Volume 647 Week 74 - Wednesday 14 May 2008 
Volume 647 Week 74 - Wednesday 14 May 2008 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Wednesday 14 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Maori Affairs Committee to have authority to meet in Australia and with committees of the Australian Parliament from 26 to 30 May 2008 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to another agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have authority to meet on the evenings of 15 and 22 May 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Motions 
Earthquake—Sichuan China 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this Parliament extend its heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people following the catastrophic earthquake centred in Sichuan province which has killed at least 12000 people and destroyed the homes of hundreds of thousands of people; and is impressed by the large-scale mobilisation of relief teams to rescue those trapped in the rubble and to assist those in need. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence of my drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noted Rastafarian philosopher Yasus Afari is in the gallery. He has today presented a book on Rastafarian philosophy to this Parliament through you Madam Speaker. I wanted to bring the House’s attention to that fact. 
Questions to Ministers 
Innovation and Regional Economic Development—Funding 
1. SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What action has the Government taken to support innovation and regional economic development? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government has moved from the 1990s policy of treating innovation with disdain and ignoring it as something that only the market could provide to a point where innovation is now a vital part of this country’s economic transformation. In recent weeks for example I have announced up to $4 million for the Enterprising Partnerships Fund to the Waikato Innovation Park in Hamilton which is aimed at helping innovative business in agricultural technology agricultural engineering and the food-related sectors to become established and to grow in the Waikato and similarly up to $1.9 million for the Otago institute of design aimed at establishing an applied design research centre to provide design services research and education to business in that region and across New Zealand. 
Sue Moroney 
: How will the $4 million for the Waikato Innovation Park be used to help the Waikato and the nation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Up to $2 million of it will be available to support the construction of a new purpose-built building for the park and a further $2 million will be available for Innovation Waikato’s business development services. This funding will be matched by $2.4 million of cash contribution from the Hamilton City Council. It is an excellent example of how Government can work together in partnership with local communities even though the National Party by its interjections clearly does not like it. I would like to thank the member for her ongoing support and good efforts in bringing this partnership to fruition. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned at the steady stream of manufacturers and processing plants closing their New Zealand operations particularly in rural communities and has he looked at the influence of our high interest rates and high dollar on these closures; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: For the past 20 years or so the number of New Zealanders employed in manufacturing has vacillated between 250000 and 300000 jobs. It is currently at about 270000 I think. That is a level of activity that although lower than most economies means that New Zealand has not been subjected to the hollowing out in commodity manufacture that has afflicted the various rust belts around other Western economies. 
Immigration Minister—Confidence 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her “no surprises” policy which expects public servants “to advise Ministers in advance of issues likely to impinge on the Government’s responsibilities or likely to attract political comment”; if so is it not likely that the chief executive of the Department of Labour advised her Minister of Immigration well before April 2007 that the Prime Minister’s former chief policy adviser and head of the Immigration Service was under investigation for improper behaviour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I follow that somewhat contorted question fully I think the answer is yes and no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does she have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who certainly knew about the investigation of the head of the Immigration Service in July 2007 who almost certainly must have known— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we have to be clear about which Minister we are talking about here. I was asked whether I had confidence in the Minister of Immigration who is of course the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I suggest that the member cannot then build upon that any supplementary questions relating to a Minister who may have held that office before the Hon Clayton Cosgrove did otherwise that opens up the ability for example to ask the Prime Minister a question about confidence in the Minister of Finance then to ask me as Acting Prime Minister about Mr English. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Notwithstanding the example Dr Cullen gave the reality is that the Minister of Immigration in this case would always be presumed to be the Minister of Immigration in the current Government and there should be no separation of the role of Minister of Immigration even if the personalities holding that particular portfolio change. There is one Minister of Immigration. To suggest that suddenly a new Minister will not be responsible for or accountable for actions in that department prior to that time is I think a little bit of a stretch for the House to accept. In any case does that mean that the Prime Minister is unable to express confidence in the work of the Hon David Cunliffe? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the last point is totally irrelevant. The point is that I cannot be asked questions in my prime ministerial role about the actions of the Minister of Immigration previously who is not the current Minister when the primary question asked me for confidence in the Minister of Immigration who is the current Minister of Immigration not all those people who have held office as Minister of Immigration in this Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: This is a problem Madam Speaker. I am sure the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will agree that we have to be able to ask questions about decisions made by a previous Minister because if we cannot then obviously the Government could just rotate Ministers through and there would be no responsibility. I think the difficulty we have is with the wording. I suggest Madam Speaker that you allow this question to proceed but give us some advice because how to actually phrase the wording has been an ongoing problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contribution. Ministers are responsible for their portfolio areas so a question relating to confidence in the Minister of Immigration—although it would be to the current Minister of Immigration—about issues relating to immigration outside the scope of the current Minister’s time in office would be relevant to be asked. I think the issue is about the naming of specific Ministers as opposed to about the responsibilities relating to the Minister of Immigration. So it is more I think Mr English about the way in which you phrase your question please. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the public have confidence in the operation of her Government when it appears that the Minister of Immigration knew about the investigation in July 2007 but sat on it until media attention in May 2008; and that previous Ministers of Immigration almost certainly knew about these events when they occurred in 2005? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am still not quite sure what bit of non-existent dirt the member is trying to dig up but if he is trying to imply that any Minister knew about the latest allegation surrounding the previous head of the Immigration Service then I can assure him that he is completely wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she stand by her statement: “It is a bit surprising that the matter was dealt with in the way it was.” when it would be a surprise if we were expected to believe that the chief executive of the Department of Labour investigated improper conduct by the head of the Immigration Service in 2005 and never told anybody; that the stand-in chief executive commissioned a report by Mr Oughton and never told anybody; and that Ministers did not find out until November 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I must say I do have a PhD in history but I am having real trouble following what the member is trying to get at in terms of time lines. The chronology seems to be— 
Hon Members 
: The Minister is covering up. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not at all. The previous question implied that Ministers were trying to say they knew nothing about something until May 2008; now the member is trying to say “November 2007”. The fact that there was an inquiry undertaken by Mr Oughton is a well-known fact. There is no dispute about that and that was in relation to matters of employment issues and certain actions by Miss Thompson. The member seems still to be trying in some way to link this to some much more recent accusations which are the subject of police investigations which Ministers knew nothing about until other people did. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the activities of the head of the Immigration Service which were investigated by the Department of Labour occurred in 2004-05 about the same time as Taito Phillip Field was obtaining large numbers of discretionary approvals from the Associate Minister of Immigration; and is it not possible that the behaviour of Ministers and MPs around immigration matters created an environment where officials felt they too could break the rules with impunity because her only standard for behaviour is “Don’t get caught.”? 
Hon Annette King 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not merely rubbish; it is very close to being paranoid rubbish. There is no linkage between those events at all. I point out to the member that investigations have occurred. In one of those cases those investigations led to police investigations and deposition hearings are being carried out. In the second case matters have now been referred by the State Services Commission to the police. The other matters are employment matters which came to an end obviously with Miss Thompson’s resignation. But there are now other matters under police investigation and I have no intention of satisfying the member’s desire to try to prejudge the outcome of those. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why these events are following a particularly similar road to those surrounding Taito Phillip Field—namely that the Minister of Immigration at the time David Cunliffe knew about it and did nothing that the Government then attempted to cover up the activity then denied that anything happened then denied the need for an investigation then under media—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I start again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No just continue please because there were interruptions all the time. It was very difficult to hear the answer to the following questions so would you please just continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleagues are telling me they could not hear the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In which case then we will—but we will have the answer in silence too. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government is going down the same road as it did with Taito Phillip Field namely that the Minister of Immigration at the time David Cunliffe knew about these activities and did nothing that the Government then tried to cover that up denied anything happened then denied any need for investigation then under media pressure caved in and shoved the matter off to the police to try to avoid any further political damage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That question makes Mr Ian Wishart look like a raving rationalist compared with that member. What actually happened in this case was that certain events came to light an investigation was undertaken by Mr Oughton and those related in the end to employment matters—the responsibility of the chief executive—were dealt with. The chief executive subsequently after further questioning by the current Minister sought legal advice as to whether he was able to re-open the initial investigation about employment matters and was advised that he was not. Subsequent to that it was determined the State Services Commission could investigate the investigation itself which is what the State Services Commission has been doing. In the course of that investigation matters have emerged previously unknown to Ministers questioning Miss Thompson’s credentials that she claimed in applying for appointments both in 1990 and in 1998 in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and because of the nature of that evidence that evidence has been referred to the police for investigation. That is not some kind of conspiracy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Three separate National members interjected after a clear direction to all members of the House not to interject on questions or answers. I ask you to reflect on whether reminding them three times as you did during that question by calling order is enough. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I also noticed there was an interjection from members on the Government side of the House as well. However I will say to members we now have zero tolerance. I will be asking members to leave if they do not observe the rulings of the Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: So is the Prime Minister now expecting the public and the Parliament to believe that everything is fine and was fine when in respect of the Immigration Service in the period 2004-05 the department was caught lying in unison by the Ombudsman a member of the Labour Government was caught indulging in activities that have now landed him in a corruption trial in court and the head of the Immigration Service was caught influencing officials on behalf of family members and apparently David Cunliffe knew nothing about it the Prime Minister knew nothing about any of this and the public is expected to think that high standards of public behaviour have been imposed by her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly not. How Mr Cunliffe could be accused of knowing nothing when an investigation was under way while he was the Minister even that member’s strange contorted mind cannot possibly arrive at. I remind the member yet again that both the case of Mr Field where charges were laid and the matter is now in front of the court and the case of Miss Thompson where the police are undertaking investigations would scarcely suggest the Government does not take the matters seriously. But these are now matters that are outside the ability of this House to start making comment on and if we show respect for the legal process then we should actually maintain some silence about those processes now. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Transport Sector 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Why has the Government delayed the inclusion of the transport sector into its proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: In short because the rapid and significant rise in the price of world oil is doing the job for us. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If inclusion in the emissions trading scheme is dictated by consumer affordability—in this case the price of oil—why on earth has the Government further delayed rather than brought forward the obligation of the agriculture and energy sectors when the dairy payout is up 60 percent on last year’s and export coal prices have recently tripled leading to rapidly increasing emissions from cows and coal? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues has said on many occasions the emissions trading legislation is a matter of striking a balance between many competing interests. The Government thinks that the balance that has been expressed in recent days is at about the right point and I look forward to the support I hope of all the members of this House for the passage of the legislation on its return from the select committee. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the changed entry date for certain sectors alter the fundamentals of the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it does not. The fundamentals remain intact. Let us remind ourselves of what they are. The fundamentals are all gases and all sectors and—in some respects a more important fundamental—participants will face the full price of their emissions at the margin. In other words the marginal signal comes into effect from the outset. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How will the emissions trading system now work when officials advise that the originally designed scheme carefully balanced the market of 100 million tonnes of buyers and 100 million tonnes of sellers of credits from forestry but now with the deferral of the transport fuels there is 40 million fewer tonnes of buyers leaving foresters with no one to buy their credits and does not this illustrate that the decision to defer the transport fuels was a knee-jerk reaction made outside of a proper policy process? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No there has been no knee-jerk reaction. But the answer to the essence of the member’s question is that the emissions trading scheme is not a domestic scheme but an international one and the world is a big place. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Minister think it will be easier to bring in transport fuels in 2011—which is another election year—when oil prices will be much higher than they are now; or does he think that because emissions are not rising it is OK to stabilise transport emissions at their current level of 60 percent above our 1990 target? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for acknowledging that transport emissions have at last stabilised. I think the member and I in earlier years were wondering whether that would ever happen; well it has. But I think the member raises a good point and I suspect that the best way to answer it is to remind the member that behaviour is driven by not just the level of oil prices but also the pace of change and the pace of change has been dramatic. The price of oil 3 or 4 years ago was about one-quarter of what it is now. It has been a really dramatic change. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s plea for support for the bill when it comes back to the House is he aware of the concerns of the New Zealand Shipping Federation that failing to exempt local shipping companies from the emissions trading scheme will hand international ship operators a substantial cost advantage at a time when there is a clear environmental and transport need to grow our domestic shipping industry; if he is aware of that can he advise how the issue will be rectified? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I am not able to give the member a thorough answer to his question at this point in my role as an acting Minister. But I will say that the member raises one of many different points of view about who should be excluded included exempted given a special deal or not given a special deal and that is the debate before us. The question is whether this House believes we have struck the right balance and will support the legislation on its return from the select committee. It is now 11 years since the Kyoto Protocol was signed. It is now 6 years since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. It is time—sooner or later—to move. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement of the Nobel Peace Prize - winning scientist and chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri—who incidentally will be the feature guest of the Government next month when the world spotlight will be on New Zealand hosting World Environment Day—that “If there’s no action before 2012 that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”; and what are the implications of that statement for the half of our emissions that are totally exempt until 2013? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think that Dr Pachauri has put his finger on it and I think that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a body of knowledge has done this globe an amazing service. However the member overlooks the fact that there is the idea of a full charge and there is the idea of a marginal charge for additional emissions. The marginal cost—the marginal price signals—is something that will come into play in this country ahead of its coming into play in most countries. If we can get it through we can say that we have shown some degree of leadership in this area. 
Peter Brown 
: Can I outline a few facts to the Minister: New Zealand coastal vessels already face costs that foreign vessels do not— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this the question please? Would the member just ask the question. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of these concerns: New Zealand coastal vessels already face costs that foreign vessels do not fuel costs represent a significant proportion of a vessel’s operating costs and a coal-burning vessel would be exempt while a liquid-fuel vessel would not be exempt? Does the Minister agree that that does not make sense and something must be done about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware of the first two facts that the member posits; I was unaware of the third. But then again I do not know of a coal-fired vessel. Maybe we still have them; I am not sure. 
Immigration Service—Mary Anne Thompson 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: When will the State Services Commissioner complete his investigation into concerns about the handling by the Department of Labour of matters relating to family members of the former head of the Immigration Service? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
: The State Services Commissioner advises that his investigation is making good progress but he is not yet in a position to provide a date for the completion of the investigation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When did the Minister of State Services become aware of allegations of inappropriate behaviour relating to the head of the Immigration Service? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not sure I can answer that question. I am not quite sure what the member is referring to. If it is the matter in relation to family members then I have no information on that matter. If it is in relation to the more recent accusations that would be within the last couple of days or so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why cannot the Minister give a straight answer to the very important question of when the Minister of State Services first found out about allegations relating to Mary Anne Thompson and the advantage that may or may not have been given to her family; and why is his memory so unreliable when there are public statements from Clayton Cosgrove David Cunliffe and the Prime Minister on this matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One of my colleagues has helped me by advising that probably the Minister found out when he became the Minister in November last year and when he was presumably briefed on matters concerning the State services. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the Minister of State Services not then launch an immediate investigation into the allegations and how they were dealt with rather than waiting for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to uncover the wrongdoing and for the Prime Minister to indicate that an inquiry should be undertaken in an obvious effort to avoid further embarrassment around the Public Service in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to run through the chronology again. Some matters were raised as I understand it which led to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour commissioning an inquiry. That was appropriate because the chief executive was the person responsible for employment matters in relation to Mary Anne Thompson. That investigation was carried out and reported to the chief executive. The report was his property. He took the action he deemed appropriate. In the light of subsequent information coming to light—the other information coming to light—there was obviously significant further concern. Eventually the State Services Commission decided to investigate the investigation itself—that is whether the chief executive had carried out his functions properly. It is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the State Services Commissioner because the commissioner is the responsible person for the employment of chief executives. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour Dr Buwalda became aware of these allegations sometime towards the end of 2006 or in 2005; that he subsequently required Mr Oughton to undertake an inquiry; that first Mr Oughton reported on an interim inquiry to the Minister in May 2007 and second he gave a final report in July 2007; that the Minister decided to sit on that report until it was handed over to the new Minister in December 2007 and the new Minister also decided to sit on that report; and that it was not until investigative journalism by Television New Zealand uncovered the full extent of the potential for corruption that the Prime Minister finally decided to give up the cover-up and undertake a further investigation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think there are roughly about two yeses at the start and the rest of the answers are noes because the member made one significant change during the course of his question. The chief executive ordered the inquiry. The inquiry was carried out by Mr Oughton. Mr Oughton reported to the chief executive not to the Minister. The Minister did not receive the report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister asking the House to accept that very serious allegations about the head of the Immigration Service were investigated by Mr Oughton at the behest of the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour that at no point did the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour tell the Minister of Immigration the Minister responsible for the Department of Labour the State Services Commissioner or the Minister of State Services and that when the Minister finally got the report in July he saw no particular reason to be surprised or concerned or to ask a few more questions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The then Minister of Immigration did not receive that report. I find it extraordinary that a party that for the last 2 years has been chasing any number of stories partially true or completely untrue about ministerial interference in the employment of staff should suddenly turn round and say that the Minister of Immigration should have had his fingers all over an issue relating to the employment of staff within the Department of Labour. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister not see the position that we are trying to get to here and perhaps the double standard that his Government operates under: we have serious allegations of corruption against a senior public servant and Ministers want to dismiss that as being an operational matter and nothing to do with them but just last year a person working in a ministry had Ministers meddling all over the top of it not because she had done anything wrong but simply because she knew a person the Government did not like? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I think that the double standard was actually brought right into that question if I understood the question correctly. The member needs to understand that this was entirely a matter for the chief executive. It was not a matter for the Minister—not a matter for the Minister—who did not receive the report. If one does not receive a report then it is very hard to cover it up. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister of State Services explain why the Prime Minister said that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove had received the report that that report was handed to him by the Hon David Cunliffe and that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove like the Hon David Cunliffe was keeping his colleagues informed or was the Prime Minister simply desperately saying anything she could say to avoid the allegations of a cover-up? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no cover-up. There is no report handed by— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did it take TVNZ to open it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One has to make special allowances for that member. There is no report handed by the previous Minister of Immigration to the incoming Minister of Immigration. When new facts became available the State Services Commission launched an inquiry into whether the former chief executive had carried out his investigation properly. The chief executive in Mr Cosgrove’s understanding tried to see whether in fact he could reopen the original investigation and was advised by Crown Law that he could not do so because of employment law matters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think it is appropriate that all that now appears to be on the record as Government action in this case is the ordering of an investigation into an investigation and no particular investigation into the validity of the allegations that are being made and as to whether there is widespread corruption inside the Immigration Service? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have moved from one set of allegations about actions by Ms Thompson to I assume another set of allegations about Ms Thompson and to a much wider set of allegations about the entire department. At this point of course like all conspiracies it is feeding off itself. However I am sure the member is aware—he ought to be—that in fact the current chief executive has ordered a full review of the operation of the Pacific branch of the Immigration Service. 
Roading—Waterview Connection 
5.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: Is Transit going to ensure that the fumes from the venting stacks of the proposed motorway tunnels project through Waterview in Auckland are filtered; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Transit’s proposal to build twin tunnels to connect State Highway 20 at Mount Roskill with the north-western motorway at Waterview is only at a preliminary design stage. The community has recently been consulted on Transit’s preferred option. The final design of any proposed ventilation system will be subject to international best practice and local consent processes including compliance with the New Zealand air quality standards. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there is a school in close proximity to the proposed tunnel and that that school as well as others is prohibited from incinerating rubbish in order to reduce emissions of tiny particles yet Transit is considering building a chimney stack that is unfiltered; is that acceptable to the Minister? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes indeed I am. In fact I met with Waterview School principal Brett Skeen and the board of trustees together with Transit officials about a fortnight ago to consider a range of issues around community consultation over this project. I was delighted at the agreement that was reached that the local community will be consulted on all stages of design and I expect that to happen. 
Dave Hereora 
: What is the Government doing to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Government has undertaken an extensive range of work to improve air quality from vehicles. This includes the 2007 vehicle emissions rule improving fuel qualities—especially for diesel—which introduces a visible smoke check at warrant of fitness level and public education campaigns. The Government is also exploring further measures to reduce the level of harmful emissions especially those from diesel vehicles. I make the point on this specific that having the motorway at surface level would certainly not result in better air quality than having the tunnels. All of these issues are being investigated as this project proceeds. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give a straight answer; is it satisfactory to her that billions of dollars can be spent on a tunnel yet consideration can be given to building a chimney without a system for filtering air particles? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This project is at the design stage. Transit New Zealand works to the best international levels that it can find. Transit is aware of many tunnels around the world that have unfiltered systems and it is aware of one filtered tunnel system in Japan but the filtering is actually to remove soot to improve the air quality within the tunnel rather than to improve the air quality above the tunnel. All of these issues are being considered. Transit will work with the local authorities including the Auckland Regional Council which is responsible for air quality and we will do our best to provide Auckland with a good motorway system and the people of Waterview with the cleanest air possible. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the Minister has already met with the school is she aware that there is huge public concern about this issue and will she front up to a public meeting and explain what she has just explained to us in this House? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Transit New Zealand reports that 75 percent of the people who responded to its proposal favoured the Waterview Connection tunnel proposal 8 percent were neutral and about 17 percent opposed the proposal. Transit New Zealand’s board intends to have an open meeting in Auckland early next month to consider the submissions and the proposals. All of that will be in public. I am very happy to front at any stage but I suggest that the best process is for the Transit New Zealand board to be open in its discussions as the design proceeds. 
Keith Locke 
: Following the admission of the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues during question No. 3 that transport emissions have stabilised and will presumably decline as the petrol price rises at what point does the Government think that spending $2 billion on 4.5 kilometres of a motorway to Waterview is not cost-effective or of net benefit to the community including the local school? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government is determined to provide Auckland with a decent public system of roading that will include busways walkways and cycleways. For the first time we have put social and environmental concerns into the road building process. Buses could well use these tunnels and given that the vast majority of people consulted prefer the tunnel option because it will not destroy several suburbs as most of the National Party’s motorway projects have I think it is a great step forward. 
Climate Change—Statement 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding climate change on Radio New Zealand’s  
Checkpoint 
 that “I am absolutely clear in my own mind that I could make mistakes in a lot of my portfolio areas”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: The Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question has been asked; members are entitled to hear the reply. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues has always known that he has feet of clay unlike the member opposite who believes he can walk on water. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right we are back to silence. The question will be heard in silence as will the answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it a mistake or the intent of the emissions trading legislation that the Government would get a windfall gain as advised by officials of between $6 billion and $22 billion from the sale of permits at the expense of consumers and businesses over the design period of the scheme; and of what benefit will any tax relief in the Budget be if it will be taken back through the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the second part of the question is that the member will need to wait until next week. The answer to the first part of the question I regret to advise is that I do not know. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The issue of whether the Government makes a profit of between $6 billion and $22 billion was included in the Cabinet papers around the design of the emissions trading scheme. The member concerned is a member of the Cabinet and I find it extraordinary for a Minister to say he simply does not know. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do the mistakes the Minister referred to include yesterday giving the House information on increased household costs arising from the emissions trading scheme that was based on a carbon price of around $25 per tonne when the current secondary price is already around $35 a tonne and rising; and will he now concede that the figures he gave the House were less than half the actual increased costs that households are likely to bear and that the real figure is nearer $25 to $30 a week rather than the $2 to $4 a week he told the House yesterday? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I doubt that the figure will be anywhere near as high as that. But in respect of the future price of carbon I would simply offer that at the moment there is more than one price around the world for carbon. This Government prefers to rely on Treasury advice in respect of the price of the carbon and $35 is higher than that advice. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it a mistake or was it intended that the emissions trading scheme require domestic refrigeration and heat pump manufacturers to have to pay for the considerable cost of synthetic refrigerants but importers of overseas manufacturers’ fridges and heat pumps with exactly the same synthetic refrigerants do not have to pay which is a policy that will put at risk thousands of New Zealand jobs in companies like Temperzone Fisher and Paykel and Skope Industries; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The legislation is before the select committee. The member is on the select committee. The member may wish to take up that argument with other members of the select committee. That would be the best way for him to earn his salary. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister received regarding support for action on climate change in the form of an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Support for emissions trading continues to grow in New Zealand and in fact continues to grow around the world. Only a day or two ago I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain proposes a “cap and trade” system and wants to take it—should he be elected to the presidency—to the American political apparatus. And of course the recent change of Government in Australia means that Australia is now moving to an emissions trading scheme which is scheduled to start in about 2 years’ time. Federated Farmers who are long-time opponents of many aspects of climate change policy are now firmly of the view that they will support an “all gases all sectors” approach to emissions trading. It is the National Party members who have not yet made the shift. They say they want to but they always say that it is not perfect yet and more time is needed. They have been doing that since 1997 and it is time they stopped. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it an error or was it intended that Holcim a cement company that operates 27 cement plants within the European emissions trading system and one in New Zealand’s emission trading system would have to pay 16 times as much per tonne of carbon in New Zealand than it does under the European system; and what does he think the impact of this detailed design issue of the emissions trading scheme will do to that company’s proposed half-billion-dollar investment in a far more efficient cement manufacturing facility in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There they go again. The National Party members say they want to do something about climate change only there is this problem that they say we need to fix so that they can come up with the next problem for us to fix and actually we never get anything done! Let me answer the question. The cement industry will face a reduction in its allotment of if you will freedom to emit emissions from 2019. That is 11 years from now. I suggest that members opposite if they were fair in their thinking would agree with me that by then we are almost certain to have a sector by sector approach globally in areas such as cement because unless we do it that way we almost certainly will never be able to bring in enough of the Third World in time. Only a week ago we pushed it out a further 5 years to give more certainty to companies such as the one the member has just mentioned but still he cannot stop bitching and grizzling about it because in his heart he does not want anything to happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain how the global environment would benefit from the closure of the Bluff smelter when 100 percent of the electricity used there is renewable and if the plant was relocated to an area like South-east Asia where the electricity is most likely to come from the burning of coal we would have the scenario of New Zealand losing 1000 jobs and an increase in global emissions—how is that going to help things? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have pretty much the same answer. I agree with the member that carbon leakage does not do anybody any good. I agree with the member; I understand that. But you see that is why the attempt has been made to strike a balance so that the smelter does not begin—begin—a reduction in its free allocation until 2019. The smelter has been improving its efficiency for some years now and it is doing a really good job of it. If it cannot make further efficiencies between now and 2019 I would be surprised. But almost certainly by then the aluminium smelters of the world will be subjected to some form of agreed regulatory world best-practice. One can smell it coming. So we can move ahead with the emissions trading regime now wait until it starts to bite in 2019 and around about 2017 check back on the 2008 comments I have just made to see whether they were right. I reckon they will be. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer that John McCain if he became President would look favourably at an emissions trading scheme that Kevin Rudd in Australia— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask a question. You are prefacing it with statements. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer along those lines does it not make sense that New Zealand work in tandem with some of these countries rather than try to lead the field; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have just been invited to work in tandem with Australia and the US. Here is a fact: only three Western countries have signed but not ratified. They are Monaco Australia and the US. They are the laggards. We were the 102nd country to ratify—hardly leaders of the pack—yet the member invites us to delay our progress still further. It is time we came to a decision. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with the analysis by the Federation of Maori Authorities that the emissions trading scheme will provide a hit on the balance sheet of Maori of $2 billion; if not what does he suggest the hit on the balance sheet of Maori will be given that it has to be a positive number? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret I do not have an answer to the member’s question but it is clear that Maori are big players and getting to be bigger players in the forestry sector and depending on the age of their trees they can benefit. 
