and they are the ones who are being punished by this Government. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. As we have already heard Part 2 comes into force on 1 December 2005 so this is simply another part of the bribery that this Government is engaged in. 
I would like to suggest some new titles for this bill. I thought that instead of it being called the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill a title such as the “Welfare Parental Employment Bill” would properly reflect the nature of the legislation we are passing. It would be interesting to put the word “welfare” into the title because that would signal to people who thought they were eligible under this legislation—in other words new mums—that welfare entitlement is something that normally is given to all. In this case the need is being a new mum and those mums would have to reflect on the fact that they would not be amongst the anointed. They would not be amongst the chosen ones who would be eligible for that welfare payment. 
Another title that takes a different angle would be the “Parental Discrimination Bill” because as we have heard this legislation actively discriminates against a whole lot of women in the workforce. We heard about nurses and the self-employed. It has already been mentioned that farming families have an important role in our economy and they are totally excluded by this Government. I wonder what the Human Rights Commission had to say about this legislation. Did we get a report from the Hon Margaret Wilson’s office about whether it was in line with our human rights legislation? Was there an exclusion under the bill? I do not recall one. 
This legislation definitely discriminates against women in employment so the “Parental Discrimination Bill” could be a potential title. Another title I thought of is “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill” or the “AALPB” for short. I thought that would signal to another group of people that this legislation is anti small business. I would like to know whether the honourable Minister for Small Business had a chance to have a say on this legislation before he was sent home by the Prime Minister. Mr Tamihere is at home in hiding as we understand it. However the Prime Minister told us in question time today that he was busy on the phone to everybody. Has any member on this side of the House heard from Mr Tamihere? Has he spoken to Mr Ardern? No he has not. The Minister for Small Business who appears to be in hiding has not been talking to members on this side of the House. If he had been we would have asked him what he thought of this anti - small business Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I personally would have asked him whether he would have approved of the new title “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill”. It has a certain ring to it and it would signal to all people in the small-business sector exactly what this Labour Government is doing. It is passing laws that hurt small-business people the very people who keep this country going. 
The member Darren Hughes who sits there and makes smart comments all the time would have done better had he gone out into the workforce got a proper job got his hands dirty like the majority of New Zealanders and learnt what makes an economy tick and what allows small business to make its contribution. Had he done that he would be opposing this bill. He would realise that this legislation is not helping the country to go forward. It is picking out some people for privilege and hurting others. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I take a call to speak against the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill There are a number of reasons why I will do that and I will explain them to Government members in just a moment. The first and most important is that this legislation discriminates against self-employed people. Have Government members ever visited a dairy farm in their life? Do they know how dairy farmers work? Do they realise that a dairy farm or rather the collective of 14000 dairy farmers in New Zealand earns 20 percent of this country’s export earnings? Do they know who is responsible for achieving that outcome? Do they know that? Do they know how much is earned from the meat and wool industries in this country and how those farmers are involved in their business? Do they understand that? Do they understand the significance of small business in this country? The answer to all those questions is no they have no idea at all. Nobody can get John Tamihere on the phone to ask him. Nobody can get him; the phone is off the hook. There has been no answer to that call tonight to tell us what the Minister for Small Business has to say on this issue—none whatsoever. 
I say to the Committee tonight that the title of this bill is very very misleading. As members have said before it should be clearly stated that this legislation discriminates against people who are self-employed. The unfortunate part about that is that those people make up something like 85 percent of the export earnings of this country. That is the unfortunate bit. We are discriminating against a substantial part of the workforce but more importantly we are discriminating against those who add the real horsepower to the economy. This Government will use the tax it collects from them to pay for the parental leave and employment protection legislation. I ask the Government members—the Minister and anybody else who would like to—to take a call to explain to us how that fits in with the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Parliament when she said that this Government would be pro-growth. Will Government members explain to me where the evidence is that this legislation will be pro-growth? Will they give us just one little bit of evidence—anything something to clutch to or the slightest bit of evidence—that somehow or other this measure will create growth in the economy? 
I say to Government members that the problem with socialist Governments and socialists anywhere in the world is that they do not understand that they are hurting the people that they purport to represent. I put it to members that small business out there—a farm—that is looking to employ a person for the job will look at young women today and will ask whether it will be lumbered with a person who may potentially be away having children. OK she would be paid by the taxpayer while she is absent but she would still be on that business’s employment list. Will small business look at that when it has to choose between a young male or a young female and make that choice? Will it or will it not? What do Government members think will happen? What does the trade union movement think? What do their mates in the union movement tell them? Will this measure discriminate against women? The answer is overwhelmingly yes it will. 
I say to Government members that they cannot regulate everything. The dairy industry the industry I spoke of previously has a very proud record in terms of treating its employees well. In fact one of the very first jobs I did on becoming an MP was to open a creche solely paid for by Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd—by the dairy farmers. The Hon Trevor Mallard who was then the Opposition spokesman on education was there as well. Paid parental leave was actually provided—that choice was made. What the socialists on the Government side of the Chamber do not understand is that people can go out and say to a young family whose house and mortgage are on the line that they will not get parental leave and that although it will not be given to them it would be given to whatever person the family may employ. How is that fair? How is that pro-growth? How will that protect the most vulnerable people? There is no evidence that that is the case. What is the cost of this measure to small business? Has any work been done on that? Do Government members know the cost? What about the fact that this measure discriminates against one of the very strong platforms that this Government has built itself up on? 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that when members from the Government leap up and make that statement—and it is about all that they say—it tends to irk. The longest speech that has come from the Government on this whole bill was when David Cunliffe stood up and complained that he should be in that seat in order to heckle people. That was the longest speech made by a Government member all night. If the issue were not so serious that would be funny. One thing that concerns New Zealand First is the comment made by the Minister on page 3 of the commentary on the bill—if members would like to even read it. I will read out the second paragraph which states: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” That is a very good positive statement but not one Government member and not one Minister can stand up and tell us when that will happen. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: You guys can read it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I respect the honourable member because he usually makes sense when he says things. Part 2 comes in on 1 December 2005. Will the matter of the self-employed be addressed by then? Are we not entitled to know that? Will self-employed people have their problems addressed by then? Why does the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs not take a call and tell us how long they will have to wait? 