Competition Law—Crown Companies 
7.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: How is the Government changing competition law to promote effective use of public investment in Crown companies? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Government is announcing today our intention to amend the Commerce Act to allow State-owned enterprises and Crown research institutes to cooperate for mutual benefit under ministerial direction without being subject to the competition requirements in the Commerce Act. Although the Government recognises the general benefits of competition this proposal was targeted at areas where a collaborative approach would be in the public interest. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister advise how the Commerce Act currently provides for interconnected companies to collaborate without breaching the competition provisions of the Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Act already allows interconnected private sector companies to work together as they are treated as a single entity under the Act. This essentially exempts them from the prohibitions against anti-competitive behaviour. The Government’s decision will see State-owned enterprises and Crown research institutes other than Meridian Energy Mighty River Power and Genesis Energy treated as interconnected bodies in terms of the Act. This is a very positive announcement in terms of the potential benefits of maximising cooperation within the public sector as currently occurs in the private sector. 
Blue Lake Track—Logging 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What will be the impact on the Department of Conservation’s Blue Lake Track in Rotorua of the proposed logging of the 90-year-old Douglas Firs on the side of the lake? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 There is a track on the scenic reserve near the logging area and there will be some restrictions on public access during the logging for safety reasons. However public access will be maintained during the evenings and the weekends and the scenic reserve itself will not be affected. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why after the National Party candidate in Rotorua Todd McClay raised the issue publicly did the Minister issue a Government press release stating that she had been working for some time to resolve the issues when in fact she had told constituents there was little that she could do? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Actually I have been working on this issue for some considerable time—long before the National candidate was selected. I meet regularly with the district council and on this issue we have been working to preserve access for recreational use of this beautiful iconic forest. That is my role as the MP for Rotorua and I will continue to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Minister mean when she emailed a constituent in response to devastating photos of the logging: “God Ray get the tree huggers there. There is little more that I can do.”? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I understand that Nick Smith has been in the region just recently hugging a tree so it is good to know he was there to support us on this issue which is incredibly important to us in Rotorua. On this issue that gentleman as a recreational cyclist works with me to try to ensure that we preserve access for walkers and mountain bikers into our beautiful Blue Lake Green Lake and Whakarewarewa Forest. That is my job as the MP for Rotorua and I will carry on doing it—and I will be a tree hugger too. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What faith can New Zealanders have in their Minister of Conservation when confronted with the logging of 100-year-old trees on the Department of Conservation’s very popular Blue Lake track at one of the most iconic tourism spots in New Zealand and in her own electorate when her response is: “God Ray get the tree huggers there. There is little more that I can do.”? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: This forest is managed by Timberlands forestry. It is interesting to see an Opposition member now saying that the Government should interfere in relation to forestry farmers felling trees selectively in our area that have grown around Rotorua for as long as I have been there. We are not in the business of telling an industry how to manage itself. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister think she has her ministerial priorities right when the very day she sent the email saying to get the tree huggers and that there was nothing she could do was the Friday prior to the Labour congress when she was putting together the ditty for the congress attacking National leader John Key; and does she think that if she were perhaps a little more focused on her electorate and ministerial duties we might have saved some of those trees? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I wish I could sing as an MP about the values of our fantastic community which is working on preserving the values of the trees in our area and also our pathways and recreational reserves. This logging is not happening on Department of Conservation land let me correct the Opposition. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the Conservation Act provides an advocacy role for the Minister that Professor Hamilton from Waikato University has said that this pristine iconic lake may die as a consequence of the runoff from the logging and that the covenants held by the Crown on the forest state: “shall promote the natural and intrinsic values and landscape amenity of the forest”; and noting that what specifically will she and her department do to ensure that these great trees are not lost? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: These trees are Douglas firs and we need to be very clear on that issue. These Douglas firs have been grown for the purpose of forestry farming. We love these trees—absolutely. I am not the Minister responsible for the covenant but I am the member for Rotorua and am very much responsible for ensuring ongoing access to these cycleways and walkways while at the same time working with the forestry company to know its forward-forestry management plans and making sure we can adjust our tracks. That is what I have done in respect of the mountain track users in our community. In terms of the water quality of the lake I met last week with the chief executive of Environment Bay of Plenty who assured me that the organisation is regularly monitoring the runoff into the water as is its responsibility for monitoring lake-water quality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have in my hand the email stating: “God Ray get the tree huggers there. There is little more that I can do. Cheers Steve.”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to table this? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table that email. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the harvesting operation plan which shows that this operation is not on Department of Conservation land. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Home-based Support Workers—Funding 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding for home-based support workers? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am pleased to have recently announced that in Budget ‘08 this Labour-led Government will allocate an additional $46.5 million over 4 years to support injured New Zealanders affecting some 14000 claims a year. This additional money will fund non-agency providers of home-based support who are predominantly friends and family members of injured people who have given up parts of their own lives in order to care for them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How does this additional funding build on previous increases in funding for the home-based support sector? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: In February contracted home-support workers received a funding boost of an additional $25 million a year. Both of these increases ensure that carers’ pay rates are fair and they will also encourage more stability in the workforce. 
Pansy Wong 
: Is the Minister not aware of many complaints that home-based support workers are opting to exit the sector despite the so-called extra funding due to many of them not being able to comprehend the changes that were introduced to make them independent contractors? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The increase for non-contracted caregivers represents a substantial improvement on their rates of pay. It is designed particularly to improve low pay and to improve the retention of those workers in that sector. 
Immigration Service—Policy Breaches 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Are breaches of Government immigration policy by his own department a matter of responsibility for the Minister of Immigration? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 As the Minister of Immigration I am responsible for determining policy direction. Where immigration policy is incorrectly applied by staff—for example when an immigration officer approves an application that does not meet policy—it is not the policy that is wrong; rather the officer’s actions exceed his or her authority. This is a performance matter which is the responsibility of the chief executive. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In asking this next question I wish to quote a wee bit of the Oughton report and because bits of it have been deleted I have to make reference to missing bits. I will use the words “blanked out” so that my question makes sense. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will proceed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the Oughton report as released states: “The [blanked out] and a national office [blanked out] were directly involved in instructing staff at the PAC branch to override the policy.”; if so what action did the Minister take to ensure that his Government’s policy was being implemented appropriately? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Oughton report speaks for itself. What action did I take? As Minister I was briefed on 14 December 2007 by the chief executive for the first time. I expressed my concerns to him but I also noted quite properly that these were employment matters which pertain to his responsibility. The chief executive—new at the time—took my concern seriously. He advised me that he was looking into the matter himself and that he had informed the State Services Commissioner of the issues. Therefore at the time there was no need to engage the State Services Commissioner—he was already on to it. The chief executive subsequently advised me that he had taken legal advice from Crown Law as to whether if he was of a mind to reopen the matter he had the ability to do so. As a result the chief executive was advised that the matter had occurred been dealt with and been closed by previous chief executives and in the absence of new information he was legally precluded from reopening the matter. I finally ask the member to note that section 33 of the State Sector Act requires chief executives to act independently on individual employment matters and explicitly that chief executives are “not … responsible to the appropriate Minister”. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Immigration Act only the Minister of Immigration can grant residence to people who do not meet Government policy requirements; if so why did he do nothing when confronted with clear evidence that his department was usurping his ministerial authority as detailed in the Oughton report? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In danger of being shrill I will repeat what I said before and add to it. When advised of the matters on 14 December I expressed concern to the chief executive but I noted that these were explicit employment matters and were for him to deal with. He was in contact with the State Services Commissioner at that point. He then engaged Crown Law to advise him whether he could reopen the matter; he could not. Subsequently when the Oughton report was released—again under section 33 of the State Services Act it could not be demanded by me or released to me—there were wider issues. At that point I asked—through the Minister—the State Services Commissioner to look at both the Thompson issue and the wider issues around it. Subsequent to that the chief executive on 17 April initiated a review of the full Pacific branch and subsequent to that we now have the State Services Commissioner referring to the police matters that it is not appropriate for me to comment on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister expect this House to believe his claim that this is just an employment matter when the department was totally ignoring Government policy in terms of immigration policy requirements and when his department was making illegal decisions; is the Minister claiming that he is not in any way accountable for his department ignoring Government policy and making illegal decisions? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The beliefs of that member are his and his alone. He quotes the whole of the department as if there is some sort of clandestine conspiracy. We now know that one individual acted and has resigned. We also know that the Oughton report identified that perhaps there were other issues and we know that I at that point having first seen the Oughton report at that point engaged the State Services Commissioner which is the appropriate course of action. If the member is saying that I as Minister should break the law—breach section 33 of the State Sector Act—and place my fingers firmly within employment and individual matters then I say this to him: I will not break the law but we know what he would do if he ever had the chance to become Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that had the matter of Mary Anne Thompson’s immigration assistance to her family members not been made public by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) he would have taken no further action to deal with key officials in his department breaching Government policy and making illegal decisions on immigration matters? In other words he would have supported a cover-up and the only reason why anything has happened is TVNZ made it public. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will do it more slowly this time. When I first was privileged enough to see the Oughton report which I could not demand to see—and which the member has demanded that I release in breach of the law—at that point given the wider issues contained within it I asked the State Services Commissioner to become involved and investigate the matter. The member knows this as I have told him that legal advice was sought as to whether the matter could be reopened by the chief executive. That legal advice clearly told the chief executive he could not reopen it. The report was released and I engaged the State Services Commissioner. I cannot see how anything could be covered up when we have a number of inquiries going on and when I was first informed of the issue at a time when the new chief executive had already been in touch with the State Services Commissioner. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why then did the Minister allow his department to fight so hard against the public release of the Oughton report and why did his department instead of releasing that Oughton report contract a private consultancy public relations firm to try to spin this issue to the public? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My advice is that the department did not fight against releasing the Oughton report. The advice I have from the chief executive because—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members wish to hear the answer. Please continue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Madam Speaker— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We want some honest answers. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Members either want the answer or not. The advice I have is that the Official Information Act request was to the department not to the Minister because it was about employment matters. The new chief executive Mr Blake took due time to look at it took due time to examine it and it was subsequently released in a form that was correct. 
Carers—Tax Changes 
11.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What feedback has she received from clients and caregivers on the decision to withhold tax on attendant care home help and childcare payments made by the Accident Compensation Corporation which will come into effect on 1 July 2008? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have had some concerns raised with me. However the previous tax situation was inequitable and uncertain and this administrative change should ensure that all carers are being treated equally while at the same time making it easier for them to fulfil their tax obligations. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Were all caregivers and clients involved in attendant care relationships personally advised that their status has changed to that of being self-employed and will the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) increase the payments to cover all the additional costs imposed such as GST fringe benefit tax PAYE accountants’ fees and administration or is this another attempt by the Government to increase the tax take? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The truth of the matter is that informal carers have always been obliged as is everyone to pay tax on their income. The administrative change that has happened has ensured that this will occur via ACC. It is an administrative change brought about by the Inland Revenue Department legislation. However at the same time this Government has seen fit quite separately to increase the rates of pay to carers. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What support is the Labour-led Government providing to the sector to ensure caregivers such as those cited in the primary question are paid adequately? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: As I informed the House a moment ago Budget 2008 will allocate an additional $46.5 million over 4 years to fund non-agency providers of home-based care. This in fact moves the hourly rates from $11.28 to $13.82 for level 1 care and from $13.54 to 16.59 for level 2 care. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What action will the ACC take to ensure that accident compensation clients and caregivers will not be faced with retrospective tax deductions on ACC attendant care payments made prior to the tax changes being introduced which now treat all ACC attendant care payments as income rather than compensation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It is not the ACC’s job to gather taxation or to pursue any tax that has not been paid previously. The administrative process in place now is to require the ACC to withhold tax at source and thereafter remit it to the Inland Revenue Department. That is the only change. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What response will the Minister make to a client who has written to the Maori Party advising us that she receives ACC payments to enable her to care for her son whose disability was caused by an adverse medical event that she receives these payments not as income earned from being employed to do a job and that the potential threat of being required to register for GST in order to meet provisional tax obligations and other requirements may in fact jeopardise her ability to take care of her son? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I would be very happy to respond to that particular case if the member referred it to me. The truth again of the matter is that informal carers are paid; they are paid via the person who is the injured person. They are paid to provide that service and there are ordinary taxation rules that apply accordingly. 
Hospitals—Safety 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have any concerns about the safety of provincial hospitals; if so which ones? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I always treat allegations about patient safety seriously. All complex systems are capable of improvement but I am satisfied that our hospitals are among the safest in the world. However for example I am aware of allegations that have recently been made at the West Coast District Health Board. The district health board and at my request the Ministry of Health are investigating this as a matter of urgency. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the health system so failed that a senior doctor at Grey Base Hospital was forced to advise her board that the hospital cannot guarantee patient safety as most systems have broken down and that patient care is at times dangerous? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: While we take all complaints of this nature very seriously the fact that a clinician has laid a complaint in a hospital does not amount to any sort of system failure. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House what he is doing to ensure quality and safety in our hospitals? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has moved the health system from the previous Government’s obsession with the financial bottom line to one where quality and safety matter most. Since becoming Minister I have sent strong messages to the district health boards to this effect and introduced a mechanism whereby district health board funding is tied to quality performance. I have accelerated work on system safety through the regional collaboration in clinical networks across district health board boundaries have strengthened the work of the quality improvement committee and have facilitated an agreement with senior doctors that allows us to engage them in the quality and safety agenda. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that Palmerston North Hospital is facing financial problems because of strikes staff shortages and a sewerage leak and is he concerned about the impact of these on patient safety at this provincial hospital; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am aware that senior clinicians at Palmerston North Hospital have categorically rejected claims by the Resident Doctors Association that the hospital was in danger of closure around the time of the previous strike. I would add however that the situation of strikes in the health system is far from ideal and any disruption to patient safety or scheduling is a matter of some concern. However in the case of the junior doctors it would be of equal concern to see a settlement in the order of 40 percent which would only set off a further round of wage claims across the sector. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What assurances can he give to the people of the West Coast when Dr Forbes says that waiting lists for operations have been taken off doctors and nurses and been given to the information technology department without any clinical supervision resulting in patients being put on the waiting list for the wrong operation with the wrong anaesthetic patients prepped for the wrong operation and a man needing a knee replacement was booked for a dental procedure; how can that be safe care for the patients of the West Coast? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is normally the member who has foot and mouth problems. But the assurance I can give West Coast constituents is that we are taking these claims seriously and that an urgent review has been mounted. I suggest that the member opposite rather than get hysterical should wait for the outcome of that report. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What assurance is the Minister able to give the people of the West Coast now that our hospital in Greymouth is in fact safe? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is very nice to hear from that member. The assurances I can give him are that all the proper processes are in place to treat Dr Forbes’ allegations very seriously that an urgent review is under way that contact has already commenced between the chief medical adviser of the Ministry of Health Dr Forbes and the district health board and that my chief medical adviser will very shortly be travelling to Greymouth to further that inquiry. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that hospitals need to constantly upgrade contingency plans in order to cope with possible strikes including deferring non-urgent surgery and discharging patients early and that under these circumstances patient safety will eventually be compromised in every hospital in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I said in response to the member’s previous question any event such as a strike that disrupts patient scheduling or potentially impacts on safety is of significant concern. However I am not aware of any particular safety crises that have arisen during the course of the last two strikes. I would reiterate however that of equal or greater concern would be a settlement in the order of 40 percent. That would set off a whole new round of claims throughout the sector and I call upon both sides to take a long-term view of the good of the health system as they progress those negotiations. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is it not an indictment of Labour that after its 8 years in office the West Coast health infrastructure is still being run down by bureaucrats who keep pushing doctors and nurses aside? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. This is a Government that has doubled public investment in the health system including that on the West Coast. The member may have some aversion to “bureaucrats” but I can assure him that both the managers and the clinicians in the health system give of their very best to ensure that patients are treated well in the interests of all people’s health. 
Questions to Members 
Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Submissions 
1.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions has the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard in the last week on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The Finance and Expenditure Committee has sat on four occasions in the last week: once in Auckland and three times in Wellington including this morning’s meeting. We have heard 93 submissions during that week. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What consultation was there with the select committee over the Government’s decision to defer liquid fuels for 2 years and to change the phase-out of timing for allocations because of competitiveness issues; if none what steps did the member take as chair to ensure the work of the select committee was not being reduced to a farce? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that questions to members should relate to procedure not to matters of substance or policy. I am quite happy for the member to rephrase the question but the chair is not responsible for the work of the committee; he is responsible for the process. That is very clear in Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. Please rephrase the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Part of the process of the committee was actually a discussion and decisions around how that process would be conducted given that the Government was still involved in policy considerations around emissions trading. The committee decided that in fact the process would mean that the committee would be kept absolutely informed of Government decisions that affected the committee’s process. That is what I am asking the chair about—was the committee informed because our process was very much affected—and that is what I was interested in having an answer to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the matter. I am happy to take it under consideration and to look at it further. And I invite the member if he has another supplementary question to ask it. If not we have come to the end of the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: OK Madam Speaker. With your indulgence I will try my luck with a further supplementary question then. How can the Government noting that Dr Cullen said yesterday that this was a massively complicated piece of legislation expect Parliament to get it right when major submitters with over a hundred pages of written evidence to the select committee and evidence involving tens of thousands of jobs for New Zealanders were scheduled only 15 minutes in which to make detailed submissions and receive the questions of the committee? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The overwhelming view reported to me as chair from submitters is that they feel they have had good hearings in front of the committee. By way of example I tell the House that of the 93 submitters I mentioned in the answer to the primary question only 15 received a hearing time of 10 minutes or less. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the safety of and risks to patients at the Grey Base Hospital and the decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance or a new development in the existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the debate being held. The decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. However this is merely the announcement of a decision to conduct an investigation and I do not believe that it requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter especially as the House is about to debate the financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State-owned enterprises this afternoon. The application is therefore declined. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I want to take members through some of the highlights of the Labour Government last week. It started with the shock announcement of 29000 job losses and an even more shocking statement by Ruth Dyson the Minister of Social Development and Employment that 29000 shock job losses was “not bad news”. I suppose it was not except for the 29000 people who lost their jobs. Then there was the knee-jerk back-down on the emissions trading scheme. The Labour Government gave away its main sustainability platform just last week amid anger from its core support base in Maoridom that the emissions trading scheme would knock hundreds of millions of dollars off the value of assets they had received as Treaty settlements. And that is in only a couple of days. Then there is the prospect that the Government is losing the support of its coalition partners which are just busting to break ranks on unpopular legislation so that they can survive the election. And then we saw in the last few days the competent best-ever managerially brilliant politicians in the Labour Government scrambling over revelations of a cover-up of an immigration scam it has known about for 3 years that implicates three or four of its Ministers and has one of its members in front of the courts on corruption charges. And apparently everything is going fine! 
The only good thing is that Helen Clark has left the country to leave Michael Cullen to face the music on a Government in meltdown. But those are only the small details of what has gone wrong. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The train set. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh I forgot. There is the revelation that it will cost taxpayers several hundred millions more to buy a train company that we did not need to buy because the Minister of Finance either was deceitful and did not tell us the numbers or was incompetent because he did not know the numbers. But who cares? It is only a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money and what is a few hundred million dollars between Dr Cullen and his new friend Paul Little who has walked all over us and added a quarter of a billion dollars to the Australian shareholders in the rail company because Dr Cullen says that he does not want to pay them a subsidy? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The cupboard will be bare. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The cupboard will be bare. But the worst news is this. Last night the Australian Government racked up competition for the talent of every New Zealander with any aspiration by locking in tax cuts—3 more years of tax cuts after 5 years of tax cuts that have already been put in place. Do members know what else it did? It locked in 3 years of tax cuts to the value of $31 billion and then it added a fourth year of a further $15 billion to its already 3-year tax cut programme. 
What has little old New Zealand been doing? It has been lying around on the beach sunning itself while Dr Cullen composes his brilliantly anguished speeches about why he has to give tax cuts. But the social democrat in him means that he will do it in a way that guarantees he loses the election because then he can feel morally justified about making working New Zealanders go 10 years with no tax cuts while Australian workers are getting 8 years of tax cuts and another one added on to the end of it which is bigger than anything they have had before. That is the difference. 
So it is true. Australia wants New Zealanders working in Australia more than the Labour Government wants New Zealanders working here. Dr Cullen has this bizarre analysis that somehow we solve New Zealand’s literacy and numeracy problem by exporting people to Australia. He says that the ones who go are functionally innumerate. That is how he describes them. So the ones who cannot count leave the place—apparently; according to Labour—to go to a Government that is competing vigorously for our talent. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Would the National members please tell the Government why they have voted against every tax cut this Government has put forward? Why was it when we came up with Working for Families and all of the tax credits associated with that that they bolted and voted against it? Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of families are benefiting—against the wish of the National Party. Why when the KiwiSaver scheme came in—which now has more than half a million people belonging to it—and those massive tax changes came into place did the National Party decide to vote against it? Why when we decided to give tax cuts to businesses did National members vote against that? When we said that the 33c tax rate needed to come down to 30c they voted against it. Why when we said that we would have a research and development tax credit of 15 percent did those members vote against that? Why in the 8½ years of this Government every time we have decided to make it easier for savers businesses or families have those members voted against it? Why do they say that this Government never changes tax rates and never goes for tax cuts yet every time we have done it they have voted against it? Why do they continue to do that? 
I think I have worked out why those members are so obsessed by the buy-back of the rail carriages. I reckon that I have worked out why they did not want us to buy out Toll and I think it is to do with John Key’s history. In 1993 the then National Government sold New Zealand Rail. It sold the locomotives it sold the wagons and it sold the track. It was a disastrous privatisation. What we now know is that the Wellington branch of the Bankers Trust was the vendor’s adviser. It clipped the ticket to the tune of probably $3 million or $4 million—that is the reported estimate. What has not been made very clear is that John Key worked for the vendor’s adviser. John Key worked for the Bankers Trust the vendor’s adviser in 1993. He rose to lead its foreign exchange desk. He rose to have some position called treasurer within the Bankers Trust. He would have been in his 30s. He would have been surrounded by the purchasers. Who were they? They were Fay and Richwhite. Do members remember those names? That was where John the trader was at that time. So he probably thought it was a pretty good privatisation. He probably thought that he had done a pretty good job whatever it was on his part as he worked for the Bankers Trust. 
That is why all these years later when it comes full circle everyone in New Zealand thinks that it is a good idea to have an integrated train system to have an integrated rail network and to have better control over our land transport system and John Key says that is “buying back the train set”. And Bill English in the remarks he has just made again misquotes and misrepresents the price paid. He does it on purpose because National members do not like it. They do not like the idea of the Government owning something that John Key had a hand in selling. That is the truth of it. You see that is because John Key is the trader. Open up John Key and what do we have underneath? We have ourselves a trader. First and foremost he is always a trader. He comes into politics and he thinks that politics is about trading. He does not think about political philosophy he does not think about making a stand and debating his position—whatever it is—in the spectrum. He thinks about trading. 
That is why National has been swallowing dead rats for the last 12 months—trading policy changes for votes. Those members have decided that they will not do the things they really think they would like to do like selling assets even though deep down they really want to. That is why there are splits and divisions right through the National Party caucus. Actually I will just sit with asset sales which will do as an example. Richard Worth wants to partially privatise everything; David Carter wants to privatise but only Landcorp; and Tony Ryall when he last had the chance to do privatisation privatised so quickly that his leader the former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley said one day rather mischievously “Oh I wonder what Tony has sold today.” You see they are really privatisers at heart but John Key the trader says “Oh the public don’t like it so we will inoculate them against that particular predilection that we have. Our proclivity will remain under the radar. We will be a very small target. We will simply run the clock down to the election and see whether we can fool them.” Well we have got news for the National Party. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Yesterday was a down day. The Minister for Social Development and Employment warned the nation last week that employment figures were likely to go up and down over the next 18 months and down they went. Tragically yesterday morning the 466 staff at the Oringi meatworks in Dannevirke realised the full effect of that warning when the PPCS company’s “right-sizing programme” resulted in the closure of the works. 
Last week’s downers took place in the Coromandel where Carter Holt Harvey dismantled 145 jobs on the spot at its Kopu sawmill and in Whangarei where Tenix Shipbuilding let 60 jobs go. Before that there were down days in Mosgiel as 450 jobs disappeared from Fisher and Paykel. Another 50 jobs were lost when Tamahine Knitwear closed its doors; a possible 150 jobs were lost in Ashburton when Design Line shut up shop; and a massive 11300 jobs were lost from the construction industry almost 6000 from manufacturing. 
In fact there have been an awful lot of down days in recent times so much so that the latest quarterly employment survey has demonstrated a decline in the number of people in jobs on a scale that has been unprecedented and unseen since 1989. If there was any doubt at all that we are experiencing some pretty dismal days in the job stakes the economists removed any question. ASB Bank chief economist Nick Tuffley described the job figures as “very grim”. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions economist Peter Conway said he had heard of employers in Te Waipounamu who are regularly seeing close to 100 hopefuls turning up for job interviews whereas in other years they would be lucky to get five applicants. Westpac chief economist Brendan O’Donovan called the statistics an “absolute shocker” and described them as “extraordinarily weak”. 
Although New Zealanders and all the commentators and economists are worried about the loss of some 29000 jobs the Minister in charge had the audacity to say “This is not a dramatic change if we look at the overall picture.” Even worse she said “I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually.” Well try saying “Actually it’s not bad news.” to the workers of Dannevirke—the families who are now struck by another blow in the wake of last year’s closure of Norsewear and the closure of the Feltex Carpets plant in 2006. 
These figures are all down and no up. But where things begin to get really grim is when we look at the differences and the disparities between groups of New Zealanders. I refer to New Zealanders whose unemployment rates shot up to 8.6 percent and 8.2 percent respectively—Maori and Pasifika New Zealanders. It is a pretty significant contrast to other groups of New Zealanders—Europeans sit at a rate of 3 percent compared with 8.6 percent for Maori. 
The Maori Party has sat in this House for 2½ years and it has been reminded every day of the gigantic gaps that still exist after this Parliament decided it was no longer fashionable to talk about closing the gaps. We have sat witness to report after report that shows little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation for certain groups of New Zealanders. We wonder when they will enjoy the fruits of the economic growth that the Minister alludes to as “the ups of the cycle”. When will we see the equitable distribution of wealth that will raise the standard of living of all individuals in this country especially those on lower incomes? How long does this nation have to wait before the gross disparity between the employment prospects of Maori and Pasifika peoples and other New Zealanders is removed? 
The good news we are all waiting for is the announcement of a Government that cares and will take up the urgent social legal and constitutional imperative of fundamental change in order to end these injustices. Until that day comes we will be forever relegated to the status of a nation in a position that is extraordinarily weak an utter shocker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It was sad to observe in the House this afternoon the Hon Dr Michael Cullen on behalf of the Minister of State Services defending what has to be the indefensible. The circumstances surrounding the resignation of Dr Mary Anne Thompson from the Immigration Service are backgrounded by not only the Government’s knowledge of what was going wrong in that department but its deliberate attempts to cover it up and to keep it from the people of New Zealand. Let us just go back for a minute and look at what happened. 
Firstly the allegations that Dr Thompson had been putting pressure on staff inside her department to give approvals to her relatives and friends to gain residence in this country date back to late 2005. The then head of the Department of Labour which is the over-body for the Immigration Service called in those people who were making the allegations and concluded that there had to be some further investigation. He instructed Mr David Oughton to conduct that investigation and received an interim report on the matter in May of 2007. He received the final report on that matter in July of 2007. We are told through the press and through comments made by other Ministers that the Minister of Immigration saw that report in July of 2007. The Minister at the time was the Hon David Cunliffe and he chose to do nothing. When he was replaced moved on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove picked up that report in December. Still there was nothing done. 
It was not until the Television New Zealand journalists started getting the information themselves from people who had been affected by these activities and did the investigations both here and in Kiribati that the full extent of what had been going on and more important what had been covered up by the Government were laid as the bare facts before the public. At that point the Prime Minister going into panic mode almost decided that it probably was a good idea to have a further investigation. She noted that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was making investigations in that regard and that he was keeping his colleagues informed. She very skilfully also said that she was “simply an onlooker”. 
Let us just step back a little bit to work out how this all should come together. Firstly when a chief of a department comes to a Minister and says “I am getting an investigation conducted on a senior civil servant in my department.” what would we expect that Minister to do? We would expect that Minister at least to notify the State Services Commission. But apparently we are supposed to believe that that never happened. When the final report is received we would expect that the Minister on being told that the investigations had been concluded that there were some problems and that there was some action being taken might then want to have a closer look at the entire division in which those activities had been taking place that Cabinet might have been informed that the Minister of State Services might have been informed and that the State Services Commissioner might have been informed. But apparently that did not happen because all the time the Minister was wanting us to accept that this was an operational matter not a matter of policy. 
I would like to recall for the House the fact that this is the department that not so long ago offered the advice to its various employees that if they were all to lie in unison then they would never be caught. 
The Government knows this and the flags should have been up. It would appear we now have a number of people in the country who are here quite illegally yet no further action has been taken by the Government. The worst of it is that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove came into the House today and tried to make out that there had been total transparency in this all the way through. Here is the question for him and the next Labour speaker: if this Government has handled this all so well and in a way that is totally honest then why did it take an appeal to the Ombudsman to get the Oughton report released in the first place? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday 13 May was a significant date for National Party members of Parliament. The National Party was formed 72 years ago in 1936. One would think that a party that was 72 years old would know what it was doing and would have a consistent policy. I am privileged to be the education Minister in a Labour-led Government—a Government that has endowed education over the last 8 years as it has never been supported before. We in Labour believe that education is the pathway to maximising the potential of individuals and to building a strong economy and a strong society. We have had an enormous number of initiatives in education during the time of the Labour-led Government. I come back to my opening comment that one would think that the National Party—72 years old yesterday and approaching an election in about 6½ or 7 months’ time—would have a consistent policy. It is a party that is 72 years old. 
Let me share with the House some of the conflicting and confusing positions of the National Party. Let us take the 20 free hours policy which the Labour Government introduced for all 3 and 4-year-olds in New Zealand. It was a revolution in early childhood education. We believe that setting a child as early as possible on an education path that has quality safe early childhood education boosts that child’s chances of a successful education for life. What was the National Party’s position on the 20 free hours policy? It was a very confused position. 
We had Mr Key—”Mr Flip-flop”—addressing a gathering of people in west Auckland which is in the area he represents but of course does not live in. We all know in this House that Mr Key lives in a multimillion-dollar house in Parnell but represents people on the far western fringes of Auckland. In one of the rare visits he made to his electorate he visited a group of parents concerned about early childhood education in Massey and he said that he was for the 20 free hours policy. However later within weeks of that statement he said “Once again the Government’s own documents show the ‘20 hours free’ promise is nothing more than a cruel hoax played out on unsuspecting New Zealand parents.” Mr English his sidekick—although I think not his friend—said that in National they oppose the 20 free hours. I have to say that Katherine Rich who was at that time National’s education spokesperson had a different view altogether and came out in support of the policy. Paula Bennett who sometimes speaks on this issue has of course flip-flopped from one position to another. 
Bulk funding is another very interesting and controversial education issue. Mr Peachey who is a relatively new National MP representing the Tamaki electorate and former principal from the North Shore of Auckland is a great advocate of bulk funding. He said in this House that the abolition of bulk funding was a tragedy. He went on further to attest and witness that he was personally very solidly committed to it. The official National Party spokesperson on education at that time Ms Rich said that bulk funding was not on National’s agenda. Mr English on the other hand said “No ifs no buts and no fighting in school communities over whether to have it. Everyone is going to bulk funding.” Early childhood education is a policy and a programme that was rejected by National then supported by National then rejected then supported again. Just like bulk funding there were two different positions. 
What was the position of members of the women’s caucus of the National Party? 
Jill Pettis 
: They haven’t got one. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I think they have a small one—much smaller than Labour’s of course. National list MP Paula Bennett one of my constituents I think in west Auckland called the 20 free hours policy a cruel hoax and said it was in ruins. Funnily enough 79 percent of eligible children have now signed up for early childhood— 
Paula Bennett 
: Oh that’s not true. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am sorry but I suggest that Paula looks at the stats. Seventy-nine percent of eligible children are now signed up—almost 80 percent of the early childhood education sector is signed up. This is a great success for Labour. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 If Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had not made public the issues surrounding the assistance given to family members by the head of Immigration New Zealand Mary Anne Thompson nothing would have changed. Ministers in this Labour Government were content to have what David Oughton in his report calls an “Unlawful Immigration Decision”—that is at best—and what some people might call corruption in Immigration New Zealand. Ministers were happy to simply cover that up. If TVNZ had not made the issue public and if questions had not been asked in this Parliament would Mary Anne Thompson still be head of Immigration New Zealand? Of course she would. Were Ministers happy for that to be the case? Of course they were. Ministers were prepared to simply hide unlawful decision-making in Immigration New Zealand from the public. 
That is outrageous. Whichever way we look at it it is absolutely outrageous that it takes our media or television—and in this case Television New Zealand—to actually put information in front of the public after a battle with the department to get this information which involved the Ombudsmen. And the information was finally released on Thursday evening just before Easter just before Good Friday. Is that an example of a Government that wants to be open and transparent about this information when it dumps it out on the evening of the Thursday just before Good Friday just before Easter? What hypocrisy! What absolute hypocrisy it is to claim— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I am not accusing any member of that; I am referring to this Government. How else do you view that Mr Assistant Speaker? Oh I cannot bring you into the debate—forgive me. What is so appalling is that if this had not been made public Ministers David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove would have been perfectly happy for nothing to happen. If they could have kept it secret they would have. That is why Ministers are accountable here. Dr Michael Cullen and Clayton Cosgrove have claimed that it is just an employment matter but Ministers are responsible for Government policy and for the outcomes of Government policy. 
In this case the Government policy is that there is a Pacific residual quota available for people from Kiribati and other Pacific nations. That policy has some constraints on it. People have to make an application within a certain time frame and a certain number of places are available. That was the policy. The outcome following the unlawful decision-making within Immigration New Zealand was that people who applied legally within the time frame and people who would have fallen within the 75 places available missed out on those places. Some people who qualified under Government policy missed out on getting residence and people who did not qualify under Government policy got residence. That is clearly the outcome of Government policy being applied wrongly and the Minister is accountable for that. Whatever way Dr Michael Cullen tries to wiggle on this matter—and members know how Dr Cullen tries to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: Slippery! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Is that what they say? I do not care what term is used; whatever way Dr Cullen tries to weasel his way out of this the fact is that Government policy was one set of principles and the outcome following unlawful decisions in Immigration New Zealand was another set of results that were at odds with Government policy and the Minister is accountable for that. It is all spelt out in the Oughton report called I might say  
Review of Apparently Unlawful Immigration Decision 
. That is what David Oughton called it—an unlawful immigration decision. This Oughton report shows not just inappropriate behaviour by Mary Anne Thompson. OK she has stepped down now and there are all sorts of clouds around that; I do not want to address that today. This report shows that a number of senior officials in Immigration New Zealand were involved in this unlawful decision-making producing outcomes that are wrong and not Government policy. The Minister is accountable for that but nothing has happened to these people. Although the names are blanked out in the report it is clear who these people are. And Ministers will be held to account. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. For an awful moment there I feared that our House and the television cameras might capture Dr Lockwood Smith performing something of a wiggle or a wriggle. He went on to refer to the weasel and of course we feared he might strike that pose which is more suited to his leader—that of the weasel. 
Over the last several months the country has witnessed National members frothing up and down the country and their leader and the front bench foaming about the fact that they have already won the benches of Treasury. They are acting like the proverbial magpie waiting until a silver trinket or a golden gleam flows from the policies and the ideas that our party has laid before the country. They wait and they test whether there is a constituency for those ideas and they eagerly gobble them up fly away and regurgitate them as their own ideas thinking that that is the recipe to win the next election. 
What sorts of ideas have National members tried this form of alchemy on? At every opportunity we see Mr John Key endeavouring to cuddle up to my whanaunga from the Maori Party. Of course they are too drowsy to realise that the man’s real agenda and the party’s real agenda is to destroy the Maori seats. For fear of being outdone Rodney Hide in a flight of fancy and a fit of rhetoric that will defy all sorts of psychologists has wandered around our country trying to find suitable Maori candidates to represent the ACT colours in the Maori seats. No doubt of course a number of ne’er-do-wells might be attracted to that cause. Both the National Party and the ACT party say something to an audience in order to capture its attention but deep down they propose to do something quite different in the unlikely event that they capture the benches of Treasury. Of course that remains a fantasy and all the froth and all the shenanigans up and down the country will not trick the country. 
Let us also study what has been the response from those parties in relation to Dr Cullen’s brilliant decision to bring back rail into public ownership. Not only has he presided over a handsome level of investment in terms of ONTRACK and the infrastructure but he wisely concluded that those sunk costs would release better value by the State re-acquiring that asset after it had been rorted and destroyed by the Fay Richwhite cabal—and fortunately some of them faced virtual charges from the Securities Commission. Secondly as Toll has suffered all sorts of financial woes in the sharemarket of Australia Dr Cullen had the opportunity to engage in a set of negotiations and now Toll is firmly in the grip of the Crown’s commercial route. 
The public love the decision to bring back rail into public ownership despite the best efforts of John Key to complain and show that he actually is not possessed of the facts but is just stirring things up. Bill English has been secretly threatening to sell it at the moment National has an opportunity to occupy this side of the House. Of course he will get the superannuation before that happens. So those members have to overcome the difficulty that the public approve of these investments. Has a backward step emerged in terms of international travel since we acquired Air New Zealand? No. It was a fantastic commercial intervention. Are we not going to create a great opportunity for a more efficient transportation system with vessels plying their trade around the coast of Aotearoa and trains travelling smoothly and efficiently serving both the private and the public good? And of course planes largely owned by the State will be trading and moving people around from our country to the next country. 
The reason those members do not like that is that at a deeper level they do not want the public to continue to own these assets. Sooner or later we will have the debate as to whom New Zealand wants to back—those who want to treat the system of Government and our society at large as if it were one large firm or those who see the balance the leadership amidst considerable adversity taken by our side of the House and who realise that firms do serve private purposes very well but that they also must fulfil a public function. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Today I want to concentrate on only one thing and that is the performance of the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe. I want to concentrate on him for a number of reasons the first of which is that he already has form. I say that because as members will have witnessed he is the Minister who week after week in this House got up and defended over and over again the actions of the honourable Taito Phillip Field. David Cunliffe said that nothing was going on and that the Opposition was making something out of nothing. Taito Phillip Field according to the Prime Minister—this is the better one—was guilty only of trying to help his constituents. 
OK; so David Cunliffe has form. We know that from the very fact that Taito Phillip Field is now gone from the Labour Party. He is sitting in the courts in Auckland facing charges of corruption and of perverting the course of justice. David Cunliffe has to answer as to how come the weak lily-livered report that the Government had done—which was done specifically to hide everything in that case—got it off the hook except that finally the police moved. 
Let us move on to this particular case. The case of Mary Anne Thompson getting her family and so on approved for immigration dates back to 2005 so it has been running for a long time. The head of the Department of Labour James Buwalda had an investigation done by David Oughton. 
Here is the first question I want to raise. Has there ever been a Minister in the history of this Parliament who after being told by his or her chief executive: “I have a major issue at the department. I am bringing in an external investigator to investigate corruption.” did not take any further action? I can tell members that every Minister I have ever known including some Ministers on that side of the House would have immediately briefed the Prime Minister and the Minister of State Services if he or she had had that put to them by the chief executive and would have said: “I will let you know the moment we get the findings on this independent investigation.” That is what any Minister would do. One would not leave oneself exposed. One would want to make sure that everybody knew. 
The Prime Minister prides herself on running a no-surprises campaign. That is what she says. Well if I was a Minister—and in David Cunliffe’s case back then a very junior Minister—I would be protecting the old backside. I would be saying: “This is what I have heard from my department and an investigation is going on.” 
The final report was presented in July of 2007 and David Cunliffe was the Minister of Immigration for another 6 months. No one can tell me—I simply will not believe it and neither will New Zealanders—that for another 6 months he sat on the findings of that report said nothing did nothing and told nobody anything. He already has form. We know that and he has proved it yet again. As my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said if it had not been for the tenacity of Television New Zealand journalists digging and digging trying under the Official Information Act but being declined—[ 
Interruption 
] No the department would not release it under the Official Information Act. 
Finally the Ombudsman forced the department’s hand to release the report and when did it release it? Now here is the interest of transparency: it was released on the Thursday night before Easter as Parliament was lifting for 3 weeks and everyone was gone. Does anyone believe that? Seriously again does anyone believe that a report done in July of last year had to be waited for kept and released on the Thursday night before a 3-week adjournment and the Easter break? I do not and I do not think any fair-minded New Zealander does. 
What New Zealanders know is that the Minister sat on this report he tried to hide it he was exposed and he used the argument that he had been transparent and up front. “Oh yes you have!” I say to the Minister. The Minister has been up front since Television New Zealand outed him. The Minister had no choice once Television New Zealand got the Ombudsman’s ruling and it was found out that the Minister knew about the report had kept it and had even handed it on to another Minister who had had it since December and did nothing. Oh finally! 
Then the Government came to the last of the lamest of excuses: it said it is an employment issue. If someone is stealing the coffee or taking ballpoint pens home then those are employment issues; this is about corruption. It goes to the heart of proper Government and those Ministers did nothing. They should go. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 For the few moments I have I want to talk about New Zealand ownership and as I am a member of New Zealand First people will not be surprised about that. We intend to keep on talking about New Zealand ownership and we will be applauding those who have come around to our point of view—that is the Labour Party. The National Party on the other side of the House still has a way to go as far as we are concerned in this regard. We in New Zealand First believe that ownership of the assets of this country does make a difference—it matters who owns them. If that were not so why would people seek to own anything in any part of the world let alone their own house or car or anything like that? I do not think I need to go much further down that track. 
Before I start to talk about what the Chinese are going to do I say upfront that we applaud what the Chinese Government is attempting to do because it is looking after its country and its people. In yesterday’s paper we saw that Rio Tinto Aluminium and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd will increase the price of steel or parts of the steel process to their customers to the tune of about 70 percent and the Chinese have said: “Yeah right!”. China is attempting to buy into Rio Tinto and Broken Hill and is worried that those two companies may indeed become one. We applaud China for that because we believe it is looking after its best interests. We believe that that is what we should be doing in this country because it is a model for success. 
The Chinese clearly have no intention of being at the end of some supply chain. In other words they want a piece of the action upfront. They will not be dictated to on price or anything else by corporations in which they have no say and they are moving to rectify that situation. I saw a report the other day—and this is where we must be very careful in this country—that stated that China was also looking for land around the world including in New Zealand that it could either buy or lease so that again it does not have to pay world prices for products but can have some say in the manufacturing of products and get a supply chain from the paddock to the plate as we like to call it in New Zealand or in Australia’s case from the mine to the end product in China. 
I noticed that a gentleman who came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee—one Dr Grenville—was speaking out about the dangers to Australia of China buying into its companies. Clearly China is looking to protect its interests not Australia’s interests. Dr Grenville says—and quite rightly so—that it is in Australians’ and Australian politicians’ interests to protect Australia. That is our issue in this country. Whom are we acting for? We in this House should in every hour of every day be acting for New Zealanders not for some foreign company and not to advantage some sort of notion of free trade in the world. We—all of us—are elected to act in the interests of New Zealanders and that is what we should be doing. 
It is great that the Labour Government has bought back the railways. Clearly more investment is needed. We understand that and I think that everybody in New Zealand understands it. The Labour Government has said that this purchase will not be a huge income earner. Rather it is part of a transport system and we certainly understand that and applaud that. Likewise we applauded when Air New Zealand was bought back and we believe that that is a model for the railway enterprise going forward. Likewise I have pleaded that the Labour Government protect our dairy industry to the extent that it can and not approve the buying up of smaller dairy companies by the likes of Nutritek and so on and so forth. That industry must be protected as well because it is vital to our future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to be able to participate in the first general debate in the sitting after a parliamentary adjournment because it is always a very interesting time in terms of the political landscape. Looking across the Chamber I ask what the political landscape is in the National Party. It seems very divided I must say. There seems to be division at every single level within National. National does not have much policy but its members seem to be at complete odds with each other over what little policy they have that they are prepared to talk about. Let us look at some of the policy divisions that exist over there in the National Party. John Key seems to be the main swallower of dead rats. He has been swallowing so many dead rats that as Dr Cullen rightly pointed out earlier this week he is starting to resemble a dead rat cemetery as he walks around the country. He is swallowing dead rats while the other National members are saying: “Hang on there Mr Key we’re not so sure we want to just simply regurgitate Labour Party policy because yes although we know all the ideas are over on that side with Labour setting the agenda we don’t think the National Party should necessarily just follow along in its footsteps.” However there is great division on that because John Key just wants to say what he thinks people want to hear. 
There is great disagreement within National. Let us just get into what the detail of that is. John Key and Bill English disagree on a number of aspects. They disagree on the future of rail in this country on the future of broadband in this country on the issue of asset sales and on the issue of the level of what sort of Government debt this country should carry. They disagree on superannuation on how much of it we should have and at what age people should qualify for it. They also disagree on early childhood education. These are not small side issues here in this country of Aotearoa; these are major issues about the future of this country. 
The leader and the deputy leader of the National Party disagree with each other. But it does not finish there. John Key and Tony Ryall disagree on whether the cap should be removed on doctors’ fees. Again it is not a small issue for New Zealanders. This is about how much we will pay when we go to the doctors. John Key agrees with Labour that it should be as low as possible. In fact Labour has halved the fees people pay to go to see their general practitioners these days. John Key thinks that is a pretty good policy but Tony Ryall thinks that doctors should be able to continue to charge as much as they like irrespective of how much the taxpayer puts into subsidising those doctors’ fees. Tony Ryall says that we should just let them charge as much as they like. So John Key and Tony Ryall disagree with each other. 
John Key also disagrees with Wayne Mapp and Tony Ryall on whether market rents should be returned to State housing tenants. Mr Key disagrees with Georgina te Heuheu about abolishing Maori seats. John Key Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith disagree completely about climate change—or do they? It is a pretty hard one to track. John Key once said that he thought it was a hoax but now he says he completely believes in it. However Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith clearly have not got to that point yet. They are climate change deniers. Also John Key disagrees with Allan Peachey on the issue of bulk funding of our schools. 
There is great division and it is at every level. That division is starting to split the National Party apart and it goes like this: there are those people who strongly believe in the National Party philosophy and then there is John Key. I have here a direct quote from John Key: “My goal in leadership is to win the next election and everything I do will be about achieving that.” What sort of leadership is that? John Key is stating that he will do whatever it takes and say whatever he thinks people want to believe in order to get elected. Goodness knows what he would do if the country was foolish enough to give him that opportunity and to actually go about electing him. 
I also want to talk a little more about the division that is there. This is what John Key had to say about rail in May of this year. He said that the rolling stock would “remain state-owned for at least the first term of a National-led Government which is consistent with our SOE policy.” But in March 2008 Bill English said: “We certainly wouldn’t be buying Toll. … We need to look after taxpayers’ interests and the network and the best way to do that is to have a competent operator.” He went on to say that if the purchase was completed under Labour then a National Government would get out of the business as quickly as possible. Possibly what he wanted to say was “before lunchtime”. If it was gone by lunchtime it would complete the sale of infrastructure in which Labour wants to invest for this country. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 We are seeing a Government that is in meltdown. We are seeing a Government that is simply out of touch. That is a little sad because this is my first term and when I sat in this House for the first couple of years in a general debate we got to hear Labour members stand and talk about what was important to New Zealanders. They talked about education health and the economy things that were important to New Zealanders and that made a difference in the day-to-day lives of families. Now of course instead they stand up and squirm and try to find little examples. We should be flattered because instead they get up and talk about us. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: All the time. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: They talk about us all of the time but I suppose when they are trying to hide from their cover-up—so they are hiding the hiding they are doing through their cover-up—it is a simple case of talking about anything except what is actually going on on the day. 
What is going on on the day is actually quite frightening. New Zealanders expect to see a bit of responsibility from their Government. I am going to use a word that is not used often in this House—and I hope Mr Assistant Speaker does not pull me up—but it is called “integrity”. The head of a Government department resigned yesterday. She has been pulled up for corruption and for doing things that under investigation have proven to be quite disgraceful. But let us look at the example that that department has had. This is the department that was told to “lie in unison” by its very own Minister. This is the department that last year dealt with an MP who is now up in court on charges. Those are the examples that this department has had. So when the head of that department was telling her officials to let her family through and was putting out those requests for that corrupt practice to happen can we really blame her when we see the sort of example that has been passed down by Ministers and members? 
We saw the Hon David Cunliffe stand up in this House day after day last year and justify the actions of his then colleague Taito Phillip Field. When day after day he referred to a whitewash of a report and said that that was acceptable how can it be a surprise to this Labour Government that the public now questions its honesty when it comes to the report about Mary Anne Thompson? There can be absolutely no doubt that the public and this Opposition party will continue to ask questions because the public simply no longer believes this Government when it says that a report is being done that an independent inquiry is being held and that someone will be held to account. When no one holds anyone to be responsible how can we see accountability? When a Minister will not stand up and say “This is my department and I take responsibility for what happens within it.” how on earth can we have accountability to taxpayers? 
How on earth can we have accountability to taxpayers when the Minister of Finance will not tell taxpayers how much of their money has been spent on the railways when that number changes day to day and when as recently as yesterday in this House the Minister would not tell taxpayers how much of their money is being spent on buying back the railways? Let us debate whether it is the right thing to do. Bring it on! Let it be a topic for this election campaign. I am more than happy to go there. But let us do it with the facts. Let us do it with the facts and let us do it with some honesty because that is what New Zealanders want and expect. The out-of-touch Labour members should remember that it is not their money. Taxpayers’ money is being squandered daily and they deserve accountability and their Ministers to stand up and take some responsibility. 
That is the example we are being shown throughout the country. We have heard a few reporters say that the phone is off the hook. I say that the phone has fallen into the water and it has gone. They will not find the phone being answered let alone find people willing to listen to them. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of members of the public who are here for the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. When that bill is read it will be a historic and solemn moment in this Parliament’s history—perhaps a bit more historic and solemn than the matters that have been bandied about in this debate so far. It is good to know that Parliament will be getting on to doing its proper job. 
I would like to take up the challenge laid down by the previous member and debate an important issue before the public at the moment and that is climate change. Members will know that another historic bill is before Parliament—it is actually before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment—and that is the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. It is a very very important bill that will allow New Zealand to fulfil its Kyoto Protocol obligations. I take this opportunity to urge members all around the House to express their support for what is very very good legislation. 
I also want to ask National members in particular what position that party takes on climate change. We seem to have lots of different indications from lots of different spokespeople. In October 2007 John Key said what I think is a very responsible thing. He said: “I think you need to balance your economic opportunities with your environmental responsibilities. If you get those things out of whack what you are likely to do is just export a whole lot of industries … On the other side of the coin I think you have got to take climate change seriously.” That is a responsible statement that tries to reflect the policy being striven for in the emissions trading legislation and I hope that the National Party will stick to that position. 
Unfortunately we have had inconsistent statements even from Mr Key himself. In May 2005 he said that Kyoto “is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so … even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it …”. That is a worrying inconsistency. We really need to see consistency from members opposite on this important issue—like the responsible position taken by Mr Key’s deputy when he said in February 2007: “we are open to the science …”. That is very similar to the position taken by Nick Smith. He has taken a responsible public stance on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which I hope members opposite will follow. 