My colleague Judy Turner is the only person from what one could call the Government coalition who has made a contribution tonight on any part of the bill. She became obsessed with eating chunks of elephants from time to time. I do not know why she does not have indigestion because her colleagues certainly got out of here with indigestion. I say to her and to the Greens that if they had wanted to support the self-employed they should have stuck with us on that issue in Bill Gudgeon’s amendment. If they had said they would not pass the bill without having the self-employed included we could have won that and done something for the people of this country who work their backs off. The situation we have here is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that a young woman who earns $200000 a year—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not want to get into people’s personal life—and who has shares in the biggest company in the country will get paid parental leave. But the farmer or the little self-employed guy down the block gets zilch—absolutely nothing. United Future and the Greens could have said they would hold off on the elephant for a little bit longer while they forced that amendment through and got the self-employed covered by the bill. 
I return to the title of the bill which should be the “Unfair Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. It is totally unfair. I believe the bill is so unfair that Government members should be hanging their heads in shame. They are almost doing that. They will not take a call; they cannot defend the position they have adopted. I think that Phillip Taito Field is going to stand up. I have read with interest what the membersof the Social Services Committee have stated but not one of them has said boo except for the Hon Judith Tizard who stood up and said we should close the whole thing down because it was getting to be an embarrassment. This is pretty poor democracy. Those members should be ashamed. They should be on their feet and telling us whether the self-employed will be covered by legislation of this sort before 1 December next year. It states here that that issue will be addressed this year. This year has nearly run out; it is November now. Members are shaking their heads. They do not even know what they stand for. They just put their hands up— 
Judy Turner 
: They don’t join a union. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want to listen to Judy Turner because I think she feels ashamed of this bill now. I know she is a person with a conscience. I know she is prepared to put the elephant aside in order to really have a go for the self-employed and address the issue properly.  
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title is about parental leave and employment protection. When people are self-employed surely their employment is just as important as that of employees. People say that the jobs of the self-employed are not actually at risk. But if we are talking about protecting the ability of those people to stay in business and to be able to continue to have a job—to be employed to have employment and to be able to continue to work—then we realise the costs that are associated with self-employed people having a child and having to take leave means that they are as vulnerable as workers who take time off for that. I just cannot understand why this Government has chosen to extend the parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks. That has a certain fiscal cost. Why has that happened? If the Government has enough money the provisions should be extended to the self-employed; if it has not why did it make the choice to go from 12 weeks to 14 weeks for parental leave instead of including the self-employed? I remember being in the House and having these debates again and again. The Government knows that it has had many submissions to the Social Services Committee not just on this amendment bill but also on the original paid parental leave bill that talked about this issue for the self-employed. 
One has to say that this is simply and utterly a decision that shows that the Government does not value self-employed people. It does not value our farmers and it does not value the self-employed yet this country runs on small businesses. They are often family businesses with mum dad and the kids working together. Certainly many businesses have husband and wife teams that work together. If one of those people is out of the workforce because of in this case having a child why should he or she be discriminated against? I would very much like just one member from the Government side of the Chamber or the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to get up and answer the question that so many New Zealanders have wanted to know the answer to: why has the Government discriminated so markedly against the self-employed and against our rural women? Why has it done that? The Government obviously has the money to extend parental leave to them. It has been running huge surpluses but it has not chosen to address that issue. 
The other question I have is this: has the previous paid parental leave worked and will extending that leave work? What is meant by work? What is the Government trying to achieve by funding women to be able to stay at home? It is trying to fund better outcomes. Have we seen those? Do we have any evidence— 
Steve Chadwick 
: A 3 percent increase in breastfeeding at 6 months. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The member knows that that 3 percent is within the margin of error and has no significance whatsoever. It is a statistical anomaly. One cannot use that sort of statistical analysis; the figure is within the margin of error. We know that Child Youth and Family Services has a report that shows that the care of our most disadvantaged children has worsened. 
What would be far better than this legislation would be to stop encouraging the idea that the State owes people everything. People expect to be dependent on the State. We should teach our children and our young mums about independence. We should teach them that the State does not owe them a living and that the only way they will get ahead in this world is by taking responsibility for themselves and their work. People should not think that their employers owe them X Y or Z but that they actually owe their country and their employers X Y and Z. If we tell people that they are lucky to have jobs and to be able stay in them that would be a far better idea. It would be far better to encourage that sort of philosophy than the sort that New Zealand has at the moment—because that is one of the problems that New Zealand has. When we travel to other parts of the world we recognise that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am pleased to be here to speak to the Committee stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Part 1 is likely to be the part that generates the most discussion this evening. It is the part that confirms the annual rates of tax. It is worth noting in relation to this part that the Committee has before it a Supplementary Order Paper from United Future that seeks to index income tax thresholds from $38000 to $43000 and from $60000 to $68000. I need to inform the Committee that that Supplementary Order Paper has attracted a financial veto on the basis of an unbudgeted fiscal cost of $900 million per annum. This is of course particularly important given that the projected cash surplus is limited to some $520 million per annum. 
The other parts of the bill are largely taxpayer friendly and are likely to attract somewhat less debate I suspect. They reflect the main themes of the Government’s tax policy work programme: promoting growth and innovation; simplifying tax especially for small businesses; reducing tax-related compliance costs; and protecting the revenue base. The rest of the bill which we will discuss later removes some tax obstacles and closes a couple of loopholes. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 One has to get up early in the morning to get past the Hon David Cunliffe but even he could spot that the aim of the Opposition’s attack tonight would be this Government—a Government that just loves to tax ordinary New Zealanders. It loves to tax hard-working New Zealanders businesses and people up and down the country. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Gouge the tax out! 
JOHN KEY 
: It loves to gouge their eyes out. Dr Smith is absolutely correct. The Government loves to take money off hard-working New Zealanders and waste it on absolutely anything it can point a stick at. “How big is that spending?” one might sit back and ask. It is $34 billion worth of additional taxes brought in by this Government—$34 billion in the last 5 years and the Minister of Finance had the gall to come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and tell it that there is no room for tax cuts going forward. He had the gall to tell the people of New Zealand that they have paid $34 billion—something like 18 additional taxes bringing in money from every part of the economy—and that there is no room for tax cuts. But he did even better than that. When he was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we asked him about the petrol tax the extra 5c a litre—yet another tax Labour is bringing in—and the amount of roading that will be built on the back of that $200 million he said code for: “I’m not going to bring in the tax before the election because I’m very unpopular with the amount of taxes I’m collecting. But what I will do is to put on hold all the additional new road construction that would have been done by this Government because fiscally we can’t afford it.” The Government has a $7.4 billion operating surplus and a $6.6 billion operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting charges. It is funding its entire capital programme out of cash and it still has available spending to repay debt—but it cannot afford it! 