But we heard Maurice Williamson speaking earlier in this debate in praise of Television One and its investigative abilities. I would like to join him in doing that because we owe Television One for that famous interview where Maurice Williamson was asked: “I understand that you said to the AA conference that you didn’t believe [climate change] was happening.” Williamson responded: “That’s not true. What I said at the AA conference is I wasn’t going to comment on any other member’s policy. I was there to talk about roading.” Television One asked: “Do you believe in climate change?”. Williamson replied: “I believe in the National Party’s policy.” Television One then asked: “But do you yourself believe in it?”. The reply was “I believe in the National Party’s policy”— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Whatever that is! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Paul Swain makes a good point. What is the National Party’s policy on climate change in general? What is its policy on this emissions trading legislation in particular? The public has a right to know and it is time we heard. 
Members will remember that other famous interview by Television One with Lockwood Smith who said: “I don’t know what this is about. My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “What I’m asking you is whether you believe in global warming.” The reply: “My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “Lockwood I’m asking you whether you believe in global warming.” Lockwood Smith: “I’m telling you what my answer is.” Television One: “What is it?”. Lockwood Smith: “That I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Do you believe in global warming?”. Lockwood Smith: “I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Why can’t you tell us yes or no?”. Lockwood Smith: “Because the important thing is what I support.” 
When John Key was asked about this apparent conflict he said: “Well I mean in the case of Maurice and Lockwood I mean they they simply are they look they nat they back the National Party position which is on climate change. Since I’ve been the leader I’ve made it very clear that National is going to take climate change seriously. We’ve got a target of reducing our emissions by 50 percent by 2050. We’ll be backing the emissions trading scheme albeit that the system is complex and that; and we’ll need to take a good look at it. We back Kyoto. So ah you know we’re bound by collective responsibility and I think in that regard Lockwood and Maurice have made that quite clear; and that’s totally fine.” Well let us hope that is the position and that the National Party will support this important legislation. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill be now read a third time 
. E te Kaiwhakahaere o nga korero o te Whare Paremata tena koe. Ka huri ahau ki nga iwi o Tauranga Moana e tau nei. Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga me koutou o Waitaha tena koutou nau mai hara mai ki te Whare Paremata. Haere mai ki te whakaturetanga o te mana pupuri o Mauao ki a koutou me ta matou harikoa kua tae a-tinana mai koutou ki tenei ra whakahirahira mo tatou katoa mo koutou katoa tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Mr Assistant Speaker of the House greetings to you. I turn now to acknowledge the people of Tauranga Harbour seated here. To you Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha welcome. Welcome to Parliament and to the process of legislating the vesting of Mauao to you and our joy at your presence here on this significant day for all of us and for you greetings 
.] 
I would like to acknowledge and welcome the kuia koroua and whanui of Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha who are present among us in Parliament today. They have made the journey from Tauranga Moana to witness the final passage of this bill which will transfer the ownership of the Mauao historic reserve to the three iwi of Tauranga Moana Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. I would also like to extend a special mihi to the members of Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana executive committee. They have patiently steered the proposal from its inception through the negotiations and ratification to its introduction into the House late last year. 
The bill is entitled Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. The bill will make the iwi of Tauranga Moana the legal owners of Mauao. The title is significant because it reflects that the bill will vest the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in iwi. On registration iwi will become the registered proprietors of Mauao. I also welcome Waitaha to the House whose relationship with Mauao is recorded as a schedule of the bill. 
This bill implements the vesting agreement signed by the parties. It retains Mauao’s status as a historic reserve. This will ensure a high level of protection from alienation and commercialisation and continue to provide the public with access to this sacred taonga. These were some of the key principles that iwi requested when considering the scope of the proposal that underpins this bill to have Mauao returned. More obviously perhaps the title of the bill restores the original name of the mountain—Mauao—as it is known to the tangata whenua. Of course the bill’s title also reflects the historic importance of Mauao whose face is deeply etched with the marks of those who resided on the mountain for many hundreds of years. The trustees who are the kaumatua emphasised to the Maori Affairs Committee that iwi never ceded the mauri or the mana of Mauao. 
This bill achieves several things. It recognises the mana of Mauao and the great significance of the Mauao tapu to the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana. It does so by vesting the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of the people of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. The bill concerns the three parcels of land that comprise the historic reserve but the status of the recreation reserve at the base of Mauao will remain unchanged. The vesting preserves the current arrangements as far as public access to and third-party use of Mauao are concerned. This involves the arrangements for the management ownership and access to the encumbrances such as the water reservoir and the navigational beacon for the Port of Tauranga. 
Iwi asked for a provision in the bill prohibiting alienation of or dealing with Mauao by the representative body of Tauranga Moana iwi. This was due to the concern that the trustees may one day come under pressure to agree to develop Mauao commercially which they have consistently opposed. The vesting legislation also removes the offer-back rights in the public works legislation existing in relation to any of the three parcels of land that make up Mauao. This is evidenced in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown and Maori partnership and the relationship generally has been building between the tangata whenua and the Tauranga City Council during this process. I understand that it is a healthy relationship that they have generated and they should be congratulated. 
The bill also acknowledges the value accorded by the New Zealand public generally to this prominent landmark. Mauao stands at the mouth of the dynamic landscape and waterways that comprise Tauranga Moana’s unique geography and the iwi takiwa of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. In this respect Mauao provides a place of definition in Tauranga Moana. The Mauao park ranger estimated that 850000 visitors enjoyed Mauao’s walking tracks in 2007 and that will continue. It epitomises that Maori do know how to manage general and public access. 
This bill passed through its second reading on 17 April 2008 with overwhelming support and all who spoke were enthusiastic in favour of progressing the bill through its final stages. Some people have queried the nature of the bill and the implications of the wording of some of the clauses. I am convinced that the bill achieves the wishes of the kaumatua by transferring ownership of Mauao to iwi and leaving open the possibility of iwi managing Mauao in the future. 
Since 2005 we have collectively been progressing the proposal to vest the fee simple estate in the Mauao Historic Reserve in Tauranga Moana iwi under the terms and conditions agreed by the parties. The vesting preserves the Tauranga City Council’s legal responsibility as the administering body of the Mauao Historic Reserve and the Minister of Conservation has rights in relation to the Reserves Act 1977. The Tauranga City Council and iwi have also been involved in discussions to enhance the role of iwi in the management of Mauao. This has resulted in the Mauao Advisory Group Committee being upgraded to a Mauao Project Steering Group with iwi representation. It has also produced a memorandum of understanding between Tauranga Moana iwi and the council that records the aspirations of iwi to manage Mauao in the future. However the bill does not make any management arrangements a condition of the vesting title in Tauranga. 
I think back to 2005 when Te Runanganui formally accepted the Crown’s offer on behalf of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha. The only concern expressed at the time was that the proposed legislation would lock ongoing management of Mauao under the Tauranga City Council in perpetuity. In accepting the offer Te Runanganui expressed confidence from their discussions with officials in the Tauranga City Council that the legislation would not preclude iwi from assuming total management of Mauao should they develop the financial and infrastructural ability. I can assure members that the bill does not lock Tauranga City Council’s management in perpetuity and the bill achieves everything negotiated by the parties in 2005. 
This lofty mountain is certainly perceived as a navigational beacon by Tauranga Airport not by Whangarei Airport. It has also been a navigational beacon for the culture and tikanga of these people who have lived on this land and managed it and understood it over generations—hundreds of years. Most certainly it is a navigational beacon for the history of these people. The iwi of Tauranga Moana have watched this over generations. If we are serious about nationhood and not into the gabble of hypocritical statements in relation to better race relations— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —then let us serve to ensure that we bring cognisance to nationhood and make sure that Maori can manage it and can look after it. It should be understood that that mountain has been there before that member who has been interjecting it has been there before me it will be there after that member has gone—and it will not be long the way National is performing—and it certainly will be there after them to watch the mokopuna of the people who have brought this to fruition. Again I want to commend the members of Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha to the House. I salute them for remaining resolute in the desire of some people to upset the process. I welcome their attendance here today and I most certainly want to ensure that this is a great day for Maori. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Nga mihi ki a koutou nga iwi o Tauranga Moana tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to you the people of Tauranga Harbour. Greetings greetings and greetings to us all 
.] 
There was such a lot of unseemly shouting towards the end of that speech which surprised me given that this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill is historic legislation and very important legislation for the iwi of Tauranga Moana. I will start by congratulating them on their patience on their hard work and on their mahi over several years to achieve what we are about to do today which is to legally vest the Mauao Historic Reserve in the iwi to whom it once belonged and to whom it will rightly belong again. 
The Minister has probably gone through some of the aspects of this bill but I want just to recap on some parts of it as well. First of all the bill does not form any part of a Treaty settlement. I commented yesterday during the Committee stage that I found this to be an interesting aspect but in the end I bowed to the wisdom of the iwi who have obviously seen that this is the best way to achieve and secure something that they have been wishing to have for some time now. But what is important about activities under the Treaty process is that we actually get to learn more about the history of any particular land and features that are important to iwi. So in time although I congratulate Tauranga Moana on what they have achieved here I also look forward to the day when their Treaty settlements are completed and we are in a position to see some of the history behind the way that this reserve came into the ownership of the Crown in the first place. Obviously if we are now legally vesting it back into the iwi it suggests that the Crown ownership of it up until this time has been marginal—to put it in a nice way. 
The background is that Mauao was acquired by the Crown in the 1880s. It has been administered as a historic reserve since 1981 and as far back as the late 1990s we were told in a briefing by the Minister that representatives of Tauranga Moana iwi sought to have Mauao returned to them. Subsequently Te Runanga o Tauranga Moana Incorporated was mandated by Tauranga Moana iwi to negotiate the transfer proposal with the Crown. In August 2007 an agreement was reached and signed between the Crown the iwi and the trustees of the Mauao Trust. The bill provides for the fee simple estate in the Mauao Historic Reserve to be held in trust by trustees on behalf of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. There is also provision to ensure that the reserve is never disposed of transferred or any charge put on to it. Knowing the way iwi feel about their taonga—and this is clearly a taonga to Tauranga Moana iwi—we would almost say that that is probably not necessary in regard to them because having sought so long to get this back in their title it would hardly be that they would sell it or dispose of it at some future date. 
There was an interesting conundrum or dilemma for the select committee when we went to Tauranga to hear the submissions. Although the bill as it was introduced into the House provided for the vesting of the reserve in the trust there was a clause that gave members of the trust much pain and that made us look at it. On the one hand the reserve was being returned to their ownership but on the other hand there was a gloss on it that meant it was regarded as remaining with the Crown. Some of us in our Committee stage speeches yesterday discussed this at some length in terms of the Maori Affairs Committee and the way we tend to work when we can see an obvious injustice. We are prepared to leave politics to one side and work in the best interests of the kaupapa or of the issue itself. The issue was to find a form of words that made the transfer real or maybe more truthful and therefore acceptable to the iwi. We were able to do that and I have to say that when one is on a select committee and finds an opportunity to work in consensus with all members of the committee to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all concerned then that is one of the satisfying parts of this job. It does not happen very often and I think Tauranga Moana can take some credit for the way—the very humble way—that they put their take forward for us to reconsider and to see whether there was something we could do to rectify what in their mind was only a Clayton’s return. 
It may be that this is the first time that some members of the iwi have seen the final version of the bill. All members on the committee Government and Opposition members alike feel that we with the help of Te Puni Kokiri of course have come up with a form of words that better reflects the intention to have the ownership of this reserve returned to allow public access to continue as it has in the past and to make sure that the obligations and responsibilities that have been incumbent on the Crown and the Tauranga District Council remain with those organisations which is only fair. It is still a public utility but as I say it achieves that hugely important symbolic and legal undertaking that the maunga is back where it belongs with the iwi concerned. It is a very good result I should say. 
I just come back to the issue of this transfer not being a part of Treaty settlements. I am not sure where the Treaty negotiations for Tauranga are but I hope that when this legislation passes into law today it gives real impetus to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and to the Labour Government to see whether they can now move in a more speedy fashion to make sure that these people like all other iwi who have been waiting for decades have past injustices corrected because that is what Treaty settlements are all about. It is about reparation sure but it is also about bringing justice to iwi—to this iwi in particular who for so many years while a wrong has remained on its books might very well have felt justified in saying: “There may be justice in this world but we won’t see it until we have all our claims resolved.” 
I wish Tauranga Moana iwi well—and I include Waitaha in that as well. As I say maybe this gives an additional push for the iwi to hold the Government to account in order to make sure that the resolution of its Treaty claims happens sooner rather than later. Again I want to congratulate Tauranga Moana iwi on this legislation and on giving us the privilege as parliamentarians to do something worthwhile in this House. I wish the iwi well as it goes forward into the future. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi kei te mihi atu ki oku whanau whanaunga kei roto i te Whare i naianei. No reira ki a tatou tena koutou a tena koutou. 
[ 
The first thing is to acknowledge my families and relatives present in the House at this time. So greetings to us greetings 
.] 
Today for me represents nearing the end of a journey and that journey for me started some time ago when I was a younger lad at the age of 17—about 10 years ago—when I used to run up that hill. I can still hear the domineering voice of Bruce Matuska saying “Hereora come on get up there.” So the journey that I am now on is a journey where I have worn the hat of chair of the Maori Affairs Committee in dealing with the process. I stand humbled today having been given that opportunity and privilege to be able to speak in this House with my whanau present. 
The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill was referred to the select committee for consideration in December last year. The committee heard the public submissions on the bill in Tauranga Moana and we considered the views expressed by submitters and it should come as no surprise that the submissions were overwhelmingly in support of the return of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi. Of the 27 submissions we received 17 of those submitters appeared before us. They included kaumatua who are also the trustees the iwi runanga of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga representatives of Waitaha individual members of Tauranga Moana iwi the Mayor of Tauranga City Council Stuart Crosby and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. We were especially grateful to hear the views from kaumatua on the bill given their lead role in this initiative and their responsibility on behalf of the iwi as holders of fee simple estate once the bill is passed. 
The key issues raised by submitters were in relation to ownership rights and obligations as reflected in the then clause 7 and 8 of the bill as introduced. The committee considered submitters’ concerns that clause 7 did not provide for the return of full ownership of Mauao to the iwi and that the wording was of concern because it stated that the reserve must be treated as if a fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown. It was felt by some that the land was being returned in name only with all rights remaining with the Crown. We therefore recommended that clauses 7 and 8 of the bill be deleted and that drafting changes be made to a new clause 8 to incorporate the intent of clause 7. 
Mauao has a status of a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Mauao comprises three parcels of land that are Crown land over which the Minister of Conservation has certain powers duties and obligations. The Minister’s powers include a power to appoint an administrating body to manage and control the reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. A clause is required in the bill to ensure as the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides that all general law will continue to apply to Mauao after the vesting takes place. The intention of the clause is for the rights and obligations under for example occupational health and safety building and rating liability legislation to continue to be the responsibilities of the Crown. 
However the Crown cannot know what laws may be passed in the future that could affect the owners of Mauao as further rights and obligations could be created under laws that are yet to be made. Under the current provision in the bill the Mauao trustees will not bear any of these present or future ownership obligations. If clause 7 is removed entirely significant legal uncertainty would arise concerning what obligations the trustees may bear and what rights they may have as owners of Mauao. We recognised the offence caused by the original wording of the clause and have recommended that the intent of the clause be reworded in clause 8 to address this concern. 
Several submitters recommended excluding Waitaha from the bill. We did not agree with the recommendation and it was very clear to us that Waitaha has a relationship with Mauao having resided on Mauao for several hundred years and because the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides for Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao to be recognised. We do note however that Waitaha was originally included equally in the proposal and Waitaha supported the final agreement on the basis of Waitaha’s statement of recognition and its ongoing representation at that management level. The mayor has indicated that Waitaha’s status in the management of Mauao Historic Reserve remains unresolved. Waitaha is represented on the council’s Mauao steering group and has been there for some time but the recent memorandum of understanding reached between the council and the three Moana iwi and runanga does not currently recognise Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao. 
Clearly some issues need to be ironed out around the management in the future including the involvement of the trustees. We do not however consider that any further changes to the bill such as attaching the memorandum of understanding is the appropriate way of addressing those issues. As we considered the submissions I believe that the committee finally came to a consensus and it is not often that one gets a group on a committee that is able to come to consensus in relation to a bill. I think that in this case it was a good opportunity for us to promote together those recommendations that were successful in making those changes. 
In finishing I thank the committee members for their participation. I acknowledge and thank the iwi of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga Waitaha and all those who contributed to the submission hearing. I also acknowledge the efforts of our Speaker Margaret Wilson who originally I understand as Minister was responsible for bringing this bill forward. I acknowledge Mita Ririnui and his work and involvement in the process and I also acknowledge the fosterer of the bill the Hon Parekura Horomia. Kia ora tatou. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am pleased to talk on this bill because I am the MP for the area of course. From my house I overlook the Mount which is quite a sight. The people of Tauranga will be happy about the transfer of ownership of the Mount to the various Maori groups. They will be happy to hear that we will be able to walk or run on this landmark at no cost. 
I myself will explain to the people of Tauranga that this is not a Treaty settlement. There will be no commercial enterprises in the area and therefore the Maori groups will have no income. Because of that situation the Tauranga City Council will meet all maintenance costs and will cooperate with the different groups at different times on what needs to be done on the Mount. 
I need to mention something here which I do not really want to do but I will. Yesterday a member of New Zealand First congratulated me on participating in sorting out this bill. I thank him for that. I hope that his following remark—that this is the only thing I have done in this House—was not a clever remark and an attempt to take a swipe at me. I tell him to beware. His party leader has a bad record of getting into the sewer with smart-arse remarks as he did in the last election. If he gets dirty in the 2008 election in Tauranga I will be returning the compliment with remarks about undeclared money from Western Bay Finance and various amounts of money in brown paper bags from fishing people. In time New Zealand First will find out what I have been doing on the matters of leaky homes first-home buyers and building construction. Anyway back to the Mount deal. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I am happy—[ 
Interruption 
] The remarks were justified because of a swipe at me. 
Let us go back to the Mount deal. I am happy that I was involved with this deal. It is unusual for members on all sides of this House to be heading in the same direction. It was obvious at the Maori Affairs Committee that all committee members were trying to get a lasting agreement. I applaud them for doing that. 
Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty have a wonderful history but there have been some wrongs in that history. These wrongs are gradually being rectified. I thank the various Maori groups in the Bay of Plenty for being patient. I look forward to more settlements ending with the satisfaction that we the Maori Affairs Committee and the Maori groups have achieved in this deal. This satisfaction has been achieved by all parties listening and debating in a progressive manner. I claim a small credit for getting a good result. All participating people deserve some credit for what they did in getting a good end result. 
I will not be an MP in that area after the next election but I will still go to the top of the Mount on Waitangi Day. I will continue to ask to be buried on the top and I want permission from the Maori owners. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Engari te mea tuatahi koutou o Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga me Waitaha hoki koutou i tae mai i roto o te Whare nei koutou i are taringa mai koutou hoki e matakitaki mai tena koutou tena koutou a kia ora mai ano tatou. A ko tenei te mangai ki tenei kaupapa mai i te Ropu a Aotearoa Tuatahi kia hakatautoko te pire nei kia turengia. Na reira i roto i te ahuatanga o wena tu momo korero kei te tautoko nga korero i puta mai mai i nga kaikorero i tu ake i mua i a au. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings indeed to you Madam Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to acknowledge you of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha also who have arrived in this House those of you listening in and those of you watching; greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us once again. I represent the interests of New Zealand First and support the passing of this bill into law. Therefore I endorse what speakers who rose before me have expressed relating to that. 
] 
This bill is about the transfer of the fee simple estate of Mauao—or as it was commonly known Mount Maunganui situated on Tauranga Harbour’s eastern entrance—from the Crown to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. The bill also provides for a statement of recognition to the iwi of Waitaha which ensures its links to this historic site are recorded in this legislation. This bill is not a Treaty settlement as has been alluded to by previous speakers and nor should it be considered as such. 
Iwi history has it that Mauao was once a hill without a name. According to that history this hill was a pononga a slave to a mountain called Otanewainuku. The pononga was in love with a hill called Puwhenua but she had already fallen for his captor. In despair the nameless hill decided to drown himself and he called upon the patupaiarehe the fairy people to assist with that. The patupaiarehe began dragging the nameless hill towards the sea. However those nocturnal people lost track of time and as they neared the ocean the rising sun signalled their disappearance. The nameless one was left in the very place where he still stands and became known as Mauao which means “caught by the dawn”. 
It is important to make reference to that history in that with the passing of this legislation Mauao may no longer feel deserted by the people of the area—not that I am suggesting it has been but at least it returns to the care and protection of the people of Tauranga Moana. This bill signals a new dawn for both this well-known landmark and the local iwi. I should say that this new dawn has not been easily forthcoming as it has taken almost 7 years for it to reach the stage it has reached today. I say that as it was back in August 2001 when representatives acting on behalf of Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana first approached the then constituent member for Waiariki with a proposal for consideration by the Crown for the return of Mauao to the ownership of the tangata whenua. 
Ongoing discussions between the Crown te runanganui and the Tauranga City Council were had over the years until finally on 20 July 2004 the Government agreed in principle to transfer ownership of the Mauao historic reserve to the tangata whenua. As part of that process the runanganui was given the mandate to negotiate the proposal for Te Hokinga Mai o Mauao—in other words the return of Mauao on behalf of the iwi of Tauranga Moana. That culminated in an agreement between the Crown and iwi being signed in August of last year. With the bill’s introduction on 21 November 2007 the first reading on 11 December last year the second reading on 17 April of this year and the Committee stage yesterday the journey for the iwi of Tauranga Moana has taken some time to reach this stage. 
As I have mentioned this bill vests the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. The bill also provides that the Mauao historic reserve continues to be subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The significance of this is that it provides protection for Mauao from commercialisation or alienation. Just as significant is the fact that the bill preserves the existing management arrangements for Mauao. To this end I acknowledge the Tauranga City Council which has held some responsibility for the management of Mauao over the years for its agreement to the bill and its undertaking that it will continue to have some input into the management of Mauao. This continued involvement is given further regard by the bill in schedule 2 which I am sure the citizens of Tauranga will appreciate given that it assures some protection against fire hazards. 
As has already been alluded to the original bill contained a clause that gave rise to the assertion that the return of Mauao to the iwi of Tauranga Moana was in fact a Clayton’s deal—that is it is returned but it is not returned. With the collegiality of the members of the Maori Affairs Committee and the contribution from officials we are now able to have a bill that meets the requirements of all parties. I ought to say that even though I was a member of that select committee its members ought to be congratulated. This bill provides an example of a situation where if there is a willingness to find a way to satisfy the needs of all parties then satisfaction can be obtained irrespective of what one’s political philosophies might be. I think for that reason this particular bill will have its place in history as part of the process of this institution. 
Na reira e kui ma e kara ma koutou nga iwi o Tauranga Moana ahakoa kua tino roa rawa atu i tatari i a koutou mo tenei wa ko te mea nui kua tau ki wa koutou wawata. 
[ 
So to you the elderly women and menfolk of the people of Tauranga Harbour even though you have waited a very long time for this moment the most important thing is that it has been settled to your satisfaction 
.] 
I also thank Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana first for their tenacity and second—and just as important—for their recognition of the wishes of their kuia and kaumatua beneficiaries who wanted this issue to be finalised without too much fuss. In spite of the thinking of some of the principals of te runanganui they carried out the wishes of their kaumatua. 
No reira koutou ma te iwi o Tauranga Moana haere mai haere haere i runga i te rangimaria haere hoki i raro i nga manaakitanga o tatou Kaihanga. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou huri noa i tenei o tatou whare kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
So to you the people of Tauranga Harbour welcome and return. Return peacefully and under the protection of our Creator as well greetings greetings. Greetings also to us throughout this of our buildings. Thank you all once again 
.] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the third reading of this important Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Maori Affairs Committee that has helped this bill through its passage to its third reading today so we have not been actively involved in a hands-on way. But we do appreciate what the bill accomplishes in securing into the future a resource that is well loved by all those who live near it. I have two children who live alongside the mountain and who have regularly taken on the physical challenges it provides for them to go to the top. One of the things about this landmark is that we can underestimate it. It looks an easy climb from the bottom but many a person has broken into a painful sweat trying to get to the top of it and it is always much more fun coming down. 
I say that because I think that when I talk about the opportunity to underestimate this land feature from here on in it would be unwise of people to underestimate the importance it has to local iwi. We congratulate them on what they have gained today. 
What happens now is that those who are charged with its administration will do that with the understanding that it is not theirs to own but for now anyway it is theirs to look after in a way that reflects the new obligations they have to those who will be trustees. It is a very good thing to be answerable to others on how we discharge these kinds of responsibilities. United Future congratulates iwi on the passage of this bill acknowledging that they are best placed to oversee this important taonga. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tenatatoukatoa e teWhare. NgatiRanginui Ngai Te Rangi NgatiPukenga Waitaha me ki TaurangaMoana tenakoutou. Tenakoutou nau mai haeremai. Haeremaikoutou me o tatou mate tuatini e takoto mai na i runga i o koutou marae. No reira me penei te korero tukunaratou kia okioki i runga i te moengaroa. Apitihono tataihono ko te akaaka o te rangi ki a ratou; apitihono tataihono ko te akaaka o te whenua ki a tatou te hunga ora. Kai aku rangatira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.  
Kiamohiomaikoutou ka ahuawehewehe nei taku korerokiamaramamai ai tekatoa o teWhare i teneikorero engari kotewahanga tuatahi he reoMaorikatoa.  
Kotatatou i tenei rangi keiakurangatira kote whakanui i a Mauao e turangatira e tutokana e rongo nei i te tai e timu ana e pari ana i onatahataha. Koiatera e tumaira i waenganui i a OtanewainukurauakoPuwhenua. Hei te whitinga mai o te ra ara a Mauao. Kua mau i a ia ko te ao. Ka tu mo ake nei hei tohu rangatira o koutou o Ngai te Rangi o Ngati Ranginui o Ngati Pukenga.  
Ko te hokinga mai o te mana o Mauao he ara tapokopoko he ara roa. Kua hipa noa atu i te kotahi rau tau mai i nga tau kotahi mano waru rau waru tekau. I tauawa me ki i riro ki te Karauna ko te maunga nei. I riro ka mutu me ki i whiwhi i a ia ko te Karauna. Me kiake au ki takutitiro he whaiti noa iho te mohio o te Karauna mo te hitori o Mauao. E ai ki tangatangata mahi huakanga i puta mai te maunga nei i ngawhamiriona tau kua hipa atu. I hangaiana te pahutanga o te whenua. Nonatata nei me ki i ngaono tekau ma rima tau kua hipa ko te pungarehu i puta i Okataina i Taupo i Maroa i Tuhua a nateraahuatanga i hangaiangapari o Mauao. Na ka tae mai ki teneiwa kei te mohio koutou i nohoia a Mauao i waenga i te tau kotahi mano rua rau waru tekau ki te kotahi mano rima rau Wa o te Matua Tapu. Ara noa ngakorero otira ko nga taonga nongapa tawhito e toru. Ko te Tihi ko Ranginui tera. Ko tera i te uru ko Kinonui a ko te pa o Maunganui ano hoki. Kai teneiwhakatupurangangakorero e putake mai ana i nga tau kotahi mano ono rau rua tekau ma rima ki te tau kotahi manowhitu rau rima tekau tau tae atu ki te pakanga o Kokowai. Na me ki kua kitea he rua kai he patu paraoa he mata i nga taha o Mauao e tohu nei i te noho o te tangata i reira.  
Kuakorerohiaeneikoreroruarua nei e au hei kupu whakamaramamo te whakapapa o Mauao. He taonga a ia i konei i Aotearoa nei i te ao tonu natonaahuatanga a-huakanga nei. He aha i pera ai? I te mea ko ia te kaitiaki o ngakorero ngahitori o nga rau tau kua hipa a ka noho ngakorero ki a ia a nga tau kei mua i te aroaro. No reira ko ngakorero e pa ana ki te whiwhinga o Mauao i nga tau kotahi mano waru rau waru tekau he koreropakupaku noa iho ki era o te whakapapa roa nei e korerohiaake nei e au i natatanei.  
Koia te mate.Anei te maunga anei te taonga o nga iwi o Tauranga Moana. Noratoutera maunga kaua noNgapuhi kaua no Te Arawa kaua no te Karauna no reira he aha taratou e pirangi nei? Ko Mauao. He maunga nonga iwi o Tauranga Moana. Madam Speaker i te ao Maori ko nga maunga ko nga awa ko nga wai tuku kiri he tohu rangatira o te iwi. E tohu nei era i te rohe potae i nga taonga i te mana o te iwi. Ka whakaaetetahi iwi ki te tuku i tona mana ki tangata ke? E Kao! Kore rawa! Koia te putake o tenei kupu o te raupatu ara he whenua i pakangatia e te tangata. Ki te kore kua murua a ehara i te mea he tauhou a ngaiMaori ki tenei mea te muru whenua.  
Hoi ano me hoki mai au ki a Mauao. Ahakoa peheangahiahia me ngatumanako o te tangata whenua ahakoa ko te hitori ahakoa he taonga a Mauao ki te tangata whenua e ai ki ta te pire nei ka noho tonu a Mauao ano nei no te Karauna te mana. Peneitaetahikaikorero i ki ai mateneipire ka rirokotetaitara o tewhenua o Mauaokingakaitiaki o teMauao Trust kiapuritiatonutiamoNgai Te Rangi NgatiRanginui me NgatiPukenga engari kotonamana ka noho tonu temanakite Karauna. Hoi ano he aha te putake o ngaawangawanga o Tauranga Moana? Ara koiatera ko te mana o Mauao i ngaringaringa o te karauna. He kawa tonu te korero o te wahangatuawhitu ki ngakaitukukoorero. 
He aha i te putake o terawahanga? Ko tauakoreroramo te mana o Mauao engari me mihi au ki te komitiwhaitinaratou tonu i ukuaterawahanga ka mutu i hangaiatetahiwahanga hou ara te mea tuawaru. He kawa tonu te korero te wahangatuawhitu ki ngakaitukukorero. He aha te putake o terawahanga? Ko tauakorerora ko te mana o Mauao. Engari me mihi au ki te komitiwhaitinaratou tonu i ukuiterawahanga i hangai i tetahiwahanga hou. He paingaanora o terawahanga? Hoi ano ae. Ehara i te mea i eke ki te taumata i wawatatia mai engari kei te pai. Ka noho a Mauao hei whenua rahui he whenua ka tiakina e te Minita Take Tiaki Whenua. Ma tana tari tonu e tiaki. Engari kua tukuna e te Minita tona mana ki te Kaunihera o Taone o Tauranga Moana. Koi nei te take kua karangahia nei teneipire he Claytons bill. E ai kitawetahi koteatarangi o temaunga ka noho i ngaringaringa o teiwi engari ka nohoteputakekite Karauna. Koia nei matou o tetorangapuMaori e patai nei he aha i kore ai ngaiwi e toru o TaurangaMoana i riro i temana me tetikangawhakahaere kotetikangawhakahaeretakiruaranei kitoratouakemaunga?  
Ae kotetumanako ka mahitahi mahitakiruaranei engari kowai ka mohio kowai ka hua.  
Me mihi ra ki nga iwi e korerohiaake nei i kaha akiaki nei i tenei take. Ahakoa ko ngauauatanga kua ngana nei koutou ki te kimi i te huarahi pai huarahi ngawarimo Tauranga Moana. Me mihi au ki a koutou o NgatiPukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui me Waitaha mo o koutou wananga tahi me te kaunihera o te taone o Tauranga. Kua kite nei koutou ko tera i whakaaetia e te Karauna he mea whakaiti ko ta koutou noho hei kaitiaki mo Mauao. He pai keake te whakatau o NgatiPukenga i ta koutou tuhinga i te marama o Here-turi-koka i te tau kua hipa ki te Minita. Anei te korero: “The process thus far has been seriously flawed and our people have been alienated because the mana of our iwi has not been respected. Even so NgatiPukenga has risen above those difficulties as a sign of goodwill and in an effort to be part of a solution that will work well for Tauranga Moana.” 
Me kiano au kotemana o Mauaokeiteputake o teneikorero. KitateKauniheraMaori o Aotearoa me whakahokikore here teMaungaTapu o TaurangaMoanaki nga iwi o TaurangaMoana. KotePoari nei o Mauao tonu me ki kotoratouwahakorero a KihiNgatainana i whakatakoto o ratouwhakaaromotepire nei. Heitana kaoretemana me temauri o Mauao i tukuna e teiwikite Karauna. Noreiraheitana whakahokiatemanawhakahaerekiteiwi maratou tonu e whakatinana i ngamoemoea a kuima a koroma. Engari ka turi tonu maite Karauna. AranoteKomihana for Social Justice notehahiKatorika i Kirikiriroa. Kotana whakahokia tika tonu atutemana o Mauaokingakaitiaki o TaurangaMoana. Noreira kongaropu e toru he ropuMaori he ropuhahi Maori hoki e whakaaronui nei motehapori.  
Hoi ano e teWhare heiwhakakopani i taku korero me peneirawatekorero ka tautokoteTorangapuMaori i teneipirena runga i tewhakaaetanga o ngaiwi e toru. Kai a ratoutekupukorerowhakamutunga kota matou ko Te TorangapuMaori he tautoko he tautoko he tautoko engari he watona pea tonoamaingawhakatipurangakitewhakatutuki i temoemoeakia hoki maitemana o Mauaoki a koutou.  
“Koiara e rongo whakairiaki runga tuturu o whitiwhakamauakiatinahui e.”  
Kiaoratatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us the House and to you Ngati Ranginui Ngai Te Rangi NgatiPukenga and Waitaha; indeed Tauranga Harbour greetings. Welcome welcome. Welcome to you with your many deaths lying there on your marae. Let me express it this way: allow them to slumber there in the long sleep and united in the heavens while we the living remain bonded here to each other. So greetings greetings and greetings to you all my leaders.  
Members should note that my address will take a somewhat different form so that the whole House understands it but the first part will be totally in Maori. 
My leaders we are here today to honour Mauao standing majestically and rocklike which hears the tides ebbing and flowing upon its sides as it stands fixed there between Otanewainuku and Puwhenua.  
My leaders today we pay homage to the unique place of Mauao as it stands majestically like a sentinel and hears the ebbs and flows of the tide on its sides fixed by the morning light as a significant marker of yours Ngaite Rangi NgatiRanginui and NgatiPukenga between Otanewainuku and Puwhenua. 
The return of the ownership of Mauao has been a long and difficult one that has been in progress for well over a century dating back to the 1880s when this sacred mountain was acquired by the Crown. “Acquired” means “came to possess it”.  
From what I can see the Crown has little knowledge about the greater history of Mauao—a history that archaeologists tell us can be dated back to about 4 million years ago which came about as the result of a volcanic explosion. More recently about 65000 years ago volcanic ash deposits from Okataina Taupo Maroa and Tuhua helped to form the lower slopes of Mauao. So into the modern day withevidence of occupation on Mauao between 1280 and 1500 AD. There are recorded histories and archaeological artifacts from the three defended pa: the summit pa of Ranginui the western one of Kinonui and Maunganui Pa. This generation retains stories sourced back to between 1625 and 1750 right up to the battle of Kokowai. Storage pits whalebone clubs found on the northern coast and obsidian core sourced from within the flanks of Mauao show that people lived here. 
What I have just said is but a glimpse into the extraordinary whakapapa associated with Mauao. It is known nationally and internationally for its significance as an archaeological landscape. Why is that? It is because Mauao is the guardian of the history and the stories will stay with him in the future. So in the midst of this context then the date of 1880 pales into insignificance. 
And that is the problem. Here is the mountain. It is the mountain of the tribes of Tauranga Harbour—not of Ngapuhi Te Arawa and the Crown. So why would the Crown want to own it? This is Mauao for sure the mountain of Tauranga Harbour. In Maoridom mountains rivers and waterways are chiefly symbols of the people. They symbolise the tribal boundaries treasures and autonomy of the people. Would one allow one’s authority to pass to another? No never. This is the reason for this word “raupatu” [confiscation] land fought over by man. If it is not fought over it is confiscated. And Maori are not strangers to confiscation.  
So let me return to Mauao now. Despite the wishes and aspirations of the people of the land—the history the sacred significance of Mauao to them—according to this bill Mauao remains in Crown ownership.As other speakers have noted the bill vests the fee simple estate of Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and NgatiPukenga.  
So what is causing concern in Tauranga Harbour? It is the ownership of Mauao in Crown hands.  
The transfer of Mauao is stated as being “to assist the Crown’s objective of building healthy relationships with Ngai Te Rangi NgatiRanginui NgatiPukenga and Waitaha”. So we supported the recommendation from t 
he select committee that clause 7 of this bill should be deleted. This is the statement you will recallthat the Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown. Submitters found clause 7 distasteful. In what respect? It was the part that refers to ownership of Mauao. But 
 we commend t 
he select committee which deleted that clause and inserted a new one. Was that beneficial? To some extent yes. Even if it did not achieve quite what was being sought it is fine. Mauao remains a reserve land under the Minister of Conservation for his department to adminster. But the Minister has given his powers to the Tauranga City Council.  
That is the reason this bill has been referred to as a Clayton’s bill. To some only the shadow of the maunga is retained in iwi hands while the substance remains with the Crown. So we in the Maori Party will continue to ask why it is that the three iwi of Tauranga Harbour have not transferred any ownership rights including the right to administer or at least co-administer their own mountain.  
Yes the hope is that they will work as one or alongside each other. Who knows what the outcome will be who will benefit?  
I do want to acknowledge and truly pay tribute to the integrity of the iwi involved who have persevered with a less than perfect process determined always to work out a solution that will work for Tauranga Moana. You particularly NgatiPukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Waitaha in your negotiations with the Tauranga City Council. You have recognised all along that what the Crown has agreed to undermines your role as guardians for Mauao. Your views summed up in a letter to the Minister in August last year are commendable: “The process thus far has been seriously flawed and our people have been alienated because the mana of our iwi has not been respected. Even so NgatiPukenga has risen above those difficulties as a sign of goodwill and in an effort to be part of a solution that will work well for Tauranga Moana.” 
I say again that ownership of Mauao is at the core of this address. The New Zealand Maori Council urges that the sacred mountain of Tauranga Harbour be returned unconditionally. 
The Mauao Trust itself represented by KihiNgatai put the case in a most forceful simplicity. The standing and life force of Mauao were never ceded by iwi to the Crown and accordingly the Crown should return the management to iwi so that the dreams of elders could be realised. But the Crown remained deaf.  
The Commission for Social Justice of the Catholic Diocese of Hamilton urged that ownership of Mauao be returned to the guardians of Tauranga Harbour. So the three organisations one pan-tribal another a trust one and the third religious all have the best interests of the community at heart. 
So in ending this address I want to assure the House that the Maori Party supports this bill because the three iwi groups agree to it. The final word is with them. All we the Maori Party can do is to support it and support it but there will come a time perhaps when they will send us the next generation to fulfil the dream of ownership of Mauao returning to you 
. [Closing incantation] 
 Thank you to us all. 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Nei ano te mihi maioha ki nga iwi o Tauranga Moana kua uru mai ki roto i tenei Whare. No reira Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga me Waitaha tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou tena koutou. 
[ 
A fond greeting to the people of Tauranga Harbour who have entered this House; so to you Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha my greetings to you 
.] 
They say that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Time has certainly played its part in this particular issue. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. At times like this members of Parliament feel a level of trepidation. It is a time when people will bring their collective understanding of New Zealand’s history and will have to put themselves in a place to ask whether the pursuance and reaching of agreements such as this is in the best interests of this country. Madam Assistant Speaker as a teacher you would know—as many in this House would know—that we have a very imperfect history and that over time it has been a very difficult task to try to rectify the historical injustices that have occurred. But as I said previously time has played its part in this issue. 
I commend the people of Tauranga Moana who have long sought the resolution of a number of difficult issues in their region. I acknowledge those who are no longer with us and also those who are currently with us for their determination to ensure that the outstanding matters for Tauranga Moana can be resolved. This is a way of moving forward. However we should not pass over lightly the severity of the history that has been experienced by the people of Tauranga Moana. 
I do not want to tell the history of Tauranga Moana—I am not from that area—but what I do share is a sense of commonality with the people from that area at a tribal level. The confiscations in Tauranga Moana in the 1860s affected them just as they affected the people of Waikato Taranaki and Te Whakatohea. A number of outstanding matters must be resolved within this generation and we see in this bill a small step. 
The point was made by the Minister of Maori Affairs that this is not a Treaty settlement. One has to ask oneself why this is not a Treaty settlement. It is for this very simple reason: it is a step towards trying to resolve something bigger that must be done and will be done. 
I am proud to be a part of a Government that has unequivocally tried to resolve historical injustices from the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal and making claims able to be heard at the Waitangi Tribunal retrospectively to 1840 to pursuing with unequivocal vigour the continuance of the Treaty settlement programme. So I foreshadow that although this is one step towards that resolution for the people of Tauranga Moana they are also confronting broader outstanding issues that they must see resolved in this generation and soon we may hope that will be done with the absolute vigour determination and commitment of all the parties involved. That is what is required. 
People can make politics about this particular bill and what it does not achieve but every parliamentarian in this House knows and most certainly the Government knows that it is no use promising the world if one cannot deliver. The important thing to recognise here taking into account all the concerns that have been brought before of the Maori Affairs Committee is that this bill is a step towards seeing those broader issues resolved. I commend the members of the select committee because they put a lot of hard work and effort into ensuring that the intent of this agreement was reflected in the wording of the legislation and previous speakers have made that point. 
I would highlight the comment made by the Minister of Maori Affairs that the door is still open on the future management of Mauao as a historic reserve. He said that very clearly in this House so anyone who walks away thinking otherwise should not be confused because that statement was made by the Minister himself. That signals that there is every opportunity in the ongoing management of Mauao to ensure that those interest rights are protected absolutely not just for the iwi of Tauranga Moana but also for other people in that region. 
Bob Clarkson made a very interesting comment to his constituents of Tauranga Moana. I am sure that notwithstanding his views about what is not being achieved in this bill his children and their children will recognise that reclaiming the name of that historical maunga will itself fundamentally transform the way people see the history of Tauranga and how that city will be shaped into the future. 
This is a forward step. It might raise a bit of tension in a number of areas but the common thing that must be understood from this debate is that it is a necessary step to be able to resolve injustices and to say: “We need a lot of people at the table to be able to go forward albeit it is difficult.” Is it not an ideal situation to have the council and the iwi sitting at the table to determine what is happening in their rohe so that iwi are at the front end of the decision making and are not waiting for someone else to make the decision about what is happening on their maunga? Is that not a good step forward? Would we not want to try to support that kind of thing? Would we not want to try to support iwi being able to not only have a say but also make a decision about the fundamental landmarks within their rohe? 
My contribution is only short: he iti tenei naku ki te kaupapa; but the main thing I wanted to ensure really is that some of the rhetoric offered in this debate does not lose sight of the real intent which is that this bill is a step towards something that I believe will be much bigger that it will require effort and that it will not be easy for the Crown or the people of Tauranga Moana but it is a necessary larger step that we must take. It foreshadows that in the future development of Tauranga City people will have to work together. We cannot get away from that whether or not people like it. People will have to understand each other’s priorities whether they are in regard to the management of this maunga or to other things happening in that rohe. 
But more fundamentally there is a reclaiming of history in that region that will not deny to any young person in that rohe—Maori Pakeha or otherwise—the strong proud tradition of the people of that rohe. People will better understand it know it and talk about it in their classrooms as part of re-growing a sense of pride in not only their traditional heritage in that area but also their future opportunities for how things can go forward. 
As I said one always stands with great trepidation around issues like this but I am proud again to say that a Labour-led Government continues with a programme like this knowing that it will build a future that it is about taking people forward and that we all have our part to play to be able to reach that end. I am often disheartened by the fact that many parties in this House do not support for example a Treaty settlements programme in the same way that others do and that those parties have demonstrated it in this House many times when they have not voted for a number of critical bills like this bill that can take people forward. It is a bit disheartening but that is on their conscience not mine. 
I am very pleased to be able to support this small step forward. No reira tena koutou katoa. Kia ora. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will be very brief because I know it is the desire of the House that we vote on this bill before the dinner break. On behalf of the National Party I send very warm greetings to the people of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranganui and Ngati Pukenga who have travelled from Tauranga to be with us today. I think they have seen a House that is basically bipartisan on this issue. They have witnessed some very dignified and statesmanlike oratory from people like my friend from the Maori Party and a very fine contribution albeit somewhat discursive and toward the end somewhat partisan from the previous speaker. A bipartisan approach is the kind of approach we have had to this legislation and the Minister’s oafish and incoherent outburst a few minutes ago does not really reflect the good team effort by all members of the House on the Maori Affairs Committee and during the Committee stage in trying to deal with this interesting issue. 
There are only a couple of points I want to make. The first is to note how fortunate we are as members of Parliament to be able to look at these sorts of issues. We all know the Mount as it is known in Pakeha parlance but those of us who were on the select committee were truly privileged to get an insight into its history and to begin to understand something of what this issue was all about. Secondly I pay tribute to the member for Tauranga Bob Clarkson who was effective and caring on this issue. He is actually the one who in his practical way pushed changes to the wording. I can hear the New Zealand First members complaining about that because they do not always like the reality when it comes to Bob Clarkson. What we see is what we get and what we got in this case was very good indeed. He is the one who was interested and helped forge the changes to what is now clause 8(3) so that the language was less offensive. I think he is to be congratulated on that. 
That is really all I want to say. Amid the very partisan mentality we have in the House this year largely because the Government knows it is on the way out we have had a period when we have been able to be bipartisan and work well on this legislation. I enjoy working with the Labour members of the Maori Affairs Committee. They are good blokes. They are atypical when it comes to the Labour Party because they know the difference between acting in the public good and the national interest and in the partisan interests of the Labour Party. I say to the good people of Tauranga Moana who are here today that they have not got a Treaty settlement. We are not debating that at the moment largely because for 8 years this Government sat on its hands and did nothing in terms of Treaty settlements. But I promise them that an incoming National Government will deal with their Treaty settlement with zeal with idealism and with the same enthusiasm that has been exhibited in the way the House has dealt with the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too want to say welcome to the folks from Tauranga Moana. What they are seeing tonight is something we do not see every day in this House and that is a bipartisan approach to an issue. I am happy to say I have enjoyed the process that the Maori Affairs Committee has worked through. 
I am of the generation outside of Tauranga Moana who did not even know the name of the Mount. I was brought up in South Auckland knowing that there was a place down in Tauranga called the Mount. Earlier on the very day we went to the select committee hearing in Tauranga my wife and I took a ride out to the Mount for the first time ever. [ 
Interruption 
] No I was not allowed in. It cost too much. I got a feel for the place for the first time and I think everybody in New Zealand should at least once in their short life visit that place called Mauao. 
The select committee process was an easy one. It was easy because of the bipartisan approach we take on most things in the Maori Affairs Committee. It has never been easier to find a way through to some common ground than I think happened in respect of this bill. So I want to praise all the members of the select committee including our chairperson who from day one said he had a conflict of interest. He pointed out he was from that area and used to run up and down the Mount in his very very very young days. 
This is not a Treaty settlement. It is obvious it is not a Treaty settlement because it was done very very quickly indeed. If it had been a Treaty settlement it might have taken quite some more time. 
Can I say to the people of Tauranga Moana that this is not the end of the matter. Obviously there is a lot more work to be done and we on this side of the House expect them to be knocking on our door some time after the next election. 
So thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. As I have been asked by the former member for the area to sit down I will take my seat. But once again I congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on its good and hardy work. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 Otira kei te Kaihautu me penei ra te korero maku: “Papaki tu ana nga tai ki Mauao whakanukuhia whakanekenekehia. I whiua reretia a Tuawahinerua ki te wai ki tai wiwi ki tai wawa ki te whaiao ki te ao marama a tihei mauria ora.” 
Me te huri au ki aku iwi mai ra i a Tauranga Moana na ratou te kaupapa i korerohia e tatou i roto i te Whare i tenei po. A kua tau nei nga mihi ki a koutou ehara ma to koutou potiki pononga koutou hei whakatau. No reira kai aku hoa Paremata Parekura koutou ra i nga ropu torangapu katoa o te Whare nei na koutou nei nga iwi o Tauranga Moana i whakatau tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. 
Hei korero ano maku kei te Kaihautu e penei ana ma Tauranga Moana tonu hei korero i ana korero ehara ma tetahi atu. No reira na runga i tena ka huri au ki te reo o tauiwi kia marama ai te Whare i nga tu ahuatanga nga tumomo korero kei roto i tenei kaupapa. 
[ 
Indeed Madam Assistant Speaker there is a saying that I would like to quote and it goes like this: “The surging tides rise up beating and crashing upon Mauao to shift and move it. Tuawahinerua was cast upon the tides from near and far and to the world of light and understanding; and behold there was life.” 
I turn to my people from Tauranga Harbour whose proposal is the focus of our debate tonight. You have been acknowledged and welcomed—something that a humble servant of yours is not entitled to do. So to you my fellow parliamentarians Parekura and all other parties of this House you welcomed the people from Tauranga and I gratefully acknowledge you three times over.  
There is something else I would like to say Madam Assistant Speaker and it is this: Tauranga Moana is the only one that can speak for itself and relate its stories—no one else. On that basis I will turn to English so that all aspects relating to this bill are clear to the House 
.] 
It is obvious that we are in an election year given the level of campaigning that is going on in the House this evening in relation to this bill. Is it not incredible that something that should be so easy to vote on in this House took so long to be brought here? We have heard stories of journeys of experiences and of the technical aspects relating to this particular piece of legislation. I want to talk about a journey as well. I will talk about a journey of a great mountain who once stood in the midst of many great mountains. It is the story of a journey of the mountain down through the landscape of Tauranga—the reshaping of landscape the forming of rivers and eventually the forming of what is commonly known as Te Awanui or Tauranga Moana coming to rest at the mouth of the Tauranga Harbour—and the journeys of the patupaiarehe who guided the mountain on his journey. When he arrived at the final point I am sure he thought his journey was over. So he thought but it was not to be that way.  
Mauao has had very many experiences and has witnessed many events. He has seen the coming of the great migration or settlement subsequent migrations and conflicts with people from other lands—from other corners of the world. He has experienced love and joy happiness and sadness. But the most recent of his experiences has been the one of alienation and that point has been discussed in considerable detail in the House this evening. I know that some people are hugely familiar with the history of Mauao but the people of Mauao the people of Tauranga Moana have an intimate relationship with this maunga. I have heard statements that kua ngaro te mana o te iwi o Tauranga Moana ki toratou maunga. [ 
the Tauranga Harbour people have lost ownership of their mountain. 
] That is not the case. Mauao is our maunga iringa korero. We relate to it in our oratory; we relate to him in our oratory. Our mana on our maunga is there in perpetuity regardless of the actions of the Crown and its attempts to sever our relationship with our historic iconic landmarks. I want to make that point clear in the House this evening. This vesting of Mauao in the people of Mauao is considered nothing more and it should not be considered anything more than an attempt by the Crown to develop positive relationships with the iwi of Tauranga Moana and I believe that to some degree that has been achieved. 
I acknowledge the contributions made by very many people within this House. I acknowledge the contribution made by the Speaker of the House the Hon Margaret Wilson at the time she was the Attorney-General and the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in acknowledging the requests of Tauranga Moana kaumatua and kuia for the return of this great majestic mountain to them and also in her subsequent instruction to officials to make this transfer happen. At that point it became very obvious that the Crown was committed to the transfer. The detail about how that happened created a bit of angst amongst many including Crown officials and iwi representatives but I believe that through a robust process of debate and consultation we have managed to resolve many of those concerns. 
It was mentioned earlier in the House this evening that clause 7 basically did not acknowledge the true relationship that Tauranga Moana iwi had with Mauao and that the Crown refused to hear the request for either the deletion or the rewording of the particular clause. It is important in this House that Hansard record the truth and it is my obligation and my responsibility to make sure that the truth is heard. That is not the truth. The Crown did listen to requests and approaches from iwi to reconsider the wording of clause 7 because iwi found it offensive. To that end Crown Law offered a draft statement on how the wording could be amended to accommodate the concerns of the iwi. However when that statement was presented to the people of Tauranga the iwi of Tauranga at the last hui I attended when I was in Tauranga it was rejected. Along with the proposed rewording Crown Law also sent a warning that any attempt to water down clause 7 would only subject the trustees of the Mauao Trust to possible litigation in terms of public safety. I know that Hansard will record this accurate statement. 