The United Future party came up with a Supplementary Order Paper. Parts of it are not necessarily what we would do in tax policy but we support it. The Government will not support it. The Government will not support its own partner—a partner that it has a confidence and supply relationship with. There must have been great negotiations around the Cabinet table when United Future came in and said: “Well we didn’t get a place at the Cabinet table but we decided we’d support you through thick and thin on confidence and supply. But by the way we’re going to veto your tax bill because it will give $700 million to $900 million worth of relief to hard-working New Zealanders. But we’ll tell you what: we’ll go out and spend the money for you better.” How will they spend it? Well their track record frankly is abysmal. There are billions of dollars more for health in this country yet fewer operations are being done. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Oh rubbish! 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. Fewer operations are happening throughout the country. Poor New Zealanders are not on waiting lists because Labour has got rid of waiting lists. It has redefined them with some other PC flaky term. Basically unless a person cannot see cannot hear cannot walk cannot talk or cannot do anything then he or she is not allowed to be on a waiting list—because that is embarrassing when a Government is spending billions of dollars more of taxpayers’ dollars. Then we had the debacle around Steve Maharey’s ministry where people at all sorts of polytechs around the country were charging the Government for courses they were supposedly undertaking but really were not doing at all or for courses that had not provided any value at all. That is the idea of this Government; it simply wants to raise taxes—$34 billion additional taxation. 
On Monday of this week we released some data that I think the Government would be well-advised to look at. It showed that the increase in real nominal after-tax wages in New Zealand has been about 3 percent over the last 5 years. So New Zealanders’ average after-tax wages have gone up by about 3 percent over the last 5 years which is less than 1 percent a year. Mr Cunliffe smiles with embarrassment like a Cheshire cat that has caught something and Dr Cullen is hiding somewhere within the precincts of the building I am sure because he is embarrassed that at exactly the same time the Government’s revenue has gone up by 25 percent in real terms. In nominal terms it has gone up 40 percent—$34 billion—but in real terms it has gone up 25 percent. To put it another way—and to put it simply so the Minister can understand it—for every $7 of value that this economy has produced $6 has stayed with the Government. Is that fair? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes this bill—particularly this part that sets the annual rates. We stand here as the only party that says the move of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen to increase the top rate of tax from 33c to 39c was wrong. We say that the 39c rate should be dropped immediately. Unlike our National Party cousins—we know that John Key would like to have a policy that said: “Let’s drop the 39c to 33c.” but he has not managed to persuade his caucus—the ACT party stands firm. 
Simon Power 
: Oh! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well he might have persuaded Mr Power but that is not enough. The ACT party says that the top tax rate should not be 33c in the dollar but that we should go to a top rate of tax of 20c in the dollar and that we should do so immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Steve Chadwick calling out. Here is a Government that expects everyone else to pay a 39c or a 33c rate of tax but she stands to defend a Minister who pays—how much tax? Was it 39c was it 33c was it 20c? No! It was none. Steve Chadwick believes that she can look voters and taxpayers in the eye and say: “Yes you pay 39c and you pay 33c.” but here is John Tamihere who received a golden handshake of $195000 that he said he would not take—and I am coming to precisely the point of the annual tax rates. If one receives a payment of $195000 and one is a member of Parliament can someone please tell me under this legislation and the legislation it replaces or the legislation before that what the tax rate should be? It is 39c is it not? But what did the Cabinet colleague of Steve Chadwick Rick Barker and—what is the name of the fella in the chair?—David Cunliffe pay on that amount? None! So what are we doing in this Parliament passing law when Labour Party Cabinet Ministers just ignore it? John Tamihere voted for the legislation. He goes around small businesses telling them they have to pay their taxes but what does he do? He pays none. That is a disgrace and I do not see David Cunliffe getting up now to defend his Cabinet colleague. And what does Helen Clark say? She says: “Oh naughty boy! You didn’t pay your tax as set out in the annual rates of income tax for 2000-01.” 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Now you are stretching it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I can see why Lianne Dalziel is bitter. She paid her tax and she got fired. John Tamihere did not pay his tax but he did not get fired. He was sent on a holiday to west Auckland. 
Simon Power 
: At least she had honour. 
Rodney Hide 
: She had some honour. She went—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I know. David Benson-Pope is calling out. He is saying that there is no honour with John Tamihere and I agree with him. If we are going to pass this legislation that sets the top rate of tax at 39c I expect MPs to pay it. I expect Ministers to pay it but I say to Lianne Dalziel that it is very clear— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Who pays your money Rodney? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh here we go again!. Are they not great? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: We know all about it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh yes. They know all about it. Let us hear about it then. They could get up and give a speech and tell us the story. Here we have a Labour Government with high taxes for everyone—and wasted money. Labour’s own Cabinet Minister does not pay his tax and Helen Clark says that is OK. David Cunliffe says that is OK. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: How much did you get paid? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The wicked witch from Christchurch can go on all she likes. The fact of the matter is that people see through it. John Tamihere said he would not take that $195000 but he did. Then he said he was not going to pay any tax on it because he had to feed the kids and pay the mortgage. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: The truth will come out. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh the truth will come out! Well I am pleased that it will because it takes the Opposition on this side of the Chamber to bring the truth out. Lianne Dalziel did not know about the golden handshake. She said that she did not know about the tax not being paid but she will go back to her constituents and say that they have to pay their 33c or their 39c—but John Tamihere does not. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I have to agree with the previous speaker. Mr Tamihere did have an obligation to pay tax at those rates on the income. Every taxpayer is responsible ultimately for his or her own liability and Mr Tamihere is responsible for his. Of course he will be voting for this legislation even though he has been away. 
The big issue here about these rates is really quite simple. There is no doubt that the Government is collecting billions more in tax than it ever expected and that has allowed Dr Cullen to do two things. Firstly because of the surplus he can claim he is a fiscal conservative and secondly he can spray money all over the place. He can spend up faster larger quicker and at lower quality than any Minister of Finance in my adult lifetime—he has had so much money coming in. In fact he has so much money now that he is paying for his long-term investments out of cash. Who else is doing that? How many of us would love to be able to buy our houses out of this year’s surplus income? 