I acknowledge the kaumata and kuia of Tauranga Moana who have come a long way this evening to experience and witness the final journey of this very very long-standing and outstanding issue with regard to the return of Mauao to them. 
Nga iwi o Tauranga Moana kua pau te wa ki ahau na Te Torangapu Maori te he. Kai te pai kai a ratou tena. No reira na runga i tena me ki hoki pai atu ki te hau kainga i runga i te mohio kua tutuki ra a ratou hikoitanga o to tatou maunga ki a tatou ano. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
To you the people of Tauranga the time given to me has expired. The Maori Party is responsible for that. But that is fine. They can sort that out. Let me wish you instead a safe return home knowing that the journey that was made to ensure that our mountain is back with us again has been achieved. Greetings 
.]  
Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata 
Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 April. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: When the Committee was last considering this matter it had completed 1 of the 3 hours allocated for the debate. Two hours therefore remain. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2006-07 financial year and their current operations. 
A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A list of the financial reviews available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. Reports on entities yet to be reported or those debated earlier cannot be debated. I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Teachers Council 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to stand up and speak about the financial review of the New Zealand Teachers Council for 2006-07. 
The first thing I wish to raise in terms of the review by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the report back to the Committee is that it is incredibly unusual—certainly in my relatively short time in this Parliament and from what I have heard from my colleagues who have been here a lot longer than I have—to have in a report back to the Committee such a statement as: “Some of us are dissatisfied with the quality of the responses by the New Zealand Teachers Council and consider that they were evasive in their responses.” It was generally the consensus among the select committee members that the Teachers Council was evasive in its responses with regard to a number of issues of utmost importance which are of relevance to this Committee and which I wish to raise in this debate. 
The issue of serious misconduct must be of vital importance to all New Zealanders because at the end of the day we are talking about our teachers. There have been many instances of misconduct that have concerned the House and indeed the general public during the 2006-07 financial year. During the financial review the select committee asked when the Teachers Council is contacted about misconduct; what action it takes when it is contacted; whether the police are involved after there has been some sort of incident involving a teacher; and why the Teachers Council is not notified immediately and the teacher stood down. 
We heard from the Teachers Council that immediate notification is usually the way things go but we were certainly of the opinion—and we discussed this with the Teachers Council—that it should flag that a teacher is under investigation. That is not currently occurring when there may have been misconduct by a teacher—serious conduct in some regards—and that is of huge concern to schools across the board. We have heard in the last 12 months about teachers who have continued teaching even though they have been under investigation and some pretty hideous stuff has been going on. Fortunately this is not happening too often—not very often at all. I do not wish to be alarmist and say that misconduct is rampant out there but a few examples have come up. 
Also of concern is the process around registration. The Teachers Council says it is awaiting legislation so this is an opportunity for the Government to step up and do something relatively quickly—even though it has had 8½ years to do so. Here is the Minister of Education Chris Carter now. He will know that the council is awaiting legislation that will give it access to the Ministry of Education’s payroll database so that it can determine which teachers do not have practising certificates. The Government really needs to remove the barriers so that the database can be much more easily accessed and we can know who is registered and who is not. 
The process for overseas-trained teachers seeking New Zealand registration has been of some considerable concern to the select committee throughout the financial review process and it is something that the committee will certainly be taking a bit more time over. The committee has talked about the process and its costs. Many many instances have been mentioned. In fact I have lost count of the amount of correspondence I have received with regard to early childhood primary and secondary school teachers who have come from the UK or Australia for example and who want to teach. 
Just the other day I spoke to a woman from Whangarei. We are missing out on some good teachers because the Teachers Council is taking so long to register overseas-trained teachers and because it has not worked with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to come up with some simple guidelines about what is and is not acceptable. The woman I spoke to the other day had moved from teaching into recruitment because it paid her something more worthwhile—and she was not even on a full teacher’s salary because she was not registered. 
It amuses me that the UK and Australia take our trained teachers in a heartbeat—particularly early childhood teachers which is my area of interest. In fact schools in the UK and Australia are actively recruiting our teachers because they are clever enough to know that our teachers are smart and have been well trained. Our teachers can move to the UK or Australia and start teaching really quickly but we in New Zealand are not in a situation where we can take any of those overseas-trained teachers and we are not looking at what we can do about it. We have not come up with a solution and that is a challenge that the Teachers Council has raised. It has said it has not been able to fix those problems. That is something for the Minister and he has indicated recently that he is looking at the registration process for international teachers. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to the financial review of the New Zealand Teachers Council I take the initial point made by Paula Bennett of the National Party about the quotation in the report back which New Zealand First supports: “Some of us are dissatisfied with the quality of the responses by the New Zealand Teachers Council and consider that they were evasive in their responses.” I have never heard a more surprising answer and a more evasive response than the answer to the question asked by Allan Peachey for the National Party. I made a note of what he asked the officials. He asked to whom they were responsible and we could not seem to get a reply. It was quite extraordinary. There was a sort of dumbfounded silence as if to say: “How dare you ask that question.”; “How dare you as members of Parliament ask us—officials bureaucrats—to whom we are responsible.” I made a special note of that and I was most concerned at their attitude. 
I was also concerned initially that staffing levels at the New Zealand Teachers Council had increased from 17 staff to 40 fulltime-equivalents but to be fair the council is virtually self-funded as I understand it. So it must be employing staff in response to the requests that are being made for registration. We cannot be too critical of the council for having a bigger staff if we require the council to have a quick turn-round rate in so far as registering teachers is concerned. Looking at the council’s responses in its report I see that it has registered 10537 new teachers approved 16769 renewals processed 20000-odd police vetting applications and—I especially note this next point—consulted with the profession on the amendment of key policies: “good character and fit to be a teacher; limited authority to teach; and language proficiency.” I have been concerned about the need to improve the quality of the teaching profession to get new people into the profession and to encourage people to come in and be part of what is one of the most important sectors of our community—the teaching profession. 
There has been a report issued about becoming a teacher in the 21st century that proposes that the New Zealand Teachers Council and key stakeholders in the sector work together to determine the process for assuring the quality of graduates and those teachers admitted to the profession through provisional registration. It also proposes that employers’ and other stakeholders’ needs are reflected in these processes. There was some criticism in that report about concerns being expressed that many newly qualified primary and secondary school teachers lack knowledge about the curriculum pedagogical content up-to-date assessment and evaluation methodology and management or guidance skills. It states that initial teacher education providers “are in a difficult position because there has been no explicit statement of what newly qualified teachers are expected to know and to be able to do.” So in considering that and looking at the answer that came through on “proposition 4” there seemed to be support for that proposal—there were 37 in favour and only two opposed to the proposal. In considering that question the first thing that the stakeholders will need to do is address the notion of quality. There seems to be some concern about that and I heard Mr Peachey being slightly critical of Paula Bennett about the quality of teachers and suchlike. I quote again from the report: “The role of the Teachers Council and its relationship with providers was mentioned by a number of submitters. The Teachers Council was seen by some to be under-resourced”—which seems rather strange—”not representative or responsive to providers or not accountable enough. Some submitters agreed that there needed to be more robust ‘entry to profession’ standards at full registration.” 
There was also a “proposition 7” and I should make the point that the people who responded to it said that there needed to be more research into teachers’ status better sharing of information and findings between sectors and increasing pay. The issue of pay is always a problem for the profession at all levels and our teachers go overseas because on the face of it they can get paid better. I repeat the view that perhaps those with student loans should be allowed to work off their loans over 3 years or so to keep those people in New Zealand. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the issues raised around the Teachers Council and around teaching in general. I begin my remarks by noting that yesterday in Parliament we had a very interesting education lunch where 20 teachers were recognised for their outstanding contribution to education in New Zealand in receiving the excellence in education award which is done annually. I spoke as education Minister at that lunch and I noted that New Zealand teachers generally are among the world’s best. That is very much evidenced by the fact that New Zealand 15-year-olds score very highly in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. We are the top-scoring country in the English-speaking world in literacy numeracy and science; and only Finland Korea and Singapore beat us overall. But we are in the top layer of achievers or at least should I say some of our 15-year-olds are. 
So we have some real quality teaching and learning going on in our schools and of course even if one is the best one still wants to do better still. We are talking about educating the next generation of New Zealanders both for their own potential and for the potential of our nation. 
The Teachers Council is an important component in ensuring that teacher standards in New Zealand are the very best. The Teachers Council has been dealing with quite a range of issues such as disciplinary matters involving teachers who contravene regulations around their work in schools and although it is a very small number nevertheless it does happen; and also competency issues and the registration of beginning teachers in New Zealand and overseas-trained teachers. 
As the previous speaker Mr Jones just noted there were about 8858 applications for the various categories of teacher registration during the last quarter. The speed of processing of teacher applications has increased considerably which is a very heartening sign. About 90 percent of applicants are processed within 6 weeks. 
A number of speakers mentioned the delays sometimes around the registration of overseas-trained teachers. Generally there is not a problem but where there is a problem of equivalency often in the training process then there are some difficulties around getting a speedy resolution as to whether that teacher is competent to teach in a New Zealand school. I am sure no member of this House would want to see any child in New Zealand being taught by somebody who did not have the competent pedagogical skills to be able to teach properly. 
I know that Madam Chair like me was a teacher for many years before coming into Parliament and I see a number of other ex-teachers sitting in the Chamber. We all know that the best possible resource in education is a skilled teacher. No matter how much is put in by way of equipment—information and communications technology infrastructure reading materials equipment for teachers—still the most effective learning outcomes are created by effective teachers. So we want the very best teachers teaching in front of New Zealand students. 
The Teachers Council has a very important role to make sure that any overseas-trained teacher has sufficient skills to be registered in New Zealand. To make that process flow more easily we have ability for a temporary teaching registration to be in place. The individuals are given those and they are able to upskill themselves to reach equivalency and to be able to be effective teachers in the New Zealand teaching environment. So that is very important. 
We also have a little bit of an obstacle sometimes where we have overseas-trained teachers getting overseas institutions to respond to send verification of qualifications. I have been working very closely with the Teachers Council to try to make sure that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the body that deals with registration of equivalency in qualifications is working more closely. We have been having very regular meetings. 
I have been getting regular reports too as I move around schools particularly those in rural areas where there are shortages in areas like technology and second-language teaching and they are unable to get sufficient specialists in those areas. Often overseas-trained teachers are keen for a lifestyle change in New Zealand so rural areas particularly the more remote ones in New Zealand are often very attractive destinations for those teachers to live in. We need to make sure those teachers are registered and able to teach in our classrooms. 
We have also used the council to try to give greater guidance for beginning teachers so a code has been developed so that teacher training providers—the universities mostly but not always—have a greater clarity about the skills that a beginning teacher needs to take to the classroom. That has been a very important function of the New Zealand Teachers Council and I think it has done some excellent work there about making sure that our young beginning teachers have sufficient focus and sufficient skills to be able to be the most effective teachers they can be for young learners in our country. 
I would like to say that I feel the Teachers Council is going well but as we all know every organisation can do better. I am working closely with it and I am working closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to streamline these processes so that we can maximise the use of our migrant teacher community give greater guidance to beginning teachers and to make sure we have in place the structures to ensure that we have a quality teaching profession in New Zealand. 
Report noted. 
Canterbury District Health Board 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the performance and current operations of the Canterbury District Health Board in its most recent financial year. To put this in context the importance of this health board is that it is New Zealand’s largest it serves a wide geographical area and a large number of people and it employs some 8000—I am not mistaken—employees. So it is a very large provider—and funder as well. It is a very important district health board in the context of the South Island’s provision of health services. 
The audit report to the select committee noted two aspects of this district health board review where the grade for the district health board was “good”. Now “good” may sound OK but in fact “good” means that we recommend that improvements would be beneficial and that the entity addresses these. One aspect that I particularly want to make note of tonight is that our review of the board’s procurement policy indicated that although there are areas of strength it does not cover all the areas we would expect. Quite chillingly we recommend the inclusion of greater detail in a number of areas including fraud conflict of interest whole-of-life costs risk management and procurement planning and methods. Additionally recommendations for improvement being beneficial to the entity were also around financial information systems and controls. 
That was the gutsy audit side of things but in fact when we reviewed this district health board there was another picture. That particularly dry picture is not really the picture for the people of Canterbury—the people who rely on this district health board for health services. The picture that they have had over the period under review is what they often read in the headlines and see in the devastating photographs in the media. And what is that picture? It is a picture of repeated headlines about gridlock—the worst gridlock in the hospital’s history. It is a picture that is also about problems with the emergency department and of course they are both quite closely linked. The worst hospital gridlock is not only about patients but about staff. There may be 8000 staff but at the time that they were experiencing red gridlock there were 50 nursing vacancies. So serious was it that the district health board was trying to recruit some 60 British nurses to Christchurch. 
In fact the whole picture around New Zealand is very similar. We have 7700 foreign-born nurses working here and a matching 7500 New Zealand - born nurses living and working overseas. One nurse contacted the media and said that she and her colleagues were frightened for the services within Christchurch Hospital because she knew of times where the most senior nurse in charge on the ward was a bureau nurse—a qualified nurse yes but with no experience of the ward’s speciality be it surgical or in some cases coronary care. There are 1500 nursing graduates each year and about half of them are leaving to go overseas. 
Although the Minister of Health in this Parliament is telling us there is no crisis that is not quite the way staff see it. In fact Alan Pithie the Canterbury District Health Board chief of medicine for medical and surgical services said that this red gridlock is a crisis. This is exactly the symptom we have seen over and over again. This Government says there is no crisis. It does not listen to the doctors and nurses and it does not see them as part of the solution; it sees them just as part of the problem and we repeatedly hear about that. 
Hospital treatment figures were also in the headlines during the year under review. We found that when it came to triage levels happily this hospital is not one of the two that are not meeting the most serious triage levels—that is patients who need to be dealt with immediately. In fact it is meeting that target 100 percent. But when we come to triage level 2—that is patients who should be seen within 10 minutes—there is abject failure. Only 48 percent of those patients—and in March they numbered 2228—were seen so 1114 were not seen within the required time frame. If we go to triage level 3 we see the same happening again—only 49 percent were seen. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I thank the member for the opportunity to briefly comment on the Canterbury District Health Board. The member is indeed correct; it is one of the largest health boards in the country and I think overall one of the better run health boards. It has a very competent board and as far as I can tell a competent management and clinical team. It has been the beneficiary as have many other health boards of the largest capital building programme in New Zealand’s history which has been mounted by this Government over the last 7 or 8 years and it has like the rest of the system seen a significant increase in its baseline budget through the objective funding formula that is rolled out nationwide which provides for an increment based on demographic change and forecasted costs. It is called FFT/Demo and is rolled out to all district health boards around the country including Canterbury. 
The district health board has also been the beneficiary of a more sustainable workforce position which has resulted from considerable investment in the health workforce under this Government. Indeed 60 percent of costs in our district health boards arise from the payroll of doctors nurses orderlies and those support staff who are in the back office including those few in management positions. One wonders where this health system would be if it had not had the kind of investment that the Government has ploughed into it and whether the occasional complaints that we hear which by no means indicate any kind of system crisis would have swollen to some kind of avalanche without the investment that has been made. I think the Opposition needs to be a little clearer about whether it is suggesting that the Government has been in some way profligate with this investment or whether it is suggesting that it is not enough because occasionally I hear both sides of that argument being raised by the Opposition. 
In any complex system there will always be areas for improvement. In any hospital system there is always a juggle between acute admissions and elective procedures and the constant process of triage—and I am pleased that the Canterbury District Health Board has had a 100 percent success rate in meeting its triage 1 targets. Like the member I am not pleased that the board’s percent success rate for triage 2 is only in the 40s; it is not at a level that the Government expects and the ministry will be working with the district health board to get those numbers up. But again I think if we see this in perspective—if we see it against the reputation that the Canterbury District Health Board has in many ways for being a centre of medical excellence—then we will see a picture that overall is robust healthy and positive. 
There is a bit of a tendency for the Opposition members to perhaps run down a little the efforts of clinicians. I want to acknowledge that clinicians are the backbone of our system and that they go to work every day to try to make the lives of their patients better. I remember the words of Heather Roy who is not a member of the National Party—and on this occasion they will be very thankful of that—when she described a Capital and Coast District Health Board’s Wellington hospital as a “killer hospital”. If I had a dollar for every email or letter I had from distraught clinicians and that community in response to that kind of cheap political name-calling I would be a wealthy man. 
We have to work together to search out the improvement opportunities and make the system better and stronger than it is. It is certainly a lot better than it was when this Government took office when it was funded at about half of what it currently is. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Waitemata District Health Board 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is very pleasing to be following on from that rather patronising lecture from the Minister of Health telling us all is actually well in health in New Zealand. It is rather apt that we are now going to be debating the Waitemata District Health Board because of course the poor people of New Lynn whom the Minister represents actually have to go to that health board to get their care. Of course the Minister himself does not go there because he chooses to domicile himself in the rather more grandiose area of Herne Bay. So he really does not have to suffer the privations that his own constituents suffer when they have to go to Waitakere Hospital or North Shore Hospital for their own health care. 
I am really looking forward to another dose of condescension and maybe a little more patronising patter from the Minister as he gets up and tells us about the wonderful things he has done for the people of west Auckland for the people north of the bridge in terms of health care. Because when we are looking at what has gone wrong with this Government in terms of its performance in health we do not have to look any further than the Waitemata District Health Board. It is amazing; the Waitemata District Health Board has the worst patient satisfaction level of any district health board in New Zealand—the worst—yet that hospital should be performing as one of the best. In terms of triage times it is right down at the bottom. It is in the bottom quartile of district health boards on every single measure. There are problems right through that district health board and I can tell members what the problems are. They come down to a failure of planning and a failure of management by this Government and this Minister is responsible. 
Do members know all that this Government has actually done at the Waitemata District Health Board? Do members know what the response to the problem has been? The response to the problem has been for Helen Clark to turn up on the lawn of North Shore Hospital and erect a great sculpture on the front lawn that is meant to represent the giving of light in places where despair reigns supreme—rather like the Labour Party caucus room. That is the only contribution this Government has come up with constructively to try to solve the problems of the Waitemata District Health Board. I can tell members that I am being inundated in my electorate office in Northcote with complaint after complaint about what goes on at that hospital. If this Minister says that we get only an occasional complaint about the health service in New Zealand I tell members that I think he is spending too long in restaurants in Herne Bay. He needs to get out to New Lynn and actually talk to some of those constituents. 
If the Minister goes out and talks to those blue collar decent New Zealanders whom he is meant to represent rather than hang around on Jervois Road they will tell him what the reality is and I will give him a taste of this. This is what I got just recently from one of my constituents. He tells me about Waitemata District Health Board: “Some weeks ago I was admitted through the A & E department and I thought then that this was a shambles with all the corridors and aisles full of beds. I saw elderly men and women middle-aged and young children lying there without any dignity respect or privacy. I saw these patients having their observations taken and questions asked of them regarding their illnesses and injuries sometimes with absolutely no privacy. They were bodily examined bloods taken samples taken etc. The place was filthy.” 
For this Minister to get up and give us a lecture about the state of health care in New Zealand is beyond a joke. I would invite him to come out to North Shore Hospital and see what it is really like. In fact I walked into the accident and emergency department the other day with the Hon Tony Ryall. We went up to the reception desk and do members know what was sitting there between ourselves and the receptionist at the counter? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A box of cigars. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No it was a patient. That guy from Waimakariri wants to joke. I tell members that if that member were 6 inches taller he would have a totally different personality and approach in Parliament. There is no question about it. He should be taking this a lot more seriously than he is because this is a serious issue. 
Labour has failed in health. Labour members have failed abjectly and it will cost them. They will get kicked at the polls on this. If they think they are performing and if they think they have done a good job in health in New Zealand when elderly former Labour voters are lying on trolleys in the corridor at North Shore Hospital well they are in la-la land. This Minister gets up and talks about the investment in health about the money that the Government has put into it. If members opposite come out of their ivory towers and ask any person in the street they will find that people do not think this health system is any better than when Labour took over 9 years ago. The spending has gone from $6 billion to $12 billion and less elective surgery is actually being done. Is that not incredible? Less elective surgery is being done and there are fewer operations. There is no question that Labour has failed in health and it will pay the price at the ballot box. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 What a well-timed intervention from that new member! As it happens only a week or so ago I did a full tour of the Waitemata District Health Board not wearing my hat as a local MP but wearing a ministerial hat. I can tell that member that I saw plenty of evidence of the investment that this Government has made. 
If that member cared to get his hands dirty to go back and see the Mason Clinic in its new form to go and see the splendid new Waiatarau mental health care facility on the Lincoln Road campus to spend some time in the new high-dependency unit at North Shore Hospital and to look at the investment now going into the emergency centre at that hospital where a new station is being built to take the overflow and if he bothered to read the new data on vacancy rates that show that the district health board consistently managed down vacancies over the last 3 years he would not be making the kind of prattle that is frankly indicting him as the same kind of lightweight MP as Ann Hartley was about whom the people of Northcote are now asking: “Where the hell is Ann Hartley when you need a decent MP?”. That is what they are saying. So that member is going to have a very interesting time in the polls I think. 
The best he could do was to try to throw personal insults about where people live as if he is not part of a party whose leader was registered to vote in Helensville but lived in St Stephens Avenue Parnell. At least I am only 10 minutes from my electorate office; he has to virtually catch an international flight to get to his. He is all the way across the other side of the harbour. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: He is not a Chardonnay socialist! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Would this by chance be the same John Key who on his DVD—which is not authorised anyway—over the sound of violin music playing tells us about how he was a poor kid from nowhere who grew up in a State house then devoted his professional life to making it harder for other poor kids to get a State house? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I cannot see what this has to do with the financial review of the Waitemata District Health Board. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I think a rebuttal is fair when the member himself raised the issue of the Minister’s domicile. The pot cannot be calling the kettle black. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: In actual fact a number of people on both sides have gone off the topic in both the first speech and in reply. I would ask the Minister now to come back to the topic. This is about the Waitemata District Health Board. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Fair enough. To take account of the pressure on the emergency centre at North Shore Hospital some 70 additional beds are in the process of being put together through a combination of an expansion of a ward on the Waitakere campus and additional beds on the North Shore campus. I am confident that that is going to alleviate the kind of problem we had last winter with very high presentation rates. The new cardiac unit at North Shore Hospital and the new high-dependency unit will make a significant contribution to that. I think it is fair to say that the Ministry of Health has given the district health board a clear message that we expect the winter flow to be well managed and that we look forward to seeing proposals from it as to what further measures it can take that will ensure it is well positioned. 
But I would remind the member that I am advised by the member for New Lynn formerly the member for Titirangi that before 1999 which is when this Government came to office all that existed on the Lincoln Road campus was the run-down building known as the Snelgar Building and a few prefabs. It was this Government that invested some $70 million in upgrading Waitakere’s hospital facilities. There are new facilities there—the new maternity unit the new out-patients unit the new general unit and of course the new mental health units. So I think the member should visit the area and acquaint himself more thoroughly with the district health board before he makes speeches in the House that are without foundation. 
This district health board’s area has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. It has a higher than average rate of high-needs individuals from both the Pasifika and the migrant communities as well as an about average rate of Maori participants in its boundaries. It has a very high rate of primary health organisation enrolment with some very competent primary health organisations. It is fortunate to draw upon a community that has extensive and well-integrated community networks and therefore has a strong array of non-governmental organisations that provide community support. For that reason it was the site of the Government’s Wellbeing Summit conference and has in many respects provided a leadership role in sharing best practice around the country in relation to primary health care. 
I should say that the Mason Clinic in west Auckland which is administered by that district health board is a world leader in forensic mental health care and of its first 100 patients I am told there was no recidivism on discharge. That is a truly astounding—astounding—achievement. 
Report noted. 
Transpower New Zealand Ltd 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate you Madam Chair on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. I think it is the first opportunity I have had to speak during one of your sittings since your appointment. In company with my caucus colleagues I am sure it will be a pleasure working with you and I expect to enjoy your sense of correctness fairness good order and sense of humour. 
Transpower keeps New Zealand’s energy flowing. It takes bulk electricity from where it is generated by companies such as Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power to 35 lines companies and directly to 10 big users. Electricity is delivered whenever and wherever it is needed 24/7 through 11806 kilometres of high voltage transmission lines with 41195 towers and poles 173 substations and 1122 transformers. Transpower does not buy or sell electricity; it just ships it and owns the assets of the national grid. 
So what point in particular do we wish to raise on the performance and current operations for the Minister to respond to? There are a number. We could start with Pole 1. The Pole 1 high-voltage direct current electricity cable which links the North and South Island was shut down suddenly late last year after a report was commissioned by Transpower the Marsh report. The report found that there was a serious risk of catastrophic failure in the pole which would lead to mercury vapours and fires in the facility. The Government said it found out that Pole 1 was being shut down only the night before when the Minister got a phone call from the then chief executive officer. The pole is an ageing creaking piece of equipment that was built in the 1960s. It desperately needs replacing but Transpower has only just lodged an application with the Electricity Commission to build a replacement. Assuming that that is approved it is still likely to kick into service only at the quickest in 5 years’ time; it should have been replaced years ago. Pole 1 is currently in partial service running in one direction only because without it we could not get enough power between the islands. 
In relation to transmission generally I say to members that as New Zealand moves towards renewable generation of electricity the need for new and upgraded transmission will increase. New and renewable generation sites such as wind farms will increasingly be located in more remote places. With regard to negotiations with rural communities I say that Transpower has not had a happy recent history in its dealing with landowners. One of the prices of upgraded transmission capacity is increased use of private land which is frequently extremely valuable. Transpower has on some occasions not been willing to negotiate in good faith with local communities and has managed to attract the ire of those communities. This is not good. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What about the public interest? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Is the Minister really going to interject while I am speaking? That is unusual but perhaps he does not know he is not supposed to do that. He will have his turn and I hope he will have a lot to say about these points. But he should wait because there is more. Good examples are the farmers in the Waikato where Transpower wants to put in new pylons to boost transmission to Auckland and the farmers who are on the new Roxburgh to Islington line in the South Island. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Rigor mortis has set in. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Better than being a motormouth. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed! 
Then there was the land lease deal. In 2003 Transpower set up a complex tax deal where the Wachovia bank in the US transferred ownership of the South Island grid to a company registered in the Cayman Islands and leased it back. This is very very serious and it should occupy the mind of the Minister because he is well exposed to and well familiar with financial transactions. Transpower says it retains the legal title to all transmission assets in the South Island. US newspapers reported in April that Wachovia had been hard hit by the financial crisis related to the mortgage market. It had to raise extra money its share prices plummeted to less than half they were at this time last year and it posted a first quarter loss of US$393 million. This raised fears in some quarters that the South Island grid was in danger. These are very serious issues and the Minister should respond and address each one. 