John Key 
: Out of petty cash. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Out of petty cash. That is what Dr Cullen is doing. Why does that matter? It matters for two reasons. The first is simply that— 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s got so much money Cabinet Ministers don’t have to pay tax. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That’s right but I can tell members that what they pay the Queen’s Counsel to find out that he is not paying tax will more than make up for the tax that was not paid. 
This is a double hit for the Government’s fiscal outlook. There are two reasons. The first is thatthe people who are doing overtime to pay off their mortgages are simply paying more tax than they need to pay. The Government does not actually need the money but because it has the money coming in it comes up with all sorts of wild and woolly ways of spending it. 
 I can quickly tot up $60 million $80 million $90 million that is pure political puffery on the part of Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard who are spending a bit and then there will be an announcement next week and beforethey know it they have spent $100 million. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about the CDs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There was $15 million worth of CDs that no one looked at. There is another reason we should be opposing these rates and it is simply that they are unfair. They are unfair because we have now had strong economic growth for 7 years which is of benefit to everybody. These are the best economic conditions in a generation but the working people that the Government pretends to represent have not had their fair share of it. The Government’s revenue and surplus have risen dramatically faster than after-tax wages. 
John Key 
: Seven times faster. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They have risen seven times faster. The Government has simply taken much more than its fair share of the economic boom which should have belonged to the working people who took so many hits during the restructuring of this economy. They took the knocks and now Dr Cullen is taking the gold that is flowing. The people took the hits; he is taking the cash. That is unfair and it is what these rates are doing. 
If Parliament passes these rates then it is building in reconfirming and continuing the basic unfairness. The civil service and the Labour Government are taking much more than their fair share of the economic boom and the real pity of it is that those working families will by this time next year be paying significantly higher interest rates on their mortgages. They will be seeing that economic growth has slowed down and they will be feeling less secure—and the Government will still be sitting on a mountain of surplus because of these tax rates. For the next couple of years the Government’s books will be in brilliant shape but the working people will have missed out on the best opportunity in a generation for higher net incomes which is after all what really matters to them. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I will speak to Part 1 which confirms the annual rates of income tax for the 2004-05 income year. I want to speak about tax rates which will have to be addressed at some time or other and which some other members of Parliament have been speaking about tonight. When I speak about tax rates I am not talking just about income tax although I am including income tax specifically because we are talking about that in this part of the bill. I am also talking about taxes in general—the amount of tax that this Government has raised on petrol and a whole raft of things. 
The Government would have us believe that we have an economic boom in this country whilst it is taxing individuals up to 39c income tax. That is a 39c tax rate for people who are earning around $60000 a year because they are considered to be rich by this Government. In this country a wealthy person according to this Government is somebody who earns $60000 a year. Members of this House know that $60000 a year is not a lot to live on these days. People are struggling on $60000 a year to have a couple of kids a mortgage and at least one car. For a lot of people it is impossible. 
This Government says that there is an economic boom. The New Zealand dollar is at 70c against the US dollar and we are not even offering any tax concessions for our exporters in order to grow our export sector. There is not the economic boom that this Government would have us believe. The Minister of Finance gets up to speak day in day out along with other Ministers like the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe. I heard Parekura Horomia talking today on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. He said how great the farmers and exporters are getting on but we have a trade deficit in this country. As I said people who are earning over $60000 a year are being taxed at 39c in the dollar and we do not even have a Government with enough vision or positive outlook to say that the export sector needs at least to be given a fair run for its money and given some tax concessions. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Buy back Telecom! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is a very good idea. Mr Williamson has tried to steal another New Zealand First idea by saying “Buy back Telecom”. I am sorry but we own that idea and he will not pinch it off us. New Zealand is continually sliding down the OECD rankings. The average Australian earns $120 a week more than the average Kiwi. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It is $175. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: It is probably more. I stand corrected. Dr Lockwood Smith says that Australians earn $175 more per week per person than Kiwis. We say and this has every relevance to Part 1 that if the average New Zealander earns $120 or $175 less than the average Australian the Government and individuals here in New Zealand are worse off. We say that when it comes to taxation we need to think outside the square. That is what New Zealand First is saying. We are firm advocates for all Ministers and MPs paying their taxes. 
I will also say and I mentioned this briefly in the second reading that New Zealand First would have supported the notion that to preserve the present tax thresholds in purchasing-power terms the present bands should be adjusted from $9500 to $10750 from $38000 to $43000 and from $60000 to $68000 at least. We would have supported that. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will speak briefly on Part 1. 
John Key 
: Does Ahmed Zaoui pay tax? 
ROD DONALD 
: Poor Mr Zaoui—and I thank Mr Key for raising this as it is very kind of him to notice—is incarcerated in prison despite the fact that he has refugee status in New Zealand. I look forward to him being released and able to earn a decent income—perhaps as a university lecturer talking about clashes of cultures or one or two other things. But perhaps he will be in the difficult position that tens of thousands indeed hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are in which is that they do not earn enough to bring up their families in decency. That is what I will talk about in this debate on Part 1 which deals with annual rates of income tax. 
I will offer some amendments to the annual rates for the acting Minister to consider. I fear however that he will either rule them out of order or veto them. But just in case he is not so callous and he gives Parliament the opportunity to vote on our amendments I would like to draw to the attention of other members of the House—especially my colleagues in National New Zealand First ACT and United Future—that the Green Party does support income tax cuts. But we want the cuts to be at the bottom not at the top. I find it extraordinary that on the same day that members of Parliament received a 3 to 4 percent wage increase the United Future party recommended that we also receive a $1155-a-year tax cut. We are the last people in this country who need a tax cut. We are the last people in this country who need more money in their pockets. 
John Key 
: Come on! 
ROD DONALD 
: I gather from what I read about Mr Key’s wealth that he is the last person in this Parliament who needs a tax cut. But I will leave him out of the debate and return to the people who really matter—the struggling families of this country and particularly the 30 percent of children who are growing up in poverty; a figure that this Government acknowledges is the case. 
 We are simply saying that the Government’s Working for Families package does not go far enough fast enough. Unlike some other parties in this Chamber we supported that package because we do want to lift families out of poverty. We do not want any children in this country growing up with unmet needs. We want them all to have a decent opportunity for an education all to have a comfortable home to live in and all to be able to experience the quality of life that most of us in this Chamber take for granted. But the Government is not bringing in its Working for Families package quickly enough. It is stretching it out over 2 years which I think is callous and is not giving enough relief at the bottom. 
Our primary amendment would make the first $5000 of income tax-free. Although that would benefit members of Parliament because we too would get an extra $750 a year the people who would benefit most are those earning under $38000. Instead of the $75 a year that Mr Copeland from United Future was offering we are proposing $750 a year. We intend to fund it not from the surplus—I will come back to that in a minute; Mr Key made some points I agree with—but from a suite of eco-taxes. The first would be a carbon tax. We would also bring in a proper tax on diesel in order to line it up with petrol. There would be other eco-taxes as well. We are endeavouring to be fiscally responsible and are putting up where the money for our proposals would come from. 
Moving beyond that to one of the valuable points that Mr Key made this Government is in an extraordinary situation in that it is paying for capital projects out of its annual surplus. Although to some extent one would have to say that is brilliant fiscal management in the short term we believe it is happening only because the Government is running its surplus off the backs of the poor people of this country. For as long as there is any poor child in New Zealand who is suffering because of inadequate family income we do not believe that any fiscal surplus this Government claims is real whether it is on paper or is cash in hand. 
We invite other parties in the Chamber to support our amendment if the Minister Michael Cullen lets us away with it. We encourage the Government to put some of that massive surplus into helping those who are struggling rather than investing it for example in the offshore sharemarket through its superannuation fund. Instead the Government should be putting more money into the sustainable infrastructure that New Zealand desperately needs. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I want to concentrate my speech on the issue of taxation with regard to the funding for roading. 
I suggest to members of the Committee who have not been here for too long—and I notice a number of members from the Green Party and United Future who were not around in the mid-1990s—that they take a look at  
Hansard 
 and check what happened. Winston Peters was then a bit of a lone voice. I think he and Tau Henare were the only two members in the House from New Zealand First before the coalition—this was in 1995. Winston Peters put up a member’s bill proposing that because there was plenty of taxation already all the money that went to the consolidated account from petrol tax—and at that stage it was about 24c or 25c per litre—really should go to roading. That is what Winston Peters proposed in this House. He said that all of the 24c should be moved from the consolidated account and go to roading. 
I want members to refresh their memory. They should have a look at  
Hansard 
 if they want to see what happened. The Labour Party headed by Helen Clark and deputy leader Michael Cullen voted for that. They said in the House that it was wrong to be bleeding that money off road users when there was a desperate need for money for roading. Michael Cullen—it is in  
Hansard 
 members should go and check it—voted for the entire 24c to go across. 
John Key 
: That’s surprising. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know it is surprising. That has stopped a lot of people in their tracks. 
John Key 
: I’m shocked. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is true. They voted for Winston Peters’ bill. Fortunately the bill was defeated by only a couple of votes but Helen Clark Michael Cullen and all the other Labour members voted that the whole 24c be moved across. Lianne Dalziel who is in the Chamber tonight voted for that measure and it will be in  
Hansard 
 that Damien O’Connor voted for it. Now what do we face? We face a Government that next April will stick another 5c per litre tax— 
John Key 
: What? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is right it will stick another 5c per litre tax on petrol for ordinary motorists. That is at a time when petrol prices have gone through the ceiling because of geopolitical matters the Iraq war and a whole range of other issues. 
I say to the Minister in the chair Michael Cullen that if the Government needs the 5c for extra roading—he says it does and I accept that roading desperately needs to be better funded—why on earth could he not take it from the huge surplus of $7.4 billion or whatever the number is that he is already running? The surplus actually grows by the day; every time I look at Treasury’s website it has changed. If Dr Cullen thinks that taking 5c from that is wrong how come he voted in the House to take all 24c and move it to the road fund? 
John Key 
: He was in the Opposition. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleague John Key has given me the answer. He was in Opposition then so it was good to vote for moving the whole sham shooting-box over but now he does not want even 5c transferred from a surplus unseen unparalleled and unheard of in this country’s history. 
If members think the money is not needed for roading then let me correct another error made by the Minister of Transport Pete Hodgson in this House only a few weeks ago. He said that Peter Brown—I think that is who he was having a smack at—was not right about the amount of money spent on roads as a percentage of GDP and that it had increased under this Government. That is what he said. So I put some written questions. Again I ask members to check questions for written answer. I asked how much money was spent on roads and what percentage of the GDP that was in each of the years 1998 1999 2000 and so on. Lo and behold it is interesting that in the 1998-1999 year which was the last full year of a National Government the money was the highest it had ever been. Every year since then Labour’s spending on roads has been less as a percentage of GDP than what National spent in its last year. That is not what Pete Hodgson said. 
So I understand why Michael Cullen wants to spend some more on roads. He is embarrassed about how little spending has gone on. Why smack the motorist around with 5c more at the pump when the cost of petrol is already beyond our wildest expectations compared with where we were only a year ago? Do members remember a year ago when the price of super was under $1 and 91 octane was under 90c? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: It was not. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Damien O’Connor says it was not. On the West Coast they probably pay $3.50 for super but I tell him that that is not what people pay in Auckland. He should get real and get to understand what Auckland prices are compared with what people pay on the West Coast. Now the Minister of Finance says that he needs that money so he is going to stick an extra 5c on the backs of the working class. Where are the Greens with regard to the working class on this? The Minister says he needs that tax when he has a $7.4 billion surplus. Bill Birch would have gone to heaven on the idea of a $7.4 billion surplus. Bill Birch’s total surpluses cumulated did not come to what this Minister is running in one year. The Minister has come to this Chamber and cannot keep a straight face because he wants more. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I remind listeners that that is what we are debating because they may have gotten a little confused. Part 1 is about this Labour Government wanting to confirm the annual income tax rates. 