Transpower has a huge strategic responsibility and is regulated by the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Commission. The expectancy of the New Zealand public towards the results of Transpower is now tinged with considerable apprehension. Is it overly restricted? Is the Resource Management Act a problem? Is there a good fit between Transpower the Electricity Commission and the Commerce Commission? Standard and Poor’s consider that on an international comparison we are negatively regulated. 
Report noted. 
Charities Commission 
Report noted. 
Children’s Commissioner 
Report noted. 
Families Commission 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the report of the Social Services Committee on the Families Commission. To many people the Families Commission has been somewhat of a disappointment—certainly to many families in New Zealand who thought that it meant they would have advocates who would represent them and particularly to parents. The Children’s Commissioner says that she represents children but many parents want a Families Commission that recognises the role of parents and actually values them. 
What we have is a Families Commission that at the moment is spending an awful lot of money. It would be great if it were spending that money on parenting programmes such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters or Parents as First Teachers; if it were spending it on the sorts of things that parents want to know about such as the best way to bring up their children. I do not know of any parents who do not want to be good parents. I certainly know of some parents who do not know how to be good parents but I have never come across parents who when their children are born in their heart of hearts do not think they will do a better job than their own parents did. Often they do not but certainly all parents try. 
Yet we have a Families Commission that has unfortunately been spending an awful lot of taxpayer money on finding out how to spin its message about how valuable it is. It is spending $883000 which is almost $1 million on a programme called Valuing Parenting—something that the commission itself has described as being pretty self-evident. The programme tells parents that we should be valuing them. Well as a parent let me tell the commission that it is not a mystery. We parents try to do the very best job that we can. I think that in many ways the Families Commission has been a huge disappointment. 
I remember that it went through all sorts of angst about what a family actually was. Well anyone involved in a family knows exactly what a family is. It is whatever we think it is frankly. If we have a family of mum dad and two kids then that is a family. If we have a family of mum and two kids then that is a family too. A family is whatever we think it is. For kids it does not really matter what we—I you or somebody else—think a family is; it is what that family thinks a family is that is important. 
That particular organisation has become obsessed with spin. The number of people employed in the communications department staggers belief. It is almost as bad as the situation in some of the big Government departments. For instance why did it appoint a public relations company to “review the Families Commission’s reputation and communications as part of its planning for a new approach to public relations for the Families Commission”. Why did it do that? Why did it spend that sort of money? Why is it worried about that? Why is it not worried about parenting and children and about helping parents to do the best job they can? Why has it spent tens of thousands of dollars on a website called The Couch in order to find out what families want? It got about 2500 replies. Actually my  
Celebrating Families  
website page has a database of about 3000. I would have given it to the commission for nothing. But unfortunately the commission is spending taxpayers’ money and for many families whose taxes pay the bills of these communications experts it is a waste of money. 
I think many people in this Chamber would think that the $9 million that the Families Commission gets each year could be better spent. By the way it cannot spend it because it does not have enough to spend it on; in fact it gave some to the Children’s Commissioner last year because she has so much to do all around the world. People would like to see a lot better spend in relation to parents and to what works in helping parents to be good parents. It is not a mystery. All the commission has to do is to start to look at the really great research that is already being undertaken at Otago University and Canterbury University and that is now being undertaken at Auckland University as well. The longitudinal studies have shown what works for children and for families and what they need. You know it is not much more than good common sense. It is about parents putting their children first about helping their children get a good education about good health outcomes about not being violent towards our children and about putting them first. 
Report noted. 
Social Workers Registration Board 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will comment briefly on some of the concerns that I think the Social Services Committee still has around this board. We certainly welcome the opportunity for social workers to become a registered profession and I understand the need for the current provisions to provide for social workers to choose to register voluntarily. We are looking forward to the day when possibly that can become a mandatory requirement because I think that we have a large number of people now who technically would call themselves social workers but who I suspect are not and who would not meet the requirements to register with the registration board. The board does not currently require people to have a qualification in social work but some provisions were put in that allowed people time to prove their competency. Those were people who had worked in the area of social work for years and years without qualifications but who did a very fine job and who would have been lost to the profession if they had been required to get a qualification. Those people should be registered so there is I think a 6-year period that we gave originally for the mop-up of that situation so that those people could become registered. But I think that we are fast approaching the day when we need to see that situation change and when we need to step up with this profession and have it as a fully professional body with a real clarity around who can call themselves social workers. 
The concern I have is that this profession for me can beggar belief a little bit. I will start off by saying that I am very supportive of the work social workers do particularly those who have statutory powers and who work for Child Youth and Family. They do an unenviable job dealing with some extremely difficult cases and most of us admire hugely the people who put their name forward to do that kind of work. So what I say now is not in any way denigrating that role and the need for it but I have a real concern around the fact that the culture—not just within Child Youth and Family but also around social work—seems to me at times to be characterised a lot by uncertainty and fear where social workers are unsure of what risks there may be for them personally if they make a wrong decision. 
Although the Social Workers Registration Board also has a disciplinary function currently very little of the money that is put aside for disciplinary purposes is used. The hope is that in future there will be a greater uptake of that as some of the complaints we hear about as MPs filter through and the board is able to deal with them. But one of the problems—and I know that it is a problem that the Minister is setting about fixing—is that there have not been clear processes particularly for Government-employed social workers and social work to complain through some sort of official process. Therefore there is not a clear path currently in place to have complaints directed through where necessary to the Social Workers Registration Board. That needs to be fixed. I know that the Government has contracts only with providers that can demonstrate they have a complaints process in place but even then it seems unclear to those who work with the board that there is any flow-through of those complaints to them for professional assessment. I think that that is something that needs to be strengthened over time. 
We talk all the time about the fact that the general public who have dealings with Child Youth and Family particularly are currently a little hamstrung if they want to lay a complaint but I also suspect that if social workers felt a lot safer in their job then they would have less to fear. I think that some of the relationship falls down between the Government department and a particular client often because there is no clear process and advocacy for people who want to lay a complaint. Often those people have an ongoing relationship with Child Youth and Family; the service has their children in care and it determines how often they get to visit their children and under what circumstances. Therefore for people in those circumstances to go and lay a complaint is a very scary thing because of the power that social workers have over them. But on the other side of the coin I think that we have a profession that does not always feel clear that it is protected. 
Report noted. 
Electricity Commission 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to see that the Minister David Parker is here for this debate. It would have been really good if he had been here for the debate on Transpower but he may wish to field some of the questions that were asked then. 
The current power crisis facing us this winter brings into stark relief the failure of the Electricity Commission—the grand-sounding body that was set up in 2003 by the then Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson. He said then as did the Prime Minister that the commission would guarantee New Zealand’s security of electricity supply into the future. Much rhetoric was engaged in by Government Ministers as to their wonderful new creation and this is something we are getting used to. 
What a failure the commission has turned out to be. It seems that every year is now a dry year a famous one-in-60-year event where New Zealanders face the prospect of cold showers brownouts and industrial shut-downs. Already the commission is asking industrial users to use a little less electricity. Is this First World country stuff? We had an electricity crisis in 2004 and in 2006 and now we have another one in 2008. The commission was set up by this Government to try to avoid situations like this and it has singularly failed in its goal. It has failed to meet its mandate and the result is spiralling prices and industry cutting production. Goodness knows what it is doing in turning people off from ever coming to New Zealand to invest. 
Let us not be in any doubt that the commission is very much a creation of the Labour Government. It dreamt it up. It is and has been filled with Labour lackeys such as David Caygill a former Deputy Prime Minister and a deputy leader of the party; Stan Rodger a former Labour Cabinet Minister; and Peter Harris a former adviser to Michael Cullen. It has been stacked. Minister Rick Barker might be hoping for a future there himself. 
While the commission has failed to future-proof New Zealand’s electricity infrastructure it has also overseen massive residential price increases for consumers. It costs 48 percent more than it did 5 years ago to power the average residential home. Prices are heading upwards at the moment because of the lack of generation capacity. I do hope that the Minister if he takes a call will not say that they have kept the prices down. Goodness me! Prices are heading upwards at the moment because of the lack of generation capacity. Spot prices have trebled on occasions in the last few months. The ultimate insult is that the Electricity Commission while it has watched that happening to consumers has cost taxpayers $230 million since it came into existence—$230 million. There is very little to show for this massive transfer from taxpayers’ back pockets to yet another Government entity and a stacked one at that. 
The commission has also been woefully slow at confirming new transmission projects. Members will know that New Zealand desperately needs more transmission capacity and investment both because of a lack of investment in the past and because of new renewable projects coming online. However the Government has managed to create an incredibly confusing regulatory mess around transmission upgrades with the Electricity Commission Transpower and the Government all having a role to play. This is very important for the Minister. There are numerous examples of delays in necessary transmission upgrades because of this situation. 
I ask the Minister why it is that Standard and Poor’s says our electricity infrastructure lacks certainty of regulation. Why does it say that? These are real issues regarding the relationship between the Commerce Commission the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Electricity Commission. This Government has been very keen on creating new statutory bodies but it is very much less keen on making sure that their jobs are properly defined and that they carry out their duties effectively. The Electricity Commission is a perfect example of this malfunction. We ask the Minister to lift the veil to see the reality and to be prepared to tell us about that reality. Thank you Madam Chair. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am used to some level of ignorance on the part of the National Party spokesperson on energy Gerry Brownlee when it comes to the Electricity Commission and other matters of detail. But having pointed out those mistakes in a radio interview with Sean Plunket on Radio New Zealand National about a week ago I thought that by now the speech notes that Mr Auchinvole read from would have been corrected. 
Before I return to some of the misunderstandings that the National Party has in respect of the Electricity Commission I would like to correct the power crisis myth. One would think that the lights had gone out in New Zealand under the Labour Government. When was the last time New Zealand had lights going out because of a shortage of power? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Last year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it was actually way before then. It was in 1974. New Zealand has not suffered blackouts since 1974. When was the last time street lights were dimmed—not residential lights but street lights? Street lights were last dimmed because of a shortage of electricity in 1992 under a National Government. I am not blaming that Government because in 1992 we had very very low inflows into the hydro system. It was not the National Party’s fault that the rain did not fall in 1992 but even in 1992 when we had the lowest rainfall pattern for about 60 years the lights did not go out but we did have to dim the street lights. That is the worst it has been since that time. We have not had a repeat of that since 1992. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What about the CBD in Auckland? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Under a National Government the lights went out in the CBD in Auckland. It was not because there was a shortage of generation but because the transmission assets failed under a National Government. I thank Mr Auchinvole. I understand that he is the deputy spokesperson on energy for the National Party and he does not know that basic fact. That is so typical of the member’s ignorance of these energy areas; it is second only to Mr Brownlee’s. 
We have heard this claim that the Electricity Commission does not do anything. Well of course the Electricity Commission was established in 2003 because the industry could not agree on what it needed to do to regulate itself. It was the failure of the self-regulatory model that led to the commission being set up. No progress had been made on transmission investment very limited evolution of the market arrangements had occurred anti-competitive practices were getting worse and there had been little development of the grid. There were stalemates on a number of issues. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What’s changed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will tell the member what has changed. Please listen because a lot has changed. The commission has focused on three areas. Firstly it is enabling transmission investments. The member says that nothing has happened. A total of $1.25 billion of grid investments was approved to March 2008—$1.25 billion. The rate of expenditure on the grid has gone up from $60 million per annum on average when that member’s party was last in power to over $300 million this year and it will rise to about $500 million next year. Grid investment has gone up hugely and the security of the New Zealand transmission grid is improving year by year as a consequence. 
Some of these reviews have saved New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars. The Electricity Commission has oversight of Transpower’s grid investments. It did that in respect of the Waikato upgrade and it actually knocked $150 million off the net present value—a cost that would otherwise have been paid by New Zealand consumers. There was a $150 million cost saving in respect of that one proposal alone yet Mr Auchinvole would demolish the commission; he would actually take us back to that failed system of the past. 
The commission has also completed grid reliability standards which New Zealand has never had before. We have transmission pricing methodology which is absolutely fundamental to determining who pays for what—[ 
Interruption 
] Sandra Goudie rolls her eyes makes a smart comment and says that it is unimportant. Well these are multibillion-dollar assets and who pays for them is important—critically important. This had been an unresolved issue for more than a decade under the prior unregulated mess left by the National Government and Max Bradford. The Electricity Commission has fixed it. It was a tortuously complex issue and it has fixed it. In addition to that it is investing in electricity efficiency and it is also overseeing different aspects of the system. 
The total amount that the Electricity Commission costs consumers is 1 percent of their bill not 10 percent of their bill. If we look at the bill that people pay every month we will see that it is less than 1 percent of the bill. No one would say we have hugely vigorous competition in the electricity sector as we have only five main players. In fact we really have only four big players and TrustPower which is much smaller. So we have limited competition at best. Removing the Electricity Commission would take out one of the oversights and of course that would have the effect of putting people’s prices up by more than the 1 percent that the Electricity Commission costs. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: So what do they do with it? What do they use the $230 million for? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I answered that question on Radio New Zealand National the other day and I wish that National’s leading spokesperson on energy had pointed out what I had said because I pointed out the fundamental mistake in National’s logic. Most of the things that the Electricity Commission pays for have always happened will always be necessary and will always need to be paid for. Consumers pay for those things through the Electricity Commission. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What are they? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Power is dispatched. Someone has to control which hydro station or other generator is turned on and off and which lines the power runs over. That is the system operator contract. That is how the whole system works. I am surprised Sandra Goudie and Chris Auchinvole do not know that. They asked me the question because they do not know the most basic things in respect of the electricity system. This is done through the Electricity Commission paying for these services which it contracts to the system operator. If we were to dump the Electricity Commission tomorrow those things would still need to be done otherwise our lights would go out. There would be no saving of costs. That costs $28 million per annum and it is 32 percent of the Electricity Commission’s reserve. It funds reserve energy—Whirinaki power station is funded by the commission. It costs $27 million per annum and is 28 percent of its cost. Again if we did not have the Electricity Commission we would still need that and it would still exist. If that were abolished as well then maybe the lights would go out under a National Government. 
The commission also funds electricity efficiency programmes. We all know that we need to spend more on efficiency in New Zealand. It actually saves us all money—it is cheaper to spend money on efficiency than it is to build more generating capacity. That costs the commission $18 million which is another 19 percent of its budget. That cost would not go away unless we stopped spending money on electricity efficiency in which case everyone’s bills would go up. The commission’s own operations cost $20 million which is one-fifth of its total budget. That one-fifth of its cost is less than 0.2 percent of our power bill. That is the cost of running the Electricity Commission. Other things are paid through them. The bill for consumers would go up by far more than that. I am afraid that this sounds like the National Party’s electricity policy for the next election. It will obviously come along and say it will dump the Electricity Commission. The last time National was in power Max Bradford and the National Government ruined the electricity system. National really is a risk as shown by its members’ ignorance on what is an absolutely fundamental part of the electricity system. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I will take just a short call. Tonight we have made history in this Parliament. Tonight as the Minister has pointed out the level of—I do not think it is ignorance or to be charitable maybe it is—commitment research and intelligence from the National Party about things to do with energy especially in respect of the review of the Electricity Commission has been exposed. 
Mr Auchinvole—I think I pronounced his name right; he is rather sensitive about it—who I am told is National’s deputy spokesperson on energy got up and lambasted the Minister the Government and the Electricity Commission. In the course of doing that—and I give him credit for this as it is a serious issue—he expressed a fear about as he would put it the lights going out. For the benefit of those at home listening to this debate Mr Auchinvole tried to feign concern about what would happen in the energy industry and he then demonstrated the absolute precision of his knowledge on the issue. He decided to lambaste this Minister and this Government for a power crisis when the lights almost went out and there was almost a blackout. I can remember and members will remember the mobile generators down the road in Queen Street and all over the country. He decided to lambaste this Government for that. 
But I do not think there was a DNA match in the brain of that member or perhaps his lights had gone out or somebody had pulled the wires out from somewhere. Perhaps the pacemaker had not gone off—I do not know. He forgot that that event occurred under a National Government. That is the exact precision intelligence and grasp of the energy portfolio that the New Zealand public would be presented with if ever God help us that member made it to the Treasury benches as an Associate Minister as a deputy Minister or possibly even—given Gerry Brownlee’s lack of performance—as an energy Minister. 
Tonight the New Zealand people have actually seen the depth of knowledge that that member and his ilk have when it comes to energy. In respect of the Electricity Commission we would have to say that we know what that member would do if he took the Treasury benches: he would get rid of it. But he will not tell us what he would replace it with. 
Of course that member in his dissertation about what the previous National Government did—he thought it was a Labour Government that blacked out New Zealand but it was a National Government that did so—forgot to remind the New Zealand people about the devastating effect that Mr Max Bradford his former colleague and energy Minister had on this country. We all recall the great claim that electricity costs would go down that people would be better off and that it would be cheaper under a Bradford regime. But he tore apart an electricity regime that I think worked pretty well. Most pensioners who remember it would agree with that and most New Zealanders who remember it would agree with that. But of course when Mr Auchinvole got the time frame and the Government wrong in his dissertation he did not have the ability or the intestinal fortitude to lay claim to that policy that was his and that has his fingerprints all over it. He was part of it; he may not have been in Parliament then but he was part of it and he takes the credit for us now. But I tell members that every Kiwi remembers what it used to be like and every pensioner remembers what it used to be like before his ilk got hold of it and effectively gutted and destroyed an effective Electricity Commission. 
What this Minister has done and what the electricity commissioner has done is put in some frameworks to encourage competition and to get a real market situation working. What he failed to do was to tell us anything tonight about what he would do if he were in Government—not one thing. He even got critical dates and times in history wrong. I invite the New Zealand people to get on the parliamentary website get that member’s  
Hansard 
—which was from about 20 minutes ago at about half past nine—and read word for word a silly speech from a silly member. 
Report noted. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I sat on the Social Services Committee that considered the annual review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. By way of a backdrop I point out that about eight or nine members of Parliament sat on that committee and it would be fair to say that their ears were ringing after 12 months of stories about million-dollar State homes worth about the same as two or three average State homes in average streets—homes that tenants would be more than happy with. Members’ ears were ringing with stories of State house tenants earning $80000 $90000 or $100000 after tax and their ears were ringing with evidence of blatant vandalism in State houses by a very few State house tenants which Housing New Zealand and the Minister have turned a blind eye to time after time. It was quite difficult in that select committee to know that one had several colleagues from across Parliament who were aware of these stories of million-dollar State houses very high income State house tenants vandals in State houses and also cases of a few State house tenants—nowhere near the majority; in fact a small minority—who actually sublet their State homes while owning baches in Russell in the Bay of Islands and living somewhere else. 
I said to colleagues on the select committee and I said to Labour colleagues who were also concerned about this—and concerned about the hush job done on this issue—”Let’s treat Housing New Zealand objectively in front of the select committee even though we all have this baggage of knowing of houses in lower socio-economic areas of Wellington where the carpet is mouldy where there is plastic over the windows and where curtains are drawn and no sunlight can come in because families are suffering in the cold. I essentially said to colleagues across the select committee that we should try to be objective try to park that information and have a fairly robust investigation of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and its practices. 
I would have to say that colleagues generally felt that Housing New Zealand provides an essential function in this country which is to provide housing for those who are in need of housing—sadly quite often in desperate need of housing—who cannot afford market rental housing and who certainly cannot afford to buy their own homes. But it would also be fair to say that National members on that committee and also members from other parties said that that is not actually where our aspirations are for State house tenants. Our aspirations are not that they will remain in State houses for the rest of their lives and that we will somehow wipe them out and tell them: “Well you know you’re stuck on an income-related rent you can stay there for your lifetime and your kids can inherit the house and maybe your grandkids as well.” Our aspirations for State house tenants are that maybe one day they will have a choice about where they rent and even perhaps the opportunity to buy their own homes. 
Housing New Zealand carries out a very important function in this country. It manages about 67000 State houses. That stock has been building in recent years and that is a good thing. Probably about 1000 State houses have come online each year. About 60 percent of those have been bought or built and about 40 percent have been leased off the private sector and that is a pretty good formula. We had the corporation before the committee and we were concerned about a number of things when we interviewed it. That was partly to do with the whole issue of who the target people were that the commission was trying to house. Clearly from the committee’s perspective it was generally thought that the corporation worked first with the most needy families on the waiting list and then moved on through those to a point where it could house as many as possible with the resources it had. But even so we discovered that Housing New Zealand said in respect of the Weymouth development that it was “ensuring that opposing gangs”—patched gangs—”are housed sensitively.” And we must remember that this quote is from a select committee report written by and agreed on by National and Labour members and members of other parties; it is not a statement just from the National members. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: That’s nice! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is nice that Housing New Zealand is housing opposing patched gangs sensitively but the select committee and certainly the National Party would like to think that the corporation is housing desperately needy families sensibly in houses that do not have ventilation or heating problems. We would like to think it is caring for those people rather than worrying about the fighting of opposing gangs in Weymouth. 
We also talked about the housing affordability issue. It was quite amazing really to get the admission about the Housing New Zealand project in Hobsonville which will build 3000 homes. There is an economy of scale of 3000 homes at Hobsonville and 500 of them will be affordable for first-home buyers. When we asked how much those 500 affordable homes would cost we were told not to worry because first-home buyers would be able to buy them for $350000 each. A very keen sharp-minded member of the select committee—I recall this; his question is echoing even now through my mind—asked how it was that Housing New Zealand and the Government expect builders to be able to build affordable homes at a cheap price when even the Government cannot do it for less than $350000 with the economy of scale of a development of 3000 houses. So Housing New Zealand has an economy of scale of 3000 houses and the cheapest home is $350000 yet the corporation asks builders and developers to build cheap homes when even it cannot do that. 
That point is what I would like to rest on. Essentially this Government has lost touch with New Zealanders if it thinks that affordable housing is cheap at $350000 particularly when people are trying to service a mortgage at 9 or 10 percent over that value fill up the petrol tank buy a block of cheese pay the electricity bill—which has gone up year after year for the last 6 years—and do everything else for their young families or for themselves as individuals all at the same time. Government members have completely lost touch with New Zealanders if they think that a $350000 house is affordable. I tell this Government that the cost of houses might worry them but there is a bigger Indian coming over the hill and that is that rents are going through the roof. They have been doing so for the last 12 months and they will do so for the next 12 months. 
Brian Connell 
: Are they affordable rents? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They are rents that are not affordable and a lot of families will be under serious pressure. So the Minister should solve that one with her Hobsonville development. I remind her that about 3.5 million people do not live in Hobsonville and do not want to live in Hobsonville. Her 500 houses in Hobsonville will not help those 3.5 million people. She should keep in mind that there is a bigger issue here in housing and that little schemes in Hobsonville and a targeted shared equity scheme to help another 1000 lucky people are not going to solve the problem for everyone. 
It is time that this Government took much more of a holistic approach and looked at the problems for everyone which are essentially take-home pay interest rates the cost of building the cost of subdivision and the cost of land. The Minister should be looking at the Resource Management Act the Building Act and the Local Government Act. If the Minister did that she would start solving the problem for everyone not just those people who live in Hobsonville. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the housing section of this debate. I would like to traverse a couple of points. The previous speaker touched on his usual favourites. He likes to do what Tony Ryall does in the area of health which is to wave as many shrouds as possible without ever on any occasion providing either vision or a future-oriented policy that could address the housing needs of this country. 
I am proud of the work that Housing New Zealand Corporation has done in the last year. I am proud also of the work it is currently engaged in and will be delivering on into the future. There is no doubt that housing need strikes at the very heart of our society. I am very privileged to be the Minister of Housing. Housing is a portfolio that the Labour Party has always held very dear and it is a privilege to have it. 
State housing is an essential feature of our social make-up and the previous speaker acknowledged that. For the first time in my hearing—and perhaps for the first time ever—he actually said he was pleased we were building and acquiring more State houses. That has to stand in stark contrast to the practice of the National Party when it was last in Government. National’s practice when it was last in Government however much those members hate us repeating it was to do away with 13500 State houses. It sold them to its developer friends and now the spokesperson on housing for the National Party feigns compassion. He feigns concern for the people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in New Zealand. That kind of—there is a word here that I am not allowed to use—approach is not enough and it is not credible for that member to take that kind of approach now. 
I would like to traverse some of the things that this Government is doing and that Housing New Zealand Corporation has done in the last year in order to address the issue of housing affordability which of course has become a hot issue. It has become a hot issue because in the last 5 years between 2002 and 2007 house prices have increased by about 80 percent right across the country. That is extremely difficult even for a very progressive Labour-led Government to keep up with. It is extremely difficult for anybody to keep up with. So we have been seeing for the first time people who at this stage of their lives and with their earning potential ought to be able to buy their own houses being locked out of that over the last 5 years. 
At every turn with every piece of policy and every intervention this Government is trying to address that issue. No one item will ever solve that problem; no one policy or initiative on its own will ever do that. The lack—the paucity—of ideas from the Opposition just makes me shake my head. I cannot believe that those members opposite think that all the solutions are to be found in the Resource Management Act. I cannot believe the stupidity of the impoverished idea that says solutions of that kind are to be found in the Resource Management Act. [ 
Interruption 
] If that member could bring some vision some contribution and some possibility to the debate then everybody might be better off. However we will box on without him because he is clearly unable to do that—as is his party—apart from approving of the fact that we are adding to the State housing stock and I welcome that contribution. 
I wish that members opposite had come to that realisation in the 1990s instead of introducing market rents. Where would we be now if the market rents policy was continuing today? Yes rents are increasing and how would we be dealing with our most impoverished in this country if we had the National Party policy of market rents? It does not matter how much members bleat from the other side. They absolutely know that they have never had a policy position that addresses housing need in this country. 
The Government is looking to address the issue of housing affordability across a range of fronts. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry if that is too complex for the member who is interjecting. She will get it eventually if we say it often enough so I will continue to say it. Housing New Zealand Corporation is engaged not only in providing social housing but in promoting some of the most expansive programmes for addressing affordable housing that this country has ever seen and I look forward to the implementation of those policies and to opening some of those houses in the near future. 
Report noted. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We just may have overlooked Internal Affairs. The National Party would like to make a contribution on the New Zealand Fire Service Commission and I seek the leave of the Committee to go back to that please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. We have not overlooked it; we are some way off it. Would you like to do it now? 
Nathan Guy 
: Yes. 
New Zealand Fire Service Commission 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the financial review of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. A number of very serious matters were raised during the review not the least of which was the concern around the fire appliance fleet replacement. When this concern was raised in questions to the Fire Service Commission it responded that the responsibility for the detailed programme resided with the Chief Executive of the Fire Service but that the commission approved the capital budget annually at the high level. The commission was cognisant of the problems associated with the capital budget and had confidence in the chief executive that he had sound replacement programmes in place. 
Essentially the Fire Service Commission was saying that it had absolute confidence in the Chief Executive of the Fire Service and that it was passing the responsibility on to him. One could be forgiven for thinking that in actual fact the commission was abdicating that responsibility. That is a concern for a number of reasons the first being the operational risks identified in one of the Fire Service Commission’s quarterly reports. One operational risk is that the fire appliance fleet replacement programme does not meet Fire Service needs. The impact of that is seen in the increased operating costs as older vehicles are maintained for a longer period than planned and in the increased risk of accidents through the use of appliances in excess of 25 years old. The Fire Service is also unable to take advantage of improvements to vehicle technology and safety. Those are some of the operational risks that were identified in a quarterly report of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. 
Other matters were raised in another audit report. One concern was that the reporting that took place to the audit committee in respect of financial and operational audits was confusing in that it was difficult to ascertain the following: whether the issues identified were significant; the implications to the New Zealand Fire Service of the issues being raised; management’s response to the issues that had been raised; and whether the issues that had been raised previously had been followed up actioned or cleared. When one reads that one has to ask whether the New Zealand Fire Service Commission actually knows what is going on. Real concerns have been raised about how it is following up on some of the concerns and risks that have been brought to its attention. 
The concerns around the aged fire appliance fleet have consistently been brought to the attention of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. It was noted with some concern that there were no new fire appliances in 2002 2003 and 2004. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about Roger Estall? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: If the member is actually concerned about the New Zealand Fire Service fire appliance fleet replacement then he should listen up. The Minister might like to answer the questions asked of the New Zealand Fire Service by the United Fire Brigades Association. They go back to 2005. The association’s newsletter stated that there was growing concern over the ageing of the New Zealand Fire Service fleet. One fire service representative asked how the 20 fire appliances delivered so far could meet fleet replacement requirements when there were 148 appliances over 25 years of age out of a fleet of 800 vehicles and when at least 40 new appliances per year were needed to meet the 20-year age limit requirement. How is that happening? In short it is not. 
In July 2006 Paul McGill obviously responding a year later to the United Fire Brigades Association was quoted on the front page of one of the association’s newsletters—it took up most of the newsletter. He was required to respond to the growing number of questions asked and concerns expressed by the association. One of the questions he was asked was how many new appliances would be delivered to brigades over the next 12 months—this was in 2006. The answer was 32. The next question was whether this number was sufficient. The answer was that the New Zealand Fire Service had around 800 appliances and they were expected to remain in service for 25 years on average. To sustain that number about 32 new appliances were needed per year but for a number of years no new appliances were put into service. Paul McGill who is a director of operations and training and responsible for new appliances agreed that the Fire Service needed more than 32 new appliances per year. But is that happening? No it is not happening. According to Fire Service reports since 2004 there have been 16 type 4s three type 5s 13 type 3s and 31 type 2s plus three imports and one light response vehicle delivered. They have been delivered over 4½ years which equates to about 14 new appliances per year—half of what is needed to replace the ageing Fire Service fleet. 
That is a huge concern to United Fire Brigades Association personnel and has been raised time and time again. But the firefighters are not talking about it too loudly for very good reason. So what is being done? The Fire Service Commission is saying that fleet replacement is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Fire Service and that it is comfortable with his plans yet his plans are not meeting the necessary replacement quota to ensure that the service catches up with an ageing fleet. We have to wonder what the commission is doing—is it doing anything much? I am sure the Minister will take a call but when we think about it we realise he has not been doing anything either. After a Fire Service review two discussion documents and years of angst what has he done? He has done nothing. That is pretty obvious. 
In actual fact when I asked under the Official Information Act what fiscal analysis had been undertaken of the proposed funding for the New Zealand Fire Service he could not give me any information—because there was none. In my view that is a huge oversight on the part of the Minister. When I put questions to him about the concerns over the current fire appliance fleet his replies always started with “I am informed by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission”. I wonder just how deeply he has looked into the concerns expressed by many many New Zealand fire volunteers and personnel and whether he is comfortable with the fact that the Fire Service is in no way able to meet the ageing fleet replacement requirements. In 2006 there were only 10 new appliances. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call about that. 
What has been happening to some of these new fire appliances? I will tell members what has happened to some of these new fire appliances. The Sockburn series 5 is yet to see a flame and the Christchurch 211 was broken yet again. The Bronto HEM was broken as well. The Timaru Bronto was broken for 3 months and the Invercargill Bronto had a cracked chassis. This is not to mention the demonstration in Blenheim using a new fire appliance whose tank had not been sealed so that the water leaked and left no water with which to do the demonstration. 
Phil Heatley 
: You’re kidding! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: No I am not that is true. The commission was asked whether it was satisfied that the fire appliance purchases were reversing an ageing trend. The commission did not actually say no but it admitted that there would be a catch-up phase. Well one wonders just how long that catch-up phase will take when there were no new appliances bought in 2002 2003 and 2004. The commission is woefully behind in making the vehicle fleet replacements necessary to keep up with the required level of aged fleet replacement and to keep the age of the fleet much lower. My understanding is that the oldest vehicle was bought in 1973 and is in Christchurch. 
I am sure the Fire Service Commission will be looking a little more closely at the issue although it has been under quite a lot of pressure in terms of Official Information Act requests and members’ questions to the Minister. Perhaps now the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker will start to take a bit of an interest in his portfolio and what is happening about fire appliance fleet replacement. Maybe he will do something in terms of his responsibility as a Minister because to date we have seen nothing. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 It is with great irony that National Party members stand in the Chamber and complain about the state of the Fire Service Commission. Let us remember it was the previous National Government that set fire to the Fire Service Commission through the actions of Roger Estall. National set volunteer against professional; professional against volunteer. Let us remember it was the National Government that slashed and burned the budget for the Fire Service Commission. Let us remember it was the National Government that stopped the replacement programme for new fire machines in the 1990s. Let us remember that National never built or replaced another fire station in all the time it was in office and that it had that live wire Minister responsible—Jack Elder! That was the leadership National showed for the Fire Service Commission. It is absolutely galling for National members to come into the Chamber and complain about that. 
But not only are National members silly about it; they are plain wrong—plain wrong. We have just had it put on the  
Hansard 
 record that Sandra Goudie said that no fire engines were replaced in 2002 yet in question for written answer No. 2275 I told Sandra Goudie that in 2001-02 15 new appliances were put into the fleet. That is not none; that is 15. Sandra Goudie went on to say that in 2003 there were no fire engine replacements yet in the same written answer I said that there were 16. She also said that in 2004 there were none but in answer to the same written question I told her that there were 36. That is part of the written record. Sandra Goudie cannot even read the answers to her own written questions let alone get things right. 
I will now make another point that has escaped Sandra Goudie as it has escaped the National Party. The point is there is a global boom on. People are mining digging up parts of Australia and mining all over the world so trucks are in incredibly short supply. It is hard to buy a new truck. The Fire Service has a stack of orders out and in question for written answer No. 3084 I told Sandra Goudie that the Fire Service Commission had advised me it has 79 appliances on order. The people cannot deliver them on time. The Fire Service Commission has put into place 22 new appliances so far this financial year. It accepts there is a lag but if people cannot supply us with the new engines then we cannot commission them. 
What is driving this talk of course is that some people want the Fire Service to go and buy second-hand trucks out of Britain or Japan. It is really interesting; they have a deal for the Fire Service Commission! Oh boy they have! The service is told that it needs trucks out of Britain and that those people can supply them. The problem with that— 
Shane Ardern 
: We did that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is right; Shane Ardern is saying they did that. It was not a good idea because it means there is a huge variation in the fleet maintenance costs go up and there are all sorts of other problems. It is much better to have a standard fleet. So we have a very good model of truck and we are buying them in large numbers and we will go ahead and do that. 
But of course there is no point in supplying an answer to Sandra Goudie’s written questions because she does not read them. She simply does not read them. That is another very good example of why the National Party should never ever be considered for the Treasury benches. 
I say to Sandra Goudie that I am happy to argue our record of what we have done for the Fire Service Commission and what National did. We have built numerous new fire stations all over the country. Dame Margaret Bazley has attended over 80 new openings. We have put new fire engines all over the place. I went to hand over the keys to a new fire engine in Waipukurau. It was the first time they have had a new fire engine since the 1930s—the first time they have ever had a brand new machine. The volunteers turned up and they were admiring this nice new glossy bright red machine with all the whizzes and stuff on it. It is a little beauty. We will go through and replace all the old buildings. We are commissioning fire trucks building new fire stations. 
The National Party also failed to note that we are recruiting new people as professional firefighters. The number of professional firefighters has gone up under this Government. Under the previous National Government the number went down. We have replaced all the firefighters to make New Zealanders safer. We have done the right thing: more firefighters more volunteers more professionals newer trucks and more fire stations. The National Government slashed and burned. 
Members should remember just one name above all else—Roger Estall. He was the high point of the National Government’s policy on the Fire Service Commission ably led by that intellectual genius Jack Elder! He was the best person National could get and he demonstrated all the fine skills of a Tory Minister. 
Report noted. 
Arts Council of New Zealand 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking to the report on the Arts Council on behalf of New Zealand First. As we know the council is required to comply with the collective duties and individual duties as members and any directions made by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage as determined by the Crown Entities Act. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage will be informed and engaged in discussions as appropriate on any proposals for significant changes in the way Creative New Zealand invests in the arts sector. So one presumes there are discussions between the Minister and Creative New Zealand when it comes to decisions made by the organisation. 
Creative New Zealand’s strategic plan for 2007 onwards states that the three major components of its plan are vision purpose and values. When I look at that statement and think about the discussions the Minister must have about the values that Creative New Zealand must consider and look at some of the grants made in 2007 I see in particular “Choreographic Fellowship for acclaimed Auckland dancemaker and choreographer Lemi Ponifasio.” This gentleman was granted fellowships worth about $65000. But I am also interested in a grant for $35000 made so that he could invite certain people on a tour of  
The Tempest 
. Now remember this grant was made in 2007 and I see that in the discussions with the Minister perhaps the “values of Creative New Zealand” indicate that this money should be spent on Mr Tame Iti and also Mr Ahmed Zaoui—the refugee. He is sharing in the $35000 to travel around the world as a result of the “values” attributed by Creative New Zealand to people like Mr Tame Iti the well-known firer of shotguns in public places. I cannot refer to any other matters that are happening at the present time but they are well known to the public. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Art takes many forms. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Minister is not supposed to interject either. Now $35000 shows that Mr Tame Iti knows how to suck on the taxpayer. That is what I say. How can he and Mr Zaoui screw $35000 out of the taxpayer to have a world trip on Creative New Zealand? It is quite amazing. The Minister should have discussions with Creative New Zealand as to the way it is established. 
I ask the Minister what she does with her time. Does she have discussions with Creative New Zealand? Does it advise her that it is going to spend $35000 on the likes of Mr Zaoui and Mr Tame Iti to travel around the world? 
I agree with Sandra Zaoui and I presume her criticism is related to—[ 
Interruption 
] It is Sandra Goudie—it rhymes it was a slip of the tongue. I agree with her concern about Mr Zaoui. I was getting ahead of myself. But we also know that Mr John Key supports Mr Tame Iti’s trip around the world and rubs noses with him whenever possible. I find it terribly terribly disappointing that a man with the reputation of Mr Tame Iti should be encouraged by the leader of the National Party. 
As far as New Zealand First is concerned Creative New Zealand is not spending its money properly; it should be considering the values that are part of its charter. I say that if Mr Tame Iti does not come back it will be a great day for New Zealand— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2006/2007 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House presently. 
Debate to be reported presently. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is the convention in this Chamber that we acknowledge the work our officials do. When I took a call in the second reading debate I omitted to do that so I want to put the record right by acknowledging the fine work they did and I have to say to members that it is not the officials’ fault that we have before us a piece of arrant bloody nonsense. 
This bill should not have come to the House. There was no problem that needed fixing but the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker and his PC mates on the Government Administration Committee insisted on bringing it to the House despite the public outcry and the words of constructive criticism from the National Party. But would they listen? No they would not. It is a real stretch to believe that Harry Duynhoven who is a pretty good bloke really thinks there is a problem around people accessing information and breaking privacy rules when they engage in historical social history and genealogy activities. The Minister in the chair for goodness sake is a West Coast boy. Does he really believe he will be upset about a few people accessing information and finding out that someone slept on the wrong side of the blanket? 
A number of renowned academics came to the select committee and said to us: “This is wrong.” The Minister and his colleagues in the select committee told us that this bill has had wide consultation—but it has not. That is the truth of the matter. The submitters who came to the select committee said: “You have not consulted us on this and if you had we would have told you that there is no problem that needs fixing. You are creating a huge problem to satisfy the needs of a very few and you are making the study of our social history nigh on impossible.” People like Professor Rice— 
Darien Fenton 
: Rubbish! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Someone called out “Rubbish!”. I do not know who the member was but it certainly could not have been Darien Fenton because she was at the select committee when Professor Rice the head of the history faculty at Canterbury University came to us and said that this bill will impede academic excellence. [ 
Interruption 
] Now we have the Government pugilist calling out as well. We have it on good authority that he hits like a pansy but we will excuse that for the moment. He has nothing to contribute to this debate so I suggest that he just keeps his mouth closed stays in his corner and keeps his seconds with him. Otherwise he will end up on his proverbial back. Now let us get back to the debate. 
The advice from Professor Rice was that we would need to change this. The National Party offered constructive criticism at the same time. In fact in the end we were forced to include a National Party view in the report back and I have to say it is a beautifully crafted piece of work. The persons who contributed to that I think are rising stars in the National Party—I really do. They have a big future. I actually took the time to refer to that report last night in the House. I pointed out to the House why that report was compulsory reading. The Minister I think took it home for his bedtime reading and said: “Oh my God these guys are right.” 
Do members know what will happen through the course of this debate? The Minister in the chair will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that canvasses most of the concerns—I stand corrected; it deals with about half a dozen of them. One of the Supplementary Order Papers is nearly as big as the original bill. Do members know why he is doing that? It is because he realises that from the outset the submitters and the National Party were right. But rather than listen to those arguments at the time he decided that he would slip this Supplementary Order Paper in the back door. Do members know what the problem with that is? It perverts our democracy because submitters do not now have an opportunity to look at what is inherent or incorporated in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is fundamentally wrong. 
I said last night when I took a call during the second reading debate that the Christchurch  
Press 
 
that tabloid that will do anything in pursuit of a populist theme also came out swinging. It said that the Minister has got this wrong that there is no problem and that the legislation is denying people legitimate access to information. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister in the chair will get an opportunity to speak in a moment or two. He knows that I and my colleagues are right. He knows that the Supplementary Order Paper he will slip into the Chamber should have been put forward during the select committee process. If due process had been followed we would not have been forced into the position we are in. The people of New Zealand would have had the opportunity to come to the select committee and examine what is being proposed. 
That Minister and his colleagues have denied New Zealanders that fundamental right. That tends to be the modus operandi of this Government. Whenever it is stuck and whenever it wants to sneak something in under the radar it slips in a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute. Well we are sick to death of it. The “Waimak bantam” was in the Chamber earlier. He rose to his feet— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes—Mr Connell would you withdraw that comment please. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. That short chap—what is his name? Clayton Cosgove. Mr Cosgrove was in the Chamber earlier. He rose to his feet and cast his stature across the Chamber. Fortunately it is not quite as big as his ego but nevertheless he stuck his chest out like a pigeon puff and started to berate members for having the audacity in their legitimate role as representatives in this House to criticise the Government and we are sick to death of it. He came down to the Chamber—and other members have been doing the same—and criticised members on this side for taking the argument to the Government. He made demeaning statements which I take very personally about people being on the B team and the C team and whatever. He denies the facts on this piece of legislation. Seven Ministers debated this bill during the first and second readings. How can this matter be important when they debate it—actually they were filibustering at the time—but be unimportant when we do? That is the attitude—that is what is wrong with what the Minister is about to do. 
Government members treat the people of New Zealand with disdain and it is no wonder that the National Party now has 15 clear points on this Government. Trevor Mallard will be brushing up his boxing skills. He will be thinking of going into the ring as a professional boxer but really he should look for an alternative career. Rick Barker will probably be looking to get back to the West Coast where a few people love him. [ 
Interruption 
] The junior Labour whip who is yelling out—I do not know what her name is—is not worthy of comment because she does not add much to the debate. 
The point is that people are sick to death of the modus operandi of this Government. This is the type of legislation that simply should not have been before the House. I ask the Minister to address this question when he gets the opportunity: what is the problem that Labour is trying to fix? All the submitters bar one or two who were Labour Party ring-ins said that there is no problem. What the Government is creating though is a huge problem. If the Minister tries to answer that question he will simply contradict himself because he is going to produce a Supplementary Order Paper that actually says: “You were right in the first place and oh my God I should have listened to you. I should have listened to Sandra Goudie and Shane Ardern and I should have listened to Harry Duynhoven.” That is probably not doing Harry’s chances of getting promoted a lot of good but he is a man of integrity. He knows this bill is arrant nonsense and he had the courage to say so. What he was trying to convey to his PC colleagues was that there is not a problem. There is nothing to fix here. How can it be that people of such academic renown can come to the select committee and say: “You’re causing a problem.” and the Government will not listen to them? 
Darien Fenton 
: We did listen to them. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well that member did not listen to them. I made a suggestion and the member who just called out denied me the suggestion. I said we should bring some of the academics into the select committee in order to understand exactly what their concerns are. There were officials at the select committee who were spouting the Minister’s or the Labour’s Government’s position—and that is fine I have no criticism about that; that is their job. But the academics—and the men and women off the street—were also expressing the same concerns. I said we should get those specialists into the same room so that we could be advised of the facts and could then produce worthwhile and constructive legislation. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 First let me take a minor point. Brian Connell made reference to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s contribution to the Committee earlier tonight. Clayton Cosgrove was not denying the right of the National Party to put up a position at all. He was welcoming it. He was simply pointing out that the National Party was blaming Labour for the power crisis in Auckland which had occurred under a National Government. He was simply highlighting the stupidity of a National member’s contribution; that was all he was trying to do. The member should just accept that this is a place for robust debate without being personal about it. 
I come now to the member’s question about what the problem is. Well the problem is quite a simple one. Firstly this bill is about protecting individuals’ identities—protecting individuals from identity theft. If one wants access to somebody’s personal details one finds that the records system in New Zealand is completely and utterly open. Anybody can walk in off the street and get anybody’s personal details. People do not have to identify themselves and they can do what they will with the information. We have seen example after example of identity theft. 
The most interesting thing about that issue is that some time ago I got a letter from the member who is shouting out now Sandra Goudie. She was raising a complaint from constituents who were outraged that someone had gone to the Births Deaths and Marriages register got details of their family’s personal records and had them in his or her possession and the family had known nothing about it. Sandra Goudie wanted to know how that could happen so that she could explain it to those constituents who were outraged that their personal information had been obtained. Well the same member is opposing the changes in this legislation. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s rubbish. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well I will pull the correspondence out and table it for the member later. It shows that she is completely confused on this issue. 
So the first thing that this bill is about is protecting identities. The second thing is that up till this date the record has been a paper record but in the future it will be a digital record. When it is a digital record it can be accessed remotely and therefore we will have little or no control over who has access to the record. People could have access to all the historical and current data and from that they could create an identity—a false identity—and use it for a range of purposes. Someone I know said to me that using the basic details from Births Deaths and Marriages records they could within days accumulate tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt against an individual’s name. The State requires people to give us this information; the State therefore has a corresponding obligation to ensure that it does its best to protect that information. That is one tension. 
On the other side of it there is a legitimate case to be made that people should have access to this information in order to know that a person does exist. People should be able to identify that I Richard John Barker exist and am still alive. I accept that that is a legitimate purpose. I should not be able to hide that information; it is true. People should also be able to identify whether people are New Zealand citizens. I accept that as well. The record should be able to be searched but we should know the purpose for which people are searching it and who is searching it so that if there is a problem or an issue in the future we trace backwards to find out who created the mischief. 
The other point I want to make is about historical research. Under the current system if historians want to access the record they have to name the individuals about whom they want information. There is no ability currently to search the record for all births in a particular area. One has to know the names of the people who were born in that area and to identify them. This new legislation will give researchers the opportunity to trawl through this information by area by region by time and so on. They will have a much more powerful research tool than they currently have. This bill will advance the ability of historians to research our records and I think that is a very good thing. But we have to do it in a way that does not take away the right of individual people to have their records protected. We also have to make sure that when we have this information we use it sensibly. So I say that there are great benefits in this legislation for genealogists and there are great benefits in it for historians but we also have to make sure that we protect individuals. 
I accept that the mood of the House was to accept the legislation as introduced. It was sent to a select committee. At that point some members and parties had some doubts about it so there were some discussions about it and they were robust discussions which is as it should be. This is a democracy; we should have these discussions. I forwarded to the select committee a proposal that would meet the concerns—which I thought were legitimate—of historians and genealogists who want access to the record; that would meet the concerns of those people who want their identities to be protected; and that would ensure that there was a screen but a not particularly tough screen and one that we could vary over time by regulation. I wanted the select committee to consider that proposal but it was rejected. The select committee did not want to consult on it. 
Shane Ardern 
: The time had expired Minister. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well the select committee could have come back and asked for more time. Notwithstanding that that proposal will be put before the Committee in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Phil Heatley 
: It will be? Oh good. When will that be? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is on the Table tonight and we will debate it. 
I am confident that a majority of the House now favours this legislation. I thank all those people who have worked through this issue. It is important to find the balance between openness and allowing access to the record and protection of individuals’ identity from fraud. It is a serious issue to be discussed and not one to be made light of. This bill is also much-needed in that it updates the way in which we manage the record to take into account the fact that we are moving from a paper record to a digital record that can be accessed remotely. We needed to do that. The legislation also updates a number of other features. 
I thank the committee and officials who worked on it. I thank the other parties who cooperated in negotiating to find an amicable agreement about it. I think the hallmark of MMP is that we can introduce legislation we can have robust discussions about it and we can find new consensus about it. I think that is a good thing. I think this bill makes a good point about the importance and value of MMP. I thank all those concerned who have made contributions on this bill so far and I welcome the discussion on this bill as it goes through the Committee stage. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill for a lot of the reasons that have been stated. I have been wondering for some time until I listened to the Minister tonight and looked at the number of Supplementary Order Papers about what was really going on but I think I have now figured it out. We certainly could not figure it out in the Government Administration Committee. I acknowledge the officials and the work that they did to help us to find our way along a very difficult path in the select committee. 
What I think has happened is that Dr Michael Cullen—for whom I hesitate to admit in front of my colleagues tonight I have a reasonable amount of admiration for his ability to manage the House process as a politician and as someone who has survived in this place for a long time—has gone through the legislative time frame looking forward for the next 3 months or 6 months. He has decided that the Order Paper is very thin and that we need to go back and look at legislation that has a few years on it. Last night we were debating legislation that had nothing wrong with it but it was passed in 1946. Tonight we are debating legislation that was passed in 1956 and there is nothing wrong with that. What I can see happening is that the Leader of the House has told his ministerial colleagues to get someone maybe a PhD student to trawl through all the legislation in Parliament and find something the Government can put up because it needs something to go on in order to fill up the time of the House. So we have the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to debate in the Chamber tonight. 
The select committee did do its work. We went through a thorough process I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker. All of the concerns raised during that process were totally overlooked or overruled until the Government members did the numbers and hello they counted their fingers and toes. Rick Barker kicked one of his shoes off and hello he found that things were not adding up here. 
Hon Member 
: Six toes. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Right! Well he asked where the Government should start and what should happen now. He went back and started with the point of least resistance. He knew that the Nats had dug in a bit so he went to the Greens and asked what their concerns were. He ran through their concerns and said two or three Supplementary Order Papers should be able to fix those concerns up. That was a few numbers in the bag. 
Then Rick Barker went to New Zealand First which has Peter Brown who had quite a few concerns about the bill. He raised them legitimately in the select committee and he did a fine job of doing that. Rick Barker thought that he had better get Peter Brown’s concerns tidied so he asked what he needed to do in order to achieve that. And what do we know members get here tonight with—well I do not know how many Supplementary Order Papers we are up to now. I say to the Minister that the Supplementary Order Papers are pretty good. They have on them most of what was suggested to him at the time of the select committee process. Here we are tonight in the Committee stage of this bill with something like what was recommended at the beginning which might have been a bit of useful legislation. 
But the reality is this. We had genealogists we had academics and we had all sorts of people with all sorts of qualifications—even journalists—appear before the select committee. We had the editors of both the  
Dominion Post  
and the  
New Zealand Herald  
appear before the select committee representing the wider journalism fraternity. They said to us in no uncertain terms—in fact I got myself into a bit of strife by taking on one or two of them—that this bill would make the information that they need to report from time to time much more difficult. They said that they would not have such easy access as they do at present to accurate information for things that are important to the public if this bill was to proceed in the way that had been intended to. Some of the genealogists said that they would not be able to carry out what most people would see as being in our best interests whether as individuals or as the public at large if this bill was to pass in the way that it was. 
So I am pleased that the Minister has gone back looked at some of the submissions and produced the Supplementary Order Papers that he has produced tonight. But at this stage the National Party—now that the Government has denied those who have contributed to the legislation the opportunity to participate in the process in the select committee—will not support such a shonky process. So we cannot support the passage of this legislation. National members are concerned about the lack of a clear problem definition. There was no problem. We asked about the fraudulent behaviour or activity that might take place and we also asked about potential fraud that could take place given that we are now moving into a more digital age of recording and computerised information. We asked at that stage about any evidence there was of fraud—any evidence—or where the potential for fraud might be and we were unable to find such evidence. There was all sorts of speculation—you know; if one stepped out on the road then one might get run over and if the moon falls then the world will go off its apex. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises; progress on the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill; and no progress on the Family Court Matters Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.