It is an incredible paradox that this Government seeks tonight to confirm income tax rates in this country when it seems to be Helen Clark’s policy that Cabinet Ministers may or may not have to pay income tax. To me that is an extraordinary paradox. The Minister John Tamihere has not been sacked so it seems to be OK to Helen Clark that he does not pay income tax. What are we debating Part 1 for if Cabinet Ministers do not have to pay income tax? As the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe knows it is the responsibility of every citizen to pay— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Of the employer. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: No it is not. The Hon Damien O’Connor suggests that it is the employer’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of every citizen to pay his or her taxes. It is the responsibility of every citizen to make sure he or she has paid the correct amount of tax because employers do not know what other income individuals have. It is up to individuals to make sure except that Helen Clark’s Labour Government sets new standards. Working people of New Zealand pay income tax as spelt out in Part 1 but not her Labour Cabinet Ministers. 
I want to raise a couple of other serious issues. This Labour Government is confirming these high rates of tax when it has increased the tax take by 25 percent in real terms. According to the OECD we are now paying 35 percent of GDP in tax. What is worrying about that is that in the last year for which the OECD has data—that is 2001-02—the amount of tax as a percentage of GDP went up from 33.3 percent to 35 percent. What is quite clear is that Labour is trying to get back to where it was in 1989 when it was last in office when the tax burden was 38.3 percent of GDP. Labour is trying to head back up there. 
If the Government was spending the money on worthwhile projects—such as the desperate need to build some roading infrastructure instead of just setting up more committees—there might be some support for this level of taxation. But what is troubling me hugely is that Helen Clark and her Treasurer are now starting to spend money to buy votes. They are going to tax working New Zealanders—Part 1 confirms the high burden of tax on working New Zealanders—and spend the money to buy votes in next year’s election. The most recent occurrence was $20 million of ordinary working New Zealanders’ taxes going to buy the votes of the 20000 Niueans living in New Zealand. It is a disgraceful performance by a Government to tax working New Zealanders far more than they have ever been taxed before. This Government has taken $34 billion more from working New Zealanders and is spending it on buying votes for the election next year. 
In my 20 years in this place I have never seen such blatant vote buying as we are now seeing from this Labour Government. It is a disgrace twice over that we confirm these tax rates in Part 1. It is a disgrace because firstly under Helen Clark’s Labour Government it seems that Ministers do not actually have to pay their income tax. It is quite clear that the Hon John Tamihere did not fulfil his taxation responsibilities under this law and the Prime Minister has not sacked him. Secondly it is a disgrace when taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are used to buy votes blatantly. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 It might assist the House’s consideration if we test the credibility of the member who has just resumed his seat Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. He quoted OECD reports and suggested that New Zealand’s tax burden was higher than the OECD average. In 2001— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Don’t tell lies! 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member is saying something that is completely and utterly unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. Dr Smith please withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a responsibility of members speaking in this Committee to tell the truth. The Hon David Cunliffe knows because he just heard my contribution that I did not say—and he can check the  
Hansard 
—what he just said because I am very careful with the facts. What I said was that according to OECD data the tax take as a percentage of GDP had gone up in the latest data for 2001-02 from 33.3 percent to 35 percent. I am happy to table the article I was quoting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debating point. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Forgive me but it is not a debating point whether members tell the truth in this House. That is not a debating point. When I have made clear and am prepared to table what I was quoting from the Minister cannot assert that I said something I did not say. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debating point but the reason I asked you to withdraw and apologise was that I—and I think I was right—took what you said to be relating to the Minister. If I was wrong we will move on. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Allow me to assist the Committee by clarifying this with some OECD data. For the year 2001 New Zealand’s average tax burden was 33.8 percent against an OECD-wide average of 36.9 percent. Of the 31 countries in the OECD New Zealand by my calculation was the 10th lowest. So not only were we lower than the average; we were the 10th lowest. We were in the bottom third of tax rates. 
There was one country that had tax rates in line with ACT policy. One country had a tax rate of 18.9 percent. Can members guess which country that was? It was Mexico. As far as I know the country with the lowest income in the whole OECD was the only one that mimics ACT policy. 
In 2002 the New Zealand average tax burden was 34.9 percent—not 35 percent as the member alleges—which is still below the OECD average of 36.3 percent. Once again New Zealand was in the bottom half of OECD taxation by being the 14th lowest out of 31 countries. If that member is going to stand up and quote facts and figures and pretend to table documents he had better get his numbers right first because this Government is in the habit of taking some care with its numbers. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 When it comes to a question of credibility between Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the yet to be honourable David Cunliffe in full force I am sure the public knows Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s track record—that of a member who is always very careful and who has credibility with his facts and numbers. He is absolutely right to say that New Zealand’s tax take relative to GDP has gone up. That is a fact and it is not disputable. 
The other thing people need to understand is that New Zealand has to be competitive in the world. We have to attract foreign investment and we have to motivate our business people by giving them incentives to perform. 
We are still talking about why the Labour Government should reconfirm these high income tax rates. Let us look at why when Labour came to Government it collected an additional $34 billion of tax. The question has to be asked: where has that gone? 
Let us look at two areas that I am very interested in. One is education. My very hard-working colleague the Hon Bill English has consistently pointed out that throughout New Zealand the contribution by parents the community and international students to the operational funding of our primary and secondary schools has gone up to nearly 40 percent. So parents have to raise a lot of money. 
There is no longer a donation aspect to education. Previously in New Zealand we talked about free education. If we talk to people in schools they say education is no longer free. Parents are being asked to mow school lawns and paint school buildings to make up for their inability to make the so-called voluntary donation. 
 I ask where the additional taxation this Labour Government collected has gone. Our schools are now increasingly relying on parents and international students to fund their expenditure. So what will happen next year now that the Labour Government has also ruined the international education sector? What will happen next year and in the future when there is a downturn in international student numbers? Will those parents be asked once again to contribute even more? 
The other area I want to ask about concerns what will happen to the health system in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It’s very robust. 
PANSY WONG 
: I hope Steve Chadwick will be able to stand up in public to defend her Government. Today we read in the newspaper about evidence given to a coroner that a patient was asked to move from an intensive care department unnecessarily and as a consequence he died. He had to make room for a patient who had died an hour previously. What is happening in New Zealand? Our people are dying unnecessarily because hospital emergency departments are no longer able to cope. 
In Wellington right now—we are debating in the capital city—the only 24-hour medical care facility has stated that it can no longer afford to open during the evening shift. Once again pressure is going on to Wellington Hospital and I ask whether it can cope with this additional pressure. 
So why should any political party reaffirm the high tax rates? I watch with interest the United Future party which has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that basically has the impact of lessening some of those high tax rates. I look with interest to United Future members voting against Part 1 and the rest of the bill because even that party which is supporting the Government is saying tax rates are too high. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party certainly will not be reaffirming these higher tax rates that this tax-and-spend Labour Government is promoting in Parliament tonight. There has been no justification for them. It has already been clearly mentioned in this debate that New Zealand needs a competitive environment if we are to succeed internationally. We do not just need tax rates that are as low as those of other countries; we need them to be lower. We have significant geographic disadvantages being at the end of transport routes. As a trading nation we need to have an environment that attracts investors if we are to have vigorous growth and prosperity in this country. 
This Labour Government inherited incredible economic conditions. I do not think that at any time in the last three or four decades New Zealand has enjoyed such favourable conditions. The point is that not one of them has anything to do with the policies of this Government; they are largely the low fruits of the hard yards done by previous Governments in making tough decisions and bringing reforms to the economy. This Government is squandering that opportunity as it plucks the low fruits of those courageous reforms of the past. 
Not only is the Government laying back and plucking the fruits; it is actually messing up the fundamentals increasing taxation rates when it should be reducing them and bringing in unnecessary regulations all of which— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: But they haven’t been paying tax. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: My colleague points out the other point. The Government loves imposing higher taxes on the productive workers of New Zealand while it tries to excuse its own Ministers for it would appear avoiding tax. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does that work? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I do not know how it works quite frankly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Call it a koha. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Call it koha. There are all sorts of excuses but— 
Rodney Hide 
: What’s the tax rate now for a Minister? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We would have to say it is zero. What is the tax rate for a Labour Minister? It would have to be zero yet that Cabinet has the audacity to keep pumping taxes up and up. Let us go back to Labour’s wonderful airbrushed election pamphlet of 1999. It took us months to recognise who the dolled-up woman on the front page was; it was Helen Clark. She said: “I pledge I promise to the country.” One of those pledges was that only 5 percent of the population would have a tax increase and it would be those earning over $60000. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And 0.1 percent would have to pay no taxes at all. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right. Aside from that the Government then conveniently enjoyed the benefits of fiscal drag and inflation and now significantly more than 5 percent of New Zealanders are in that higher tax bracket. It is another broken promise. So we have avoidance dishonesty and broken promises. That is what we are getting from this Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: Do we have a ministerial rate in this bill? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I should ask members to look at schedule 1. Perhaps we could have a Supplementary Order Paper to put in a ministerial rate and make it retrospective. 
Rodney Hide 
: A Harry Duynhoven clause. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes the “Save Harry” clause. Labour members were quite happy to abuse the constitution of this country to save one of their own Harry Duynhoven who unfortunately should have been expelled from Parliament. That is the point. He breached the law. So I say to that Minister— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Bye-bye. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Former Minister—I forgot. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And she paid her tax. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: And she paid her tax. 
Rodney Hide 
: She didn’t tell the truth. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: She did not tell the truth but she did pay her tax. Well maybe she did not. My question is where in schedule 1 is this special ministerial rate. We have a schedule 1— 
Rodney Hide 
: It needs amending. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Shall we draft a Supplementary Order Paper or shall we leave it to the Government? 
Rodney Hide 
: No they’d make it retrospective for John. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: They would make it retrospective for John Tamihere. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It’s outrageous. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is an outrage But what we do know is that taxation on employment is a penalty— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: That was the biggest load of fiction I have heard in my life on TV on Saturday night. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am sorry but I cannot hear the member. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Richard Prebble’s kitchen—the place for writing David Lange’s selection speech! What a load of nonsense! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Clearly the former Labour Minister is trying to create a distraction in this debate— 
Rodney Hide 
: Should we be surprised? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Exactly. In fact it is extraordinary that the Labour Government has actually allowed this bill to be on the Order Paper. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 1994 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 National will be opposing the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I want to address Part 2 and clauses 26 to 28 that interestingly enough concern Maori authorities. 
Hon David Carter 
: John Tamihere. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is about how they have a special tax rate of 19.5 percent. I would be very worried about that if I were John Tamihere. But I am not so worried because we heard from the Prime Minister today that John Tamihere will be ringing in to contribute to the debate. He will probably do that on his Telstra free line but he will be ringing in—0800 HELP. Let us face it 19.5 percent would be better than what they actually got which was zero so maybe it is a positive. 
A 19.5 percentage rate for Maori authorities is a very interesting position— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: It’s now your poll rating. 
JOHN KEY 
: No our poll rate is not 19.5 percent; Mr O’Connor does not need to worry about that—but the interesting point about that rate is that the Government pushed it through on the basis that most beneficiaries of Maori authorities would have had it as their final after-tax rate. So in principle the idea was that it would save them having to re-file and to top up taxation again. The interesting issue about that of course is not about the final beneficiaries. That may in fact be correct when it is distributed to final beneficiaries of Maori authorities but in the interim they have cash available to them for which other companies would have to pay a company taxation rate of 33 percent. One might sit there and say: “Oh well maybe that’s not really that big a deal.” 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: But they have higher koha payments. 
JOHN KEY 
: They do have higher koha payments. Interestingly enough one might have a look at the position recently with Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. That company is now in the position where it will be paying 19.5 percent taxation—and competing with the private sector that is out there paying 33 percent—under clause 27 “Distributions by Maori authority” and clause 28 “Amount distributed to member by Maori authority”. That makes a nonsense of the fact that this Government does not want to lower the company tax rate for all sorts of reasons. Michael Cullen has gone up and down the country telling us that it does not matter that companies pay a higher rate of taxation in New Zealand than they pay in many other parts of the OECD. 
I want to draw Mr Cunliffe’s attention to this point. He was quoting some statistics from the OECD but this is the important statistic he should consider: In 1999 when the then National Government left office the company rate of taxation in New Zealand was 33 percent and the average in the OECD was 35 percent. We had a competitive advantage—2 percent compared to the advantage—and I will allow Mr Cunliffe to work that out. 
Today as I look around I see that the average corporate tax rate in the OECD is 29.6 percent. New Zealand’s rate interestingly enough sits at 33 percent and the rate for Maori authorities sits at 19.5 percent. New Zealand has gone from a position of competitive advantage under a Labour Government to a position of competitive disadvantage. So if Mr Cunliffe wants to have a look at the OECD and at how this Government is structuring New Zealanders and giving them the opportunity to participate to be successful and to compete then I strongly suggest that he takes a moment to have a look at what has been happening there and to have a look at the situation in relation to New Zealand’s relative position in the OECD. 
I want also to talk for a moment if I may about issues in relation to PAYE and intermediaries. Under clause 54 some interesting moves have been made in terms of providing a situation where tax advisers will be in a confidential position. We would welcome that although it is not a change in this particular bill. But interestingly enough at the same time as the Government is introducing that it has tried to bring out an amnesty for the black economy here in New Zealand. When we had the Inland Revenue Department before the Finance and Expenditure Committee to talk about this very issue we asked it how large it thought the black economy was in New Zealand and what amnesty might be available if the Government could get it right. The answer was that the department estimated that no tax is paid on around 10 percent of the economy. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Have they heard of the Waipareira Trust? 
JOHN KEY 
: We know where the 10 percent is sitting funnily enough. We could point the department in that direction. The department does not need an amnesty for that one; it will be able to be pointed in the right direction. However roughly $15 billion-worth of revenue is actually not getting tax treatment. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 As we debate Part 2 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I cannot help but scrutinise a significant number of clauses from clause 4A through to clause 68. Members of the Committee will remember that it was not that long ago that Labour had a member of Parliament in trouble. Do members remember the situation with Harry Duynhoven? The Government passedspecial retrospective legislation to get Harry Duynhoven out of trouble and to enable him to stay in this Parliament. Now I have been looking at this part and I note that Labour now has another member the Hon John Tamihere who is in trouble. 
John Key 
: Deep trouble! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Deep trouble. What are Labour members sneaking into this bill retrospectively to get John Tamihere out of trouble? Lots of clauses in this part need to be examined. I draw members’ attention for a start to clause 66 “Meaning of ‘income tax’ ”. Maybe this Labour Government is changing the meaning of income tax to get John Tamihere off the hook so let us have a look at clause 66. What does it say? Clause 66 states: “In section OB 6(1)(b) ‘CB 2’ is inserted before ‘CB 10.’ ” 
Opposition Member 
: What does that mean? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I am not sure what that means but it troubles me that that could be something designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. Maybe they have changed the meaning of “income tax”. One gets more suspicious when one looks at other clauses. There is a clause about the rebate for gifts of money. Maybe they are changing that law to make it so that when the Hon John Tamihere received this koha as he calls it this— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Golden! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes golden koha or something. Maybe they are changing the rebates rules around gifts of money. That is what clause 32 is about. We should look at that carefully to make sure they are not changing the rules to get the Hon John Tamihere off the hook. 
It does not finish there—we should look at clauses 34 and 35. Clause 34 is about refunding excess tax. What are they changing there in order to try to argue that the Hon John Tamihere has paid excess tax on some of his earnings perhaps to get him off the hook there? When one reads clause 35 “Limits on refunds of tax in relation to Maori authorities” in conjunction with clause 27 “Distributions by Maori authority” and clause 28 “Amount distributed to member by Maori authority” one has to ask what the Government is sneaking in there. We should have a good look at clause 28 because I am suspicious that—just as they did with Harry Duynhoven—they are sneaking something in there to get the Hon John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. He received an amount distributed to him by a Maori authority. Is clause 28 a sneaky little clause to get John Tamihere off the hook? 
What gets me even more concerned is clause 8 “Exception for withdrawal when member ceases employment”. Now we know that the Hon John Tamihere got his golden koha when he ceased employment so one can see that there are a number of clauses in Part 2 that need the scrutiny of this Committee. So many of them could enable this sneaky Labour Government to get John Tamihere out of trouble. We know what it did to get Harry Duynhoven off the hook when he was in trouble. 
There are so many clauses in this bill that in fact according to what is said in the titles of those clauses they could be designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. We know that Helen Clark has not dismissed him from Cabinet. She seems keen to find a way to keep him in Cabinet. I get suspicious when we debate legislation that talks about distribution by Maori authorities to members exceptions and withdrawals when members cease employment and the meaning of income tax. In fact all those clauses could be designed to change the meaning of the Income Tax Act because they are all amendments to the Income Tax Act 1994. The Committee should spend considerable time examining each of those clauses to make sure that what they mean is clear. I quoted clause 66 and it is far from clear what it means. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity to outline some of the key provisions of Part 2 for the assistance of the Committee. The first key provision is to remove a tax obstacle to unlisted New Zealand companies gaining access to private foreign equity including venture capital. It does so by introducing venture capital rules that are the same as in Australia thereby equating the tax treatment between the two countries. In Part 2 also is a measure to help small businesses. It introduces a tax discount for self-employed people who make voluntary payments in their first year of business. We all know that if they do not make such payments as they are allowed not to in their second year they tend to be hit with a tax crunch so the Government is offering a discount to help smooth the tax payments of small businesses across their first 2 years. 
Part 2 also allows—and this is another taxpayer friendly provision—the costs associated with patent and resource management consent applications that are withdrawn or not granted to be tax deductible. Another taxpayer friendly provision in this part is to make the tax treatment of replacement planting of fruit trees more flexible to encourage the use of the most commercially desirable varieties. Part 2 also closes an egregious loophole involving the sale and leaseback of intangibles such as trademarks and newspaper mastheads. Finally it deals with some tax issues arising out of the recent severe flooding to allow farmers to file late tax returns once the damage has been recorded and is in order. 
Finally I want to contrast the points made by Mr Key in relation to the OECD tax rates. I draw his attention to the fact that as of 2001 which to my knowledge is the last fully complete comparative tax analysis by the OECD New Zealand’s corporate tax rate at 33 cents differed only very slightly from the OECD average of 32.9 cents thereby showing that as of that date New Zealand’s corporate tax rate was smack on the OECD average. 
What we see is the Government once again moving forward a range of measures that are designed to make tax easier to pay and to simplify the system and that is the kind of work that the country expects of a good Government. It is yet more evidence that that is what the country has. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I was quite impressed with the deep knowledge that my colleague Lockwood Smith showed in this part of the bill and the relevance of it to current events. I was looking at clause 32 “Rebate for gifts of money” where we have among other things a list—and I presume this is eligibility for rebates for gifts of money—included in which is Medicine Mondiale the New Zealand Jesuits in India Trust and the Operation Vanuatu Charitable Trust but not the Waipareira Trust. That is not covered under the provisions for rebates for gifts of money. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.